The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[shadowslice e]

Nope I tend to use EO Line, blockbuilding to F2L-1, advanced TSLE to orient the rest of the puzzle, and solve as a domino. This isn't an exact method much like Petrus FMC, so I'm sure you could use SSC to solve it, but the overarching theme is to do EO, blockbuilding or some other way to get to nearly domino, solve into and then fully solve domino. But I can see the confusion between this and SSC as they are fairly similar methods.

So EO, F2L-1, WV/SLS, Domino?

 

[Micki]

2GR, modified mDiPalma's CPLC variant, Briggs v1 (CPFB, EO Line), and Porkyv1/2. These are all the one's I can think of.

Briggs v1 could be really good as CPFB could potentially be done fully in inspection and EO Line can be made algorithmic.

Modded mDP would take a while to get recognition down but it could be incredibly fast. Same with Porky's variants

2GR has great potential, but just go to Teoidus's website for it; he can explain it much better than I can

C2gr could also be a good 2gr method

 

[Neuro]

So EO, F2L-1, WV/SLS, Domino?

That's the basic idea right now, although I have a few other approaches I'm looking at to make it more efficient. What exactly is SLS again? What I do is insert last edge and orient L5C but it can move around the D layer at will and the E slice. The only real problem with it is that it can break premise pairs which would otherwise make solving domino much easier

@Micki what is C2gr?

 

[One Wheel]

Not sure if this ought to go here or in the big cubes discussion thread, but it's a slight variant on redux, so I'm going with (possibly) new substep. I've tried 2 solves on 6x6 and 1 on 7x7, and both are pretty much in line with my regular redux times. I suspect with practice it could get better than redux, although it's almost certainly not useful for 4x4 and 5x5, and might be no improvement at all even for 6 and 7.

Steps:
1. Solve 2 opposite centers
2. solve remaining 4 centers in any order, on 6x6 disregard color scheme
3. Pair first 8 edges with freeslice, using R2, L2, F2, etc. (assuming edge pairing on E rather than M) to flip edges rather than using an alg to maintain center orientation. Place solved edges on U and D faces, as normal.
4. Solve centers, using slice or wide moves and the same R2, L2, F2 moves as for edge pairing. All center pieces will be in 4x1 (for 6x6) or 5x1 (for 7x7) bars.
5. Solve L4E as usual
6. 3x3

Pros:
Lower movecount in F8E pairing
Possibly easier to find pieces, since you normally wouldn't see pieces on the D layer without a cube rotation.

Cons:
Adds a step to regular redux
Potentially more difficult to track unsolved edges, especially after the first 4 edges are solved, and would normally be hidden on the bottom.

 

[shadowslice e]

That's the basic idea right now, although I have a few other approaches I'm looking at to make it more efficient. What exactly is SLS again? What I do is insert last edge and orient L5C but it can move around the D layer at will and the E slice. The only real problem with it is that it can break premise pairs which would otherwise make solving domino much easier

That's exactly what SLS does.

@Micki what is C2gr?

It's @zz_ 's CP redux+EO method

Not sure if this ought to go here or in the big cubes discussion thread, but it's a slight variant on redux, so I'm going with (possibly) new substep. I've tried 2 solves on 6x6 and 1 on 7x7, and both are pretty much in line with my regular redux times. I suspect with practice it could get better than redux, although it's almost certainly not useful for 4x4 and 5x5, and might be no improvement at all even for 6 and 7.

Steps:
1. Solve 2 opposite centers
2. solve remaining 4 centers in any order, on 6x6 disregard color scheme
3. Pair first 8 edges with freeslice, using R2, L2, F2, etc. (assuming edge pairing on E rather than M) to flip edges rather than using an alg to maintain center orientation. Place solved edges on U and D faces, as normal.
4. Solve centers, using slice or wide moves and the same R2, L2, F2 moves as for edge pairing. All center pieces will be in 4x1 (for 6x6) or 5x1 (for 7x7) bars.
5. Solve L4E as usual
6. 3x3

Pros:
Lower movecount in F8E pairing
Possibly easier to find pieces, since you normally wouldn't see pieces on the D layer without a cube rotation.

Cons:
Adds a step to regular redux
Potentially more difficult to track unsolved edges, especially after the first 4 edges are solved, and would normally be hidden on the bottom.

This looks interesting and I think it'd be cool to see this implemented though might it not be better to simply build a load of 1x(n-2)s before edge paring and then solve the centres in the way you proposed. The main reason why you might not want to do this is more difficult lookahead when building the "centers".

 

[Micki]

@Micki what is C2gr?

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/complex-2-move-generator-reduction-method-c2gr.66089/

 

[Hazel]

I find that I really like solving the cube 2Gen, so I came up with my own 2GR-type method:
1) standard Roux block (You could do CP or EOBlock, but those are significantly more difficult)
2) Solve DB and CP at the same time, then DB and EO (or vice versa)
3) Solve the cube 2-gen

 

[Micki]

I find that I really like solving the cube 2Gen, so I came up with my own 2GR-type method:
1) standard Roux block (You could do CP or EOBlock, but those are significantly more difficult)
2) Solve DB and CP at the same time, then DB and EO (or vice versa)
3) Solve the cube 2-gen

i think CP is best to do either in the start of the solve so you can recognize it in inspection or at the end of the solve. Doing it in the middle imo is kinda bad since recognition is hard and takes some time

 

[Hazel]

i think CP is best to do either in the start of the solve so you can recognize it in inspection or at the end of the solve. Doing it in the middle imo is kinda bad since recognition is hard and takes some time

Good point, so doing CPblock then EOstripe then 2-gen would be best?

 

[Micki]

Good point, so doing CPblock then EOstripe then 2-gen would be best?

thats Briggs and i think thats one of the best ways of doing it atm. someone posted a method where the steps were something along the lines of this
1: CPline + BLDB edges (can be planned in inspection)
2: EO + FLDF
3: 2gen
i don't remeber who it was and can't really find the post but i think this could have potential since i feel like lookahead for EO is better than Briggs in this method

 

[Thermex]

thats Briggs and i think thats one of the best ways of doing it atm. someone posted a method where the steps were something along the lines of this
1: CPline + BLDB edges (can be planned in inspection)
2: EO + FLDF
3: 2gen
i don't remeber who it was and can't really find the post but i think this could have potential since i feel like lookahead for EO is better than Briggs in this method

I've proposed this before, and if I didn't actually post it I've certainly been thinking about it a lot. I've been practicing this a little with OH. My current idea is this:

1) CPBlock (9/9)
2) EOStripe (9/18)
3) Solve the DR edge and the DBR corner (4/22)
4) Solve the last 5 corners (8/30)
5) L6EP (12/42)

This is 100% psuedo 2-gen after CPFB and very efficient as well, plus there's only around 130-150 algs. Regular 2GR algs also work well for the last two steps.

Quick update on L7E: I've been shifting plans a bit, and after some experimenting I think I've found doing EOLR+L5EP is the best approach to L7E. I'll give more updates when I've finished genning the algs.

 

[Neuro]

In my experence, CPFB is ~13 in speedsolves and ~10 in FMC attempts. EO line would be ~9 but if you use algs it's probably 13 or so. One thing that could make it better is using CTLS. 2G CTLS is pretty easy to recognize but it'd increase the alg count significantly.

My style for CPFB is building a pair in DBL <RUFrufMES>, CP line <RUFruME>, and solve edges <RUruME> Planning full CP line wouldn't be very hard but it'd take a lot of practice to solve full CPFB.

 

[Micki]

2G CTLS is pretty easy to recognize but it'd increase the alg count significantly.

why would CTLS increase alg count?

 

[Neuro]

why would CTLS increase alg count?

It doesn't necessarily have to if you view it like in NMCTLS (viewed as ZBLL) but if someone is wanting to speedsolve with it it would be much easier to recognize it as an individual case

Not much progress on the FMC method, looking at applying full EOLR to 6-flip so it won't be so feared Someone could use all 15 algs or the minimum of 4 if you allow for 1 move setups; whichever sounds better to the user. Further explanation to come

 

[DuJello]

This is a bit off topic but I can't find Summer Variation algs anywhere, does anyone have a pdf or website or something?

 

[Neuro]

Auto and Blazes
Pages 1-7; this doc has full ZZ-C
Original proposal, algs given in later posts (no pics)

 

[applezfall]

This is a new method that is a bit different than cfop the steps are:
1.FP-Solve 4 f2l pairs without caring about centers.This step takes 15 moves on average
2.Cross-Put the cross edges and fix centers.This step takes 12 moves on average
3.OLL-Orient the top layer.This step takes 10 moves on average
4.PLL-Permute the top layer.This step takes 12 moves on average
Average MoveCount:49-50
Pros:lower movecount
not that many resctrictions
you can see most pairs in inspection and you can track the cross edges during the last pair so f2l is mostly pauseless
Cons:Rotations
not fingertrick friendly
In my opinion this is better than cfop but not as good as roux or zz

 

[shadowslice e]

This is pretty much PCMS

 

[applezfall]

This is pretty much PCMS

no in pcms you solve the pairs then top corners but in this method after blocks you solve the cross edges

 

[alwin5b]

@zz_ proposed his c2gr method in this thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/complex-2-move-generator-reduction-method-c2gr.66089/
c2gr:
1. Permute all corners (CP) and make 3x1x1 block (base line) on DL (whole step predicted in pre-inspection)
2. Expand to 3x2x2 block and orient all edges (EO) meanwhile (whole step using <U,u,R,r> moves)
3. Expand to 3x3x2 block (F2L) using <U,R> moves
4. Complete LL (2GLL) using <U,R> moves

but I found that step 2 is too difficult, so I thought why not do step 1 like in the c2gr method (CPLine) then expand the line to a 3x2x1 block on the left while only using <U,u,R,r> moves, then finish with Roux. Except you don't need to do CMLL but can instead use Bruno, Sune, Antisune to twist the corners ( = Petrus step 6).