# The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

#### pillman

##### Member
its for 4X4 and up

##### Member
So the FB is actually on D, not on L. That makes a lot more sense, and is also bad.
If you don't like FB + EO on D, you could do this, EOCross, insert the D layer corners in a way that prevents the U layer edges from being on the E slice, now on the insertion of the last D layer corner, you permute all of the U layer edges, kinda like LPELL, but it's for one corner, not a pair.

also, just to clarify, the alg set which does CLL + E slice edges preserves the U layer edges, orientation and permutation but permutes the E slice edges.

Last edited:

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
Yeah, it's definitely worse than doing ZZ. You're doing layer+EO which is already kinda not good, then you're gonna do a step with not super recog then you're gonna do a step with not super recog or algs. As a general rule of thumb, any diag corner swap+edges that aren't in U are going to be majority awful algs.

##### Member
Yeah, it's definitely worse than doing ZZ. You're doing layer+EO which is already kinda not good, then you're gonna do a step with not super recog then you're gonna do a step with not super recog or algs. As a general rule of thumb, any diag corner swap+edges that aren't in U are going to be majority awful algs.
Oh ok then, and also, I'm not trying to compare to ZZ or anything, ye this might be a bad method anyway D=

#### semiprime799

##### Member
My really bad corners first method that I developed in one day:
Code:
1st step
intuitively solve the bottom corners
solve top corners using combination of 3-cycle and orientation algs.
Orientation algs:
[( R’ D’ R D R’ D’ R)(U’ )(R’ D R D’ R’ D R) U] twists UFL CW and UFR CCW
Sune [R U R’ U R U2 R’] twists all corners clockwise I think
3 cycle
Trash commutator 3 cycle [L D R’ D’ R U R’ D R U’ D’ L’]
if you end up with a weird corner case that can't be 3 cycled use setup moves

solve bottom edges intuitively with M/M' and F/D moves

solve E layer edges with [r U R' U' r' R U R U' R'] + some setup moves.

solve last four edges with combination of E slice alg and [M' U2 M U2] also setup moves are allowed.

#### Metallic Silver

##### Member
Has anyone created columns first on SQ-1?

1. Cube Shape
2. Solve all Corners
3. Solve 3 edges on bottom
4. Solve all edges in one alg. (L4E or L5E <--parity)

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
That's a cool idea. I'll do a few solves.

UPDATE: After doing 2 solves that weren't very good, I think it would be a better idea to do something like this: CSP, corners, DL+DR, L6EP. It ends up being 91 algs for L6EP, 34 for DL+DR and some amount for corners, depending on how you end up solving them. I think this could be a good competitor to Vandenburgh, although it is quite similar to Roux n Screw (but then Roux is quite similar to columns).

Last edited:

##### Member
Fireman method:
FBEO, solving FB + EO, similar to the first step of EOMR, medium
2 corners, solve 2 corners in the same layer as the FB, thus making a layer + EO - one edge, easy
WCOLL, do an algset which does COLL on the right that also ignores the permutation of the redges, UL edge and the M slice edges, easy
solve 3 redges using an algorithm, medium, alternative approach: do the 3 redges intuitively.
L6EP, medium, 95 algs approximate, alternative approach but not as good: EOLRb + 4c.

edit:
3 redges using an alg would be wayyy too much algorithms, so instead of 3, you solve two redges using an alg, insert 3rd redge intuitively, then do L6EP,
but what's different with this and the similar 2 redge using an alg step in the modern Waterman method is that the edges are already oriented, making the algcount very restricted.

edit2:
I've looked over it again, 3 redges using an alg wouldn't be that much? Waterman's step is actually solving 3 edges, LU edge, and 2 redges, which is 100 ish algs, but those edges were not oriented, if they were, 3 redges' algcount wouldn't be much.

Last edited:

#### Athefre

##### Member
I don't know how many people will see this, but I wanted to make a post clarifying the differences among conjugation, transformation, and pseudo/non-matching blocks. Recently the terminology has been used interchangeably.

Conjugation:

Conjugation is very broad. This is the general term for A B A'. You perform a setup, do some moves, then undo the setup. You have performed a setup so that you can easily perform the moves in "B". The A setup moves cause the puzzle to be in an offset state, changing the appearance. Then you undo the offset later. However, traditionally there is no further intent within this setup move. It wasn't until around 10 years ago that the technique of offsetting a layer was applied with the intent to reduce large algorithm sets and the overall move count of a method. That is where the term Transformation comes in. It refers to this specific technique.

Transformation:

Transformation is the application of a conjugate to change the state of the cube to gain a large advantage in the future. This is a relatively new term in the community. Transformation technically is conjugation, but there is a big difference in the intent. The reason for the application is completely different from the traditional use of A B A' setup, moves, setup undo. In transformation you are intentionally trying to change a case into another. You are taking advantage of the state of the pieces to improve the rest of the solve. Transformation is used to reduce the number of moves and the number of cases in a method. Conjugation doesn't specifically refer to this intent; it is a general term. Transformation is a different technique under the conjugation umbrella.

Setup = L' U R U' L U R' U'. This is one of the Sune orientation cases. But if you use the URF+UR pair and do an R' turn, you get the below state.

You have now transformed a Sune case into an L case. This is the L case solved by r U R U' L' U R' U'. So if you do r U R U' L' U R' U' then R (which undoes the R' turn in the last example), it will be solved.

Example methods/applications: NMLL, A2, CTLS, 42, and other case reduction applications.

Pseudo/Non-Matching:

This is when pieces are put together in such a way that the colors don't match. This is referring to the building process. We are only talking about the current state of the pieces. It is all about what everything looks like right now - not about your future intent.

Example methods/applications: Roux, Heise, ZZ, FMC, A2, A3, and it can be used in pretty much everything else.

In summary, the difference is in intent. In language, we have many separate words to clarify intention and reason. It is important to understand the differences for clarity. When someone says "conjugated Roux" or "conjugated ZBLL", it isn't clear what is meant and it requires them to provide an explanation. Do they mean Roux/ZZ with non-matching blocks? For Roux, do they mean 42? For ZZ, do they mean CTLS? Or do they mean something else? Because pseudo/non-matching and transformation fall under conjugation, it is important to use the correct term for the specific technique that is being used.