I actually came up with this when I first found out about the belt method lol>> Reinvented beginner belt method <<
2. Rotationless Cross <M, U, S>
3. Bottom corners (f2l)
4. your favorite flavour of last Layer
1. Belt+some cross edges can be planned on inspection
3. Beginner friendly, few algs
4. It's fun
1. Too many inneficient moves because restrictions
2. Freefop f2l may be more spam tps friendly
3. Too many corners can be trapped in the wrong slot leading to f2l havoc
Is this a Petrus variant?
Pretty self explanatory.
Solve either the FR or BR pair while orienting edges. <R,U,F>
TSLE - 104 algs <R,U>, <R,U,L> or <R,U,D>
Just like in ZZ-CT.
I don't know the alg count for this step, but solve the rest of the cube (PLL + the DSR edge).
Ah. When I originally made this, I had 5CP, then L5EP instead of PLL+1, forgetting that one corner would not be solved. I guess PLL+2 would probably not be the best.
Nobody decided to follow up on this??? This is honestly the first genuinely good and novel idea I've seen going back in this thread and nobody replied or asked questions about it.A bit of an update on LURoux: I've developed a better way of performing the reduction step, so here is an outline. I will be using this scramble from cstimer: D2 R2 U B2 R2 D R2 D2 U L2 U F U F2 R' D' B F D
I scrambled with white top green front, and I solve with white on D. So perform the scramble with your D-layer face on U in order to follow along.
0. Find two adjacent D-layer corners which are already adjacent to each other. They do not need to be oriented, nor do they need to be solved relative to each other. For example, on the scramble perform an x rotation and the two corners in DL belong adjacent to each other, but they are not solved relative to each other (this will take familiarity with the color scheme to recognize, although in this case it is obvious as they happen to be oriented).
0.a. If there are no adjacent D-layer corners which can be found next to each other, perform CP as done in the YruRU method. (note: Orientation of DL corners doesn't matter in LURoux, so we are slightly less restricted than we would be in YruRU).
Note that now, assuming we didn't branch into 0.a, the DL corners are either solved or swapped. This will be important later.
1. Determine CP using whatever method you are familiar with. I like to use a modified version of what is taught in the YruRU tutorial (link above).
Now, there is either a key swap of pieces to be performed, or CP is solved.
There are four cases to be considered now:
2.a. DL corners solved, CP solved
2.b. DL corners solved, CP requires a swap
2.c. DL corners swapped, CP solved
2.d. DL corners swapped, CP requires a swap
2.a. Nothing to do here (yay!)
2.b. The key swap can be performed with a simple algorithm such as F' U F or F R F'
2.c. This case is annoying, I handle it with F' U F R (this will be explained later)
2.d. Use 2-gen (R,U) to put the key swap at DR
In case 2.b, the algs I use are F R F' (swaps UB corners), F R' F or F' U F (swaps UR corners), and F' U' F (swaps UF corners).
In case 2.c, we actually create a swap (F' U F) and then solve it as if it's case 2.d (R).
In the scramble we received, I traced CP to find that a swap is needed between the corner at UFL and the corner at DBR, which is equivalent to swapping the two corners at FR positions. As a result, an R' will position these corners at DR to solve the LURoux reduction.
So the solution for this scramble would be something like this:
Scramble: D2 R2 U B2 R2 D R2 D2 U L2 U F U F2 R' D' B F D
Piece sorting: No moves necessary
Square: M2 U L' U' L' U2 l U l'
Pair: L' U2 L U' L' U L
Square: R2 U R U2 r' U' R2
Pair: U M' R' U r
EODFDB: M' U M U2 M' U' M' U' M2 U2 M' U2 M'
2GLL: U R U' R' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R'
If anyone is interested, I can show the solution to other scrambles which cover the other possible CP cases (2.a/2.b/2.c). I'm also happy to explain my method for tracing CP if that interests anyone.
who are you talking toNot bad. This method is worth giving it a try. The belt method is not really good. It requires lots of moves which makes your time slower and it's kinda complicated for me. You need to keep the belt "alive" and pause a lot to check on what's going on, what moves should you apply. I don't know, but for me, until you get way more experienced, you shouldn't try belt method, There are also parities. Check out J Perm's video on it:
The reason this method hasn't taken off is because cp anywhere before last slot is seen as slow and unnecessary. It takes away from inspection and barely provides any benefit to f2l, whereas planning a pair during that inspection time has a huge benefit. And zzf2l doesn't have an ergo problem at all if you use eocross, so that's why nobody cares about applying this to zz.Like how cool is this idea? A completely different take to rotationless CP methods I personally havent seen before. It does CP very early in the solve, whereas most ZZ or at least the 2GLL related methods do it later in the solve like before left block (zz-d) or for the insertion of final pair (zz-e/orbit). Other CP first methods like Briggs or 2gr usually use a CP+1x1x3, this doesnt. Reducing to RUL but you can solve LB with only LU and RB with only RU, imagine if this could be adapted to ZZF2L? The ergo problem of ZZF2L switching between LU and RU would be gone, you just LU spam until LB solved, move to RU, solve RB, then do whatever to finish the solve
This seems like (worse) 42 without the transformation bit and L7E can be done intuitively.I have a new method idea
And if it already exists then let me know
It‘s more of a fun method than a speedsolving method
Algs: 47 but if you know other methods then you only need to learn a few
Step #1: First Block (FB)
Make a 1x2x3 block just like the first block in Roux.
Step #2: Second Block (SB)
Make A 1x2x2 block on the back. Just do one F2L pair on the right-back slot and the DR edge.
Step #3: Corners of both Layers (COBL)
COBL has been divided into 2 parts.
Part 1: Solve the last corner of the D layer and make sure the edge connected to that corner is oriented or else the rest of the solve will be harder.
Part 2: Solve the last layer corners with any CxLL method of your choice.
Step #4: Last Seven Edges (L7E)
Orient all the remaining edges. This step has also been divided but in 3 parts.
Part 1: Orient edges just like step 4a in Roux. Also make sure the center piece is either solved or can be solved in an M2.
Part 2: Solve the FR edge with an algorithm, then solve the DF and BF edge intuitively.
Part 3: Solve the 4 remaining edge using the EPLL algs.
Here are a list of algs for step 4 part 2
R' U2 D M U2 M' D' R (8stm)
R' D' F2 M F2 M' D R (8stm)
R' D' M' U2 M U2 D R (8stm)
F' M' F U2 F' M F U2 (8stm)
M' F M' D2 M D2 F' M (8stm)
M' F' U2 M U2 M' F M (8stm)
what do you guys think?
Thats not my point, I'm fully aware it's not going to revolutionize ZZ, but why do you think things like CT exist? They aren't viable but they have intriguing ideas that keep them relevant, even if theyre a meme. My point is that this a genuinely interesting idea and people instead are praising shitty amalgamations of methods (see the reply by Cubing Forever literally right above this) that don't bring any novel ideas. MethodNeutral had a genuinely intriguing idea for a unique approach to "ZZ"F2L and Im just amazed that people decided to skip over that and reply to Insert shitty F2L/F2L-1/F2L-1e/F2B/LSLL method here.The reason this method hasn't taken off is because cp anywhere before last slot is seen as slow and unnecessary. It takes away from inspection and barely provides any benefit to f2l, whereas planning a pair during that inspection time has a huge benefit. And zzf2l doesn't have an ergo problem at all if you use eocross, so that's why nobody cares about applying this to zz.
In general, people skip over ZZ altogether since most people think the method sucks, which is a shame.Thats not my point, I'm fully aware it's not going to revolutionize ZZ, but why do you think things like CT exist? They aren't viable but they have intriguing ideas that keep them relevant, even if theyre a meme. My point is that this a genuinely interesting idea and people instead are praising shitty amalgamations of methods (see the reply by Cubing Forever literally right above this) that don't bring any novel ideas. MethodNeutral had a genuinely intriguing idea for a unique approach to "ZZ"F2L and Im just amazed that people decided to skip over that and reply to Insert shitty F2L/F2L-1/F2L-1e/F2B/LSLL method here.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Z||ZZ44 method thread.||General Speedcubing Discussion||0|
|Beginner's method example solves||Puzzle Video Gallery||0|
|Brainstorming for methods/substeps (for speedsolving)||General Speedcubing Discussion||10|
|Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency||Puzzle Theory||27|
|Method Substeps and Subgroups||Puzzle Theory||4|