A new method to solve the F2L of the Rubik's Cube?!

[CuBeOrDiE]

Cubeordie: Dont triple post please.

Also, don't get annoyed, but you really could just use petrus. Yes, that was a way to solve F2L.

Question: Do you use this to solve F2L?

Yes, I do. I've only just come up with it a week ago so i haven't perfected it yet...

 

[brunson]

Where do you get this 35 move average F2L for Fridrich? I just did 10 arbitrary solves and here are my move counts (cross/total):

1. 5/27
2. 7/34
3. 4/30
4. 5/28
5. 7/32
6. 4/31
7. 6/33
8. 6/27
9. 7/36
10. 6/31

That's an average of ~31 moves for F2L and I wasn't even trying for FM, I was just doing a normal solve and counting HTM. I'm sure if I took more time I could shave 1-3 moves off each at a minimum.

(P.S. I'm not even very good)

 

[Robert-Y]

Jessica Fridrich may average that, but does everyone else average that?

Well I maybe not for me. I just did 20 F2L solves and my move average was 32.15.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Where do you get this 35 move average F2L for Fridrich? I just did 10 arbitrary solves and here are my move counts (cross/total):

1. 5/27
2. 7/34
3. 4/30
4. 5/28
5. 7/32
6. 4/31
7. 6/33
8. 6/27
9. 7/36
10. 6/31

That's an average of ~31 moves for F2L and I wasn't even trying for FM, I was just doing a normal solve and counting HTM. I'm sure if I took more time I could shave 1-3 moves off each at a minimum.

(P.S. I'm not even very good)

my move average for linear fmc challenges is around 28.7 so........

 

[RampageCuber]

Please type up an F2L solution under 30 moves for us:
U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R

cross: yR'D'U2'LD'R'FD
1st pair: y'U2L'UL2U'L'
2nd: yLU'L'
3rd: U'RU'R'
4th U'L'U'L


=25 moves

...Or you can just use Fridrich.

YA BUT FRIDRICH AVERAGE F2L IS 35 MOVES MINE IS 29 THAT WAS JUST A LUCKY SOLVE

It looks pretty non-lucky to me.

Well, there's a few easy inserts, but without that it would still be around a 27-30 move F2L

according to jessica fridrich, the average of her method is 35 moves. therefore some solves may take up to 40 moves, witch screws your average

Yes, she said that before modern algs and methods (x-cross, etc.) were invented.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Please type up an F2L solution under 30 moves for us:
U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R

cross: yR'D'U2'LD'R'FD
1st pair: y'U2L'UL2U'L'
2nd: yLU'L'
3rd: U'RU'R'
4th U'L'U'L


=25 moves

...Or you can just use Fridrich.

YA BUT FRIDRICH AVERAGE F2L IS 35 MOVES MINE IS 29 THAT WAS JUST A LUCKY SOLVE

It looks pretty non-lucky to me.

Well, there's a few easy inserts, but without that it would still be around a 27-30 move F2L

according to jessica fridrich, the average of her method is 35 moves. therefore some solves may take up to 40 moves, witch screws your average

Yes, she said that before modern algs and methods (x-cross, etc.) were invented.

Still, it all comes down to what you prefer...both modern x cross fridrich and my method average around the same move count.

 

[Gparker]

Ok. Your method and petrus may have fewer moves and things like that. But for fridrich and ZZ, its mostly 2-gen with few cube rotations. In your method, you have to make many cube rotations and less R U moves.

 

[fanwuq]

Why do I feel differently about this method than everyone else?

I fail to see why this is good for FM.
I fail to see why this is bad for speed/lookahead.
I fail to see how this is like Petrus.
I fail to see anything new here.

1st step is the same as Roux 1x2x3 block. It is pretty fast. Inserting the next 2 edges is not efficient, but pretty easy to lookahead. Finishing F2L with Fridrich is OK.

 

[StachuK1992]

I fail to see why this is good for FM.

It's not.

I fail to see why this is bad for speed/lookahead.

I feel as though my hands get in the way with this method.

I fail to see how this is like Petrus.

builds a 2x2x3 block

I fail to see anything new here.

I agree.

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Ok. Your method and petrus may have fewer moves and things like that. But for fridrich and ZZ, its mostly 2-gen with few cube rotations. In your method, you have to make many cube rotations and less R U moves.

have you read the video description?

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this method that bad? Please post a constuctive response telling if YOU think it's bad or YOU think it's good.

thnxs

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

I fail to see why this is good for FM.

It's not.

its not that bad...28.7 move average...nothing world record, yet simple

I fail to see why this is bad for speed/lookahead.

I feel as though my hands get in the way with this method.

read the new video description..might help

I fail to see how this is like Petrus.

builds a 2x2x3 block

agree

I fail to see anything new here.

I agree.

i didnt know there was nothing new...and ive only been speedcubing for a year

 

[fanwuq]

why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

is this method that bad? you need to try it for a week to tell

It's not that bad. I actually quite like it for speed. The move count isn't that impressive, but it isn't much worse than Fridrich. I think the lookahead is very easy and fingertricks are very nice. This idea has been thought of before, but it was rejected for being less efficient than regular Petrus. Overall, I like it and I think it is easy to get fast at this method. Michael Gottlieb can probably sub-20 first try.

Edit:
Thanks, Brunson. I forgot to mention that this variation should not need a name.

 

[brunson]

why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

is this method that bad? you need to try it for a week to tell

For me it's because it's such a trivial variation on existing methods that it hardly warrants mentioning, much less putting your name on it like it's something incredibly innovative.

 

[Gparker]

Ok. Your method and petrus may have fewer moves and things like that. But for fridrich and ZZ, its mostly 2-gen with few cube rotations. In your method, you have to make many cube rotations and less R U moves.

have you read the video description?

Once again, please dont triple post as you just did yet again. Theres a multi quote thing at the bottem, use it.

Also, sorry, I porbably should have read it, it would help if you quoted the description and put it in the main post.

 

[joey]

why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

is this method that bad? you need to try it for a week to tell

For me it's because it's such a trivial variation on existing methods that it hardly warrants mentioning, much less putting your name on it like it's something incredibly innovative.

Yeah, I feel the same.
It's not really anything to it.. it's just petrus... but with 'rules' to follow.

 

[JLarsen]

So I haven't actually got a chance to actually see what the method was, but before I check anything....I'm going to guess at what you've done based off of what I've read so far.

1x2x3 Roux Block.
Inserted 2 edges to make a 2x2x3.
Butchered bad edges because you don't like them.
Fridrich the rest of the way.

 

[cheiney]

I'd like to see a video of you solving the cube with both convential Fridrich and then your method to compare whether or not it is actually "faster". It may look good on paper in your eyes, but it must come down to execution. I'm sure if anyone dedicated enough time, they could think of some block building strategies themselves too. It's just that the moves you do in the F2L solve kind of seem awkward to me. While I intuitively do R, U, and F moves in Fridrich F2L, I see B, B', D, D', which I feel hinder some common triggers used for speed. If you post a video showcasing your regular Fridrich solve speed and another solve using this method with the same scramble, then it may be more accepted by the forum. That's just me, though, I'm no expert.

 

[emu]

The problem with this method (and with Petrus, Roux, or any other block building methods) is how each step is independent. Using Fridrich F2L, you can solve all four slots of the first two layers using, more or less, the exact same strategy. So even though Fridrich F2L is intuitive (just like block building methods), it can be executed at near-algorithmic speed. That's why, even though block builders may solve a cube with less moves, they generally can't do it very fast compared to Fridrich.

That said, I don't see anything new or inventive with this "Kaltchenko method."

 

[CuBeOrDiE]

Alright I'll post a video when I get good at my method... I just thought it up a week ago and haven't practiced it much. My time is currently in the 19 second range, but I'm improving.