Ortega Method (3x3x3)

I hope this is an appropriate bump.... Have you been trying much more of this? I've been playing with this for about a week, my best time so far is a 33.15.

I can't seem to get much faster than this, the move count is really high.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I use essentially an easier version of this method. I get 23 averages. Sub-20 is definitely in reach.
 
Cyrus C. said:
I'm pretty sure what I'm using is Ortega, unless I've terribly misunderstood the description.
Click to expand...

If you have a really high move count with that method then you've definitely misunderstood it.
Ortega has a higher move count on average than some other CF methods like Guimond for example, though.
 
Sorry, I meant looks, not move count. I'll be quiet now.

EDIT: Not exactly looks, it's just hard to recognize the edge and where it should go quickly.
 
Last edited:
with the ortega method, im sure it has already been thought of, but using ortega like a roux method? solve corners like 2x2 with ortega, solve E edges (not too sure if there is a quick way to do this, it is unavoidable to use E to at LEAST position them in a M layer if you are working the edges with M. would be reallly awful to use E all the time, not to mention slow) then finish off with LSE with roux... i know LSE can be done very quickly (2-5 seconds) so im sure there might be some interest to roux users... maybe, in cases where F2B is not a good case on your "cross color" (even though i cant imagine what a bad case may be.) it is definately less algs than CMLL. seems slower, even though i find it interesting. 2-7 sec for corner (this is about what i take with ortega on the 2x2), 2-5 sec for LSE (experienced), so if you can get those E edges fast, this is potentially a sub 10 method, theoretically.
let me know if you find anything more interesting ^^; i will see if there is a feasable way to orient and permute E slice edges.

also, with CLL, you could disregard the ortega and make potentially sub3 for corners consistantly.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you can always solve the last 6 edges in Roux style. It works fine if the missing edges on the L/R layers match or are of opposite colours, but if they are of adjacent colours recognition is a bit messy.
 
I really don't think CF would be that fast. I've tried it before, and it doesn't seem practical for a speedsolve.

Imagine this though: making a side on two opposite faces, solving the middle layer, permuting all the edges and permuting all the corners. Probably been done before, though. :p
 
RCTACameron said:
Imagine this though: making a side on two opposite faces, solving the middle layer, permuting all the edges and permuting all the corners. Probably been done before, though. :p
Click to expand...

elaborate. this seems like what i suggested, only terribly wasted steps. i must be misunderstanding.
 
Belt methods have the issue of having odd parity on the U face and odd parity on the D face. Recognition is difficult for this, and switching the parity involves destroying everything you've made already and then restoring it. Not to mention the issues with separating the pieces into layers. It's horrible in terms of move count and speed.
 
hawkmp4 said:
Belt methods have the issue of having odd parity on the U face and odd parity on the D face. Recognition is difficult for this, and switching the parity involves destroying everything you've made already and then restoring it. Not to mention the issues with separating the pieces into layers. It's horrible in terms of move count and speed.
Click to expand...

Okay, I wasn't seriously suggesting that as a speedsolving method, just something fun to try. :) Also, couldn't you just fix the parity with M2 U2 M2 U2? Or is it a different parity I'm thinking of? :confused:
 
i'm officially the fastest CF solver on average and single...i think. 17.60 avg and 14.xx single. at home i've gotten 18.0x avg12, 13.00 single...
if i actually practise i think i can has 16s average xD

EDIT: LOL 16.62, 16.80, 18.63, (15.09), 15.38[midges perm skip], 15.88, (21.00), 16.66[forced midges skip], 19.69, 16.73, 17.46, 19.17 =>17.30
 
Last edited:
If more people actually practised CF hard, we would definitiely see significantly faster averages than 16-17 seconds.
The problem is always the same: we don't know the full potential of the unpopular methods, precisely because they're unpopular.
 
rachmaninovian said:
i'm officially the fastest CF solver on average and single...i think. 17.60 avg and 14.xx single. at home i've gotten 18.0x avg12, 13.00 single...
if i actually practise i think i can has 16s average xD

EDIT: LOL 16.62, 16.80, 18.63, (15.09), 15.38[midges perm skip], 15.88, (21.00), 16.66[forced midges skip], 19.69, 16.73, 17.46, 19.17 =>17.30
Click to expand...

How many algorithms do you know/use for 3x3x3?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Ortega Method Times Stalling
Replies
1
Views
421
acrystal
acrystal
OldSwiss
Ortega based beginners method
Replies
1
Views
1,388
OldSwiss
OldSwiss
A
How fast is 2x2 Ortega method
Replies
9
Views
2,642
qwr
qwr
GAN 356 X
  • Poll Poll
What 2x2 method do you use?
Replies
8
Views
2,103
TipsterTrickster
TipsterTrickster
Space
[Help Thread] Should I learn CLL.
Replies
4
Views
1,310
Duncan Bannon
D
Back
Top