• 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!
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
741
Location
well, a country.
Alright, I have an idea I will only post once,
1. Make the cross minus one cross edge
2. do F2L normally
3. make sure all 5 edges, LL edges, and the cross edge is oriented if some edges are not oriented, orient them using Roux EO and restore the 3rd cross edge if it is distrupted, don't solve the 4th cross edge into its spot yet, act like that cross edge is a LL edge and do COLL
4. Do L5EP, last five edge permute.
 
Last edited:

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,185
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
Alright, I have an idea I will only post once,
1. Make the cross minus one cross edge
2. do F2L normally
3. make sure all 5 edges, LL edges, and the cross edge is oriented if some edges are not oriented, orient them using Roux EO and restore the 4th cross edge if it is distrupted, don't solve the 5th cross edge into its spot yet, act like that cross edge is a LL edge and do COLL
4. Do L5EP, last five edge permute.
This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
741
Location
well, a country.
Last edited:

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,185
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection is this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
Very cool! I wonder what @Cubingcubecuber would think of this. I like that you took a different approach to EO then regular HK does. Okay, now it's my turn to propose a method!


Partial Freestyle and True Freestyle. These are megaminx methods, and as the name applies, integrate freestyle techniques. I was using Balint for a while but I found myself straying off the path and then I figured, why not just do a freestyle solve. The entire solve aside from LL and Star (at least for TF) has no structure and you do what you want. The difference between Partial Freestyle (PF) and True Freestyle (TF) comes with the F2L. In PF, you always do F2L completely before working on any S2L. In TF you can build blocks and sides before you are done with F2L. A PF Solve would have 4 steps. Star, F2L FS2L (Freestyle S2L), LL. Now TF, that's where the fun begins. After star, you can basically do whatever you want. A TF solve would have 4 steps as well, but instead of having F2L and then FS2L, you would do F2L + S2L Building. I think this method would be harder to use then PF but it would also potentially cut down on move count. I have not found anything on the Wiki like these 2 methods and I have been "accidentally" using them for a while now, so I figure I might as well share them with the public. Let me know if something like this already exists before I make a fool of myself
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
741
Location
well, a country.
This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)
you could do CLL to reduce the number of steps, and recognition will be the same as just using COLL, the majority of people knows CLL because of 2x2, yeah it could work.
3LHKLL is debatable faster than 2LHKLL because of the number of algs and recog.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
613
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)
No, he's made a completely different method because he uses COLL then L5EP. Of course that's a ridiculous statment but it's what you're saying about Briggs and YruRU. Also, Briggs is better than YruRU because you solve CPFB instead of CPLine then finish FB. Also, if you're using the wiki as a proper source, remember that the speedsolving wiki is currerntly not a good wiki. They are not variants of each other they are the same thing and are called Briggs. Doing the same thing with different techniques is the same method. For example, Roux where you exclusively solve DL then the 2 F2L pairs for FB is still Roux. ZZ where you solve EOCross is still ZZ. CFOP where you solve an XCross is still CFOP. Please stop propogating false information and call it Briggs.

Anyway, I hope everyone is having a nice day and coming up with new and exciting methods that average sub 40 moves.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
654
Location
A Pineapple Orbiting Neptune
Hawaiian Kociemba variant:

Arrow(EO Arrow without EO, empty spot in DF)
F2L with M slice pairing so rotationless
HKOLL
HKPLL

I will call it Hawaiian CFOP
I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lol
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
126
I guess it’s time for me to step in now.
they are the same thing
Briggs is better than YruRU
Hypocrisy much?
you solve CPFB instead of CPLine
CPFB in 15-second inspection is not feasible, no question. Even if you trace CP through FB which will drastically slow you down; you’ll still have to know initial CP and plan FB (And I’m not even counting the horrible pause you’ll have during EO). People have done that successfully and consistently? Others who have genuinely done CP will know those people are lying.

Now here’s the real point:
Once you do CP in the start of the solve, there are literally just 2 ways to sensibly do the rest of the solve; either reduce to rRU to RU, or reduce to rRU to MU. It doesn’t take a genius to figure those out. So, the only place where a method developer has to put any amount of effort at all, is in deciding how to do CP.
TLDR: the only difference between two CP-first methods can be the way CP is done, the rest of the solve is dead-obvious.
Now, it has been established I believe beyond any scope of doubt that YruRU’s way of handling CP is objectively far superior to any other system, like 2GR.
The entire method reduces to how CP is done, and if there’s some sort of a weightage in deciding whether a method is new, almost all the weightage in this case goes to how CP is done, because there’s literally no new concept in the rest of the solve.
So, what did Briggs do? In this context, I shamelessly argue, nothing. CP wasn’t a new concept in 2015 either. After CP there are only 2 ways to continue the solve, both trivial, this is universally obvious. Then why call this method Briggs? The only reason can be, he provided objectively the best way to do CP; absolutely nothing else can grant him the method name, because there is nothing else to be done here.
But then what’s the best way (and I say objectively) to do CP-first now? That’s YruRU. That’s literally what the same stands for. The ruRU stands for the reduction to [r,u,R,U]; the name of the method is the name of that step because that step is the method.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
613
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I guess it’s time for me to step in now.


Hypocrisy much?

CPFB in 15-second inspection is not feasible, no question. Even if you trace CP through FB which will drastically slow you down; you’ll still have to know initial CP and plan FB (And I’m not even counting the horrible pause you’ll have during EO). People have done that successfully and consistently? Others who have genuinely done CP will know those people are lying.

Now here’s the real point:
Once you do CP in the start of the solve, there are literally just 2 ways to sensibly do the rest of the solve; either reduce to rRU to RU, or reduce to rRU to MU. It doesn’t take a genius to figure those out. So, the only place where a method developer has to put any amount of effort at all, is in deciding how to do CP.
TLDR: the only difference between two CP-first methods can be the way CP is done, the rest of the solve is dead-obvious.
Now, it has been established I believe beyond any scope of doubt that YruRU’s way of handling CP is objectively far superior to any other system, like 2GR.
The entire method reduces to how CP is done, and if there’s some sort of a weightage in deciding whether a method is new, almost all the weightage in this case goes to how CP is done, because there’s literally no new concept in the rest of the solve.
So, what did Briggs do? In this context, I shamelessly argue, nothing. CP wasn’t a new concept in 2015 either. After CP there are only 2 ways to continue the solve, both trivial, this is universally obvious. Then why call this method Briggs? The only reason can be, he provided objectively the best way to do CP; absolutely nothing else can grant him the method name, because there is nothing else to be done here.
But then what’s the best way (and I say objectively) to do CP-first now? That’s YruRU. That’s literally what the same stands for. The ruRU stands for the reduction to [r,u,R,U]; the name of the method is the name of that step because that step is the method.
.
They are the same thing in the sense of CFOP with an XCross is the same as CFOP with Cross. Briggs is better because CPFB which is definitely viable in inspection. It's not easy, but viable. Also, I have done CP properly and I can confirm that CPFB in inspection is viable. Inspect CP in 2 seconds (and this is possible, just as I can inspect EO in 2 seconds), find a square in 4 (done by Rouxers consistently), trace CP and the final edge through the square (4 seconds) then you know when to insert the edge into the pair. Yes, I think that it's possible. Also yes, you will have a horrible pause before EO in LEOR, Briggs or your version of Briggs which is why this is not speedsolving viable. Yes, tricks can reduce that but not enough imo. That's why LEOR is the best out of all these because it's feasible to inspect FB and at least some of EO consistently.

Using your example, if I solve ZZ EO using set ups to MU and someone else does EO the normal way, they don't use different methods. If I inspect cross then a pair and someone else inspects a 2x2x2 then the rest of the cross, they don't use different methods. If someone inspecs FB then places DFDB and carrys on with Petrus, they're using Petrus.
I would also agree that Briggs wasn't a new concept, rather a rediscovered concept that built on ideas but it came first and it's the best name we have and is the standard name. It works. I'm fine with your way of doing CP being called the YruRU style or whatever though.

I still don't think that YruRU is the best way to do CP because they're all the same at the end of the day, with some systems allowing for different things such as tracking CP (2GR system) or CP when DL corners are solved (YruRU) and they can pretty much be fused together to make the same thing.

One more thing, calling your opponent a liar is a bad way to debate because you're attacking the mesenger not the message.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,154
Location
Null Island
Technically they are variants of each other. Briggs came first but YruRu is a variant of Briggs and by definition Briggs is a variant of YruRu. Here is the definition of variation: "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard." Nothing in this definition mentions anything about chronological orders.
Briggs was the standard, YruRu differed from that. You can't have a standard with something that hasn't been invented.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
126
.
They are the same thing in the sense of CFOP with an XCross is the same as CFOP with Cross. Briggs is better because CPFB which is definitely viable in inspection. It's not easy, but viable. Also, I have done CP properly and I can confirm that CPFB in inspection is viable. Inspect CP in 2 seconds (and this is possible, just as I can inspect EO in 2 seconds), find a square in 4 (done by Rouxers consistently), trace CP and the final edge through the square (4 seconds) then you know when to insert the edge into the pair. Yes, I think that it's possible. Also yes, you will have a horrible pause before EO in LEOR, Briggs or your version of Briggs which is why this is not speedsolving viable. Yes, tricks can reduce that but not enough imo. That's why LEOR is the best out of all these because it's feasible to inspect FB and at least some of EO consistently.

Using your example, if I solve ZZ EO using set ups to MU and someone else does EO the normal way, they don't use different methods. If I inspect cross then a pair and someone else inspects a 2x2x2 then the rest of the cross, they don't use different methods. If someone inspecs FB then places DFDB and carrys on with Petrus, they're using Petrus.
I would also agree that Briggs wasn't a new concept, rather a rediscovered concept that built on ideas but it came first and it's the best name we have and is the standard name. It works. I'm fine with your way of doing CP being called the YruRU style or whatever though.

I still don't think that YruRU is the best way to do CP because they're all the same at the end of the day, with some systems allowing for different things such as tracking CP (2GR system) or CP when DL corners are solved (YruRU) and they can pretty much be fused together to make the same thing.

One more thing, calling your opponent a liar is a bad way to debate because you're attacking the mesenger not the message.
Conveniently sidelining my point to place your analogies is a bad way to debate as well. As for my claim on lying, all I mean is if people jump in saying they have done it rather than they think it’s possible to do it, then without sufficient proof my null hypothesis will be to assume that they’re lying. This is because, as you pointed out, it is ridiculously hard to do and at the very least requires tons of dedicated practice just for this step, which I’m not aware of anyone has put in. In any case, it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of this kind unless interacting in person or video call.

For now, putting aside the viability of sub15 CPFB and whether the YruRU way is objectively the best; let’s take the analogies you made to show you my point in those.

The concept of EO-first to reduce to LUR I presume was floating from before 2000. Let’s say in 2005, a person “came up with the way” to do EO with set-ups to MU since this way of doing it is known through Roux; and simultaneously place DBDF so that the cube is reduced to LUR. Then, do LB, RB, LL; because that’s like the obvious skeleton that follows. This person called this method AA, their initials.
Come 2006, another person finds a way to do EO using F, B moves; and simultaneously place DBDF. Then follows with LB, RB, LL. This person calls this method BB, their initials.
Now, BB is quite similar to AA, but has an element that is completely new and novel. Also, whether BB is speedsolving viable is up for debate even today, but it is objectively a better approach than AA. Would you rather AA stay the name or BB or keep them separate?

(I’m not sure about the history of cubing but afaik a similar thing happened with CFOP on discovery of F2L and they stuck with the latter option of keeping them separate and seeing which idea performs better)

This situation is just that. The crux of the method is that one CP step, the rest is mere embellishment. YruRU’s way you may not agree is supreme for now, but it at the very least is better than Briggs’ way; which is just comms, which we know is like the brute force way of doing CP. Whether YruRU is speedsolving viable is up for debate, but it certainly is miles ahead of Briggs; and it doesn’t build on it in the least. What would you rather here?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
654
Location
A Pineapple Orbiting Neptune
Wait, you used
1. Arrow without EO
2. M U gen F2L
3. HKOLL
4. HKPLL

I used

1. Arrow without EO
2. Normal F2L
3. Roux EO
4. COLL then L5EP
how is it the exact same method?
They are very similar. In your method, you would rotate or use F/B moves for F2L cases with misoriented edges. It is objectively better to do a M' to orient it. For L9P, you use 3 Looks, where as I would use 2. It is better to do HKOLL because recognition is faster. Also, if you did a CLL type thing before EO, you could lower the movecount(Like F R U R' U' F' vs R2 D' R U R' D R U R U' R' U' R). If you want, I can give you access to my HKOLL doc in progress.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
613
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Conveniently sidelining my point to place your analogies is a bad way to debate as well. As for my claim on lying, all I mean is if people jump in saying they have done it rather than they think it’s possible to do it, then without sufficient proof my null hypothesis will be to assume that they’re lying. This is because, as you pointed out, it is ridiculously hard to do and at the very least requires tons of dedicated practice just for this step, which I’m not aware of anyone has put in. In any case, it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of this kind unless interacting in person or video call.

For now, putting aside the viability of sub15 CPFB and whether the YruRU way is objectively the best; let’s take the analogies you made to show you my point in those.

The concept of EO-first to reduce to LUR I presume was floating from before 2000. Let’s say in 2005, a person “came up with the way” to do EO with set-ups to MU since this way of doing it is known through Roux; and simultaneously place DBDF so that the cube is reduced to LUR. Then, do LB, RB, LL; because that’s like the obvious skeleton that follows. This person called this method AA, their initials.
Come 2006, another person finds a way to do EO using F, B moves; and simultaneously place DBDF. Then follows with LB, RB, LL. This person calls this method BB, their initials.
Now, BB is quite similar to AA, but has an element that is completely new and novel. Also, whether BB is speedsolving viable is up for debate even today, but it is objectively a better approach than AA. Would you rather AA stay the name or BB or keep them separate?

(I’m not sure about the history of cubing but afaik a similar thing happened with CFOP on discovery of F2L and they stuck with the latter option of keeping them separate and seeing which idea performs better)

This situation is just that. The crux of the method is that one CP step, the rest is mere embellishment. YruRU’s way you may not agree is supreme for now, but it at the very least is better than Briggs’ way; which is just comms, which we know is like the brute force way of doing CP. Whether YruRU is speedsolving viable is up for debate, but it certainly is miles ahead of Briggs; and it doesn’t build on it in the least. What would you rather here?
BB is still AA. Briggs doesn't use comms. It used comms in it's original inception but has been updated, even if not on the wiki. Briggs is just solving CPFB (which YruRU does in 2 steps) EODFDB (which YruRU does), right block (again, done in YruRU) then 2GLL (again again, done by YruRU). Every step of the way YruRU is identical to Briggs just with a breakdown of the first step into 2.

Also, yeah the concept has been around for longer than Mr ZZ, but he made it into a thing, same with CPFB. Giles Roux iirc posted about reducing the cube to a 2gen state years ago, so what you have claimed to be a method that is perhaps superior to Roux was infact invented by Roux. But we now call it Briggs because we do. Ultimately, I don't have an issue with the actual name but I do have an issue with the claim that you invented a new method. Again, call it YruRU style CP (there's 2GR style CP too) if you want to, I'm fine with that. Stop saying it's a completely new method, because then anything could be called a new method, from XFOE to every single ZZ variant with EOLine, EOArrow and EOCross and every cuber would be method neutral to some extent. Heck, why isn't 3 sided PLL recognition a different method to 2 sided? My point being that we can't have completely free defenitions for new methods, especially when the steps are completely identical.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
126
I believe if you use F-move style EO, you should say you’re using BB, not AA. Because AA was simply a compilation a knowledge; and in this case, not in usable form.
If you can characterise an entire method-type uniquely by one step, and you come up with an entirely different way to do that step, you essentially come up with a new method because the juice of that method is all packed in that one step. This is why analogies with Roux, CFOP or Petrus do not apply at all here, there is no defining step for these methods.
Analogies with ZZ work to some extent, because EO is a defining feature of ZZ; however ZZ is already usable as a speedsolving method while Briggs as you yourself mentioned, isn’t; so the analogies break down there.
An appropriate analogy would be an EO-first-type method that is not usable for speedsolving, like recognition edge orientation by some sort of calculation and orienting them by set-ups to M moves. In this case, the creator hasn’t exactly added anything novel to the pre-existing idea. Now, someone introducing the sticker-face recognition and FB orientation I believe has created an entirely new method, even if the change is in only that one step; because that step is the only thing in the method that’s not obvious. If this makes EO-first type methods usable competitively due to significantly faster inspection, significantly efficient EO, and significantly more room to plan ahead, there is absolutely reason to call the method with the former name. In fact, it would be downright wrong if this recognition system and execution system was not thought of earlier.
Again, 2 sided PLL recognition vs 3 sided PLL recognition analogy doesn’t work because PLL is not all there is to CFOP.
My point being, if the compiler of a previously known idea gets to name the method, and someone coming up with an entirely new approach (recognition and execution) on the said idea that makes a drastic transition of “CP-first not viable” to “CP-first viable” doesn’t get to name his version differently simply because there is only one path the latter part of the all CP-first methods can take, then that isn’t fair.
Edit: To avoid any further miscommunication and offer a middle ground based on all our views, I find it perfectly acceptable to rename what is currently called YruRU to “CP-first with YruRU-style CP” or something along those lines. What I do not find acceptable is “Briggs with YruRU-style CP”.
 
Last edited:

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
41
I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
I've also proposed the Exact same l5e method like a month ago lol with the same steps
 

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
41
The simple version of l5e and last layer is make sure that the bottom edge is oriented than do an oll than a pll and finish with lse.
 
Top