• 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!

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
922
Location
0, 0, 0
Many have been saying the same thing for years. There usually isn't anything new when someone posts an idea. What you described in your post is definitely different from most. Great job, really. I want to see more examples to get a better understanding. It feels like it is in the same category as Heise. What this means is that it is so intuitive and free-form that it is either not fast enough for speedsolving or people just might not want to put in the effort that it would take to possibly prove that it is speed capable.

Do you think you can actually average under 40 moves in a speedsolve?
 

WoowyBaby

Member
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
672
Location
Neptune
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I just tried some real speedsolves with it and noticed many flaws. Most notably, after the first two steps, many times there isn't any easy blocks to be solved or made so step 3 isn't consistent, and, after that, your pieces could be in terrible positions, such as 4c2e+1tc or something that just isn't easy to deal with. I do say that that first example solve was pretty lucky. It's generally a pretty bad idea, to be honest. @Athefre I totally agree with everything you're saying, and the question of sub-40 movecount speedsolving is a one that I have had for a long, long time.
I really want to answer that question once and for all, so I'm going to be focusing on a method that truly averages under 40 moves while in a real solve. I don't care if it's not practical for speed because the lookahead sucks or something, I just want a true sub-40 method. There are actually a few methods that come close, and I believe Heise is the closest, with the lowest it can go at about 41-42 moves, not just theoretical, but an actual real user and real solves doing that. (Some methods claim an average of exactly 40 or even less, but none have been proven with real solves. Heise is the most efficient.)
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,153
Location
Null Island
I just tried some real speedsolves with it and noticed many flaws. Most notably, after the first two steps, many times there isn't any easy blocks to be solved or made so step 3 isn't consistent, and, after that, your pieces could be in terrible positions, such as 4c2e+1tc or something that just isn't easy to deal with. I do say that that first example solve was pretty lucky. It's generally a pretty bad idea, to be honest. @Athefre I totally agree with everything you're saying, and the question of sub-40 movecount speedsolving is a one that I have had for a long, long time.
I really want to answer that question once and for all, so I'm going to be focusing on a method that truly averages under 40 moves while in a real solve. I don't care if it's not practical for speed because the lookahead sucks or something, I just want a true sub-40 method. There are actually a few methods that come close, and I believe Heise is the closest, with the lowest it can go at about 41-42 moves, not just theoretical, but an actual real user and real solves doing that.
I think it really does well with luck but really does terrible without. Maybe with some block influence during the first 2 steps it could be viable.
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
556
We've already established that several methods can get sub-40 move averages, if you are willing to learn lots of algs. I posted how LMCF could get sub-40 average moves with 4000 algorithms.

If someone can find an effective speedsolving method that gets sub-40 moves in less than 500 algorithms that would be revolutionary.
 

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
43
New method idea for 2x2

Step1:Solve the of the first layer corners,

Step2: Orient any other corner into the fourth spot (if it is the first layer corner just do a cll to finish the solve)

Step3 Do a pll to orient top layer and put the white corner in the back and the incorrect corner of the first layer in the front and do one of six TTLL
Algorithms(corners only)

this method seems like a good intermediate method, and if you learn the full set of tols(orients all 5 last corners even if front corner is flipped)
than it could be pretty efficient.


this is a list of the ttlls/tols from the ribbon method.

EXAMPLE SOLVE:
scramble:R F R' F' U2 F R'
Z' R' U2 R Y' L' U' L U L F' L' F U2 (alg) D U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
617
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
We've already established that several methods can get sub-40 move averages, if you are willing to learn lots of algs. I posted how LMCF could get sub-40 average moves with 4000 algorithms.

If someone can find an effective speedsolving method that gets sub-40 moves in less than 500 algorithms that would be revolutionary.
This.

Instead of working separately and sparadically we could possibly do something that's a pseudo-combined effort. I, for one, am a fan of FB then 2x2x2 (SSF2L). Working together could mean more progress quickly.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
660
Location
A Pineapple Orbiting Neptune
YouTube
Visit Channel
New method idea for 2x2

Step1:Solve the of the first layer corners,

Step2: Orient any other corner into the fourth spot (if it is the first layer corner just do a cll to finish the solve)

Step3 Do a pll to orient top layer and put the white corner in the back and the incorrect corner of the first layer in the front and do one of six TTLL
Algorithms(corners only)

this method seems like a good intermediate method, and if you learn the full set of tols(orients all 5 last corners even if front corner is flipped)
than it could be pretty efficient.


this is a list of the ttlls/tols from the ribbon method.

EXAMPLE SOLVE:
scramble:R F R' F' U2 F R'
Z' R' U2 R Y' L' U' L U L F' L' F U2 (alg) D U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U
This is basically VOP
 
Last edited:

RedstoneTim

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
132
Location
Germany
YouTube
Visit Channel
New method idea for 2x2

Step1:Solve the of the first layer corners,

Step2: Orient any other corner into the fourth spot (if it is the first layer corner just do a cll to finish the solve)

Step3 Do a pll to orient top layer and put the white corner in the back and the incorrect corner of the first layer in the front and do one of six TTLL
Algorithms(corners only)

this method seems like a good intermediate method, and if you learn the full set of tols(orients all 5 last corners even if front corner is flipped)
than it could be pretty efficient.


this is a list of the ttlls/tols from the ribbon method.

EXAMPLE SOLVE:
scramble:R F R' F' U2 F R'
Z' R' U2 R Y' L' U' L U L F' L' F U2 (alg) D U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U
The approach you're outlining here is similar to the HD method, except that corners are oriented less efficiently, which in turn doesn't allow you to do PBL (unless one uses your advanced version with TOLS, which would be exactly the same as standard HD).
A small tip I would give you is not to use 3x3 algorithms for 2x2 since, as you may have noticed, they're a bit long and move sequences like U D' don't make much sense on 2x2.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,153
Location
Null Island
This.

Instead of working separately and sparadically we could possibly do something that's a pseudo-combined effort. I, for one, am a fan of FB then 2x2x2 (SSF2L). Working together could mean more progress quickly.
I think that M-CELL could do great as a base to try to develop a method like this. It's got SSF2L and a very efficient, yet low alg finish. I think with non-matching blocks you could probably get under 40. It might sound extremely hard to use NMB, but I think it would be something like blind, where it's mind breaking the first few times, but eventually becomes easier. Some other things you could do: 1-look 2x2x3 (or at least two-look), L6C, L7E.
 

FinnTheCuber

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
80
Location
Yes
New idea. Create your last f2l pair but don't insert it. Then you can use it to intuitively force an edges oriented or case for I'll or a skip. If this is a new idea I will go into more detail in a separate post.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,074
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
New idea. Create your last f2l pair but don't insert it. Then you can use it to intuitively force an edges oriented or case for I'll or a skip. If this is a new idea I will go into more detail in a separate post.
This is just VHLS except done intuitively, which is just ZBLS except the pair has to be made
 

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
43
The approach you're outlining here is similar to the HD method, except that corners are oriented less efficiently, which in turn doesn't allow you to do PBL (unless one uses your advanced version with TOLS, which would be exactly the same as standard HD).
A small tip I would give you is not to use 3x3 algorithms for 2x2 since, as you may have noticed, they're a bit long and move sequences like U D' don't make much sense on 2x2.
I thought there werent any algs like this for 2x2 I was just sumplaminting these for now
Also it isn't exactly because you're orienting all the corners first and than doing a ttll.
I should of done my research before posting this as I didn't know of the hd method
 
Last edited:

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,210
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
I'm not sure if this alg set exists yet but I'm gonna throw the idea out there just in case it doesn't. COBL. It's a square-1 set that combines EO and CP into one alg. Not sure how many algs there will be but I think this could potentially be a half-decent way to do 4 look solves without learning PBL.
 

RedstoneTim

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
132
Location
Germany
YouTube
Visit Channel
I thought there werent any algs like this for 2x2 I was just sumplaminting these for now
Also it isn't exactly because you're orienting all the corners first and than doing a ttll.
I should of done my research before posting this as I didn't know of the hd method
In case you want some NLL algorithms, here are the "official" ones, WoowyBaby's algs and a sheet from someone else whose name I won't even try to spell.
I wouldn't recommend also permuting corners for your V since everything becomes a lot less efficient and full NLL itself isn't that many algorithms.
 
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
3
Is This A Method Used By Anyone?

Let me preface this with letting you know that I literally started attempting to speed solve last week, so if this is stupid, just let me know and let me know why.

Currently I am using CFOP, and have a very small OLL and PLL repertoire. I'm averaging 49 seconds out of sheer willpower alone. The biggest issue (besides optimal F2L building) is getting an efficient cross solution.

And because I suck at the Cross in CFOP, I recently started just putting White on bottom and doing F2L, completely ignoring the white cross pieces. After that, I solve the White edges. I asked the Discord, and someone mentioned that this was pretty much just a method called "FreeFOP" (I may have got that name wrong)

Well, I've been messing around with it and I've found that when you just ignore the Cross and do those F2L pairs, the yellow corner pieces on top can be solved just like normal. Then you just have to only use M and U moves to solve the bottom white layer. So now you have F2L solved and the yellow corners oriented. The next step is to figure out a way to move around the yellow edges with only M and U moves.

Firstly, is this an actual method, or am I just bad for ignoring my cross problems?

If this is a method, then how do I find information on how to get better at it? I feel way more comfortable doing it this way, but if there is a good reason why this is bad, then I have no choice but to move on and crunch some crosses.

Any help or advice would be appreciated!

Oh, also I was thinking about it and if you basically just solve only 2 opposite cross pieces in the beginning and do this, you have a Roux setup. So maybe I should learn Roux.
 
Top