New Method "Layer Perm Method"

[AndyRoo789]

I feel that this method has a strong potential, although it's very intuitive.

Yeah, of course orienting and permuting the top and bottom layers (especially at the same time) is very intuitive. Sounds like it's got a lot of potential to me.

3.) OLL is the same, pretty fast/

Yeah, of course OLL is the same, who cares if a lot of the time you just get really random shapes that you've never seen before because the bottom layer is unoriented.

4.)PLL is also very fast is you know all 21 of them. (If there are algs for permuting both layers at a time it would be very fast, considering the inspection time needed to determine which alg to use.)

Yeah, parity will only occur sometimes and only slow down half your solves and confuse you every now and again.

5.) Fixing "F2L" at the end would be quite simple and fast to preform, as it only uses R and U moves. (Ocasionally L)

There's no difference between 2 gen and 3 gen nowadays, especially when you have to involve cube rotations.

I've done an average of 5 with this method, compared to an average of 5 with regular F2L, 2 look OLL and 2 look PLL.
Fredrich: Average: 21.56
Later Perm Method: Average: 30.68 (Take into consideration that I've just figured this out so I'm not an expert at it yet.)

Yeah, so consider sticking to Fridrich if you want to get fast. I'm sure I could think of some silly method right now if I wanted to and get some "decent" averages with it, but that doesn't mean it has potential. But if you really want to be unique, by all means, go for it..

Agreed with everything Anthony said, especially the bit about getting weird cases in OLL, you didn't explain how to fix that.

If there is somebody out there that can devise some algs for permuating both top and bottom layers please write some algs here! I really want to help this method get to it's feet and run. (Would be like Ortega for the 2x2) I feel that this new method will become fast as more algs are discovered. I would also like to find/figure out an alg for the "parity" error that occurs! Thanks for the support of the "Layer Perm" Method!

I'll bet If you made ALL the algs, It would be more than ZB.

You would need to learn 176 algs + Adjustment of U/D face before the alg + Having to do an x2/z2 if the case is upside down, unless you want to learn how to do the alg upside down.
E.g. R U R' U' upside down = R D R' D' or L D L' D' etc. (depending on which direction you want the alg to be preformed)

Otherwise, if you don't want to do a x2/z2 or upside the alg, its 441 algs.


This information may not be right, its late and I'm really tired at the moment..

 

[miniGOINGS]

Or you could just use Fridrich. No, seriously, just stick with Fridrich.

 

[Ranzha]

Or you could just use Fridrich. No, seriously, just stick with Fridrich.

I say experiment and see what's best for you yourself, and make sure it doesn't have an excessive amount of algs XD.

 

[4Chan]

Wow, I'm jealous of you.
When I proposed the ZBLD method, I only got one comment. 0:

Good luck with this, though it does seem like conventional methods are better, I still wish you luck.

 

[cmhardw]

If there is somebody out there that can devise some algs for permuating both top and bottom layers please write some algs here!

One useful tip, if you want your new method idea to take off never wait around for other people to come up with algs for the cases for you. Learn to use ACube and Cube Explorer (Read the help files that come with the programs).

Chris

 

[4Chan]

Chris is definitely correct.
Acube doesn't have a graphical user interface, and takes a little getting used to.

CubeExplorer does though, and is a little more user friendly.

 

[qqwref]

Wow, I'm jealous of you.
When I proposed the ZBLD method, I only got one comment. 0:

Good luck with this, though it does seem like conventional methods are better, I still wish you luck.

ZBLD didn't get a lot of comments because it's retardedly hard to use (how many people know ZBLL AND would actually have a chance of applying it to BLD?), not because it's a bad method. I think this got a lot of comments because a lot of people have tried stuff like this before and it doesn't work out too well. In general, though, speedsolving methods are much easier to use, so they'll get much more response.

 

[4Chan]

Ah yuss.
You're definitely right.

Very logical reply. >.<

 

[riffz]

How is this highly intuitive? You have to learn an obscene amount of algorithms.

So you have to perform OLL and PLL twice, or learn tons of algs and possibly have to do a z2 cube rotation.

And you can get tons of OLLs that you don't know from Fridrich because both layers are unoriented.

No thanks.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I actually think that recognition would be a lot worse.

 

[Ranzha]

I actually think that recognition would be a lot worse.

Recognition's always bad at the start.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I actually think that recognition would be a lot worse.

Recognition's always bad at the start.

True.

 

[Ethan]

how do you average 30 with this?
I tried it for the heck of it..
how is it intuitive?
I have nooo idea how to perform OLL on a mess like that. I always end up with either 3 or 1 edges oriented and a random corner sometimes.
Explain?

 

[cuberkid10]

Answers

1.) I average 21-25 seconds with fredrich because i am contantly practicing. I have a good sppedcube and barey any pauses in F2L. (F2L is usully completes within 12-17 seconds)
2.) The support thing, i was thanking in advance.
3.) Im not using this method for sppedcubing, im stiking with fredrich

 

[KwS Pall]

what about finishing Cross oriented, then corners without orientation, then F2L with orienting the Corners (fast lookahead as you only look for one piece), then OLL/PLL?

 

[KConny]

Me and my friends sometimes play the game "Who can come up with the stupidest method". And this method been discussed a couple of times.

KwS Pall: First inserting a corner, then later taking it out of the first layer to pair it with an edge uses a lot of unnecessary moves that cancels out in normal F2L.

 

[Kirjava]

ಠ_ಠ

 

[riffz]

ಠ_ಠ

You contribute a lot to discussion with this.

 

[Edward]

I actually think that recognition would be a lot worse.

Recognition's always bad at the start.

True.

I think it won't be just bad at the start, IT WILL ALWAYS REMEAN BAD; because you have look for the OLL at the bottom and top layer at the same time (which is impossible), to distinguish 1 of the few hunderd cases and then you will have to do the same thing again for PLL.

Not impossible, just difficult.

 

[miniGOINGS]

ಠ_ಠ

You contribute a lot to discussion with this.

I actually just broke out laughing.