• 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!

TGWCubing

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Messages
9
Location
Joey
It really is.


LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ez
CLL has 40 algs and is 2 look. Sub2 potential if you can turn fast. And what's the point of 2x2 if you're not turning fast.
This is 20 algs and still 3 look. It also leaves you with adj and diag, which are both long algs.


I will give this to you. I hate those algs. adj-adj is cracked though.
However, I will say that it's really just a
Skill Issue

The difference is that Ortega predates EG by like 25 years. And even when it was rediscovered, that was still 6 years before EG was developed.


You also need to orient the top face, so EG is 2 look (if you don't predict anything). Ortega is is 3 look (if you don't predict anything).


I would:
1. Just stick with LBL if you're really adverse to learning algs.
2. Learn CLL if you want to be fast without learning 100+ algs.
3. But I get it, it's fun to come up with methods and get clout for being a method inventor. I'll try not to clown on someone if they recognize the downsides of their method. But if you're gonna try to tout this as a legitimate beginner/intermediate/advanced method, you're gonna have to show why it's better than other methods.

Even so, 2x2 mostly comes down to having good inspection/planning, a good pickup, fast recognition, and good turning. Your method or how many algs you know isn't super super important. Lucas Etter set the 1.51 2x2 WR average without knowing full EG because he was also cracked at planning and had stupid good turning.
I'd rather die that stick with LBL.

This is not worth it for sure. Just use normal LBL if you don’t like Ortega and learning algs. I’m able to get sub4 avgs using white bottom only lol
I'd rather die that stick with LBL.
 

GenTheThief

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
2,146
Location
Illinois, USA
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,116
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Petrus is outdated

This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block
Petrus is a timeless method.

You are literally building a 223 block the same way many APB users do (Which is based on Petrus and both solve 223 the same way) and then doing EO (i:e 223>>EO). That sounds likes Petrus with a possible Mehta-style algorithmic ending (Which would still be Petrus).
 

GenTheThief

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
2,146
Location
Illinois, USA
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
afaik mehta is largely dead so I don't think you really need to appeal to that group of cubers anymore.

In addition, this sounds like just another way of solving the petrus 223 or actually just doing LEOR (LEOR predates mehta and mehta is just sideways LEOR).
 

1001010101001

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
1,025
Location
Australia
WCA
2017WENR01
Using 5 stickers and AUF to recognise 4c after EOLR
The spreadsheet may look complicated but it's easy to execute quickly after a little practice, with only one extra step compared to ordinary EZ4C.
 

Spriteblood

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
1
Location
Austria
WCA
2013SSWO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hi everybody!

I would like to share my idea for a method and hear your thoughts.
I tried to find something similar but with no results so I hope this wasn't suggested before.

In general, I would describe it as a Roux spinoff.

Here are the steps:

1. You solve 4 columns on the lower 2 layers (like F2L withoug Centers and cross)
2. You extend them to the ceiling. (Roux CMLL)
3. You solve DR and DL edge and prepare a roux LSE-Orientation Case, completely ignoring the centers! The focus here is are M/M' and u/u' slices
4. You solve the LSE-Orientation and also the L and R centers (This would be something for ~16 cases to learn. I am bad at inventing algorithms so I only manged to find one XD). Also here you stay on M/M' and u/u' slices. where
5. Solve the rest of the cube with pre-oriented LSE!



I tried to present the idea in a picture!
rouxvariation.jpg

Example solve.

(best with classic top white, green front)
D2 F2 R F2 D' B F' D2 B2 D' F2 D' R F' D2 F


X Y
(Turn the cube to this position, Red front, green top)


1. Solving the 4 columns
u
F' U2 F2
R U' S2 R
U' S F' U F S2 U' R U' R'
(Yeah, far from perfect, but whatever XD)

2. Roux CMLL, maybe here could be found some better algs as all centers are free to move)
U + CMLL (r' U r U2 R2 F R F' R)

3. Solve DR and DL edge and prepare a roux LSE-Orientation Case
u M' u M' (now FU and DU on top) u' S2 u' U (D slots + LSE part preparation)

4. LSE-Orientation + L and R centers
u' M' u M u M' u' M u' M' u2 M' u' M' (I had a far shorter algorithm but couldn't reconstruct it, so.. this is clearly something for optimization)

5. Solve pre-oriented LSE
U M U2 M U M2 U' M U2 M' U2 M2 U2


Thx for reading!
 

1001010101001

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
1,025
Location
Australia
WCA
2017WENR01
Wouldn't it be better to solve F2B without centres and then do EO/Centres?
It could be a useful roux variant for misoriented centres and lower the movecounts for F2B, especially if solving centres + eolr at the same time (with a lot of algorithms). Wide u moves could be a problem, though.
 
Last edited:
Top