Noah's CP Block Method 2.0

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

R2 F U' R' F2 L' U2 R B U' F2 U' B2 U' D' F2 D' L2 F2

y2 R U R' U' F U' F' //CP
l' u' L2 U' l' U L U2 l' U' l L U' M' l' U' l //L block

Horribly inefficient example, but just wanted to show what I meant.

 

[Renslay]

After playing a while with Noah's CP2, I've found this variant:

1) Left 1x2x3 block
2) CP
3) Right 1x2x3 block
4) EO + Insert FD+BD
5) 2GLL

Very similar, just changed the order of some steps. Still not efficient (Roux or ZZ is still superior), but it's kind of a fun.

 

[Noahaha]

After playing a while with Noah's CP2, I've found this variant:

1) Left 1x2x3 block
2) CP
3) Right 1x2x3 block
4) EO + Insert FD+BD
5) 2GLL

Very similar, just changed the order of some steps. Still not efficient (Roux or ZZ is still superior), but it's kind of a fun.

That's exactly what Elrog proposed a few posts ago.

 

[Renslay]

That's exactly what Elrog proposed a few posts ago.

It seems I looked over that post, but indeed. :fp

 

[elrog]

Mine solved CP in inspection.

 

[AHornbaker]

After screwing around with different variations of the Roux block and my new CP recognition method, I came to the epiphany that Roux is probably the best method, and that my CP recognition might be very well suited for Roux. On a thread, I recall Kirjava saying that they tried all early CP methods for Roux, none of which seemed to work well. As I am not a Roux cuber yet (please forgive my ignorance) I want your opinion on this variation of Roux. Here's a proposal on how early CP might work:
-1x2x3 (9-12 moves)
-CP (5 moves)
-Right block + EO (?)
-2GLL (13 moves)

I know the idea of early CP is not new by any means, but I feel that my CP recognition using only 5 moves might be an efficient solving method. If EOF2L can be solved in around 20-25 moves, this could be a viable speedcubing variation. I am curious how the move count and recognition cases compare with normal Roux. I think the recog is easier this way, but only the numbers will show.

Here I explain my CP method briefly and talk about my Block => CP => EOF2L => 2GLL system.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page13

 

[CheesecakeCuber]

After screwing around with different variations of the Roux block and my new CP recognition method, I came to the epiphany that Roux is probably the best method, and that my CP recognition might be very well suited for Roux. On a thread, I recall Kirjava saying that they tried all early CP methods for Roux, none of which seemed to work well. As I am not a Roux cuber yet (please forgive my ignorance) I want your opinion on this variation of Roux. Here's a proposal on how early CP might work:
-1x2x3 (9-12 moves)
-CP (5 moves)
-Right block + EO (?)
-2GLL (13 moves)

I know the idea of early CP is not new by any means, but I feel that my CP recognition using only 5 moves might be an efficient solving method. If EOF2L can be solved in around 20-25 moves, this could be a viable speedcubing variation. I am curious how the move count and recognition cases compare with normal Roux. I think the recog is easier this way, but only the numbers will show.

Here I explain my CP method briefly and talk about my Block => CP => EOF2L => 2GLL system.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page13

By 2gll do you mean like variations of OLL and PLL? Wouldn't this completely eradicate the sexy M U Technique?

 

[AHornbaker]

By 2gll do you mean like variations of OLL and PLL? Wouldn't this completely eradicate the sexy M U Technique?

Yes, it would be orienting corners and permuting edges. I already have a list of algs that averages 13.2 moves for each of 85 cases. I want to be objective in looking at move count

 

[TheNextFeliks]

After screwing around with different variations of the Roux block and my new CP recognition method, I came to the epiphany that Roux is probably the best method, and that my CP recognition might be very well suited for Roux. On a thread, I recall Kirjava saying that they tried all early CP methods for Roux, none of which seemed to work well. As I am not a Roux cuber yet (please forgive my ignorance) I want your opinion on this variation of Roux. Here's a proposal on how early CP might work:
-1x2x3 (9-12 moves)
-CP (5 moves)
-Right block + EO (?)
-2GLL (13 moves)

I know the idea of early CP is not new by any means, but I feel that my CP recognition using only 5 moves might be an efficient solving method. If EOF2L can be solved in around 20-25 moves, this could be a viable speedcubing variation. I am curious how the move count and recognition cases compare with normal Roux. I think the recog is easier this way, but only the numbers will show.

Here I explain my CP method briefly and talk about my Block => CP => EOF2L => 2GLL system.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page13

1. Not even roux.
2. 9-12 for first block sucks. 7-10 is average.
3. Pro idea:
a. 1x2x3
b. zz-porky
c. Right block
d. CO (could possibly manipulate into full orientation)
e. LSE

 

[AHornbaker]

CO + EO would probably have way too many algs. I think zz-porky has too hard of a recog system, i think there are just too many corners too look at to be fast. I'm not sure why it would be any better. ZZ-porky: 24 cases, move count "around 5 and the longest 7", recog looks at 5 corners VS my CP: 6 cases, move count under 5 longest is 6, looks at 4 corners.

I don't fully understand ZZ-porky, but from what I see you would do it after EOLine in ZZ and solve during your "first look" of the solve. Useful for ZZ, but in Roux, you would essentially do ZZ-porky during inspection because there is no EOLine step for Roux. I think it makes more sense to solve the first block with inspection, then do CP with your first look. If you're already at this stage, it probably makes more sense to solve the right block, and instead of doing CO then LSE, incorporate EO into the right block (either during or after) and finish in one look with 2GLL. I want to determine whether doing early CP cuts 1.) the number of moves 2.) the number of looks/cases

1.) To determine this, we must look at how the steps are split up. There is CO, CP, EO, and EP. For regular Roux, it goes CmLL and LSE. For my variation, it would go CP, EO, CO/EP. EO cannot be definite depending if it is incorporated with the right block (EOF2L). I can't find the average moves for LSE, but I read that CmLL is around 9.2 moves on average. Is Regular Roux: 9.2(CmLL) + (EO) + (EP) less moves than my variation: 5(CP) + (EO) + 13(2GLL) ?

2.) Roux has three looks: CmLL, EO, and EP. My variation would also have three: CP, EO, 2GLL. EO in my variation could easily be looked-ahead during right block. As far as cases, CmLL has 55 cases, and i dont know about LSE. My CP has 6 cases, i dont know about EO, and 85 for 2GLL. Again, is 55(CmLL) + (LSE) less than 5(CP) + (EO) + 85(2GLL)?

All in all, I think that CmLL is a stupid step for recog, and breaking it up makes life so much easier. Another variation I had in mind could be:
-1x2x3
-CP
-Right block + Winter Variation
-LSE

I think Roux users would be more open to this variation. CP (5 moves) and WV (~8 moves) is significantly more than CmLL at ~9 moves, however WV has inserting the last pair as part of the 8 moves, which usually takes 3 moves, so WV is really only 5 moves, making the variation only one move longer on average. The upside upside to this method is the easy transition from CP to right block, and from right block to WV. The only downside is that using WV forces you to end using a pair insertion, and the edge on the pair must be oriented correctly. These two roadblocks make WV not well-suited for Roux. Maybe it would be useful to make a Roux WV alg set.

Let me know what you make of all this. I feel that Roux is definitely the blueprint for the best method, but there is still a lot of unexplored territory in Roux.

EDIT: after more thinking, doing CO while finishing right block would probably be the best fit for early CP. LSE would still be the same, but corners overall could have a lower move count. It would be hard intuitively, but I think Roux users would be open to the small change and over time a good CO system would develop.

EDIT 2: intuitive CO with the right block is working real well for me right now. just did three flawless solves at ~45 moves. could be a breakthrough for Roux

 

[mDiPalma]

I'm not sure if 2gen WV is as optimal as you make it out to be.

But Porkynator was right. What seems to be the best cp method (for movecount and ergonomics) is:

EOL,
left block and cp,
reduce to <R2,U> (or <R,U2> for OH),
reduce to <R2,U2>,
solve

But step 4 is really hard.

Otherwise, just right block and 2gll.

 

[AHornbaker]

I'm not sure if 2gen WV is as optimal as you make it out to be.

Definitely not, but the concept of OC during right block could be very useful for Roux with early CP. WV sucks for Roux, but maybe someone could develop a new way of doing right block + CO. Intuitive is working OK for me right now, but i'm sure there's something better than intuitive or OCLL for Roux. Hopefully.

But Porkynator was right. What seems to be the best cp method (for movecount and ergonomics) is:

EOL,
left block and cp,
reduce to <R2,U> (or <R,U2> for OH),
reduce to <R2,U2>,
solve

But step 4 is really hard.

Otherwise, just right block and 2gll.

He's right, ZZ-porky is great for ZZ, but not at all for Roux. My CP method is definitely the best for Roux, working in the same way as ZZ-porky: Block => CP => Right Block => LL/LSE

I wish I could post a file with my CP method on it, but i've been having issues with the file uploader. Super frustrating.

 

[MaikeruKonare]

Is 2GLL OLL and PLL in one algorithm? Sounds like it could just be a good add change to CFOP.

 

[Noahaha]

Is 2GLL OLL and PLL in one algorithm? Sounds like it could just be a good add change to CFOP.

2GLL is OLL and PLL in one algorithm IF the edges are oriented AND the corners are permuted. Pretty much the whole point of these methods is to get to 2GLL instead of any random LL case.

 

[pijok]

1.) To determine this, we must look at how the steps are split up. There is CO, CP, EO, and EP. For regular Roux, it goes CmLL and LSE. For my variation, it would go CP, EO, CO/EP. EO cannot be definite depending if it is incorporated with the right block (EOF2L). I can't find the average moves for LSE, but I read that CmLL is around 9.2 moves on average. Is Regular Roux: 9.2(CmLL) + (EO) + (EP) less moves than my variation: 5(CP) + (EO) + 13(2GLL) ?

LSE is 15 moves on average.
9.2(CmLL) + 7(EO) + 8(EP) < 25 moves average
EO+Finish F2L > 7 moves
5(CP) + 7(EO) + 13(2GLL) > 25 moves average
=> Regular Roux is less moves than your variation

2.) Roux has three looks: CmLL, EO, and EP. My variation would also have three: CP, EO, 2GLL. EO in my variation could easily be looked-ahead during right block. As far as cases, CmLL has 55 cases, and i dont know about LSE. My CP has 6 cases, i dont know about EO, and 85 for 2GLL. Again, is 55(CmLL) + (LSE) less than 5(CP) + (EO) + 85(2GLL)?

CMLL is 42 cases. LSE is intuitive.
42(CmLL) + 0(LSE) = 42 algs
5(CP) + ?(EO) + 85(2GLL) > 90 algs
=> Regular Roux is less algs than your variation

All in all, I think that CmLL is a stupid step for recog, and breaking it up makes life so much easier.

isn't it better recog than CP?


You maybe should describe your method of CO during second block. Examples?

 

[TheNextFeliks]

CO + EO would probably have way too many algs. I think zz-porky has too hard of a recog system, i think there are just too many corners too look at to be fast. I'm not sure why it would be any better. ZZ-porky: 24 cases, move count "around 5 and the longest 7", recog looks at 5 corners VS my CP: 6 cases, move count under 5 longest is 6, looks at 4 corners.

I don't fully understand ZZ-porky, but from what I see you would do it after EOLine in ZZ and solve during your "first look" of the solve. Useful for ZZ, but in Roux, you would essentially do ZZ-porky during inspection because there is no EOLine step for Roux. I think it makes more sense to solve the first block with inspection, then do CP with your first look. If you're already at this stage, it probably makes more sense to solve the right block, and instead of doing CO then LSE, incorporate EO into the right block (either during or after) and finish in one look with 2GLL. I want to determine whether doing early CP cuts 1.) the number of moves 2.) the number of looks/cases

1.) To determine this, we must look at how the steps are split up. There is CO, CP, EO, and EP. For regular Roux, it goes CmLL and LSE. For my variation, it would go CP, EO, CO/EP. EO cannot be definite depending if it is incorporated with the right block (EOF2L). I can't find the average moves for LSE, but I read that CmLL is around 9.2 moves on average. Is Regular Roux: 9.2(CmLL) + (EO) + (EP) less moves than my variation: 5(CP) + (EO) + 13(2GLL) ?

2.) Roux has three looks: CmLL, EO, and EP. My variation would also have three: CP, EO, 2GLL. EO in my variation could easily be looked-ahead during right block. As far as cases, CmLL has 55 cases, and i dont know about LSE. My CP has 6 cases, i dont know about EO, and 85 for 2GLL. Again, is 55(CmLL) + (LSE) less than 5(CP) + (EO) + 85(2GLL)?

All in all, I think that CmLL is a stupid step for recog, and breaking it up makes life so much easier. Another variation I had in mind could be:
-1x2x3
-CP
-Right block + Winter Variation
-LSE

I think Roux users would be more open to this variation. CP (5 moves) and WV (~8 moves) is significantly more than CmLL at ~9 moves, however WV has inserting the last pair as part of the 8 moves, which usually takes 3 moves, so WV is really only 5 moves, making the variation only one move longer on average. The upside upside to this method is the easy transition from CP to right block, and from right block to WV. The only downside is that using WV forces you to end using a pair insertion, and the edge on the pair must be oriented correctly. These two roadblocks make WV not well-suited for Roux. Maybe it would be useful to make a Roux WV alg set.

Let me know what you make of all this. I feel that Roux is definitely the blueprint for the best method, but there is still a lot of unexplored territory in Roux.

EDIT: after more thinking, doing CO while finishing right block would probably be the best fit for early CP. LSE would still be the same, but corners overall could have a lower move count. It would be hard intuitively, but I think Roux users would be open to the small change and over time a good CO system would develop.

EDIT 2: intuitive CO with the right block is working real well for me right now. just did three flawless solves at ~45 moves. could be a breakthrough for Roux

:fp

You say zz-porky is bad. Then you say you never looked at it.
CMLL has 42 cases not 55.
You don't know how many algs co+eo would take. Just over a hundred I believe.
Straight up roux is going to be fastest. Most people can do 40 moves in speedsolves. 45 is inefficient.
Roux is pretty well explored. ZZ is the one that isn't really explored.
CMLL recog is not very hard at all. Way easier than 2gll
So all in all:
:fp

 

[pijok]

Most people can do 40 moves in speedsolves. 45 is inefficient.

whut? who is doing 40 moves average in speedsolves??

 

[TheNextFeliks]

whut? who is doing 40 moves average in speedsolves??

People. Alex lau usually does.

Like 8-10-9-13 is pretty common.

 

[Kirjava]

no one is doing 40 moves average. the best roux solvers average about 48

 

[TheNextFeliks]

no one is doing 40 moves average. the best roux solvers average about 48

After searching. You are right.