The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

ProStar

Member
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

Member
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

Member
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.

Last edited:

dudefaceguy

Member
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.

Last edited:

dudefaceguy

Member
5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)
By the way, I have tried to do this, and you CANNOT solve both centers and edges using only U and r (unless I have really missed something). EDIT: Actually you should be able to, since you can scramble the same pieces with U r. It just seems like the movecount would be very high.

It's either centers first and then edges using commutators (Lewis) or edges first and then centers using commutators (QTPI and Sandwich). You can do some center control while solving edges to get a few extra center pieces solved, but I'm not sure that this is worth it. There are 10 center pieces left if you solve edges first, or 8 if you also solve the two centers in the l slice while solving edges. 1/4 of these will usually be solved by accident, so there are usually 7 or 8 center pieces left, or 6 if you solve the extra 2 center pieces while solving edges. This is the difference between 2 and 3 commutators (or 1 4-move commutator cycling 6 pieces). Center commutators/algs can be really fast, but you have to look at the bottom and back faces to recognize the case.

Anyhow, I am obviously very excited to talk about this method but I will stop now and go to sleep.

Last edited:

Alex Shih

Member
By the way, I have tried to do this, and you CANNOT solve both centers and edges using only U and r (unless I have really missed something). It's either centers first and then edges using commutators (Lewis) or edges first and then centers using commutators (QTPI and Sandwich). You can do some center control while solving edges to get a few extra center pieces solved, but I'm not sure that this is worth it. There are 10 center pieces left if you solve edges first, or 8 if you also solve the two centers in the l slice while solving edges. 1/4 of these will usually be solved by accident, so there are usually 7 or 8 center pieces left, or 6 if you solve the extra 2 center pieces while solving edges. This is the difference between 2 and 3 commutators (or 1 4-move commutator cycling 6 pieces). Center commutators/algs can be really fast, but you have to look at the bottom and back faces to recognize the case.

Anyhow, I am obviously very excited to talk about this method but I will stop now and go to sleep.
Do you know any specific cases where this isn't possible, or the specific reason this isn't possible? There might be a workaround (although I have a feeling that the workaround would probably be algorithmic). Also, if you want to continue this discussion, we should probably move to a different thread.

Last edited:

Skewbed

Member
Here's an idea for finishing Hexagonal Francisco solves using pseudoslotting during the last edge.

Pseudoslotting ZBLL Finish:

1. Hexagon on D
2. Solve 3 E-slice edges like normal (RUru-gen)
3. Insert the last one with the corner by using pseudoslotting
4. Insert DF edge while doing EO (MU-gen)
5. ZBLL or such

Pseudoslotting OLL PLL Finish:

1. Same
2. Same
3. Same
4. Insert DF edge (MU-gen)
5. OLL
6. PLL

Example solve using OLL PLL Finish:

Scramble: U' L' D2 U2 B' D2 B2 L2 B R2 B L2 F2 U L' D R U' R2 B'

y2 // inspection
L D' L' // 3/4 cross, probably inefficient way to build hexagon
U' L' U' L // corner
R2 U' L U L' // corner
(D' U') L' U L // corner
u R U R' r U r' // edge
u r U r' F' U' F // pseudoslot
M' U' M // setup to LL
D' U R U R' U R d' R U' R' F' // OLL
U' L' U R' z R2 U R' U' R2 U D // PLL
R' // AUF (or ARF I guess)

TheoryOfQuantum

Member
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.
I meant that you would make a literal X. Not practical, but somehow helps with F2L.
Btw for the other people talking about where's f2l, I kind of forgot to say that you did f2l with it, as I've used it so much that it's been pretty much forgotten as a step and more a part of the cross

ProStar

Member
I meant that you would make a literal X. Not practical, but somehow helps with F2L.
Btw for the other people talking about where's f2l, I kind of forgot to say that you did f2l with it, as I've used it so much that it's been pretty much forgotten as a step and more a part of the cross
By X do you mean inserting all F2L pairs? If so then that's a really bad version of PCMS @CodingCuber

Spacey10

Member
5 moves flipped pair alg.
If the flipped pair is in FR and the slot is BR, then do R U' R2 U R'. May already exist though.

ObscureCuber

Member
HK method/variant
Do 2x2x2 block in back left or back right
ZZ EO
Turn 2x2 into 2x2x3 while also solving front pairs
COLL LSE

PapaSmurf

Member
You, my friend, just invented the beginner version of WaterZZ or a version of Portico.

CyoobietheCuber

Member
5 moves flipped pair alg.
If the flipped pair is in FR and the slot is BR, then do R U' R2 U R'. May already exist though.
Exists.

Member
Dunno if this exists but here it goes.
This is a wacky method that uses lots of algorithms so if you don't like learning algs then don't use this method.
I've posted this in a thread called "Pillman something something" and discussed this with other peoples, now I want to share it.

Step 1: it has two substeps to make inspection more feasible, step 1a is to make an FB + EO and plan it in inspection, I know that sounds crazy hard and it is, but with practice though, people can do it, I can guess some brave people can do it . Step 2b is to blockbuild an edge with 2 corners, Thus making one layer + EO.
tl;Dr: solve a layer + EO in two steps.

Step 2: solve the U layer edges into its place, and also, if all of your U layer edges are on the E slice, you can use one alg to solve them, kinda like L4EP but outside of last layer. tl;Dr: solve the U layer edges into its place. This step can obviously be improved to have more freedom, I'm open to all suggestions!

Step 3: Now, this alg set solves everything else, the LL corners and the oriented E slice edges in one algorithm while preserving the D layer and the U layer edges' orientation and permutation, this is similar to ZBLL, but, here's the catch, I think, this algorithm set has better recog and a bit lower algcount, now why better recognition? well ZBLL solves 8 pieces on the last layer, and the pieces are all combined together making it hard to recognize, but in this alg set, the 8 pieces, the corners and edges are separated, the E slice edges are not in the same layer as the LL corners, the part where it has a bit fewer algs? well, I just estimate that so take that with a grain of salt.
tl;Dr: solve the LL corners + the already oriented E slice edges.

I appreciate it if anyone calculates the average movecount for this method.

Step 4: Your cube is solved!

I'm open to any criticisms or corrections.

also, I'm trying this Chris Tran vibe kind thing, let me know haha

Last edited:

PapaSmurf

Member
I don't understand that explanation at all.

PapaSmurf

Member
So the FB is actually on D, not on L. That makes a lot more sense, and is also bad.

pillman

Member
I actually hav a method that is not effective at all but it is fun