Yeah I know it's more moves, but I solve faster that way than proper LSE.The problem with that is, every EPLL is actually a conjugate to a 4C (last step of L6E) case, so that will always take more moves.
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.Imean , once we have all the algs, that could be after E.G. For top 2x2 solvers
yeah maybe TEG isn't worth itConsidering 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
isn't this the future of 2x2 WRs anywayTEG 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.
If EG has a limit it’s probably EG+CLL+L5C+LEG+TCLL+TEGisn'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
also what's thwor?the explode method
get the crube
thwor it in the W A L L
That sounds great! However there should be two more algorithms to orient the corners (summits)Hello,
I am french, excuse my english
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 !
Thank you Best regards
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|C||Solving a rubik's via a method or not?||General Speedcubing Discussion||12|
|U||Ribbon Method vs ZZ-CT||General Speedcubing Discussion||7|
|Brainstorming for methods/substeps (for speedsolving)||General Speedcubing Discussion||10|
|Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency||Puzzle Theory||26|
|Method Substeps and Subgroups||Puzzle Theory||4|