hmm.. 2 look?

[doubleyou]

I woke up a couple of hours ago. and as I had nothing else to do for the day I decided to go full Fridrich

I only missed a couple of algs, so it wasnt that tough.. so in an hour I got it!
all the orientations! not more than a few weeks ago I remember that I was missing like 20.

well those last couple of cases arent gonna help me much on my times, but just the fact that I can do every one of them gives me a good, safe feeling.

SO satisfying !!

if you dont know them all youself, then I can highly recommend to get the final ones down! just an upgrade to the feeling when you got the last PLL case

-Sigurd

 

[pjk]

Congrats.

 

[dbeyer]

I could do that ... but ... I don't like speedcubing anymore

 

[KJiptner]

Yeah, It's nice to have them all I knew every alg when I was still averaging 40 seconds. It will take a while until you'll can do the right OLL without having to hesitate, but once you have done each one a couple of times... no problem.

 

[dChan]

I learned/am learning like this: PLL -> F2L -> OLL(learning the last whatever number of cases!). I still do a 2-look OLL though because it is just natural(i.e. edges first then corners). I get F2L done in 14 seconds but then I suddenly come to a screeching halt on OLL and have to perform that alg as fast as possible when I finally recognize the case like 3 seconds later. Then I continue with PLL(which I can do fast) and by that time the clock is already over 20 sec! Then PLL is like 2-3 seconds and I'm like "I could have got sub-20 if I didn't pause on OLL!" Fridrich method sucks!

 

[doubleyou]

I learn whatever I feel like. I dont go for the most efficient.
I am also learn other methods just for the heck of it and of the love of algs.

I really like cfop, but I am kinda confused wether to change main speed method or not. I like the approach in 50/50, but also the F2L of cfop.. :S:S

 

[joey]

Originally posted by doubleyou@Jun 4 2007, 06:10 PM
I learn whatever I feel like. I dont go for the most efficient.
I am also learn other methods just for the heck of it and of the love of algs.

I really like cfop, but I am kinda confused wether to change main speed method or not. I like the approach in 50/50, but also the F2L of cfop.. :S:S

What would you change to?

 

[doubleyou]

Originally posted by joey+Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (joey @ Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-doubleyou@Jun 4 2007, 06:10 PM
I learn whatever I feel like. I dont go for the most efficient.
I am also learn other methods just for the heck of it and of the love of algs.

I really like cfop, but I am kinda confused wether to change main speed method or not. I like the approach in 50/50, but also the F2L of cfop.. :S:S

What would you change to? [/b][/quote]
I am thinking of my own method "50/50 method"
I have heard about something called "Ring method" which might be quite similar.

quick 50/50 breakdown:

1. solve middle layer pieces
2. seperate 1st and 3rd layer pieces
3. fix parity of c or/and e
4. O1L
5. P1L
6. OLL
7. PLL

 

[dbeyer]

Hmm very nice, what do you think about just seperating the L/R by getting the M slice edges oriented and on the M slice?

So you'd actually permute M slice later on or something

The seperation could be tedious though??

Maybe easier with unbalanced M slice permutations ...

Good luck with that, I've played with stuff like that (barely, but I've played )

 

[doubleyou]

by L/R do you mean left/right side of the d face? (ofc the whole face of R or L) or what?

the reason why I created the method was to use LL algs more. I like the fact that you can solve the LL (fridrich regarding) in 2 looks. averaging about 2 sec for each look.

planning and executing of the middle layer edges is VERY intuitive and easy as well as keeping an eye on misplaced layer pieces (1st vs. 3rd).

then having a 4 look finsh after that would give you a pretty fast solve. easily avg sub 20

personally I hate slice moves but thats because I cant do them fast (r2R2')

 

[dChan]

Originally posted by doubleyou+Jun 5 2007, 11:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (doubleyou @ Jun 5 2007, 11:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by joey@Jun 4 2007, 07:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-doubleyou

@Jun 4 2007, 06:10 PM
I learn whatever I feel like. I dont go for the most efficient.
I am also learn other methods just for the heck of it and of the love of algs.

I really like cfop, but I am kinda confused wether to change main speed method or not. I like the approach in 50/50, but also the F2L of cfop.. :S:S

What would you change to?

I am thinking of my own method "50/50 method"
I have heard about something called "Ring method" which might be quite similar.

quick 50/50 breakdown:

1. solve middle layer pieces
2. seperate 1st and 3rd layer pieces
3. fix parity of c or/and e
4. O1L
5. P1L
6. OLL
7. PLL [/b][/quote]
I actually suggested this in a previous thread called "Crazy, Weird, Bizarre" methods. I actually have already done some work on it but Permutation is a simulataneous double-layer step where both U and D are solved at the same time. Maybe you read that thread(you have the exact same steps except for the double-layer permutation)?

Also the system isn't really something I would suggest for speedcubing. Maybe for fun and practice because as you said it will promote the use of LL algs more but it will probably end up having tons of algs on the second step(Decomposition of pieces into their proper layers) unless you were to use T, H, or other similar algs. And the problem with parities. And you'd have to be very fast on executing both LL steps as you are doing them twice. And youu'd have to flip the cube around alot.

Maybe more explanation on how you will do this method?