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.

Why not just learn f2l algorithmicaly instead of intuitively if thats what you find hard? However i recommend just practising intuitively, after a white it will become automatic for you, like the cross becomes after a while

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.

This will be much slower than the F2L portion of the LBL method, so there is no point. You just actually try to learn to do F2L, it's not something that you'll get used to in a few days though. However, if you really don't like CFOP, you can look at the three other methods via the link "Choosing a Method" found in my signature. Also, just learning the F2L algorithms in the CFOP method won't get you far, because all the cases assume that all other pairs are solved, yielding little flexibility.

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.

That'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.

That'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.

Yep, that's it. Even this method falls under FreeFOP then. Kinda like someone asking "What method should I use?" and someone responds "Freestyle" ;p lol

Hello, thanks everyone for the suggestions which I will definetly look into, but there seem to be a few common misconceptions about my post. The first is that I own this method, but I don't. I was able to get in touch with the creator via email to ask if I was allowed to post this topic onto a forum, to which he gladly said yes. The second is that I do not understand the LBL method. I do, and can execute it easily. The only reason I started this was to ask whether or not you would reccomend this to me, as a possibility. Once again thank you for all of the suggestions! I will definetly be looking at some of the other methods brought to my attention. Thanks!

Yep, that's it. Even this method falls under FreeFOP then. Kinda like someone asking "What method should I use?" and someone responds "Freestyle" ;p lol

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!!!

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!!!

Here I will be introducing two ideas for methods. The first is silly and experimental, the second is a more efficient version and has potential for high speeds.

I had a thought. It's not meant to be a super speedy method, and certainly isn't as fast as the main speed methods, but it can get close. In fact, I just came up with it for the name's sake, just to be fun. Try it out.

I call it the Diaper Method.

[CUBE]fc=ddddddddddddgggdgddddrrrdrd[/CUBE]

1-Solve the cross, just as any other cross based method.
2-Solve the middle layer edges while simultaneously placing all of the first layer corners into the last layer. This makes the diaper shape on each side. (0-8 moves per edge HTM)
3-Place the first three corners in the first layer. (avg 7 moves HTM).
4-The last corner will be placed while simultaneously orienting the last layer edges. (24 algs, 14 excluding mirrors. Has an average of 9 moves HTM. The smallest of these algs are used in step 3.)
5-LL as desired starting with already oriented edges.

While it doubles the moves for the F2L to be completed, it also orients the LL edges, allowing for the interesting variations of the LL with edges oriented.

The benefits of this algorithm are that you get the same effect as ZB, but with much fewer algorithms. The cons are that it is complicated and tricky to learn. Not only that, but compared to ZZ, there are algorithms to learn to finish the F2L with the LL edges oriented. Really, not a speed method. Just a fun experimental one.

Algorithms for step 2 are intuitive. Like Fridrich F2L, except half the corners are acceptable and in any orientation.

Algorithms for steps 3 and 4 can be found as a subset of ZBLS (aka ZBF2L). They are only the first eight of each page:
1- First eight of these.
2- First eight of these.
3- First eight of these.
Making 24 in total.

---- ZBLBL -This method is more efficient than the Diaper Method, modifying the LBL by inserting the last middle edge while simultaneously orienting the LL edges (only 21 algorithms, with avg of 8 moves HTM). It is also much easier to find and insert the first layer corners, than to insert middle edges while separating corners as in step 2 of the Diaper Method. The algorithms for ZBLBL are found here and here. I recommend you try this method as well.

OLL for these methods is reduced to 7 algorithms if you go that direction (OLL/PLL). Another variation of the LL that could be done (this I'm still developing the algorithms for as well) is where one permutes the edges while orienting the corners. This step has 42 algorithms, but the resulting PLL only needs 4 algs (H, Aa, Ab, E). Though recog for the first step is slightly tricky, it still works once learned. Once I get it fully developed, I'll post it separately.

1. Solve the bottom layer as quickly as possible, avoiding pops at all cost.
2. Solve the last layer while trying to prevent the cube from turning itself. Finger tricks come in handy.

Sorry, couldn't resist . (Parents will know what I'm on about.)

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.

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.

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.

The problem with using corners while placing an edge is that the position of the edge has less influence on the position of the corners, giving the corners more possibilities of rotation relative to the edge that needs inserted. This means more algs.