• 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 13, 2015
Messages
759
Likes
399
Location
New York
I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.

1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
3: COLL
4: ÆPLL (augment Parity Last Layer) or (Edge permutation last layer). The difference is that APLL disturbs the E slice in order to solve the U layer, while EPLL does not
5:E-Belt one look fix.

If someone wanted to, there are algorithms that solve APLL and E-belt simultaneously, called EPEU, although you could expect 60 or more algorithms, since I might’ve not found every possible EPEU case, although there could still be some that could be useful.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
576
Likes
212
Location
Easton, Pennsylvania
WCA
2016CLAR04
I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.

1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
3: COLL
4: ÆPLL (augment Parity Last Layer) or (Edge permutation last layer). The difference is that APLL disturbs the E slice in order to solve the U layer, while EPLL does not
5:E-Belt one look fix.

If someone wanted to, there are algorithms that solve APLL and E-belt simultaneously, called EPEU, although you could expect 60 or more algorithms, since I might’ve not found every possible EPEU case, although there could still be some that could be useful.
What's the benefit of this method? It seems like a lot of steps that basically just does layer by layer in a different and more inefficient order.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
759
Likes
399
Location
New York
What's the benefit of this method? It seems like a lot of steps that basically just does layer by layer in a different and more inefficient order.
What we saw was less looks in solving.

CFOP is done in Seven looks six or two algorithmic, one or five intuitive , which is highly inefficient if you take CFOP as a raw method, without adding much on. Roux is four intuitive looks, three one algorithmic. Since you need to see what you need to do later, you need to slow your turn speed in order to gain efficiency.

Sicilian is five or four looks, only on one intuitive step. This allows for better speed and efficiency overall.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Likes
42
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
Hey guys, my 4x4 method proposal got drowned in here. It's pretty much stadler but with these steps for the LSE:
-solve D and B center and DB edge(blockbuild or do D center, DB edge, B center)
-solve the last 2 centers
-Solve the L5E with commutators, like ELL but with one extra piece.

I am consistently sub-1:30 with this method. If you guys like, Ill make links to the videos on my youtube channel describing this method, as well as a 1:08 single I got on Camera with this method.(the one on my profile is outdated sry)

I am using this as a main method, because I believe it has serious potential as a method. any thoughts?
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
480
Likes
112
So I was looking at a proposed alg set a while back (L5EP, I think the original post called it TPLL so that's what I'll use), and it made me think about applying it to other methods, as it's one of the only truly viable 1LLSLL methods and I think it has some serious OH potential as all the algs are 2 Gen. I decided to incorporate them into what are currently the "Big 4" solving methods (movecount is simply predicted, I haven't had much time to test):

ROUX: Good ergonomics and movecount
-FB+DB Edge
-SB -1LS Edge (Oriented)
-EO+FB Edge
-COLL
-TPLL

ZZ (Original): Good ergonomics and movecount
-EO Line
-F2L -1LS Edge
-COLL
-TPLL

CFOP: Decent ergonomics and movecount
-Cross
-F2L -2(1 slot 1 LS edge oriented)
-VHLS
-COLL
-TPLL

PETRUS: Decent ergonomics, good movecount
-2x2x2
-2x2x3
-EO
-F2L -1LS Edge
-COLL
-TPLL

These are definitely works in progress, but I think that TPLL could be a valuble tool for OH in particular. This may be personal bias as I am a ZZ solver, but I think that if you were to use this and ZZ-CT, one would be OP at OH, because you pretty much eliminate all bad/long TSLE cases and get to end in a 2 gen solve. I would likely rank the methods as ZZ, Roux, CFOP, then Petrus for speedsolving; but this of course varies from person to person. Let me know your thoughts and any improvements to the methods!

Algs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mG3URFEHSVfVlvHbx4B0-wwgRm5PW-LDJcIU7JBAktQ/mobilebasic
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
39
Likes
2
So I was looking at a proposed alg set a while back (L5EP, I think the original post called it TPLL so that's what I'll use), and it made me think about applying it to other methods, as it's one of the only truly viable 1LLSLL methods and I think it has some serious OH potential as all the algs are 2 Gen. I decided to incorporate them into what are currently the "Big 4" solving methods (movecount is simply predicted, I haven't had much time to test)
This looks really good, I'll have to try it out. The L5EP I first learned was for the U-layer and DF, which consists primarily of <M, U> algs, so this surprised me when you said it was good for OH. Also, wouldn't this be 2LLSLL? One for COLL, one for TPLL?
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
51
Likes
21
Thoughts on Hexagonal Franscisco f2l for oh? Assuming you don't do edges then corners for the hexagon and you can plan an efficient hexagon during inspection. The problem I'd come across is that last edge, but you might be able to quickly table abuse that edge into place.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
480
Likes
112
sorry to break your bubble, Neuro, but this has been proposed at east 3 times before on this same thread. The consensus is That it is not worth the trouble to solve the corner, and it doesnt save that many moves.
EDIT: TTLL works because solving the corner is much easier than solving the edge.
Ah man I thought I was onto something here. Well I guess I'll keep trying stuff and see what sticks :)
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
480
Likes
112
This looks really good, I'll have to try it out. The L5EP I first learned was for the U-layer and DF, which consists primarily of <M, U> algs, so this surprised me when you said it was good for OH. Also, wouldn't this be 2LLSLL? One for COLL, one for TPLL?
I'm not sure as to the true nomenclature of this, but the original poster claimed it was 1LLSLL. I could see it as being viewed 2 ways: COLL and TPLL are connected because COLL is a precursor/requirement for TPLL, making it 2 look; or TPLL as being separate and inserting the edge is the only think that solves the LS, making it 1LLSLL. I suppose either are technically correct viewpoints, guess we'll have to let people decide!
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
480
Likes
112
you do 4x4? you should try out Lewis method... I made it last week and now its my main method
look at the video links above and the proposal up a little in the comments
It looks like a really good method, but I'm not terribly good with commutators so this probably wouldn't work well for me. I do have a 4x4 method that I've been working on for a while based on ZZ, though. Once it gets refined I might post it, but it'll probably be a while before it becomes an exact science.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Likes
42
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
It looks like a really good method, but I'm not terribly good with commutators so this probably wouldn't work well for me. I do have a 4x4 method that I've been working on for a while based on ZZ, though. Once it gets refined I might post it, but it'll probably be a while before it becomes an exact science.
you micht want to check out Z4 and my Yau/Meyer-like Meffd for ZZ, ZZ-4
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Likes
199
Location
Char
I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.

1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
3: COLL
4: ÆPLL (augment Parity Last Layer) or (Edge permutation last layer). The difference is that APLL disturbs the E slice in order to solve the U layer, while EPLL does not
5:E-Belt one look fix.

If someone wanted to, there are algorithms that solve APLL and E-belt simultaneously, called EPEU, although you could expect 60 or more algorithms, since I might’ve not found every possible EPEU case, although there could still be some that could be useful.
This resembles Waterman, but I think it's less efficient/ergonomic.
Hey guys, my 4x4 method proposal got drowned in here. It's pretty much stadler but with these steps for the LSE:
-solve D and B center and DB edge(blockbuild or do D center, DB edge, B center)
-solve the last 2 centers
-Solve the L5E with commutators, like ELL but with one extra piece.

I am consistently sub-1:30 with this method. If you guys like, Ill make links to the videos on my youtube channel describing this method, as well as a 1:08 single I got on Camera with this method.(the one on my profile is outdated sry)

I am using this as a main method, because I believe it has serious potential as a method. any thoughts?
This is an alright 4x4 method, we've talked about it over fb and discord and stuff. The idea of a direct solving Roux method is really exciting. I'm worried that lookahead and ergonomics will lead to a lower tps cap but I dont have a 4x4 to try this out with, so I can't say for sure. I'm also not sure it's too efficient

I know very little about 4x4 though, so hopefully I'm wrong about all these :p

I'm not sure as to the true nomenclature of this, but the original poster claimed it was 1LLSLL. I could see it as being viewed 2 ways: COLL and TPLL are connected because COLL is a precursor/requirement for TPLL, making it 2 look; or TPLL as being separate and inserting the edge is the only think that solves the LS, making it 1LLSLL. I suppose either are technically correct viewpoints, guess we'll have to let people decide!
I'm not exactly sure why it's called "TPLL" but I think we should go with established nomenclature: most people would simply call this CLS+L5E
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
480
Likes
112
This resembles Waterman, but I think it's less efficient/ergonomic.


This is an alright 4x4 method, we've talked about it over fb and discord and stuff. The idea of a direct solving Roux method is really exciting. I'm worried that lookahead and ergonomics will lead to a lower tps cap but I dont have a 4x4 to try this out with, so I can't say for sure. I'm also not sure it's too efficient

I know very little about 4x4 though, so hopefully I'm wrong about all these :p



I'm not exactly sure why it's called "TPLL" but I think we should go with established nomenclature: most people would simply call this CLS+L5E
Yeah I understand where you're coming from (probably just call it L5EP from now on), but isn't the only goal of CLS to orient the corners, not solve them?
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Likes
199
Location
Char
A lot of how to do all the fancy CP reduction for 2GR (2-gen redux) is still in the works, but just to give a bit of an update on the stuff I'm working on, here's what I'm thinking about right now. The inspection is very difficult at the moment as everything is still a work in progress, and the rest of the solve is straightforward.

In inspection:
1) Solve DLB with a rotation
2) find key swap
3) determine how to solve EOPair (explained below)
4) find key swap after moves needed to solve EOPair

The substeps in order:
EOPair (8 moves, mostly <R,r,U,u,F,f> to make CP tracking ez, but not a hard rule): orient the edges w.r.t the proper centers (so if your DLB piece is white-blue-orange, then you want to orient w.r.t red/orange front, white top), then solve a 2x1x1 by placing the LD edge.
2GLine (3 moves): while preserving EO, expand the 2x1x1 into a 3x1x1 and reduce corners to <R,U> and the entire cube to <R,r2,U,u2>.
Block (8 moves, mostly <R,r2,U,u2>): while preserving EO, expand the 3x1x1 into a 3x2x2.
F2L (13 moves, all <R,U>): solve the rest of the F2L. (keep in mind you'll sometimes get lucky pairs for an F2L-on-left. Definitely make use of them.)
2GLL (15 moves, mostly <R,U>): 1LLL w/ 84 algs.

Wholesolve: 47 moves, 28 of which are <R,U> (~60% of the solve). (For comparison, ZZ-b gets 47, ZZ-CT gets 52, Felik's ao100 got 61, and the avg movecount of a bunch of Lau's solves on cubesolv.es is 49)

There are of course a couple of "plugin" methods you can add as well on top of your 1LLL: if you have an awkward pair, you could use TSLE/TTLL or CLS/L5E, or insert the pair and learn more 2GLL-like algsets that solve LL + fix a twisted corner; you can make NM blocks if they look really nice, etc.

I know I'm not giving much practical stuff here as inspection thingies still need to be worked out (which is basically just me practicing EOPair over and over to see how feasible/ergonomic it really is), but: here are 9 example solves to feast your eyes on :) Average movecount is 45.2 (σ = 6.18).

If EOPair turns out to be too awkward of a step, then my backup idea is a much improved Noah's CP Blocks 2.0:
CPLine (3 moves): 3x1x1 + CP.
FB (8 moves): Expand to 3x2x1.
EOLine (9 moves): <R,r,U,M> to solve EO + DFDB. mdipalma and I did some playing around with HARCS today and got avg movecount for this at 8.6 moves (n = 10).
F2L, 2GLL (28 moves): as before.

Wholesolve: 48 moves.

Issues here: CPLine will require a good amount of color neutrality to make use of any free pairs (p = 0.64, n = 69) or pairs 1 move away from being formed (p = 1, n = 40). You'll also need fast EO recognition methods and a good way to solve EO + Line pieces efficiently (personally this seems hard but the old CP Blocks thread has Kirjava saying this step is actually very straightforward. If someone can show this to be super easy I might look into it more).

I like the first idea more if EOPair turns out to be really nice and plannable in the same time that top ZZ solvers plan their EOLines (~3-4 seconds)--I think it's certainly possible to determine key swap in ~2 seconds, and that leaves at least 8 seconds to track the key swap in order to predict what it'll be after EOPair.
 
Top