The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

This is probably a really bad idea. But I will post it nonetheless.
Steps are as follows.
1. EOline (Left to Right)
2. F2B
3. COLL
4.LSE

Pros: LSE is shorter, as you have no bad edges.

Cons: Doing Eoline removes the possibility of using M for F2B
Must use COLL, otherwise, there was no point in using EO

I could see this being helpful for people that use ZZ, that want to learn Roux.
Also question about this. Could you use M2 for the F2B?
That is All.
Thanks for taking this into consideration,
2180161
 
Another Method, but more of an Idea.
If you did your Roux blocks on F and B, When you wanted to do M, you could do D or D'.
I'm just saying because say you dont want to rotate, but your FB is really easy on F.
 
2180161 said:
Another Method, but more of an Idea.
If you did your Roux blocks on F and B, When you wanted to do M, you could do D or D'.
I'm just saying because say you dont want to rotate, but your FB is really easy on F.
Click to expand...

How does D/D' replace S or M?

Ollie said:
Have you tried block building on F or B?
Click to expand...
blockbuilding on B is fine. that's how I thought most Petrus solvers did the 3x2x2 (which includes more EO-involved pieces than Roux blocks).
 
Has anyone generated multi-slotting algs for the last two slots for CFOP? Once you form one of the pairs, shouldn't it only be 5*3*5*2=150 algs? You would have to plan to save two adjacent slots for the last two (which I normally do anyway), and then rotate so that they're on R, make the FR pair, then perform the alg.

Then there's split pair as well (another 150), but this seems to me a more profitable enterprise than learning ZBLL for CFOP, and requires less algs.
 
obelisk477 said:
Has anyone generated multi-slotting algs for the last two slots for CFOP? Once you form one of the pairs, shouldn't it only be 5*3*5*2=150 algs? You would have to plan to save two adjacent slots for the last two (which I normally do anyway), and then rotate so that they're on R, make the FR pair, then perform the alg.

Then there's split pair as well (another 150), but this seems to me a more profitable enterprise than learning ZBLL for CFOP, and requires less algs.
Click to expand...

this would only be beneficial for the few bad cases. if it's 2 gen or another good case, just solve it normally because you'd be looking ahead anyway.

for this alg set:

Advantages
- saves moves

Disadvantages
- force adjacent slots (or use it less frequently, which means less practice & less habit)
- can only be used when the front pair is solved first (F/B mirroring would be a pain, especially if there are F/B moves)
- cannot combine with other LS techniques like OLS, sledgehammer
- harder to predict OLL because rather than normal inserts there are sooo many algs
- is barely faster than slot + slot, assuming your recall is perfect and you've practiced all these algorithms.
- i assume that many algs would be the same as slot + slot, therefore for those, any time spent recognizing the case would be wasted.

edit: multislotting techniques already exist, i think that any multislotting algorithms will not be largely beneficial.
 
Last edited:
[PROPOSAL] 2.5-Step Ortega (using Winter Variation)

[PROPOSAL] ORTEGA WINTER VARIATION (OWV)

-----

The three steps of Classic Ortega (CO) are:

  1. FL - first layer (ignoring permutation)
  2. OLL - orientation of last layer
  3. PBL - permutation of both layers
I'm proposing a variation of CO - OWV - where the number of steps is reduced to "2.5," and very often only 2.

[STEP 0.5] - FL-1 (first layer minus 1 piece). I say this is half a step because the move count is at most 5 (I think; correct me if I'm wrong).
[STEP 1] - WVLP (Winter Variation Last Piece), just a 2x2 version of WVLS (Winter Variation Last Slot).
[STEP 2] - PBL (permutation of both layers)

[STEP 0.5] will, I think, average of 2.5 moves (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
[STEP 1] will, according to the speedsolving wiki, average 8.07 moves (maybe less if the WVLP is specially done for 2x2).
[STEP 2] will, if using my algs, average 7.8 moves.

The total move-count for OWV, on average, would be 18.37. This is an improvement from CO by about 1.7 moves.

-----

PROS: Ehh...don't really have any good ones, but there is one interesting point about OWV:

  • WVLP can be used for 2x2 every time during [STEP 2], whereas on 3x3 (during CFOP, at least) you need the edges to be oriented correctly.
  • ...
CONS:

  • Ortega requires 12 algs to be learnt, whereas OWV would require 58 algs to be learnt, and isn't really worth the 1.7 move reduction.
  • ...
THOUGHTS:

[JemFish] I think this variation might be helpful if a 2x2er has already learnt EG (or some of the subsets), as well as TCLL (maybe?), and would like even more algs under his belt in case a scramble that is already in the FL-1 position turns up. Those cases would be easy to one-look if the cuber understands exactly what all the WVLP cases do to the last layer.

-----

Thoughts! I need your thoughts on this, and some points to enter into my PROS and CONS list.

~JemFish (Jeremy Lindsay)
 
Last edited:
Soo... Tell me if this is Roux-by-4
it is for 4x4
solve two opposite centers
solve a 3x3x4 block on both centers
solve the rest of your centers using M,M', R and L (inner slice)
solve your l6e pairs.
CMLL
LSE
OR after the rest of your centers
CMLL
F3L (using M and U)
ELL
The second one is more so of a K-4 style solve, and the first is much better for those who use Roux
 
2180161 said:
Soo... Tell me if this is Roux-by-4
it is for 4x4
solve two opposite centers
solve a 3x3x4 block on both centers
solve the rest of your centers using M,M', R and L (inner slice)
solve your l6e pairs.
CMLL
LSE
OR after the rest of your centers
CMLL
F3L (using M and U)
ELL
The second one is more so of a K-4 style solve, and the second is much better for those who use Roux
Click to expand...
I have a method like that but you do Cmll before last centers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The physics of Rubik's Cube to Substep Method Platform
2
Replies
33
Views
1,789
Christopher Mowla
Christopher Mowla
D
Incomplete Substep Method LL Megaminx
Replies
2
Views
299
Deleted member 27249
D
Dane man
Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency
2
Replies
27
Views
8,642
brododragon
brododragon
M
What method is this?
2
Replies
24
Views
6,123
~Adam~
~Adam~
AK51
2.51 world record used 33 moves, it shall be 28 moves using AK-cubie method
Replies
0
Views
224
AK51
AK51
Back
Top