How do you create a speedsolving method? (for 3x3)

[Caleb Valenzuela]

not sure if this thread belongs in the help section. I was really wondering for a long long time about how methods are created. i've heard stuff about alg gens and stuff but how do people come up with these ideas?? Pure creativity or something like that?

 

[SpeedCubingLord]

you dont. just use zb or roux /j.

First choose a type (ex. BB, Petrus-Variation, CFOP-variation, etc.). Then try to find ways you could optimize your type of method for TPS or/and efficiency. It would be really difficult to start without a base method or method type, because you would have to start from scratch. That's what I think.

 

[Athefre]

My way of looking at classification has always been based on shapes. When I started method development in 2006 I saw the main shapes of CFOP, Roux, and Petrus as Cross, F2B, and 2x2x3. So I searched for a nice shape of my own. After a lot of ideas and email exchanges with Gilles Roux I had the idea of MI1 and eventually Nautilus. The Nautilus shape has become one that I'm very fond of.

Beyond development based on finding shapes, I also examine unsolved problems and use those as a basis for new creations. There is also the idea of adapting a method from one puzzle to another. Nautilus has been adapted to FTO, big cubes, and Square-1 (this adaption is by OreKehStrah).

 

[SpeedCubingLord]

My way of looking at classification has always been based on shapes. When I started method development in 2006 I saw the main shapes of CFOP, Roux, and Petrus as Cross, F2B, and 2x2x3. So I searched for a nice shape of my own. After a lot of ideas and email exchanges with Gilles Roux I had the idea of MI1 and eventually Nautilus. The Nautilus shape has become one that I'm very fond of.

Beyond development based on finding shapes, I also examine unsolved problems and use those as a basis for new creations. There is also the idea of adapting a method from one puzzle to another. Nautilus has been adapted to FTO, big cubes, and Square-1 (this adaption is by OreKehStrah).

The GOAT himself

 

[That0newe1rdo]

So im quite new to making them, but I have made one that isnt already made (even though its not good) so yh ill comment here.

First - I look at what i want to achieve. With my first successful method (successful = not made already) i wanted to make a method that combines CFOP and APB - This is so its easy to transition to whilst also being mostly RU gen at the end.

Id also plan out how each bit would go when making the steps, and whether or not Id need to gen algs for this.

If I do, i look to see if i can just use algs from another method. If i cant, im cooked cause i cant use the genning thing for life (ill ask about that and come back later and edit)

Then id say its ready to be presented to the world, partially just to see what everyone thinks about it, but it can also be a great way to find tips or something you can adjust to the method to make it better.

But like what @Athefre said, you can also try appling methods from other puzzles to make your method (e.g. i have a 2x2 method in the process inspired by my 3x3 method + the TN method)

 

[eeeeeeeee]

do fun stuff and then gen algs

 

[CrossPetrus]

TL;DR: Skip to the bottom and read the articles.

Well, every (well, all viable ones, but every one should) method has a purpose, a reasoning behind the why that method is to be considered as viable, or the reasoning behind the steps. This could be anything, like reducing blind spots and edges involved in eo during petrus (like APB), or exploiting cube symmetries to cover more possible cube states and lead to more efficient solutions (Mehta), or improving the move count of CFOP while retaining its TPS f2l spam (ZB). It could even be an amazing substep/keystep ideas for a Meta method (article linked at the bottom). Now, those examples might not be entirely accurate, but it’s sorta right (I hope). Now, there isn’t more than one way to make a method, but there are good ways that have been tested by the best in the method development field. I suggest you read https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/on-key-steps-and-meta-methods.86039/
and

Method Development Life Cycle

Metohd development guide for Rubik's Cube and other puzzles.

www.cubingmethods.com

which are both by two absolute GOATs in method development. Take some inspiration and advice from these two, and you are bound to conquer the world (figuratively speaking, of course). Also, make sure to be inspired and take advice from others in the community on the https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

TL;DR: Skip to the bottom and read the articles.

Well, every (well, all viable ones, but every one should) method has a purpose, a reasoning behind the why that method is to be considered as viable, or the reasoning behind the steps. This could be anything, like reducing blind spots and edges involved in eo during petrus (like APB), or exploiting cube symmetries to cover more possible cube states and lead to more efficient solutions (Mehta), or improving the move count of CFOP while retaining its TPS f2l spam (ZB). It could even be an amazing substep/keystep ideas for a Meta method (article linked at the bottom). Now, those examples might not be entirely accurate, but it’s sorta right (I hope). Now, there isn’t more than one way to make a method, but there are good ways that have been tested by the best in the method development field. I suggest you read https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/on-key-steps-and-meta-methods.86039/
and

Method Development Life Cycle

Metohd development guide for Rubik's Cube and other puzzles.

www.cubingmethods.com

which are both by two absolute GOATs in method development. Take some inspiration and advice from these two, and you are bound to conquer the world (figuratively speaking, of course). Also, make sure to be inspired and take advice from others in the community on the https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/

thanks!

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

TL;DR: Skip to the bottom and read the articles.

Well, every (well, all viable ones, but every one should) method has a purpose, a reasoning behind the why that method is to be considered as viable, or the reasoning behind the steps. This could be anything, like reducing blind spots and edges involved in eo during petrus (like APB), or exploiting cube symmetries to cover more possible cube states and lead to more efficient solutions (Mehta), or improving the move count of CFOP while retaining its TPS f2l spam (ZB). It could even be an amazing substep/keystep ideas for a Meta method (article linked at the bottom). Now, those examples might not be entirely accurate, but it’s sorta right (I hope). Now, there isn’t more than one way to make a method, but there are good ways that have been tested by the best in the method development field. I suggest you read https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/on-key-steps-and-meta-methods.86039/
and

Method Development Life Cycle

Metohd development guide for Rubik's Cube and other puzzles.

www.cubingmethods.com

which are both by two absolute GOATs in method development. Take some inspiration and advice from these two, and you are bound to conquer the world (figuratively speaking, of course). Also, make sure to be inspired and take advice from others in the community on the https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/

is it normal for my mind to be blank for a bit while reading these articles?

 

[CrossPetrus]

is it normal for my mind to be blank for a bit while reading these articles?

Yes, very much.

 

[Thomas.Caleb]

Yes, very much.

What do you plan to name the method u are creating

 

[CrossPetrus]

Oh, I’m not working on anything right now.

 

[CR7GoatSiuuu]

use batch solver to gen algs. ideally once you have an idea start from the solve backwards