The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[PenguinsDontFly]

I think so, but swapping corners isn't.

Yeah but you dont need to only swap corners if you one look the speedsolving method and then corners and centers are free to move if you know whar ur doing

 

[TDM]

Yeah but you dont need to only swap corners if you one look the speedsolving method and then corners and centers are free to move if you know whar ur doing

I wasn't saying Skewb BLD wasn't possible.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

I wasn't saying Skewb BLD wasn't possible.

No you were saying that once centers are solved, solving corners with a pochmann type thing isnt possible. Then i said for skewb bld its better to use a normal speedsolving method since corners and centers can be solved at the same time.

 

[TDM]

No you were saying that once centers are solved, solving corners with a pochmann type thing isnt possible. Then i said for skewb bld its better to use a normal speedsolving method since corners and centers can be solved at the same time.

Whether or not centres are solved is irrelevant. You can't swap two corners like OP. I'm not saying that 1-looking isn't faster; I was never talking about that. I was simply saying that his method was not possible.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

Whether or not centres are solved is irrelevant. You can't swap two corners like OP. I'm not saying that 1-looking isn't faster; I was never talking about that. I was simply saying that his method was not possible.

I see, but I was disregarding his method because it does not work, and I was saying that to do corner swaps you have to affect centers, so you might as well do L4C with LLcorners. I think we are both saying the same thing.

 

[Memphis3000]

Thats what I was saying by saying an OP type swap, like on the 3x3 you can't swap two corners, so you swap two edges too, same with skewb, to swap two corners you have to swap two centers. However centers do not need to be swapped with corners(i.e. U perm).

 

[qqwref]

What are you talking about with two corners? Every turn moves 3 corners.

 

[Memphis3000]

good point, I guess I meant any number of corners

 

[Bubtore]

Dylan, the idea of a 1x1x3 block LL has (obviously) been thought about before.
In this way, in December, at the Italian Open, Riccardo Munaro had shown me that method (which he uses as his main), but he only had it in his own notation.
So, some weeks ago, I tought of exploring a bit that area :

I came up with 208 algs to build the Block (averaging 9-10 moves) and 70 for finishing the cube (but these are long ones, I would say 14-15 Moves).
Therefore, that wouldn't be useful to anybody (in speedsolving), except someone knows already many algorithms and wants to learn the 2nd step of it to have more 1look LLs (since recognition is quite easy for them).

As an alternative, you could also do only a side, that would make 104 algs to build it (and the algorithms get even shorter), but on the other hand this creates 72 more algs for the 2nd step (so 142 in total), I'm not sure if it makes this even worse ...

I'm still working on the presentation of all of this, and as soon as I finish it I will post it here.

 

[molarmanful]

Pang Method: New 3x3x3 Method

Hey guys, I made this awhile ago, but recently improved it significantly. You complete all of the F2L pairs somehow (and maybe orient LLE's), then insert the FLE's while orienting the LLE's, then finish LL however you want. More info, examples, and algs here: http://molarmanful.com/pang.

There are 4 variations based on how you complete the F2L pairs:
BEGINNER
Belt-first, then FL corners. Easy to learn, and the belt is easy to build, but there is very high move count.

BEGINNER-INTERMEDIATE
Columns-first. A bit harder, but still relatively easy. Move count is somewhat lower, but still rather high.

INTERMEDIATE-ADVANCED
Columns-first while orienting LLC's. Requires knowledge of an F2LL method like WVLS. Move count is only a bit lower. Forces an OLL skip.

ADVANCED
Build a 2x2x2, 2x2x3 (recommended), 1x2x3, or a combination of the previously-mentioned blocks and insert remaining F2L pairs to solve all columns and some FLE's. Move count is lower, but gets even lower with F2LL. This is highly recommended and will force an OLL skip.

PROS
-Forces an OLL cross (and maybe an OLL skip).
-EFL + LLEO uses only M and U, and can be very fast. This step can also be done intuitively.
-Predictable: If you don't use F2LL, you can predict your OLL case when you finish columns. If you DO use F2LL, then you can predict whether you will get headlights or not during PLL when you finish columns.

CONS
-Not very efficient for the most part; only the advanced method with LLCO is sort of decent with efficiency. If you don't know some form of F2LL, you are basically screwed to inefficiency.
-Horrible for OH (obviously).

What do you guys think?

 

[Dyys]

Looks interesting.

 

[NewCuber000]

Advanced seems pretty cool. I could see people getting Sub-15 times with it.

 

[theROUXbiksCube]

Seems like a hybrid Roux and just using your last Cross Edge to get a cross on top. Looks interesting but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[supercavitation]

For advanced, you could just use Petrus, or, if you're not restricting it to that order, you just created a FreeFOP variation that requires uses of Last Slot stuff. Basically, advanced has been done before.

Beginner is just Belt. Been there done that.

Beginner-Intermediate and Intermediate advanced could be improved by turning them into PCMS or Michael Gottlieb's Columns First Method.

Also, there's a thread specifically for posts like this, in case you didn't know.

 

[Smiles]

To be specific to this method, you could find the best OLS algorithm for each WV (F2LL) case since you don't need to worry about EO.

The concept is almost like MGLS because you do EO and CO separately while still solving F2L.

+
Manipulation of open layer during F2L.
Forcing better EO cases shouldn't be too hard if you know a few OLS algs for each WV case.
If you get a CP skip then you can either do LSE or keep your hands in the <M,U> position for EPLL (reminds me of method neutrality??).

-
Non-cross F2L edge could end up in the open cross edge spot, hinders look ahead.
EO has some bad cases, and EO+COLS is probably slower than CFOP's LS+OLL.
y rotations before EO.

 

[CriticalCubing]

Interesting method. Roux blockbuilding would be better than F2L here. and then those edge insertions could be fast and then there are so many things that can be done for LL. I say sub 20/sub 15 is possible with this.

EDIT: What we can do is make a psuedo cross consisting of 3 edges and then do f2l. and then insert the last edge while doing EO?

 

[molarmanful]

To be specific to this method, you could find the best OLS algorithm for each WV (F2LL) case since you don't need to worry about EO.

How do I find algs for this? Like what software or technique?

 

[CriticalCubing]

How do I find algs for this? Like what software or technique?

Can you give me all the algs for the EO step when we are inserting the last edge?

 

[Smiles]

How do I find algs for this? Like what software or technique?

http://rowe.cubing.net/rls/

it's really called VLS i think. credit to rowe hessler and mats valk for making them.
if you want split pair, it's called HLS but idk where you can find documentation for it.

each subset of edge orientations will have each WV corner orientation show up once.
for example, for WV #15 (L' U R U' R' L) you can just sledgehammer instead.

Can you give me all the algs for the EO step when we are inserting the last edge?

it's on his site

 

[obelisk477]

To be specific to this method, you could find the best OLS algorithm for each WV (F2LL) case since you don't need to worry about EO.

Well even this would be using algs that do too much 'work'. WV specifically orients corners while preserving LL edge orientation, which is somewhat of a restriction, since at this point EO doesn't matter. More efficient algorithms could be generated that would orient corners (or even permute them too) while disregarding EO and inserting the last F2L pair.