nice i like where this method is going. It is a subset of 1LLS which is 614 algs and a subset of VR which is 3684 algs.Here’s a method idea but for 2x2
Step 1: Make a V on the bottom so just FRD is unsolved.
Step 2: Solve BLU corner and orient the missing FRD corner of the bottom layer. Around 10 algorithms for this step.
Step 3: Solve the oriented FRD corner and everything else in one algorithm. Should be 216 algorithms.
I actually used NMLL semi-regularly for a Month. Problem is, when you do one colour every time, you look at OLL and PLL only by one Colour. When you go to things like COLL, CMLL and OLLCP, you learn to look at the relationships that colours have (matching, adjacent, opposite) in order to recognise the case. When you do NMLL(with any of the big three) you can't go by that alone, you need to learn how every case needs the pieces to be moved.Yeah, it's NMLL. And that is actually why NMLL was developed. Non-matching blocks seemed interesting to use in ZZ, but there wasn't an easy to recognize LL method for non-matching blocks. So the idea was to find the L/R stickers since those stay consistent even when the left and right blocks don't match.
NMLL isn't the best LL method for speedsolving, but it is really interesting I think.
Do you have an example?I actually used NMLL semi-regularly for a Month. Problem is, when you do one colour every time, you look at OLL and PLL only by one Colour. When you go to things like COLL, CMLL and OLLCP, you learn to look at the relationships that colours have (matching, adjacent, opposite) in order to recognise the case. When you do NMLL(with any of the big three) you can't go by that alone, you need to learn how every case needs the pieces to be moved.
So eventually you do thousands of solves and drills to learn a whole new recognition system and you save 7 moves on good cases.
My Opinion but I did seriously use it for CFOP, Roux (the most), ZZ and Petrus in order to have this conclusion.
Yeah, those are definitely cool. It would be nice to get everything into a doc for those variants so we can really compare.It can be one of the best if not the best. Remember those variants I proposed in the method development discord server?
This is essentially Roux in a different order, but adding in an extra edge for the sake of it. It's definitely not an improvement and is probably a hinderance as LSE and SB are already not that bad. It's less efficient than Roux too.
Yes, Roux SB first!
- Step 1. Roux SB + 1 (any L.edge) - 8 moves
Any oriented L.edge is positioned in DL.
The DR edge here can be any oriented U/D non-L.edge (i.e., any U/D edge except DL or UL), giving you a lot more flexibility in how you build this block.
To be clear, you can use DL or UL as well, but this limits you down to only 1 possible FB to build in the next step (down from the usual 4 possibilities).
Insert two F2L pairs on the left, completing a (possibly non-matching) FB.
- Step 2. Roux FB - 15 moves
You have 2 options for your first F2L pair that will complete a square in dBR or dFR. This square can then be "swiveled" back and forth with L/L', giving you 2 options for the final F2L pair you insert.
I struggle with the name for this step. (While thinking up a name, it occurred to me that there is no name for a set of CLL algorithms which have no regard for EO but only affect the U layer.)
- Step 3. NMCMLL/NMCDRLL - 11 moves
The algs used here can disturb DB, DF, or DR. (DL will always be solved and should be preserved.)
The algs here needn't preserve EO. (In fact, the centers do not even have to be aligned yet.)
NMCMLL recognition is used here. (This recognition works well when the M slice centers are "off" as they often will be.)
Here is where it gets good.
- Step 4. L6E/L7E - 14 to 17 moves
I hate the name of this step, but I do like keeping names consistent. (This is the name used by shadowslice in his proposal of 42.)
- Step 4a. 2 Opp EO - 9 moves
First, perform EOLR/EOBF/EOdM. (In other words, resolve EO whilst influencing UL/UR, UB/UF, or DB/DF into DB/DF.)
EO alignment would be decided by the alignment of your (righthand) Roux SB. By the end of this sub-step, U/D centers would need to be on U/D or vice versa.
Next, perform the AMFs/AUFs necessary to solve DB/DF, UL/UR, or UB/UF. (i.e., Cancel into M2 + U/U' as in the end of Roux step 4b.)
UB/UF would be solved into their proper positions, but their triplets would be moved to ul/ur for now with U/U'.
DB/DF should not require any AMFs/AUFs unless they are solved in their opposite positions (fixed by cancelling into M2 U2 M2).
This leaves us with the M slice edges and DR. (Or, in the case of EOdM, the U layer edges and DR.)
There are 3-4 possibilities for how to finish here:
- Step 4b. L4EP/L5EP - 5 to 8 moves
If you have a proper Roux SB (i.e., DR is in DR), finish with EPLL (4 cases) if DB/DF are solved or L4EP (4 cases) if 2 U edges are solved. (L4EP is also commonly referred to as "Roux step 4c".) In this case, your solve would simply be a funky version of Roux.
If you do not have a proper Roux SB (i.e., DR is not solved):
If you solved DB/DF in (the previous) step 4a, finish with the L5EP-DR algorithm set (EPLL + 12 additional cases).
If you solved UL/UR or UB/UF in (the previous) step 4a, perform an x2/[r2] rotation, and finish with the RLSE-UO algorithm set (L4EP + 24 additional cases).
RLSE-UO recognition is identical because UL will be always be solved after rotating. Recognition is made slightly harder due to non-matching blocks though.
Note: if you don't mind the algs being <MD> (instead of <MU>) and the recognition being different (read: probably harder), you can avoid this x2/[r2] rotation entirely and solve L5EP using <MD> algs.
Total: 50 to 53 moves (+ x2/[r2] possibly)
- Un-transform (AUF/ADF/ALF) - 2 moves
Admittedly, ergonomics of this method are not ideal. Perhaps you could build everything as in Roux (with DL in Roux FB being flexible) then do a d2/y2/[u2] after F2B. However, in my opinion, this extra move/rotation seems unnecessary when you consider the fact that inserting 2 F2L pairs on the left would be completely ordinary in CFOP or ZZ.
Another CP-first idea I've toyed with but not listed here.
(Any slice move can be used at any point during the solve.)
Total: ~49 moves STM
- CP line (<RrUuFf>) - 5 moves
- 3QB (<RrUu>) - 7 moves
- EOdM (<RrU>), preserving belt edges - 11 moves
- F2L pair with last belt edge (<RU> only), completing belt - 7.5 moves
- CLS (<RU> only), solving L5C - 10 moves
- L5EP-DR - 8 moves
You will want to look ahead and find the last belt edge (probably also DB and/or DF) during 3QB to make EOdM one-lookable.
Also, orienting one additional edge (e.g., into DB as prescribed in YruRU) during 3QB would greatly reduce the case count for EOdM.
Some CLS algs would need reworking to conform to the <RU> move set.
Everything else should be pretty straightforward.
I add the extra edge personally if it is hard to insert the proper DL edge. (e.g., It is located in FL or BL and would take 3+ moves to relocate.) This method was just me thinking of a way to make the edge I don't care about be the DR edge (for ergonomics and for certain alg sets such as CDRLL) instead of the DL edge.This is essentially Roux in a different order, but adding in an extra edge for the sake of it. It's definitely not an improvement and is probably a hinderance as LSE and SB are already not that bad. It's less efficient than Roux too.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|My self-developed (almost) Master Pyraminx method||Puzzle Theory||4|
|Stop Method Spamming||General Speedcubing Discussion||15|
|Brainstorming for methods/substeps (for speedsolving)||General Speedcubing Discussion||10|
|Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency||Puzzle Theory||27|
|Method Substeps and Subgroups||Puzzle Theory||4|