Praetorian
Veteran
are there any possible expansions to CFOP or have there been any that have been thought of before? 4 slots, cross, not counting last layer and last slot, mainly just the first two steps
-
Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!
You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.
Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.
Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.
Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.
The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread
- Thread starter elrog
- Start date
supercavitation
Veteran
Where are you cutting out 3.4 moves? That would leave you below your original (highly optimistic) numbers for block building, since average move counts have been established for everything else.
He came up with 46.8 moves without accounting for AUF, meaning your average move count is going to be in the area of 48-49 moves, as many as Roux.
crafto22
Veteran
Quick thoughts:
My averages for moves weren't really that "optimistic".
Roux blocks are easily 8 moves, and incorporating that other edge could be done by modifying ones solution minimally. I've tried this out and am able to get 45-47 move solutions quite easily. I think if someone with great blockbuilding skills used this they could incorporate pieces of the second step into the first step solution, hence getting them a lower movecount. Its like saying: average moves for CFOP is 55, yet I consistently get 50-53 move solutions for my solves. Its all about the user's efficiency. anyway, this was just a quick idea I thought up a while back. I am in no way claiming it is some revolutionary method, even though I have managed to get sub-20 with it, even by using EO then CP for the OELLCP step.
supercavitation
Veteran
Based on the moves required for Roux blocks and the back 2x2x2 (ignoring the FD edge for a second), that indicates that you're either getting lucky cases (and you seem to know what you're doing enough to know when you get lucky solves), or you're already very efficient with First Block.
Either way, the original point stands. It's a cool idea, but in the end, it has move count very similar to Roux, but with worse lookahead.
2180161
Veteran
Sq-1 Method. (I know. Not a lot of these out there.)
1. cubeshape (duh.)
2. Solve corners
3. FL (first layer)
4.EPLL
Number of Algs: EPLL:9
CPLL:8
Extra:~3±1-2
1. cubeshape (duh.)
2. Solve corners
3. FL (first layer)
4.EPLL
Number of Algs: EPLL:9
CPLL:8
Extra:~3±1-2
supercavitation
Veteran
If you're willing to have an inefficient FL step, you can do it with 2 algs.
shadowslice e
Legend
Well, I have not doubt that you can sub-15 this method but to put your block movecounts into perspective, Alex Lau does a 9 move FB during speedsolves
PenguinsDontFly
Legend
9 moves isnt optimistic. Guroux and I can make 8-9 movers pretty much every solve and alex can probably find a 6-7 mover (although those arent very fingertricky). I doubt he ever does a block over 9 moves.
shadowslice e
Legend
yeah I know but talking to him he says he aims for a fingertrickable 8-9 mover when he does a speedsolve and he doesn't place BD either
crafto22
Veteran
Hi all,
A while back I posted an idea that didn't really have a name, but it consisted of placing E-slice edges followed by D layer edge orientation and etc. I have made modifications to this method based on some critique by shadowslice.
Steps:
1) E-slice bars minus one of the edges + 3 corners oriented on D
Moves: 5-9, surely no more
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
2) Orient remaining corners through WV or SLS
Moves: 9-11
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
3) Permute all corners
Moves: 11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
4) Place D-layer edges through slice moves + EO
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 3-4 seconds
5) EPLL
Moves: 6.75
Execution time: 1 second
Total moves:
~45 STM
Execution time:
Ideal solve: 8.5-9 seconds
Average solve: 10-12 seconds
Primitive solve: 16-19 seconds
Pros:
-Every step is fast and allows lookahead to the next step
-Ergonomic move groups
-Maximum of one rotation
-Low algorithm count
-No blockbuilding or abstract concepts such as EOLine
-Low movecount
-Lots of freedom with step order allows the user to choose to execute a particular step first to take advantage of a nice case
-Easy to learn and pick up
-Borrows concept from some popular methods allowing most to be familiar with the concepts of the method
-Theoretical potential to be quite fast
Cons:
Um...
Seriously guys I need help finding what's wrong with this.
Note:
This method is done in 6-7 looks. CFOP requires 7 looks. ZZ requires 6-7 looks. Roux requires 7 looks. This is on-par. Don't tell me this has too many substeps.
A while back I posted an idea that didn't really have a name, but it consisted of placing E-slice edges followed by D layer edge orientation and etc. I have made modifications to this method based on some critique by shadowslice.
Steps:
1) E-slice bars minus one of the edges + 3 corners oriented on D
Moves: 5-9, surely no more
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
2) Orient remaining corners through WV or SLS
Moves: 9-11
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
3) Permute all corners
Moves: 11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
4) Place D-layer edges through slice moves + EO
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 3-4 seconds
5) EPLL
Moves: 6.75
Execution time: 1 second
Total moves:
~45 STM
Execution time:
Ideal solve: 8.5-9 seconds
Average solve: 10-12 seconds
Primitive solve: 16-19 seconds
Pros:
-Every step is fast and allows lookahead to the next step
-Ergonomic move groups
-Maximum of one rotation
-Low algorithm count
-No blockbuilding or abstract concepts such as EOLine
-Low movecount
-Lots of freedom with step order allows the user to choose to execute a particular step first to take advantage of a nice case
-Easy to learn and pick up
-Borrows concept from some popular methods allowing most to be familiar with the concepts of the method
-Theoretical potential to be quite fast
Cons:
Um...
Seriously guys I need help finding what's wrong with this.
Note:
This method is done in 6-7 looks. CFOP requires 7 looks. ZZ requires 6-7 looks. Roux requires 7 looks. This is on-par. Don't tell me this has too many substeps.
crafto22
Veteran
Update:
I just got a 15.91 ao12 using this method. I used WV for CO and Square-1 algs for CP.
I just got a 15.91 ao12 using this method. I used WV for CO and Square-1 algs for CP.
qaz
Veteran
When is the last E-layer edge placed? step 2?
shadowslice e
Legend
This method id definately better than the previous iteration and all of it seems acturate to me except for step 3: permute all corners. This step would require at least 6! Algs (6x5x4x3x2x1) hence why it is not used much on square-1. I suppose it would be possibke to do it intuitively but it woukd still be a bit of a headache to recognise. The best solution would be to split it into 2: corners to layers, permute which woukd be about 18 moves so the movecount is higher. However, this definately could be fairly fast but the sqtm is nit great and is about the same as cfop and roux
crafto22
Veteran
That's what I've been using for that step, I didn't exactly mean to solve the corners in one step. I already have a good idea for a variant that will allow the use of S1 algs.
SFCuber
Regular
PCCEL Efficiency Method (For FMC)
PCCEL Method step For FMC
Pairs Centers Corners Edges Last-layer
Fewest possible turns (These numbers should me at maximum):
-Pairs = 30- turns
-Pair placement = 20- turns
-First pair: 2- turns
-Second pair: 3- turns
-Third pair: 10- turns
-Center orientation = 3- Turns
-Corner orientation (CMLL) [You can use 2x2 CLL/EG]= 10- turns
Can be solved with just M M' M2 M2' U U' U2 U2'
-Edge placing (With proper orienting) = 20- turns
-ELL/PLL (If both then 25- turns) = 15- turns
EXAMPLE:
Scramble:
R F2 B2 D' B2 L' D2 L2 F' R' F2 D U2 B U' F B' R2 L' F2 D B2 U R L2
Solve:
B2 D B' L //First 2 Pairs (with placement)
F M F' x R' D R //Third Pair (with placement)
D M2 L D' L' //Four pair (with placement)
M2 //Center placement
x2 r' F' r U r U' r' F U2 //Corner placement
U2 M U2 M' //First edge
U M' U' M //Second edge
y' M' U2 M U2 //Third pair
M U2 M' //Fourth edge
M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M' U' M //ELL
Solved!
Note:
After placing corners ONLY M U x y z should be used to solve the rest of the cube.
All the X- numbers are maximum. They should not be exceeded.
This method can be used for speedsolving though it may take longer. I would stick to your current method,but I would use this for FMC.
If done properly you can get 40 or less moves.
This got me a 54 move FMC PB!
Let me know If a video is wanted or you get lost! Studying the solve help a lot.
PCCEL Method step For FMC
Pairs Centers Corners Edges Last-layer
Fewest possible turns (These numbers should me at maximum):
-Pairs = 30- turns
-Pair placement = 20- turns
-First pair: 2- turns
-Second pair: 3- turns
-Third pair: 10- turns
-Center orientation = 3- Turns
-Corner orientation (CMLL) [You can use 2x2 CLL/EG]= 10- turns
Can be solved with just M M' M2 M2' U U' U2 U2'
-Edge placing (With proper orienting) = 20- turns
-ELL/PLL (If both then 25- turns) = 15- turns
EXAMPLE:
Scramble:
R F2 B2 D' B2 L' D2 L2 F' R' F2 D U2 B U' F B' R2 L' F2 D B2 U R L2
Solve:
B2 D B' L //First 2 Pairs (with placement)
F M F' x R' D R //Third Pair (with placement)
D M2 L D' L' //Four pair (with placement)
M2 //Center placement
x2 r' F' r U r U' r' F U2 //Corner placement
U2 M U2 M' //First edge
U M' U' M //Second edge
y' M' U2 M U2 //Third pair
M U2 M' //Fourth edge
M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M' U' M //ELL
Solved!
Note:
After placing corners ONLY M U x y z should be used to solve the rest of the cube.
All the X- numbers are maximum. They should not be exceeded.
This method can be used for speedsolving though it may take longer. I would stick to your current method,but I would use this for FMC.
If done properly you can get 40 or less moves.
This got me a 54 move FMC PB!
Let me know If a video is wanted or you get lost! Studying the solve help a lot.
DELToS
Veteran
There's only 1 problem I see, in FMC you're not allowed to do M turns.
Last edited by a moderator:
joshsailscga
Veteran
The problem with M moves is that in STM, which is used for FMC scoring, they count as two moves (turning two sides rather than one slice) so that really skyrockets your movecount.
SFCuber
Regular
Seems a bit pointless (the scoring reg) but I guess I could could keep developing the method (or try).
Mollerz
Swag Overlord
FMC scoring using OBTM. M, E and S moves do not exist in this metric. If you use an M move in a solution, it should be a DNF.
OBTM is similar to HTM, but HTM includes M, E and S, which all count as 2 moves each.
STM is the same as HTM, but M, E and S are all counted as 1 move.
This is not a good FMC method.
2180161
Veteran
Sorry to bring up this old post of mine, but I feel like efficiency could be greatly improved.
What about:
EOline
L 1x2x3
1x2x2 in BDR
Place DFR corner in UFR so U R U' R' would solve it
WVCP
L5E
Pros:
Decent movecount
No extremely difficult concepts to master
L5E can be done 2-gen
No extremely difficult concepts to master
L5E can be done 2-gen
EOline can be tricky for beginners
WVCP doesn't have the best recognition
Quite a few algs- 282 total for full method. Reduced method has 149. Beginners variation has 15
WVCP doesn't have the best recognition
Quite a few algs- 282 total for full method. Reduced method has 149. Beginners variation has 15
Example Solve:
D U2 R2 B R2 F' R2 F L2 U2 B D2 R' D2 B2 U' B2 F L U2 F'
z2 D B2 R' D R' B'//EO
R' U R2 U R U L U' L2 U2 L' //1X2X3 LD
U2 R// RD 2X2X1
U R U2 R' U'// Setup for WVCP
U F R U' R' U R U R2 F' R2 U' R'//WVCP
R2 U R U R U' R' U' R' U' R' U'//L5E
49 STM, or 46 with cancellations
z2 D B2 R' D R' B'//EO
R' U R2 U R U L U' L2 U2 L' //1X2X3 LD
U2 R// RD 2X2X1
U R U2 R' U'// Setup for WVCP
U F R U' R' U R U R2 F' R2 U' R'//WVCP
R2 U R U R U' R' U' R' U' R' U'//L5E
49 STM, or 46 with cancellations
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Deleted member 27249
- Puzzle Theory
- Deleted member 27249
- Puzzle Video Gallery
