• 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!
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,518
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.
So then why are you proposing a method that's not good or original? APB is a great method proposal, RUBAR is an original method. Yours is a method anyone can think up. This thread already has enough method dumps. If you're going to chide people for criticizing your method at least make the method good.
 
Last edited:

levi.m

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2022
Messages
40
Location
Wyoming USA
random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL
 

Thom S.

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
995
random Rubik's cube method
I'm telling you guys, if the first line of a post reads like this, the method was made in 5 minutes.
random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL
You didn't solve the M Centers.
BLS should exist somewhere. The algs are better that ELSOLL, but are longer than VLS.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,518
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL
Another way you can say it is:
1. xxcross
2. Do BdR really bad so LS can be good
3. nvm make LS bad so you can get an OLL skip (Literally VLS)
4. PLL

Not the worst method in the world but it's still not great. At all.
 

sDLfj

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2022
Messages
85
Location
United States
I thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.

These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
The average moves for PLL are 13.4

OLL is likely slower than CLL, and <M,U> perms are faster than the average PLL. So solving the corners, then edges, should be faster than solving OLL, then PLL.
 
Last edited:

NigelTheCuber

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2022
Messages
1,936
Location
In the pond swimming with ducks
WCA
2022PHAN03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.

These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
The average moves for PLL are 13.4

OLL is likely slower than PLL, and <M,U> perms are faster than the average PLL. So solving the corners, then edges, should be faster than solving OLL, then PLL.
that's cll+ell and many people know what it is. it is slower than normal oll+pll
 

sDLfj

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2022
Messages
85
Location
United States
that's cll+ell and many people know what it is. it is slower than normal oll+pll
Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
3,216
Location
Brazil
YouTube
Visit Channel
Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.

CLL
ELL
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,518
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.
For a lot of ELL cases <MU> isn't optimal, <S,R,U,M> would be better (Though obviously, you won't have all of that in very many algs.)

The method you proposed is called CFCE. The reason it isn't as popular is due to many reasons but it is often considered inferior because recognition is worse and the algorithms are trickier. It's certainly not an invalid method, it's just few cubers want to take the risk.
Don't even bother.


These are much better.
 
Top