PapaSmurf
Member
That isn't a new method, and there's gonna be a video comparing zz to CFOP/Roux, and why it's better and/or equal to them soon.
Why do you think so? (that there's gonna be a video about zz and why it's better and/or equal to CFOP/Roux)That isn't a new method, and there's gonna be a video comparing zz to CFOP/Roux, and why it's better and/or equal to them soon.
You might not care, but for reference, this is basically full CPLS + 2GLL.I am studying about a new aproach to solve the cube. Maybe somebody has used and named it before me, I don't know and I don't care.
#2 is absolutely, 100% the faster option if you can put time into practising it. It's essentially two-sided recognition, whereas the other one (finding two edges) is three-sided/four-sided.For the 4th stage, there are two recognition alternatives.
1. Look the colors for URF corner and find the edges in the same colors.
2. Look the UF and UR edges, and determine the right position of them using the URF corner colors.
Both have pros and cons. You can try and notice them yourself. I want to ask you which was easier. Not logicaly but in practice.
The images have the same algorithm but different recognition techniques.
R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R'
You might not care, but for reference, this is basically full CPLS + 2GLL.
The case you have in your pictures is easily identified by the lack of bars, as well as the H-perm-like pattern around the oriented corner.
However, if you're asking for "easier", looking for bars and other obvious patterns is the easiest, imo. The case you have in your pictures is easily identified by the lack of bars, as well as the H-perm-like pattern around the oriented corner.
If you look at the case solved by R' U' R U R U R' U' R' U R U R U' R', it has two bars: one on the front face and one on the back face. The case solved by R U R' U R U2 R' has three bars. This case has no bars, but the edges around the oriented corner are adjacent colours rather than opposite colours.Can you expand the explanation?
This is known as the Waterman methodMaybe this is dumb and not new but what about:
First layer, CLL, L8E (3style last 8 edges or: 2e, 2e, ELL)
can be fun, maybe a viable alternative to L2L4 and mostly intuitive method
If you look at the case solved by R' U' R U R U R' U' R' U R U R U' R', it has two bars: one on the front face and one on the back face. The case solved by R U R' U R U2 R' has three bars. This case has no bars, but the edges around the oriented corner are adjacent colours rather than opposite colours.
You can make a flowchart to determine which case you have, based on matching/adjacent/opposite colour patterns and the number of bars you can see. It's not the fastest method of recognising 2GLL cases (or ZBLL in general), however.
Isn't this 'improved' version just Keyhole followed by L5C/L5E? Solving the last F2L pair normally and following it with last layer is probably better, or maybe MGLS.As we’re talking about LBL methods, here’s one which genuinely could be good:
1) layer (10)
2) edge (6)
3) 2 edges (10)
4) CFRLL - CLL but ignoring FR (not my original idea) (10.75)
5) L5E (12.5)
In total 49.25 moves. An improvement would be solve layer- corner then do L5C L5E.
That would make it more like this:
layer-corner (9)
Edge (6)
2 edges (8)
L5C (12)
L5E (12.5)
Which is 47.5. it saves 2 moves, and could make the third step less algorithmic.
Advantages: it's mostly algorithmic, as the first 2 steps are intuitive, then alg spam, so high tps. More efficient than cfop by a large amount.
Disadvantages: lots of algs (approx 370), and if you switch to the (probably) better L5C variant, it's around 951 algs. Which is a lot, although some of them are short (eg R U' R').
Edge Orientation Last Slot? I'd heard about Phasing, but not remember. Maybe it is what you mean.EOLS during f2l to orient other f2l edges
Maybe not using EOLS properly, but influencing F2L pairs is already a very common trick. Using full Eols wouldn't be very useful most of the time as inserting the pair and dealing with the next one would be better than rotationlessAnother silly idea: using EOLS during f2l to orient other f2l edges so you can do rotationless f2l.
It is just improved keyhole. It is definitely better to do L5C->L5E, as one less look and less moves by a long way. Also, L5E algs are out there and are good.Isn't this 'improved' version just Keyhole followed by L5C/L5E? Solving the last F2L pair normally and following it with last layer is probably better, or maybe MGLS.
indeedMaybe not using EOLS properly, but influencing F2L pairs is already a very common trick. Using full Eols wouldn't be very useful most of the time as inserting the pair and dealing with the next one would be better than rotationless