New 3x3 Farz Method: Mehta style, but more applicable to roux and CFOP users

[Farisu Fazz]

Hey fellow cubers. I'm just invented a brand new 3x3 speedsolving method called Farz method. You can read the article here:

Farz - Speedsolving.com Wiki

Please try and give your opinion about this method.

 

[LBr]

Cool. I don’t have enough general knowledge about this stuff to be able to guess which variant is best, but is it possible to see what the move count is, as I’m not entirely convinced that the eo in addition to all the algs would be good for moves. Obvs better for rotations tho

edit: just realized you
Could just zz the rest which would save on algs. But that would probably ruin your vision for the authenticity of it so ok

 

[Farisu Fazz]

Yeah

 

[zzcuberman]

I wouldn't "release" a method and not have genned algs. It's like playing an unfinished game

 

[PapaSmurf]

This is Petrus with extra steps. If you want an optimised Petrus, APB is one option. Or you could just use Petrus. It doesn't deserve a whole Wiki page for what is, quite honestly (I'm criticising the idea, not you), neither a new method nor an improvement on any existing method. It's a step back in speed and efficiency and I'm kinda glad you haven't gone and genned the algs because you would be wasting a lot of time. The finishes of TTLL or WDLL are simply worse than doing pair, pair, ZBLL (as in Petrus/ZZ) too.

I would honestly recommend you delete the Wiki page as it is just cluttering and adds nothing to the site. I'm sorry if this is sounding harsh, but some prior research and talking to people would a) help you to refine your ideas and b) help you realise that most cubing ideas aren't new and good. If they aren't both of these things, it's probably not worth your time to develop the ideas.

 

[ruffleduck]

I find it extremely startling yet funny that I find mention of my abandoned alg set WDLL mentioned in methods being developed.

 

[zzcuberman]

I find it extremely startling yet funny that I find mention of my abandoned alg set WDLL mentioned in methods being developed.

thats just Humphrey Wittington LL from the original version of CT

 

[ruffleduck]

thats just Humphrey Wittington LL from the original version of CT

Yeah, his name is credited in the acronym. WDLL stands for Wittingtonworth Davison Last Layer. (I put my name because I did the bulk of the alg development and because I "re-proposed" it for use in ZZ-COP)

 

[zzcuberman]

Yeah, his name is credited in the acronym. WDLL stands for Wittingtonworth Davison Last Layer. (I put my name because I did the bulk of the alg development and because I "re-proposed" it for use in ZZ-COP)

you originally did the alg development or you did when you re-proposed it?

 

[ruffleduck]

you originally did the alg development or you did when you re-proposed it?

I did the original alg development when I re-proposed it. Mr. Tran did not do any alg generation and suggested very inefficient conjugates with PLL to complete the step, as far as I know.

 

[Farisu Fazz]

This is Petrus with extra steps. If you want an optimised Petrus, APB is one option. Or you could just use Petrus. It doesn't deserve a whole Wiki page for what is, quite honestly (I'm criticising the idea, not you), neither a new method nor an improvement on any existing method. It's a step back in speed and efficiency and I'm kinda glad you haven't gone and genned the algs because you would be wasting a lot of time. The finishes of TTLL or WDLL are simply worse than doing pair, pair, ZBLL (as in Petrus/ZZ) too.

I would honestly recommend you delete the Wiki page as it is just cluttering and adds nothing to the site. I'm sorry if this is sounding harsh, but some prior research and talking to people would a) help you to refine your ideas and b) help you realise that most cubing ideas aren't new and good. If they aren't both of these things, it's probably not worth your time to develop the ideas.

sorry, i dont agree that you say this is petrus with extra steps. The petrus started with 2 by 2 by 2 block right? I m not bias to my own method btw. If the steps of how you solve is differ than other, I think its a diffrent method too.(in my opinion btw).

 

[ruffleduck]

sorry, i dont agree that you say this is petrus with extra steps. The petrus started with 2 by 2 by 2 block right? I m not bias to my own method btw. If the steps of how you solve is differ than other, I think its a diffrent method too.(in my opinion btw).

The first step in Petrus is 2x2x3 block. (This is often broken up into two substeps, 2x2x2 then extend to 2x2x3, but considering that there are many approaches including FB>DFDB, 2x2x3 is nowadays considered a single step.)

The first step(s) in your method lead to 2x2x3 + DR edge, then to complete EO. I'm not really sure why you have to solve DR edge before doing EO, considering it is less efficient--it is better to do EO first. And notice that doing EO before solving DR would count as pure Petrus.

In any case, after you complete "EOTank" (which is just ZZ L2SLL with the two remaining slots on the right, or Petrus RB+LL with DR solved for some reason) I'm not sure why you can't just solve two pairs then do ZBLL/OCLL+PLL normally. Or if you want to be really fancy, you can multislot the last two pairs then do ZBLL. The variants you suggest are not as good as L2S>ZBLL.

It seems to me that you're just trying to avoid Petrus and ZZ at all costs and compromising simplicity and speed in the meantime.