TTLL kinda gave me an idea, what if we did TTLL but with the DF edge, and it was just EPLL, not CPLL too?
It would have only M and U moves and be pretty darn fast I think. Recognition would be really easy if LL corners were done beforehand.
So, back to the Petrus-block-first methods I've proposed a lot of:
1) Petrus block
1.50) One F2L pair
2) Insert other F2L pair with WVCP, or insert it then some CxLL varient
3) EO
4) DFLL
I'll split the alg load with you, they are pretty easy to gen (I made a couple already). @crafto22 has already made many of the algs (the ones where either FR is flipped or where ULUR are oriented) so that cuts off a lot of algs that need to generated.
Calculating the number of FREO alg is quite tricky imo, but I don't think it's quite 210, especially since FR flipped is only 9 cases. anyway how about you do the DF cases and I do the DB ones? I could probably finish em by this Sunday.
By allowing for AMS/AUF's greatly reduced alg count. So while there are >15 algs in each set, that's how many there would be with zero adjustments. I'll give you access to my document so you can start
TTLL kinda gave me an idea, what if we did TTLL but with the DF edge, and it was just EPLL, not CPLL too?
It would have only M and U moves and be pretty darn fast I think. Recognition would be really easy if LL corners were done beforehand.
So, back to the Petrus-block-first methods I've proposed a lot of:
1) Petrus block
1.50) One F2L pair
2) Insert other F2L pair with WVCP, or insert it then some CxLL varient
3) EO
4) DFLL
This step is called EP5 and is used in ZZ-Portico (formerly knows as ZZ-TartarugaSottosopra) by @mDiPalma (EODB -> F2L -> COLL -> EP5)
I think that this method is kind of silly and that just doing Petrus but leaving out DR and then rotating before EP5 (even as silly as that is) would just be better. Not to mention that Petrus with ZBLL is a lot better too.
I don't understand the appeal of this over normal Roux. All you're doing is solving DB during SB, using WVCP instead of CMLL (bad for several reasons, CMLL is just better), then doing a super restricted version of LSE (which means you're going to have a lot more M (as opposed to M') than normal LSE. On the upside you never get a 6 flip (only 5 edges left unsolved), but that's also true of Roux with just 2 CMLLs per case.
Apparently I miscalculated the # of EO+FR algs. If you allow for any situation to appear, you have 32 algs per set. With AUF's/AMS', this will go down significantly. I'll run some tests and see how far we can cut it and still have ~1 move setup.
Apparently I miscalculated the # of EO+FR algs. If you allow for any situation to appear, you have 32 algs per set. With AUF's/AMS', this will go down significantly. I'll run some tests and see how far we can cut it and still have ~1 move setup.
1)cp line + eo
this is where you reduce corners permutation and solve edge orientation
2)Es+co
separate all the equator pieces to the equator while solving corner orientation<R,r2,M2,U,u2,E2>
3)pa
permutate all pieces<R2,r2,M2,U,u,E>
advantages:
no algorithms
(assumed) low movecount, (not yet calculated) ##qs+htm (counts quarter slices as 1 move)
you never unsolve previous steps
name has pun possibility
disadvantages:
supper high learning curve
supper complex steps
has many double moves
name sounds bad
1)cp line + eo
this is where you reduce corners permutation and solve edge orientation
2)Es+co
separate all the equator pieces to the equator while solving corner orientation<R,r2,M2,U,u2,E2>
3)pa
permutate all pieces<R2,r2,M2,U,u,E>
advantages:
no algorithms
(assumed) low movecount, (not yet calculated) ##qs+htm (counts quarter slices as 1 move)
you never unsolve previous steps
name has pun possibility
disadvantages:
supper high learning curve
supper complex steps
has many double moves
name sounds bad
Hello
I never started a Threat here and have about zero experience with forums in general. I don't know if this Post is at the right place here, but I have an idea for ZZ on 5x5 which I want to be discussed, so I think it is.
I am a ZZ solver and really bad with CFOP, so I do ZZ on big cubes, too, or at least some kind of ZZ-ish stuff. I'd like to hear your opinion on it because I think it is as good as normal reduction and for ZZ solvers probably the better choice. Maybe you have suggestions to make it better or say it is complete ******** - please tell me.
To understand what I'm talking about you should know how to solve the 5x5 with reduction and have an idea about the concept of edge orientation.
So here are the steps:
1. I solve the centers and a white cross. While solving the cross edges, I hold the white center on the left an pair the edges on the M-slice. You can also do this step with Yau or Hoya or like what ever you want.
2. I do a cube rotation so the cross is at the bottom and pair four more edges. Usually these are the four edges I need for F2L. I also solve EO while putting them up, what doesn't need any extra effort. On 3x3 I usually hold blue in front so edges are "good" when the blue/green face looks upward and the orange/red face outward.
Sometimes there are some luckily paired yellow edges and I still don't really know how to deal with this because the method works better with the four F2L-edges paired on this step, but destroying half-solved edges on purpose just feels wrong. Anyway, you need at least two edges to build a block on either the right or the left side.
3. I rebuild the centers and hold the blue one in the front. Then I build a block on the left or the right side. If I solved all four F2L edges, I can choose now which block is more efficient/easier to see, if I didn't, i have to solve the block I have the edges for.
4. I solve the remaining edges on the two free slots while considering and if its possible solving EO. This is the most interesting step in my opinion.
The idea is basically to put the first two edges with solved EO at the top and see as early as possible if the last two edges will be good or bad:
If both are good I have EO-skip. Yay!
If both are bad I try to flip them while solving the block, this needs a few cube rotations and/or F-turns, so it isn't ideal. Sometimes it is better to accept that I will have two bad edges at LL.
If one edge is good and one is bad, one edge on the top layer has to be bad too. What I want is that the bad edge at the top is the F2L-edge that belongs in the slot where the other bad edge is. So I can just normal solve this pair with the blue center on the right or the left, then do a cube rotation and solve the other pair. This leads to a solved EO at LL (and feels really cool every time). Of course, if the edge I want to be bad at the top is one of the last two unsolved I can't do this. That's the reason I always try to avoid this by solving all four F2L edges in step 2.
This hole step may sound weird to people who didn't work with EO much but I think people who use CFOP and do some EO-skip tricks while solving the last slot will get it. Just try it out a few times.
5. Solve the other block/ the last two pairs and if it is not done yet EO.
6. ZBLL
As you see it is not really pure ZZ, it is more like CFOP where you pair edges, solve EO and do F2L at the same time. But I feel like ZZ solvers would like this more than just doing reduction and then having a big pause while looking for bad edges. I think if you don't solve EO while pairing edges you are just wasting time.
I will do some example solves soon so you see better what I'm talking about. I think especially step 4 is hard to understand without an example.
I may used some weird/wrong expressions, English is not my first language^^
Hello
I never started a Threat here and have about zero experience with forums in general. I don't know if this Post is at the right place here, but I have an idea for ZZ on 5x5 which I want to be discussed, so I think it is.
I am a ZZ solver and really bad with CFOP, so I do ZZ on big cubes, too, or at least some kind of ZZ-ish stuff. I'd like to hear your opinion on it because I think it is as good as normal reduction and for ZZ solvers probably the better choice. Maybe you have suggestions to make it better or say it is complete ******** - please tell me.
To understand what I'm talking about you should know how to solve the 5x5 with reduction and have an idea about the concept of edge orientation.
So here are the steps:
1. I solve the centers and a white cross. While solving the cross edges, I hold the white center on the left an pair the edges on the M-slice. You can also do this step with Yau or Hoya or like what ever you want.
2. I do a cube rotation so the cross is at the bottom and pair four more edges. Usually these are the four edges I need for F2L. I also solve EO while putting them up, what doesn't need any extra effort. On 3x3 I usually hold blue in front so edges are "good" when the blue/green face looks upward and the orange/red face outward.
Sometimes there are some luckily paired yellow edges and I still don't really know how to deal with this because the method works better with the four F2L-edges paired on this step, but destroying half-solved edges on purpose just feels wrong. Anyway, you need at least two edges to build a block on either the right or the left side.
3. I rebuild the centers and hold the blue one in the front. Then I build a block on the left or the right side. If I solved all four F2L edges, I can choose now which block is more efficient/easier to see, if I didn't, i have to solve the block I have the edges for.
4. I solve the remaining edges on the two free slots while considering and if its possible solving EO. This is the most interesting step in my opinion.
The idea is basically to put the first two edges with solved EO at the top and see as early as possible if the last two edges will be good or bad:
If both are good I have EO-skip. Yay!
If both are bad I try to flip them while solving the block, this needs a few cube rotations and/or F-turns, so it isn't ideal. Sometimes it is better to accept that I will have two bad edges at LL.
If one edge is good and one is bad, one edge on the top layer has to be bad too. What I want is that the bad edge at the top is the F2L-edge that belongs in the slot where the other bad edge is. So I can just normal solve this pair with the blue center on the right or the left, then do a cube rotation and solve the other pair. This leads to a solved EO at LL (and feels really cool every time). Of course, if the edge I want to be bad at the top is one of the last two unsolved I can't do this. That's the reason I always try to avoid this by solving all four F2L edges in step 2.
This hole step may sound weird to people who didn't work with EO much but I think people who use CFOP and do some EO-skip tricks while solving the last slot will get it. Just try it out a few times.
5. Solve the other block/ the last two pairs and if it is not done yet EO.
6. ZBLL
As you see it is not really pure ZZ, it is more like CFOP where you pair edges, solve EO and do F2L at the same time. But I feel like ZZ solvers would like this more than just doing reduction and then having a big pause while looking for bad edges. I think if you don't solve EO while pairing edges you are just wasting time.
I will do some example solves soon so you see better what I'm talking about. I think especially step 4 is hard to understand without an example.
I may used some weird/wrong expressions, English is not my first language^^
We do have a thread for new method suggestions; that would be the best place to put threads like this.
About the method itself: If you think EO detection on 3x3 stage is a problem, then perhaps you could solve a 4x4x5 block instead, while doing the reduction part? That way, all of the remaining unsolved edges would be left on two faces, making EO detection far easier. It would also give you more freedom during the edge pairing stages of the solve.
I want to share the methods that I use on here just because I haven't seen quite the same methods used anywhere.
For 3x3 the steps to my method are thus:
- Solve f2l-1 and eo in any way. This takes most of the solve and is very intuitive. Most of the time it is primarily blockbuilding with edge control but there is a lot of variation on what that can look like. This can really end up being anything from zz-f2l type stuff to petrus to cfop. A lot of the time it ends up being very similar to Heise.
- Winter Variation (27 cases, skip oll). Eventually I plan on learning Summer Variation as well.
- PLL
Average move count when I'm slow solving seems to be in the forties. The look-ahead is decent. The move set is primarily R and U based so it's fairly ergonomic. One downside is that I often end up doing 3-4 cube rotations because blockbuilding in the back is really hard.
For 4x4 the steps to my method are:
- Solve 2 opposite centers (as so many methods start with)
- Expand one center into a 2x3x3 block and the other into a 1x3x3 block kind of like roux but not really.
- Solve the slice between those blocks forming a 3x3x4 block like the second step of petrus.
- Solve the last 2 centers with the last cross piece
- Yau type edge pairing for last 5 dedges BUT done in a way that also orients the dedges. For the last 2 dedges I use one of 2 algorithms to pair so these could be misoriented, because of this I sometimes have to throw in a sledgehammer for normal 3x3 eo.
- OLL parity (if necessary)
- Build f3l-1 and the last pair
- winter variation
- PLL with parity
very complex studying of the cube in nearly all aspects. step one can be mastered by studying how moves effect eo and cp. step 2, the hard part is studying, and mesmerising the nearly solved corner orientations. step 3 requires studying how double moves effect the permutations of all the pieces. another thing for step 3, you must permutate the equator at the same time as the rest of the pieces.
very complex studying of the cube in nearly all aspects. step one can be mastered by studying how moves effect eo and cp. step 2, the hard part is studying, and mesmerising the nearly solved corner orientations. step 3 requires studying how double moves effect the permutations of all the pieces. another thing for step 3, you must permutate the equator at the same time as the rest of the pieces.
Apparently I miscalculated the # of EO+FR algs. If you allow for any situation to appear, you have 32 algs per set. With AUF's/AMS', this will go down significantly. I'll run some tests and see how far we can cut it and still have ~1 move setup.
The algs wouldn't be halved, but it would make them more efficient. Whether it's worth it or not would be debatable at best, though.
I think that we can make LSE more efficient but it will require a lot of algs. More info to follow. Also, playing with a half-turn redux method; may be good for FMC.
Great idea to cut down on the number of algs; in fact I'll probably use this while I'm learning full L7E, but it's not the most efficient. Been working on L7E really hard for the last couple of days so I'll present those algs this weekend. With rotational symmetry and AUFs there are exactly 125 unique cases, many of which are just one of the baseline cases with a couple of M or U moves tacked on to the end.
The algs wouldn't be halved, but it would make them more efficient. Whether it's worth it or not would be debatable at best, though.
I think that we can make LSE more efficient but it will require a lot of algs. More info to follow. Also, playing with a half-turn redux method; may be good for FMC.
Sounds interesting; I have no idea how you're gonna do this but GL btw I've actually been making the L7E algs on a seperate sheet that's much better organized than the one you had, so I'll show that to you tonight. Recently I've also come up with a BOPE L8E method and a mega-efficient squan method that's based off of HD, so I'll show you guys those tomorrow.
it can reach this achievement, but i did not put in enough time to find it yet. it will be updated to sub 40 soon. if i admit i cant find it, i will come up with another excuse of why it should not be banned.
