The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Thermex]

Good, I see that there are different opinions on this Topic.
anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?

What exactly do you mean by "wings"?

 

[pizo45]

magic roux columns (MRC)

1. make a 1x2x3 block on the left
2. make a 1x2x2 block on the right and put it in the back
3. make an F2L pair and put it in and at the same time solve the corners
4. do the last 6 edges

basically like roux but you skip the corner step

 

[Thermex]

magic roux columns (MRC)

1. make a 1x2x3 block on the left
2. make a 1x2x2 block on the right and put it in the back
3. make an F2L pair and put it in and at the same time solve the corners
4. do the last 6 edges

basically like roux but you skip the corner step

This has been thought of before, and although pretty efficient, it's not really worth learning. The algs for step three have already been created, they're known as "WVCP". The main problem with this method is that inserting the pair and then doing CMLL only adds about 1-2 moves (at most) with hundreds less algs than with WVCP.

 

[Thom S.]

What exactly do you mean by "wings"?

Wings are the outer edges(/dedges for even layers) on Big Cubes

 

[Thermex]

Wings are the outer edges(/dedges for even layers) on Big Cubes

If the edges have already been paired, you could do ELL. Otherwise, I don't think such an algset exists for when the edges aren't paired (though you might be able to use some sort of commutators to solve them).

 

[Thom S.]

No, unpaired, otherwise I wouldn't ask as it's obvious

 

[Tao Yu]

Good, I see that there are different opinions on this Topic.
anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?

You could use K4 ELL for this. I don't know of a way that does the orientation and permutation separately though.

 

[xyzzy]

anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?

Christopher Mowla might have some algs, some of which are on the hyper detailed parity page on the wiki. (He doesn't seem to check this forum anymore, but he still posts on r/cubers every so often when people talk about parity.)

Tom Rokicki also has a (seemingly random?) collection of ELL algs: http://tomas.rokicki.com/ell4x4.html

 

[Arc]

Now that I come to think of it, for ZBroux, what if we make a CP Block as our FB and after EO+DFDB we only get 2GLL cases?

An interesting proposition, but one that's been done before! Unfortunately the difference between ZBLL and 2GLL is not incredibly huge for 2H. This method (I'm partial to the name 2GRoux) is very similar in virtually every aspect to ZBRoux, with largely the same advantages and disadvantages.

I should just make a post with all the commonly proposed Roux/CFOP/etc hybrids...

anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?

I don't know of a way that does the orientation and permutation separately though.

Wings do not have orientation. It is physically impossible to have a wing be flipped the wrong direction in the correct place because the piece is not symmetric.

That said, 4x4 ELL is far too large of a set to learn feasibly (~40k algs). I don't know of any 2-look set for it, but K4 ELL is a pretty decent 3-look solution.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Squan method thoughts
1- Cubeshape is the mandatory first step. Why? In cubeshape, pieces are easily manipulated, and no other shape really has this power. Also, the solved position is in cubeshape.
2- In squan, no posititions are particularly more ergonomic to solve, aside from existing CE pairs and lack of parity. (Kind of an educated guess)
3- Cubeshape parity is pretty much the best thing you can do at the start of your solve. It improves ergonomics, and what else can be done? The only other feasible things are really useless, like corner separation.
4- In squan, the predominant method (after cubeshape) is to use easy algs (corner and edge separation, corner permutation) to get to a state you know an alg for (EP).
5 (grand finale)- Let's make a method that gets down to a feasible number of cases as quickly as possible. Basically, I'll make a bunch of templates like "solve these blocks and separate these pieces" and play around with them.
EDIT: Woah.
1) Cubeshape+parity
2) Solve corners and 1 edge in each layer
3) Solve edges with one of less than 360 algs (6!/2, but for instance there are 4 cases that are just adj/adj EPBL)
The way the second step is done is pretty awesome. First, you bring corners into a position such that there are V CO cases, and apply an HD case. The cool thing here is that the way these algs are done is similar to regular CP algs: it moves around CE pairs (see exception #1 to point 2), and you can abuse misalignments to preserve readymade blocks. The downside here is that there are some limitations due to the corners changing layers; you can not, for instance, preserve a block in DFR and DF block at the same time as a block in UFR and UF. If you don't solve both edges, you can just solve them with a quick M2 after corners.

 

[Thermex]

An interesting proposition, but one that's been done before! Unfortunately the difference between ZBLL and 2GLL is not incredibly huge for 2H. This method (I'm partial to the name 2GRoux) is very similar in virtually every aspect to ZBRoux, with largely the same advantages and disadvantages.

I should just make a post with all the commonly proposed Roux/CFOP/etc hybrids...



Wings do not have orientation. It is physically impossible to have a wing be flipped the wrong direction in the correct place because the piece is not symmetric.

That said, 4x4 ELL is far too large of a set to learn feasibly (~40k algs). I don't know of any 2-look set for it, but K4 ELL is a pretty decent 3-look solution.

I sort of figured this would be the case considering manipulating 12 pieces at once is way too many for a sub-1000 algset. Here's a question I have though: is there an algset for three wings? This sounds more feasible and could be useful in someway probably, but idk it might be way too many algs.

Squan method thoughts
1- Cubeshape is the mandatory first step. Why? In cubeshape, pieces are easily manipulated, and no other shape really has this power. Also, the solved position is in cubeshape.
2- In squan, no posititions are particularly more ergonomic to solve, aside from existing CE pairs and lack of parity. (Kind of an educated guess)
3- Cubeshape parity is pretty much the best thing you can do at the start of your solve. It improves ergonomics, and what else can be done? The only other feasible things are really useless, like corner separation.
4- In squan, the predominant method (after cubeshape) is to use easy algs (corner and edge separation, corner permutation) to get to a state you know an alg for (EP).
5 (grand finale)- Let's make a method that gets down to a feasible number of cases as quickly as possible. Basically, I'll make a bunch of templates like "solve these blocks and separate these pieces" and play around with them.
EDIT: Woah.
1) Cubeshape+parity
2) Solve corners and 1 edge in each layer
3) Solve edges with one of less than 360 algs (6!/2, but for instance there are 4 cases that are just adj/adj EPBL)
The way the second step is done is pretty awesome. First, you bring corners into a position such that there are V CO cases, and apply an HD case. The cool thing here is that the way these algs are done is similar to regular CP algs: it moves around CE pairs (see exception #1 to point 2), and you can abuse misalignments to preserve readymade blocks. The downside here is that there are some limitations due to the corners changing layers; you can not, for instance, preserve a block in DFR and DF block at the same time as a block in UFR and UF. If you don't solve both edges, you can just solve them with a quick M2 after corners.

I've had similar thoughts; it seems cubeshape is the only good way to start out a solve; doing it at the end is terrible since preserving positions of pieces but not the shape of them is very very difficult. I think NLL (from HD) is a great set for squan, and my favorite current method template is cubeshape -> blocks -> corners with HD -> edges. I've had a couple of cool ideas using this layout, problem is I can't really figure out how to affect/not affect blocks in step 3. I also don't 100% understand the second step of your method there, but it sounds pretty cool and a lot like something I proposed a page or two ago.

 

[xyzzy]

1- Cubeshape is the mandatory first step. Why? In cubeshape, pieces are easily manipulated, and no other shape really has this power. Also, the solved position is in cubeshape.

Counterpoint: the Yoyleberry method stays mostly among the paired-edges shapes rather than square-square, and goes into square-square only at the end.

That said, 4x4 ELL is far too large of a set to learn feasibly (~40k algs). I don't know of any 2-look set for it, but K4 ELL is a pretty decent 3-look solution.

I think a potential issue with a 2-look ELL system is that any easily recognisable first look (that I can think of) will lead to some cases that suck in the second look. Unlike on a 3×3×3, we can't optimally solve general ELL cases in a reasonable amount of time, much less generate loads of algs in order to choose the speed-optimal ones, so most of the algs we get are of one of these forms:

• 3-cycle commutator (e.g. r U R' U' 2R' U R U' R')
• 2+2-cycle commutator (e.g. [L U' R 2U2 R' U L', U2])
• Weird commutator (e.g. [r2 F2 r2, U])
  
• 3×3×3 ELL + setup moves (e.g. [b' : UF-UR flip])
• PLL parity + setup moves (e.g. adj swap)
  
• ⟨R, r, L, l, U2, D2, F2, B2⟩ (e.g. parity L2E algs)

This severely limits what we can reasonably do in the second look if we stick to using a single alg.

 

[Thom S.]

Counterpoint: the Yoyleberry method stays mostly among the paired-edges shapes rather than square-square, and goes into square-square only at the end.

Yoyleberry is a bit of an exception as it goes into Square-Square to create the not-Square-Square/12-reduced Situation we want.

What is HD though? I've read about it in this thread but it's not featured in the wiki

 

[Sue Doenim]

Yoyleberry is a bit of an exception as it goes into Square-Square to create the not-Square-Square/12-reduced Situation we want.

What is HD though? I've read about it in this thread but it's not featured in the wiki

Yeah, that's the point I would make. HD is a sweet method for 2x2 where you orient all corners and make sure there are Vs on both faces, then solve the rest in one of 36 algs.
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/HD_Method

 

[Pyjam]

ZZ LSLL method

1. insert edge + phase edges

4 cases including R U R', R U' R', and R U2 R', barely even a step

2. orient corners while preserving phased edges

23 cases, 6 are normal OLLs and the rest are pretty easy

3. TTLL with phased edges

one of 24 TTLL cases


Average movecounts:
step 1: 3 or 4
step 2: 9
step 3: 13 or 14

26 average movecount with less than 50 total algs, and recog is pretty easy

also you have a 1 in 11.4 chance of skipping a step, making it 2-look

Step 2: Why are there 23 cases, and not only 3x7=21?

 

[Reed Merrill]

Great, now can you capitalize things properly?

Salty... This is unnecessarily rude.

 

[Cale S]

Step 2: Why are there 23 cases, and not only 3x7=21?

For 3x3 there are 7 OCLLs, but this doesn't include solved. For the DFR oriented case, there are 7, but the other 2 have 8 each

 

[Pyjam]

Of course. Have you continued with this method? Are you satisfied?

 

[Sue Doenim]

All right, example solve time.
Scramble: (-5, 3)/(-4, 5)/(4, -5)/(0, -3)/(-4, -1)/(6, -5)/(0, -3)/(0, -1)/(4, 0)/(3, -4)/(-4, 0)/(0, -5)/

(0, -1)/(4, -3)/(-3, 2)/(-1, -2)/(0, -3)/ //Cubeshape parity
(4, 0)/ //Make a pair for each layer, make Vs
(-4, -4)/(-3, 0)/(3, -3)/(6, 3)/(-3, 6)/ //Solve corners
At this point, is reduced to L6E. I don't have any algs, so I can't finish. I'll look at reducing to something like L5E, 360 algs is kind of much. Note that another edge can be solved intuitively with (-2, 1)/(-1, -1)/.

 

[Spencer131]

If you solve the corners and you solve 2 edges that are opposite to each other, then you have an lse similar to roux. Assuming you used csp, this would be 90 algs or less. Also, it would only be around 8 algs I think if you solve one of the edges with an m2 first.