• 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 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

LBr

Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
255
Location
Running away from the feral ducks in my local park
yeah dont trash talk waterman, its bad enough I have tons of people accusing me of faking solves with it just because its waterman
yh I don't think you faked the solves tbh.

But about coell, it has no advantage over CFOP. Inserting a cross edge while orienting edges of the last layer is just... pointless
 

cuberswoop

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2021
Messages
37
Location
North America
Or you can just use ZZ, which is the best method for EO

astest speed solvers half their solve; it is just ergonomically terrible.
In my opinion, zz sucks

so what I get is fix ergonomics, polish up the method.

Inserting a cross edge while orienting edges of the last layer is just... pointless
Or you could go and use VLS with 432 algs, your choice.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
583
Location
In the park feeding ducks
In my opinion, zz sucks

so what I get is fix ergonomics, polish up the method.


Or you could go and use VLS with 432 algs, your choice.
Very strong word. Look, I'm not the biggest fan of ZZ but it is far from sucking. EO cross is pretty efficient and F2L has better ergonomics and higher TPS potential. OLL is much easier to recognize and can allow thing like ZBLL without having to do setups. Polishing up the method is not going to do anything since there are already better, very similar methods.

I also think you are thinking of ZBLS. VLS solves OLL, ZBLS does EO while solving to LS.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,417
Steps:
Cross Minus an edge
F2L Minus a pair, The unsolved cross piece allows for a lot more trick with this step so take advantage of it (There are only 2 pairs in every solve that you don't have to insert, the other two you do have to insert)
Create and insert the final 1x2x2 block (i'll explain this one soon and leave some algorithms that can be used)
OLL (Other algorithm sets can be used as well)
PLL (Other algorithm sets can be used as well)

[…]

So is this method new, been developed previously or too similar to another method to be considered its own method. If its new I would recommend learning it and giving a go, it would be nice to see what good cubers get as my PB is 18 seconds, I wouldn't recommend changing from any of your main methods unless you truly prefer this one though.
I don't think it has a name per se, but it definitely falls under the category of FreeFOP, where F2L isn't solved by rigidly doing a full cross then F2L pairs. It's not terrible.

Some awkward F2L cases have nicer solutions when you don't have to fuss over preserving a cross edge, e.g. r U r' U r U' r' instead of R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 or R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 (7 moves, but many wrist half turns) or (R U R' U')3 or (R U' R' U)3 (11 moves not counting AUF).

Broken Box B (Block needs to be made on the right side)

U F' U' F R U2 R' U F R' F' R U2 r U r
R' F R F2 U' F2 R' F' R U2 r U r'
Faster alternatives:
(U) R U2 (R' M') U' M
(U) r U2 R' U' M

COELL (so-ell)
3C - Make 3 out of 4 of the cross edges (3Cross)
RMO - All of F2l Done except for 1 cross piece (Roux Minus One)
CPE - Orient all the last edges while inserting the last cross piece. (Cross Plus Edges)
OLL - Orient the last layer (You can use ZBLL, COLL, CLL, and lots of things here since all the edges are up)
PLL - Permute The Last Layer
The concept isn't terrible per se, but you do need better "CPE" algs. If you keep the unsolved cross edge at DF or DB, your CPE is basically a subset of EODFDB as used in ZBRoux, and it can be done fully MU 2-gen.

(In fact, the only viable variant of this is ZBRoux. Otherwise, you're just creating an additional step to fix the cross instead of just solving the cross properly in the first place. On very rare occasion (<1%) it might make sense to not immediately solve a full cross, but short of just using Roux or related methods, this is not something you should treat as a main method.)

has any1 generated algs for DF/DB swap + epll?
May be of interest: DF-DB swap + ELL (by Meep).
 

MJbaka

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2021
Messages
154
Location
Idaho
Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
15
Location
England
I don't think it has a name per se, but it definitely falls under the category of FreeFOP, where F2L isn't solved by rigidly doing a full cross then F2L pairs. It's not terrible.

Some awkward F2L cases have nicer solutions when you don't have to fuss over preserving a cross edge, e.g. r U r' U r U' r' instead of R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 or R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 (7 moves, but many wrist half turns) or (R U R' U')3 or (R U' R' U)3 (11 moves not counting AUF).


Faster alternatives:
(U) R U2 (R' M') U' M
(U) r U2 R' U' M


The concept isn't terrible per se, but you do need better "CPE" algs. If you keep the unsolved cross edge at DF or DB, your CPE is basically a subset of EODFDB as used in ZBRoux, and it can be done fully MU 2-gen.

(In fact, the only viable variant of this is ZBRoux. Otherwise, you're just creating an additional step to fix the cross instead of just solving the cross properly in the first place. On very rare occasion (<1%) it might make sense to not immediately solve a full cross, but short of just using Roux or related methods, this is not something you should treat as a main method.)


May be of interest: DF-DB swap + ELL (by Meep).
thanks, that was the old way of doing the method, just do full F2L and then insert the last edge
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
1,892
Location
Brazil
YouTube
Visit Channel
Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying
ima ofendedd
EDIT: wait, that pfp doesn't belong to you!
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
583
Location
In the park feeding ducks
ima ofendedd
EDIT: wait, that pfp doesn't belong to you!
You've been missing out Filipe.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
960
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Quick overview:

COELL (so-ell)

3C - Make 3 out of 4 of the cross edges (3Cross)

RMO - All of F2l Done except for 1 cross piece (Roux Minus One)

CPE - Orient all the last edges while inserting the last cross piece. (Cross Plus Edges)

OLL - Orient the last layer (You can use ZBLL, COLL, CLL, and lots of things here since all the edges are up)

PLL - Permute The Last Layer


This is an improved version of CFOP, it uses mostly R, U, M, and L moves. It's very ergonomic, and lookahead is the same, if not easier, then cfop. The algs were made with cube explorer. I have a W.I.P google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q3fV-Br-41YNF42mA2IakGuniDkazBdm4EK2lQb5deQ/edit) with some algorithms to orient the last edges and insert the last cross edge.


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

Solve:
Inspection: z2

3C: R' L' D2

RMO1: R U R' D R U' R' D'
RMO2: U' R U2 R' U' R U2 R'
RMO3: y2 U' L' U L U F U' F'
RMO4: U R U R' U2 R U R'

CPE: y2 F2 D2 F' M2 F E2 B' U M2 U B2
OLL: Skip
PLL: M2 U M U2 M' U M2 U2

Please give feedback on my method and tell me if it's already been invented.
This isn't an improved version of CFOP. It's a good lesson in why having F2L edges stuck in D is bad and it also has some meh cases and has been invented countless times. As previously stated, if you want ZBLL or EO, use ZZ. It doesn't suck, it's good. See a lot of previous posts by me and other people (this one is particularly alright and I still mostly agree with it, if not fully),
 

Thom S.

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
479
Quick overview:

COELL (so-ell)

3C - Make 3 out of 4 of the cross edges (3Cross)

RMO - All of F2l Done except for 1 cross piece (Roux Minus One)

CPE - Orient all the last edges while inserting the last cross piece. (Cross Plus Edges)

OLL - Orient the last layer (You can use ZBLL, COLL, CLL, and lots of things here since all the edges are up)

PLL - Permute The Last Layer


This is an improved version of CFOP, it uses mostly R, U, M, and L moves. It's very ergonomic, and lookahead is the same, if not easier, then cfop. The algs were made with cube explorer. I have a W.I.P google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q3fV-Br-41YNF42mA2IakGuniDkazBdm4EK2lQb5deQ/edit) with some algorithms to orient the last edges and insert the last cross

Please give feedback on my method and tell me if it's already been invented.
So improvement means adding moves and making it less good?
What Edge is in the last cross slot?

i The last Cross piece - great, CFOP solve
ii The Cross piece, flipped - another set of algorithms which I can guarantee is more moves than the 4 it takes to fix it before F2L.
iii One of the F2L Edges - you can do some tricks for pairing in good scenarios with 3-8 movers but only in the FD slot.
iiii One of the Top Edges - this is probably what you intended but it won't happen all the time.

Overall, if you don't wanna do cross but want to do F2L, use Petrus and do F2L Pair all the time.
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
721
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
So improvement means adding moves and making it less good?
What Edge is in the last cross slot?

i The last Cross piece - great, CFOP solve
ii The Cross piece, flipped - another set of algorithms which I can guarantee is more moves than the 4 it takes to fix it before F2L.
iii One of the F2L Edges - you can do some tricks for pairing in good scenarios with 3-8 movers but only in the FD slot.
iiii One of the Top Edges - this is probably what you intended but it won't happen all the time.

Overall, if you don't wanna do cross but want to do F2L, use Petrus and do F2L Pair all the time.
i
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
15
Location
England
Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying
Well the only reason why is because without the 4th cross piece its much faster to do F2L and there is a lot more you can do to make pairs, and insertion of the pairs can also be easier
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
960
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Well the only reason why is because without the 4th cross piece its much faster to do F2L and there is a lot more you can do to make pairs, and insertion of the pairs can also be easier
It's not faster to do F2L. At most, it's equal. The things you gain from having that edge free, you lose from having any other F2L edge stuck in slot.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
15
Location
England
Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying
If I were to make a new method I defiantly wouldn't go for a cross minus an edge solution, the method I suggested I was one I have been using since 2019 and just never thought to release it till now. CFOP in my opinion is a bad method compared to others, the only reason I think people use it is because the method has been developed so much that despite being 20+ more moves then other methods people are still faster with CFOP, I would really like to work on a low algorithm, low move count and high tps method but no ideas come to mind. I'll work on it trying to find a method but when it comes to me making a method its never usually that good
 

zzoomer

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
462
Location
waddling in the park
YouTube
Visit Channel
the only reason I think people use it is because the method has been developed so much
The main reason people use CFOP is because almost all world class speedcubers use the method, and all big Youcubers encourage and teach CFOP.
that despite being 20+ more moves then other methods people are still faster with CFOP,
Good CFOP solvers generally average ~55 moves. Good Roux and ZZ solvers generally average ~47 moves. Viable speedsolving methods generally lie in the 40-60 move spectrum. CFOP is not that bad when it comes to movecount, but it is on the high movecount side.
I would really like to work on a low algorithm, low move count and high tps method but no ideas come to mind.
Yeah, that's everyone's dream. Unfortunately, "low algorithm, low move count" contradicts with "high tps".
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
960
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
There's a triangle in method development. You can have 2 out of the 3 things. Low movecount, high TPS, good lookahead. CFOP is heavily optimised for the latter two. Roux is more optimised for the first and the last. ZZ does the middle one well, the other two ok. Mehta is optimised for the first two (there are too many alg steps for fluid lookahead). It depends on what you want from a method to what you'll pick, but there's also the point that some methods are just a bit better than others as you can simply do only one. Petrus hits the low movecount, is pretty meh in the next two, as an example.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
15
Location
England
Ok so I made two methods in 2019, Snow i revealed and honestly didn't think it was that bad, this one I don't think will ever be good, and later was improved by mehta method but doing it like this i dont think will ever be made fast. I called it TEG, idk why. So its cross, belt, Bottom layer corners, Top layer OLL, Insert Corners (can be done quick with two different algs, one always inserts just one corner while the other one can insert 2 if lucky, and then PLL. Can anyone tell me what they average with CFOP and with this method so see if i want to improve it. Algorithms are R U R' U' X3 and R2 U R2 U' R2
 
Top