• 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
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
277
Likes
158
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
First step: you're doing the cfop/roux hybrid that is bad but with eo. (DRDL, F2L, CMLL, LSE). That doesn't save the method. You're better off doing standard roux.
Second step: not bad, but nothing massively good either.
Third step: exactly the same as the second.
Fourth step: CMLL messes up eo, so you'd use COLL.
Fifth step: L6EP (ELL but with 2 extra edges) would make this method alright.

Verdict: not bad, but not good. When you're coming up with new methods, you'll want to think if what you're proposing is bringing anything new to the scene, but don't let one not so good method mean that you don't make any more. Keep up with ideas and at least one good one will be in there.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
305
Likes
163
Location
The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multi stage...
First step: you're doing the cfop/roux hybrid that is bad but with eo. (DRDL, F2L, CMLL, LSE). That doesn't save the method. You're better off doing standard roux.
Second step: not bad, but nothing massively good either.
Third step: exactly the same as the second.
Fourth step: CMLL messes up eo, so you'd use COLL.
Fifth step: L6EP (ELL but with 2 extra edges) would make this method alright.

Verdict: not bad, but not good. When you're coming up with new methods, you'll want to think if what you're proposing is bringing anything new to the scene, but don't let one not so good method mean that you don't make any more. Keep up with ideas and at least one good one will be in there.
I understand. That makes a lot of sense. However, I invite you to look at Lin finish as opposed to just Roux Finish. I know that won’t save the method either, but I think that finish has potential and I want to keep working with it.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
34
Likes
12
Location
Utah
WCA
2015LYON01
Hexagonal Francisco is cool, so here is a different finish for it:

1. Build a Hexagon on D (a layer with an adjacent corner and edge missing on the right)
2. Insert E-slice edges (<rUr', RUR', U, u> gen)
3. L5E (what ever method you want)
4. L5C (two commutators or an alg)

This is pretty similar to M-CELL or T-CELL, just an edge in a different place.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
277
Likes
158
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
I understand. That makes a lot of sense. However, I invite you to look at Lin finish as opposed to just Roux Finish. I know that won’t save the method either, but I think that finish has potential and I want to keep working with it.
For the Lin finish, you can do COLL+edge->L5EP or CMLL+edge->L5E. If you do CMLL+edge, you might as well not do eo first and do the blocks like roux.

Hexagonal Francisco is cool, so here is a different finish for it:

1. Build a Hexagon on D (a layer with an adjacent corner and edge missing on the right)
2. Insert E-slice edges (<rUr', RUR', U, u> gen)
3. L5E (what ever method you want)
4. L5C (two commutators or an alg)

This is pretty similar to M-CELL or T-CELL, just an edge in a different place.
It's that method just with a different way to do F2L. L5E should be a nice alg set, and you should do L5C before L5E if you want to do it the best (1 look). And I think it needs to be explored a bit because it could be good, but afaik, L5C->L5E is the best for now.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,043
Likes
332
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
Hexagonal Francisco is cool, so here is a different finish for it:

1. Build a Hexagon on D (a layer with an adjacent corner and edge missing on the right)
2. Insert E-slice edges (<rUr', RUR', U, u> gen)
3. L5E (what ever method you want)
4. L5C (two commutators or an alg)

This is pretty similar to M-CELL or T-CELL, just an edge in a different place.
I made a variant of HF that I really like:
1) Hexagon + E layer however you like (I usually do Petrus block + F2L pair + edge)
2 or 3) CLS
2 or 3) EODF
4) PLL
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
305
Likes
163
Location
The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multi stage...
For the Lin finish, you can do COLL+edge->L5EP or CMLL+edge->L5E. If you do CMLL+edge, you might as well not do eo first and do the blocks like roux.


It's that method just with a different way to do F2L. L5E should be a nice alg set, and you should do L5C before L5E if you want to do it the best (1 look). And I think it needs to be explored a bit because it could be good, but afaik, L5C->L5E is the best for now.
I know. I didn’t originally understand that CMLL doesn’t preserve EO. So it would be insert DB edge, then COLL+1, then EPLL. All that is only 47 algs. I’m not trying to prove that this is a good method, I’m just trying to help you understand what I was going for.
 
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
57
Likes
48
That's a very interesting method! If you were gonna optimise it for speedsolving, 42 corners would work well with it, or even straight L5C, but that's 614 algorithms, so not really alg free. And I can see how this could be optimised a lot in terms of movecount. When I can, I'll edit this post with some more thoughts on the method after playing about with it.

EDIT: So, I've done a few solves so far, and I think that this method has potential. There just needs to be some speed optimising of the L3E+centres steps. Making that algorithmic would help a lot, but that's not too hard as you can just use comms from bld. The best way to do corners is 42 style IMO, as it allows you to use only 42 algorithms that a lot of solvers attracted to this method will already know (roux), and it's applicable on 3x3 as well. I'm not sure how it compares to Yau, but if it's more efficient, it should stand a good chance, and as you don't get parity, that will also help.
Thanks for trying it out! If you know a CLL algorithm set, then I think you're right that solving two 1x3x4 blocks and then doing the corners of the last layer would be easiest and fastest (this is basically Lewis method). Inserting the last edge in step 3b is not very move-efficient. Solving the corners and this one edge are the least efficient parts of the method, requiring just over 3 moves per piece solved.

I figured the last steps would be difficult to optimize for speed since they rely on slice moves, and speed solvers don't like slice moves. But it would be extremely easy to generate a set of algorithms for the edge pieces of the last slice, since there are only 24 possible permutations, arranged in 6 groups of 4 representing the 4 different positions of a rotated slice. So if you consider the 4 rotations to be a single permutation, then there are only 6 cases, one of which is a skip. In addition, the commutators for the last 3 edges in a single slice are always exactly the same and very easy to recognize.

User Rachmaninovian has already created an algorithm set for centers-last solving which is linked on the Sandwich Method wiki page, so that could be adapted here. There would of course be fewer cases and some more restrictions since we have 6 center pieces in one slice solved already. Much of the move efficiency in the last step of my solves comes from using 4-move commutators to solve lots of pieces at once, but these can be difficult to conjugate so they might not be appropriate for a speed solve. It also takes me about 12 minutes to solve a 4x4, and I'm sure if you spent 12 minutes on almost any method it would be very move-efficient.

Thanks again for taking the time to try it out. I can't really speak to speed solving, but I'm glad that you think it could be adapted to that purpose!

Edit: I just tried a "speed" solve and got 7 minutes, which is good for me I guess!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
185
Likes
63
Location
your imagination
YouTube
ucubeyt
What if Instead of doing CMLL 4a 4b and 4c you just did CMLL EBL (Edges of bottom layer) then ELL (Edges of Last Layer). Would that be a faster approach, or is it not worth looking into. Please write your opinions below!
 
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
298
Likes
191
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
What if Instead of doing CMLL 4a 4b and 4c you just did CMLL EBL (Edges of bottom layer) then ELL (Edges of Last Layer). Would that be a faster approach, or is it not worth looking into. Please write your opinions below!
No, it's not worth anything.
Doing ELL alone is less efficient than LSE. The reason is because with ELL, you have less freedom and have to backtrack to solve, but LSE 4a, 4b, 4c, you don't have either of those problems, and each step is very short. (am I making sense?)
The whole not backtracking thing is why computer algorithms like Thistlewaite and Kociemba don't blockbuild.
Many people has had this idea, but its less efficient, requires learning 25 algs, and is slower overall.
I made a variant of HF that I really like:
1) Hexagon + E layer however you like (I usually do Petrus block + F2L pair + edge)
2 or 3) CLS
2 or 3) EODF
4) PLL
This is exactly how the original proposal by Andrew solves the last 10 pieces, if you don’t know. :p
He also thought of HexagonalFrancisco-CT where you solve L10P with EODF, "TSLE", and TTLL. I think this is the faster approach, and has similar alg count as original because at TSLE, slot edge will already be inserted. Both around 130ish.
Either way is good, original or ct.
Also, like the signature of Hexagonal Francisco is the Hexagon, so solving a 2x2x3 at the start wouldn't be much of a HF variant in my opinion.

I thought of a way of L10P that would require a whole lot less algs:
EO - intuitive, easy, max 5 unique cases
CO - easier than CLS but harder than 2x2 CO. Requires 23 algs.
L5CP - basically the best TTLL's from each set. 8 algorithms. kind of inefficent, perhaps the downfall to this idea?
L5EP - Completely MU 2-gen, 16 algs. recognition may be hard, but algs are very quick.
Slower than 3 step aproaches, but has a third the algs.
What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
415
Likes
181
Doing ELL alone is less efficient than LSE.
That is inherently false. ELL is in fact a subset of L6E where the user has memorized speed-optimal algorithms for each possible case. Thus, it will always be faster than an intuitively created solution. That being said, bottom layer/top layer is not necessarily better. I think that the method's biggest downfall is the pause for recognition before ELL, and the worse ergonomics as compared to 4c. However, EBL, which includes solving the centers, seems faster than EOLR. With reflections, AUFs, and the guarantee that centers will be oriented (i.e. white or yellow will be facing up, for most people), there are only 24 cases, if I'm not wrong. It seems like they would generally be quick. I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.
 
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
298
Likes
191
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
That is inherently false. ELL is in fact a subset of L6E where the user has memorized speed-optimal algorithms for each possible case. Thus, it will always be faster than an intuitively created solution.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
Efficient as in movecount.
Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
/ preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
In this case, productivity = solving cube, but resource can mean movecount, as well as ergonomics, number of looks, steps, or time (pauses relates to time).

Most of the time, when people say efficient, they mean moves or something of that nature.

Average ELL cases are “deeper” positions of the cube than average LSE cases, they require more moves, thus less efficient move-count wise.
With reflections, AUFs, and the guarantee that centers will be oriented (i.e. white or yellow will be facing up, for most people), there are only 24 cases, if I'm not wrong. It seems like they would generally be quick. I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.
Here is a Random LSE solution with DF/DB, ELL (Sarah’s ell algs)-
Scr: B2 U’ L2 R2 D F2 D2 L R’ B L’ R D x2
Solution- M U’ M2 U M’ // U2 M2 U M U' M' U' M' U M' U M' U' M U2 [20 moves]
Here is a Random LSE solution with 4a, 4b, 4c (NO EOLR)-
Scr: B2 U’ L2 R2 D F2 D2 L R’ B L’ R D x2
Solution- U’ M’ U M’ // U2 M’ U2 M U M2 // U M U2 M [14 moves]

(I know this is only 1 solve, but it still proves a point)
Even if ELL has slightly better ergonomics or recognition, it wouldn’t make up for the 6 move / 30% moves difference, so it’s slower.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
277
Likes
158
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.
I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.
 
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
298
Likes
191
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
Hey @WoowyBaby, thanks for posting info about your ideas for the Kociemba variations.

I'm interested in trying this out, so please keep the info coming! (showing cases in the steps, etc.)

-= Solvador Cubi
I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?

So here goes some full example solves with Isom's Kociemba:

Scramble: B' L' F2 D2 B2 R2 B2 L F2 U2 R F2 R' F' L' R' F L2 R F'
y2
R F2 U2 F D' // EO DF
U2' R2' U' R U' R U' // 2-gen CO
E2 R' D' U2 L E2 L' // E-layer placement
U' R2 B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // CS + CP
M2 U2 M2 U' M2 D' M2 // L/R
D M' U2 M z' M' U2 M U2 M2 // 4c
42 STM

Scramble: L R2 B2 L2 U2 R2 U L2 U F2 D' U' R2 L' F R' B2 L D' F2 L
D' R D L2 F // EO
L D U' R' U // CO
E2 R U2 L E2 L’ // E-layer placement
U D R2 // CS
U x R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ R2 x’ // CP
M’ U2 M’ D’ M2 y M’ U2 M U2 M2 // L/R
U M’ u2 M x y U2 M U2 // 4c
45 STM

Scramble: L' F2 R' B2 L D2 L2 D2 F2 D2 L' F2 U' B' R F D' R' D F' U
D F R B’ L’ // EO DF (5)
R’ U’ R U2 R’ // 2-gen CO (5)
L E2 L’ D’ B2 U’ R E2 R’ // E-layer placement (9)
y R2 U R2 U R2 // CS (5)
U x R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2 x’ // CP (10)
y U’ M u2 M // L/R (4)
U’ M u2 M E L2 E’ L2 // 4c (8)
46 STM

Scramble: U2 R F' R2 B U2 B R2 B2 R2 D2 F R2 D2 U L' D' U2 F' L U2
z2
U B U’ D’ R’ F D’ // EO DF
U R’ U’ R U’ R U’ R’ // 2-gen CO
D2 R E2 R’ // E-layer placement
y R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 // CS
U’ y’ R2 U’ B2 U2 R2 U’ R2 // CP
U M2 U’ M’ U2 M’ D' M2 // L/R
D U2 M2 R2 x U M2 U2 M2 U R2 x’ U2 // 4c
51 STM

Scramble: R2 L F' U2 L' B U B' R U' F2 L2 U F2 B2 U D2 F2 D' F2 D'
y2
U’ L U F // EO DF
U2 R’ U’ R U’ R’ // 2-gen CO
D L E2 L’ U’ R E2 R’ // E-layer placement
U’ R2 // CS
U l’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2 x’ // CP
U M2 d M2 U’ M2 // L/R (mismatched)
u M2 u U x M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 x’ u2 U // 4c
49 STM

There’s five example solves!

Resources:
These can help with efficiency so much it’s magic!

EO - Many EO cases

CO - All possible 2-gen CO cases

E-layer placement - basically everything revolves around R E2 R’ and L E2 L’, and maybe some R2 F2, and lots of U and D moves to setup to an R E2 R’ case.
See example solves.

CS - So simple, no resources needed

CP -
Diag Top- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
Diag Bott.- R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R'
Adj. Top- l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2
Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2
Double Adjacent- R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 Double Diagonal- R2 F2 R2
Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- R U' R F2 R' U R' Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R

Permuting Last Edges - For this, you solve a L/R pair just like Roux, then another L/R on the other side, not a lot to learn, but then when you get to 4c step, there are many tricks you can use to finish your solve, such as R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 and Conjugated H-perm.

Stats-
Algorithms: min 5
Intuitive parts that get way better when you learn some efficient algs, cases, and tricks: literally everything
Movecount: about 42-48

This method doesn’t compete for the best speedsolving method, rather, Isom’s Kociemba is a fun novelty method with almost no algorithms and might be useful for FMC as well. (unrelated sidenote: what methods go on the wiki?)
It is possible to be fast with this, but not as easy as with CFOP/Roux.

That’s about it!
Solvador Cubi, hope this is what you’re asking for! If you want me to make a video, I can
~WoowyBaby
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
21
Likes
20
Location
Massachusetts
WCA
2018TRUD02
Tesseract Method

Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the Tesseract method. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.
The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front.

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...hod-alg-set/Pr8E_ldtmux8ep3vDRdEBWjagx6Pnqlq6
https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...algorithms/Bqxl_7JIwu56NKZJxzZ6jdJYL1MpKm11mj

I think that some of these algs might help to turn a bad scramble into a very good scramble.

For example: This case with no centers is U' R' U R' U' R U R. If executed correctly, it can be sub-1'ed easily.
tesseract.jpg

I realize that this method might not be great, but I thought that it would be a fun attempt at trying to come up with something new. Let me know what you think!
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
415
Likes
181
Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
Efficient as in movecount.
Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
/ preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
In this case, productivity = solving cube, but resource can mean movecount, as well as ergonomics, number of looks, steps, or time (pauses relates to time).

Most of the time, when people say efficient, they mean moves or something of that nature.

Average ELL cases are “deeper” positions of the cube than average LSE cases, they require more moves, thus less efficient move-count wise.
True. I was just being a bit nitpicky about the wording you used in your post from before, because it gave me the impression that you were saying that any L6E case will be solvable faster than any ELL case.
I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.
Yeah. I wasn't super clear myself. I was including lookahead as part of recognition, since it really is just pre-recognition, and I meant alg speed rather than efficiency.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
277
Likes
158
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
Tesseract Method

Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the Tesseract method. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.
The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front.

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...hod-alg-set/Pr8E_ldtmux8ep3vDRdEBWjagx6Pnqlq6
https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...algorithms/Bqxl_7JIwu56NKZJxzZ6jdJYL1MpKm11mj

I think that some of these algs might help to turn a bad scramble into a very good scramble.

For example: This case with no centers is U' R' U R' U' R U R. If executed correctly, it can be sub-1'ed easily.
View attachment 10108

I realize that this method might not be great, but I thought that it would be a fun attempt at trying to come up with something new. Let me know what you think!
It's probably another useful method to know for top first. Just learn more methods, and if you can come up with your own, great! I'm not good at pyra though, so if someone who was good could give their thoughts too, that'd be great.
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
145
Likes
44
Location
USA
I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?
...
Great, Thanks so much! I'm sure all this will help me (and others).

I'll be practicing it, but it will take me some time for me to get good at it, I'm sure.
and I plan to be taking my own notes along the way so I can hopefully make another 1 page reference sheet. :)

It seems like a nice method because even though there are several steps, they are all fairly simple.
(as well as having a low move count!)

In the PCBL step, I'm checking out the "Diag Top" alg you listed, to see if I like it.
It ends in a nice sexysledge, but I've always used: R U’ L U2 R’ U R L’ U’ L U2 R’ U L’ (14 htm)

I'll also need to find a way to intuitively do CO efficiently without memorizing the 72 cases! :)

Lastly, I don't know enough about Kociemba and how much your proposed steps are similar,
but if it's different enough, I say.. name the method anything you want! :)


-= Solvador Cubi
 
Top