XG (New Method Based on Fridrich!)

[JLarsen]

I'm just...disgusted with certain people right now....

I could not have made a better parody to threads like this, and I really could not think any less of people who took this seriously...

 

[jacob15728]

Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.

 

[vrumanuk]

Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.

:fp Why do so many people read only the first post of a multiple-page thread?

 

[Anthony]

Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.

No ****, wasn't that obvious enough?

 

[jacob15728]

Oh... I just read the rest of this thread and now I feel like a bit of an idiot. But I think not recognizing that it is a joke and realizing that it is a horrible method is nowhere near as bad as actually falling for it.

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

I knew it was a joke. But it's a dumb joke. Not even funny.

 

[fanwuq]

I knew it was a joke. But it's a dumb joke. Not even funny.

Experiment over. Hypothesis confirmed.
This thread has significantly more replies (55) than any serious ideas I've ever posted. The only threads I've ever started that gained more replies were SF09 (61) and the 2-gen contest (71).

Anyhow, the point wasn't so much a joke with which I wanted people to go along. It's supposed to make some of you realize that you're posting stuff which is just as stupid, with the pretense of knowing what you're doing. I wanted to capture all those minor-facepalm components I try to restrain myself from getting angry about.

As for the method, it's actually not bad for speed LBL. It's good if you want a high-TPS solve, or maybe if you want to show off with fast moves to people who don't care so much about the time.

After reading Lucas's message, I wouldn't even give you a facepalm.

 

[PatrickT]

Interesting... But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.

None the less, incredible.

lol epic fail

 

[Kirjava]

ಠ_ಠ

 

[Edward]

Lucas on the XG thread:

Aug 18 21:45:23 <lgarron> Ethan_Rosen: It's a grand parody of all the stupid threads out there.

Why the Heck are all threads presenting new ways to solve the cube stupid. I don't get you guys. You promote sharing your ideas, but when someone does, you automatically write them off. I find it wierd how instantly Lucas' post got serious replies (of course some were just playing along).

 

[joey]

Because all these new methods.. just are Bad.

 

[hawkmp4]

I have no problem with a well thought out idea, with the merits of the new method explained over the old. But they're all really just 'what if we did...[this]?' where lately [this] has been solve the E slice first and fumble around the rest of the cube dealing with separating out into layers and fixing awkward parities.

 

[Nukoca]

This is why I don't post whenever I don't understand a thread. It often saves me some ridicule.

 

[Tomk]

Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.

 

[hawkmp4]

Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.

can you show us how you got those numbers? I think this method has potential.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.

lern2math

(The average would be 43,252,003,274,489,856,000, not half of that.)

 

[anythingtwisty]

I just found a way to improve the F2L of the XG method:
My idea is to call it the XG-F2LWITHOUTANYALGSMETHOD. The basic idea of this method is to take XG and just make the F2L by inserting pairs; it's a very advanced method, so I can't really explain it, therefore badmephisto made a video about this (he already used the method), I hope you guys can follow this.

DUDE I JUST WENT SUB 10 MINUTES

 

[hawkmp4]

Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.

lern2math

(The average would be 43,252,003,274,489,856,000, not half of that.)

Wouldn't the actual number be higher? If I'm thinking about this correctly, 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 is assuming with every move you're visiting a new cube state.

 

[mazei]

Why don't people read through the whole post?

 

[Lucas Garron]

Why don't people read through the whole post?

yeah, good question, its only like 2 pages.

Spoiler

Anyone someone refers to page x, I feel like pointing out that my forum settings are 40 posts per page, so my page numbering is different. I should have the same right to be ignorant of other people and expect them not to get confused, rihgt?