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.

For the first time in a while I did 50 LMCF solves with a 3-phase timer, timing corners/E2L/L6E.
Based on the 50 solves, with no rejected solves:
Corners: 4.88sec
E2L: 6.91sec
L6E: 3.72sec

Now I am not a top solver, and have slow TPS and not very good lookahead.
The point is that looking at my corners time (4.88) and comparing to a top 2x2 solver (1.50), I am 3.25 times slower.
Looking at my L6E (3.72) and comparing to a top roux solver (1.3), I am 2.86 times slower.

It takes me (15.52/4.88) = 3.18 times longer to solve the 3x3 cube than it takes me to solve just the corners.
If you apply that to a 2x2 solver (1.50sec 2x2 average), it predicts their 3x3 time is 3.18 x 1.50 = 4.77 seconds Ao50.
Even if you use the more skeptical 2.86 ratio (my L6E vs. top Roux LSE), you get 15.52/2.86 = 5.42 Ao50.

I am still making adjustments to the method to improve ergonomics. Another year or two and ergonomics should be close to Roux, but I don't think ergonomics can ever match Roux. I might end up migrating the method more towards WaterRoux given recent insights on the possibility to solve 1st block & corners in 1 look.

Here you can find algorithms to solve many different situations on the cube. If you have an algorithm you want to add, simply click on the link, and click on "Edit" at the top of the page, find the according case, and add it. Be sure to follow the syntax of the page before adding an algorithm...

I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.

I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.

Intuitive EO midsolve sucks(as in LEOR or Petrus).
Mehta EO(or EOLE) solves a piece along with orienting the edges and is algorithmic which is generally considered good(as in EOLR or ZBLS(I doubt if this is the most optimal example lol) which solve the UL and UR edges and the last F2L pair respectively)

TLDR: doing EO intuitively mid solve sucks but algorithmic EO midsolve is generally considered as good.

I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.

Intuitive EO midsolve sucks(as in LEOR or Petrus).
Mehta EO(or EOLE) solves a piece along with orienting the edges and is algorithmic which is generally considered good(as in EOLR or ZBLS(I doubt if this is the most optimal example lol) which solve the UL and UR edges and the last F2L pair respectively)

TLDR: doing EO intuitively mid solve sucks but algorithmic EO midsolve is generally considered as good.

CFCE with some influencing.
Hmm..interesting

Actually, carcass is proposing a LSLL method while you're talking about an LL method.

Ok, but petrus EO has 1 more disadvantage. It involves 4 colours whereas mehta, roux or CFOP EO involves only 1 or 2 colours to recognize which is better. Therefore, MehtaZZ or whatever you proposed is not really an advantage compared to normal Mehta.

I just wanted to prove that getting rid of mid solve EO isn't much of an advantage in some situations lol.

Ok, but petrus EO has 1 more disadvantage. It involves 4 colours whereas mehta, roux or CFOP EO involves only 1 or 2 colours to recognize which is better. Therefore, MehtaZZ or whatever you proposed is not really an advantage compared to normal Mehta.

I just wanted to prove that getting rid of mid solve EO isn't much of an advantage in some situations lol.

That's not a "disatantage" solving eo earlier/for more pieces makes you get more of an advantage as the solve goes on equaling it out.
There are other reasons but what you pointed out makes no since as a point
ASWELL as eo bieng at the BEGINNING of the solve so there is no pause. And normal mehta involves three colors just as petrus does so that doesn't make since either

I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.

This is COALL and some of the last layer algs are kinda gross… although that's also true for ZBLL and maybe if someone wants to put in the effort to optimise the algs it might be viable.

Once you cube for longer and longer, you start to get much more familiar with certain methods and alg sets, but if you don’t know about a method, you can look on the SS Wiki.

Learn about speedsolving the Rubik's Cube and other twisty puzzles on this wiki. Built to compliment our community of 35,000+ solvers, this wiki has tutorials, methods, records, and articles on puzzle solving.

made this method a while ago, here is the most recent version of it.
pinetrus, a petrus method for 4x4.
don't know how to do slice moves in alg.cubing lol so this is the best I could do.
steps:
1.solve opposite centers(yau)
2.solve three cross edges(yau)
3.solve other centers (yau)
4.solve the two back pairs (one f2l one f3l) and a random edge in the FD slot.
5.pinetrus style edgepairing using back edge as keyhole.
6.3x3 stage

The wiki page seems to be incorrect. I think it is missing the part where you solve the FR edge. Overall, in the main variants, the goal is to get to F2L-2. In this case, F2L-2 means to have the DF edge and DFR corner unsolved. Then finish the solve with something like L5C and L5E. Below is an example solve, using what he called SS style for F2L-2 and the advanced variant with a lot of algs. Actually, the style he describes in the post appears to be building the 1x2x3 on D and the 2x2x2 on top. I'm going to modify that to be 1x2x3 on left and 2x2x2 on the right.

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

1x2x3: z' U F' B l U2 F'
2x2x2: R' U r U r R U' r' U2 R' U' R2 U r
FR edge: R U R' F R' F' R (very unlucky case here and I think a goal is to have the DFR corner also placed but misoriented)
L5C: U' R U2 R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R'
L5E: M' U M U2 M' U' M U' M' U' M

I don't think much development was put into this method. It would be a lot of algs to generate.