• 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!

The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

PapaSmurf said:
Maybe not proposed on this thread, but I've seen it thrown around and dismissed quite quickly as a speedsolving idea a few times now. I've thought about it before, as have many others.

Now on to more abstract musings. It is very easy to step bash. I'll do it right now: solve the DR corners, and 2x2x2 in ubl. Insert the DL edge using <RFES>, then using that sovle LB. Finish the first layer, then solve the rest in 2 algs.
These steps do solve the cube, but are obvoiusly bad. There are lots of steps that solve a cube, but the vast, vast majority of them are bad. Yes, if you're new, you maybe don't understand these things, but it's not a super nuanced concept once you've been cubing for a year or two. What we want is critical thought about either the steps you have bashed together, or the the meta method you have in mind. This is the way we can have breakthroughs. But, as I explain here, they will probably take a long time to actually become relevant. With one big caveat - they actually have to be good. So RouxFOP isn't actually good, in the same way combining two tasty foods probably won't be good (chicken and porridge/oatmeal for example). However, Roux and CFOP are both really good for many reasons.

As this regards this thread, we have 420+ pages of mostly step bashing, a lot of repetition, but a few gems. This is because there have been some people who have thought properly about what it means to make a method good and haven't just dumped thoughts on the internet (always a dangerous activity). You could argue that I'm doing it right now, and maybe that's true, but I have thought about this and commented about this a couple of other times. Let's aim for quality and curiosity.
Click to expand...
You can stretch this out as much as you want, but it just says one EXTREMELY flawed statement (And a bunch of self-promotion , which is even worse). Most of this is just "I'm one of a few people actually competent enough to create a good method." You may not like the ideas on this thread, and you are allowed to, but that doesn't mean you're better than everyone else just because you think you are some sort of complete expert. Now, regarding this 'method': Lookahead is completely inefficient. E moves are not as fingertrickable as you might think. Quite frankly, algs for this set in the last step would not be worth learning. Lastly:

I know what you're thinking. Why would I, of all people, be allowed to say anything? Yes, back when I joined, I spammed new method threads. I also spammed this thread. But as you can see, I don't do that anymore. Sorry for the long rant, but I don't regret saying any of this.
 
Averageof12 said:
You can stretch this out as much as you want, but it just says one EXTREMELY flawed statement (And a bunch of self-promotion , which is even worse). Most of this is just "I'm one of a few people actually competent enough to create a good method." You may not like the ideas on this thread, and you are allowed to, but that doesn't mean you're better than everyone else just because you think you are some sort of complete expert. Now, regarding this 'method': Lookahead is completely inefficient. E moves are not as fingertrickable as you might think. Quite frankly, algs for this set in the last step would not be worth learning. Lastly:

I know what you're thinking. Why would I, of all people, be allowed to say anything? Yes, back when I joined, I spammed new method threads. I also spammed this thread. But as you can see, I don't do that anymore. Sorry for the long rant, but I don't regret saying any of this.
Click to expand...
Firstly, thanks for the reply. Hopefully I can explain where I'm coming from better. It meant to come accross as "think before you post". Yes, I linked to a post that was mine, but that was simply to not have to repeat the message from that post.

The whole point of the "method" was to show the flaws in step bashing. It solves the cube, but that doesn't make it good or worthwhile to tell anyone about. You've listed the main flaws, so hopefully it was a good example. I pointed out Shadowslice's meta method post because it gives a different framework other than step bashing to help create methods.

And you're allowed to say what you want and I'm glad you don't regret it, because if someone goes around regretting everything they said it would be a sad world for them. All I want to see is higher quality ideas and discussions on this website, which we could have. It doesn't mean that we should have a high barrier to entry, but instead we should give people new to method creation the tools that we have developed as a community to help with that, and also to decide between two methods on "goodness". There is nuance (it's not immediately obvious why VLS->PLL is worse than ZBLS->ZBLL for example), but there are guidelines. I guess some of it is on us for not having a good place to find these resources, but they do exist.

And one final point, I don't think I'm one of the few competent people at method creation. In fact, during the method creation competitions of years past there were many better methods made than mine. Instead I just want to see many more people thinking about methods and developing methods productively.

I hope that clarifies. I was a bit tired when I wrote it, so sorry if it came across as grumpy.
 
I thought of a method inspired by epidote that I didn't think of a cool name for.
Fist Block: same as roux.
2x2x2: a 2x2x2 block in the back, basically a semi-second block of the roux method plus the db piece.
EODE: orient the Edges and insert the DF and FR Edges.
LCCP: insert the last corner while asking for the fifths of the last layer.
2gll: orient the fifths while permuting the Edges
 
Ryangamer2010 said:
I thought of a method inspired by epidote that I didn't think of a cool name for.
Fist Block: same as roux.
2x2x2: a 2x2x2 block in the back, basically a semi-second block of the roux method plus the db piece.
EODE: orient the Edges and insert the DF and FR Edges.
LCCP: insert the last corner while asking for the fifths of the last layer.
2gll: orient the fifths while permuting the Edges
Click to expand...

This is the EOFE variant of Nautilus.

sites.google.com

Nautilus - Other Variants

The first step of the method is always to solve dL + dbr, the shell. After that there are many possible variants. Below are a few that have been selected as natural continuations from the first step. Early EO or early CP can be used with each to reduce the number of algorithm cases or alter the
sites.google.com sites.google.com
 
elrog said:
Does anyone know of a way to tell if a 2x2 solve is 2 gen after 2 corners adjacent corners are solved?

I'm planning on adapting this to a 3x3 method that permutes corners to a 2 gen state during inspection.
Click to expand...
There is a method called brass for 2x2 but 3x3 corner permutation already exists it’s good for oh and is what I use it’s called Ceor there is a good YouTube video for both methods
 
elrog said:
I don't think solving as a 3x3 with double moves is such a bad idea. I think it would be easier to turn quickly. It is kind of hard to start out with corners though.
Click to expand...
That’s called domino reduction it’s bad for speed but bags like 20-30 moves so it’s the most advanced fewest moves method
 
I haven't posted in this thread for a few years even though I've continued to evolve LMCF.
However in doing so I have come across a new (?) concept that might be applicable to some other new methods.
I call this 'random solving.'
It only works in some situations.
It does not work in CFOP, but I can easily explain it through a CFOP example.
Imagine you finish the cross, and when you solve the first F2L pair, all 4 slots are unsolved. Instead of using an algorithm that 'preserves' the other 3 slots and only solves the slot you are working on, you use an algorithm that *deliberately* destroys/juggles the other pieces around in the other 3 empty slots. Now when you finish your pair, there is a certain random chance that you accidentally solved another slot. In CFOP this is extremely unlikely, because for a slot to be solved, both the corner and the edge must be solved. Solving just an edge (in a slot), is not useful. Based on random luck, the most likely scenario is you have now accidentally solved just 1 edge, or just 1 corner, in one of the other slots, not really saving anything.
In corners first methods, it is different. Corners first solves edge pairs or triplets that are not connected. Thus, randomly solving 1 edge DOES give you a head start.
So imagine in corners first; you just solved the corners. Now, all the edges are unsolved. You spot an edge pair, but instead of using an alg that just solves that pair (and preserves the other edges), you instead use an alg that solves your pair while deliberately random permuting the other edges on the cube. Now there is a very high chance that you accidentally solved an edge or even 2 other edges. So your pair solve accidentally became a triplet (3 edge) solve, or, if you solved a triplet, your triplet accidentally became a quadruplet.
You must now keep track of which edges are solved. When you solve the next pair, you use an algorithm that solves that pair while randomly permuting the unsolved edges. Again there is a good chance this will accidentally solve an extra edge piece, but the chance is now weaker than the first time because there are fewer pieces being permuted, thus less chance of a luck solve.
This does of course have some drawbacks; significantly more algorithms as you must have algorithms that permute other pieces based on the configuration of unsolved pieces.
It is possible that corners first is not the best application. Please use your brains and see if any other promising methods could use this. The idea is the same; solving 2 pieces while randomly permuting/juggling other unsolved pieces, drastically increasing luck throughout the solve.
The effect already occurs (a little) in CFOP; while solving the cross you often ignore the other pieces and randomly solve an F2L pair; while doing OLL you are randomly permuting the edges and sometimes accidentally solve PLL.
However CFOP is not designed to maximize/optimize random solving. I'm sure there must be a method that can maximize the effect.
 
methods that exist but I don't see anyone talking about:
1st method:

Cross.
F2L.
CPEOLL.
2GLL.

2nd method:

Cross.
3 pairs of F2L.
EOLC.
BLE.
PLL.
 
  • Meh
Reactions: LBr
Cuber Score said:
Anybody know an easy way to learn 7simul? I've been struggling to learn conventionally, so if anyone could provide help or a different method I'd really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
D

[Help Thread] Thread 'Clock Discussion and Help'

This will be a thread for talking about Clock.
I've seen threads like this for other events like big cubes and megaminx, but I haven't seen anything for clock so...
Feel free to discuss and ask questions!
  • Like

Ask in this thread. They'll be more helpful probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dane man
Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency
2
Replies
27
Views
6,017
brododragon
brododragon
M
What method is this?
2
Replies
24
Views
4,166
~Adam~
~Adam~
B
Presenting BTOL(Bttyx and that0newe1rdo one look) method for the 2x2
Replies
11
Views
511
Bttyx
B
academicmaslow
Mirror Dual-Sided Cube Mosaics. MDSI Method.
Replies
1
Views
56
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
B
New 2x2 method proposal
2
Replies
36
Views
21,843
Bttyx
B
Back
Top