• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

Random Cubing Discussion

>FMC

>STM

Since when is it forbidden to do FMC with STM ? It is just, unfortunately, not the way the WCA does it.

BTW, the following alg is also relatively short and more finger-trickable, and works for domino as well:

U L2 U' (L2 F2)^3 U L2 U'
 
My pet peeve of long dreary youtube tutorials drove me to make this s***:


Totally useless and ununderstandable or after a couple times watching you can undeerstand?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I dont want to make a new thread so I thought I will post it here.
So instead of just doing OLS we could first orient the edges in the 3rd f2l slot and then do CLS. I dont know if its good or not but its just an idea.
I know that my explanation is pathetic.
 
A Partial EO cross

I have not heard of anyone using this, so I thought it is worth mentioning. When I don't see a really good x-cross, I look for a good cross and its 4 f2l edges orientations.Then, I make them all good during my cross. Since I only care about fixing a small amount of edges, it normally takes only one or two extra moves at most for an easy f2l stage(and I know where all of my edges are). It’s like a ZZ/CFOP hybrid that only cares about the edges needed for F2l. In my opinion, this is easier to see than an eo-line and sometimes better than an X-cross. Here are 2 example solves to scrambles I just generated. What are your opinions about this type of cross?

Example 1
Scramble
U2 R2 L U' F2 D R B F' D2 R2 D U' F' L R F' L U F D2 B U' R2 U2
Inspection y x’ all edges are good so i keep them that way
R2 U2 L2 R U’R’ U’ F' Partial EO cross(8)
U’ L’ U L pair 1 (12) cancelation
L U’ L’ R’ U’R pair 2 (17)
LU’ L’ U’ RUR’ pair 3 (24)
L U2 L’ U’ L U L’ pair 4 (31)
U’ rUr’ RUR’ U’ rU’r’ OLL (42)
U2 R U R’ F’ R U2 R’ U2 R’ F R U R U2 R’ PLL (58)

Example 2
Scramble
U2 F' B2 R' D U2 R2 U D B R2 U' R F' B2 L D2 R' F2 D2 R2 U2 D2 L' B2
Inspection y
D’ L D2 U’ L’ F Partial Eo cross minus one pair for blockbuilding purposes(6)
R U2 R’ pair 1 (9)
L2 U’ R’ U R U’ L’ U L’ block and setup for next pair(18)
U’ R’ U' R pair 3 (22)
U’ L U L’ set up to RLS (26)
L’ B L2 U L’ U’ B’ RLS (33)
R’ U2 R U2 R’ F R U R’ U’ R’ F’ R2 U PLL (47)
 
Last edited:
Where and Why? I'm honestly interested

Why: because edges oriented f2l takes a bunch more moves than edges not oriented f2l, even if you count rotations as moves. In addition, the <R, U, L> movegroup is not a 'good' movegroup simply because some good algs happen to be <R, U, L>. I much prefer <R, U, y>, and I think the general consensus is that it's better.

Where: there are some stats available for EOCross+f2l movecount, ignoring U layer edges should only make your EOCross one or two moves better on average.
 
Back
Top