Already Existing Concept/Method Thread

[V-te]

What do you mean by "2 look OLL cases"?

Ok, you know how we have 7 Olls that we use for 2 look OLL? that's what I mean. Steps would be like this.

Cross
F2l
2 look OLL
Solved.

So the main thing would be looking at all the possible permutations of those 7 cases, finding algs for them, then fixing the entire LL from the 2 look case.

sounds like CLL/ELL
not new, just not popular.

Yup, that's what I was thinking. CLL/ELL is probably the most sensible way to solve permutation during a '2-look' OLL. Its also is possible to do EO+EP before CO+CP, which is actually slightly less moves, but more algs [ref]. You could also do stuff like permuting edges while orienting corners, but that would just be a bit zany :rolleyes:

Actually I think I'm going to look into that, permuting edges while orienting corners and then permutating corners while orienting edges...

But it could work right?
I mean if I could, I would find the algs myself, but unfortunately do not have the time. We could make this into a LL alternative.

 

[anythingtwisty]

What about....
1. Heise blocks
2. Fridrich last pair
3. OLL/PLL

 

[waffle=ijm]

What about....
1. Heise blocks
2. Fridrich last pair
3. OLL/PLL

Or you can just use petrus...

when I do heise blocks, I always end with a 3 corner cycle and these corners can be any corner so I'm not sure how heise blocks would work...

 

[miniGOINGS]

But it could work right?
I mean if I could, I would find the algs myself, but unfortunately do not have the time. We could make this into a LL alternative.

Yes it could work, and possibly quiet well. I would do this myself, but I don't have the time either.

 

[V-te]

But it could work right?
I mean if I could, I would find the algs myself, but unfortunately do not have the time. We could make this into a LL alternative.

Yes it could work, and possibly quiet well. I would do this myself, but I don't have the time either.

Do you think that we could have a collaboration to look for these algorithms?

 

[miniGOINGS]

But it could work right?
I mean if I could, I would find the algs myself, but unfortunately do not have the time. We could make this into a LL alternative.

Yes it could work, and possibly quiet well. I would do this myself, but I don't have the time either.

Do you think that we could have a collaboration to look for these algorithms?

Sure, first we should find out all of the cases, and then we'll see if we should look for algorithms.

We need cases for

CO + EP
CP + EO

and then we could decide which order to do them.

 

[4Chan]

Wait a second there.
How many algs would that be?

Permuting edges and orienting corners... 7 oclls x 24 edge permutations = 168.

Also recognition would even be harder than ZBLL.

EDIT: I'm unsure about this number but, from knowledge about COLL and ZBLL, there are 6 possible corner permutations, and 6 possible edge orientations.

So.. 6 x 6 = 36.

That makes the Algorithm count lower than ZBLL. You might be onto something here.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Wait a second there.
How many algs would that be?

Permuting edges and orienting corners... 7 oclls x 24 edge permutations = 168.

I am not sure how to calculate corner permutation + Edge orientation, but from prior knowledge, thats a huge number.

Also recognition would even be harder than ZBLL.

But mirrors. And for H there would only be 8 edge permutations. Harder than ZBLL? Really?

 

[4Chan]

That's very impractical.

Prove me wrong though, I know how it feels to learn an "impractical" method.

EDIT: It would be harder than ZBLL, because in ZBLL, you dont have to recognize the orientation of the edges, but if you do EO afterwards, youd have to look at the U side, as well as the other sides.

SECOND EDIT: See prior post.

 

[miniGOINGS]

That's very impractical.

Prove me wrong though, I know how it feels to learn an "impractical" method.

EDIT: It would be harder than ZBLL, because in ZBLL, you dont have to recognize the orientation of the edges, but if you do EO afterwards, youd have to look at the U side, as well as the other sides.

What if you did phasing, the number of algorithms would be waaaay less. Even if you did phasing while CP + EO. Then you would just do CO + EP.

EDIT: Depending on which you do first, there is a different number of cases for the second one.

EDIT: You were right, there is no difference in the order ou do them except maybe recog.

 

[4Chan]

That's very impractical.

Prove me wrong though, I know how it feels to learn an "impractical" method.

EDIT: It would be harder than ZBLL, because in ZBLL, you dont have to recognize the orientation of the edges, but if you do EO afterwards, youd have to look at the U side, as well as the other sides.

What if you did phasing, the number of algorithms would be waaaay less. Even if you did phasing while CP + EO. Then you would just do CO + EP.

Yes, youre right~
If you did phasing to lower the algorithm count, and did mirrors and inverses, you could get the algorithm count to under a 100, and it could be feasible.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Ok, so, ignoring phasing, we have

EO + CP = 28 cases excluding mirrors and inverses.
CO + EP = 84 cases excluding mirrors and inverses.
Total = 112 cases excluding mirrors and inverses.

For EO + CP;
If no corners have to be switched there are 4 cases (1 is EO + CP skip).
If only 2 corners have to be switched there are 8 cases.
If all 4 corners have to be switched there are 6 cases.
Total of 28 cases.

For CO + EP;
All oriented = 4 cases (Ua, Ub, Z, H perms)
None oriented = 8 + 12 = 20 cases
1 oriented = 24 cases
2 oriented = 36 cases
Total = 84 cases

 

[4Chan]

I just realized that you dont have to do them in a specific order.

And the numbers are still 168 and 36, ignoring mirrors and inverses.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Read post #72.

 

[4Chan]

Ah, thats right, I forgot that when corners are permuted, you get 12 edge permutations.

Im curious to see how far this method will go.

 

[miniGOINGS]

112 cases, one part could be broken up into 2 look making it 40 algorithms total.

 

[V-te]

112 cases, one part could be broken up into 2 look making it 40 algorithms total.

Sweet! I am glad to see something be coming from here.
In the event of succes with this method, I would suggest calling it the Speedsolving LL Method? Considering that this is a collaborated method. But that is just a proposal. Any others?

In order to find the algorithms, could we use intuition or cube explorer to find the most finger friendly, fewest move algorithms?

 

[Tim Major]

1-Look Last Layer?

Kinda, See it's 1 look last layer, only after you reach the 1 of the 2 look OLL cases.
So it would be like this

Cross
F2l
Setup 2 look OLL case
Solved

ZBLL much? That's exactly what ZBLL is, but it uses ZBf2l to setup the OLL case.

Edit: Oops, I didn't realise that post was old, I thought that was the most recent post. silly me. :fp

 

[miniGOINGS]

112 cases, one part could be broken up into 2 look making it 40 algorithms total.

Sweet! I am glad to see something be coming from here.
In the event of succes with this method, I would suggest calling it the Speedsolving LL Method? Considering that this is a collaborated method. But that is just a proposal. Any others?

In order to find the algorithms, could we use intuition or cube explorer to find the most finger friendly, fewest move algorithms?

Yup, I'll work on that later.

 

[Cyrus C.]

Has anyone come up with this 5x5 edge-pairing method?

Step 1: Find 2 edges that need to be matched up.
Step 2: Put those edges in the middle 3 layers with different colours facing you for each edge piece. (Like on 4x4 beginners edge pairing)
Step 3: Find the last edge that needs to be paired up and put it in the same way you would in step 2 with one of the edges (whichever is easiest).
Step 4: Using Double layer, & M layer turns, match all 3 edges up. (The centers won't be solved at this point)
Step 5: Move all 3 edges into the U/D layer and replace it with 3 unsolved edges.
Step 6: Fix the centers.

It should be easy to make a transition from beginners 5x5 method to this.