• 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!

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
As zanaso said this is what I am doing in inspection (and also what I said in my post on 2GR a while back, the first step is to solve DLB in inspection)



I've published all the information you need to figure out how to reduce, but it's definitely not friendly yet. I'll release more user-friendly stuff once I get more things fleshed out.

As of right now I am deriving the DLF inserts by hand based on the following 3 key swap changes:
View attachment 7403

If you do start using FB -> 2x2x3+EO, let me know how fast you can orient the edges and solve DFDB and if you can regularly get 9 stm.

Also, please stop calling it pootris. It's just not a good name.
okay. I stopped calling it pootris, I call it OBLBL-3 because that's pretty much what it is: OBLBL on 3x3.
so I may learn 2GR, but I think that just CPline then EO is better, maybe instead of tracking CP while doing EO, tracking EO while doing CP is a better Idea.
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Location
Char
I think that just CPline then EO is better, maybe instead of tracking CP while doing EO, tracking EO while doing CP is a better Idea.
I've tried this out--tracking EO while doing CPFB is harder than you'd think (you have to keep track of 11 pieces + where the centers are over the course of ~11 moves), and if you don't track EO then the recognition seems difficult.

I break down the advantages and disadvantages of this variant in my original post a while back up in this thread, read that pls
 

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
437
I thought of an idea for square-1. It is a possible improvement on the Vandenberg method.
1- Parity cubeshape
2- Corner separation (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)
3- Edge separation and permutation of D-layer corners
4- Reduced PBL subset
Step one and two could probably be done in one look, by an experienced squanner (I'm making that a word). Three is a reduced subset of ESCP (EOCP), where the top layer's permutation can be ignored, and would have 14 or 38 algs, depending in whether you use M2 first to reduce it to an easier case. Step four would have 210 algs, including non-parity EP and PLL. This could be a three look method, with a feasible number of algs, which would be crazy.
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
I thought of an idea for square-1. It is a possible improvement on the Vandenberg method.
1- Parity cubeshape
2- Corner separation (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)
3- Edge separation and permutation of D-layer corners
4- Reduced PBL subset
Step one and two could probably be done in one look, by an experienced squanner (I'm making that a word). Three is a reduced subset of ESCP (EOCP), where the top layer's permutation can be ignored, and would have 14 or 38 algs, depending in whether you use M2 first to reduce it to an easier case. Step four would have 210 algs, including non-parity EP and PLL. This could be a three look method, with a feasible number of algs, which would be crazy.
It looks like a lot like the Vandenbergh method
 

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
482
Hey guys, so here's the first draft of my N4 method (yet another ZZ 4x4 method.) PM me is you'd like to help me look into this further. The main goal of this was to minimize the amount of EO pairing while solving as well as drastically reducing rotations (also opens gates to M slice pairing in the beginning if you like that:))

1-L/R/D centers: Fairly easy, would recommend L/R first then put in D

2-Pair DB/DF edges and place in DL/DR: solvable with D or D'

3- Pair 1 more D layer edge + a corresponding E slice piece and put both oriented in E slice: 2 edges that make a 3x3x1 block (Orange White and Orange Green, Red White and Red Blue, etc)

4- Solve Last 3 Centers

5- Place line edges and solve 3x3x1 block with prepared edges: Hide block in the back of the cube

6- Solve one more 3x3x1 block: Same criterion, hide in back of cube

7- EO pair last 6 edges: I'd recommend that if you find parity to ensure that the parity is on a U layer edge to make blockbuilding easier

8- ZZ F2L

9- LL: Reccomend COLL and EPLL+Parity

If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll answer to the best of my ability. Still a work in progress and definitely in development, but if anyone's interested I'd be happy to work with them to make improvements!
 
Last edited:

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
Read the first line please. The point is that the last two steps are different. Saying that is like saying the ZB method is a lot like CFOP.
but ZB is not an improvement, at least not to most people. Also, most fast Square-1-ers can like ~3look squan anyway.(they often do something like this but intuitive)
 

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
437
Okay. I was mostly annoyed because you didn't give any answer, but I accept the "most people can 3 look square one anyway". My point in proposing this method is that, like ZB, though most people might not find it an improvement, but some might.
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Location
Char
What, the analogy holds

"This is a possible improvement to Vandenbergh"

"ZB is a possible improvement to CFOP"

Surely the dude didn't generate 700 algs if he didn't think it were a possible improvement.
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
What, the analogy holds

"This is a possible improvement to Vandenbergh"

"ZB is a possible improvement to CFOP"

Surely the dude didn't generate 700 algs if he didn't think it were a possible improvement.
wait they genned all of them? if so I'm impressed.
The thing I have against like vandenbergh in general is there are a few people sub-15 with roux& screw, so lol.
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Location
Char
34 STM 2GR Example Solve

No, I didn't try to do anything fancy here. Just lucky.

F2 R2 B2 L2 F2 D L2 D2 F2 U R2 F' U F' D R F L F L2 U2
z y // insp
U u2 r' f r f // EOPair 6/6
u r F r // 2GLine 4/10
U' M2 E2 // Block 3/13
R2 U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U z' // F2L 10/23
R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // 2GLL 11/34
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
34 STM 2GR Example Solve

No, I didn't try to do anything fancy here. Just lucky.

F2 R2 B2 L2 F2 D L2 D2 F2 U R2 F' U F' D R F L F L2 U2
z y // insp
U u2 r' f r f // EOPair 6/6
u r F r // 2GLine 4/10
U' M2 E2 // Block 3/13
R2 U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U z' // F2L 10/23
R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // 2GLL 11/34
Are these speedsolves?
 

Teoidus

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
583
Location
Char
They're not timed solves, but they are me typing up the first thing I see on alg.cubing.net. So I don't really sit and think about what to do
 
Top