Nir1213
Member
you can edit the post next time which is on the bottom left of your original post, its better than posting multiple timessome errors in the guide.
you can edit the post next time which is on the bottom left of your original post, its better than posting multiple timessome errors in the guide.
Already doneThe perfect layer method is CFL Cross+F2L+Last(resolution all cases Last Layer) I know the existence: Line,ZBLL,ELL,PLL.
I use only Line, something case Line is a PLL.
I use 96 algo, 25 for create case Line and 71 for solving cases Line.
CFOP is no good for this because if you make OLL you dont complete Last Layer in one algo.
How many cases exist for LL?
CFP(Cross+F2L+Platform) and CFOP (Cross+F2L+OLL+PLL) are emplifications to the perfect method CFL.
In CFL no utility building case Line or building case PLL because I want solve all case LL with one algo.
Exist a project to create CFL?
The cube won't necessarily be 2-gen because the edges are most likely not oriented. If you add a step where you orient all edges then you basically have a Petrus variant. However it still will be worse than Petrus because building a 1x2x3 block then inserting remaining 2 edges is much less efficient than making a 2x2x2 block then extending it to 2x2x33. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.
That is just LEOR without EO.I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,
1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.
2. Make 2 edges on the bottom layer (ex. white green edge and white blue edge)
3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.
4. Now solve the last layer with standard OLL and PLL algorithms.
I just thought of this up, have to use it some more to see if it's good or not. and I hope I explained it well.
I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,
1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.
2. Make 2 edges on the bottom layer (ex. white green edge and white blue edge)
3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.
4. Now solve the last layer with standard OLL and PLL algorithms.
I just thought of this up, have to use it some more to see if it's good or not. and I hope I explained it well.
Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
I named it Fork Last Layer (FLL), and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.
Fork last layer (full version)
View attachment 14580
Fork Last Layer (PLL reduction version)
View attachment 14581
Edge Fork - is double state - 50% solving Edge and 50% solving with 2 opposite Edge Permutation.
EFLL - Edge Fork of the Last Layer
OCLL-EFP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Fork Permutation
OCLL-EPP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Permutation Preserved
OCLL- OES - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Opposite Edge Swap
EFLL Substep
View attachment 14582
Why not 2 look OLL+PLL? It's 31 algs and faster than any of these. I like the idea of phasing during EO though for reducing alg count. It reminds me of ZZ-R.Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
I named it Fork Last Layer (FLL), and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.
Fork last layer (full version)
View attachment 14580
Fork Last Layer (PLL reduction version)
View attachment 14581
Edge Fork - is double state - 50% solving Edge and 50% solving with 2 opposite Edge Permutation.
EFLL - Edge Fork of the Last Layer
OCLL-EFP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Fork Permutation
OCLL-EPP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Permutation Preserved
OCLL- OES - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Opposite Edge Swap
EFLL Substep
View attachment 14582
Yes, if you know full PLL then can use ver 2 with PLL reduction. Then you must use any alg from OCLL-EPP and OCLL-EOS.Why not 2 look OLL+PLL? It's 31 algs and faster than any of these. I like the idea of phasing during EO though for reducing alg count. It reminds me of ZZ-R.
Yes, i scared algs (any complex algs too slow for my fingers). And i also develop my method f2l, but I was told it was Keyhole Edge First (my intuitive fridrich f2l without algs too slow, need learn algs, and only then training look ahead), And is also good method for intermediate, i make look ahead now and without pauses. Some people make sub(20) with keyhole (keyhole edge first make easy look ahead and simple 3-4-moves algs). But i like F2L and want work with them.True, but FELL and OCLL-EPP are both longer than their 2L-OLL counterparts. And PLL algs aren't that complex, unless you're scared of algs (not a good thing to be). They're also all fast, so forcing a specific subset (that would include more N-Perms) isn't a great idea.
I would say that you can make a new thread for it. @abunickabhi and the other mods might not think so though. f you want it to be seen, making a wiki page for it might be a good idea.I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.
So, on a similar note, I've been thinking about ECE. Based on your analysis, if it is possible to plan columns in inspection, planning psuedo-columns could be very feasible. Following this I believe that generating NLL algs from HD-G would be an excellent idea. NLL would mean that you would combine separation and permutation of corners into one step with the caveat that you need to force L cases on top and bottom. You could generate all NLL cases but that would increase the alg count significantly. Based on the move count from HD-G, NLL would save around 3 moves. Then you can choose any L8E variant to finish the solve. This could lower the average movecount to 40 with EZD. This would also make it into a 3.5-4 look method. Pseudo-columns => NLL => EO/Separation => EZD. In HD-G you can predict the subset of NLL in inspection and then you just need to recognize the case which accounts for the 'half' look. This would also be done in only around 100 algs !!During my attempts to improve the ergonomics of LMCF, it seems clear that several edges piece must be solved at the same time as the corners. Years ago when WaterRoux was proposed, the idea was to solve Roux first block, and all the corners, in one look. Most considered that unrealistic. That would require solving 3 edges plus all the corners in one look, during inspection. An alternative, even more difficult, is to fully solve all four 3x1 columns in one look (all corners plus FR+FL+BL+BR edges). Again, most considered this nearly impossible. However, not long ago I was having a DM chat with WACWCA, who is a top 2x2 solver. He told me that he frequently can inspect three or even FOUR possible 2x2 solutions during the 15-second inspection time, and then, choose the solution that is the fastest of all of them. This implies, almost without question, that indeed it would be possible to solve many edges and the corners in one look. Instead of inspecting 3-4 corner-solving solutions in the inspection, the solver chooses only the first one, even if it might not be the fastest. That leaves most of the inspection time to figure out how to either solve the 3 edges needed for Roux first block, or, for all 4 columns. Make no mistake; if any solver can solve either roux first block plus all the corners, or all the columns, in the inspection, I believe this almost certainly would result in the fastest method ever designed. Consider that Roux solvers solve 5-7 pieces during inspection, CFOP solvers that can do XCross solve 6 pieces; LMCF solves 8 pieces in the inspection, yet now it seems that solving 11-12 pieces in the inspection is possible. If it takes 1.5 seconds on average to solve the corners (top 2x2 average), the extra time to solve 3 edges would be quite low as move freedom is extremely high, and slice moves at the start of the solve do not affect the corner solution. Not unrealistic to say that in 1.9 seconds the solver could finish Roux first block and all the corners. All that is left now is an LMCF triplet (1.1 seconds) (for waterroux), followed by LSE, or LMCF pair (0.8 seconds) + LSE for columns. In the case of columns, LSE is the same as Roux (1.5 seconds), whereas if you choose the WaterRoux style, LSE is slower because the 2-edges on one side case, allowing 1.9 seconds. This predicts an average for WaterRoux of 1.9+1.1+1.9 = 4.9 seconds, and for columns, 1.9+0.8+1.5 = 4.2 seconds. The basis of this is the claim by WACWCA that top 2x2 solvers can see 3-4 solutions in the inspection. How they 'got' to that point is beyond me, but if true, opens a great deal of possibilities to solve 11-12 pieces in the inspection. Even if I am being over-optimistic in the splits, and even if you add 1 full second, it still predicts 5.9 and 5.2 second averages.