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.

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

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

That's a pretty interesting idea. As it is now, I don't think it's worth it, but if you take the idea bit further, you could have it so that you solve SB, but each edge can be in any of the three positions. Then, when it comes to CMLL, You do one of six algs to solve corners and SB at the same time. I might check that out some more.

That's a pretty interesting idea. As it is now, I don't think it's worth it, but if you take the idea bit further, you could have it so that you solve SB, but each edge can be in any of the three positions. Then, when it comes to CMLL, You do one of six algs to solve corners and SB at the same time. I might check that out some more.

I like the idea of solving SB in one of six ways, but it would make CMLL + SB have a ton of algorithms (43 x 5 = 216 (excluding CMLL)). Maybe since the 2G algs are by far the best one I've genned so far, doing CPFB would be useful? that would bring it down to 40 algs, which is super reasonable imo.

I like the idea of solving SB in one of six ways, but it would make CMLL + SB have a ton of algorithms (43 x 5 = 216 (excluding CMLL)). Maybe since the 2G algs are by far the best one I've genned so far, doing CPFB would be useful? that would bring it down to 40 algs, which is super reasonable imo.

The problem there is that CPFB is really difficult. I have my doubts as to whether or not anyone could get to the point where they could consistently plan it in inspection. At any rate, I don't really think ~250 algs is really that far-fetched. This would definitely be a pretty advanced technique, and that kind of alg count isn't far off from what an advanced 2x2 or CFOP solver would use. And that's not even taking into account the people that learn ZBLL. I think what really would make or break the idea is whether or not the algs are comparable to normal CMLL algs. I kinda get the feeling that they would be a bit worse, especially considering what you said about the opposite-swap algs you've genned so far.

The problem there is that CPFB is really difficult. I have my doubts as to whether or not anyone could get to the point where they could consistently plan it in inspection. At any rate, I don't really think ~250 algs is really that far-fetched. This would definitely be a pretty advanced technique, and that kind of alg count isn't far off from what an advanced 2x2 or CFOP solver would use. And that's not even taking into account the people that learn ZBLL. I think what really would make or break the idea is whether or not the algs are comparable to normal CMLL algs. I kinda get the feeling that they would be a bit worse, especially considering what you said about the opposite-swap algs you've genned so far.

Yeah, I was worried that most of the algs would be garbage. So far only about 7 of my R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 algs are any good. I'll try making algs for the whole set, but chances are they'll be much slower then CMLL (then again, I probably don't have the best judgement on what's good and I'm not spending a ton of time on each alg)

CPFB is definitely possible, it just brings 0 advantage to anything except maybe OH. And I also think that the concept will bring about some bad algs from overturning etc, and normal SB will be better. But prove me wrong.

CPFB is definitely possible, it just brings 0 advantage to anything except maybe OH. And I also think that the concept will bring about some bad algs from overturning etc, and normal SB will be better. But prove me wrong.

Yeah, I think that the fact that SB is solved makes it more likely that the CMLL algs will be better in a similar way to how having cross solved helps F2L to be done with a more neutral wrist position.

This is sort of what I have been saying for a long time, the Roux variant where the FR edge is solved in a disoriented state, then you use Waterman Set 3 to solve L6E (Set 3 solves UL+UR while flipping FR). The Set 3 subset is only 16 algorithms; unless you allow the BR edge to be solved disoriented where you end up at 32 algorithms, and if you allow DR edge to be solved disoriented it is 48 algorithms (these algs are already generated for a different purpose).

2x2 method:
pair up 2 corners or find a pair (only the bottom color has to match)
use 1 (extremely efficient) alg to solve the rest of the first layer
then CLL and you're done
it would possibly aid people who don't want to learn EG-1 or EG-2, and the algs would be very short (2-4 moves, except for some special cases)
I'm calling it the BL (Bruce Layer) subset (my last name is Bruce, after all).
Let me know what you think, or if someone else has come up with it, or ways it can improve.*

*besides the name. **
**unless someone else has already come up with it. you can change it then.

2x2 method:
pair up 2 corners or find a pair (only the bottom color has to match)
use 1 (extremely efficient) alg to solve the rest of the first layer
then CLL and you're done
it would possibly aid people who don't want to learn EG-1 or EG-2, and the algs would be very short (2-4 moves, except for some special cases)
I'm calling it the BL (Bruce Layer) subset (my last name is Bruce, after all).
Let me know what you think, or if someone else has come up with it, or ways it can improve.*

*besides the name. **
**unless someone else has already come up with it. you can change it then.

I think that the case count would be too high. With your bar, there are 3 different CP cases (solved, opposite, and adjacent). Then there are 6*5 permutation cases and 3*3 orientation cases for the other two corners, leaving you with an upper bound of 810 cases. There would be some repeated cases, but not many, I wouldn't think.

I think that the case count would be too high. With your bar, there are 3 different CP cases (solved, opposite, and adjacent). Then there are 6*5 permutation cases and 3*3 orientation cases for the other two corners, leaving you with an upper bound of 810 cases. There would be some repeated cases, but not many, I wouldn't think.

Ok, that sounds cool. I wasn't sure how to calculate it, so you saved me a lot of work. Thanks!
And looking at the case count, it seems huge, but most of the cases would be almost intuitive. You would only have to put in real brain power for a small percentage of them, and realize that a lot of them would be intuitive. It could work, if one cared to put in the time to practice.

It also seems highly useless. EG would be so much better, and the algs are easy anyway. If you were dedicated, you could learn them in a week per set. (EG-1 in a week, EG-2 in a week etc.) So just do EG if you want to be fast. Or another method (2GR possibly).

White KB's proposal is not useless. In fact it echoes something that I have been wanting to do for some time. Making efficient faces (even for EG) is not always intuitive; I wish someone would generate a table of all the common cases and the fastest solution that is finger friendly. Rough guess is there are around 50 cases to make the 1st face. I have personally generated some of the most irritating ones to find the fastest solution; top 2x2 solvers would already know every single one of them, no algo generator would be needed, someone would just need to draw diagrams of the 50 cases and a top 2x2 solver could fill in the blanks. Kind of like that 2x2 CLL efficient 1st layer thread except for EG.

Even better would be the same table with a 1-look column that shows how the LL corners are affected and reorganized by the face solution.