• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Another way to solve the last layer in two steps

Tiw

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
73
Hi @ all!

First download the pdf file and have look at my system and build your opinion.
...
..
.

And? What do you think? I hope the idea is new...
Ich found it randomly. But I think it's good!
You have to learn only 22 algorithms and has an average which is as good as the average of COLL.
If you are too lazy to learn COLL, this is the alternative.
I know, at the moment my system is pretty useless for speedcubing, but maybe usefull for fewest moves.
 
Last edited:

JL58

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
127
My first impression, compared to 2 look OLL + 1 look PLL
- You still need 3 steps (since you still have to orient the edges) - same
- You need 12 + 16 algos (Symmetries have to count as they don't come for free in muscle memory) - compared to 7 + 21
- Recognition is hell compared to the standard 3LLL

So, I see a slight advantage in moves, but not in recognition or in algo count. Did I miss something?
 

Tiw

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
73
If you use the system for fewest moves, you should use petrus method or anything else that orient the edges. Then it is a 2LLL.
And for the first step, I think you just have learn 6 algs, because I think it's easy to mirror an alg only with the head.
I use the method for fewest moves, because I'm too lazy to learn COLL.
For fewest moves OLL and PLL is just a bad solution, too much moves..
 

Tetris Cube

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
126
This is just the complete Petrus method on Lars's site. Or at least more than what most people call Petrus, instead of just the F2L. I think there's actually hundreds of cases on his site, but even he doesn't know them all, I think. This is just the step 5+6 index.

Low move count indeed, but slow recognition. It's almost like 2 look 1 algorithm, as you have to look at the top for the OLL and the corners for the corner PLL. It'd be hard to recognize them simultaneously. Looks ideal for fewest moves, but not speedsolving.

Edit: Nevermind, it's actually two algorithms for the first step. But it's the same thing, I think.
 

Johannes91

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
This is just the step 5+6 index.
No, look at the second step. Corners are either all correctly oriented, or a Sune.

It's almost like 2 look 1 algorithm, as you have to look at the top for the OLL and the corners for the corner PLL. It'd be hard to recognize them simultaneously.
Many people are able to recognize COLL/CMLL/CLL quickly. This shouldn't be any harder. (And I don't have any problems with the ZBLL algs I know, either.)
 
Last edited:

Tiw

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
73
I also think, that recognition is not a problem.
For first step: COLL recognition
For second step: there are specific colour combinations for every case, i was too lazy to make pistures of them.

The next better solution would be (already known)
Do the normal step 5 of the Petrus method and then use Step 6+7 Index which has about 70 algs including reflections.
Much to learn....Doesn't make sense in my opinion.
just 1 move less on average, I won't do that.
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
vault312
it's very interesting but yes recognition is hell...although i agree that this could definitely be used for fewest moves at times.
No more than learning any other random ZBLL algs would.

Well CLL is what Roux users use...just watch BigGreen or Gilles Roux to see how fast it can be recognized.
Roux uses CMLL, which is slightly different. CLL is for 2x2.
 

Lofty

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
1,585
Location
Gainesville, Florida
WCA
2008LOFT01
YouTube
Loftycuber
Yea, I don't really get it when people think of alg sets being useful in fewest moves.
Isn't fewest moves about getting as much of the cube solved as possible completely by intuitive blockbuilding and then going back and finding one or two insertions to finish it off? You don't need an alg set to do that you just need to practice getting cancellations while inserting a cycle in the middle off your solution.
Edit and kinda on topic:
A lot of people complain about how many cases OLL+PLL is but once you do it and finish it it really isn't that bad. Its not too hard to memorize them at the rate of 1 or 2 a day. You can even do more if you really want. I don't think you are really going to come up with a LL system better than OLL+PLL without adding more cases.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,802
Yea, I don't really get it when people think of alg sets being useful in fewest moves.
Isn't fewest moves about getting as much of the cube solved as possible completely by intuitive blockbuilding and then going back and finding one or two insertions to finish it off?
There is no "method" for FMC. It's too dependent on the scramble: occasionally you'd do ZBLL or something just because doing F2L was easy as opposed to a skeleton.
 

Johannes91

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
Yea, I don't really get it when people think of alg sets being useful in fewest moves.
Isn't fewest moves about getting as much of the cube solved as possible completely by intuitive blockbuilding and then going back and finding one or two insertions to finish it off?
There is no "method" for FMC. It's too dependent on the scramble: occasionally you'd do ZBLL or something just because doing F2L was easy as opposed to a skeleton.
And FMC isn't the only form of fewest moves solving. In linear solving, insertions aren't really an option and knowing algs can be very useful.
 
Top