Sub1Hour
Member
It seems like it. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba#ExplanationI've rediscovered Hawaiian Kociemba?
It seems like it. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba#ExplanationI've rediscovered Hawaiian Kociemba?
I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
Very cool! I wonder what @Cubingcubecuber would think of this. I like that you took a different approach to EO then regular HK does. Okay, now it's my turn to propose a method!I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection is this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)
No, he's made a completely different method because he uses COLL then L5EP. Of course that's a ridiculous statment but it's what you're saying about Briggs and YruRU. Also, Briggs is better than YruRU because you solve CPFB instead of CPLine then finish FB. Also, if you're using the wiki as a proper source, remember that the speedsolving wiki is currerntly not a good wiki. They are not variants of each other they are the same thing and are called Briggs. Doing the same thing with different techniques is the same method. For example, Roux where you exclusively solve DL then the 2 F2L pairs for FB is still Roux. ZZ where you solve EOCross is still ZZ. CFOP where you solve an XCross is still CFOP. Please stop propogating false information and call it Briggs.This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)
Hawaiian Kociemba variant:
Arrow(EO Arrow without EO, empty spot in DF)
F2L with M slice pairing so rotationless
HKOLL
HKPLL
I will call it Hawaiian CFOP
I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lolI just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
lol we independently stumbled across the method with the same name too, hive mind method developing.I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lol
they are the same thing
Hypocrisy much?Briggs is better than YruRU
CPFB in 15-second inspection is not feasible, no question. Even if you trace CP through FB which will drastically slow you down; you’ll still have to know initial CP and plan FB (And I’m not even counting the horrible pause you’ll have during EO). People have done that successfully and consistently? Others who have genuinely done CP will know those people are lying.you solve CPFB instead of CPLine
.I guess it’s time for me to step in now.
Hypocrisy much?
CPFB in 15-second inspection is not feasible, no question. Even if you trace CP through FB which will drastically slow you down; you’ll still have to know initial CP and plan FB (And I’m not even counting the horrible pause you’ll have during EO). People have done that successfully and consistently? Others who have genuinely done CP will know those people are lying.
Now here’s the real point:
Once you do CP in the start of the solve, there are literally just 2 ways to sensibly do the rest of the solve; either reduce to rRU to RU, or reduce to rRU to MU. It doesn’t take a genius to figure those out. So, the only place where a method developer has to put any amount of effort at all, is in deciding how to do CP.
TLDR: the only difference between two CP-first methods can be the way CP is done, the rest of the solve is dead-obvious.
Now, it has been established I believe beyond any scope of doubt that YruRU’s way of handling CP is objectively far superior to any other system, like 2GR.
The entire method reduces to how CP is done, and if there’s some sort of a weightage in deciding whether a method is new, almost all the weightage in this case goes to how CP is done, because there’s literally no new concept in the rest of the solve.
So, what did Briggs do? In this context, I shamelessly argue, nothing. CP wasn’t a new concept in 2015 either. After CP there are only 2 ways to continue the solve, both trivial, this is universally obvious. Then why call this method Briggs? The only reason can be, he provided objectively the best way to do CP; absolutely nothing else can grant him the method name, because there is nothing else to be done here.
But then what’s the best way (and I say objectively) to do CP-first now? That’s YruRU. That’s literally what the same stands for. The ruRU stands for the reduction to [r,u,R,U]; the name of the method is the name of that step because that step is the method.
I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lol
Briggs was the standard, YruRu differed from that. You can't have a standard with something that hasn't been invented.Technically they are variants of each other. Briggs came first but YruRu is a variant of Briggs and by definition Briggs is a variant of YruRu. Here is the definition of variation: "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard." Nothing in this definition mentions anything about chronological orders.
Conveniently sidelining my point to place your analogies is a bad way to debate as well. As for my claim on lying, all I mean is if people jump in saying they have done it rather than they think it’s possible to do it, then without sufficient proof my null hypothesis will be to assume that they’re lying. This is because, as you pointed out, it is ridiculously hard to do and at the very least requires tons of dedicated practice just for this step, which I’m not aware of anyone has put in. In any case, it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of this kind unless interacting in person or video call..
They are the same thing in the sense of CFOP with an XCross is the same as CFOP with Cross. Briggs is better because CPFB which is definitely viable in inspection. It's not easy, but viable. Also, I have done CP properly and I can confirm that CPFB in inspection is viable. Inspect CP in 2 seconds (and this is possible, just as I can inspect EO in 2 seconds), find a square in 4 (done by Rouxers consistently), trace CP and the final edge through the square (4 seconds) then you know when to insert the edge into the pair. Yes, I think that it's possible. Also yes, you will have a horrible pause before EO in LEOR, Briggs or your version of Briggs which is why this is not speedsolving viable. Yes, tricks can reduce that but not enough imo. That's why LEOR is the best out of all these because it's feasible to inspect FB and at least some of EO consistently.
Using your example, if I solve ZZ EO using set ups to MU and someone else does EO the normal way, they don't use different methods. If I inspect cross then a pair and someone else inspects a 2x2x2 then the rest of the cross, they don't use different methods. If someone inspecs FB then places DFDB and carrys on with Petrus, they're using Petrus.
I would also agree that Briggs wasn't a new concept, rather a rediscovered concept that built on ideas but it came first and it's the best name we have and is the standard name. It works. I'm fine with your way of doing CP being called the YruRU style or whatever though.
I still don't think that YruRU is the best way to do CP because they're all the same at the end of the day, with some systems allowing for different things such as tracking CP (2GR system) or CP when DL corners are solved (YruRU) and they can pretty much be fused together to make the same thing.
One more thing, calling your opponent a liar is a bad way to debate because you're attacking the mesenger not the message.
They are very similar. In your method, you would rotate or use F/B moves for F2L cases with misoriented edges. It is objectively better to do a M' to orient it. For L9P, you use 3 Looks, where as I would use 2. It is better to do HKOLL because recognition is faster. Also, if you did a CLL type thing before EO, you could lower the movecount(Like F R U R' U' F' vs R2 D' R U R' D R U R U' R' U' R). If you want, I can give you access to my HKOLL doc in progress.Wait, you used
1. Arrow without EO
2. M U gen F2L
3. HKOLL
4. HKPLL
I used
1. Arrow without EO
2. Normal F2L
3. Roux EO
4. COLL then L5EP
how is it the exact same method?
BB is still AA. Briggs doesn't use comms. It used comms in it's original inception but has been updated, even if not on the wiki. Briggs is just solving CPFB (which YruRU does in 2 steps) EODFDB (which YruRU does), right block (again, done in YruRU) then 2GLL (again again, done by YruRU). Every step of the way YruRU is identical to Briggs just with a breakdown of the first step into 2.Conveniently sidelining my point to place your analogies is a bad way to debate as well. As for my claim on lying, all I mean is if people jump in saying they have done it rather than they think it’s possible to do it, then without sufficient proof my null hypothesis will be to assume that they’re lying. This is because, as you pointed out, it is ridiculously hard to do and at the very least requires tons of dedicated practice just for this step, which I’m not aware of anyone has put in. In any case, it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of this kind unless interacting in person or video call.
For now, putting aside the viability of sub15 CPFB and whether the YruRU way is objectively the best; let’s take the analogies you made to show you my point in those.
The concept of EO-first to reduce to LUR I presume was floating from before 2000. Let’s say in 2005, a person “came up with the way” to do EO with set-ups to MU since this way of doing it is known through Roux; and simultaneously place DBDF so that the cube is reduced to LUR. Then, do LB, RB, LL; because that’s like the obvious skeleton that follows. This person called this method AA, their initials.
Come 2006, another person finds a way to do EO using F, B moves; and simultaneously place DBDF. Then follows with LB, RB, LL. This person calls this method BB, their initials.
Now, BB is quite similar to AA, but has an element that is completely new and novel. Also, whether BB is speedsolving viable is up for debate even today, but it is objectively a better approach than AA. Would you rather AA stay the name or BB or keep them separate?
(I’m not sure about the history of cubing but afaik a similar thing happened with CFOP on discovery of F2L and they stuck with the latter option of keeping them separate and seeing which idea performs better)
This situation is just that. The crux of the method is that one CP step, the rest is mere embellishment. YruRU’s way you may not agree is supreme for now, but it at the very least is better than Briggs’ way; which is just comms, which we know is like the brute force way of doing CP. Whether YruRU is speedsolving viable is up for debate, but it certainly is miles ahead of Briggs; and it doesn’t build on it in the least. What would you rather here?
I've also proposed the Exact same l5e method like a month ago lol with the same stepsI just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.
That's a 3LLL form of CFOP LL with Roux Elements. better to do Roux EO then L5EP.The simple version of l5e and last layer is make sure that the bottom edge is oriented than do an oll than a pll and finish with lse.
Sorry I didn't remember the exacts but I did the f2l differently I did like petrus 2x2x3 and than the last two pairs normally instead of arrow, than of course cmll than lseThat's a 3LLL form of CFOP LL with Roux Elements. better to do Roux EO then L5EP.