Search results

I do hope to release an update, I have had ten or more people ask for it. Unfortunately it is a fairly large task as pretty much all of the 600+ algorithms in the document have been revised and major steps have changed so it is basically re-writing the document from scratch. Aside from the...

The LMCF document (v4.5) published in 2017 was a very early stab at the method and the algorithms in that document have very poor ergonomics, plus, that method used tons of rotations. In the last 6 years I have developed two paths, the original LMCF with improved ergonomics, and LMCF-H, both...

I am using LMCF-H which is almost the same as WaterRoux, the only difference is LMCF-H you solve Roux first block minus the DL edge (creating an H on the left side), and then solve all the corners with LEG1/CLL. I have optimized the LEG1 algs to make sure they don't break Roux-FB. If you can...

Another question I have for the top 2x2 solvers is that when 1-looking, you only need to predict 3 top corners to know the full case, if you are 'good' at case recognition from any 3 of the 4 corners which is always possible. Question is, do top 2x2 solvers 'look-ahead' all 4 top corners or...

Since I use LMCF-H on 3x3 my goal is to 1-look the corners + FL & BL edges (creating an H on the left side). Another way to think of it is Roux first block (minus DL edge), plus all the corners, using CLL & LEG1 (you could also use TCLL+/-). Almost all the LEG1 algorithms do not 'harm' Roux...

What I am curious about from experts is the time to 1-look vs. the number of moves to make the face. i.e. for me around 1-move face = 3 seconds to 1-look 2-move face = 7 seconds to 1-look 3-move face = 16 seconds to 1-look 4-move face = 25 seconds to 1-look 5-move face = 1+ minute I assume the...

It takes me around 12 seconds to 1-look the OLL case but to 1-look the full case takes me around 20-25 seconds, which basically means I can't do it within the inspection time. Hence the long recognition time which takes up half the solve.

Absolutely true-- without daily drilling of a 120+ algorithm set, adding more algorithms into my head just lengthens the algorithm recognition time.

I think I'm probably the slowest 2x2 cuber in the world vs. the algorithms I know. I know EG1, CLL, LEG1 and most of EG2, and still average 4 seconds. Way slower than most Ortega solvers haha.

Top 2x2 solvers one look 3-4 solutions within the inspection period. With LMCF-H, you reduce that from 3-4 solutions to just one solution; the two edge pieces can be solve by changing the face-solve to wide move variants, and injecting M/E/S moves that do not affect the corner solution or the...

The difficulty with a 1x1 is not solving it. It starts as solved. The difficulty is how to scramble it, which I have never seen anyone accomplish.

LMCF-H solves all the corners and the FL and BL edges (an 'H' or columns on the left half of the cube), all in 1-look. What remains is a single opposite edge pair in the R slice and you have reached full columns in 2 looks. After which one more edge pair is solved, and you finish with L6E...

The LMCF-H method of solving L8E is pretty good and I strongly doubt something better exists. If you want to solve by the method you suggest it would be 3 steps: 1. orient 4 U & 4 D edges 2. Separate U & D edges into their respective layers 3. permute last 8 edges I don't see how you could...

This just an EPLL algo. Did you actually use an L8EP scramble generator?

I laughed out loud for 30 seconds. Thank you for uplifting my day with this thread.

I am looking for a utility that must be very common, yet despite many searches, I haven't found it. You take a list of algorithms, say 40 of them, cut-and-paste them into the utility, the utility inverts the algorithms to create scrambles, and then spits out a random sequence of those scrambles...

LMCF-H also finishes from the columns state but reaches columns in a different way. I think people have underestimated the speed at which the last 8 edges can be solved from columns onwards. The solve is completed with U-M-D which is a much faster set than I originally anticipated; while the...

I invented the method so it is easy to learn something when you created it yourself. I have spent 8 years working on it, it keeps improving, it would be almost as fast as Roux in the hands of an expert, but not quite....

I am presently using a variant I call LMCF-H. There is already basically no-one using standard LMCF, and definitely no one using LMCF-H since it has never been documented or published anywhere.

Since I use a method & algs that no one else uses, no one would be able to follow my solves except very generally, which is pretty neat.