I want to elaborate on this a bit. You are inserting a pair that really isn't a pair, then using an alg to solve it. I think it would actually be faster/better to use the beginner method of solving the corners then using the two algorithms to place the edges, instead of learning 5 algorithms. There are also plenty of algorithms already existing for F2L if you don't want to learn intuitively.So CFOP with an added step? Might as well do beginner style F2L
ThisAlso, I think it's a bit silly to add one extra step to an existing method and call it a new method and put your name on it.
That's very interesting. I don't think I would have come up with that. Though, it is missing a few things.Hello, before I start off, I just wanted to say that the name of this method (McM Method) had nothing to do with the actual cube. Instead, it is a few of the letters that go into the creator's name.
Okay, now for the background. I, have been cubing for around 3 weeks, and decided that although solving a Rubik's Cube is fun, I would enjoy getting faster and faster, so I decided to indulge myself into the world of speed-cubing. I started around a 10 days ago, and have been learning the Fridrich Method. The only flaw, is that I've realized I'm much better at memorizing algorithms than doing anything slightly harder than basic intuitively, which was a big no no for F2L! I instead, searched around, only to find this method. So, I have come here to ask if you guys (speed-cubers) think that this method will suit me, or to just keep on pushing Fridrich? Here are the Main plans for the McM Method. The only difference from Fridrich is that the F2L is split into to different steps, full of easy to learn algorithms.
or you could just use FreeFOPThat's very interesting. I don't think I would have come up with that. Though, it is missing a few things.
I'd say stick with Fridrich. And if F2L is too hard for you, then you can do beginner method also known as the layer by layer method which is done in two steps (after you do the cross(with edges correctly in place), then do the corners of first layer(also correctly in place), then middle layer edges(also correctly in place) with one of the two algs: R U' R' U' F' U F, or F' U F U R U' R'). It is much simpler and faster.
Looking at this method here, it appears that it'd take up more moves per F2L slot than even the beginner method (layer by layer). If the first step of the F2L is to place the pieces into each slot, then why not place them in correctly (layer by layer) and not have to worry about orienting them in the second F2L step? And it lacks a great deal of explanation, for example, I can only assume that OF2L is placing all the corners and edges in their slots? And why is it called OF2L if it's permuting and not orienting (likewise PF2L)?
Slightly confusing, and definitely takes more moves than the beginner method.
So I suggest learning the beginner method, then going on to learn Fridrich F2L. And you can even learn F2L with algorithms (there are plenty of places that you can find algorithms). If you have any questions about different methods, and algorithms they use, you can head over to the speedsolving wiki as well.
belt.After looking around at all stated algorithms, and some I found by further searching, I decided to make my own that would suit me. I know this could be a huge mistake, bu I find it fun to experiment, and find breakthroughs in this section of cubing (maybe even more so than solving)! Anyway, I have completed my first working method about an hour ago, it combines a mix of F2L from CFOP, so incase this method is a fluke, I will still have been working on my least favorite CFOP step! I am not ready to reveal it, although as a spoiler I will say that unlike many other methods I've seen (especially main ones) it solves the middle layer in the first step, and does so that it only leaves two more faces to be solved! I thought a 3 (possibly 4) step method would be good, so that's what I've made. I'll reply to this thread with the method once I have it all down on a document. Thanks for the help!!!
Noooo! I practise that one several times a day.I call it the Diaper Method.
What do you all think?
If I didn't place the U-layer corners like that, then the 3rd and 4th steps would be much more complicated and require many more algorithms. I haven't looked at CO as an option, and I don't know how efficient that would be. Gotta search for algs.I do think that placing U-layer corners with the edges is a clever way to make keyholing the corners in easier. When you get to the last slot (in the ZBLBL variant), you could solve CO rather than EO with the last edge. I have not made algorithms for the remaining step yet, but I have been thinking about it. It seems like it has a learnable amount of algorithms and would have decent algorithms.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|V||New Simplest 3LLL "Fork Last Layer" method = smart 2-look OLL + CPLL (4 alg). Forget about full PLL and free up time for F2L||General Speedcubing Discussion||9|
|Method Development Competition 2021 - Join Now! $10 gift card for each winning team member! Sponsored by SpeedCubeShop.com||Forum Competitions||16|
|Brainstorming for methods/substeps (for speedsolving)||General Speedcubing Discussion||10|
|Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency||Puzzle Theory||27|
|Method Substeps and Subgroups||Puzzle Theory||4|
|New Simplest 3LLL "Fork Last Layer" method = smart 2-look OLL + CPLL (4 alg). Forget about full PLL and free up time for F2L|
|Method Development Competition 2021 - Join Now! $10 gift card for each winning team member! Sponsored by SpeedCubeShop.com|
|Brainstorming for methods/substeps (for speedsolving)|
|Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency|
|Method Substeps and Subgroups|