My new method idea

[piece popper]

After a bit of time thinking through ideas for potential new methods, I came up with an idea that could be faster than even friedrich. Maybe, if you started with all of the crosses, oriented all of the corners in a way so that (if you started with white) all of the corners that had white would be adjacent to the white side, and all the corners that had yellow would be adjacent to the yellow side. Then, do double OLL's and PLL's. And also maybe a step for solving the centers, because some algorithms might require it. As a forum, we might could come up with such a revolutionary method, but it would take hundreds, maybe thousands of algorithms (probably hundreds). But it would be incredibly fast, if well practiced. Just an idea. If you come up with any algoritms, please post them. Good luck! Now, if we could find Jessica Friedrich...

 

[mDiPalma]

or you could just use Edges First.

 

[ajayd]

you are not turning this into a " or you could just use petrus" thread

 

[TMOY]

Well, at least it's not a zillionth variation of the belt method.
Oh wait... he's starting by solving three belts

 

[F perm]

...faster than even friedrich.

How do you know?

Maybe, if you started with all of the crosses

Do you mean solving all the edges first? Do you have a specific way that you propose to do this?

...oriented all of the corners in a way so that (if you started with white) all of the corners that had white would be adjacent to the white side, and all the corners that had yellow would be adjacent to the yellow side.

Once again, do you have a specific way that you propose to do this?

Then, do double OLL's and PLL's.

The fact that you include OLL makes me realize that in the previous quote in which you said oriented, you really meant placed. Or, you meant to not include OLL in this quote.

And also maybe a step for solving the centers, because some algorithms might require it.

Are you proposing to solve "all the crosses," which include centers, then solve them again? This step won't be necessary, unless you mess up the centers in the middle for some reason.

As a forum, we might could come up with such a revolutionary method, but it would take hundreds, maybe thousands of algorithms (probably hundreds).

The forum wouldn't come up with the method. You just did. Please don't call it "revolutionary" just yet. It seems to be a variation on edges first, which is definitely not new. Also, we can't make algs if we don't understand how the method works. Please, clarify the parts I have mentioned.

But it would be incredibly fast, if well practiced.

How do you know?

 

[rubixwiz031]

How do you know?

I assume he's simply going off proposed move count.

 

[Noahaha]

Problems with this method:

1. The least amount of algs you can expect to solve double OLL and PLL in is 4. Even if someone could do the algs in one second each (which is basically impossible), that would take 4 seconds and then you would need to be able to solve the edges AND separate the pieces in under 4 seconds to compete with CFOP, which is not happening.

2. There is nothing that makes this better than belt, which is pretty bad to begin with.

3. You propose solving white and yellow edges and then unsolving them during the separation phase (or else your separation will be very inefficient).

4. Let's say you want to take a CFOP approach towards solving your edges. In that case you'll be solving a cross and then putting each of the 4 second layer edges in in about 3 moves. If that's the case, then why not just solve the corners at the same time? Adding just a few extra moves to solve the corners along with the second layer edges will allow you to do OLL/PLL instead of corner separation, 2 OLLs and 2PLLs. I think it's definitely worth the few extra moves

5. Or you could just use belt.

*Fridrich

 

[Kirjava]

Now, if we could find Jessica Friedrich...

Why? Jessica has never developed a method.