The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Skewbed]

If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.

Wouldn’t you need a 2x1x1 block in the last layer in which the corner is clockwise of the edge?

 

[PapaSmurf]

No. Set up with U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U'
There's an orientated corner in UFR (that's a condition I forgot to put in), so you can do an R' to set up to ZBLL+FR. Then you do the alg R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'. Then you end the conjugation with an R. (Yes, I can see that you can cancel, no it doesn't matter because this will never be used for anything, but it's fun to theorise).

 

[Skewbed]

No. Set up with U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U'
There's an orientated corner in UFR (that's a condition I forgot to put in), so you can do an R' to set up to ZBLL+FR. Then you do the alg R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'. Then you end the conjugation with an R. (Yes, I can see that you can cancel, no it doesn't matter because this will never be used for anything, but it's fun to theorise).

Oh, I though you were conjugating ZBLL, not ZBLL with an extra edge to solve.

 

[Athefre]

If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.

Interesting. Maybe I'll add this. Is this something that is already developed? Just trying to think if there's a way to add it to the page I'm making without just saying "Another thing that can be done is..." without a name or alg set. Yeah, not practical, so maybe it doesn't matter unless you eventually see some potential.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Nothing has been developed at all and I see more potential in ZBLL plus a twisted corner than this, so I don't think there's a good reason to develop it.

 

[Autumn Variation]

The closest thing I found to this method on the speedsolving forum is the 335 method. So, I guess I claim this now. Let's call this the "Edge Supertwist Method"

5 algs:
T perm: R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'
Sune: R U R' U R U2 R'
Sexy move: R U R' U'
Reverse-Sexy move: U R U' R'
Edge Flipping alg (flips UF and UB): M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2

8 steps:

1. Solve the E layer
2. Permute edges on 1 side by doing (AUF+ADF) R2 (Undo AUF-ADF). R2 switches UR to DR
3. Permute edges on the other side by doing (Sune)or(T perm)(Edge cases in the video)
4. Permute corners on 1 side by using commutators (with some sexy moves and some reverse-sexy moves) (also, there's parity. Just do a x rotation and T perm)
5. Permute corners from the other side using T perm+y'+R2 U2 R2 U2 (switches URF with URB)
6. Fix E layer by doing z rotation+M/U2 moves until it gets solved.
7. Orient corners by doing sexy move until corner is oriented, then doing D moves until another corner needs to be oriented. Repeat until all corners are oriented. (also, there's parity. at 10:20)
8. Orient all edges using the edge flipping alg. easy.

 

[xcross]

i cant tell if your trying to make a speed solving method or noty

 

[dudefaceguy]

I like permute/orient methods for their algorithm efficiency, i.e. not requiring many algorithms. The downside I see is that it requires commutators for corner permutation. If you can use corner commutators, you can permute and orient the corners at the same time so there is no reason to use two different steps for this.

Having to deal with parity is also a downside. You can avoid both of these problems by permuting corners before edges, which will also reduce the number of algorithms needed. But, then it is just PCMS.

Of course, methods are not all about efficiency. I like trying new methods just to get a unique challenge. I’ll try it out.

Edit: It worked and I solved the cube. I’m not sure who this method is for though. It has a low amount of algorithms, but more than beginner Petrus for example. It requires knowledge of commutators, but uses long algorithms where commutators would be more efficient. Edge permutation on the first side is easy, but it would be almost as easy to permute edges using M moves, which would not disturb corners. I’m not seeing any real advantage to permuting edges first. What were your goals in making the method?

And congratulations on formulating a method btw.

 

[Autumn Variation]

I like permute/orient methods for their algorithm efficiency, i.e. not requiring many algorithms. The downside I see is that it requires commutators for corner permutation. If you can use corner commutators, you can permute and orient the corners at the same time so there is no reason to use two different steps for this.

Having to deal with parity is also a downside. You can avoid both of these problems by permuting corners before edges, which will also reduce the number of algorithms needed. But, then it is just PCMS.

Of course, methods are not all about efficiency. I like trying new methods just to get a unique challenge. I’ll try it out.

Edit: It worked and I solved the cube. I’m not sure who this method is for though. It has a low amount of algorithms, but more than beginner Petrus for example. It requires knowledge of commutators, but uses long algorithms where commutators would be more efficient. Edge permutation on the first side is easy, but it would be almost as easy to permute edges using M moves, which would not disturb corners. I’m not seeing any real advantage to permuting edges first. What were your goals in making the method?

And congratulations on formulating a method btw.

The reason I made this was that I'm challenging myself to create 10 different 3x3 methods that are completely different from any other method out there. I'll be posting one every day. In the end, I would kinda do a summary/recap of the methods, then I would do a video on how to create your own method to solve a 3x3.
Edit: I have to add to that that it would challenge my creativity and I feel like that could help me in solving other puzzles without tutorials.

 

[dudefaceguy]

The reason I made this was that I'm challenging myself to create 10 different 3x3 methods that are completely different from any other method out there. I'll be posting one every day. In the end, I would kinda do a summary/recap of the methods, then I would do a video on how to create your own method to solve a 3x3.
Edit: I have to add to that that it would challenge my creativity and I feel like that could help me in solving other puzzles without tutorials.

In that case you have succeeded! Congratulations. I made my own 4x4 method last year, which was a lot of fun.

 

[Athefre]

The Transformation wiki page is complete.

@shadowslice e Let me know if you like the description of the 42 method. Also check the example solve to make sure it is a proper solve.

Do you think that the Conjugated CxLL page should be renamed to better fit that it is the third step of the 42 method? Conjugated CxLL implies something more than a technique for solving the last five corners.

 

[shadowslice e]

The Transformation wiki page is complete.

@shadowslice e Let me know if you like the description of the 42 method. Also check the example solve to make sure it is a proper solve.

Do you think that the Conjugated CxLL page should be renamed to better fit that it is the third step of the 42 method? Conjugated CxLL implies something more than a technique for solving the last five corners.

Looks mostly good to me. I'll slightly edit the bit about me to mention BTR though it's essentially just a recreation of transformation as a whole

 

[Autumn Variation]

some 335 variation I accidentally kinda created

 

[brododragon]

Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).

 

[ProStar]

Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:View attachment 11577
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).

Yes. Scramble it up and solve it with Roux or Petrus

 

[Etotheipi]

Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:View attachment 11577
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).

I would do cross, 3 corners of the D layer, keyhole to make top cross, and then triple sledge to fix the last corners if necessary. I dunno if triple sledge counts as intuitive though lol.

 

[brododragon]

Yes. Scramble it up and solve it with Roux or Petrus

Alright then.

I would do cross, 3 corners of the D layer, keyhole to make top cross, and then triple sledge to fix the last corners if necessary. I dunno if triple sledge counts as intuitive though lol.

Thanks!

 

[Etotheipi]

Alright then.

Thanks!

Also its quite easy to solve the 3 corners while making cross, so that can help efficiency.

 

[ProStar]

variant of ZZ/Petrus-W:

1.) EO. Not EOLine or EOCross or EOArrow, just EO
2.) Build a 2x2x3 in the back.
3.) L2P. EO is already solved, so this can be skipped
4.) LL, using whatever you want from Petrus-W

Basically Petrus-W except you do EO at the start. This majorly restricts your 2x2x3 though, as you have to build it in the back. I'd think a good compromise between being able to use pre-build pairs and having to get used to a bunch of EO orientations would to be able to do:

White bottom green front
White bottom blue front
White bottom red front
White bottom orange front

And possibly all of those with yellow on bottom, don't know how hard it is to get good at new orientations.

This eliminates the worst part of Petrus-W(or any Petrus variant), which is having to pause for EO in the middle of your solve

 

[brododragon]

variant of ZZ/Petrus-W:

1.) EO. Not EOLine or EOCross or EOArrow, just EO
2.) Build a 2x2x3 in the back.
3.) L2P. EO is already solved, so this can be skipped
4.) LL, using whatever you want from Petrus-W

Basically Petrus-W except you do EO at the start. This majorly restricts your 2x2x3 though, as you have to build it in the back. I'd think a good compromise between being able to use pre-build pairs and having to get used to a bunch of EO orientations would to be able to do:

White bottom green front
White bottom blue front
White bottom red front
White bottom orange front

And possibly all of those with yellow on bottom, don't know how hard it is to get good at new orientations.

This eliminates the worst part of Petrus-W(or any Petrus variant), which is having to pause for EO in the middle of your solve

If the 2x2x3 pieces were in the positions of DF and DB you would have to mess up EO and then fix it. Also, you could build the 2x2x3 anywhere as long as you do the turn the right faces for 3-gen.