mark49152
Premium Member
I find it hard, as do many others, but this is beside the point. If I wanted to learn Roux, I'd learn Roux rather than cluttering up the "ideas" thread.No, it's not. It's just different than F2L.
I find it hard, as do many others, but this is beside the point. If I wanted to learn Roux, I'd learn Roux rather than cluttering up the "ideas" thread.No, it's not. It's just different than F2L.
Just curious as to whether anyone uses the following method.
1. Solve DL and DR with adjacent centres. M slice centres don't matter (2.9 moves).
2. Solve F2L pairs, with free use of the M slice (24.1 moves).
3. Solve DF and DB, and M slice centres (5.2 moves).
4. Finish with OLL/PLL or LL of your choice.
Advantages and reasons I find this appealing:-
1. Step 1 is very short and simple, so planning first pair during inspection is easier (compared to cross).
2. F2L pairs are solved in <URrLlM> with no rotations and no F or B moves.
3. Because the M slice is unrestricted, pair solutions are slightly shorter on average (24.1 versus 27.5 for CFOP).
4. Step 3 is <MU> and based on a few common patterns/triggers, so can be faster TPS than cross, which typically involves several faces.
5. It's easier to look ahead into OLL because the corners aren't changed by step 3.
The only disadvantage I can see is that lookahead is a little harder because you have to be aware of what's in DF and DB while solving pairs.
Regarding move counts, I tried both this and CFOP against the same 12 scrambles, and that's where the estimates above come from (it's only a small sample set, I know). Counts are in STM. Total F2L move count was 32.2 for this method, compared to 33.7 for CFOP. Effectively, cross, which averaged 6.2 moves, was replaced by 8.1 moves for steps 1&3, but that 2-move increase was offset by the more efficient pairs.
Clearly the small decrease in move count isn't enough of an advantage in itself, but move count doesn't appear to be worsened either, so I'm wondering if the other advantages listed above make this worthy of further exploration. I'm considering documenting the F2L cases/solutions.
Thoughts, anyone?
This is called VH and it sucks.
You still need to know full PLL in case you get an OLL skip.
This has already been thought of. Also, not every pair finishes as you said; for example, I sometimes finish my F2L with D R U' R' D' or l F' R U' R' U l'.long post
I just saw this explanation. He/She explains the idea simply, without say number of algorithms,...This has already been thought of
These are special cases and most people don't use this.Also, not every pair finishes as you said; for example, I sometimes finish my F2L with D R U' R' D' or l F' R U' R' U l'.
A lot of that has been discussed in later posts, not just the original suggestion. Also I have seen this idea discussed multiple times, and everything has probably been covered already.I just saw this explanation. He/She explains the idea simply, without say number of algorithms,...
But I explain some things, adventajes, comparison with CFOP,...
I know, especially the second, but those are just examples. People use lots of different algs after learning F2L intuitively to speed up their F2L (although some disagree, arguing it makes lookahead harder, but my second alg has the same effect as F' U F U' R U' R' and the first isn't complicated).These are special cases and most people don't use this.
Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?
If so than that means these as advantages:
less algorithms
get to sub-20 and sub-15 and sub-10 faster than with normal CFOP because you practice a particular algorithm at least once and these OLL and PLL algorithms are not the main factor into being slow in CFOP
It also has disadvantages:
You do the same process for 5 sides instead of 1 which means for someone who is very good at OLL and PLL 5x time in OLL and PLL in normal CFOP
However in the long run it is more advantageous than regular CFOP and probably would get you at those speeds in LBL much faster.
This would not work, the reason we are able to do LL algorithms is because we solved the other two layers and all of the last layer pieces are in the last layer.Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?
If so than that means these as advantages:
less algorithms
get to sub-20 and sub-15 and sub-10 faster than with normal CFOP because you practice a particular algorithm at least once and these OLL and PLL algorithms are not the main factor into being slow in CFOP
It also has disadvantages:
You do the same process for 5 sides instead of 1 which means for someone who is very good at OLL and PLL 5x time in OLL and PLL in normal CFOP
However in the long run it is more advantageous than regular CFOP and probably would get you at those speeds in LBL much faster.
Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?
This seems to be closest to L2L, which requires more algorithms than CFOP, if I remember correctly. Look up L2L4 or L2Lk.
It really is different but I can see why you would say its similar.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
[Unofficial] 5x5 Cage Method UWR 1:28.18 by Hill Pong | Puzzle Video Gallery | 4 | ||
The best 4x4 method??? | General Speedcubing Discussion | 8 | ||
Creators Competition: Method-Making Competition No. 1 | Forum Competitions | 10 | ||
Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency | Puzzle Theory | 27 | ||
M | What method is this? | Cubing Help & Questions | 24 |