• 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
May 24, 2016
Messages
610
YouTube
filipemtx
For step 2 recognition? Well you have both white and yellow edges on both layers, so you would have to recognize the specific orientation case (ie. what patter of white/yellow on the top and what pattern on the bottom) as well as permutation. For the number of cases (600+ if I'm not mistaken) learning all of that would be extremely difficult. So to answer your question, I think yes.
(White/yellow can be replaced by green/blue or orange/red, I just used this for clarity)
edges?
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
461
Location
The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multi stage...
I'm not sure if I've ever proposed this method on this thread before, but I might as well do it now. The method utilises CP during FB just as Briggs 1 and 2 both use and is similar to Roux, but the main thing about this method is that to know it in its entirety you need 28 <RU> algorithms, with one of the algorithms simply being an R and the longest being 11 moves. The steps are as follows:

1. CPFB, 9 moves
2. Triplet at DR. This consists of an E slice edge being placed at DR with 2 corners orientated relative to it, 5 moves.
3. Orientation belt. This is where the algs come in (they require the other E slice edge to be orientated on U), 9 moves.
4. SB while preserving orientation. This uses <R2MU>, 8 moves.
5. LSE, exactly the same as Roux, 13 moves.

Average movecount≈44. Please tell me if any of my numbers are incorrect.
You can find the algs here.
In terms of speedsolving viability, it's a solid maybe. I don't see anyone getting fast with it or bothering to learn it and I also don't see people pushing it to its limit, but I like it.
I think I’ll learn it at some point and see how it is, thanks!
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
524
The Ortega method already exists for 3x3 and there is a website for it. Also you can look in the LMCF document which is a superset of the ortega method. It's not what you're thinking though.
 

WoowyBaby

Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
379
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
@Anthem Can you please use only 1 or 2 posts instead of 5? You know you can put more than a sentence into one post, and if you forgot to say something you can just edit your post and add it. I really hope I'm not sounding rude :)

As with your 3x3 Ortega idea, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say, tbh I don't think anyone does, if you want to explain it more that'd be great.
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,242
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
@WoowyBaby I think he means like you solve one side and then do an alg to get the opposite side and then do an alg to solve the rest?
@Anthem If my interpretation of your method is correct, the number of algorithms would be ridiculously high, far too many for a human to be capable of. I image the algs for that OLL step would also be pretty poor... if you still want to be able to generate algorithms, look into the program Cube Explorer.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
436
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
For PLL there are 44 cases including 'parity'. For PBL there are (44^2)/2 cases (divided by 2 as you can't have parity on only one layer). That is 968 algorithms. ZBLL is 493.
To explain the parity bit, there are 44 ways to arrange the PLL pieces if you take them out of the cube and put them in again (as you can have 2 pieces swapped unlike normally). On the U layer for every PLL case on D you can have one of 44 PLLs. That means that you have 44^2 PLLs, but remember that this is just taking the pieces out, so you have to divide by 2 to take that into account. What it seems that you're suggesting is that but with 4 extra edges, so it is definitely not humanly viable. PBL is stretching it.
 

Anthem

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
16
Ok thanks, but could there be 2 or 4 look pbl to make sure there are less algs
 

Anthem

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
16
Basically you solve the first layer unpermuted an then the last layer with oll than pbl so somewhat like Ortega for 3x3
 

Skewbed

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
55
Location
Utah
WCA
2015LYON01
Basically you solve the first layer unpermuted an then the last layer with oll than pbl so somewhat like Ortega for 3x3
In that case, to reduce the algs, you can solve the first layer into a valid PLL to not have parity.

CFOP is better though.
 
Top