# New Speed Method for 2x2x3 (Mini Tower)

#### seagullboy225

##### Member
How many algs would it be to solve a face then solve the rest?
You also have to take into account the rate at which to decide to solve each algorithm based upon the type of layer. According to my calculations, this number would be about 54.

#### ProStar

##### Member
this is true, real cubers know when to simplify a method. Or you could do the Schrodinger cube method which actually would lower your cube outtake to 27 mph instead of having to deal with AUF cases. Clearly none of you have been to the Blingingsmith International Academy of Cubing.

27MPH?

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
CP cases aren’t that difficult if you really know how to solve them, just saying.

I think a lot of people here might be unsure of what this method actually is, it’s nothing confusing, over-complicated or difficult to understand: it’s literally just:

Solve Square faces

CP for Both layers simultaneously [5 cases]

EP [7 cases]

There is also the option to solve a pair of corners while solving the square faces to reduce the number of CP cases by one.

Please visit the pdf in the first post if you want to understand it. If you don’t want to use this method that’s fine, but I’m really looking for people who will try out this method and suggest improvements to the idea, and maybe popularize it; rather than stating that they prefer another way of solving it, although if you do prefer another way, that’s fine.

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
Interesting point. Still, I strongly believe that the original method IS superior. All these new fangled ideas seem to pollute the idealistic values of an older generation of cuber community. My opinion is valuable and I will share it where I want, thank you very much. I could fight you.
I actually wasn’t meaning to come across as confrontational so I do apologize, but this thread isn’t really for saying why you think this method is bad, it was more intentioned for testing it out and sharing it.

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
Ok so I think we have some trolls on this thread.

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
I still think doing "squares"->cube wouldn't be that hard or take too many algs, and it would be simple to 1-look. Also the problem of having AUF cases is easily solved by just doing a couple E moves.
I totally agree, and I’m pretty sure the Algs for this could be constructed with current CP + E moves + EP, although I’m sure some of the cases will have more efficient solutions than that.

For example R U R U’ R solves diagonal top and adjacent bottom while also solving adjacent equator pieces. This is better than R U R U R U2 R U’ R U’ R and then (R U2)3 to do the same thing. They are both however, examples of one alg to solve right after doing the square faces.

#### ProStar

##### Member
I think a lot of people here might be unsure of what this method actually is, it’s nothing confusing, over-complicated or difficult to understand: it’s literally just:

Solve Square faces

CP for Both layers simultaneously [5 cases]

EP [7 cases]

There is also the option to solve a pair of corners while solving the square faces to reduce the number of CP cases by one.

Please visit the pdf in the first post if you want to understand it. If you don’t want to use this method that’s fine, but I’m really looking for people who will try out this method and suggest improvements to the idea, and maybe popularize it; rather than stating that they prefer another way of solving it, although if you do prefer another way, that’s fine.

Your method is almost exactly the same as every other method for the tower cube. Plus, do you really expect a method for a puzzle that gets solved while scrambling sometimes will be popularized? I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that anyone seriously practices this puzzle. And if they did, they'd just learn faces->cube.

I actually wasn’t meaning to come across as confrontational so I do apologize, but this thread isn’t really for saying why you think this method is bad, it was more intentioned for testing it out and sharing it.

If you've ever been to the New Step / Method / subset etc. thread, you know that when a new method is proposed, often people will tell them it isn't viable for speedcubing. That being said, @SpikeTheCuber was definitely rude and assumptive saying that his opinion is the ruling one, and I'm not sure why he thinks new ideas are bad.

Ok so I think we have some trolls on this thread.
I think he’s a troll

Do you even know what a troll is?

Also, you can edit your posts. Multiple posts in a row just generally clutter the forums, so you can just edit/delete your posts so that you just have one post replying to different comments.

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
Your method is almost exactly the same as every other method for the tower cube. Plus, do you really expect a method for a puzzle that gets solved while scrambling sometimes will be popularized? I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that anyone seriously practices this puzzle. And if they did, they'd just learn faces->cube.

If you've ever been to the New Step / Method / subset etc. thread, you know that when a new method is proposed, often people will tell them it isn't viable for speedcubing. That being said, @SpikeTheCuber was definitely rude and assumptive saying that his opinion is the ruling one, and I'm not sure why he thinks new ideas are bad.

Do you even know what a troll is?

Also, you can edit your posts. Multiple posts in a row just generally clutter the forums, so you can just edit/delete your posts so that you just have one post replying to different comments.

1.) This method might remind you of the standard way of solving 2x2x3, but it's not similar other than the general framework of the stages in the solve; especially since the "normal method" for 2x2x3 isn't really standardized. Anyway, you may not like 2x2x3 or perhaps understand why other cubers like the puzzle since it is pretty trivial compared to something like a 3x3; but many people do actually practice 2x2x3 and try getting sub 6 and sub 3 times, etc. Sure they could learn how to solve it they way most people do, or they could learn it this way; are you saying that this method isn't worth sharing because you think no will would want to learn it?

2.) Yes I know what a troll is.

One of the accounts posted "27mph", obviously making fun of cube jargon
The other one threatened to fight me in real life because I disagreed over an algorithm

They were there to provoke.

Last edited:

#### ProStar

##### Member
This method might remind you of the standard way of solving 2x2x3, but it's not similar other than the general framework of the stages in the solve; especially since the "normal method" for 2x2x3 isn't really standardized. Anyway, you may not like 2x2x3 or perhaps understand why other cubers like the puzzle since it is pretty trivial compared to something like a 3x3; but many people do actually practice 2x2x3 and try getting sub 6 and sub 3 times, etc. Sure they could learn how to solve it they way most people do, or they could learn it this way; are you saying that this method isn't worth sharing because you think no will would want to learn it?

The only difference between this method and other methods is that the E layer is preserved in CP. That can be argued as worse, because algs become much longer and take longer. I know exactly how the puzzle works, I'm turning one right now. And who that you know of practices 2x2x3 seriously enough to learn this but not seriously enough to learn faces->cube?

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
The only difference between this method and other methods is that the E layer is preserved in CP. That can be argued as worse, because algs become much longer and take longer. I know exactly how the puzzle works, I'm turning one right now. And who that you know of practices 2x2x3 seriously enough to learn this but not seriously enough to learn faces->cube?
In fact I have a friend who practices this puzzle alot and has even done 100 timed solves in a row to get faster. Im not trying to suggest that me having a friend who does this means that everyone does this, but many people do take this cube seriously. Also, E-layer preservation and one-look ability isn't the only difference between this and the "normal method". typically only 2-4 CP cases are recognized on this cube. However this method has five. Typically only 1-3 distinct EP algorithms are used to deal with all of the cases, and they often inefficiently use F R and U moves for them. This method recognizes 7 EP cases, each with their own algorithms that employ E and R moves exclusively. Also, when solving their squares, you may make a pair of corners to avoid a CP case, a technique which you could also do when solving the normal way, but would have no purpose as that method uses R F R for the circumvented CP case. Anyway, even if you think this method isn't anything remarkable, it is still better than the previous way of solving. As for the idea that everyone who is serious about this puzzle would learn ~140 algorithms is a bit ludicrous; does every serious 2x2 solver learn full CLL?, or is it possible to be serious about 2x2 while only knowing Ortega?

Last edited:

#### ProStar

##### Member
In fact I have a friend who practices this puzzle alot and has even done 100 timed solves in a row to get faster.

An ao100 on a puzzle that takes 5 seconds if you're really slow isn't all that impressive.

Also, E-layer preservation and one-look ability isn't the only difference between this and the "normal method". typically only 2-4 CP cases are recognized on this cube. However this method has five. Typically only 1-3 distinct EP algorithms are used to deal with all of the cases, and they often inefficiently use F R and U moves for them. This method recognizes 7 EP cases, each with their own algorithms that employ E and R moves exclusively. Also, when solving their squares, you may make a pair of corners to avoid a CP case, a technique which you could also do when solving the normal way, but would have no purpose as that method uses R F R for the circumvented CP case.

So the difference is you need to learn more algs for yours? And for the normal method you can intentionally make an diag swap on one face to hope for RFR, just like for yours they can make an adj swap.

Anyway, even if you think this method isn't anything remarkable, it is still better than the previous way of solving.

That's not necessarily true, I think the "old" method of faces->cube is wayyy better

As for the idea that everyone who is serious about this puzzle would learn ~140 algorithms is a bit ludicrous; does every serious 2x2 solver learn full CLL?, or is it possible to be serious about 2x2 while only knowing Ortega?

No, every serious 2x2 solver learns full EG, which happens to include CLL. If you're serious about 2x2 you'd keep learning algs. And I could say the same to you: why would I learn your method instead of another one? Isn't it a bit ludicrous for me to learn extra algs that probably won't make much faster(if any) just for a non-WCA event?

#### Billabob

##### Member
Just a thought - if you're using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E layer you could solve the E layer before PBL. Perhaps while you're solving the first face, I tried some practice solves and it's relatively easy. I just don't see the benefit of using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E-layer when that layer isn't even solved.

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
Just a thought - if you're using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E layer you could solve the E layer before PBL. Perhaps while you're solving the first face, I tried some practice solves and it's relatively easy. I just don't see the benefit of using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E-layer when that layer isn't even solved.

This is a very good idea, thanks for sharing it. Could you offer some tips or guidelines for consistently solving the E layer while doing the square faces, because this sounds extremely useful.

edit: I attached a new pdf in the first post with this idea instead of doing E layer last, and will probably treat this amendment to the method as standard. thanks!

Last edited:

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
An ao100 on a puzzle that takes 5 seconds if you're really slow isn't all that impressive.

So the difference is you need to learn more algs for yours? And for the normal method you can intentionally make an diag swap on one face to hope for RFR, just like for yours they can make an adj swap.

That's not necessarily true, I think the "old" method of faces->cube is wayyy better

No, every serious 2x2 solver learns full EG, which happens to include CLL. If you're serious about 2x2 you'd keep learning algs. And I could say the same to you: why would I learn your method instead of another one? Isn't it a bit ludicrous for me to learn extra algs that probably won't make much faster(if any) just for a non-WCA event?

1.) So I didn't mean an ao of 100 exactly, it was more of a figure of speech, the way he explained it to me was that he basically spent a lengthy amount of time practicing 2x2x3.

2.) You may prefer the "old method", but this one is objectively faster, especially since the CP algs other than RFR are typically not that short with the "old method".

3.) I used Ortega and CLL just as examples, don't debate me over what method a serious 2x2 solver would use, because that's not relevant to this conversation or thread, and comes across as hostile. Anyway, I'm not saying that you have to use this method; I have stated that multiple times. Use whatever method you want. And no, I don't think it's ludicrous to learn extra algs to get faster; You just used EG as an example of learning algs to get faster at 2x2 if you're serious about it; and if you're serious about 2x2x3 you learn this method, or perhaps invent something better. No offense really, but you've offered lots of unfounded criticism, disinterest in the thread topic, and attempts at persuading me that I'm somehow wrong about things that are just matters of opinion. You even stated that you think the old method is "wayyy better". You obviously don't care for this idea, so what do you hope to achieve on this thread?

Last edited:

#### ProStar

##### Member
You even stated that you think the old method is "wayyy better". You obviously don't care for this idea, so what do you hope to achieve on this thread?

If you read my post, I told you why I thought it was better: make a face then do an alg. It's objectively faster.

#### Ian Brown

##### Member
If you read my post, I told you why I thought it was better: make a face then do an alg. It's objectively faster.
What old method are you talking about, Face --> alg is not the old method, the old method is face --> cp on one layer --> cp on the other layer --> ep. This idea of doing a face then one alg to solve is something that I have never heard of being done for 2x2x3 until you mentioned it. However, User Billabob had a good idea of how to shorten the new method which effectively makes it only 2-steps long, but much easier than Face --> alg. the idea is to intuitively solve the equator while solving the square faces, and then do one of the 5 equator preserving CP algs. It's still 2 steps, but less moves, and less memorization then both the previous idea for the new method, and the hypothetical Face --> alg method which would require tons of algs, 140 i think. (see new attached pdf in the first post)

Last edited:

#### Wish Lin

##### Member
After seeing all the posts I am really curious how this is done: