A New, Ultra-Efficient Possibility?

[CitricAcid]

Ok, so I was messing around with my 3x3 one day, and I had a thought.

Could it be possible to solve the F2L, and the corners of the LL at the same time?

The way this could be done is by extending an F2L pair by another corner.
(Corner, Edge, Corner.)

Although this could result in complicated algorithms, it would be extremely efficient, as there would be very few OLL and PLL possibilities.

So you would be reducing the algorithms down to around 20.

I have been racking this around for awhile, and I am trying to think of some algorithms at the moment.

Any ideas, questions, comments, criticisms, support?

-CitricAcid

 

[Cyrus C.]

This can be done with Winter variation, which is a set of 54 (I think) algorithms that insert the last pair & orient the corners. Your way is different & also permutes the corners, leaving you with just ELL. But I think that this would be to hard to look ahead with when you could do the same thing with CLL to be considered as a serious method for speed.

 

[Stefan]

there would be very few OLL and PLL possibilities.

You'd go through all that trouble and then still do OLL+PLL rather than ELL?!

 

[CitricAcid]

there would be very few OLL and PLL possibilities.

You'd go through all that trouble and then still do OLL+PLL rather than ELL?!

WARNING, NOOBISH COMMENT AHEAD: What is ELL? lol....

 

[Stefan]

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki

 

[Cyrus C.]

there would be very few OLL and PLL possibilities.

You'd go through all that trouble and then still do OLL+PLL rather than ELL?!

WARNING, NOOBISH COMMENT AHEAD: What is ELL? lol....

Solving last layer edges in just one algorithm.

 

[ianini]

Edges of the Last Layer

 

[CitricAcid]

Ok, thanks.

Could do the 3 piece pairs intuitively?

 

[Stefan]

Gotta hate the spoon-feeders keeping the noobs noobs.

 

[CitricAcid]

*Sigh*..... I'm I regret starting this thread...

And yes, you guys should have let me look it up myself...

 

[Cyrus C.]

Gotta hate the spoon-feeders keeping the noobs noobs.

While he could've looked it up & probably should've i don't see what was wrong with we giving him a short explanation.

 

[Zarxrax]

Instead of making corner-edge pairs, you are asking if you can make corner-edge-corner pairs? So insert 3 pieces at a time instead of just 2?
I had this same idea once, then I actually tried it to see if it worked, and I noticed the problem right away.

 

[Stefan]

i don't see what was wrong with we giving him a short explanation.

Makes them think that asking such questions is a good idea.

On topic: The method seems bad because solving the triples and keeping the corners solved will most likely be very hard. Like Lars might say, those corners are in the way of the solution, not a part of it!

 

[CitricAcid]

Instead of making corner-edge pairs, you are asking if you can make corner-edge-corner pairs? So insert 3 pieces at a time instead of just 2?
I had this same idea once, then I actually tried it to see if it worked, and I noticed the problem right away.

Yes, I'm saying make a pair of a corner, edge, and a corner.

 

[CitricAcid]

i don't see what was wrong with we giving him a short explanation.

Makes them think that asking such questions is a good idea.

On topic: The method seems bad because solving the triples and keeping the corners solved will most likely be very hard. Like Lars might say, those corners are in the way of the solution, not a part of it!

Your most likely right. This would probably never work, though I just wanted to get my idea out there.

And I'm sorry about asking that stupid question. I'll try not to ask something like that again.

 

[Cyrus C.]

I just tried a solve with this, the move count was 96 up to ELL. Although if this was perfected, & the move count was taken down to about 70 + ELL, the recognition wouldn't be easy either.

 

[Stefan]

You might like L2L:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080611122558/http://cubertscubicle.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/