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.

Considering it's would only be marginally more efficient than EG and there are an order of magnitude more algs (putting it in the ballpark of 1LLL), I highly doubt it would even be faster than what 2x2 solvers do nowadays.

If someone wants to learn it, then they can do what jabari does with 1LLL and gen as they go

Considering it's would only be marginally more efficient than EG and there are an order of magnitude more algs (putting it in the ballpark of 1LLL), I highly doubt it would even be faster than what 2x2 solvers do nowadays.

If someone wants to learn it, then they can do what jabari does with 1LLL and gen as they go

TEG is an interesting one. When you're sub 3, it's probably not worth it, but when you're sub 1.8 it possibly is. If you're going to optimise 2x2 to the level of a very good human you'd learn CLL>EG-1>EG-2>LEG>TCLL>TEG-2>L5C. At this point there are 829 algorithms. TEG-1 is another 344 algs. Possible but hard and it would make you very good at 2x2. You could learn the sets in another order, but I think that this way is the most worthwhile. I guess you can learn it before L5C, but imo L5C is more worthwhile.

TEG is an interesting one. When you're sub 3, it's probably not worth it, but when you're sub 1.8 it possibly is. If you're going to optimise 2x2 to the level of a very good human you'd learn CLL>EG-1>EG-2>LEG>TCLL>TEG-2>L5C. At this point there are 829 algorithms. TEG-1 is another 344 algs. Possible but hard and it would make you very good at 2x2. You could learn the sets in another order, but I think that this way is the most worthwhile. I guess you can learn it before L5C, but imo L5C is more worthwhile.

isn't this the future of 2x2 WRs anyway
once you can one look and see a lot of solutions in inspection,the next thing you're gonna have to do is learn more and more algs
imo 2x2 is gonna become more and more algorithmic the lower WRs go as EG must have a limit

isn't this the future of 2x2 WRs anyway
once you can one look and see a lot of solutions in inspection,the next thing you're gonna have to do is learn more and more algs
imo 2x2 is gonna become more and more algorithmic the lower WRs go as EG must have a limit

i was talking about basic EG (i.e EG-1,EG-2,CLL)
idk if anyone has learnt L5C,i think some people have learnt TCLL and TEG + LEG
EDIT: is this like L5C?

Yeah, that's L5C. The 2x2 algs would be super short and super useful. You could instead do 2-gen reduction on 2x2 and learn full 2GL6C. It is entirely possible and could spice up the 2x2 meta.

also what's thwor?
Wait it's for megaminx...
T Cross (2 edges)
H Cross (3 edges)
W Cross (4 edges)
O Cross (All edges in the cross)
Repeat 5 edges at a time and forget corners... nobody needs them

or maybe it's
Throw your megaminx at the wall
Help Feliks regain his self-confidence in megaminx so he can go to worlds
WR from Feliks
Oh the agony
Reduction to F2L over and over again

I have been a fan of Rubik's Cube for quite some time.
Not being a champion, I tried to develop an original method simpler than CFOP Fridrich but still performing !
I would like to make it known on your continent and the English-speaking countries.
I give you the link of my site, it would be nice to give me your opinion and to know my technique.

My method is very simple, based on CFOP, with a ZZ or Petrus edge orientation phase at the same time as the F2L (no waste of time)
She is :
at 3/4 intuitive !
effortlessly allows resolution in less than 30 seconds, and in 20 seconds or less, for those who have excellent vision of the cube and perfect gestures !
very few algorithms to know, only 13 !
total resolution in about fifty movements !

I have been a fan of Rubik's Cube for quite some time.
Not being a champion, I tried to develop an original method simpler than CFOP Fridrich but still performing !
I would like to make it known on your continent and the English-speaking countries.
I give you the link of my site, it would be nice to give me your opinion and to know my technique.

My method is very simple, based on CFOP, with a ZZ or Petrus edge orientation phase at the same time as the F2L (no waste of time)
She is :
at 3/4 intuitive !
effortlessly allows resolution in less than 30 seconds, and in 20 seconds or less, for those who have excellent vision of the cube and perfect gestures !
very few algorithms to know, only 13 !
total resolution in about fifty movements !

This is simply VH but worse. It's nice to see you've put effort into it, but unfortunately it isn't original. Keep on trying though, as you could eventually come up with a method that is completely unique.

Hello,
No no ... at the end of the intuitive phase, that is to say after doing the cross + all the F2L, we end up with the yellow cross oriented and placed following 2 diagrams.
And to finish it just has to steer the Summits in 5 algorithms (instead of 57 OLL normally) and put everything in 8 PLL (instead of 21 normally)

This is simply VH but worse. It's nice to see you've put effort into it, but unfortunately it isn't original. Keep on trying though, as you could eventually come up with a method that is completely unique.

Hello
in VH one obtains an oriented cross (as in ZZ)
I have a cross oriented AND PLACE following 2 shemas which limits the OLL to 5 instead of 57 and the PLL to 8 instead of 21 and especially in much much simpler

Hello
in VH one obtains an oriented cross (as in ZZ)
I have a cross oriented AND PLACE following 2 shemas which limits the OLL to 5 instead of 57 and the PLL to 8 instead of 21 and especially in much much simpler

It's still not that great and again, has been thought of before. It's much easier and more beneficial to learn more algorithms and be fast than find a low alg method that pretends to be fast. That doesn't mean don't find new methods, but methods that aim to limit algs are generally slower (exception: Roux).

It's still not that great and again, has been thought of before. It's much easier and more beneficial to learn more algorithms and be fast than find a low alg method that pretends to be fast. That doesn't mean don't find new methods, but methods that aim to limit algs are generally slower (exception: Roux).

My method is not to compete with CFOP Fridrich, ZZ or Roux, I do not have this claim, it is not adapted to the competition.
It's just a simple way to solve the Rubik in 30 seconds without difficulty (less than 20 seconds when you're good), in about fifty movements, and without learning many algorithms
I'm too old to learn a lot of formulas and I do not have the agility of fingers or reflexes anymore

I'm not sure if this is useful, but I came up with a new way of doing SB + CMLL in Roux.

Imagine you have a cube with solved blocks. When you do R2 U2 R2 U2 R2, the second block will have what is basically an equator flip on Square-1. In this method, you will solve SB into that state, then do an algorithm so solve CMLL and flip the equator.

Solving SB is super easy, you simply make each pair with only one color matching in each pair, and insert the pair based on where the corner goes.

There are a few ways to solve CMLL + equator flip. The easiest is to solve CMLL, but cancel into R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 at the end. This works really well, but I've almost finished generating unique algorithms for this step. Most of them are garbage, but some of them are pretty good. Examples: R' U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R, R U' R' U R U' R D R D' R D R2 D' and R U2 R' U2 F2 D R D' R' F2 R2 U' R'. Most of the time canceling into R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 works better though.

Obviously this wouldn't be used every solve, as it would add on average 4 moves to each solve, but I think it's useful if you already have a pseudo-pair solved, or a free pair.

Spoiler: Example solve

R2 B2 F2 D2 L2 U' R2 F D2 B L' B L2 R' D R' D2 B (FB solved)

U r' U' r U R U M U r U' R' //Psuedo-SB
R U2 R' U' R U' R U2 R2 U2 R2 //CMLL +equator flip