The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[shadowslice e]

this has definitely been thought of before but I really think it has sub 8 potential.

First bock
Second block
EO + F2L
ZBLL

I just got a 8.82 ao 50 with this but using COLL+EPLL

this looks a lot like M-CELL tbh but with harder recognition and a lot more algs.

I think the COLL works fine but it's better to do L5E rather than ZBLL or EPLL IMO

 

[shadowslice e]

This has probably been proposed before but: 2x2x2 Bars NMLL!

The main reason I think this is a viable method is because you can one look a lot of solves if you know CLL as you will usually have 2 or 3 move first layers so lookahead will not be too hard.

In addition, you can also get a lot more options for cancelling the moves into the alg and out of the algs when you correct the blocks (never more than 2 moves)

Also, you can get very low move counts if you combine this with TCLL as you will often have a 1 or 2 move cancelling first layer.

Like I said before, I will not be surprised if this has been proposed before but I thought i might as well through this out on the table to hear people's opinions on the topic and why (if it has been proposed before) it wasn't adopted more widely.

 

[Berkmann18]

This has probably been proposed before but: 2x2x2 Bars NMLL!

The main reason I think this is a viable method is because you can one look a lot of solves if you know CLL as you will usually have 2 or 3 move first layers so lookahead will not be too hard.

In addition, you can also get a lot more options for cancelling the moves into the alg and out of the algs when you correct the blocks (never more than 2 moves)

Also, you can get very low move counts if you combine this with TCLL as you will often have a 1 or 2 move cancelling first layer.

Like I said before, I will not be surprised if this has been proposed before but I thought i might as well through this out on the table to hear people's opinions on the topic and why (if it has been proposed before) it wasn't adopted more widely.

I don't get the point of that method, is it just a pseudo CLL method ?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[shadowslice e]

I don't get the point of that method, is it just a pseudo CLL method ?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

yes it is a pseudo CLL method. It has a lower movecount, an easier lookahead to the CLL case (as less moves are needed for the first layer) and potentially cancelling both in and out of the alg. Intact, the easier lookahead to CLL could lend itself to an easier 1-look method.

 

[Berkmann18]

yes it is a pseudo CLL method. It has a lower movecount, an easier lookahead to the CLL case (as less moves are needed for the first layer) and potentially cancelling both in and out of the alg. Intact, the easier lookahead to CLL could lend itself to an easier 1-look method.

Oh okay. It looks interesting.

 

[theawesomecuber]

New Megaminx Method

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13C6raLa8xsL520WfBh7-4Spcn8TrPCYhl5PH4-D88p4/edit?usp=sharing

I don't have a name for this method yet, any ideas?

I basically took a ton of inspiration from 3x3 methods, most prominently Petrus and ZZ.

PROS

• RUL during later part of solve, allowing Megaminx to be on table
• EO on LL
• Block building is move efficient

CONS

• EO is time consuming
• Might be harder to learn

Any ideas to improve this method would be greatly appreciated.

 

[crafto22]

New CP Method that efficiently uses inspection time!

Hi guys,
I just had this cool idea for a nice method that would effectively use inspection time and give a partially 2-gen F2L and 2GLL.

Steps:

1) 1x2x3 on DL (not like FB) + CP
Explanation:
First, we use a 3 corner cycle to permute all corners, making sure we don't affect the 2 corners in the 1x2x3. Although it would require a complex CP recognition system, you have 15 seconds. This cycle won't affect any other part of the cube, so you can also plan your 1x2x3. I'm guessing this step could be done in ~3 seconds with practise. Average moves: ~15

2) FL and BL edges + EO
Breakdown:
The edges can be oriented through the E slice systematically, and with practise can be down in conjunction with the FL and BL edges. Remember, you're most likely to have 4 edges to fix, so this would mean slicing over twice to do EO. I'm guessing this step could be done in ~3 seconds with practise. Average moves: ~12

3) 2-gen F2L
Breakdown:
It's simple: the remainder of F2L 2-gen. I can currently do this step in ~3 seconds with inspection, so maybe 3.5 with decent lookahead. Average moves: ~10

4) 2GLL
Breakdown:
80-something algs, mostly fast ones, gives you a 1LLL. I think I may just use the 2-gen COLLs and then EPLL, but we'll see. I can currently sub-3 the last layer using that, but I'm sure someone who knew full 2GLL and could execute the algs quickly could complete this step in ~1 second. Average moves: ~13

Theoretical time for completion: A skilled user could most likely achieve ~8 seconds with this method (CP Block = 2 seconds, EO 2x2x3 = 3 seconds, 2GF2L = 2 seconds, 2GLL = 1 second)

Theoretical average move count: 50 (CPB = 15 moves, EO 2x2x3 = 12 moves, 2GF2L = 10 moves, 2GLL = 13 moves)

I'd appreciate thoughts! Sorry if I made mistakes. I'm very tired XD

 

[theawesomecuber]

Could you provide an example solve or two?

 

[shadowslice e]

Hi guys,
I just had this cool idea for a nice method that would effectively use inspection time and give a partially 2-gen F2L and 2GLL.

Steps:

1) 1x2x3 on DL (not like FB) + CP
Explanation:
First, we use a 3 corner cycle to permute all corners, making sure we don't affect the 2 corners in the 1x2x3. Although it would require a complex CP recognition system, you have 15 seconds. This cycle won't affect any other part of the cube, so you can also plan your 1x2x3. I'm guessing this step could be done in ~3 seconds with practise. Average moves: ~15

2) FL and BL edges + EO
Breakdown:
The edges can be oriented through the E slice systematically, and with practise can be down in conjunction with the FL and BL edges. Remember, you're most likely to have 4 edges to fix, so this would mean slicing over twice to do EO. I'm guessing this step could be done in ~3 seconds with practise. Average moves: ~12

3) 2-gen F2L
Breakdown:
It's simple: the remainder of F2L 2-gen. I can currently do this step in ~3 seconds with inspection, so maybe 3.5 with decent lookahead. Average moves: ~10

4) 2GLL
Breakdown:
80-something algs, mostly fast ones, gives you a 1LLL. I think I may just use the 2-gen COLLs and then EPLL, but we'll see. I can currently sub-3 the last layer using that, but I'm sure someone who knew full 2GLL and could execute the algs quickly could complete this step in ~1 second. Average moves: ~13

Theoretical time for completion: A skilled user could most likely achieve ~8 seconds with this method (CP Block = 2 seconds, EO 2x2x3 = 3 seconds, 2GF2L = 2 seconds, 2GLL = 1 second)

Theoretical average move count: 50 (CPB = 15 moves, EO 2x2x3 = 12 moves, 2GF2L = 10 moves, 2GLL = 13 moves)

I'd appreciate thoughts! Sorry if I made mistakes. I'm very tired XD

Ummm... https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?55156-Briggs-(3x3x3-method)
this is identical to the method I proposed except I have a CP recog step...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13C6raLa8xsL520WfBh7-4Spcn8TrPCYhl5PH4-D88p4/edit?usp=sharing

I don't have a name for this method yet, any ideas?

I basically took a ton of inspiration from 3x3 methods, most prominently Petrus and ZZ.

PROS

• RUL during later part of solve, allowing Megaminx to be on table
• EO on LL
• Block building is move efficient

CONS

• EO is time consuming
• Might be harder to learn

Any ideas to improve this method would be greatly appreciated.

With regards to the Eo mega method,

Spoiler: MegaZZ

Spoiler: original proposal

Mega method:
1) Solve a 2x2x2 (3 centres, 4 edges, 1 corner)
2) solve a 2x2x3 (4 centres, 5 edges, 2 corners on the opposite side
3) solve F2L while orienting remaining edges (extend the 2x2x2 to two adjacent centres and merge with the 2x2x3 somewhat so there are only 3 unsolved faces left)*- (solved section now has 9 faces in it)
4) 3-gen S2L
5) LL

*you could orient then do the F2L but this would be slow
This might be an ok method if someone cleverer than me could work out how to orient efficiently.

Spoiler: refined method

Ok, here is that method ;-)

There are two options: LS orientation and a more ZZ style Eo.

LS option

Spoiler

1) Choose 4 centres and solve the corners and edges between them (this is like a 2x2x3 on a 3x3x3) as well as the opposite edge on the centres that only have 2 adjacent centres in the block rather than 3 (like the F and B faces in Petrus)
2) close one of the two centres with the extra edge and create a star with it (basically, solve the two remaining edges adjacent to the centre) in preparation for F2L.
3) Pair the edges for the F2L and move to the face above/adjacent to their slot
4) VHLS/ EOLS/ZBLS etc. You should now have all edges oriented (apart from two cases- one with 2 mosoriented edges (fix with a sexy) and one with 4 (two sexys)
5) you should now have 5 faces which are unsolved (4 in a horseshoe and one above all of them. You should now be have a 4-gen solve remaining (do not turn the U-face) you could do this in quite a few ways- building to an LL or you could do a 2 face final phase (Technique I'm currently working on although tbh I am only doing so because I like symetric patterns and my OCD would kill me to do this step non-symetrically.)

ZZ Eo option

Spoiler

1) Same as above
2) Just solve the F2L straight away without worrying about LS or Eo Etc
3) Using U moves, orient the edges in the same way as ZZ but remember to preserve the edge on the bottom.
4,5) Same as above

Pros:
1) 4-gen is very ergonomic and can be placed on the table for easy turning
2) For LL, case reduction
3) Less building for S2L/second stage (I'm not really sure what to compare it to or call it...)
4) ZZ on mega!!!!!

Cons:
1) OH GOD NO THE Eo DETECTION WHEN TRYING TO BE CN (for the ZZ variant)

Could be a fun method in my opinion and I think it has some potential to be fast although it would be intersting to see which Eo method is the best (out of the 3 presented in the 2 posts)

 

[crafto22]

Ummm... https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?55156-Briggs-(3x3x3-method)
this is identical to the method I proposed except I have a CP recog step...




With regards to the Eo mega method,

Oh, sorry. Although I do see some differences, your method is basically the same. Okay, I'm dropping any credit for this method.

 

[2180161]

New substep for 3x3 LL: OCEPLL!
When the LL edges are oriented and phased, orient the corners, and preserve CP, while solving the edges of the Last layer. This reduces alg count for PLL to CPLL (E,H,Ab,Aa).
# of algs: ≈ 42?
Pros:
Quick recognition (sticker recog)
Easy to predict which CPLL you will have.
ALL algs can be 2-gen
Very Ergonomic

Cons:
May take time to get used to
2-gen algs aren't always the most efficient.



other notes: I feel that this, combined with COLL, could help understand ZBLL recog better.


So whaddya think?

 

[supercavitation]

New substep for 3x3 LL: OCEPLL!
When the LL edges are oriented and phased, orient the corners, and preserve CP, while solving the edges of the Last layer. This reduces alg count for PLL to CPLL (E,H,Ab,Aa).
# of algs: ≈ 42?
Pros:
Quick recognition (sticker recog)
Easy to predict which CPLL you will have.
ALL algs can be 2-gen
Very Ergonomic

Cons:
May take time to get used to
2-gen algs aren't always the most efficient.



other notes: I feel that this, combined with COLL, could help understand ZBLL recog better.


So whaddya think?

Hasn't this been proposed before?

 

[Listrix]

Hey Everyone,

I've been spending the last few hours developing my own method only to find out that there's already a method out there that's very similar. My method is an Edges First method, I wanted to make up my own method just for fun and thought this was the way to go because I didn't know of any Edges First methods. These are my steps and how to do them:

1. Make A Cross: You can make a cross on any side, I'm not color neutral so I start with white.

2. Insert Edges On The E Slice: Hold the cross on the bottom in insert all of the edges on the E slice.

3. Make The Cross On Top: I use a very basic F (Sexy Move) F' to make the cross on the top, this come from the old beginners method

4. Permute The Top Cross Edges: I use one of 3 algorithms to permute the edges on the top cross. 2 of them come from PLL and 1 of them I had to make up myself. (But I ended up using the algorithm from the other edges first methods because they're more efficient than mine)

5. Insert 3 White Corners: I use R U' R' U to insert 3 of the white corners correctly oriented.

6. Insert 3 Yellow Corners: I use the last white corner as a keyhole to insert 3 yellow corners

7. Orient Last 2 Corners: By this stage, everything on the cube is done except for two corners which need to be flipped.



Steps 5, 6 and 7 are exactly the same as what I've seen in the videos, I kinda copied this from them because it was more efficient. But steps 2, 3 and 4 are different to what they do. They insert 3 edges on the E slice and then use the 4th one as a keyhole to insert the top cross. I do it differently by inserting all the edges on the E slice then orient and permute the top cross.

I was talking to some friends about whether or not I can claim this method as a different method. I came up with it before realizing that someone has already done it, but 3 of the steps in my method are different. I made the argument that Petrus and CFOP are technically the same thing except for the F2L yet they're considered two separate methods. My friend then stated that if one of the steps is different, then it's a different method. But I can't claim it as a new method because it's already been thought of. He then directed me to this thread to get your opinions.

So what do you guys think? I agree that this isn't a new method because the idea of it has already been thought up, but it's a different method to what they've done. Am I allowed to claim this as my own method? Or must I say that it's a variant of a method that already exists?

 

[CubeWizard23]

IMO it looks very similar to the basic method of edges ---> corners, how you're going about this method is basically for the e slice edges and ll edges they are f2l and oll and pll algs, so basically its a edges-cfop hybrid, it may not be original, but you still had the idea, just not necessarily first.

 

[shadowslice e]

This looks like a nice method but what is the movecount like? I'm guessing pretty high...

Also, you may want to look at the BLD methods for some of the corners but this would probably not be particularly nice as it raises the alg count by a huge amount.

 

[crafto22]

Hey Everyone,

I've been spending the last few hours developing my own method only to find out that there's already a method out there that's very similar. My method is an Edges First method, I wanted to make up my own method just for fun and thought this was the way to go because I didn't know of any Edges First methods. These are my steps and how to do them:

1. Make A Cross: You can make a cross on any side, I'm not color neutral so I start with white.

2. Insert Edges On The E Slice: Hold the cross on the bottom in insert all of the edges on the E slice.

3. Make The Cross On Top: I use a very basic F (Sexy Move) F' to make the cross on the top, this come from the old beginners method

4. Permute The Top Cross Edges: I use one of 3 algorithms to permute the edges on the top cross. 2 of them come from PLL and 1 of them I had to make up myself. (But I ended up using the algorithm from the other edges first methods because they're more efficient than mine)

5. Insert 3 White Corners: I use R U' R' U to insert 3 of the white corners correctly oriented.

6. Insert 3 Yellow Corners: I use the last white corner as a keyhole to insert 3 yellow corners

7. Orient Last 2 Corners: By this stage, everything on the cube is done except for two corners which need to be flipped.



Steps 5, 6 and 7 are exactly the same as what I've seen in the videos, I kinda copied this from them because it was more efficient. But steps 2, 3 and 4 are different to what they do. They insert 3 edges on the E slice and then use the 4th one as a keyhole to insert the top cross. I do it differently by inserting all the edges on the E slice then orient and permute the top cross.

I was talking to some friends about whether or not I can claim this method as a different method. I came up with it before realizing that someone has already done it, but 3 of the steps in my method are different. I made the argument that Petrus and CFOP are technically the same thing except for the F2L yet they're considered two separate methods. My friend then stated that if one of the steps is different, then it's a different method. But I can't claim it as a new method because it's already been thought of. He then directed me to this thread to get your opinions.

So what do you guys think? I agree that this isn't a new method because the idea of it has already been thought up, but it's a different method to what they've done. Am I allowed to claim this as my own method? Or must I say that it's a variant of a method that already exists?

I thought of something similar to this a while ago, but never bothered to post since it seemed like a dumb method that inefficiently builds part of the cube (i.e. the first two layers). Here's my variation of this, in case you're wondering:

Step 1: Cross + 1 or 2 E-slice edges
Step 2: Remaining E-slice edges
Step 3: Orient everything through a one-look two/three-alg approach (OLL on top + pure OCLL on bottom + likely parity)
Step 4: Place bottom layer corners with triple sledges
Step 5: CPLL (E perm, H perm, A perm)

Pros:
First step is planned in inspection and is relatively easy for a CFOP user
Placing E-slice edges has excellent lookahead
Placing corners has excellent lookahead
Orientation algs are just the standard OLLs, which CFOP users will already know

Cons:
High movecount
Crappy F2L strategy
E-perms

 

[Listrix]

IMO it looks very similar to the basic method of edges ---> corners, how you're going about this method is basically for the e slice edges and ll edges they are f2l and oll and pll algs, so basically its a edges-cfop hybrid, it may not be original, but you still had the idea, just not necessarily first.

Uh... don't know how this is an edges-cfop hybrid, it's not like cfop at all (or at least in my opinion). You get a cross on each side, then insert 3 of the bottom layer edges (not all 4 creating f2l). You then use the last edge as a keyhole to place 3 edges on the top layer. Then correct the two last edges

 

[shadowslice e]

Uh... don't know how this is an edges-cfop hybrid, it's not like cfop at all (or at least in my opinion). You get a cross on each side, then insert 3 of the bottom layer edges (not all 4 creating f2l). You then use the last edge as a keyhole to place 3 edges on the top layer. Then correct the two last edges

well, anything with a cross is already as quarter of the way to being CFOP. This also has some aspects of having a partial F2L and 2-Look OLL

One tip: it might be more efficient to just construct an F2L-1 as this means that you can reduce steps and movecount (you don't want to have too many pauses in a truly fast method). In addition, after the cross on top, you could use an alg to solve the three U layer corners or do it intuitively (thus would be no more than a 12 move step I believe which is pretty efficient.

On other thing you may want to consider is: permute and orient 3 U layer corners then permute the edges before doing the L2C.

So, if I modified your method, it would become a passably (I believe) efficient LS/LL variant with only a few algs (27 for the corners, 3 for the edges and 2 for L2C-although this would be covered in the first set of corner algs) and go like this:
1) Cross on D (~7)
2) F2L-1 (~19)
3) orient U edges (~6)
4) Solve corners (~9)
5) permute edges. (~6)
6) L2C (~6)
total: ~53ish.

the above is not bad efficiency but the algs may be harder to recog than most other sets (apart from maybe ZBLS or CPLS or some other LS technique). So it may be fun to have a play around with as an alternate LS/LL but it may need some modifications to be really fast.

 

[Berd]

well, anything with a cross is already as quarter of the way to being CFOP. This also has some aspects of having a partial F2L and 2-Look OLL

One tip: it might be more efficient to just construct an F2L-1 as this means that you can reduce steps and movecount (you don't want to have too many pauses in a truly fast method). In addition, after the cross on top, you could use an alg to solve the three U layer corners or do it intuitively (thus would be no more than a 12 move step I believe which is pretty efficient.

On other thing you may want to consider is: permute and orient 3 U layer corners then permute the edges before doing the L2C.

So, if I modified your method, it would become a passably (I believe) efficient LS/LL variant with only a few algs (27 for the corners, 3 for the edges and 2 for L2C-although this would be covered in the first set of corner algs) and go like this:
1) Cross on D (~7)
2) F2L-1 (~19)
3) orient U edges (~6)
4) Solve corners (~9)
5) permute edges. (~6)
6) L2C (~6)
total: ~53ish.

the above is not bad efficiency but the algs may be harder to recog than most other sets (apart from maybe ZBLS or CPLS or some other LS technique). So it may be fun to have a play around with as an alternate LS/LL but it may need some modifications to be really fast.

Try orienting 2 corners while preserving their permutation in ~6 moves [emoji14]

 

[shadowslice e]

Try orienting 2 corners while preserving their permutation in ~6 moves [emoji14]

Eh, I did say I was guessing and that the method needed some modifications...

Still needs no more than 14