Columns first

[Kenneth]

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Columns_first

Let's talk about it

Did you try it?
What is your approach?

Mine is as described at the page, four pairs, CMSLL and E35 for the end and I have done sub 20 non lucky using it several times (average... hmm, need more practice).

 

[James Ludlow]

Im gonna play around with this today as I'm not at work again. I will probably struggle because my M sucks bad. It might improve a bit with this though.

 

[powershotman]

It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but the users are [wery] few.
typing error

yeah, i have nvr seen ppl use this for speedcubing

 

[Kenneth]

I give one example of my method for columns, mabye I do more later...

L2 U2 L2 D2 B' U2 R' B' F' D2 R' F2 R2 F' L' D L' R' B' (19f)

p1 : (y) R (z)
p2 : U2 F2
p3 : (y') M' U M2 L' U L
p4 : (y) U' M2 U' R U2 R'

CLL : (y) R U' r' d' L' U L ... 2x2x2 CLL, r instead of R to preserve the pair(s)

Center edge 1 : lucky!
CE 2 : (y) M U M' U M2

Normally I do EO after CE 3 but here one is stuck and the case is the best so I orient and move the stucked one out.

EO : (y') U' M' U M

CE 3 : (y) M' U2 M

EP : (y') U' M U M2 U2 M2 U M'
AUF : U2

Pretty easy solve of 43 STM.

Note how I use the M slice to build the pairs; I put the edge in FL and then move the corner to position, the same side as the edge (say F but I also use B) and pair with M' if the edge has the same colour at the F-side as the corner shows at the U-side, if not I put the corner at the B-side and pair with M2 instead. Corners oriented in U are not that funny thought...

A good idea is to choose two adjacent pairs for the first two ones, if you do diagonal you will block all sides, you will save tuns on average if you always do adjacents first (I don't because I'm lazy =)

Another:

R B2 R U2 B2 D2 R2 U L2 F' L' R2 U R' U R2 B' L2 B2 (19f)

p1 : M2 (z)
p2 : (y') B2 M B2 F
p3 : L' U L' ... setting up for p4, else only L2 would have done
p4 : l U' L'

LOL, I promise, I did not choose this scramble, just picked the first I got from cube explorer =)

CLL : Lw' U2 R' D2 R U2 R' D2 R2 (x') ... commutator, I use Lw in the first turn because I like to grip like that and I use the same style if I do edges on big cubes but then the R's are single r slices.

CE 1 : (y) M2 S
CE 2 : Lucky!
CE 3 : U' M2

EO + solve FD : U2 F2 M' U' M U F2 ... here I do not only solve FD but I also look at the colour that goes to D from U, here it is red and if I got red I put that one, if it was on the opposite side I do the U turns the other way and if there is no red, then I do orange and if it is only blue and green it does not matter, that way I avoid Z-PLL for the last step. If it is like here, the correct colour (red) it is a 1:3 chance of EP skip, else you will have U-PLL.

AUF : U
EP : U-PLL : R2 d' M' U2 M d' L2

39 STM (not optimized, I can cut a few L's in the start), not particulary lucky but wery easy cases.

And I was looking for a normal solve of like 47-48 STM

So I had to make a third one...

U2 R2 U' B2 F2 D B' U B F' R F2 U' R F2 R' D L R' (19f)

p1 : (x') skip! ... not wery unusual
p2 : (y) U2 M2 U2 R U' (x')
p3 : L (y') M U' l' U L
p4 : r U2 R' U M2 R U R'

CLL : (y2) L' U2 L' D' L U2 L' D L2 ... commutator

CE 1 : d' M' S'
CE 2 : M'
CE 3 : (y) M' U M

EO + FD : (y') M' U' M U' M' U M

AUF : U'
EP : U-PLL : L2 d M' U2 M d R2

50 STM after a little longer F2L than the average (bad cases), around 15 is ok.

 

[Kenneth]

It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but the users are [wery] few.
typing error

yeah, i have nvr seen ppl use this for speedcubing

I always confuse W and V

The fine thing with a wiki is that you don't need to report typos, bad spelling or grammatical errors, just click edit and correct it yourself

 

[Kenneth]

Is it only me who got a method for columns? There must be some more approches out there...

EG for example, put the pairs in any order and do EG for columns. I learned almost all cases last winter but when practising I got good times almost always when I had a normal CLL but slower else so I switched to CLL only.

A lot of practise would help of course but I don't have that energy for the 3x3x3.

A little more turns but still a decent method is to do the pairs and then orient and permute the LL corners, the 2x2x2 alg works for the diagonal permutation case if you execute it like this :

Lw' U Lw Dw R2 D R' U' R D' R2

Now you know how to build columns even if you don't know CLL, try it!

After columns you can solve RD, LD and the centres that goes with them and end the solve like Roux.

Also Ortega does fine, random order pairs, OLL and PBL (my method = Waterman).

 

[Ness]

I just tried this out and I like it. I did it this way:
1. 4 pairs
2. CMLL
3. orient the centers
4. EO (I usually do it like in roux, there just a few additional cases, then I basically do "roux-EO" twice)
5. insert RD and LD edge
6. insert RU and LU edge
7. edge permutation

I like the additional freedom you have with the D layer. You don't need to align D until step 5. This makes it possible and even easier to build the four pairs in more ways.
So a pair is any corner and edge connected, when:
1. the stickers next to each other have the same color (of course)
2. the stickers have opposite colors
3. hm.. mixture of both, can't describe it well in English.. just do D on a solved cube and look at DRF corner and FL edge or DLB corner and BL edge. these are two different cases in which two stickers have the same color and the other two have opposite ones.
I haven't thought about this before and I think these "new" pairs can save some moves. Whether it's suitable for speedcubing or not I don't know...

EDIT: I just tried out these kind of pairs.. and of course, if you do them in another way you need to do EVERY pair in the same way... ::fp

 

[Kenneth]

Thank's for your reply Ness,

Lol, yes I tried something like that when I attempted to reduce the 3x3x3 to a Domino (as a reply to solving 4x4 as a 3x3 =) I usally just messed things up then

-----

I made a vid of my style for columns :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBFu6QSZEck

No audio and crappy pic, but it is a vid

 

[qqwref]

"It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but the users are very few."

What? How is it a "great mystery"? (Most of the reason these methods are not popular is because you have not promoted them anywhere. There are no tutorials, etc. online, or even any fast solve videos.) You can't proclaim a method to be fast and easy just on the basis of movecount - look at Heise. As far as I can tell this is just another experimental method, which might theoretically be capable of fast times. You have to prove it is capable of fast times (sub-20, at least) if you want people to try it as a speedsolving method and not just as a funsolving method.

EDIT: I'm not saying I think this method is awful, I'm just saying that the statement above is a huge exaggeration, and that you will need to prove the method before people will use it.

 

[Litz]

This method has potential I guess, since you can probably plan most of the pairs (if not all) during inspection after you get used to it. I tried it but while I can build the columns fast, I take way too long on last part.

I agree with qqwref too. Why don't you make a step by step tutorial on how you solve it?

 

[Kenneth]

"It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but the users are very few."

What? How is it a "great mystery"? (Most of the reason these methods are not popular is because you have not promoted them anywhere.

you read as you like as usual. What is it with you, did I offend you or anything? I'm asking because you are always looking for "bad" things I have done and if you find anything you start to go on like that...

The article is not about my method! Read it again please.

It is a article about columns in general (+ some suggestions on how to do it in an advanced way). And if you look at it from that point of view it is a great mystery why there are no users, guides etc..

 

[qqwref]

"It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but the users are very few."

What? How is it a "great mystery"? (Most of the reason these methods are not popular is because you have not promoted them anywhere.

you read as you like as usual. What is it with you, did I offend you or anything? I'm asking because you are always looking for "bad" things I have done and if you find anything you start to go on like that...

The article is not about my method! Read it again please.

It is a article about columns in general. And if you look at it from that point of view it is a great mystery why there are no users, guides etc..

I have a problem with it because it's the wiki... if you say something like that it sounds like the community agrees with it and believes it, when really you are the only one who has seriously explored these methods. What I'm saying is that it's biased against reality and towards you. I don't think it IS a great mystery in any way; in fact it is pretty obvious why few people use these methods. As I said, it's because there are no good tutorials or fast solve videos out there - remember that very few people nowadays are going to just go figuring out their own methods, or doing research in a wiki somewhere to find random methods to learn. Nowadays people want to be fast so they are going to go to methods that have been proven to be fast. There are tons of videos of sub-15-second averages with Fridrich, Petrus, ZZ, Roux... but none with the columns first methods. I think it is more of a mystery why you expect them to be popular without advertisement.

Basically I just don't like when things are on the wiki that the community would not agree with, because people who don't know better look at the wiki and they will believe what it says. If you write something there you are acting as a spokesperson for the cubing community, so I don't like when anyone writes something like "this is a fast and easy method" when they are referring to something they invented which nobody has gotten fast times with.

 

[Kenneth]

And why have people not explored columns? why are there no tutorials?

Can you explain that too?

I like you to because it is a great mystery to me

-----
Edit: I explain myself: I wrote the article in the wiki because there was no article about columns. Then I started this thread because I wanted to hear about other approches besides mine.

And that's it, I'm not trying to promote my method or anything...

 

[Kenneth]

This method has potential I guess, since you can probably plan most of the pairs (if not all) during inspection after you get used to it. I tried it but while I can build the columns fast, I take way too long on last part.

I agree with qqwref too. Why don't you make a step by step tutorial on how you solve it?

For me it is the opposite, I'm slow in the start and better in the end. But that goes for any method, any puzzle so it is not this particular method that I have problems with (I suck in inspection because I'm lazy).

The end part after columns is wery easy after some practice, look ahead is almost instant for most cases and turning is mostly (y) MU... that is fast if you are used to it. (any method, you can go like I do or compleate F2B and go like Roux or anything, it is still only edges and centres).

I may make a tutorial some day, I don't know for sure thought...