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

[Silky]

You can solve the CP on both layers simultaneously very very easily

Definitely doesn't sound like we've reinvented SSC /s

 

[DatBubby]

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

Cool! I'm not sure why people are being so critical of this. Obviously, it doesn't seem worth learning, but you say that in the document
I've never thought about solving this way

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

You can solve the CP on both layers simultaneously very very easily

So, I would try that, and probably will just take @Felipe Teixeira’s algorithm, but I also think the reason I invented this method is for x-cross ability and easier crosses, not for f2l, so that’s my point of view on it. The way the method is supposed to be is 1-look PLL, not 2 looking a messed up bottom which although my method is not amazing, it at least doesn’t have to rely on 2-look. This is all my opinion of course, and everyone is entitled to their own. +, even if you have the argument you can find every alg for each separate case, knowing squan, that will be around 967 algorithms, meanwhile this is 132.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Definitely doesn't sound like we've reinvented SSC /s

Crap, I don’t know what SSC is.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Also, real quick random update, I now know HZ, HUa, HUb, UaUa, UbUb, UbUa, UaUb.

 

[artless1der]

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.

it seems that with this 3BL method you would essentially be able to solve PLL and then just do an x2 and then solve the edges-only PLL that was left on bottom...

 

[OtaMota]

I think an optimization for this method could be do the cross the same way as suggested, but the corners of the f2l pairs can go in any slot. Edges of F2L will need to go in between the correct centers, you will make what looks like a belt. You then do OLL, and then you can do PBL. You can do it either 2 look or 1 look. If you do 2 look, you would have 8 algs for corner PBL and I believe there would be 49 Algs for Edge PBL. If you do it 1 look, there would be 967 Algs or something, which is about twice the number of ZBLL algs.

Compared to CFOP, this method would have faster cross and F2L, but if your using 2 look PBL, the method would end up being about the same time as CFOP, and only when you do 1 look PBL, would you notice a good difference between the new method and CFOP.

Overall, this proposed method could be good, and its comparable to CLL-EG and CFOP-Proposed Method.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Finished all the Ua and Ub perm cross cases, and I know HZ.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

I think an optimization for this method could be do the cross the same way as suggested, but the corners of the f2l pairs can go in any slot. Edges of F2L will need to go in between the correct centers, you will make what looks like a belt. You then do OLL, and then you can do PBL. You can do it either 2 look or 1 look. If you do 2 look, you would have 8 algs for corner PBL and I believe there would be 49 Algs for Edge PBL. If you do it 1 look, there would be 967 Algs or something, which is about twice the number of ZBLL algs.

Please read this method proposal:

My Method Proposal (FT Method)

So as some of you know, i've been developing a method for quite some time, and I wanted to publish it but because of lack of time I didn't. I felt the need to post this as some other cubers had similar idea and I wanted to register the idea I had some time ago. I didn't think too much on a name...

www.speedsolving.com

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

Finished 2-Look 3BL!

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

it seems that with this 3BL method you would essentially be able to solve PLL and then just do an x2 and then solve the edges-only PLL that was left on bottom...

This is just a way of doing that in 1 algorithm, so yes, that is absolutely correct! Especially for the PLL skip cases. For U perm on bottom, you put it so that it takes up front three edges then do wide f2, do the U-Perm then another wide f2 and AUF, but for Z-Perm PLL skip, you just have to rotate. This is basically 1-look PLL compared to what you are suggesting.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

I think an optimization for this method could be do the cross the same way as suggested, but the corners of the f2l pairs can go in any slot. Edges of F2L will need to go in between the correct centers, you will make what looks like a belt. You then do OLL, and then you can do PBL. You can do it either 2 look or 1 look. If you do 2 look, you would have 8 algs for corner PBL and I believe there would be 49 Algs for Edge PBL. If you do it 1 look, there would be 967 Algs or something, which is about twice the number of ZBLL algs.

Compared to CFOP, this method would have faster cross and F2L, but if your using 2 look PBL, the method would end up being about the same time as CFOP, and only when you do 1 look PBL, would you notice a good difference between the new method and CFOP.

Overall, this proposed method could be good, and its comparable to CLL-EG and CFOP-Proposed Method.

Along with what @Filipe Teixeira said, this would also result in around 967 algorithms! This is because this would be like squan PBL but on a 3BL, and squan pbl has 967. That is a point I have brought up earlier, but you had a good idea!