• 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


Jan 9, 2014
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?