• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
7
Likes
4
Thank for your pretty algorithm. I'm still looking for good recognition system (the pattern is very bad) and need to improve the movecount of this method
Đỗ Viên, I really like the concept, and I generated all the possible algs needed for the last step (lets call it Perry Last Corner-Edge [PCLE].)
There are 4 main categories in PCLE:
  • "Pure"-both a corner and an edge need to be put in
  • "HKPLL"-only edge insertion
  • "TTLL"-only corner insertion
  • "PLL"- Ja, Jb, V, Aa, Ab
I define the pure cases using the bottom edge/corner in relation to the UBL block (R=right edge, F=UFR corner) and blocks on top.
HKPLL is mostly identified by corners/blocks and basically same story with TTLL.

Pure has 36 algs
HKPLL has 9 algs
TTLL has 18 algs
PLL has 5 algs (didn't generate these, didn't see a reason as basically everyone knows PLL)

In total there are 68 algs, hopefully I didn't miss any cases. I'd say it's within reason to learn, but you'd probably need a solid recognition system if used for speedcubing. As of now, the algs have been created without the F/B faces, so move-count may be slightly better than whats given here. Keep looking into it, I think you've got some good potential here!
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,438
Likes
734
Location
Illinois, U.S.A.
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
channel/UCXxvOAAJVVoR7UfjeAv_bjA
One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.
Usually, when methods are posted in their own threads, they are fully developed methods, with most/all of the kinks worked out. It seems that the moderators didn't think that your method could be described as above.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,534
Likes
315
One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.
Unfortunately, moderators don't read threads before choosing where to move them.

You could also get your third step by building a Petrus 3x2x2 block and adding a pair, which would probably be more efficient than your current approach. Nonetheless, this is an interesting method.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,438
Likes
734
Location
Illinois, U.S.A.
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
channel/UCXxvOAAJVVoR7UfjeAv_bjA
Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this is a thread for new methods. It's in the title.
May I ask what standards are required for a method to warrant their own thread?
If so, what standards are required for a method to warrant their own thread?

SSC, Briggs(2), M-CELL, and QM-LL methods were all posted after this thread had been in frequent use. Those were new methods that were not merged. What's the difference?
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,534
Likes
315
Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this is a thread for new methods. It's in the title.
Don't judge a thread by its title.
I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed.

Either merge ZZ-CT, SSC, and even the damn Petrus Home Thread with this one, or quit merging developed methods with this thread. It's offensive and disrespectful to the method creators that you are dragging their hard work into the Concept Development Thread. This is a venue for users to elect to receive feedback on methods in their infancy; it's not a binder for forum organization.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
141
Likes
42
Location
Ohio
WCA
2017MORT01
Don't judge a thread by its title.



Either merge ZZ-CT, SSC, and even the damn Petrus Home Thread with this one, or quit merging developed methods with this thread. It's offensive and disrespectful to the method creators that you are dragging their hard work into the Concept Development Thread. This is a venue for users to elect to receive feedback on methods in their infancy; it's not a binder for forum organization.
I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
576
Likes
212
Location
Easton, Pennsylvania
WCA
2016CLAR04
On the other end of the spectrum, my thread https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/existing-method.63458/ should have absolutely been moved here, but never was, despite receiving 10 responses, which either means the mods are very inactive or they are not even following their own rules for merging threads. Either way, I ended up just posting here anyway, so now the content of that thread exists in this thread and that one.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
39
Likes
2
On the other end of the spectrum, my thread https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/existing-method.63458/ should have absolutely been moved here, but never was, despite receiving 10 responses, which either means the mods are very inactive or they are not even following their own rules for merging threads. Either way, I ended up just posting here anyway, so now the content of that thread exists in this thread and that one.
My thread also should have been moved here, it's called "ZZ-XD Experimental Method". I didn't want to repost it in here because I'm pretty sure that's against the forum rules to post the same thing in different places. But yeah, if anyone could move that it'd be great.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
303
Likes
30
Location
Canada
WCA
2014ADAM03
I have been working on this method for a few months now, and I believe it has some potential. I call it the GS method, or Grand Setup method. It is a variant of CFOP and Roux, with it's own unique step. I would love to hear anybody's feedback, positive or negative. I would also appreciate it if anyone could help me by making more example solves. I am also looking for a better name for this method. If you think you found a better name than GS, please tell me. Without further ado, here is the GS method.

Steps:

Step 1:
Build a 2x2x2 block on the bottom in the back right.

Step 2: Build an adjacent 2x3x1 block on the L face.

Step 3: Pair up last F2L pair, but don't insert it

Step 4: Insert last F2L pair with Winter Variation, which orients the last layer corners.

Step 5: Simultaneously orient the last layer edges while inserting the DF edge using only M and U moves. This step is intuitive. I call it SFE, or Setup of Five Edges.

Step 6: Permute the last layer with PLL.

*Example Solve:

Scramble:
U2 L2 F2 U L2 F2 U2 R2 B2 D' L B' D' U' L D2 R2 B D2 L'

2x2x2 Block: D R' F' R' B'

2x3x1 Block: U F U L

Last F2L Pair: Skip

Winter Variation: U2 L' U R U' R' L

SFE: U M' U M U2 M' U' M

PLL: R' U L' U2 R U' L R' U L' U2 R U' L U'

Possible Advantages:
Only 48 Algorithms are needed, (not including reflections,) so most of the solve is intuitive.

After the blocks are finished, the cube can be solved quickly without any cube rotations.

Possible Disadvantages:
GS requires proficiency in Blockbuilding and Roux-Like edge solving, which may be hard for beginners to do efficiently.

The 2x2x2 Block in the back may be awkward to do without cube rotations, so it may take some time getting used to.

* Sorry the example solve wasn't very good. I don't have much experience with making them.
Haven't been replying to this thread in ages cuz there haven't been any remotely interesting methods for 3x3 (the only thing I care about) in a while. However this interests me quite a bit. I just got an 11.84 single with this method using the COLL/L5E variant and I quite like the idea! I think I might just work a bit with this method and see what I can bring to it, if I may.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Likes
199
Location
Char
Haven't been replying to this thread in ages cuz there haven't been any remotely interesting methods for 3x3 (the only thing I care about) in a while. However this interests me quite a bit. I just got an 11.84 single with this method using the COLL/L5E variant and I quite like the idea! I think I might just work a bit with this method and see what I can bring to it, if I may.
If so you might want to take a look at M-CELL. It's a similar idea and might give you inspiration for different variants.
 

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,342
Likes
576
WCA
2007KELL02
I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.
The moderating team is discussing this issue now. Note that this "New Method Thread" exists because lots of new ideas were being put forward and having them all in one spot was a logical thing to do. However, we understand there has been some inconsistency in merging threads, and we also understand that if a method is merged, it gets less attention and is harder to find in the future. We will update you once we've come up with a solution. Our goal here isn't to stop people from posting new methods or discussing them, but to organize the forum in way that makes sense for most people to discuss and browse topics. Any feedback you have is useful, thanks.

Edit: Because of the ambiguity of creating a new method and the number of potential threads that can exist, we are going to keep most "new method" ideas in this thread as we have for years. In the event a method idea posted here gets too popular and needs its own thread, we can move it to its own. We will leave this to the discretion of the moderators - though if you think something should have its own thread, please report it so we can discuss it. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Likes
199
Location
Char
One issue I can think of is that people often propose methods that have already been developed/proposed before. Even though they may have put substantial amounts of work into it and developed a lot of algs, I wonder if the best policy is to merge these posts with previous thread that first proposed the method.

As funny as it'd be I'm not sure I'd like a forum with a bunch of threads of people posting their fully developed roux-cfop hybrid methods.
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,009
Likes
319
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
TDM028
I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.
May I ask how it took "months of hard work" to fully develop a method with no new algorithm sets?
(Edit: I also would always post a new method in here, or if it's a ZZ/Roux variant I would post in the respective method's thread. I agree that poeple don't want the forum full of new method posts, especially when most of what's suggested is so similar (though yours isn't similar to anything I've seen before)).

Comments about the method: have you considered EO first? EO->blockbuilding hasn't really been explored much but would help with steps 2, 3 and 5 while only making step 4 slower (not sure if EO would help step 1 or not, could do, I've not experimented much with it).
Edit2: Swapping steps 1 and 2 (with or without having done EO) is something else to consider and could improve fluidity since after FB everything would be <Rw, R, U, F>, though if you do this be aware that similar things have been suggested before (though most insert DF before the pair).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Likes
199
Location
Char
It's likely he generated L5EO, WV and didn't know they had existed yet.

Could also consider FB, 2x2x3 in BDL, pair, corners+insert pair, L5E
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2017
Messages
141
Likes
42
Location
Ohio
WCA
2017MORT01
To answer all of you, the hard work came not from WV or the edges, but finding the best way (Movecount wize) to do f2l without one pair and one cross edge, while still beingconsistent like f2l or ZZ blockbuilding.
 
Top