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 solve corners before E slice edges? Sure, it makes CLL algs better, but it makes E slice edges more hard than they should be. At that point, why not just use Roux?

Thanks everyone for the support, and good luck @ImmolatedMarmoset using this method! @Skewbed It’s not quite as simple as that, this method has a lower learning curve because it’s less blockbuild-y which can be good for some people, and 2x2 one-looking skills transfer to this, unlike Roux, so doing Skis+CLL is pretty realistic occasionally.
I feel that one is not definitively better than the other, but it depends on things about the solver. (maybe I’m wrong?) @Aerma maybe I’ll name this fluffy alligator??? (joke lol, I’ll stick with Skis)

@WoowyBaby I like the look of the skis method a lot. If you can somehow do L and R well, I think that it could be really good. An E2L approach would probably work. Also, CLL is definitely better than CMLL, and it could be possible to one look skis+corners, as it's one looking a 2x2+2 edges. As a plus, LSE is already highly developed.

Optimization will be slightly needed for CLL, as most 2x2 algs would work. And compiling a lot of the L&R cases to see if you could find a good way to do it when the edge is in placed and flipped (for example) and finding good ways to solve the majority of cases.

@WoowyBaby I like the look of the skis method a lot. If you can somehow do L and R well, I think that it could be really good. An E2L approach would probably work. Also, CLL is definitely better than CMLL, and it could be possible to one look skis+corners, as it's one looking a 2x2+2 edges. As a plus, LSE is already highly developed.

Optimization will be slightly needed for CLL, as most 2x2 algs would work. And compiling a lot of the L&R cases to see if you could find a good way to do it when the edge is in placed and flipped (for example) and finding good ways to solve the majority of cases.

Yeah, I do agree LR is definitely the step with the most room for improvement and optimizations, and I’ll try to add more useful tricks/algs to my main post, and yes a LMCF E2L approach is useful.
I kinda want clear up the reason I named it LR is because in the LSE step LR you solve an edge pair. In Skis, if you do decide to solve it in two pairs of edges, it doesn’t have to be left side color then right side color or anything (LR≠Left&Right). I guess my naming of the step LR wasn’t so smart. Oh well.

For CLL, basically all 2x2 algs work, but for 3x3, RUD algs become accessible like R2 D’ R U2 R’ D R U2 R where on the 2 you’d do something else. I’ll soon add a spoiler on my main post with CLL algs.

Spoiler: “Other”

lol I’ve edited my main post like fifty times xd the more the merrier amirite

ImmolatedMarmoset I’m sorry if your gigaminx method idea is forever buried :/ hopefully not =)

At what point do ideas ‘merit their own thread’? What things go on the SS Wiki?
It makes sense if these aren’t answered, they’re just my thoughts.

I'd say it merits its own thread when it's kinda developed. So once there's a solid and consistent way to do LR, go with that. My thoughts have been to solve the LR centres sooner too. Out of Chris Olson's CLLs, the ones that don't work are: S 2 and 5*, Pi 4**, U 3* and 4*, L 3* and 4, H 2* and 4*. If there's a * it means that an alt also works. The number of them is the number alt. For the ones without an alt, just use the CMLL.

Yeah, I do agree LR is definitely the step with the most room for improvement and optimizations, and I’ll try to add more useful tricks/algs to my main post, and yes a LMCF E2L approach is useful.
I kinda want clear up the reason I named it LR is because in the LSE step LR you solve an edge pair. In Skis, if you do decide to solve it in two pairs of edges, it doesn’t have to be left side color then right side color or anything (LR≠Left&Right). I guess my naming of the step LR wasn’t so smart. Oh well.

For CLL, basically all 2x2 algs work, but for 3x3, RUD algs become accessible like R2 D’ R U2 R’ D R U2 R where on the 2 you’d do something else. I’ll soon add a spoiler on my main post with CLL algs.

Spoiler: “Other”

lol I’ve edited my main post like fifty times xd the more the merrier amirite

ImmolatedMarmoset I’m sorry if your gigaminx method idea is forever buried :/ hopefully not =)

At what point do ideas ‘merit their own thread’? What things go on the SS Wiki?
It makes sense if these aren’t answered, they’re just my thoughts.

Hi! Yeah, Gigaminx<3x3 so I’m not too worried about it. Also, instead of just solving FL FR BL BR in the LR stage, it seems to me you could also do UL UR FL FR or UL UR BL BR. Would that make LR better?

Hi! Yeah, Gigaminx<3x3 so I’m not too worried about it. Also, instead of just solving FL FR BL BR in the LR stage, it seems to me you could also do UL UR FL FR or UL UR BL BR. Would that make LR better?

In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t really care about Left/Right colors.

MAY 5TH EDIT: AHHH I MISUNDERSTOOD- yes solving UL UR BL BR could be better but then your color scheme is wrong for LSE and most people are only white/yellow neutral, so this would only be considered if you’re color neutral. (are you?)

What? In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t care about Left/Right colors.

Its basically reducing to a 2x2x3, but I think the way I get there is unique.

Also, I know that literally no-one cares about speedsolving 2x2x4

The steps:

Corner Orienation - Return the puzzle back to tower shape. Since you're just orienting a 2x2, use Guimond orientation (16 algs) Horizontal Layer - Hold the puzzle horizontally, with the oriented corners on the right and left. The goal of this step is to solve a layer using Rw, U2 and F2 (to preserve CO). This step is pretty intuitive. CLL - Do CLL, just like on 2x2. There are only 7 cases (U3, U4, T5, T6, H1, H2 and Y-perm) which will show up because the corners are oriented on the left and right. You can also solve a diagonal face and do EG-2, but not as many people know it, and the algs are worse. You can't use two-look CLL here because it'll screw up CO. 2x2x3 - Now it's a 2x2x3 with the E-slice solved. Use @WoowyBaby 's method because eveything else sucks (sorry PBL)

Does this already exist? If it does I'll delete ASAP.

Example solve:
Scramble: U' R2 U' F2 D2 R2 D R2 Uw R' Uw' F R' F Uw F2 (Made by merging a 2x2x3 scramble and a 2x2 scramble)

R' Uw R //orientation (3/36)
z' y2 R2 F2 //layer (2/36)
Rw U Rw' U2 Rw U Rw' U Rw' F Rw F' U'//CLL (13/36)
z U2 R2 U R2 D2 //left block (5/36)
R2 //right pair (1/36)
U' R2 U R2' F2 U' R2 U R2' U F2 U //PL5C (12/36)

36 Moves (but extremely lucky, average movecount is probably somewhere between 40 - 50)

Its basically reducing to a 2x2x3, but I think the way I get there is unique.

Also, I know that literally no-one cares about speedsolving 2x2x4

The steps:

Corner Orienation - Return the puzzle back to tower shape. Since you're just orienting a 2x2, use Guimond orientation (16 algs) Horizontal Layer - Hold the puzzle horizontally, with the oriented corners on the right and left. The goal of this step is to solve a layer using Rw, U2 and F2 (to preserve CO). This step is pretty intuitive. CLL - Do CLL, just like on 2x2. There are only 7 cases (U3, U4, T5, T6, H1, H2 and Y-perm) which will show up because the corners are oriented on the left and right. You can also solve a diagonal face and do EG-2, but not as many people know it, and the algs are worse. You can't use two-look CLL here because it'll screw up CO. 2x2x3 - Now it's a 2x2x3 with the E-slice solved. Use @WoowyBaby 's method because eveything else sucks (sorry PBL)

Does this already exist? If it does I'll delete ASAP.

Example solve:
Scramble: U' R2 U' F2 D2 R2 D R2 Uw R' Uw' F R' F Uw F2 (Made by merging a 2x2x3 scramble and a 2x2 scramble)

R' U R //orientation (3/36)
z' y2 R2 F2 //layer (2/36)
Rw U Rw' U2 Rw U Rw' U Rw' F Rw F' U'//CLL (13/36)
z U2 R2 U R2 D2 //left block (5/36)
R2 //right pair (1/36)
U' R2 U R2' F2 U' R2 U R2' U F2 U //PL5C (12/36)

36 Moves (but extremely lucky, average movecount is probably somewhere between 40 - 50)

That’s pretty cool! I wish I had a 2x2x4 to test this out.....
BUT THEN I REALIZED I DO!
-I think I said earlier, you can perfectly simulate a Tower Cube (2x2x3) on a 4x4 if you do Wide R2 L2 F2 B2 and Normal U D.
-Well you can simulate a 2x2x4 too! Wide R L F B U D + Normal U D! Although you can't get the shape shifting cause it’s a 4x4, it still solves the same way.

Your method is pretty smart GJ! If I were to make a 2x2x4 method, it would start with CO, just like yours.
Doing an E layer is a fine step.
Though I’m against CLL for the other E layer, I think there could be a better way...
As for the 2x2x3 step, thanks for using my method! I’m happy people like you think my Tower Cube method is better than OPE.

I messed around for a while and this is the best method idea I got, you tell me if you think its better or worse than yours-

Your scramble:
U' R2 U' F2 D2 R2 D R2 Uw R' Uw' F R' F Uw F2
My solution:
R' Uw R // CO (3) Same as you, again GJ for picking CO as first step
U (x2) U' Uw' R2 // 3 Pairs (4)
U' D' R2 U R2 U' R2 D // L5Pairs (8)
Uw' F2 // 3/4 Layer (3)
R Uw' R Uw' R' F R' F' R Uw R' Uw // L5P (12) 30 moves

Here's another solve with the 2x2x4 method I've made-
Scramble: U R2 U' R2 U' F2 U2 R2 D R2 F Uw R' Uw R F' Uw' F' Uw2
(z y)
F R2 Uw R' // CO (4)
U' D L2 (y) // 3 Pairs (3)
U' R2 U R2' U R2 U2 R2' U' // L5Pairs (9)
Uw' R2 // 3/4 Layer (2)
Uw' R2 Uw R2 Uw' R2 Dw R2 // L5P (8) 26 moves

Average movecount under 30, though solving pairs has bad recog.
That's my 2x2x4 method.

I'm amazed that you we're able to get under 30 moves on average. That's insane! Solving it in pairs is what MMAP taught in his tutorial, and that's what I used to solve it originally. I gave up that method because imo the recognition was wayyyyy to hard. I feel like it's because there are two red + green edges, so you have to match the correct corner with one of two edges that look exactly the same.

How does L5Pairs work? I'm assuming its algs (which would make a lot of sense) but I'm not entirely sure how you do it. If it is algs, how many are there? My method has 7 (CLL) + 8 (PL5C). I'm curious to see how many yours has.

Overall, I don't think my method can get anywhere close to the movecount yours has (seriously, I never even considered <30 moves as possible),
I do however think my method is better for spamming TPS . So I guess it depends on weather you're doing 2x2x4 speedsolves or 2x2x4 FMC .

-Well you can simulate a 2x2x4 too! Wide R L F B U D + Normal U D! Although you can't get the shape shifting cause it’s a 4x4, it still solves the same way.

I do agree, with my method there's no way to spam TPS during pairs, your method is better.

I haven't tested either method with lots of solves, so I don't know which is faster, but I don't really care about speedsolving 2x2x4, I don't even have one lol (4x4 substitute xd)

As for the # of algs, I think its 8 L5Pairs + 8 L5P = 16 algs (if you include CO then its 19 algs total)

I don't think I'm going to do any more 2x2x4 method theorizing, I'm done with it now lol

For the Skis Method?
No, I don’t know what you’re thinking, it’s an intuitive step, there no way to make LR algorithms.
It’s like trying to make an alg set for CFOP Cross, it just doesn’t make sense.

As the developer of LMCF I would disagree dramatically; in fact solving your skis-LR step would be very algorithmic. The latest LMCF document is vastly out of date (by years) and since its publication vast advancements have been made to the LMCF method which I have been wanting to finally compile into a new document, and most of the development has happened in the transition & E2L phases primarily because of the poor ergonomics that the E2L phase originally had (it was the weakest of the phases, since LMCF is EG-Transition-E2L-LSE).
For LMCF the trick to E2L is to first solve more edges U and D edges in the transition phase (giving you more lookahead time to plan E2L), then choose a flow that minimizes regrips and rotations during E2L; and this is done by making decisions during lookahead and choosing alternate E2L algorithms (or choosing a different pair to solve) based on the current state of the cube; by knowing multiple E2L algs for each case you can choose one that does not require a regrip or rotation leading into the next pair or LSE. Most E2L algorithms solve UL-UR plus optionally E slice edges or D-slice edges. For Skis-LR, the problem is targeting the four E edges will not be ergonomic at all; you will instead more likely solve UL+UR plus either FR+FL or BR+BL, then do an x/x' and finish with LSE. The reason I feel LMCF still holds an advantage because it doesn't place any constraints on which edges are solved, maximizing luck and maximizing freedom to solve easier pairs and triplets. I have (long ago) tried LMCF variants that solve additional D layer edges during the corners solve, making variants similar to Skis-LR. The most obvious choice is to solve the BD edge during EG, since almost all EG algorithms do not affect the BD edge; to be fair, the vast majority of EG algorithms do not affect the DL or DR edges either; so in fact you could start with Skis-EG and make it much easier to form the skis on the 1st step. From there my personal preference would be to solve the L/R edges in an unconstrained fashion using the E2L pairs, triplets and quadruplet algorithms (recent advances in LMCF means that triplets are now the most commonly solved with the occasional quadruplet on luckier solves). Of course in LMCF, LSE is made significantly more complicated by the fact that you can end up with the last six edges where you have M-slices edges unsolved and two edges on the R face that are unsolved (with L face fully solved), or vice versa, and this configuration requires Waterman LSE algorithms which were very poor in their 1988 form (in terms of TPS and ergonomics), and I have recalculated/regenerated all the Waterman LSE algorithms now for way faster TPS and ergonomics, and in a previous post I showed that with the improved Waterman algorithms, in most cases the 'bad' LSE case where two edges are unsolved on the R face (or L face) often ends up faster than the Roux situation, because in the Roux situation you are finishing with 2-gen MU, whereas in the Waterman LSE case the algs are 3-gen RMU with lots of RU and very few M (some are even 2-gen rRU).

Over the last few years LMCF speed potential has greatly increased. However I am still realistic and Roux and ZBRoux, in my opinion, still hold a very slight advantage; however I do not believe their advantage will last long since LMCF still is fairly undeveloped and even in a fairly undeveloped state it is almost as fast and ergonomic as Roux and ZBRoux which are in my opinion the currently fastest methods.

The hurdle with LMCF is that for maximum speed potential there are a lot of algorithms, and ZBRoux and CFOP+ZBLL are the most similar in terms of algorithm count, each requiring around 550 algorithms. I currently use about 300 algorithms for LMCF but I am at a disadvantage because there are still about 250 algorithms that I haven't memorized, and for those cases I need to solve in 2 steps instead of 1.

As the developer of LMCF I would disagree dramatically; in fact solving your skis-LR step would be very algorithmic. The latest LMCF document is vastly out of date (by years) and since its publication vast advancements have been made to the LMCF method which I have been wanting to finally compile into a new document, and most of the development has happened in the transition & E2L phases primarily because of the poor ergonomics that the E2L phase originally had (it was the weakest of the phases, since LMCF is EG-Transition-E2L-LSE).
For LMCF the trick to E2L is to first solve more edges U and D edges in the transition phase (giving you more lookahead time to plan E2L), then choose a flow that minimizes regrips and rotations during E2L; and this is done by making decisions during lookahead and choosing alternate E2L algorithms (or choosing a different pair to solve) based on the current state of the cube; by knowing multiple E2L algs for each case you can choose one that does not require a regrip or rotation leading into the next pair or LSE. Most E2L algorithms solve UL-UR plus optionally E slice edges or D-slice edges. For Skis-LR, the problem is targeting the four E edges will not be ergonomic at all; you will instead more likely solve UL+UR plus either FR+FL or BR+BL, then do an x/x' and finish with LSE. The reason I feel LMCF still holds an advantage because it doesn't place any constraints on which edges are solved, maximizing luck and maximizing freedom to solve easier pairs and triplets. I have (long ago) tried LMCF variants that solve additional D layer edges during the corners solve, making variants similar to Skis-LR. The most obvious choice is to solve the BD edge during EG, since almost all EG algorithms do not affect the BD edge; to be fair, the vast majority of EG algorithms do not affect the DL or DR edges either; so in fact you could start with Skis-EG and make it much easier to form the skis on the 1st step. From there my personal preference would be to solve the L/R edges in an unconstrained fashion using the E2L pairs, triplets and quadruplet algorithms (recent advances in LMCF means that triplets are now the most commonly solved with the occasional quadruplet on luckier solves). Of course in LMCF, LSE is made significantly more complicated by the fact that you can end up with the last six edges where you have M-slices edges unsolved and two edges on the R face that are unsolved (with L face fully solved), or vice versa, and this configuration requires Waterman LSE algorithms which were very poor in their 1988 form (in terms of TPS and ergonomics), and I have recalculated/regenerated all the Waterman LSE algorithms now for way faster TPS and ergonomics, and in a previous post I showed that with the improved Waterman algorithms, in most cases the 'bad' LSE case where two edges are unsolved on the R face (or L face) often ends up faster than the Roux situation, because in the Roux situation you are finishing with 2-gen MU, whereas in the Waterman LSE case the algs are 3-gen RMU with lots of RU and very few M (some are even 2-gen rRU).

Over the last few years LMCF speed potential has greatly increased. However I am still realistic and Roux and ZBRoux, in my opinion, still hold a very slight advantage; however I do not believe their advantage will last long since LMCF still is fairly undeveloped and even in a fairly undeveloped state it is almost as fast and ergonomic as Roux and ZBRoux which are in my opinion the currently fastest methods.

The hurdle with LMCF is that for maximum speed potential there are a lot of algorithms, and ZBRoux and CFOP+ZBLL are the most similar in terms of algorithm count, each requiring around 550 algorithms. I currently use about 300 algorithms for LMCF but I am at a disadvantage because there are still about 250 algorithms that I haven't memorized, and for those cases I need to solve in 2 steps instead of 1.

Thanks for that LMCF rant we needed......
(these people would appreciate it LMCF thread)

About the parts talking about Skis, you can do LR completely intuitively by making edge pairs. You can learn “algorithms” to solve some cases more efficiently, like R U M’ U’ R’ instead of x M2 U’ M’ U2 M’ U’ (they solve the same case).
Solving UL UR BL BR may be more efficient, but you’d be solving pieces that don’t share the correct colors so you’d have less choices to do, and LSE would have the wrong color scheme (relative to Skis) so you would have to be color neutral which many people aren’t and won’t be, though it is a cool idea, good job for thinking of that.

In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t really care about Left/Right colors.

MAY 5TH EDIT: AHHH I MISUNDERSTOOD- yes solving UL UR BL BR could be better but then your color scheme is wrong for LSE and most people are only white/yellow neutral, so this would only be considered if you’re color neutral. (are you?)
Or FB centers?

yeah, I thought about that. You could get used to 2 extra colors for LSE, and I don’t think it would be that hard. I’m not CN, only Y/W CN, but I do think it’s possible. It would be harder for me to blockbuild on say, blue than it would be to do LSE.

LMCF LSE is much more complicated than Roux LSE and one of the reason is exactly as people mentioned, that you have cases where the L/R colors are misaligned; doing L2 or R2 means that you can still technically do Roux LSE but if you do a quarter turn on L or R the color recognition becomes basically impossible; this is why LMCF LSE works very differently than Roux LSE so that it doesn't depend on the L-R colors being equal or opposite. In LMCF if you have the case where the remaining unsolved edges are the M-slice plus UL+UR, then you must convert the cube to a case where one of UL or UR contains either of the UL or UR edges in any permutation or orientation, then you solve UL+UR+orient midges in one step.

In 'bad' LMCF LSE cases, both UL and UR contain edges from the M-Slice. In this case it takes typically a 3-move U-M-U style combo to push a random UL/UR edge from the M-slice into any of their UL/UR slots in any orientation/permutation, then use one of the LMCF algorithms to finish. In this fashion the system is invariant of the L/R color alignment. Of course LMCF LSE also allows for the even more weird situation where the unsolved edges are UR+FR+Midges or UL+FL+Midges.

I made a flowchart of my current method for solving corners. It's basically the two-look Petrus corner method (permute then orient) but solving in one look 40% of the time using a 3-cycle commutator. I use it for Roux and 4x4.

That's rather rude. He just gave you a whole bunch of feedback on your method, and you dismissed it as a bunch of self promotion (Which he deserves, by the way. The amount of work he's put into that method is staggering.)

I made a flowchart of my current method for solving corners. It's basically the two-look Petrus corner method (permute then orient) but solving in one look 40% of the time using a 3-cycle commutator. I use it for Roux and 4x4.

Cool, I couldn’t say I’ve seen and idea like this! Flowcharts are very useful btw! I kinda want to play around with it, but I might need help on what ‘Eve’ is or how to do a pure twist commutator... :/