• 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
View attachment 13987
I'm Justin is bad.
He also only really solves with ZB.

Anyway, method neutrality is possible but not worth it, just like most methods which go for good singles.
I do CFOP sometimes during petrus sessions, but only if its a really lucky scramble.
trying to inspect for two methods and use both at the same consistency doesn't seem worth.
 

Nir1213

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
876
Location
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FveF-we6lcE
View attachment 13987
I'm Justin is bad.
He also only really solves with ZB.

Anyway, method neutrality is possible but not worth it, just like most methods which go for good singles.
I do CFOP sometimes during petrus sessions, but only if its a really lucky scramble.
trying to inspect for two methods and use both at the same consistency doesn't seem worth.
you are right but it could be pretty fun to use method neutrality.
 

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
612
Location
Somewhere i guesss
YouTube
Visit Channel
Most of these exist individually but i'm going to list some different domino methods.
SSC(shadowslicesnowcolumns)
-ZZ EO+E slice line(two adjacent E slice edges((usually the left two))
-solve psuedo 1x2x3 under those edges
-solve a psuedo 1x2x2 block on the right(if other block is on left)
-with last pair do Vls, insert oll, or OL5C
Domino reduction
-just how its done normally
Domino roux-
Other Domino roux-
-(oriented)psuedo fb
-(oriented)psuedo sb
-orient top corners
-L6E(only orientation)
Domino petrus/Domino hiese?
-(oriented)psuedo 222
-exstend to(oriented) 223
-EO
-Last side, OLL or last side-1 Vls or last side-1 OL5C
Domino ZZ(line)
-EO(psuedo)line
-psuedo pairs
-oll or Vls
Domino Waterman-
-Psuedo Side-1
-orient top corners
-other side psuedo-1
-orient only LSE(and solve the L U/R U edges)
CFOP
-psuedo cross
-psuedo f2l
-oll
LBL
layer,oriented E slice OLL
CF
corner orientation,edge orientation
Hollow stairs
Idk look it up on the wiki its hard to explain
psuedo HK/russo
psuedo HK block ,HKOLL
Psuedo russo block ,orient corners, edge orientation
 

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
612
Location
Somewhere i guesss
YouTube
Visit Channel
Here's a new method thingy.
1.solve a 222 but one/2 D edges can be any oriented edge(so like a solved 221+1 orientededge)
the oriented random edge will be in your back slot.(lets say this block is on BL for examples sake)
2.expand to create a 223 but the back edge being any oriented edge(on BR for example)
3.Petrus-WV style EO
4.Finish F2l but FD can also be any oriented edge
5.Corner permutation
6.Oriented L6E
Heres an example(got really lucky btw)
for 1. there is an exception(can't be the edge that is your exstention edge)
 

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
509
I've been thinking about an alternative approach to LSE for a little bit, and I wanted to post it here to see if there's any interest in it.

LSE right now does EO+Placing ULUR (or ULUR/UFUB neutrality for some) in D layer and then solving the rest: placing the U edges in D to their proper places and solving L4E.

I have been considering an approach that instead solves DFDB in a similar way to EOLR (no care for centers, only place them in D layer.) My thought process is that once the edges are placed in D, it's only a matter of recognizing L4E on the U layer (which is just EPLL + a few algs with care for centers.)

Right now, I think the ease of recognizing D layer stickers (2 D layer stickers compared to 4 U layer edge stickers) combined with the ease of recognizing edge permutation only on the U layer could be slightly faster than traditional LSE methods.

Would this be an idea worth pursuing, or are there issues that make this worse than normal LSE?
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
812
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I would say two things: firstly, LSE is already pauseless and near optimal movecount; secondly, all EPLLs (which would be a non insignificant proportion of this alg set) are set ups to 4c cases, so essentially you would be doing LSE the standard way anyway.
 

Nir1213

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
876
Location
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FveF-we6lcE
thinking of a new belt method. Not sure if this has been proposed before, but here it is.

1: permute 3 cross edges and make a belt around the cube.

2: insert the last cross edge quickly with M moves.

3: insert the f2l corners. You could do a last slot method on one of the last corners but it depends since some cases might not have algs that make the pair, then insert it. For example when you have a case where you have a corner which white is on top, and the f2l edge is solved (this is a white cross solve), you can do it by RURURURUR insert. But to do a last slot method to orient EO, URURURUR would be much more optimal.

4: solve last layer by any method you want.



Pros: you dont have to make a full cross, only 3 cross edges, which means that the first step will be more easy, and more cross tricks might open up, as well as your cross time decreasing.

For belt, there is alot of freedom, which means while inserting edge pieces, it could open up to more belt tricks to make the belt step more efficient and faster.

the corner permutation is pretty simple and fast.

Edit: Another pro is that you can use CLS everytime.

Cons: doing Belt and Corner permutation is slower than doing F2L.

Look-ahead is very hard.

Pieces can be hidden almost anywhere during belt, making it very hard to find pieces without multiple rotations.


This method just isnt as fast as other methods, like ZZ, Petrus, Roux, or CFOP. But it could still be used as a speedsolving method. It is also pretty simple, meaning that it could be used as a method for beginners.

idk what to call this method.
 
Last edited:

ObscureCuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
612
Location
Somewhere i guesss
YouTube
Visit Channel
Just solve it method
1.solve cube random piece by random piece by using blockbuilding and commutators.

thinking of a new belt method. Not sure if this has been proposed before, but here it is.

1: permute 3 cross edges and make a belt around the cube.

2: insert the last cross edge quickly with M moves.

3: insert the f2l corners. You could do a last slot method on one of the last corners but it depends since some cases might not have algs that make the pair, then insert it. For example when you have a case where you have a corner which white is on top, and the f2l edge is solved (this is a white cross solve), you can do it by RURURURUR insert. But to do a last slot method to orient EO, URURURUR would be much more optimal.

4: solve last layer by any method you want.



Pros: you dont have to make a full cross, only 3 cross edges, which means that the first step will be more easy, and more cross tricks might open up, as well as your cross time decreasing.

For belt, there is alot of freedom, which means while inserting edge pieces, it could open up to more belt tricks to make the belt step more efficient and faster.

the corner permutation is pretty simple and fast.

Edit: Another pro is that you can use CLS everytime.

Cons: doing Belt and Corner permutation is slower than doing F2L.

Look-ahead is very hard.

Pieces can be hidden almost anywhere during belt, making it very hard to find pieces without multiple rotations.


This method just isnt as fast as other methods, like ZZ, Petrus, Roux, or CFOP. But it could still be used as a speedsolving method. It is also pretty simple, meaning that it could be used as a method for beginners.

idk what to call this method.
Solving cross first is better also this method has been come up with alot before I'm pretty sure(including I thought of this before) also you still have to do full cross just seperately solve the last cross edge less efficiency
 

Nir1213

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
876
Location
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FveF-we6lcE
Solving cross first is better also this method has been come up with alot before I'm pretty sure(including I thought of this before) also you still have to do full cross just seperately solve the last cross edge less efficiency
doing the full cross while making belt is really hard, as one cross edge might pop up. It also restricts more tricks.
 
Top