theradhaxor
Regular
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Messages
- 32
Hi
So recently I've been thread surfing and saw a variety of methods. Usually each method started out with less algs, but to increase efficiency, more algs were bound to be generated.
I want you to read this conversation I made up, assuming the only method created was beginners
A
erson A
Berson B
A- I'm trying to make a new method for the 3x3
B- Ok cool what is it
A- I'm gonna call it FastCube
B- ok, what are the steps
A- So for the last layer, I'm gonna generate algs, that solve it in four looks, but there are 15 algs
B- that's a lot of algs, as opposed to the current 3.
A- I know, but let's try
Months later
A- this method is a success
B- I know
A- I'm gonna generate - 2 look method for the last layer
B-that's. 79 algs, are you crazy? No one will try memorizing
A- I know, but it's more move efficient
Months later
A- I'm gonna have a one look layer system
B- what? That's like having 21x58 algs. No one will even try
So this conversation is just to show that, to save moves, either algs are necessary, or a whole new method is needed. An example would be ECE(Adam-Briggs). This method is the most move efficient method yet, but to make it more efficient, the algs can go from 5 to 72.
This is just an example, but I want to know your opinions on algs for efficiency And what it takes to make a efficient method.
So recently I've been thread surfing and saw a variety of methods. Usually each method started out with less algs, but to increase efficiency, more algs were bound to be generated.
I want you to read this conversation I made up, assuming the only method created was beginners
A
erson AB
erson BA- I'm trying to make a new method for the 3x3
B- Ok cool what is it
A- I'm gonna call it FastCube
B- ok, what are the steps
A- So for the last layer, I'm gonna generate algs, that solve it in four looks, but there are 15 algs
B- that's a lot of algs, as opposed to the current 3.
A- I know, but let's try
Months later
A- this method is a success
B- I know
A- I'm gonna generate - 2 look method for the last layer
B-that's. 79 algs, are you crazy? No one will try memorizing
A- I know, but it's more move efficient
Months later
A- I'm gonna have a one look layer system
B- what? That's like having 21x58 algs. No one will even try
So this conversation is just to show that, to save moves, either algs are necessary, or a whole new method is needed. An example would be ECE(Adam-Briggs). This method is the most move efficient method yet, but to make it more efficient, the algs can go from 5 to 72.
This is just an example, but I want to know your opinions on algs for efficiency And what it takes to make a efficient method.
