jrb
Veteran
Really amazing! Now I want to go learn more methods
[Unofficial] Sub 20 with 20 different methods
- Thread starter Kirjava
- Start date
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Well, I mean, the blockbuilding aspect is an essential part of the concept behind the method. It's not just "lolol here's a funny way to do LS+LL". I hope you understand if I'm a little defensive of the purity of the method since I invented it. But, you know, whatever - it's not like anyone really cares when it comes to a video like this. Some of the methods are going to be similar enough anyway, and I'm sure you got like half of the methods done by just doing FreeFOP solves and seeing which ones fell into which blocks.
(Not saying the video's not impressive, it is, just that I think you have the wrong impression of what this method entails.)
PS: I just got a 12.39 using your version of Tripod (minus xcross).
(Not saying the video's not impressive, it is, just that I think you have the wrong impression of what this method entails.)
PS: I just got a 12.39 using your version of Tripod (minus xcross).
Kirjava
Colourful
I disagree. The tripod is what makes tripod, not blockbuilding.
No, I don't understand why you're acting like this at all. Ever heard of CF3L?
Nope. Annoying that you would suggest this after the amount of work I put in.
I think you're being over protective about something that doesn't matter.
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
The idea behind the method is "let's see how much we can solve with just blockbuilding". I only called it Tripod because that was the most memorable/unique part.
I have not.
I have no idea how much work you put into this; all I can see is 6 minutes of solves. How much was it?
Why do you think the concept behind a method doesn't matter? (I mean, honestly, if it didn't matter, I could do half of the methods you did by just finishing 3/4-F2L with Fridrich in 6 seconds and then doing different stuff on the LS+LL.)
Kirjava
Colourful
CF3L is Erik/Dan/etcs version of K4's F3L where corners are skipped on the 1x3x4 block and F2L is used.
When this was suggested to me I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was a cool variation and added it to my god damn website.
I never said that.
You're making a huge fuss over me solving two pieces before I go on to extend a 2x2x2 to a 2x2x3.
Maybe you didn't see this, either;
x' y M' U L' U' L2' U2 z' // 2x2x2
U' F l' R' U' l U l' U2' R x' y' U' R' U R2 U R' // Extend to 2x2x3
y U' y U' R U' R' U R U R' // Add a 1x2x2 on R
y' U' R' F R F' U' R U R' U2' R U R' U // Add a 1x2x2 on U
x U R' U' R x' // Solve CE Pair
y' R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F // L5P
Reply to me so we can continue talking about this inane pedanticism!
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
It IS a cool variation. Doing some Fridrich-F2L stuff instead of blockbuilding stuff does not count as a cool variation.
I'm not trying to attack you or anything. The thing is, I view your video as a public demonstration of a whole bunch of different methods, and it annoys me to see one of mine slightly misrepresented in something so visible. I don't see why you're being so defensive about a small error you made; I expected an "oh, yeah, good point".
Kirjava
Colourful
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Yes; not a cool one.
Hey, don't worry, I understand. After doing so many different methods they start to blur together.
Kirjava
Colourful
I love you for this, reconstructed everything in less than a day. Serious props.
Some elaboration;
Last step in Snyder is L3C, FreeFOP/Petrus/ZZ etc last step is EPLL.
Columns;
D U2 F2 L2 D L' U L' B' F2 D2 B R B L U F' U' R'
x y' U' R2 y' F2' L' U2 U' r // BOY/BYR CE pairs
y' R2' U U2' M' U r' U' r' U' r // BRW/BWO CE pairs
y M y' U U' R U R' U R U2' R' // CLL & fix centres
U y' M' U M // Orient edges
y U' U M U2 M U' x2' M2' U' M U2 M U' // Fix bad edges (place in correct orbits)
M' U2 M U2 M2' // Solve this slice
(x2'y) M' U2 M U2 // Solve that slice
Tripod;
x' y M' U L' U' L2' U2 z' // 2x2x2
U' F l' R' U' l U l' U2' R x' y' U' R' U R2 U R' // Extend to 2x2x3
y U' y U' R U' R' U R U R' // Add a 1x2x2 on R
y' U' R' F R F' U' R U R' U2' R U R' U // Add a 1x2x2 on U
x U R' U' R x' // Solve CE Pair
y' R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F // L5P
HTA is here -> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?29123-The-reconstruction-thread&p=639449&viewfull=1#post639449 (thanks cubenovice)
Redux;
U B2 U L2 B2 D' B D R' U' B2 F2 R D' U' R2 F D2
x y2 R' F R y U M U x' // 1x2x3
r U r2' U' R' U R' U R U' R' // 1x2x2
U' R' U R U' R' M' // 2x1x2x3
U2 R' U U' R U' L' U R U' L U R' F R U R' U' F' // CLL (ish)
U M U' M' // EO
U' M' U2 M U M2' U // Finish redux
M' U2 M (x'z'y') // solve the first thing I see (stupidly)
R2 x2' R2 U2' R2 U2 R2' // solve as much as I can easily
R' U L' U2' R U' LR' U L' U2' R U' r (x'z') L' // PLL (Na perm)
Some elaboration;
Last step in Snyder is L3C, FreeFOP/Petrus/ZZ etc last step is EPLL.
Columns;
D U2 F2 L2 D L' U L' B' F2 D2 B R B L U F' U' R'
x y' U' R2 y' F2' L' U2 U' r // BOY/BYR CE pairs
y' R2' U U2' M' U r' U' r' U' r // BRW/BWO CE pairs
y M y' U U' R U R' U R U2' R' // CLL & fix centres
U y' M' U M // Orient edges
y U' U M U2 M U' x2' M2' U' M U2 M U' // Fix bad edges (place in correct orbits)
M' U2 M U2 M2' // Solve this slice
(x2'y) M' U2 M U2 // Solve that slice
Tripod;
x' y M' U L' U' L2' U2 z' // 2x2x2
U' F l' R' U' l U l' U2' R x' y' U' R' U R2 U R' // Extend to 2x2x3
y U' y U' R U' R' U R U R' // Add a 1x2x2 on R
y' U' R' F R F' U' R U R' U2' R U R' U // Add a 1x2x2 on U
x U R' U' R x' // Solve CE Pair
y' R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F // L5P
HTA is here -> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?29123-The-reconstruction-thread&p=639449&viewfull=1#post639449 (thanks cubenovice)
Redux;
U B2 U L2 B2 D' B D R' U' B2 F2 R D' U' R2 F D2
x y2 R' F R y U M U x' // 1x2x3
r U r2' U' R' U R' U R U' R' // 1x2x2
U' R' U R U' R' M' // 2x1x2x3
U2 R' U U' R U' L' U R U' L U R' F R U R' U' F' // CLL (ish)
U M U' M' // EO
U' M' U2 M U M2' U // Finish redux
M' U2 M (x'z'y') // solve the first thing I see (stupidly)
R2 x2' R2 U2' R2 U2 R2' // solve as much as I can easily
R' U L' U2' R U' LR' U L' U2' R U' r (x'z') L' // PLL (Na perm)
Kirjava
Colourful
What does being cool have to do with it?
What's to worry about? Are you feeling ok?
ianography
Veteran
Just a question: Are you even human? How can somebody reconstruct so many solves from so many methods so fast?
irontwig
Veteran
Lets just say Thom did a Goljan solve instead, geez.
luke1984
Veteran
Kirjava, the walking Speedsolving Wiki...
Brest
Moderator
You're welcome! Thank you for making the video & the elaborations. Updated.
20 reconstructions sub 20(hours)
Erik
Legend
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,661
- Location
- Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
- WCA ID
- 2005AKKE01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
About this whole variation, tripod or not thing:
A method or a variation of a method in my opinion is just defined by the in steps there are. For example Roux would be: 1x2x3 block, then another 1x2x3 block, solve corners, orient edges, solve L and R edges and then the rest. It doesn't matter if you chose to build the 1x2x3 block by making 2 F2L pairs, or 1 F2L pair and a 1x2x2 block as long as the steps are fulfilled.
Same goes for the Tripod method. The first step apparently is to solve a 2x2x2 block, the beauty in the method is in my opinion that it is totally up to the solver how he does this. In a way solving 2 cross pieces and then solving a Corner Edge pair is also block building, just not very efficient... :rolleyes:
Concerning the CF3L: sure it's a variation, the (sub)steps are different, so the method changes a bit. Not significantly enough for it to be a new method of course (though you can discuss about this), but definitely the steps are a bit different.
As far as coolness concerns... who cares if you call it cool, that's a personal opinion.
(though I think the fact that Dan does it is already enough evidence that its cool )
A method or a variation of a method in my opinion is just defined by the in steps there are. For example Roux would be: 1x2x3 block, then another 1x2x3 block, solve corners, orient edges, solve L and R edges and then the rest. It doesn't matter if you chose to build the 1x2x3 block by making 2 F2L pairs, or 1 F2L pair and a 1x2x2 block as long as the steps are fulfilled.
Same goes for the Tripod method. The first step apparently is to solve a 2x2x2 block, the beauty in the method is in my opinion that it is totally up to the solver how he does this. In a way solving 2 cross pieces and then solving a Corner Edge pair is also block building, just not very efficient... :rolleyes:
Concerning the CF3L: sure it's a variation, the (sub)steps are different, so the method changes a bit. Not significantly enough for it to be a new method of course (though you can discuss about this), but definitely the steps are a bit different.
As far as coolness concerns... who cares if you call it cool, that's a personal opinion.
(though I think the fact that Dan does it is already enough evidence that its cool
)
Last edited:
Stefan
Legend
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Tripod
=> http://web.mac.com/teisenmann/Tripod/main.html
=> "The Tripod method is an intermediate block based solution for the Rubik's cube [...] The steps are listed below:
1.Make a 2 by 2 by 2 block.
2.Extend to 2 by 2 by 3.
3. Create a 2 by 2 by 1 block on one unsolved face.
4. Create another 2 by 2 by 1 block on the other unsolved face.
5. Solve a corner edge pair in the unsolved "tripod".
6. Solve the last layer, which contains only 5 scrambled pieces."
Erik
Legend
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 2,661
- Location
- Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
- WCA ID
- 2005AKKE01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Ah whateffs, my point is: Even if you build this 2x2x2 block with 2 'cross pieces' and a corner-edge pair, you'd still meet the 'requirements' of the step.
riffz
Veteran
I agree with Erik. Placing cross pieces first is just inefficient block building and it was still done before the next step in the method's description, right?
Kirjava
Colourful
1. x' y M' U L' U' L2' U2 z'
2. U' F l' R' U' l U l' U2' R x' y' U' R' U R2 U R'
3. y U' y U' R U' R' U R U R'
4. y' U' R' F R F' U' R U R' U2' R U R' U
5. x U R' U' R x'
6. y' R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F
Thanks for the explanations guys. I don't see how you can look at these steps correlating and call it incorrect.
ryo
Regular
I agree with Erik too. If you make a 2x2x2 bloc by solving two edges first (no reason to call it two "cross pieces") and then insert a corner-edge pair, it's just inefficient, your solve looks bad and we maybe could say that you're bad too, but you still solve a 2x2x2 bloc.
I also think that some of the methods are too similar when you use 20 differents, but the vid is still really good.
I also think that some of the methods are too similar when you use 20 differents, but the vid is still really good.
