Cassiopaia
Member
Hello everybody,
I've registered here in part because i want to show my newly invented advanced cross method to fellow speedcubers and hear your opinions about it. Maybe it will prove useful for you! Anyway, thanks for having me here, i really like this site!
Here's a quick summary:
Why is CFOP the fastest two-handed method although the cross instantly spoils your freedom of movement, forcing cube turns and very bad movecounts? Because lookahead is the most important thing it seems, and CFOP excels in it. A pro speedcuber can easily reach ten TPS, so tenth of a second pause is already as expensive as one turn! You just can't efford looking for the next piece. That's why Roux (which i love) is more move efficient AND ergonomic and still loses against CFOP (in two handed).
So how can one beat CFOP, when it's perfect in lookahead and lookahead is key to winning? The cross solves FIVE of the worst visible edge stickers and leaves you in a situation where you may solve one of four possible pairs. That's four chances of seeing what you need. This combination is lookahead gold! So how can you be better then that? With advanced cross of course! And the good news is: My method perfectly blends in with other advanced cross methods. It's one additional tool in your toolset.
So here's how it goes:
You create the normal cross, but one or several of the cross' arms is not a bottom edge but an e-layer edge instead (any one in any orientation). It's usually most useful to do this with DF and maybe also with DB. This serves four purposes:
1.: The cross is more easily created, leaving more mental capacity for other plannings during expection time
2.: What's better than knowing where a piece cannot be? Knowing where it is! By parking an e-layer edge in a cross position you know exactly where it is and can pull it out when you can't find the other pair's edges.
3.: You typically bring it into play with an M-slice move. That has a tendency to be more move efficient, especially when several pairs are already solved and the last pair would need around ten moves otherwise. You may even orient it just by doing M2 instead of M'. Just be careful not to screw up the DB piece.
4.: Normal CFOP leads you to a situation where the first two layers are solved and your only option is to do a last layer approach. My cross method however leads you to a situation where the first two layers minus DF are solved (if you only exchanged one of the cross' arms). In the end you will have formed a DougLi block, but in a totally different way. And that means you have three general approaches on the last layer to choose from: Solve DF, then for example OLL and PLL, OR use the open DF position some more before solving it, for example by doing CMLL (from Roux) and then L5E (ELL but with one extra edge) OR solve the DF along the last layer, for example by both orienting and then permuting it and last layer simultanously. There are actually algorythms for that used for example in that underestimated hawaiian method. Three approaches to choose from obviously have the potential to be better then one.
Of course you may use the DF position several times during a solve by loading a new e-layer piece into it. just be careful not to ruin the DB position. Also you can do this with more than one of the cross' arms, for example DF and DB, but that would be more like a less move efficient but tremendously more lookahead friendly Roux version which you then best end with Roux typical CMLL and L6E (maybe that's the chance for Roux users to beat CFOP with it's own weapons). And a more advanced but also more complicated approach would be to create a cross, but tilted with an M'-move and then put the e-layer piece on DB. That way you can bring it into play with simple M whithout having to bring DB back into position afterwards, because this brings it into position. And you see better what takes it's place (which then will be DF). See? More advanced but also more complicated.
I think the most important point of my advanced cross method is: It keeps the benefits of the cross and expands them. The cross outweighs it's many downsides with sheer lookahead friendlyness, but what's more lookahead friendly then knowing exactly where to look for a specific piece while others can't be there? Also, some limited M-slice useability has move efficiency potential and lowers the need for cube turns a bit. Just be careful not to overdo it. There's situations where reloading the parking position is useful, and other's where it isn't. And also don't go berserk on the m-slice just because you can use it now ;-)
Thanks for your time. I really appreciate if you give this approach a try. Maybe it will prove useful for you. By the way: I only want one thing in return: Properly naming it. If I'm not totally getting it wrong I'm the first one to come up with it, so it's properly named the Seifferth method, after my last name. You can call it the S-Cross1 if one of the cross' arms is replaced, and S-Cross 2 if two are replaced, and so on. Oh, and i personally use S-Cross 1, followed by solving the DF piece which is lookahead friendly, followed by CLL which is also lookahead friendly (solving DF doesn't chance the corner's orientation or permutation), followed by ELL. But I'm thinking about switching to CMLL plus L5E for fewer moves but at the cost of harder lookahead and recognition.
Thanks again and have fun! It's great to be here
I've registered here in part because i want to show my newly invented advanced cross method to fellow speedcubers and hear your opinions about it. Maybe it will prove useful for you! Anyway, thanks for having me here, i really like this site!
Here's a quick summary:
Why is CFOP the fastest two-handed method although the cross instantly spoils your freedom of movement, forcing cube turns and very bad movecounts? Because lookahead is the most important thing it seems, and CFOP excels in it. A pro speedcuber can easily reach ten TPS, so tenth of a second pause is already as expensive as one turn! You just can't efford looking for the next piece. That's why Roux (which i love) is more move efficient AND ergonomic and still loses against CFOP (in two handed).
So how can one beat CFOP, when it's perfect in lookahead and lookahead is key to winning? The cross solves FIVE of the worst visible edge stickers and leaves you in a situation where you may solve one of four possible pairs. That's four chances of seeing what you need. This combination is lookahead gold! So how can you be better then that? With advanced cross of course! And the good news is: My method perfectly blends in with other advanced cross methods. It's one additional tool in your toolset.
So here's how it goes:
You create the normal cross, but one or several of the cross' arms is not a bottom edge but an e-layer edge instead (any one in any orientation). It's usually most useful to do this with DF and maybe also with DB. This serves four purposes:
1.: The cross is more easily created, leaving more mental capacity for other plannings during expection time
2.: What's better than knowing where a piece cannot be? Knowing where it is! By parking an e-layer edge in a cross position you know exactly where it is and can pull it out when you can't find the other pair's edges.
3.: You typically bring it into play with an M-slice move. That has a tendency to be more move efficient, especially when several pairs are already solved and the last pair would need around ten moves otherwise. You may even orient it just by doing M2 instead of M'. Just be careful not to screw up the DB piece.
4.: Normal CFOP leads you to a situation where the first two layers are solved and your only option is to do a last layer approach. My cross method however leads you to a situation where the first two layers minus DF are solved (if you only exchanged one of the cross' arms). In the end you will have formed a DougLi block, but in a totally different way. And that means you have three general approaches on the last layer to choose from: Solve DF, then for example OLL and PLL, OR use the open DF position some more before solving it, for example by doing CMLL (from Roux) and then L5E (ELL but with one extra edge) OR solve the DF along the last layer, for example by both orienting and then permuting it and last layer simultanously. There are actually algorythms for that used for example in that underestimated hawaiian method. Three approaches to choose from obviously have the potential to be better then one.
Of course you may use the DF position several times during a solve by loading a new e-layer piece into it. just be careful not to ruin the DB position. Also you can do this with more than one of the cross' arms, for example DF and DB, but that would be more like a less move efficient but tremendously more lookahead friendly Roux version which you then best end with Roux typical CMLL and L6E (maybe that's the chance for Roux users to beat CFOP with it's own weapons). And a more advanced but also more complicated approach would be to create a cross, but tilted with an M'-move and then put the e-layer piece on DB. That way you can bring it into play with simple M whithout having to bring DB back into position afterwards, because this brings it into position. And you see better what takes it's place (which then will be DF). See? More advanced but also more complicated.
I think the most important point of my advanced cross method is: It keeps the benefits of the cross and expands them. The cross outweighs it's many downsides with sheer lookahead friendlyness, but what's more lookahead friendly then knowing exactly where to look for a specific piece while others can't be there? Also, some limited M-slice useability has move efficiency potential and lowers the need for cube turns a bit. Just be careful not to overdo it. There's situations where reloading the parking position is useful, and other's where it isn't. And also don't go berserk on the m-slice just because you can use it now ;-)
Thanks for your time. I really appreciate if you give this approach a try. Maybe it will prove useful for you. By the way: I only want one thing in return: Properly naming it. If I'm not totally getting it wrong I'm the first one to come up with it, so it's properly named the Seifferth method, after my last name. You can call it the S-Cross1 if one of the cross' arms is replaced, and S-Cross 2 if two are replaced, and so on. Oh, and i personally use S-Cross 1, followed by solving the DF piece which is lookahead friendly, followed by CLL which is also lookahead friendly (solving DF doesn't chance the corner's orientation or permutation), followed by ELL. But I'm thinking about switching to CMLL plus L5E for fewer moves but at the cost of harder lookahead and recognition.
Thanks again and have fun! It's great to be here
