• 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!

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
128
2x2 Method:

CPLine - Like Briggs and YruRU. This usually takes around 3-4 moves on 3x3, so it should be the same on 2x2
CO - Orient the Corners using <R, U>. Can usually be solved in 5ish moves
Solved - Solve a layer using <R2, U>. Most cases are 4-movers, with one being 6 and the worst being 9. This step can be executed really fast

Should average around 12 HTM, and almost all of it is either R U or R2 U


This could also be adapted for 2x2x3 by doing CPLine, Layer(also solving top layer), E-layer. CPLine is similar to Faces, Layer is <R2, U> and faster than PBL, and E-Layer is the same(although it could be influenced during the layer, where you can't easily influence the E-layer normally). Should be around 15 HTM, same as WoowyBaby's method
CP line will take lesser moves on a 2x2x2, because no DL edge. I’d estimate 2-3 moves.
The orientation would take quite a few moves, I’m unsure how you intend to do it in 5 moves. There are hundreds of cases, so given only RU moves, it kinda gives a lower bound of 5 moves on average at the very best. My guess for the average would be 7-8 moves. So that’s an average of closer to 15 HTM.

A cool method to show off; but not 1-lookable; and RU isn’t that great a moveset on 2x2x2 so certainly not spread (edit:speed) solving viable.
 
Last edited:

JawadWAhmed

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
1
So, I had an idea, it's an extension of f2l blocks where you solve the 2x2x3 block with the 2x3 part on the Left, and then solve all of the edges and then orient and permute the corners, probably stupid but it doesn't sound too bad to me.
 

MichaelZRC

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
22
Location
Florida, Hell
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
 
Last edited:

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
615
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
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

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
22
Location
Florida, Hell
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

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
922
Location
0, 0, 0
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.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
746
Location
well, a country.
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 :p
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,044
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
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

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
48
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

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
615
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
8
Location
Somewhere
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.
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,189
Location
43°38'42.8"N 115°59'35.1"W
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.
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
922
Location
0, 0, 0
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:


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

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
13
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.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
272
WCA
2017OWEN01
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.
 
Top