People think the original 3x3 Rubik's cube from 1980 was the 'worst' cube, but actually it was an absolute DREAM compared to the 'clone' cubes, of which the 'Wonderful Puzzler' was the most common. Being slightly cheaper, it sold many units, but it was horrible. Those of us that were 'cubers'...

I averaged around 21 seconds when I got an 8.70, I could see a CLL skip (LMCF) in the inspection and I was able to plan the first edge pair after CLL all in the inspection. It sucks to get so lucky, because now I average 13-14 seconds and I still haven't beat the 8.70.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be the future addition of a 3x3 category with 2-minute inspection time. That would change things dramatically. Suddenly stuff like method neutral might even be worth it, or 1-looking the entire solve. Or even more interesting, blind-solve with...

If I'm not mistaken, a few people in the community have published verified videos where they 1-looked the entire solve with CFOP. Sure, it takes them many minutes of inspection. But then you could have an autistic savant who might be able to do it in 15 seconds. Which means it would be...

I have always used cube explorer, but on the topic of algorithm generators, is there any algorithm generator that can
(1) exclude arbitrary moves (i.e. allow M but exclude E/S)
(2) generate algorithms restricted to move sets that include wide moves (rRUM for example)
I have tried using cube...

In the new method thread we discussed my favorite Roux variant, which is to leave the FR slot unsolved, then pre-locate the FR edge such that it will be auto-solved by the L5C algorithm. In this fashion you basically skip the entire FR slot. The drawback is that you can't use multiple CMLL's...

I agree with most on this thread that getting really good at one method is more effective. BUT, if you like the idea of learning 2 methods, then you need to have 'separable' methods for inspection. I believe you would need to be looking for totally different things. For CFOP it is extremely...

This is a cool thread but you totally need to change the rules so that you can post 1 move per page of the thread with NO DESCRIPTION OF ANY KIND of why the move was done or what it is trying to do. It would be far more impressive that way.

I'm getting confused. For Roux-LSS, L5C has 614 cases and the pre-located edge does not add any algorithms. So the number of algorithms is the usual number of Roux algorithms +614 (L5C) minus 42 (CMLL) = Usual Roux +572.
This is for the case where you cannot skip the last slot if the FR edge...

For the record I will name the variant I suggested Roux-LSS (=Roux, Last Slot Skip). Just to re-iterate:
- FB
- Back right 2x2
- Pre-locate FR edge for L5C algorithm
- Execute L5C algorithm which auto-solves last slot because FR edge was pre-located
- L6E
According to the 2x2 L5C thread there...

I tend to agree with u Cube; after years of trying to make new methods my general conclusion is that future methods will not involved orient->permute steps, but rather direct solve. Consider OLL->PLL vs. ZBLL or 1LL, or 2-look CMLL (orient/permute) vs. direct CMLL. That is a simplification...

Don't listen to the naysayers. Your goal can be achieved, it is only up to you to achieve it. In 2015 I came on here saying I wanted to be the first to get a sub-10 official average with a corners first method, people laughed and said it was impossible, at the time my average was around 28...

I really like the idea of mixing in L5C with Roux. The method I use for L7E in the latest LMCF still isn't optimal, and so I was thinking about L7E skips and I think there is an option to force L7E skips without 3,000 algorithms.
Consider this modification to Z-cell:
1. When generating the 614...

There are similarities with '42 Method' for sure.
I would throw out that some time ago there was discussion about the possibility of any method being sub-40 average movecount for a human. With Z-cell, you could, theoretically, increase the L5C algorithm count from 600 to around 3000. In this...

I disagree that L6E-EOLR can be done in 11 moves on average, but even if it could, consider that in L7E, solving the FR edge directly never takes more than 7 moves. Solving FR directly then doing L6E is the dumbest and worst possible L7E method, but by that simple analysis it takes no more than...

L5C with a free M-slice is way more efficient than CMLL.
L7E is only slightly longer than L6E. In L7E, all you need is one of UL, UR, or FR to be random filled with an L/R edge which happens on most solves. In that case L7E is actually Waterman L6E which takes the same number of moves as Roux...

When a reconstruction shows OLLCP it is never clear to me if the person actually knows full OLLCP and used it, or just did regular OLL and got a CP or full skip by luck. Because if someone does know OLLCP and gets an EPLL skip the odds of that are pretty good and I would say the skip is caused...

I like Z-cell but I would change it to skip the DFDB step; this will decrease significantly the number of moves for L5C because those edges don't need to be maintained. Then you end up with L7E which you can solve very efficiently with LMCF algorithms. In my opinion this modification to...

The worst method isn't a fake method, it's a real method, and it's the method I used to solve the 3x3 in 1981 without any algorithms when I was 6 years old:
1. Solve the top corners
2. Solve the top edges
3. In an effort to solve the bottom corners with no algorithms, break off one of the top...