The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[MichaelZRC]

New method for 2x2, VCO
V: Solve a V on the bottom layer similar to VOP
C: CPLS, use the pair solved CPLS cases for the last corner (Orientation of the corner doesn't matter so treat the corner like a solved pair no matter what orientation)
O: Orient the last pieces using one of 16 TCLL cases or one of 7 CLL cases.
Some of you may that, "Recognizing CPLS during the middle of a 2x2 solve is insane!" The thing is, you don't. While looking at the V in inspection you also look at the CP case (8 total) making it a 2 look method if you do V+CPLS in inspection. Movecount would be around 14-16 (2 for V, 6 For CPLS and around 7 for TCLL, each step varying)
And total number of algs is 31, much less than TCLL which has a total of 128 including CLL
Any questions welcome

 

[PapaSmurf]

New method for 2x2, VCO
V: Solve a V on the bottom layer similar to VOP
C: CPLS, use the pair solved CPLS cases for the last corner (Orientation of the corner doesn't matter so treat the corner like a solved pair no matter what orientation)
O: Orient the last pieces using one of 16 TCLL cases or one of 7 CLL cases.
Some of you may that, "Recognizing CPLS during the middle of a 2x2 solve is insane!" The thing is, you don't. While looking at the V in inspection you also look at the CP case (8 total) making it a 2 look method if you do V+CPLS in inspection. Movecount would be around 14-16 (2 for V, 6 For CPLS and around 7 for TCLL, each step varying)
And total number of algs is 31, much less than TCLL which has a total of 128 including CLL
Any questions welcome

Worse than EG so not worth it. There hasn't been a good 2x2 method propsed that would be faster than EG plus TCLL except learning 614 algs and doing L5C. Also CPLS, while not having bad recog, is worse and harder to 1 look through than just solving a face, solving everything. And that goes to every 2x2 method proposal; if you want it to be competeing with EG, you have to have it being 2 steps, 1 lookable and lower movecount which probably won't happen. Prove me wrong though, I would be more than happy to be.

TL;DR 2x2 is already insanely optimised so you need a really good idea to make anything fast that's worthwhile learning.

 

[MichaelZRC]

Worse than EG so not worth it. There hasn't been a good 2x2 method propsed that would be faster than EG plus TCLL except learning 614 algs and doing L5C. Also CPLS, while not having bad recog, is worse and harder to 1 look through than just solving a face, solving everything. And that goes to every 2x2 method proposal; if you want it to be competeing with EG, you have to have it being 2 steps, 1 lookable and lower movecount which probably won't happen. Prove me wrong though, I would be more than happy to be.

TL;DR 2x2 is already insanely optimised so you need a really good idea to make anything fast that's worthwhile learning.

The method isn't trying to compete with EG , I wanted a more advanced VOP and TCLL with less algs. if you one-look V and CPLS it could compete with CLL. Basically the overall goal was less algs for a decent 2x2 method

Also, VCO example solve here:

 

[Athefre]

Worse than EG so not worth it. There hasn't been a good 2x2 method propsed that would be faster than EG plus TCLL except learning 614 algs and doing L5C. Also CPLS, while not having bad recog, is worse and harder to 1 look through than just solving a face, solving everything. And that goes to every 2x2 method proposal; if you want it to be competeing with EG, you have to have it being 2 steps, 1 lookable and lower movecount which probably won't happen. Prove me wrong though, I would be more than happy to be.

TL;DR 2x2 is already insanely optimised so you need a really good idea to make anything fast that's worthwhile learning.

A2 is two steps, one-lookable, no new algs required if someone already knows CLL/EG/TCLL/others, and fewer moves than EG. The only thing new anyone has to do is practice pair building and learn the two simple rules for recognition.

 

[Username: Username:]

A2 is two steps, one-lookable, no new algs required if someone already knows CLL/EG/TCLL/others, and fewer moves than EG. The only thing new anyone has to do is practice pair building and learn the two simple rules for recognition.

Yeah, I recently tried A2 and i'm confused on the L2P step, if I get it down it definitely could be my main method for 2x2

 

[ProStar]

CFOP-style 4x4 method inspired by LBL:

1.) White Center - Just one center, you could be CN but for simplicity I used white
2.) 3 Cross Edges - Like Yau
3.) 3 Half centers - Solve 3 half centers to match up with the 3 edges you have
4.) Last half center + cross edge - Pair up the final cross edge and preserve it while creating the final half center. Then put both in their correct position. A this point you have white cross and a half center pairing up with each cross edge
5.) F2L - Use F2L to solve Corner-Edge pairs. Each pair is 1 corner and 1 edge, not the entire wing. This is kinda weird because there's two edges that look identical, but you can get used to it
6.) 3rd Layer - Same as JPerm's method; solve either all the 3rd layer centers or the 3rd layer edges(depending on which has more solved, which can be realized almost instantly), then the rest of the 3rd layer. Same algs as J-Perm
7.) LL - Solve corners with CLL, then the wings with ELL. ELL can be done 2-look by solving the wings with 1 alg then solving ELL. You could also solve wings first then do CLL->ELL

Not saying it's as good as Yau, just presenting the method. Also, how many algs for doing 1-look ELL(solve wings and solve edges while preserving corners)?

 

[whaffle]

CFOP-style 4x4 method inspired by LBL:

1.) White Center - Just one center, you could be CN but for simplicity I used white
2.) 3 Cross Edges - Like Yau
3.) 3 Half centers - Solve 3 half centers to match up with the 3 edges you have
4.) Last half center + cross edge - Pair up the final cross edge and preserve it while creating the final half center. Then put both in their correct position. A this point you have white cross and a half center pairing up with each cross edge
5.) F2L - Use F2L to solve Corner-Edge pairs. Each pair is 1 corner and 1 edge, not the entire wing. This is kinda weird because there's two edges that look identical, but you can get used to it
6.) 3rd Layer - Same as JPerm's method; solve either all the 3rd layer centers or the 3rd layer edges(depending on which has more solved, which can be realized almost instantly), then the rest of the 3rd layer. Same algs as J-Perm
7.) LL - Solve corners with CLL, then the wings with ELL. ELL can be done 2-look by solving the wings with 1 alg then solving ELL. You could also solve wings first then do CLL->ELL

Not saying it's as good as Yau, just presenting the method. Also, how many algs for doing 1-look ELL(solve wings and solve edges while preserving corners)?

I think 1-look ELL is 7! * 2^7, could be wrong though.
Don't say half centers, it's easy to confuse with another technique where you solve centers misaligned by 1 move. Solving the centers using a LBL approach is ineffecient, so it's better to do centers before F2L, at which point you are basically doing K4.

 

[PapaSmurf]

A2 is two steps, one-lookable, no new algs required if someone already knows CLL/EG/TCLL/others, and fewer moves than EG. The only thing new anyone has to do is practice pair building and learn the two simple rules for recognition.

I would argue that A2 is an EG extension, just as NM blocks is not a new method, rather a technique used within the framework of the method.

 

[TheoryOfQuantum]

Hey guys, what do you think about this alternative version of CFOP?o_O
Method: XCOP
1. X: Basically make an X with and make sure the sides are correct.
2. C: Cross. Basic if you know CFOP.
3. OP: Last layer CFOP.

Discuss.

 

[ProStar]

1.) What do you mean by X? an XCross?
2.) You forgot the rest of F2L
3.) There's a thread especially for proposing new methods, which can be found here.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Hey guys, what do you think about this alternative version of CFOP?o_O
Method: XCOP
1. X: Basically make an X with and make sure the sides are correct.
2. C: Cross. Basic if you know CFOP.
3. OP: Last layer CFOP.

Discuss.

If you mean making a literal X cross with F2L pairs then no, it's not viable. The number of rotations and slice moves to insert the cross edges just isn't worth it compared to regular CFOP or variants like FreeFOP. It's not viable or efficient, and your TPS would presumably be very low during the Cross unless you learn algs, and at that point, your efforts would be better spent learning ZBLL or other sets.

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

This is PCMS but worse

 

[CyoobietheCuber]

This is FCOP or FreeFOP

 

[Athefre]

I would argue that A2 is an EG extension, just as NM blocks is not a new method, rather a technique used within the framework of the method.

It's actually not just non-matching or transformed EG. There is a whole lot more to it than that. You simply build two pairs as the first step. Think of all of the 2x2 methods which do that. EG is one, but also CLL and all of the methods in the post below:

The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

Is there a LS substep that permutes oriented edges? I guess something close to that would be ZZ-b phasing, but that doesn't always solve the edges.

www.speedsolving.com

A2 also integrates transformation, which is my CLL technique from 2010 and most people now know as 22. Here, you only have to solve three pieces instead of the whole two pairs.

I actually debated with myself for a long time as to what I should call A2. When I originally posted about it years ago, I called it a way to improve CLL and EG. But I recently rebranded it into it's own method because there are so many sub-methods involved. You build two pairs or a few pieces then go from there. CLL/EG/TCLL/those many methods in my post above happen to be subsets. I don't want to call it a technique because it includes a group of techniques. The first two pair building (this was so complex to develop), transformation, and my recognition methods. All of these combine to make something much more than just a technique.

 

[Alex Shih]

Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?

1. First 2 centers
2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
3. Second Block (just outer layer, so 3x4x1)
4. CMLL
5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)

Essentially, the point of this method is to eliminate the numerous regrips that Lewis/Stadler has when switching between wide slice, left inner slice, and right inner slice moves. Roux's obvious weakness on big cubes is not being able to keep the inner layers together during 3x3 stage, and this is an attempt to solve that as well. There's also probably a way to avoid OLL parity by orienting all the edge-halves during step 5, but I haven't fully fleshed that out yet.

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?

1. First 2 centers
2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
3. Second Block (just outer layer, so 3x4x1)
4. CMLL
5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)

Essentially, the point of this method is to eliminate the numerous regrips that Lewis/Stadler has when switching between wide slice, left inner slice, and right inner slice moves. Roux's obvious weakness on big cubes is not being able to keep the inner layers together during 3x3 stage, and this is an attempt to solve that as well. There's also probably a way to avoid OLL parity by orienting all the edge-halves during step 5, but I haven't fully fleshed that out yet.

I think step 5 would be too hard to do fast in a solve and you would have to learn a new style of blockbuilding for 4x4 but I think it would be cool if this works.

 

[ProStar]

Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?

1. First 2 centers
2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
3. Second Block (just outer layer, so 3x4x1)
4. CMLL
5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)

Essentially, the point of this method is to eliminate the numerous regrips that Lewis/Stadler has when switching between wide slice, left inner slice, and right inner slice moves. Roux's obvious weakness on big cubes is not being able to keep the inner layers together during 3x3 stage, and this is an attempt to solve that as well. There's also probably a way to avoid OLL parity by orienting all the edge-halves during step 5, but I haven't fully fleshed that out yet.

I'm almost certain that this is an existing method, but I can't remember which one it is

 

[Etotheipi]

Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?

1. First 2 centers
2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
3. Second Block (just outer layer, so 3x4x1)
4. CMLL
5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)

Essentially, the point of this method is to eliminate the numerous regrips that Lewis/Stadler has when switching between wide slice, left inner slice, and right inner slice moves. Roux's obvious weakness on big cubes is not being able to keep the inner layers together during 3x3 stage, and this is an attempt to solve that as well. There's also probably a way to avoid OLL parity by orienting all the edge-halves during step 5, but I haven't fully fleshed that out yet.

This is similar to @dudefaceguy's intuitive 4x4 method, with some variations. His method uses commutators for your 5th step, to stay intuitive, but maybe you can find a faster alg based approach.

 

[Alex Shih]

I think step 5 would be too hard to do fast in a solve and you would have to learn a new style of blockbuilding for 4x4 but I think it would be cool if this works.

Personally, I don't think the ergonomics of inner slice + U are significantly worse than the ergonomics of doing outer-layer CFOP. But I could be definitely be convinced otherwise.

This is similar to @dudefaceguy's intuitive 4x4 method, with some variations. His method uses commutators for your 5th step, to stay intuitive, but maybe you can find a faster alg based approach.

After some experimentation, I think the best alg-based approach is probably some variant of this:

5a. Pair up centers (2x1 center piece blocks) while solving ULUR
5b. Solve the rest of the cube using U2's and inner slices (basically an analogue to 4c in normal Roux)

There are only 4 center pairs you need to solve (since the fifth one gets solved automatically). There are also 4 ULUR edges to solve, so you can solve one center pair and one ULUR piece simultaneously and repeat 3 times to reduce # of algs. I ended up dropping the idea of EO as its own step because most 5b cases seem to have misoriented edges anyway.

 

[dudefaceguy]

This is similar to @dudefaceguy's intuitive 4x4 method, with some variations. His method uses commutators for your 5th step, to stay intuitive, but maybe you can find a faster alg based approach.

Yup, that's my method! I solve the inner slice after completing both blocks, but you can really do it either way. Hm, maybe I will experiment with switching some of the steps around. Very cool that you remembered

Seems to me that it has potential as a speed method, but I don't really know since I'm not a speed solver. The most obvious problem is that it uses completely different skills compared to 3x3, so it's not as easy to leverage your existing skills. I designed it this way on purpose, because I wanted my 4x4 solves to be different than my 3x3 solves.

Recognition is also difficult when pairing opposite wing edges in the inner slice - you need to identify which blue/white edge goes with which blue/yellow edge, even though they have the same colors.

But I am getting good times with this method, i.e. 4x slower than my 3x3 times. This is about what 4x4 times should be for a casual solver. So, a dedicated speed solver who is not an old man could probably get competitive times. Over time, I've come to do some of the steps exactly the same way, effectively making them algorithmic even though I'm technically using commutators. There are certainly some gains to be had by further refining algorthmic steps.

Edit: many of the steps are already used in other speed methods, for example Lewis and Sandwich. The thing that distinguishes it from these two methods is solving 3/4 of one inner slice, and using the other single slice to solve wing edges.