3x3 PBL Theoretical Method (3BL) (CFOP Variant)

[Duncan Kimmett]

So, I invented a theoretical CFOP variant known as "3BL". It consists of a few steps:
1.) Solve the cross ANY WAY YOU WANT (so it doesn't have to align the colors, just connect the cross-colored part of the edges to the center)
2.) Solve the rest of the cube up until PLL
3.) Do a PBL algorithm to solve both cross and PLL at the same time

I also have a document that shows the method more in-depth like showing the obvious many conns, and obvious or less well-known pros. I will have this document linked below. Anyone who opens the document can give comments/suggestions that I will consider.

Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X36fviqTDq4BV1ZY1udoPfikENzc4tLdZ-LfknV8QcU/edit

 

[ProStar]

So you're saving a couple moves on the cross to add what is probably 5+ moves at the end of the solve (since it replaces PLL)? It seems like a massive inrease in alg count for a time drop of basically 0, plus unless the algs are super optimized it'll actually be slower than just doing the cross and ending with PLL. It'll also make recognition annoying since you'll have to remember at the end of the solve what the cross case was, which you would've solved at the beginning

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

So you're saving a couple moves on the cross to add what is probably 5+ moves at the end of the solve (since it replaces PLL)? It seems like a massive inrease in alg count for a time drop of basically 0, plus unless the algs are super optimized it'll actually be slower than just doing the cross and ending with PLL. It'll also make recognition annoying since you'll have to remember at the end of the solve what the cross case was, which you would've solved at the beginning

I agree with all of these statements and actually already have thought of most of them, I just didn’t care about this being a serious method and wanted to share it with people. But thank you for the healthy criticism, I have heard some new things I have not already heard of and I think that is a big win.

Thanks!

 

[Thom S.]

1. This has been proposed before. You can't know that, but that also excludes you from being the inventor.
2. If you're not serious about the method, why tell us about it?
3. Layer 1 and Layer 3 are pnly interchangable through R2 or M2, the former needing a lot of moves to bring both corners back to the cross. Now imagine that with L, F, R, B / M, S all at the same time.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

1. This has been proposed before. You can't know that, but that also excludes you from being the inventor.
2. If you're not serious about the method, why tell us about it?

First of all, I could guess this has been proposed before, but I shouldn’t be named the inventor even though I called myself it, so that is my blame. Second, I was bored. I was 15 on 3x3 and I normally average 14 so I took a break, got bored and decided to post this. Lastly, I already said these algs would be long but also, you are definitely right because my only probable way for this is most likely doing PLL then solving a U perm or something, like the stupid idea of 3 look 3bl. I can confirm this method is absolutely illogical and is not worth using, I just wanted to get it out there because it is an interesting idea (at least I think) and although people have proposed it before, but I went a little more in depth with offering my pros and conns and letting people suggest. Sorry if you see that as bragging, I just believe it is something that needs its own document and thread because the last one did not use a document. The one that I have been referencing is a proposition from MrIndianTeen, the thread being named ”Can PBL Be Used In 3x3??.” Thank you!

 

[Cubinginatree]

So, I invented a theoretical CFOP variant known as "3BL". It consists of a few steps:
1.) Solve the cross ANY WAY YOU WANT (so it doesn't have to align the colors, just connect the cross-colored part of the edges to the center)
2.) Solve the rest of the cube up until PLL
3.) Do a PBL algorithm to solve both cross and PLL at the same time

I also have a document that shows the method more in-depth like showing the obvious many conns, and obvious or less well-known pros. I will have this document linked below. Anyone who opens the document can give comments/suggestions that I will consider.

Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X36fviqTDq4BV1ZY1udoPfikENzc4tLdZ-LfknV8QcU/edit

I thought I made this method up.. Oh well this is cool.

 

[Cubinginatree]

other people can edit your document by the way

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

other people can edit your document by the way

I set it to suggest ( I care about them not being able to delete stuff)

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

I thought I made this method up.. Oh well this is cool.

I'm sure many people have thought of this, I actually mentioned someone who made the exact same method and posted it.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

I have started making the algorithms. I am doing this for fun, keep in mind, so I don't mean for people to learn them.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Oh by the way, the math was wrong, it is 252 algorithms not 336.

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

Isn't it 168?
Bottom can be Ua, Ub, W, Oa, Ob, H, Z, Adj, Diag
Top can be all 21 pll's
H bottom is nonsense, you can just do D2 after cross
This leaves 8 x 21 = 168 cases excluding normal PLLs

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Isn't it 168?
Bottom can be Ua, Ub, W, Oa, Ob, H, Z, Adj, Diag
Top can be all 21 pll's
H bottom is nonsense, you can just do D2 after cross
This leaves 8 x 21 = 168 cases excluding normal PLLs

Thank you SO MUCH! I literally have been trying to figure it out for ages. Thank you! Mind if I use your explanation to explain the math?

 

[abunickabhi]

Oh by the way, the math was wrong, it is 252 algorithms not 336.

168 is a lot of cases to be honest.

Do you think the method is worth it?

 

[cubenerd74]

168 is a lot of cases to be honest.

Do you think the method is worth it?

Well at least it's fewer cases than 5-style

 

[Thom S.]

We should more talk about quality of algorithms.
ZBLL is a big algset, too, but 5/6 of the cases are good.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

As the creator, I think we could cut down a ton of algs actually because H perm cross and O perm cross are just a few moves away from solved cross. Personally, I probably won't learn it, but maybe I can cut it down enough.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

As the creator, I think we could cut down a ton of algs actually because H perm cross and O perm cross are just a few moves away from solved cross. Personally, I probably won't learn it, but maybe I can cut it down enough.

If it becomes 100 or less or just a lil' more I think I will learn it.

 

[Jorian Meeuse]

As the creator, I think we could cut down a ton of algs actually because H perm cross and O perm cross are just a few moves away from solved cross. Personally, I probably won't learn it, but maybe I can cut it down enough.

Oh yeah, true, O perms are obviously also just one move away after doing cross, I didn't even realise that lol. That makes it 6 x 21 = 126 cases excluding normal pll's

Mind if I use your explanation to explain the math?

Yeah sure, go ahead.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Oh yeah, true, O perms are obviously also just one move away after doing cross, I didn't even realise that lol. That makes it 6 x 21 = 126 cases excluding normal pll's

Yeah sure, go ahead.

Awesome!