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.

Things are not turning out too nicely. I'm getting more and more pessimistic about this method than I already was right from the start I've generated RUF 3-gen algs for about 30 LLWN cases now, and they average to about 15 HTM. 6-gen optimal algs would probably average about 13 to 14, which is probably worse than RUF 15-movers. I'll go generate slicing algs later, they should be nicer than RUF in terms of both move count and execution, I hope.

There is another pseudo-1LLL approach though. But it only happens by chance. I just might adopt this approach if the algs are smooth enough. Here's how it works: Double those 14 algs I mentioned (I really need names now!) to 28, and you can get U perms 2/3 of the time, and a non-lucky skip 1/3 of the time (because you're only lucky when the probability of skipping a particular step is <20% ). In other words, you'd be "unlucky" 2/3 of the time and get a U perm, which isn't too bad, especially if you can sub-1 like Erik or Nakaji

Overall, this new approach would have one more step than pure Fridrich. But the probability of skipping any one step after COLS is 3/8, which means it will have the same number of steps but lower move count (since corner-edge pairing + COLS < LS + OLL) than Fridrich 3/8 of the time, assuming those 28 algs average the same number of moves as PLL. Half the time, you get one more step than Fridrich, but that step would just be a U perm (no Z, no H, just U). And for the final 1/8 of the time, you're screwed.

This means the probability of getting any one skip is 37/96 = 38.5%, which is ridiculously high. That's 4.6 skips in an average of 12, and 1.9 skips in an average of 5, how'd you like that in competition?

BUT, just in case you forgot, a skip doesn't mean that you get one step fewer than pure Fridrich, it means you get the same number of steps as pure Fridrich.

Winter is a guy's name?! Then Summer's Variation isn't very appropriate is it?

Also, I wanted to post something about 1-look LL. I suppose this 1-look LL that follows COLS should be easier to recognize than ZBLL, but still difficult to recognize all the same

Edit:
By the way, in case it wasn't clear: COLS + the 1-look LL without a name, is NOT equivalent to ZBF2L + ZBLL!!! It's only equivalent to VHF2L + ZBLL. So it might not be worth learning so many algs after all

Winter is a guy's name?! Then Summer's Variation isn't very appropriate is it?

Also, I wanted to post something about 1-look LL. I suppose this 1-look LL that follows COLS should be easier to recognize than ZBLL, but still difficult to recognize all the same

Edit:
By the way, in case it wasn't clear: COLS + the 1-look LL without a name, is NOT equivalent to ZBF2L + ZBLL!!! It's only equivalent to VHF2L + ZBLL. So it might not be worth learning so many algs after all

The move count average is 14. Not all of the solutions are fast because I had to find them all myself (I don't understand how to get ACube to generate custom sequences and Cube Solver takes too long).

It's a fun step in a method, the only downside (IMO) is that it's all memorization unless you spend a lot of time learning to perfectly understand each case.

What an I a n00b for? Wanting to not look like a n00b? You hurt mah feelins... Anyway its funny cause your fingers say that, while your post count says otherwise...

And I did Google it.

EDIT: I might not have found it because of some add-on I installed.

I missed this part of your post. Recognition is actually very quick, much quicker than recognizing CxLL, OLL, etc. Especially if you are looking ahead while doing the previous step.

This means the probability of getting any one skip is 37/96 = 38.5%, which is ridiculously high. That's 4.6 skips in an average of 12, and 1.9 skips in an average of 5, how'd you like that in competition?

BUT, just in case you forgot, a skip doesn't mean that you get one step fewer than pure Fridrich, it means you get the same number of steps as pure Fridrich.

I think there is a another solution for the "you're screwed" case...

If there are at least two LL edges correctly oriented, then you can use WV to guarantee a good OLL case. If no LL edges are correctly oriented, then you could try and solve the last slot, and orient the top layer, and move on to PLL.

However, you would need to learn 108 more cases. I started generating some "nice" cases back in March 2008. I never had a good name for these set of algorithms.

Here is a list of all of the algorithms I found before I stopped:

R U’ R’

O:
U' (M’ U') (M’ U2’) (r U r' U2’) M2

H:
(y’ U2) (f R U R’ U2 l’) z' (R’ U R B R’)

H+U:
(l F’ l’) (l’ U l F’) U2 (l’ U l F’)

L:
(U F') (U' L F' L’) (L’ U' L U) F2’
y2 (L f' L' U' L U f’) (y’ U2) (R U R' U' F')

L+U’:
R U2 B L' U' B U L U' B2 R'
(R U2) (B L’ U’ B) (U L U’ B2 R’)
(R U2) x’ (U r’ u’ R u L u’) x’ (R2’ U’) x’
y (F R U R' F') (U' F U') (R U' R' F')

L+U:
(U2’ L F' L' U2) (r U R r') y (R U R' F')
(U2’ R U R' F l' U') z’ (U' R' U' R) (B2 U')

L+U2:
U' F' U' (L' U' L U') (F' L' U' L U F2’)
y’ (U' R' (U' y)) (L' U' L U') (F' L' U' L U F2)
(R U' R' (U2’y)) (l' U' l U2) (L l’ U' l L’)

I lost the motivation to find algorithms for every case so I stopped just after 7 cases .

O, H, and L refer to the corner orientation case you would get if you were to solve the last slot using (R U R')

You may not like some of the algorithms since they're supposed to suit me and I'm left handed

BUMP
I may learn this. I really like the idea, though I will make a few modifications. I've been thinking of a very similar idea, which is basically ZB, but focussing on corners wherever ZB focuses on edges. The alg count is much lower than ZB, and many ZBf2ls can be used. I'll get back to this comment soonish if I start learning/making the algs.
Edit: I didn't really think about this post :fp to me, but zbf2l does focus on orienting edges. What do you mean? I meant ZBf2l focuses on the edges, not all of ZB.

BUMP
I may learn this. I really like the idea, though I will make a few modifications. I've been thinking of a very similar idea, which is basically ZB, but focussing on corners wherever ZB focuses on edges. The alg count is much lower than ZB, and many ZBf2ls can be used. I'll get back to this comment soonish if I start learning/making the algs.

BUMP
I may learn this. I really like the idea, though I will make a few modifications. I've been thinking of a very similar idea, which is basically ZB, but focussing on corners wherever ZB focuses on edges. The alg count is much lower than ZB, and many ZBf2ls can be used. I'll get back to this comment soonish if I start learning/making the algs.

BUMP
I may learn this. I really like the idea, though I will make a few modifications. I've been thinking of a very similar idea, which is basically ZB, but focussing on corners wherever ZB focuses on edges. The alg count is much lower than ZB, and many ZBf2ls can be used. I'll get back to this comment soonish if I start learning/making the algs.

BUMP
I may learn this. I really like the idea, though I will make a few modifications. I've been thinking of a very similar idea, which is basically ZB, but focussing on corners wherever ZB focuses on edges. The alg count is much lower than ZB, and many ZBf2ls can be used. I'll get back to this comment soonish if I start learning/making the algs.

Here was my edit, most of you probably won't see it, so I'll repost it. Please feel free to point out mistakes in this edit, but tell me what mistakes.

Edit: I didn't really think about this post :fp to me, but zbf2l does focus on orienting edges. What do you mean? I meant ZBf2l focuses on the edges, not all of ZB.

Here was my edit, most of you probably won't see it, so I'll repost it. Please feel free to point out mistakes in this edit, but tell me what mistakes.

Edit: I didn't really think about this post :fp to me, but zbf2l does focus on orienting edges. What do you mean? I meant ZBf2l focuses on the edges, not all of ZB.

Here was my edit, most of you probably won't see it, so I'll repost it. Please feel free to point out mistakes in this edit, but tell me what mistakes.

Edit: I didn't really think about this post :fp to me, but zbf2l does focus on orienting edges. What do you mean? I meant ZBf2l focuses on the edges, not all of ZB.

That's why I said this (what I was saying in my post) would be like ZBf2l, except affecting corners instead of edges. So how do I not know ZB? I know what ZBLL does, and what ZBf2l does.

I can back up what ZB_FTW is saying.
It started out in the ZBLL thread, he's playing around with different concepts, which involve last slot, kinda like ZBF2L.