• 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!

Full LMCF 3x3 method now available

abunickabhi

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
724
Location
Yo
WCA
2013GHOD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
About the pdf: I definitely don't think method neutrality should be encouraged. It's far too much work for relatively little gain. If you want to get fast, pick a method and stick with it.

About the method itself: (super small point, but I don't think making steps algorithmic means you need a new name for a method. People call CFOP the same thing whether your F2L is algorithmic or intuitive. I would just call this CF)
It does look really efficient though - but I feel like the rotations and transitions between L/R would mean you couldn't get the ~10 TPS you assumed in the last sentence of the intro. Perhaps algorithmically solving three L edges followed by three R edges would improve the fingertricks?
Method Neutrality is a long term investment , and it can pay dividends in the end with faster global averages.
I agree there is no big winner as CFOP , as it takes the least time to master , and given high speed fluid solves.
There is a struggle with Roux method and LMCF method that makes this thing worth fighting for, just for the case 'why not?'..
 

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top