• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

When a method or idea is the same or almost the same as a previous one, how does everyone think this should be handled? It used to be that when someone proposed something, that person would be let known that the idea already exists. I've noticed a lot of new methods that have already been proposed before. Now there are so many methods and ideas, maybe not everyone can keep track of them. So it's understandable that things can go unnoticed. If something older is later found, do we let the newer proposer know? Or do we just edit the Wiki and change the name and date? For example, the Skis method. The idea of two 1x1x3s on the D layer is very old. Maybe that can be forgiven, but there is already a full method in the wiki that is exactly the same called VDW. It was developed four years prior to Skis. I feel that the Skis page should be deleted and the VDW page updated. With the Step 3 section mentioning WoowyBaby's alternate way of solving the E edges by pairing them.

www.speedsolving.com

NEW SUPER AMAZING 3X3 METHOD: TICT

Ok so i was experimenting with some stuff and i came up with this super awsome amazing method which i like to call: TICT it stands for T: Twins. You will see more about this if you read on IC: Intuitive corners T: T perm!!!!!! STEP 1: ok so the first step is to get a 1x1x3 block. You can do...
www.speedsolving.com www.speedsolving.com

Two more examples:
1. LEG-1. I developed and posted full EG-1 with bar on the left two years prior to Christopher Olson. Shouldn't the credit go to the first to complete, especially when nothing new is added by the person that has the idea later? In this case, Christopher Olson only popularized it and wasn't the proposer.
2. OC(P)ELL. brododragon recently posted about this. In this case, maybe both deserve proposer credit because Weston posted the idea first without much development, but Conrad had algorithms in his post.
 
Athefre said:
When a method or idea is the same or almost the same as a previous one, how does everyone think this should be handled? It used to be that when someone proposed something, that person would be let known that the idea already exists. I've noticed a lot of new methods that have already been proposed before. Now there are so many methods and ideas, maybe not everyone can keep track of them. So it's understandable that things can go unnoticed. If something older is later found, do we let the newer proposer know? Or do we just edit the Wiki and change the name and date? For example, the Skis method. The idea of two 1x1x3s on the D layer is very old. Maybe that can be forgiven, but there is already a full method in the wiki that is exactly the same called VDW. It was developed four years prior to Skis. I feel that the Skis page should be deleted and the VDW page updated. With the Step 3 section mentioning WoowyBaby's alternate way of solving the E edges by pairing them.

www.speedsolving.com

NEW SUPER AMAZING 3X3 METHOD: TICT

Ok so i was experimenting with some stuff and i came up with this super awsome amazing method which i like to call: TICT it stands for T: Twins. You will see more about this if you read on IC: Intuitive corners T: T perm!!!!!! STEP 1: ok so the first step is to get a 1x1x3 block. You can do...
www.speedsolving.com www.speedsolving.com

Two more examples:
1. LEG-1. I developed and posted full EG-1 with bar on the left two years prior to Christopher Olson. Shouldn't the credit go to the first to complete, especially when nothing new is added by the person that has the idea later? In this case, Christopher Olson only popularized it and wasn't the proposer.
2. OC(P)ELL. brododragon recently posted about this. In this case, maybe both deserve proposer credit because Weston posted the idea first without much development, but Conrad had algorithms in his post.
Click to expand...
I say we take down the duplicate method wiki page, add their name as a proposer, and make a seperately section for them including any unique additions.
 
brododragon said:
What we really need is another section in the description called "Re-inventors/Developers". @pjk?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a few pages back I suggested having a Developer section in the Method box. RedstoneTim said it can be added to the template. Looks like you just edit the template like any other page. I think just adding Developer is enough. Then it can be mentioned somewhere else on the page that the method/step/idea was re-invented. The first paragraph, in a History section, or wherever.

 
Fantastic new method: ZZ-NEO

Steps consist of:
1. NEO Cross
2. F2L
3. EO+OCLL
4. ZBLL subset

One major theme of this method is to put off EO until a later time when it's more easily recognizable and can be fingertricked easily w/o hurting the rest of the solve.

1. NEO Cross
As one major innovation in ZZ is to approach an EO Cross rather than an EO Line, it seemed necessary to include this in an optimized method. However, one clear issue was the lack of ability for most cubers to properly see how to construct an EO Cross, and even then these aren't usually pretty solutions. Then, it seemed necessary to take one of the elements out: EO or Cross. Unfortunately, the EO Line posed quite a few issues as did the EO 3/4 cross in terms of lookahead. Given the excellent lookahead EO Cross gave in F2L, it seemed this was more necessary to approach the solution. To bypass the issue of inspection then, we've foregone EO when solving the cross.

2. F2L
This is one of the major areas of difference from a normal ZZ solve. Because we haven't done EO, we can't use solely RUL moves to solve the puzzle. This may seem like a major drawback, but there are some advantages. For one, the lookahead is practically identical while solving, and a simplified cross allows us to look further into F2L during inspection. Also, the rotations and extra <F> moves we may have to do are only about as negative as regrips when solving pure RUL. Also, since regrips are less common compared to pure RUL, TPS can be improved quite a bit.

3. EO+OCLL
It's in this third step where we finally approach EO after much delay. However, instead of simply solving the EO of four edges on the U face, which is substantially faster than solving EO at the beginning of the solve, we can use this opportunity to simplify the rest of the solving process. We could simply do EO into ZBLL, but this algset is much too large for the average user. Instead, by solving EO and OCLL at the same time, we can not only one-look the step but also provide a significantly easier to manage last step. Because we have corners oriented on the top, recognition is easier and we drop from over 1,000 ZBLLs to a subset of 21.

4. ZBLL-O
This is the subset of ZBLL where all the corners are oriented. Also, the set is quite small (at 21 algs) with extremely simple recognition. In fact, one can recognize every case by looking at only two sides. Also, this is one of the most optimized ZBLL sets around, so it's quite easy to find good algorithms to use.

I hope you like the method and consider switching, I think this is the next revolution in the ZZ solving experience. It might be a little less efficient than normal, but the sheer speed and ease of execution/lookahead makes for a very fluid and fast solving experience.

To learn more and see my list of algorithms, check this spoiler
Happy April Fools Day!
 
Last edited:
Neuro said:
Fantastic new method: ZZ-NEO

Steps consist of:
1. NEO Cross
2. F2L
3. EO+COLL
4. ZBLL subset

One major theme of this method is to put off EO until a later time when it's more easily recognizable and can be fingertricked easily w/o hurting the rest of the solve.

1. NEO Cross
As one major innovation in ZZ is to approach an EO Cross rather than an EO Line, it seemed necessary to include this in an optimized method. However, one clear issue was the lack of ability for most cubers to properly see how to construct an EO Cross, and even then these aren't usually pretty solutions. Then, it seemed necessary to take one of the elements out: EO or Cross. Unfortunately, the EO Line posed quite a few issues as did the EO 3/4 cross in terms of lookahead. Given the excellent lookahead EO Cross gave in F2L, it seemed this was more necessary to approach the solution. To bypass the issue of inspection then, we've foregone EO when solving the cross.

2. F2L
This is one of the major areas of difference from a normal ZZ solve. Because we haven't done EO, we can't use solely RUL moves to solve the puzzle. This may seem like a major drawback, but there are some advantages. For one, the lookahead is practically identical while solving, and a simplified cross allows us to look further into F2L during inspection. Also, the rotations and extra <F> moves we may have to do are only about as negative as regrips when solving pure RUL. Also, since regrips are less common compared to pure RUL, TPS can be improved quite a bit.

3. EO+COLL
It's in this third step where we finally approach EO after much delay. However, instead of simply solving the EO of four edges on the U face, which is substantially faster than solving EO at the beginning of the solve, we can use this opportunity to simplify the rest of the solving process. We could simply do EO into ZBLL, but this algset is much too large for the average user. Instead, by solving EO and COLL at the same time, we can not only one-look the step but also provide a significantly easier to manage last step. Because we have corners oriented on the top, recognition is easier and we drop from over 1,000 ZBLLs to a subset of 21.

4. ZBLL-O
This is the subset of ZBLL where all the corners are oriented. Also, the set is quite small (at 21 algs) with extremely simple recognition. In fact, one can recognize every case by looking at only two sides. Also, this is one of the most optimized ZBLL sets around, so it's quite easy to find good algorithms to use.

I hope you like the method and consider switching, I think this is the next revolution in the ZZ solving experience. It might be a little less efficient than normal, but the sheer speed and ease of execution/lookahead makes for a very fluid and fast solving experience.

To learn more and see my list of algorithms, check this spoiler
Happy April Fools Day!
Click to expand...
I was gonna say wait, this is just CFOP but then I remembered the date lol. GJ man.
 
Neuro said:
Fantastic new method: ZZ-NEO

Steps consist of:
1. NEO Cross
2. F2L
3. EO+COLL
4. ZBLL subset

One major theme of this method is to put off EO until a later time when it's more easily recognizable and can be fingertricked easily w/o hurting the rest of the solve.

1. NEO Cross
As one major innovation in ZZ is to approach an EO Cross rather than an EO Line, it seemed necessary to include this in an optimized method. However, one clear issue was the lack of ability for most cubers to properly see how to construct an EO Cross, and even then these aren't usually pretty solutions. Then, it seemed necessary to take one of the elements out: EO or Cross. Unfortunately, the EO Line posed quite a few issues as did the EO 3/4 cross in terms of lookahead. Given the excellent lookahead EO Cross gave in F2L, it seemed this was more necessary to approach the solution. To bypass the issue of inspection then, we've foregone EO when solving the cross.

2. F2L
This is one of the major areas of difference from a normal ZZ solve. Because we haven't done EO, we can't use solely RUL moves to solve the puzzle. This may seem like a major drawback, but there are some advantages. For one, the lookahead is practically identical while solving, and a simplified cross allows us to look further into F2L during inspection. Also, the rotations and extra <F> moves we may have to do are only about as negative as regrips when solving pure RUL. Also, since regrips are less common compared to pure RUL, TPS can be improved quite a bit.

3. EO+COLL
It's in this third step where we finally approach EO after much delay. However, instead of simply solving the EO of four edges on the U face, which is substantially faster than solving EO at the beginning of the solve, we can use this opportunity to simplify the rest of the solving process. We could simply do EO into ZBLL, but this algset is much too large for the average user. Instead, by solving EO and COLL at the same time, we can not only one-look the step but also provide a significantly easier to manage last step. Because we have corners oriented on the top, recognition is easier and we drop from over 1,000 ZBLLs to a subset of 21.

4. ZBLL-O
This is the subset of ZBLL where all the corners are oriented. Also, the set is quite small (at 21 algs) with extremely simple recognition. In fact, one can recognize every case by looking at only two sides. Also, this is one of the most optimized ZBLL sets around, so it's quite easy to find good algorithms to use.

I hope you like the method and consider switching, I think this is the next revolution in the ZZ solving experience. It might be a little less efficient than normal, but the sheer speed and ease of execution/lookahead makes for a very fluid and fast solving experience.

To learn more and see my list of algorithms, check this spoiler
Happy April Fools Day!
Click to expand...

Well done, except for one thing, COLL solves CP, so we would have only EPLL left. I guess you mean OCLL so.
 
EvanTheCuber said:
I just signed up today. I forgot how to make my own post. How do you do that again? sorry.:oops:
Click to expand...
Method 1:
Go to the section you want to make a post. Then, where you see 'Thread Title', write the name of the post and a text box will pop up a little bit lower where you can write.
Method 2:
On the Forum page, click 'create thread'. Then, select where you want it to go. Finally, make the post.
 
(I previously posted a little about this on a few different threads, but I wanted to expand on that and let it have its own place now.)

The EoCoL8 Method solves the 3x3 cube in the following order of these 3 general steps:
Eo - Orient 12 Edges
Co - Build the 4 Columns
L8 - Permute Last 8 Edges

The first attempt was to assemble already-known cubing steps, that are short and easy to recognize in a fun and simple method.
That is the now the "Beginner" variation. I have since wanted to lower the move count, hence there are now more variations.

I also looked at using algorithms from such sets as: Guimond, L5C, SOAP, Sortega, HD, VOP, etc.
But none of them seemed to provide significant enough improvement.

I have put the variations and other notes in a google doc called "EoCoL8 - Variations" at: http://tinyurl.com/Solvexio


The main variations...

Beginner:
EO - (5) Orient All 12 Edges
CO D - (3) Orient Any 4 Corners on D
CO U - (7) Orient the Other 4 Corners on U (7 algs)
CS - (3) Separate Corners to U and D by Matching Color
CP - (9) Permute Corners Both Layers (8 algs)
E-lyr - (11) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges
DL/DR - (7) Permute the 2 D L/R Edges + centers
UL/UR - (6) Permute the 2 U L/R Edges
EP(m) - (4) Permute the 4 Midges
------------
55 moves (15 algs)


Intermediate 1:
EO - (4) Orient All 12 Edges
CO 3/4 D - (4) Orient 3 D corners, and put the 4th D corner in DRF (oriented or UNoriented)
OL5C - (8)
if DRF is UNoriented... subSS but preserve EO (16 algs)
if all D oriented... OCLL (7 algs)
CP - (9) Permute Corners Both Layers (8 algs)
E-lyr - (10) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges + centers
L8E - (16) Permute the 2 D L/R Edges, 2 U L/R Edges and the 4 Midges
------------
51 moves (31 algs)


Intermediate 2:
EO - (4) Orient All 12 Edges
CDL - (9) Orient and Permute 4 D corners
CMLL - (11) Orient and Permute 4 U corners (42 algs)
E-lyr - (10) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges + centers
L8E - (16) Permute the 2 D L/R Edges, 2 U L/R Edges and the 4 Midges
------------
50 moves (42 algs)


Advanced:
EO - (4) Orient All 12 Edges
3DC - (6) Orient and Permute 3 D corners, (4th white on U) and orient at least one U corner on U
L5C - (10) Orient and Permute (preserve EO) (162? cases, 42 conjugated CxLL algs)
E-lyr - (10) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges + centers
L8E - (15) Permute Last 8 Edges
------------
45 moves (42 algs, but 160+ cases)



I'm open to feedback, corrections, suggestions, etc. if anyone wants to comment.

Thanks!

-= Solvador Cubi
 
I agree, and I now see that there are general similarities to SSC, since both have EO, Columns and L8E. ha! :)
But here the EO is plain and the middle column steps have some differences.
Perhaps these are better classified as SSC variants, That's fine with me.

I'll try to get some example solves up here soon.
 
I created this method as a variant of cf especially lmcf but tried to improve lmcfs lookahead
1. EG+lines, in this step you make an EG style first face plus the left and right edges then perform EG(you may have to reposition the left and right edges at the end of the alg.
2. Transition phase, this step is basically identical to lmcf's transition phase.
3.solve one more edge on each layer(preferably in a pair)
4.L7E

ergonomic
good lookahead
alg carryover from 2x2

reliant on slice moves
high alg count
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The physics of Rubik's Cube to Substep Method Platform
2
Replies
33
Views
1,785
Christopher Mowla
Christopher Mowla
D
Incomplete Substep Method LL Megaminx
Replies
2
Views
299
Deleted member 27249
D
Dane man
Calculating Method/Substep Efficiency
2
Replies
27
Views
8,630
brododragon
brododragon
M
What method is this?
2
Replies
24
Views
6,121
~Adam~
~Adam~
AK51
2.51 world record used 33 moves, it shall be 28 moves using AK-cubie method
Replies
0
Views
220
AK51
AK51
Back
Top