Sub1Hour
Member
Just got a 25 on OH with Petrus, I'm definitely switching.
-
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!
The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread
- Thread starter elrog
- Start date
Athefre
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
Time Travel Solving
CFOP:
Normal
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
X-Cross: z’ y’ D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
OLL: U’ F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f'
PLL: U2 R' U' R U' L R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R2 U R U
TTS (POCF)
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
PLL: z’ y’ R' U2 D2 B2 R D' R' U B2 D' B2 R2 D' R U
OLL: U D F' D' R D' F R' D B' D F B U' D' R
X-Cross: D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
LL Skip!
Roux:
Normal:
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x3: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL: R’ U’ R’ F R F’ R U’ R’ U2 R
LSE: M’ U2 M’ U2 M U M’ U M U2 M U M’ U2 M’
TTS:
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
4c+4b (EPLR): E2 M’ E2 M U D M B' M' B2 M' B' M U' D'
4a: R2 U M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U’ R2
Corners: F' U F U' R2 U2 F' D' F U2 D R2 F
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x2: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL+LSE Skip!
This is like traveling to the future, seeing the problems that will occur, then coming back and preventing those problems in the present. An alternate way of doing this is of course to do a setup to place the pieces in the same positions as they would be in a normal solve, perform the normal alg, then undo the setup. I don't yet see any useful applications for this concept. Just something interesting to think about. Maybe the opposite version of this, traveling to the past, would be altering the solved cube in such a way that the scramble will result back in the solved state. Or altering the scramble itself if that would be allowable.
CFOP:
Normal
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
X-Cross: z’ y’ D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
OLL: U’ F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f'
PLL: U2 R' U' R U' L R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R2 U R U
TTS (POCF)
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
PLL: z’ y’ R' U2 D2 B2 R D' R' U B2 D' B2 R2 D' R U
OLL: U D F' D' R D' F R' D B' D F B U' D' R
X-Cross: D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
LL Skip!
Roux:
Normal:
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x3: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL: R’ U’ R’ F R F’ R U’ R’ U2 R
LSE: M’ U2 M’ U2 M U M’ U M U2 M U M’ U2 M’
TTS:
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
4c+4b (EPLR): E2 M’ E2 M U D M B' M' B2 M' B' M U' D'
4a: R2 U M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U’ R2
Corners: F' U F U' R2 U2 F' D' F U2 D R2 F
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x2: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL+LSE Skip!
This is like traveling to the future, seeing the problems that will occur, then coming back and preventing those problems in the present. An alternate way of doing this is of course to do a setup to place the pieces in the same positions as they would be in a normal solve, perform the normal alg, then undo the setup. I don't yet see any useful applications for this concept. Just something interesting to think about. Maybe the opposite version of this, traveling to the past, would be altering the solved cube in such a way that the scramble will result back in the solved state. Or altering the scramble itself if that would be allowable.
RedstoneTim
Member
Travelling to the future seems similar to insertions: you solve up to a certain point and then try to solve the remaining pieces somewhere else in your current solution/skeleton.
I wonder if it's possible to apply it to something other than FMC and blindfolded solving. Maybe events where you can sometimes predict the whole solve like 2x2 and Pyraminx?
Athefre
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
After I posted, I did think that it is similar to FMC techniques, though with more involvement. Interesting point about using it for the easy events. It has me thinking that there could be a method where the first step is to maybe solve a few pieces, see what the final case will be, then choose the best of several memorized paths to reduce the move count. Or follow that path before the first step, making that the actual first step. Maybe it would be fast or maybe it would require a lot of thinking. I'll think about this more.
PingPongCuber
Member
I had this idea for last layer where you solve two "J"s, so Im calling the idea JJLL. You start by doing an auf to permute the UB edge, and then an alg to orient that edge and permute and orient the UR edge, ULB corner, and URB corner, this forms a little "J". The next part you basically do the same thing without the auf at the beginning, and it solves the rest of the last layer, but there are likely less algs because of only 2 possible EOs. I think this would be a lot of algs and I dont really know if it would be useful. The number of algs could be reduced by doing beginners variations, such as doing EO first. Some of the algs would already be familiar, such as J perms. Thoughts?
brododragon
Member
Too many algs. For the first step alone, there is (I think my math is off, but it gives an idea.) 864 algs: 3 (UR edge positions) x (2^2) (EO) x (4 x 3) (corner permutation) x (3 x 2) (corner orientation) = 864. Could someone with a better understanding of theory check my math?
Last edited:
WarriorCatCuber
Member
How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?
Sub1Hour
Member
"But you can solve the Rubiks cube fast so you must be good at math"
That is what you sound like.
WarriorCatCuber
Member
Wait let me try to calculate this : UB Edge : 2 cases : UR edge : 6 cases Corner permutation : 6 Corner orientation : 9
2*6*6*9=648 (different then brodo for some reason
brododragon
Member
No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.
EDIT 2: I'm dumb it's 3 x 2 so you're right.
EDIT 3: I thought you said it was 6 but you said 9 so you're wrong.
I don't particularly like 3x3, but love math.
EDIT:
Nope. 4 positions for first corner times 3 for second equals 12.
EDIT 4: With all those edits, we arrive at the same number.
Last edited:
WarriorCatCuber
Member
If you don't like 3x3, then why are you on these forums? (not trying to roast or anything, just asking why if you don't like cubing)
brododragon
Member
I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.
WarriorCatCuber
Member
What events do you prefer?
brododragon
Member
This is proof that I love math, but my brain just can't deal.
Sub1Hour
Member
SAME. I avg like 12-11 on 3x3 and the only reason I do 3x3 is when I get new hardware to break in or if I don't feel like doing mega squan or big cubes.
brododragon
Member
It kinda feels like it's trying to be a somewhat long event, but it's just too short. I dunno if that's why, but that's what I make of it.
PapaSmurf
Member
This conversation is all about new methods...
Let's get back on topic.
Let's get back on topic.
WoowyBaby
Member
There are so many kinds of methods that it seems like no one has thought of before. I don't want to generalize all people into one category, but I think most people are more fixated on ideas that they already know about. Like you see people thinking of variants of already existing methods, or mixing methods, but I rarely really see ideas that are truly unique, which, I'm not saying is a terrible thing, because sometimes things similar to things we already know are good (even if they are worse than the original thing), are usually better than completely different novel things.
But I do think some of it comes down to human nature. In general, we tend to think of new solutions very close to old solutions, even if the true best solution is something so simple and elegant but we just didn't think outside of the box enough. I find this really difficult to explain well, though. I know someone else could do a better job of it. For example, let's say you're perfecting a video game speed run by cutting the corners as close as possible and grinding your path to perfection as much as possible, working on all of the small variants like jumping at specific times or places that allow you to keep running to save you a fifth of a second, and you keep looking at small variations of your original idea, but then you failed to notice the simple back door shortcut that saves you ten seconds and is on a path you haven't even looked into. I really don't know if I'm making any sense or even vaguely turning my thoughts into words.
This is honestly just a flow of random thought, but I think we can apply this to method creation. I'm sure that we have already thought of basically all good things based off our current popular and known methods, and now we're mostly only thinking of the infinitely larger pool of bad ideas. Although, some new methods that seem promising now that just haven't had enough thought put into it could use more, finding the best variant of it, but I think if we really want game changing stuff, we have to think outside the box. And we also need some common sense into what makes a method good too, so we're not just spitting out crap, but I think that's just something we pick up easier. I am not saying everyone should do this mumbo jumbo I speak of, but I'm going to try to do what I'm talking about here.
But I do think some of it comes down to human nature. In general, we tend to think of new solutions very close to old solutions, even if the true best solution is something so simple and elegant but we just didn't think outside of the box enough. I find this really difficult to explain well, though. I know someone else could do a better job of it. For example, let's say you're perfecting a video game speed run by cutting the corners as close as possible and grinding your path to perfection as much as possible, working on all of the small variants like jumping at specific times or places that allow you to keep running to save you a fifth of a second, and you keep looking at small variations of your original idea, but then you failed to notice the simple back door shortcut that saves you ten seconds and is on a path you haven't even looked into. I really don't know if I'm making any sense or even vaguely turning my thoughts into words.
This is honestly just a flow of random thought, but I think we can apply this to method creation. I'm sure that we have already thought of basically all good things based off our current popular and known methods, and now we're mostly only thinking of the infinitely larger pool of bad ideas. Although, some new methods that seem promising now that just haven't had enough thought put into it could use more, finding the best variant of it, but I think if we really want game changing stuff, we have to think outside the box. And we also need some common sense into what makes a method good too, so we're not just spitting out crap, but I think that's just something we pick up easier. I am not saying everyone should do this mumbo jumbo I speak of, but I'm going to try to do what I'm talking about here.
Now, I'm going to try to create a truly original method. I do not guarantee that it is any good, though. Edit: It is good.
Step 1. Form a square on D or L and orient all of the edges on F/B.
Step 2. Orient all edges on an additional axis, on R/L, in a way that orients many corners, preferably atleast four out of eight.
Step 3. Combine and solve any visible and easy blocks and pieces in just a few moves.
Step 4. Apply a commutator or short algorithm that will solve a few more pieces, specifically the type that has fewer solved, usually corners.
Step 5. Finish solving the corners whilst solving/forcing the edges into a easy configuration (like some easy 3-cycle or 8-move algorithm).
Step 6. Use your final simple edge sequence to fully complete your cube.
Example: B2 L' D2 F2 U2 R' F2 L2 U2 L2 B' U' F U2 R2 F2 L U F2
(y x')
R' U D R2 U' x // Step 1
U R' U2 D L // Step 2
D2 F2 // Step 3
L' U L D2 L' U' L D2 // Step 4
y L2 D l' U2 l D' L' U2 L' // Step 5
R2' D r2 B2 R2' D r2 B2 U' // Step 6
(38 HTM)
This is a kind of freestyle method with guidance, and I think it is really cool, unbelievably efficient, and genuinely think it can be very fast.
There isn't a specific defined algorithm set to memorize, but there definitely is a short list of a very useful algorithms I can put in here if needed.
I have yet to give names to the steps or the method as a whole, I'll work on that.
If I truly think this has great potential, I could tweak these steps and provide resources like the aforementioned generally useful algorithms and many example solves of it, my personal speedsolves of it, and some general guides and tips and such.
Last edited:
PapaSmurf
Member
It's pretty cool but it's too general for speedsolving. But I agree with your thoughts.
WoowyBaby
Member
I do agree that it is very general and not strictly defined, but I'm going to first try speedsolving with this freestyle method to see if I can get good times with it before I say it's slow and garbage. I bet that you're probably right that it is bad for speedsolving and way too general and that's what I will expect, to be honest. I'll try doing solves with it just in case.
