NoobCube
Regular
Freestyling the other day I ended up doing the 1x2x3 block from Roux. It suddenly hit me that if I just filled in two edges (quite easily) I could get to the 2x2x3 block from petrus. Any potential in this? Try it out
Yet another petrus variant..
- Thread starter NoobCube
- Start date
waffle=ijm
Waffo
Erik Johnson does this.....
Rpotts
Veteran
I don't see how this is related to puzzle theory. Probably belongs in, well, no where. I guess this is most similar to FreeFOP, or really just a bad way of petrus blockbuilding.. Freestyle solving the f2l (in your case 1x2x3->2x2x3->petrus, followed by some form of orientation->permutation. This is certainly not a new idea. Also, solving a 1x2x3 rouxblock doesn't require centers to be correct, however, the 2x2x3 petrus block does. If the overall goal is to make a 2x2x3, starting with a rouxblock is limiting and sup-optimal.
Cool Frog
Veteran
Or Roux block, EO fill in spots...
irontwig
Veteran
Sometimes it's nice to build it like that, but more often a 2x2x2 or two 2x2x1s is a better start.
Kirjava
Colourful
freeeeefawp.
pi.cubed
Regular
This could be good on some scrambles.Using a method such as Petrus, different blockbuilding techniques are better on different scrambles. Having a few different techniques helps a lot in blockbuilding methods (or any method, for that matter).
This is definitely not new, and I'm not sure if this would be a good main method, but it could be useful.
This is definitely not new, and I'm not sure if this would be a good main method, but it could be useful.
Last edited:
Lucas Garron
Premium Member
Lars Petrus had this idea only about 30 years ago.
oll+phase+sync
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 361
Do you know if it's Eriks prefered Step1 + Step2 strategy, or is he just using it on certain scrambles.
I myself tried this, because I hoped the easier lookup would make up for the higher movecount ...and finaly concluded the same as the other posters in this thread.
... but maybe I just turn to slow
somerandomkidmike
Veteran
This idea isn't even close to new. Almost no idea that the average person thinks of for a variation on an existing method is new/unique. Usually a variation either sucks, or it's obvious enough that people incorperate it already.
uberCuber
Legend
wow, what an incredibly original idea here! I can't believe nobody has ever thought of it before!!!!11!!
Cyrus C.
Veteran
Yes, this idea has been thought of before. I think that while it may be better on a couple scrambles, a 2x2x2 to 2x2x3 extension will be more move optimal on most. This is just from experience, I don't have any numbers to back it up.
Lars Petrus
Regular
This is a good option to be aware of, and I use it now and then, but 9 times out of 10 the 2x2x2 route is easier.
ErikJ
Veteran
I usually the 2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 approach is the better choice. I find that it tends to be easier to make a 2x2x2 from scratch than a 1x2x3. but if there is a nice 1x2x3 then I will certainly use it. if you're like me and build blocks at strange angles make sure that it becomes a habit to move the 1x2x3 to the left or the right side of the cube so that you don't have weird cube rotations when you put the last two edges into the 2x2x3.
Rpotts
Veteran
NoobCube
Regular
Sheesh, sorry I asked..
pi.cubed
Regular
Yup.
Kirjava is probably the only one to make new methods. AND he doesn't go making a new thread whenever he has an idea like some other people do.
EDIT: Sorry I didn't realise the last post was 2 weeks ago.
Last edited:
Rubiks560
Nub
I invented a new method and I didn't make a thread about it. It's like Petrus, except you don't do the EO step.
Cool Frog
Veteran
Not new.
Rubiks560
Nub
You know that was sarcasm right?
