The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[antech101]

so in CFOP, i think i found a new way to do F2L, it might be super inefficient compared to the other way to do F2L but i thought i'd share it anyway.

So it basically starts by making half of the cross with the 2 edge pieces for cross next to eachother, then you insert an F2L pair in that area, you solve another edge piece for cross, then insert another F2L pair in that gap, then you insert the final edge piece and solve the last 2 F2L pairs.

So is this already a thing? And is it slower compared to intuitive F2L?

 

[shadowslice e]

so in CFOP, i think i found a new way to do F2L, it might be super inefficient compared to the other way to do F2L but i thought i'd share it anyway.

So it basically starts by making half of the cross with the 2 edge pieces for cross next to eachother, then you insert an F2L pair in that area, you solve another edge piece for cross, then insert another F2L pair in that gap, then you insert the final edge piece and solve the last 2 F2L pairs.

So is this already a thing? And is it slower compared to intuitive F2L?

so 2x2x2->2x2x3->F2L-1->F2L
Basically a worse petrus because it is more inefficient and you don't have freedom of blockbuilding.

 

[antech101]

so 2x2x2->2x2x3->F2L-1->F2L
Basically a worse petrus because it is more inefficient and you don't have freedom of blockbuilding.

oh, xD

 

[Ranzha]

obligatory "or you could just use Petrus"

 

[qwertycuber]

Hi guys, I was casually solving my 6x6 yesterday, and I came up with this idea to do edge pairing. I do not know if this was already developed, so I will ask you guys to tell me if this was already brought up by someone before:

Step 1:
Solve all cross edges (if you will do white cross, solve the white edges), and put them to the bottom so that the cross will be solved. This is done for better lookahead.

Step 2:
Solve all the inner 2 edges like you would on a 4x4.

Step 3:
Solve the edges like a 5x5.

Note:
These steps are done after all the centers are solved.

Conclusion:
I don't know if this is very efficient compared to what people usually do, but I just got my first 6x6 yesterday so I have very little experience with this. Please tell me if this was already made, or if I just made up a new way to do the edge pairing stage for 6x6.

 

[mafergut]

so in CFOP, i think i found a new way to do F2L, it might be super inefficient compared to the other way to do F2L but i thought i'd share it anyway.

So it basically starts by making half of the cross with the 2 edge pieces for cross next to eachother, then you insert an F2L pair in that area, you solve another edge piece for cross, then insert another F2L pair in that gap, then you insert the final edge piece and solve the last 2 F2L pairs.

So is this already a thing? And is it slower compared to intuitive F2L?

hehehe, I do that for Match the Scramble Of course I am not good enough to match the F2L pair with arbitrary colours so I 1st place the corner then the edge.

 

[leeo]

With the Orientation and Permutation steps of the 3x3x3 solve so nicely packaged into alg. sets - it occurred to me that perhaps an alg. set can be applied at the onset.

If I view the cube solving as a sorting problem, then as inspection I might read: Top face corners: in Top face, in Top face, to bottom face, in top face -- Top face edges: to bottom layer, in top layer, to middle layer, to bottom layer - not paying any attention at this stage to orientation.

The idea would be to get the whole cube into a fast-solvable mid point, moving many units at a time with a carefully crafted set of algs. I was thinking of a target as having only one "to bottom face" corners, and only one "to middle layer" edge and at most only one "to bottom layer" edge -- but I open this up to debate. The ultimate goal is to generate a method for achieving consistent 6-second solves.

 

[obelisk477]

How about:

1) EOLayer - EO, and D layer corners, oriented but not necessarily permuted
2) 'EG' - center and eo safe EG algs to solve all corners
3) Need help on edges. Thought about sighted M2 which is okay but the movecount is high

 

[Cale S]

How about:

1) EOLayer - EO, and D layer corners, oriented but not necessarily permuted
2) 'EG' - center and eo safe EG algs to solve all corners
3) Need help on edges. Thought about sighted M2 which is okay but the movecount is high

maybe do an alg to put edges in their respective layers first?

 

[obelisk477]

maybe do an alg to put edges in their respective layers first?

I toyed with this for a bit, you can do alot with setups to (y x) Z perm (x y) to swap out E slice and U/D layer edges, but I'm not sure it works for all cases. And then E slice then EPBL. Maybe I'll gen something better for 'separation' tomorrow

 

[shadowslice e]

How about:

1) EOLayer - EO, and D layer corners, oriented but not necessarily permuted
2) 'EG' - center and eo safe EG algs to solve all corners
3) Need help on edges. Thought about sighted M2 which is okay but the movecount is high

You mean SSC/ECE?

 

[obelisk477]

You mean SSC/ECE?

No, it's somewhat different. My idea is a corners first method that disregards the E-slice (or any edge solving) until later on. Also, corners are done in two steps in this method (layer, EG) whereas it looks like they are done in three in the ones you mentioned (some D-layer corners, WV, permute). And again, this is edges last. So there are 12 edges left to solve after corners are done, but they are oriented relative to <R,U,L,D,F2,B2>, as in ZZ

 

[shadowslice e]

No, it's somewhat different. My idea is a corners first method that disregards the E-slice (or any edge solving) until later on. Also, corners are done in two steps in this method (layer, EG) whereas it looks like they are done in three in the ones you mentioned (some D-layer corners, WV, permute). And again, this is edges last. So there are 12 edges left to solve after corners are done, but they are oriented relative to <R,U,L,D,F2,B2>, as in ZZ

Oh ok I see.

Though SSC corners can be done in two thanks to some innovation which SqAree and I came up with that is described on the wiki page here. I made a few posts about it in the thread though I haven't managed to get around to properly update the op recently.

 

[Teoidus]

Tentative idea for 4x4 direct solving method
My attempt to do something similar to stadler, but hopefully not as inefficient.

(Note: the notation I use has l' r = M', not l' r = x)

1. FB (1x3x4 on L)
2. SB (1x3x4 on R) with <l, r, R, U>
3. CMLL
4. L28P = L12E + L4C with <l, r, U>

Obviously the only really new part here is the last step, so here's my approach:
4.1. Orientation

4.1a. OBlock: orient a 4x3x1 on l slice (so U/D colors only on D, F/B colors only on the l half of F/B centers)
4.1b. EO with <r, U> (one r/r' flips all edges on r, and this is analogous to 3x3 arrow case)
4.1c. OL4C: orient the last 10 center pieces (w/ <l, r, U> Niklas)​

4.2. ULUR with <l2, r2, U> + M' U2 M
4.3. Permutation with <l, r, U2>

4.3a. Pair L8E
4.3b. L4C (3x3 redux)
4.3c. L4E (+PLL parity)​

Pros:
No OLL parity
Rotationless
Lookahead in step 4 easier than in cage/stadler (EO can be detected w/o looking at B/D, reduction-based approach -> don't have to look for specific pieces -> cases are easy to come by, always solving a specific thing involving very few pieces -> things are easy to track and identify, similar to 3x3 LSE)
Centers don't take forever like in cage/stadler
Direct solving is fun, slice turns are fun

Cons:
Lookahead may be hard in F2B
Without being able to plan whole FB in inspection, effieciency is non-ideal
OL4C, L8E, and L2C currently still take more moves than I'd like
No easy way use 3x3 hax like CMLLEO or ULUR influencing during EO (though I was thinking one might be able to influence OL4C during EO)

Still developing algs, but current average movecount estimate based on own solves:
50 F2B + 10 CMLL + (8 Oblock + 6 EO + 16 OL4C) + 8 ULUR + (16 L8E + 16 L4C) + 5 L4E (+ 6 PLL parity) = 135-141 STM

Compare with me going to cubesolv.es, opening up a bunch of ~30second 4x4 reconstructions, and getting an avg Yau/Hoya movecount of (131 + 120 + 154 + 139 + 137 + 124 + 134 + 173 + 176 + 158 + 162 + 158 + 161 + 155 + 135 + 136 + 137)/17 = 146.47 STM

 

[Sion]

Here is a method that is similar to heise, but sorta different. I call it "The Blocky Method":

1: B1: Solve a 2x2x3, having the 3 cubie legnth vertical.
2: B2 make a 1x2x3 where the 3 cubie legnth is horizontal.
3: B3 solve a 1x2x2, solving f2l.

4: V-PLL: because of step one forcing a V case, it becomes a 1lll.

I think this may be good for FMC, but not as much for standard solving, because the blocks are all intuitive.

 

[shadowslice e]

Here is a method that is similar to heise, but sorta different. I call it "The Blocky Method":

1: B1: Solve a 2x2x3, having the 3 cubie legnth vertical.
2: B2 make a 1x2x3 where the 3 cubie legnth is horizontal.
3: B3 solve a 1x2x2, solving f2l.

4: V-PLL: because of step one forcing a V case, it becomes a 1lll.

I think this may be good for FMC, but not as much for standard solving, because the blocks are all intuitive.

You mean Tripod?

 

[Daniel Lin]

You mean Tripod?

I think its a different method
Not sure but I think you keep making blocks until you get a V shape 1lll like this
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_U_R2_F_R_F2_U_F_U2_U-_R-_U_L-_U2_R_U-_R-_U2_R_L
right Sion?

For block building, you can't really make the third block (B3) intuitively. I think you have to use algs because there's too many restrictions. After step B2 you've pretty much already finished psuedo-F2L

 

[Teoidus]

Any thoughts on the 4x4 idea?

Currently trying to optimize 4.1

 

[shadowslice e]

I think its a different method
Not sure but I think you keep making blocks until you get a V shape 1lll like this
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_U_R2_F_R_F2_U_F_U2_U-_R-_U_L-_U2_R_U-_R-_U2_R_L
right Sion?

For block building, you can't really make the third block (B3) intuitively. I think you have to use algs because there's too many restrictions. After step B2 you've pretty much already finished psuedo-F2L

It's Tripod with the pair already inserted which in standard tripod is the second to last step but the LL is the same.

Tripod is 2x2x2->2x2x3->F2L-1 (in whatever orientation)->F2L-1+2x2x1 in U-> insert pair (finish F2L)-> Tripod LL (the "V-LL" described on the post).

 

[Shiv3r]

Any thoughts on the 4x4 idea?

Currently trying to optimize 4.1

sounds interesting. If I had a 4x4 I would try it out. I generally like direct solving methods better than reduction methods, so Ill definitely try it out!!!