• 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!

CubetyCubes

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
14
Location
The Earth
>> Reinvented beginner belt method <<
1. Belt
2. Rotationless Cross <M, U, S>
3. Bottom corners (f2l)
4. your favorite flavour of last Layer

✅Pros
1. Belt+some cross edges can be planned on inspection
2. Rotationless
3. Beginner friendly, few algs
4. It's fun

🚫Cons
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
I actually came up with this when I first found out about the belt method lol
 

IsThatA4x4

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
90
Location
UK
Is this a Petrus variant?

2x2x3
Pretty self explanatory.

EO-Pair
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.

PLL+1
I don't know the alg count for this step, but solve the rest of the cube (PLL + the DSR edge).
 

tsmosher

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
658
Is this a Petrus variant?

2x2x3
Pretty self explanatory.

EO-Pair
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.

PLL+1
I don't know the alg count for this step, but solve the rest of the cube (PLL + the DSR edge).

TSLE only solves FRE. When does DRF get solved?

The alg count is 93, I believe. 21 of these are PLL, and 12 are L5EP.

 

Ninjascoccer

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Messages
33
Location
Pangea
YouTube
Visit Channel
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)

Soooooooooo…
what do you guys think?
 
Last edited:

tsmosher

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
658
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.

Yeah. Trying to come up with my own methods, I've often gotten stuck in that exact cube state, so I know it well. I think it would be more of TTLL+1 than PLL+2, but who knows? An insurmountable number of algs without a doubt.
 

Z1hc

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
18
Location
309 Ben brown ln Woodburn or
I have a new method that has a lot of different variations. But I’ll choose this variation of the method I might of made:

step 1: 2 1x2x2 blocks. One at Lfd and one at rBd. Kind of like F2L minus a 2x2x2 chunk and the back left pair.

step 2: solve the back left edge. Very easy step but some algorithms may help.

Step 3: make a 1x1x2 block at ULb. This step is also easy. Just make sure the 1x1x2 block top color is the same as the top center color.

step 4: Orient the last 5 edges while solving FR. This step will need some algorithms.

Step 5: solve the 2 last corners on the bottom layer. You could choose to use algorithms or just use 2 commutators to solve.

Step 6: solve another 1x1x2 pair at URb using some algorithms.

Step 7: solve the FD and RD edges.

Step 8: solve the last layer with a Zbll. There are a lot less zbll cases since you made 2 1x1x2 blocks.
 

SciKE

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Messages
11
Location
USA
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

Inspection: x
CP: R'
Piece sorting: No moves necessary :)
First block:
Square: M2 U L' U' L' U2 l U l'
Pair: L' U2 L U' L' U L
Second block:
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.
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.

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 (im still not sure about the EODFDB to 2GLL path yet, something more akin to ZZ eof2l with this reduction). I love this idea and would love to see some development or at least thoughts on this because this is too cool to pass up.

Not to sound rude but how are all these HK/Ribbon/alt-LSLL garbage methods getting more traction than stuff like this?


As for my few couple cents on it. Im not a huge fan of the EODFDB to 2GLL. But I cant seem to think of any other way that does EO after the 2 blocks that doesnt break CP so I guess that is the best way to implement. Only thing i can think of is doing EODFDB as early as possible so the transition from <LU> LB to <RU> RB to 2GLL is smoother. At the moment it goes from anything for CP/piece sorting to <LU> to <RU> to <MU> back to <RU> which isnt that smooth. A did think of a few ways to fix this, one stays in the spirit of 2GLL, the other drifts off into a Roux variant.

First one, staying true to 2GLL:

CP/Piece sorting
EODFBDB
LB
RB
2GLL

Main problem with this is nothing is solved when doing EODFDB, so the DFDB edges could be anywhere, but you could be looking for them in CP/Piece sorting and planning/influencing your EODFDB. Doing EO like this while doing DFDB would be terrible, especially not being able to do it from inspection with CP in the way. But I do think that the transition from <RU> RB to <RU> 2GLL is way better. Is it worth it? Probably not, not even gonna bother trying to do an example solve for this so lmao.


Heres the other, definitely more roux oriented, trading EODFDB for regular LSE and 2GLL for 2G CMLLs:

CP/Piece sorting
LB
RB
2G CMLL (aka, just using the the COLLs that are 2 gen for each case. Its just 2GLL without the edge cycles)
LSE

*so the "2G CMLLs" are As Right Bar, S Left Bar, U Back Row, T Rows, L Pure, H Columns, and Pi Right Bar. Obviously make sure youre using the 2G algs.

Honestly I kinda like this. Its only 7 algs for "2G CMLL" (god thats such a shite name). Its honestly just roux with CP before but I like it. Is it viable? probably not, heres an example from the scramble given above.

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

x // inspection
R' // CP+PS (1)
l2 U2 L' U' L2 U' l U' l' U2 l U L' // LB (13)
R2 U R U2 r' U' R2 U M U M' U2 r' U' R // RB (15)
R' U' R U' R' U2' R // CMLL (7)
U M' U M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M' U2 // LSE (13)

Total 49 stm, but thats with an easy CP+PS and a short CMLL, not that the RU cmlls arent fast but some are pretty long like L Pure. I assume it averages around 55-60 stm? Not terrible for a 7 alg method.


As of now MethodNeutral's original method is definitely better, I just wanted to add SOMETHING to this. Hopefully this sparks some interest in this kind of LU to RU reduction for something like ZZ, which Im gonna do some thinking about. Will update with any other ideas, and maybe MethodNeutral has some extra juicy information to share? hint hint nudge nudge more example solves pls pls
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 24, 2021
Messages
192
Location
Taiwan
YouTube
Visit Channel
Not 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, and you can mess up easily. I don't know, but for me, until you get way more experienced, you shouldn't try belt method,. There are also parities. Of course you can try it out, it's kinda fun too and also has pros. Check out J Perm's video on it:
 
Last edited:

SciKE

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Messages
11
Location
USA
Not 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:
who are you talking to
 

PiKeeper

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
96
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
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.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
1,907
Location
On a long train journey, Smashin' PBs one a stop
YouTube
Visit Channel
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)

Soooooooooo…
what do you guys think?
This seems like (worse) 42 without the transformation bit and L7E can be done intuitively.
 

SciKE

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2021
Messages
11
Location
USA
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.
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.
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
716
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.
In general, people skip over ZZ altogether since most people think the method sucks, which is a shame.
 
Top