The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[xyzzy]

(we're considering calling it SuNe method, becase Sue Neuro)

Please don't give new methods confusing names. That's just silly.

 

[Thermex]

Please don't give new methods confusing names. That's just silly.

Agreed. We'll most likely call this method something else like "VS" or something like that.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Update on movecount for making the V in EG-VOP (still not an official name for it )

I've done around 100 solves to test the movecount of the V and the average was 1.06 or something. I did discover that 3 move V's are actually a possibility. However, 1 move is the most common, taking ~90% of the solves. 2 moves is next highest, probably ~5%, and 0 moves is actually more common than a 3 move V, where 0 moves is ~3.5% and 3 is the least common, ~1.5%.

Note that my test was performed with full color neutrality, so it will probably change if you keep 1 color. But honestly, color neutrality is pretty easy with the method and 2x2 in general so I don't think we need to do non-CN tests.

What would be a 3-move V?

 

[Sue Doenim]

Wait . . . (Z)Zeroing at last? When inserting F2L pairs, use phasing algs to force nicer cases for next pair. However, BSLL, it seems, is, and always will be, BS.

 

[Neuro]

What would be a 3-move V?

Well I got a couple of 3 move V's (one eexample is where a bar can me made in 1 moves but another corner requires 2 moves to insert) but I may have made mistakes on those solves and simply just not recognized 2 move cases. Sometimes the 2 move cases can take a while to spot so I may have just missed them in the 3 move solves I did. I will be doing another test tomorrow to double-check

 

[Thermex]

@Neuro it has been 100% confirmed that it can take 3 moves to make a guimond face (3/4 face with opposite colors) and since this is technically harder to make (the 3/4 of the face needs to include the SAME colors) it should be possible that there are 3 move HD faces.

 

[Thermex]

sorry for double post, but I have a random Idea I've been playing with for 4x4. this can be applied to Yau, Hoya, even Meyer.
So It is a way to avoid parity.
So the basic Idea is to not solve 2 edges, then executing an L2E at the end of the solve to fix parity at the same time.
in practice, this becomes really only a good idea if you get 3-2-3 edge pairing and your last cycle is only 2 edges.
what you do is Just solve the cue with 2 edges unpaired, and then use setups to L2E to fix them at the end. It is just a totally random Idea, and I doubt it has any merit whatsoever. but please, tell me what you think. I know all the L2E algs from Lewis already, so this was pretty easy for me to do.

@Shiv3r wow I've had this idea forever! I always thought this would work great on really big cubes (5 and 6) as it would be around 50 algs and could allow a 2 look last slot for CFOP or something like that. I'll PM you about this tomorrow once I'm done with the HD orientation algs and maybe we could brainstorm some ideas.

 

[Shiv3r]

@Shiv3r wow I've had this idea forever! I always thought this would work great on really big cubes (5 and 6) as it would be around 50 algs and could allow a 2 look last slot for CFOP or something like that. I'll PM you about this tomorrow once I'm done with the HD orientation algs and maybe we could brainstorm some ideas.

It's not as fast as just doing lucasparity.

 

[Thermex]

It's not as fast as just doing lucasparity.

Yeah but you get to skip L2E and also your last slot can be 2-looked since you can completely ignore two edges.

 

[Hazel]

Possible ZZ/Waterman hybrid:

1) EOLine + DR and DL edges (basically cross + EO)
2) Corners
3) L8E (not sure how this would work, but it's less cases than regular L8E because the edges are oriented)

 

[shadowslice e]

Possible ZZ/Waterman hybrid:

1) EOLine + DR and DR edges (basically cross + EO)
2) Corners
3) L8E (not sure how this would work, but it's less cases than regular L8E because the edges are oriented)

Sounds like L2L4. If you can to do all the edges at the same time you still have at least 1000 cases as 8!/4/4/2=2520

 

[Hazel]

Sounds like L2L4. If you can to do all the edges at the same time you still have at least 1000 cases as 8!/4/4/2=2520

What if you did an alg to bring all the LL edges to U (while preserving all edge orientation), then did EPLL -> Roux-style L4E (or vice versa, or both at the same time)?

 

[xyzzy]

What if you did an alg to bring all the LL edges to U (while preserving all edge orientation), then did EPLL -> Roux-style L4E (or vice versa, or both at the same time)?

14 cases for separating the edges into their correct layers, 50 cases for E-slice + EPLL (up to AUF and y rotation).

Algs for E-slice+EPLL probably(?) won't be much better than just doing them separately.

 

[Thermex]

Now that HD is almost finished (I only have a few more orientation cases to check over), I had an idea for another VOP-styled 2×2 method, and I call it "BOP" (Bar, Orientation, Permutation) or "V2" (I was thinking of calling the orientation and permutation stages VOLL and VPLL, which makes up two Vs) (V is my first initial):

1. 2×1×1 bar (done for you 50% of the time, would probably average around 1/2 a move and the max is 2 moves I think)
2. VOLL (43 pure 2-gen algs, 7 of which are the already-known OLLs)
3. VPLL (solves the rest of the cube, not sure how many cases there are here but there's probably not that many, plus many of them are <5 moves)

This method would make one-looking really really easy as long as you memorized how VOLL affected the pieces, there'd probably be ~80 algs (same amount as EG-1+CLL), the average movecount would probably be somewhere in the ballpark of 12-13 moves, and other than the rare one or two moves to make a bar the ENTIRE method is algorithmic making it really easy to spam TPS, plus you could probably get a pure 2-gen solve every one in ten scrambles or so. This is just an optimistic idea but I could see it being extremely useful for WaterRoux as a super-efficient sub-12 move way to solve the last 6 corners with less than 100 algorithms. Feedback?

 

[efattah]

Now that HD is almost finished (I only have a few more orientation cases to check over), I had an idea for another VOP-styled 2×2 method, and I call it "BOP" (Bar, Orientation, Permutation) or "V2" (I was thinking of calling the orientation and permutation stages VOLL and VPLL, which makes up two Vs) (V is my first initial):

1. 2×1×1 bar (done for you 50% of the time, would probably average around 1/2 a move and the max is 2 moves I think)
2. VOLL (43 pure 2-gen algs, 7 of which are the already-known OLLs)
3. VPLL (solves the rest of the cube, not sure how many cases there are here but there's probably not that many, plus many of them are <5 moves)

This method would make one-looking really really easy as long as you memorized how VOLL affected the pieces, there'd probably be ~80 algs (same amount as EG-1+CLL), the average movecount would probably be somewhere in the ballpark of 12-13 moves, and other than the rare one or two moves to make a bar the ENTIRE method is algorithmic making it really easy to spam TPS, plus you could probably get a pure 2-gen solve every one in ten scrambles or so. This is just an optimistic idea but I could see it being extremely useful for WaterRoux as a super-efficient sub-12 move way to solve the last 6 corners with less than 100 algorithms. Feedback?

This seems like an awesome method but please clarify a few things:
1. You solve a bar of a single color, but is this a real bar of adjacent true corners or is it a 'face bar' where just the face stickers form a bar? I assume the latter.
2. When you execute the orientation, the other two corners on the bar face can be any color, not the same as the bar? It might be worth looking into forcing them to the same color as the bar since that would leave ordinary ortega PBL as the last step? This might make recognition easier? Not sure how easy recognition is in the color freedom version.

 

[Hazel]

14 cases for separating the edges into their correct layers, 50 cases for E-slice + EPLL (up to AUF and y rotation).

Algs for E-slice+EPLL probably(?) won't be much better than just doing them separately.

would this method be at all viable? would it be better if while separating the edges into their correct layer you solve the U layer? I've tried it and it isn't too difficult.

 

[Thermex]

This seems like an awesome method but please clarify a few things:
1. You solve a bar of a single color, but is this a real bar of adjacent true corners or is it a 'face bar' where just the face stickers form a bar? I assume the latter.
2. When you execute the orientation, the other two corners on the bar face can be any color, not the same as the bar? It might be worth looking into forcing them to the same color as the bar since that would leave ordinary ortega PBL as the last step? This might make recognition easier? Not sure how easy recognition is in the color freedom version.

I was actually thinking of having a 2×1×1 bar that formed half of a layer, but the second option you mentioned might work. It's pretty much the same amount of work to create half a layer as opposed to half a face, plus the last step is half as many algs and more ergonomic if you have half a layer. And yes, the orientation step does NOT force the d-face to be solved, as PBL algs are kinda meh and it would be a LOT easier if you solve those two pieces during permutation.

@Aerma I don't think the method you came up with was really viable, but some of the ideas you came up with actually could be really good in WaterRoux: (keep in mind for my example here the three solved edges are DB, DR and DL and we are trying to solve L9E)

1. Solve the DF edge and seperate the edges into their correct layers.
2. Solve the four u-layer edges whilst orienting the midges.
3. Do a Z rotation and finally permute the midges.

This idea seems decent and is most likely less algorithms than Three U-layer edges then L6E, but some of the recogniton might suck and the algs might not be very ergonomic. If this idea seems to have any potential I'd be willing to work on it with you.

 

[Teoidus]

If I'm understanding VPLL right, it's basically L6C with orientation already done?

If so, there should be around (6 nCr 2) * (4!/4) = 30 * 6 = 180 cases

 

[Thermex]

If I'm understanding VPLL right, it's basically L6C with orientation already done?

If so, there should be around (6 nCr 2) * (4!/4) = 30 * 6 = 180 cases

Yes, VPLL is just permuting the pre-orieting corners on the R and U faces. Does the figure you showed include AUFs? If not, how many algs could AUFs reduce that number to?

 

[Teoidus]

Yeah that's with AUFs. Without AUFs, it should be 6! = 720.

If I'm understanding it right, then VOLL is orienting the 6 corners <R,U>? If so, I feel like that figure is a bit more difficult to calculate because symmetries are weirder with CO, but it should be around 9 * (3^3) = 243 without AUFs, and has a lower bound of 243/4 = 60.75 with AUFs