• 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!

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
612
Location
Somewhere i guesss
YouTube
Visit Channel
Here's a thing-
Heise Belt
1.solve any 223 psuedo but make sure that the pieces are oriented and the bottom pieces are all from that side(white for ex)
2.Petrus EO
3. Finish placing F2L but without it being solved
4.Top layer(might in counter parity) ((just do R2 U2 R2 U2 R2
Solve E slice bottom layer(pll)
 
Last edited:

TheSlykrCubr

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
644
Location
37.8270° N, 122.4230° W
YouTube
Visit Channel
ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?

why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl

It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method
 

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
1,852
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
YouTube
Visit Channel
ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?

why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl

It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method
It still wouldn’t be very good, and M2 U2 M2 to fix parity is really fast.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
45
ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?

why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl

It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method
makes more sense to just orient corners while doing belt so that you only have edge parity which can be dealt with easily
 

moh_33

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
73
Method Neutrality might be a thing 10-20 years down in the future of cubing. We need to take the best from each method.
im kinda method neutral between CFOP Roux and Petrus all of them have an average around 37 - 39 seconds CFOP being the fastest single solve i achieved which is 30.36, Roux being my favourite, and petrus as the go to method if i get bored
(i can use ZZ but the time is slower for me at a flipping 43 seconds avg)
 

abunickabhi

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
1,042
Location
Yo
WCA
2013GHOD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
im kinda method neutral between CFOP Roux and Petrus all of them have an average around 37 - 39 seconds CFOP being the fastest single solve i achieved which is 30.36, Roux being my favourite, and petrus as the go to method if i get bored
(i can use ZZ but the time is slower for me at a flipping 43 seconds avg)
Wow nice good to hear. I am talking here about elite level method neutrality here. Sub-8 with 2 or 3 methods.
 
Top