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.

These suggestions are vaguely similar to what I proposed a long time ago for Roux solvers to solve the FR pair with the edge flipped then use Waterman Set 3 to finish L6E which will flip the edge during L6E.

Well for Ortega, you make a face, then do OLL, then do PBL, but you're asking for a method that you make two opposite faces simultaneously?
Sorry to say, but nothing like that exists. The only closest thing that kind of? does that is Guimond.

In Guimond if you predict your seperation then you can get two opposite faces in ~7 moves, one-looked in inspection, and then you end your solve with PBL. Although this probably isn't exactly what you're thinking.

Here's some examples of doing both faces at once then ending with PBL-

Scramble: F U R' F2 U R' F' R' U2
(x y)
R' U' R U2 R' U2 R2 // Both Faces
D' R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 // PBL

Scramble: F' U' R' F R' U R U' R
(y2)
U R' U R' // Both Faces
D' L D' L F2 L' D L' // PBL

Is this the general idea you have? I'm still not quite sure.

Yay!!
I just wanted to make sure this method was new before claiming it as my own. I will call it KFF, FF being first face. In it you simultaneously orient the corners and solve the first face, than you do PBL. BTW, that was what I meant.

Yay!!
I just wanted to make sure this method was new before claiming it as my own. I will call it KFF, FF being first face. In it you simultaneously orient the corners and solve the first face, than you do PBL. BTW, that was what I meant.

Whoa there, not so fast. How are you getting to the oriented corners stage and solve the first face? Both of those things together are pretty much impossible to do intuitively. If you’re going to post something to the thread, you should at least do a few example solves for yourself to make sure it works, provide in depth details for how to solve with the method on your post, and probably include an example solve or two.

It’s certainly an interesting idea, but it’s really just Ortega with two intuitive faces, something that would at least be hard for me to inspect in 15 seconds. I like that there is a skipped step, but it doesn’t seem as efficient as CLL+ or HD-G (in the 12-15 move range) so if you were trying to go for world class times with this method I’m not sure it’d work.

Just curious, is there any documentation on skewb tcll? I've been thinking about it for a while and know a couple full TCLL algs and made and intermediate version that orients the twisted corner and puts the correct center on the U face.

The Gan 356i smart cube has great potential in rapidly examining move counts in speed solves vs. slower solves, but at the moment the device is hindered by very poor software that can't detect or calculate M/M2 moves correctly. Once they fix the software it will be an awesome tool in the arsenal for new method development. Reconstructing solves manually is very time consuming, and how many times have we asked such questions as what has lower moves, Roux or ZBRoux? If top cubers had 356i cubes with proper software, the questions would already be answered.

The thing with ZBRoux is that by all accounts it is equal to Roux, just with so much more effort. You need to learn 493 algs and learn ZBLL recog and from multiple angles. Even when that is mastered, someone doing Roux could optimise in so many other ways.
TL;DR, ZBRoux isn't worth it, so we don't need software to help us answer these questions. Although the features are nice, that is very true.

An interesting ZZ variant I recently came up with: After F2L-1, orient last five corners. Then you are left with PLL + one F2L pair.

OL5C (Orientation of Last 5 Corners) only has 23 cases (same as CLS when the corner is inserted). The algs can all be 2-gen and it's similar to TSLE with handpicked good cases. Some are from WV, others are insertions cancelling into backsune, etc.

PLL+FR has 453 cases as far as I've calculated, but this includes PLL. It also includes TTLL. Recognition would be by recognizing CP, then recognizing the F2L case, and finally looking at 2 edges similar to ZBLL (but the two edges are always by an oriented corner).

This method is essentially an extension of ZZ-CT by simplifying TSLE and expanding TTLL. This allows for a faster orientation step and a similar permutation step with more cases. It has the same number of looks as ZBLL, but with easier recognition. However, its downfall is that it is not slot neutral. While decreasing F2L efficiency, this also means either FR or BL should be left open, because using FL or BR would require mirroring algs.

For now, I've genned algs for a 2-look permutation step: first the F2L pair + corners (35 cases), then EPLL. This could also be 2-looked by solving L5C (6 cases) then L5E (18+EPLL), and I'm sure there are other ways.

Let me know what you think or if I should post an example solve!

In terms of alg count it's better than ZZ, but we already know that WLL (the set where the corner is solved) has bad algs. It also isn't slot neutral, which is a massive drawback when compared to ZZ-A. It does have a similar movecount though, which is one advantage.
Basically, I don't see how it's worth it over ZZ-A.

This is a method for people who are learning or want to know CLL.
It's essentially using sunes to set up cases, but imo treating it as an alg gives it merit.

The Steps

1. Layer - just like CLL and LBL

2. Use a sune or anti-sune to set up a case w/ no corners oriented. These sets (Pi + H) have the easiest recognition imo, there are only 10 algs and almost all of them are good. It's good to treat each case in this step like an algorithm, even though there are only two.
Here are the angles (starting angles are from here http://www.cyotheking.com/ortega ) S - U' (AS) AS - U2 (S) U - U (AS) T - U' (S) L - U (AS or S)
Personally, I prefer backsune, but you can figure that out yourself

3. CLL - only 10 cases show up. It is impossible to skip this step which kind of sucks.

Overall I think this is pretty good because of its reasonable alg count, easy recognition and low move count (at least compared to LBL)
I don't know if this is 100% better than LBL, but it has its advantages.

Example solves (LBL vs this)

1.
Scramble:
U' F U' R' U' R U2 R' U2

LBL:
x
F R U2 R' //
R U R' U' R' F R F' //
U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' //
U' //

27 moves

This:
x
F R U2 R' //
U' R U R' U R U2 R'//
U' F R' F' R U2 R U R' U R U2 R' //

25 moves

2.
Scramble:
R U' F R' U F R2 F U' R'

LBL:
x2
F' R' U' R2 //
U2 R U R' U' R' F R F' //
U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' //

31 moves (although there are shorter Y- perms)

This:
x2
F' R' U' R2 //
U R U R' U R U2 R' //
R' F R F' R U' R' U' R U' R' //

This is a method for people who are learning or want to know CLL.
It's essentially using sunes to set up cases, but imo treating it as an alg gives it merit.

The Steps

1. Layer - just like CLL and LBL

2. Use a sune or anti-sune to set up a case w/ no corners oriented. These sets (Pi + H) have the easiest recognition imo, there are only 10 algs and almost all of them are good. It's good to treat each case in this step like an algorithm, even though there are only two.
Here are the angles (starting angles are from here http://www.cyotheking.com/ortega ) S - U' (AS) AS - U2 (S) U - U (AS) T - U' (S) L - U (AS or S)
Personally, I prefer backsune, but you can figure that out yourself

3. CLL - only 10 cases show up. It is impossible to skip this step which kind of sucks.

Overall I think this is pretty good because of its reasonable alg count, easy recognition and low move count (at least compared to LBL)
I don't know if this is 100% better than LBL, but it has its advantages.

Example solves (LBL vs this)

1.
Scramble:
U' F U' R' U' R U2 R' U2

LBL:
x
F R U2 R' //
R U R' U' R' F R F' //
U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' //
U' //

27 moves

This:
x
F R U2 R' //
U' R U R' U R U2 R'//
U' F R' F' R U2 R U R' U R U2 R' //

25 moves

2.
Scramble:
R U' F R' U F R2 F U' R'

LBL:
x2
F' R' U' R2 //
U2 R U R' U' R' F R F' //
U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' //

31 moves (although there are shorter Y- perms)

This:
x2
F' R' U' R2 //
U R U R' U R U2 R' //
R' F R F' R U' R' U' R U' R' //

Why not simply influence last layer while solving the first layer to force an H or Pi CLL case? It's hard to do every solve, but it would be much more efficient than tacking on 7-8 moves every solve.

@OreKehStrah and @Wish Lin I’m sure many people have proposed it and I even think people have the algorithms for it and are using it right now!
I just did a super quick search and here’s what I found- Link to Skewb Algs Google Sheet
Skewb TCLL for you!

@Filipe Teixeira Flipped OLL/PLL? Eh, not really feeling it. You’d have to change the way you think about the last pair but not the first three, and an extra 54 or 22 algorithms isn’t great. I do see how it can be useful some of the time, but for some reason or another I just don’t think people would use it.

@Angry_Mob I like that idea! It sounds smart and you probably thought about it a little bit unlike some other ideas here lol. I do have to agree that Pi and H and the easiest CLL sets to recognize, and Sunes are for sure the fastest way to change your LL. This method is even faster than LBL!
But, this is no match for full CLL, so you should only use this temporarily as a transition to full CLL, which btw is a lot easier to learn than I thought, so if you don’t know it I’d recommend learning it

I seriously believe @Angry_Mob ’s method can be a match with full CLL on some worse cases! Sune or antisune’s permutation effect on the last layer is definite, so the last layer can be one one-looked. Seems familiar, huh? It’s just full CLL with longer algs!

Algs will probably be terrible. Also, both of these suffer from not being slot-neutral unless you want to learn four variants of the same alg (or do extra rotations, like the y2 you have in your first sample solve).

Why not simply influence last layer while solving the first layer to force an H or Pi CLL case? It's hard to do every solve, but it would be much more efficient than tacking on 7-8 moves every solve.

I thought about that as well, but that will require some 2x2 version of VLS, and you also have to take the observation time into acoount, so...... Just use EG, less algs.