The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[IAmAPerson]

Do you know the exact number, and do you mind sending me the algs? Because to be very honest, I would be very interested in learning this (maybe instead of EG/TCLL for 2x2). I know about half of ELL and almost all PLL (I procrastinate a LOT) so I think I already have a descent start. Also, all algs would be able to be <R,U,F> 3-gen.

 

[supercavitation]

Do you know the exact number, and do you mind sending me the algs? Because to be very honest, I would be very interested in learning this (maybe instead of EG/TCLL for 2x2). I know about half of ELL and almost all PLL (I procrastinate a LOT) so I think I already have a descent start. Also, all algs would be able to be <R,U,F> 3-gen.

Half of ELL and most of PLL isn't really much of a start towards COALL, I know both and I wouldn't consider myself to have much of a start on COALL. The algs (156 of them) are on a google doc somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

 

[IAmAPerson]

I know it isn't much of a start toward COALL (What does that stand for? I thought it's be CPELL), but it's better than starting from 0 algs.

 

[supercavitation]

I know it isn't much of a start toward COALL (What does that stand for? I thought it's be CPELL), but it's better than starting from 0 algs.

Stands for Corner Orientation- All (everything else).

Seriously, finish a full 2LLL system before learning a 1LLL system. Advice that was given to me a couple of times before I took it, but I really wish I had taken it immediately.

 

[IAmAPerson]

I'm learning my G perms right now, and then I'll have PLL. I currently use VHLS->OCLL->PLL as a 2LLL system. Works great.

 

[supercavitation]

I'm learning my G perms right now, and then I'll have PLL. I currently use VHLS->OCLL->PLL as a 2LLL system. Works great.

Best expansion for that is probably learning COLL. COALL would be the exact opposite of where you're going right now.

 

[IAmAPerson]

I actually think I wanna try doing 1LLL using VHLS, Pure OCLL, and a different type of PLL recognition system which I've already worked out. Basically:

Recognize OCLL.
Recognize CP.
Recognize EP.
Execute Pure OCLL.
Execute a special set of PLLs I'm generating.

Also, you can do CxLL Recog+EP Recog. It's harder, but quicker, which is what I'm going for. Using this system, you can spam the crap out of the LL TPS with literally no breaks (if done correctly, it should be like one single long algorithm).

 

[supercavitation]

I actually think I wanna try doing 1LLL using VHLS, Pure OCLL, and a different type of PLL recognition system which I've already worked out. Basically:

Recognize OCLL.
Recognize CP.
Recognize EP.
Execute Pure OCLL.
Execute a special set of PLLs I'm generating.

Also, you can do CxLL Recog+EP Recog. It's harder, but quicker, which is what I'm going for. Using this system, you can spam the crap out of the LL TPS with literally no breaks (if done correctly, it should be like one single long algorithm).

So longer and less efficient ZBLL with easier recognition. Not original, but it could work.

 

[IAmAPerson]

So longer and less efficient ZBLL with easier recognition. Not original, but it could work.

I would learn ZBLL if it weren't for the crazy 493 cases. No way I'm doing that. This is simply a 2-alg version of ZBLL. There's another way you could make this work, but I chose not to do it this way:

Recognize COLL.
Recognize EP.
Execute Pure COLL (doesn't affect EO or EP).
Execute EPLL.

I chose to do it not this way because any COLL 2-corner swap would have to be a 3-corner rotation, which is harder to track during recognition (also, very long algorithms). Plus, there's more algs (still not many, though).

 

[GuRoux]

I actually think I wanna try doing 1LLL using VHLS, Pure OCLL, and a different type of PLL recognition system which I've already worked out. Basically:

Recognize OCLL.
Recognize CP.
Recognize EP.
Execute Pure OCLL.
Execute a special set of PLLs I'm generating.

Also, you can do CxLL Recog+EP Recog. It's harder, but quicker, which is what I'm going for. Using this system, you can spam the crap out of the LL TPS with literally no breaks (if done correctly, it should be like one single long algorithm).

where is a list of pure ocll, can be very helpful in roux lookahead into lse.

 

[Ross The Boss]

I would learn ZBLL if it weren't for the crazy 493 cases. No way I'm doing that. This is simply a 2-alg version of ZBLL. There's another way you could make this work, but I chose not to do it this way:

Recognize COLL.
Recognize EP.
Execute Pure COLL (doesn't affect EO or EP).
Execute EPLL.

I chose to do it not this way because any COLL 2-corner swap would have to be a 3-corner rotation, which is harder to track during recognition. Plus, there's more algs (still not many, though).

you wouldnt even need to use pure coll. just know how your alg affects the edges.

 

[supercavitation]

I would learn ZBLL if it weren't for the crazy 493 cases. No way I'm doing that. This is simply a 2-alg version of ZBLL.

That's exactly what I was saying. It's been done before, and most say the system isn't great, but good luck!

 

[IAmAPerson]

where is a list of pure ocll, can be very helpful in roux lookahead into lse.

Just Google "pure oll." I'll actually be generating my own algs. I actually prefer generating my own algorithms for a lot of things.

EDIT: 24 hours since starting to learn 2-Alg, 1LLL. New algorithms learned: 0. Time improvement for recognition: 4 seconds (original time: ~8 seconds).

 

[LyrikTech]

LTech | New 4x4 Method

So LTech is not a speedsolving method, It is a LBL method for adding a bit more thought into the solving but not to much for it to be too hard. The requirements to learn LTech is to have mastered reduction on cubes up to a 6x6 (So you should know basic commutators) and the Last two edges parity, the single edge flip parity, and the one that flips 2 edges that are across from each other. If you meet all those requirements heres the link to my video tutorial (Only 20 minutes to learn) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfebmWkyNQ

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

It sounds interesting, but there is 1 problem. I don't mean to be rude, but what is the point of this method? It isnt for speedsolving but it is probably too hard for a beginner soo.....?

 

[Christopher Mowla]

So LTech is not a speedsolving method, It is a LBL method for adding a bit more thought into the solving but not to much for it to be too hard. The requirements to learn LTech is to have mastered reduction on cubes up to a 6x6 (So you should know basic commutators) and the Last two edges parity, the single edge flip parity, and the one that flips 2 edges that are across from each other. If you meet all those requirements heres the link to my video tutorial (Only 20 minutes to learn) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfebmWkyNQ

Solving the 4x4x4 LBL is pretty "well-known". I hate to sound rude, but at this point in your video, you use 3 commutators to move a single green piece into the second layer when you only need to use one. LBL is inefficient as it is, and thus if you are making a video to draw people to "your method", you need to be as efficient as possible!

EDIT:
And I don't think mastering the reduction method is a prerequisite. I would say knowing the Cage Method is more relevant.

 

[2180161]

So what is the difference between this and K4 exactly?

 

[LyrikTech]

I'm not exactly trying to draw people to my method because It's a horrible method in terms of efficiency, It's just a different way to solve a 4x4.

 

[Christopher Mowla]

I'm not exactly trying to draw people to my method because It's a horrible method in terms of efficiency, It's just a different way to solve a 4x4.

Please don't misunderstand us. You made it perfectly clear that this isn't a speedsolving method. My comment was that you can be more efficient with this method, that's all. LBL has been known for a while and is fun to many (here's a 7x7x7 LBL solve video from 2009, the year I taught myself big cube LBL), so don't feel discouraged for sharing for personal discovery.

Now that you can solve the 4x4x4 layer-by-layer, try solving it from "corner-to-corner" (diagonally from top-right to bottom-left, for example).

 

[martinss]

at this point in your video, you use 3 commutators to move a single green piece into the second layer when you only need to use one.

Some people use only one commutator for each ordit. I mean they known the Niklas for X-centers move this, that and this other X-center and that is sufficient to solve the entire cube and that they may spend more time in finding the needed commutaotr than making 3. I actually prefer using [setup : Niklas fr the orbit]. At this point, I would have down this : [ y2 x' : [2L', U 2R U'] ]

(So sorry for my poor english level...)