The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Teoidus]

Sure, I'm just saying that there are people that check the probability thread that don't check this one. They might be able to help find these probabilities. In general, I think it's probably more reasonable to post the probabilities once you actually know what they are...

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Hi guys. I'm just wondering if there is a tcll variant for eg1 or eg2?

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

this variant does not exist yet, i believe.(it could)
this set will contain 773 algorithms
many of the algorithms will be hard to preform
this does seem to be a great way to two look the 2x2 more efficient (probably)

except i just realised that you will need an algorithm for any bottom swap (the D layer cannot be rotated)
there will be 18 subsets for the D layer containing 43 cases each (including solved)

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

new? 2x2 method (unnamed)

step 1 orient one side, and on the opposite side, permutate the 4 corners

step 2 solve the cube using 1 of 23 algerithms

the only advantage i see is this is a 2 look method with a low algorithm count

 

[DGCubes]

new? 2x2 method (unnamed)

step 1 orient one side, and on the opposite side, permutate the 4 corners

step 2 solve the cube using 1 of 23 algerithms

the only advantage i see is this is a 2 look method with a low algorithm count

Oooh, seems like a cool intermediate method. So basically you reduce it to an EG case with the top layer corners permuted? I don't know enough about 2x2 to say for sure, but if these specific EG cases are good, I like this idea.

Just one question though: for step one, would you do the first face and the "PLL" simultaneously, or would you do the first face and then permute the corners with a short alg? I'm also a bit concerned about the recognition for the permutation step. The algs would be nice (F R U R' U' F' is a diag swap, and R U R' U' R' F R F' is an adjacent swap), but I'm not sure how quickly you can tell which case they are and which angle to do them from.

 

[efattah]

Hi guys. I'm just wondering if there is a tcll variant for eg1 or eg2?

Yes there is. It is called TEG-1 which stands for Twisty EG-1. There are extensive posts in this thread and other threads about it and it has been almost completely generated and posted online. Twisty EG-1 gives little advantage for 2x2. The primary reason it exists is for WaterRoux (3x3), since Twisty EG-1 allows the almost impossible to believe chance of 1-looking the first Roux block AND all the remaining 6 corners of the cube during the inspection, and even with TEG-1 this is quite difficult and not possible on every solve, but on the solves where it is possible, WaterRoux has the capacity to produce incredible singles both in speed and low move count. Because it was developed for WaterRoux, the first block is already done, so only a subset of TEG-1 has been generated, four sets, where the two swapped corners are twisted (FR+, FR-, FL+, FL-) each has around 43 algorithms and used TCLL recognition (172 algorithms). To 1-look the corners with WaterRoux requires CLL, LEG-1, plus the four TLEG-1 sets (252 algorithms). Twisty EG2 is useless for WaterRoux since the first block is solved.

EDIT: Just to be clear there is a difference between EG-1 (bar on the back) and LEG-1 where the bar is on the left. Similarly there is TEG-1 and TLEG-1. TLEG-1 is the ideal set for WaterRoux although both TEG-1 and TLEG-1 are mostly generated at this point.

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

Just one question though: for step one, would you do the first face and the "PLL" simultaneously, or would you do the first face and then permute the corners with a short alg?

you simultaneously solve the corner permutation while orienting the first face for the best movecount, or you can orient a side then permutate the other, or even permutate a side then orientate the other. permutation can be seen easily with practice.

 

[Neuro]

Alright everyone, so for my 200th post I decided I would officially finish off the HD Method, and it's finally done! I'll be making a formal thread on the forum so if you have any questions/comments/concerns, please talk with myself and the other makers of the method and we will be sure to answer ASAP! All credit goes to Thermex and Sue Doenim for proposing the method, Shiv3r and I are simply proponents and alg genners. EDIT: Thread

Also, I decided I'd post some of my more random projects to see if anything sticks here

3CFCE- All algs needed to solve in this style
ZZ-D- New system that Teoidus and I came up with a while ago

2GRoux- Roux variation of 2GR that (may) be more efficient and is designed with easy inspection in mind. Solves to come

1: CP Line, pair and then last corner+CP. Held on DL for most solvers
2: FB, solve <RrUu> and <ME>
3: SBPP, solve SB while setting up ULUR or UFUB
4: OLL, pseudo2gen
5: LSE, very efficient because of Pinkie Pie setup

4x4 Direct Solving Method with no name lel

1: LR Centers
2: FB
3: L4C

Differences start here

4: SB using modified K4 comms, can be fully pseudo 2gen if you periodically flip wings
5: L2E, build DBDF using comms
6: CLL
7: ELL, I use a 3 look system like most people

I like it well enough, I find that SB is actually pretty fast but that L2E can sometimes be a pain. And of course the 1st 3 steps are just Meyer so yeah they're pretty fast lol

Let me know your thoughts, put a lot of time into this post so I hope everyone enjoyed it!

EDIT B lol: I think that 3CFCE is pretty good for 3x3, but it's actually really good for 4x4 and beyond if you are good with M moves!

This is basically a Yau/Hoya variation so I won't go into too much detail. I prefer Yau so I'll just go over that variation

1: LR Centers
2: 3 Cross Pieces
3: L4C and one random edge in last cross slot (good efficiency and prebuilt edges are nice)
4: Edge Pairing

5: F2L- DF (make use of F and M!!!) avg unknown, move efficient than normal CFOP though
6: CLL (also fix OP if present) | my algs give an avg of 10.35 moves
7: DF+EO | my algs give an average of 7.7 moves
8: EPLL+Parity | my algs give an avg of 10.6 moves

Solve with new 4x4 method, I suck at edge pairing but this method should be about the same efficiency or better than Yau. I think I'm going to use this as my main 4x4 method

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Hi guys. I am a beginner cuber who wants to become fast. I know cfop with 4LLL, zz, and roux. I average about a minute with all of them. I want to finally choose one and use it. I've seen many things about the pros and cons of each one but I want to find something about what method suits me for the way I solve the cube and I can't seem to find anything on that. As a side note I don't mind learning Algs and I'm into oh and big cubes. Lastly I have looked into methods like lmcf and water roux.

 

[efattah]

Hi guys. I am a beginner cuber who wants to become fast. I know cfop with 4LLL, zz, and roux. I average about a minute with all of them. I want to finally choose one and use it. I've seen many things about the pros and cons of each one but I want to find something about what method suits me for the way I solve the cube and I can't seem to find anything on that. As a side note I don't mind learning Algs and I'm into oh and big cubes. Lastly I have looked into methods like lmcf and water roux.

Well you are most of the way there if you have already learned these methods, I would suggest just choosing your favorite one and working from there. They can all be fast but beware that if you choose the Roux path, documentation is harder to find, the many tricks that Rouxers like Mansour and Lau use are poorly documented. Eventually you will need to learn advanced LSE (lots of algs) and multiple CMLL's to modify the edge orientation, lots of block building tricks like misaligned and miscolored blocks, etc. But for now your path is clear and everything you need is at your fingertips.

 

[Neuro]

Honestly it's going to be a personal desicion. We could give you all the answers in the world, but we cant decide for you

CFOP while inefficient is really good because it requires little to no thought while solving. It also uses a lot of rotations and is really good for big cubes. OH can be challenging if you aren't good at doing y moves mid-solve. Use CFOP if you are really good at spamming TPS (easy to achieve because not much thought needed)

Roux is nice all around if you like a slight challenge while solving. It requires some thought while solving, but 1/2 of the solve is pseudo 2 gen, one of the fastest movesets there is if used correctly. Use of M slices in OH can be tricky but with practice it gets pretty fast. Big cubes can be tricky past 4x4, but it's still good. Use Roux if you are a fan of intuition, M slices, and a more "fluid" style of solving.

ZZ is really good for OH and normal solving but not so much for big cubes. It really shines in OH though. It uses intuitive F2L, but this iss still pretty easy to lookahead and spam TPS with practice. It requies zero rotations, making it really good for OH, but it can be hard to use on big cubes (look at NS4 and Z4/ZZ4, edge pairing is hard) ZZ is kind of a mix of the 2 previously listed; it uses a fluid style of solving and uses intuition but is still easy to spam TPS. However, it is very hard to use for big cubes.

I personally use Roux and have used all 3 of these methods in the past. For me, CFOP was decentt but it had no real challenge and wasn't as efficient as I would've liked. ZZ was actually really great for me, but unlike Roux and CFOP, lookahead from 1st step to 2nd was severely lacking, and EO Line took too much thought for me to do it super fast, and thus my times suffered. Roux is good for me because I like the intuitive nature and fast moveset (and LSE is really fun) but it's all personal preference. Again, all these methods are good methods, so it needs to be you to decide what you will use!

EDIT: Here's a 2GRoux solve I'm pretty proud of, 36 STM

R2 F U2 L2 B' D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 U2 R B' U' F' U L2 D' L2 B U'

x y r f R'//Pair (3/3)
F2//CP Line (1/4)
u' R U' R u2//FB (5/9)
U r' U' M2 U' r2 U2 R U r U2 M' U2 M//SBPP (14/23)
U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R'//OLLCP (8/31)
U' M2 U M2 U2//LSE (5/36)

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Thank you guys for your responses but I want to know why it is more advantageous to do an eo line rather than a eo cross?

 

[Hazel]

Thank you guys for your responses but I want to know why it is more advantageous to do an eo line rather than a eo cross?

EOLine can easily be seen completely in inspection for someone with practice, but EOCross would be much more difficult given that you would have to solve 4 edges while solving EO, instead of just 2. Even EO --> cross would be less efficient because you wouldn't be solving them simultaneously, but instead seprately. Also, EOCross would mean you wouldn't really be able to blockbuild, which is one reason ZZ is really efficient.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Honestly it's going to be a personal desicion. We could give you all the answers in the world, but we cant decide for you

CFOP while inefficient is really good because it requires little to no thought while solving. It also uses a lot of rotations and is really good for big cubes. OH can be challenging if you aren't good at doing y moves mid-solve. Use CFOP if you are really good at spamming TPS (easy to achieve because not much thought needed)

Roux is nice all around if you like a slight challenge while solving. It requires some thought while solving, but 1/2 of the solve is pseudo 2 gen, one of the fastest movesets there is if used correctly. Use of M slices in OH can be tricky but with practice it gets pretty fast. Big cubes can be tricky past 4x4, but it's still good. Use Roux if you are a fan of intuition, M slices, and a more "fluid" style of solving.

ZZ is really good for OH and normal solving but not so much for big cubes. It really shines in OH though. It uses intuitive F2L, but this iss still pretty easy to lookahead and spam TPS with practice. It requies zero rotations, making it really good for OH, but it can be hard to use on big cubes (look at NS4 and Z4/ZZ4, edge pairing is hard) ZZ is kind of a mix of the 2 previously listed; it uses a fluid style of solving and uses intuition but is still easy to spam TPS. However, it is very hard to use for big cubes.

I personally use Roux and have used all 3 of these methods in the past. For me, CFOP was decentt but it had no real challenge and wasn't as efficient as I would've liked. ZZ was actually really great for me, but unlike Roux and CFOP, lookahead from 1st step to 2nd was severely lacking, and EO Line took too much thought for me to do it super fast, and thus my times suffered. Roux is good for me because I like the intuitive nature and fast moveset (and LSE is really fun) but it's all personal preference. Again, all these methods are good methods, so it needs to be you to decide what you will use!

EDIT: Here's a 2GRoux solve I'm pretty proud of, 36 STM

R2 F U2 L2 B' D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 U2 R B' U' F' U L2 D' L2 B U'

x y r f R'//Pair (3/3)
F2//CP Line (1/4)
u' R U' R u2//FB (5/9)
U r' U' M2 U' r2 U2 R U r U2 M' U2 M//SBPP (14/23)
U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R'//OLLCP (8/31)
U' M2 U M2 U2//LSE (5/36)

Roux is really fun to use but I have one problem. Lookahead during the blocks is really hard for me and I don't like having to look around the entire cube. Do you have any tips to help me

 

[Neuro]

Roux is really fun to use but I have one problem. Lookahead during the blocks is really hard for me and I don't like having to look around the entire cube. Do you have any tips to help me

FB takes a long time to master but you'll get there in time. What I usually do unless there is a premade pair or something is put in DR immediately after FB. I recommend doing slow blocks for a while as well as practicing both of the steps individually. Tracking helps a lot to make it more fluid (ie solve DR but follow where DFR and FR end up so you can build that pair) If you decide to use Roux, Kian and Kavin got together a while ago and made a really nice video series on all of the steps as well as inspection, lookahead, and other things like that and it's really helpful so be sure to watch it!

 

[Jlvs2run]

beware that if you choose the Roux path, documentation is harder to find, the many tricks that Rouxers like Mansour and Lau use are poorly documented. Eventually you will need to learn advanced LSE (lots of algs) and multiple CMLL's to modify the edge orientation, lots of block building tricks like misaligned and miscolored blocks, etc.

Roux is relatively easy to learn, has a low move count, is fast, and easy to remember over time. The first 2 blocks are intuitive, corners take only 3 algorithms, and LSE quickly becomes intuitive. From there more positions can be learned, with the block trainer for first 2 blocks, and plenty of fast and slow solves for the last 10 pieces. I picked Roux for the opposite of reasons you said.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Seeing all these posts has reminded me of an often discarded idea: method neutrality. CFOP, of course, is lame, so I'm not going to include it. My idea was that you could quickly scan the cube for a 1x1x2 pair. If one is found, use it to build a first block, and continue on with a Roux solve. If none is apparent, plan an EOline and use ZZ. After manually checking 100 scrambles from Twisty Timer, my timer app, I found that 57 had one such pair made, and 43 did not. Does anyone have a better way to do this, or know the actual probability?

 

[TDM]

Seeing all these posts has reminded me of an often discarded idea: method neutrality. CFOP, of course, is lame, so I'm not going to include it. My idea was that you could quickly scan the cube for a 1x1x2 pair. If one is found, use it to build a first block, and continue on with a Roux solve. If none is apparent, plan an EOline and use ZZ. After manually checking 100 scrambles from Twisty Timer, my timer app, I found that 57 had one such pair made, and 43 did not. Does anyone have a better way to do this, or know the actual probability?

Firstly, I don't think CFOP is worse than ZZ. I don't think enough has been done with EOCross for us to make much of a full comparison just yet, but if we're doing EOLine, then I'm fairly sure that CFOP is faster.

Secondly, method neutrality is far too much work. It requires double the practice to become only a little faster than you would be using just one of those methods. If you spent all the time on one method, you'd be faster. I'm currently about the same speed with each of the three methods you mentioned, and I know I could be so much faster if I had dedicated my time to a single method.

As for the probability of a pair being solved, the probability is approximately 1 - 1/e, or 63%.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Cfop/ZZ-CT variant:
The first part of the solve is like cfop. You build your cross and do two f2l pairs. Then you create a third pair but before you insert it you do an algorithm that orients the edges and inserts the pair. Then you can do tsle/ttll. Does this sound good?

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

the answer to the question of is this better than cfop relates to the question, is it faster to create 2 pairs or a pair+eo?
this, i think relates to your ability to track side piece orientation.
the other way to view your question, does this method work? yes.