The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Abram Lookadoo]

I don’t like the way of doing f2l and I’m confused to how you’ll track the edge pieces’ permutation, but I do like the idea of ollep, although I have no idea how good or bad the recognition/algs are (I feel like algs would be good and recognition bad), although there’s the question of what’s better out of cpll and epll (when comparing to ollcp).

i am solving f2l this way so that if one pair is bad you could solve the other two.

you track the ep so you can just look at the oll and already know the ep

the full ollcp/ollep will take too long to calculate, but epll is better than cpll. (both have the same skip chance)

 

[Teoidus]

or you could just use petrus

 

[PapaSmurf]

What I mean with the f2l, is why can’t I just do cfop style f2l? And secondly, you say “you track the ep so you can look at the oll and already know the ep”, but how do you actually do that? I guess if you do phasing ignoring eo, that would reduce the cases to 3, but (from what I know) there’s no way you can reduce the cube and keep ep like you can with cp. Similarly, tracking the “edge permutation” will probably be unnecessary, like tracking cp. Just recognise it. Unless it’s 2gr.

[EDIT] made it better.

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

What I mean with the f2l, is why can’t I just do cfop style f2l? And secondly, you say “you track the ep so you can look at the oll and already know the ep”, but how do you actually do that? I guess if you do phasing ignoring eo, that would reduce the cases to 3, but (from what I know) there’s no way you can reduce the cube and keep ep like you can with cp. Similarly, tracking the “edge permutation” will probably be unnecessary.

i don't like cfop f2l, it is not flexible enough

you have to track each individual edge, or track them like 3 gen cp tracking, knowing witch 2 have to swap, and what happens to the swap for every possible move.

edge permutation has a 1/4 chance to involve looking at 3 sides (if you dont know corner permutation)
thats why im tracking it

 

[genericcuber666]

i don't like cfop f2l, it is not flexible enough

so why not use a petrus/roux/zz/pcms/m-cell/freefop style f2l

ollep probably isnt the best idea, as if you use oll you only need to see 2 sides but the increase in recognition time for identifying the 3rd side will take too long to be wroth it as cpll isnt exactly amazing

 

[PapaSmurf]

I see what you’re saying, but petrus f2l is very flexible, as is zz, and kind of roux (well, blocks), and zbll works well with all 3 (as does ollcp with roux in pinkie pie), so I don’t see what this method has over these three. Or cfop.

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

so why not use a petrus/roux/zz/pcms/m-cell/freefop style f2l

ollep probably isnt the best idea, as if you use oll you only need to see 2 sides but the increase in recognition time for identifying the 3rd side will take too long to be wroth it as cpll isnt exactly amazing

petrus oriente edges takes too long too recognize
roux trying to top
pcms L8e is hard to navigate
m-cell trying to top
freefop 2x3x3 block cant be seen from inspection

for ollep i am tracking ep from the last step. it's suprisingly easy so far

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

I see what you’re saying, but petrus f2l is very flexible, as is zz, and kind of roux (well, blocks), and zbll works well with all 3 (as does ollcp with roux in pinkie pie), so I don’t see what this method has over these three. Or cfop.

zz too many regrips for f2l
pinkie pie roux reducing to <M2,U> too early is less efficient

 

[PapaSmurf]

<sort of rant type thing>
Petrus eo is actually very easy to recognise. Very easy. It takes me two seconds at most to do petrus eo. My comp pb is sub 10 and with petrus, so trust me on this. ZZ f2l regrips aren’t a massive issue for me. I regrip barely more than a cfoper, and I don’t rotate. Freefop and petrus can be used in conjunction with each other, as long as you know oll. I get your doubts about pcms. Pinkie pie can be very fast, Kian Mansour thinks so and he is definitely the best roux solver. I kinda know mcell, but I know that it could probably be fast.

Using your logic though: bpsl - awkward f2l with weird lookahead. The 2x2x2 and the two pairs can’t be seen in inspection.

</sort of rant type thing>

 

[Noa]

Original post
I've thought about a way to do LL + LS quite quickly. My idea is to orient and permute the corners while inserting LS, then there's 4 OLLs you can get from there(one of them being OLL solved completely). Then use ELL to orient and permute the LL edges. That would be LS, OLL and PLL solved in 2 algorithms.

I just can't find a method that orients and permutes the corners while inserting LS. If anyboody know of such methods please tell me.

It would also be great if somebody could teach me how you find all the possible cases. E.g. how would you go about finding all the possible cases for PLL.
This is if there isn't any method out there that meets my requirements, I will maybe be able to make it myself.

2nd post
I have done some work and I am pretty sure, that for a method that orients and permutes the LL corners while inserting LS, while egnoring LL edges, there wil be 324 unique cases. I haven't done the math, since i don't know how, therefore I am not sure if there is only 324 cases. If anyone could do the math i would really appreciate it.

I did this by using Cube Explorer and making it figure out a lot of generators for cases where the LS corner and edge are paired up and in LL right about the slot they're supposed to go in to. I let it go on to find about 130.000 generators, out of those 130.000 there were 324 unique cases. But I'm still not sure if there are more.

I think, but I'm not sure that i am the first to do this method, I was thinking of calling it HVLS(Hansen Vejlø Last Slot((Hansen for the guy whom helped me make this method and Vejlø for myself)). An alternative name would be COPLS(Corners Permutation and Orientation Last Slot), OPCLS(Orientation and Permutation of Corners Last Slot) or CLLLS(Corners Last Layer Last Slot).
If I'm not the first to come up with this, please feel free to correct me, i will gladly credit him/her.

I will be learning these 324 algorithms over this and next year(I'm not that fast a learning algorithms, so it'll take a while), if there is found more cases I will certainly learn those as well. I hope this will become a replacement for the normal LS + OLL + PLL, though the Alg. count is quite high.

 

[genericcuber666]

@Abram Lookadoo pro tip, use your method for a week, then if there is a flaw fix it, if not then post it here. Dont post unfinished methods. thanks.

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

Using your logic though: bpsl - awkward f2l with weird lookahead. The 2x2x2 and the two pairs can’t be seen in inspection.

you will have to track one pair and hope another jumps right into your vision

It takes me two seconds at most to do petrus eo.

two seconds is a really long time for speedsolving

ZZ f2l regrips aren’t a massive issue for me

it must just be the way I'm forming the sides then

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

@Abram Lookadoo pro tip, use your method for a week, then if there is a flaw fix it, if not then post it here. Dont post unfinished methods. thanks.

i do not see any flaws with my methed

and you're not a pro.
you do not get paid for doing this.
this is not a pro tip.

 

[genericcuber666]

i do not see any flaws with my methed

and you're not a pro.
you do not get paid for doing this.
this is not a pro tip.

in that case let me (a pro) help you!

1) 2x2x2 block
create a 2x2x2 block in DBL

this step is fine nothing to say about it

2) pairs
a) build 2 of the 3 f2l pairs

b (if adjacent when solved) place the two pairs along with the shared edge piece
---(if not adjacent when solved) place the two pairs and any D layer edge piece in place

this is the route of alot of your problems for the method (in my pro opinion), in the two best cases you will have df or dr unsolved, however you have solved 3 pairs at this point making it awkward to do the next step.

3) square
solve f2l while tracking the edge permutation of the last layer

again, this step is akward due to what has been solved previously, in adition ep tracking is not nice, i use zzll which involves phasing, which is tracking two ll peices in ls, however adding a third edge and F moves would mean having to see a third side and would vastly reduces lookahead.

if you want to use your ll improve this step (but dont use your ll because...)

4) ollep
solve oll while permuting the edges (1/331? algs)

5) cpll
(1/12 skip) if not solved permute the last corners (1/4 algs)

this ll is not good, if you wanted to track something in your 3rd step tracking eo and forcing zbll would be better, it seems your overestimating how good zblls, ignoring eo, are. furthermore recognizing zblls without eo will be slow. VERY slow.





tl;dr
the first step is good, but petrus follows up better

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

in that case let me (a pro) help you!

are you really paid for making and calculating the usefulness of new methods.

this is the route of alot of your problems for the method (in my pro opinion), in the two best cases you will have df or dr unsolved, however you have solved 3 pairs at this point making it awkward to do the next step.

all the cases are the same either y-rotated or mirrored or both. there is none better than another.

again, this step is akward due to what has been solved previously, in adition ep tracking is not nice, i use zzll which involves phasing, which is tracking two ll peices in ls, however adding a third edge and F moves would mean having to see a third side and would vastly reduces lookahead.
if you want to use your ll improve this step (but dont use your ll because...)

this step is not awkward at all. after you complete the previous step you are left with the same as if you are using m-cell. for the ep tracking, you still have to follow only two pieces and with each set of moves the pieces you follow change. and with enough practice can be read this fluently. and in tracking i mean following their permutation through the step so you can use the knowlage for the next step

this ll is not good, if you wanted to track something in your 3rd step tracking eo and forcing zbll would be better, it seems your overestimating how good zblls, ignoring eo, are. furthermore recognizing zblls without eo will be slow. VERY slow.

i am not even using ll-eo in this method at all. they are however faster than zblls (if you get an eo skip)

 

[Thom S.]

new method (BPSL)

1) 2x2x2 block
create a 2x2x2 block in DBL

2) pairs
a) build 2 of the 3 f2l pairs

b (if adjacent when solved) place the two pairs along with the shared edge piece
---(if not adjacent when solved) place the two pairs and any D layer edge piece in place

3) square
solve f2l while tracking the edge permutation of the last layer

4) ollep
solve oll while permuting the edges (1/331? algs)

5) cpll
(1/12 skip) if not solved permute the last corners (1/4 algs)

Like said, your way of doing F2L is a bit weird but there is one thing I can't stand

any D layer edge piece in place

I mean, there are situations, where this is usegul to reduce Algorithm sets, but usually it's a bad idea. Think about it, why would you solve a piece in the wrong spot to solve it again? It doesn't make sense.

i do not see any flaws with my methed

You know the saying
Four eyes see more then two
? We can see flaws you can't see and we try to help you optimize your method by telling you them

they are however faster than zblls (if you get an eo skip)

Do we have to go over this again? If you have a faster time when getting a skip you should either have ridiculous skip chances(kind of like in ZZ-CT) or you have a considerably worse step. The Content of your sentense compares to the following
I don't learn OLL and PLL because I could just get a LL skip and don't need them then.

and you're not a pro.
you do not get paid for doing this.
this is not a pro tip.

Backstabbing: Are you a pro in reading the profession and salary of a person just by seing his post?

are you really paid for making and calculating the usefulness of new methods.

Indeed I do. I am Part of the
Totally Official ,Not A Gag National International Rubik's Cube And Other Twisty Puzzles New Methology Corporation TM and I get paid 6 dollars an hour to tslk to people about their methods. But let's ask you
Would you get paid if you talk to your customers the way you talk to us?

 

[Abram Lookadoo]

Like said, your way of doing F2L is a bit weird but there is one thing I can't stand

you could solve it like m-cell if you want

I mean, there are situations, where this is usegul to reduce Algorithm sets, but usually it's a bad idea. Think about it, why would you solve a piece in the wrong spot to solve it again? It doesn't make sense.

you never place a wrong edge in this method. it says "any D layer edge piece in place". it never says put it in any place. it means solve the D-edge

You know the saying
Four eyes see more then two
? We can see flaws you can't see and we try to help you optimize your method by telling you them

i have never heard that saying, so i don't know it.

Do we have to go over this again? If you have a faster time when getting a skip you should either have ridiculous skip chances(kind of like in ZZ-CT) or you have a considerably worse step. The Content of your sentense compares to the following
I don't learn OLL and PLL because I could just get a LL skip and don't need them then.

this is not a good comparison. 1/15552 is too unlikely to happen in a tournament, while 1/8 is.

Backstabbing: Are you a pro in reading the profession and salary of a person just by seing his post?

i just can not stand that phrase, and feel the need to counter them strongly. and no to the second part.

Indeed I do. I am Part of the
Totally Official ,Not A Gag National International Rubik's Cube And Other Twisty Puzzles New Methology Corporation TM and I get paid 6 dollars an hour to tslk to people about their methods. But let's ask you
Would you get paid if you talk to your customers the way you talk to us?

never heard of the corporation.
i don't get paid for this, so i don't know.

 

[Teoidus]

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just this dense lol

 

[Tao Yu]

I've thought about a way to do LL + LS quite quickly. My idea is to orient and permute the corners while inserting LS, then there's 4 OLLs you can get from there(one of them being OLL solved completely). Then use ELL to orient and permute the LL edges. That would be LS, OLL and PLL solved in 2 algorithms.

I just can't find a method that orients and permutes the corners while inserting LS. If anyboody know of such methods please tell me.

It would also be great if somebody could teach me how you find all the possible cases. E.g. how would you go about finding all the possible cases for PLL.
This is if there isn't any method out there that meets my requirements, I will maybe be able to make it myself.

You could first make a pair and then use WVCP to orient and permute the corners.

You should check out COALL. It's somewhat similar to your idea.

 

[Arc]

zz too many regrips for f2l

ZZ f2l regrips aren’t a massive issue for me. I regrip barely more than a cfoper, and I don’t rotate.

My 2 cents here.
Try doing linear blocks. Plan all the way through EOLine + DL in inspection and then track one of the two LB pairs and then build it (which is like 7/8 times pure RU, 1/8 maybe one L), insert it and open slot (make sure you don't hide pieces to the other pair though). Finish up your second pair (always pure RU) and insert it with a single L. Continue as if you had just done the rotation after Petrus EO.

If there's something really super duper easy for RB, I'll just build RB first (which is a lot more L than building LB first unfortunately but it's still not switchy which is where the regrips are from) and then do a z. I'm y2 z neutral (in general, for ZZ I only solve red top/white front) so it's not weird for me at all. Might be weird if you're not z neutral at all.

A common misconception is that it's less efficient to do this. Well there is some truth to that. What is not true is that it is inherently less efficient to do one block at a time. However you are much more restricted on which pairs you build, meaning you have fewer options and are less likely to have an easier case available. That is where efficiency drops a little. But in reality, are you really looking at all 8 possible pairs after EOLine to find the most efficient? Nah you just go with the first you see, otherwise you end up with huge pauses.