The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Username: Username:]

Yeah, it's definitely worse than doing ZZ. You're doing layer+EO which is already kinda not good, then you're gonna do a step with not super recog then you're gonna do a step with not super recog or algs. As a general rule of thumb, any diag corner swap+edges that aren't in U are going to be majority awful algs.

Oh ok then, and also, I'm not trying to compare to ZZ or anything, ye this might be a bad method anyway D=

 

[semiprime799]

My really bad corners first method that I developed in one day:

1st step
intuitively solve the bottom corners
solve top corners using combination of 3-cycle and orientation algs.
Orientation algs:
[( R’ D’ R D R’ D’ R)(U’ )(R’ D R D’ R’ D R) U] twists UFL CW and UFR CCW
Sune [R U R’ U R U2 R’] twists all corners clockwise I think
3 cycle
Trash commutator 3 cycle [L D R’ D’ R U R’ D R U’ D’ L’]
if you end up with a weird corner case that can't be 3 cycled use setup moves

solve bottom edges intuitively with M/M' and F/D moves

solve E layer edges with [r U R' U' r' R U R U' R'] + some setup moves.

solve last four edges with combination of E slice alg and [M' U2 M U2] also setup moves are allowed.

 

[Metallic Silver]

Has anyone created columns first on SQ-1?

1. Cube Shape
2. Solve all Corners
3. Solve 3 edges on bottom
4. Solve all edges in one alg. (L4E or L5E <--parity)

 

[PapaSmurf]

That's a cool idea. I'll do a few solves.

UPDATE: After doing 2 solves that weren't very good, I think it would be a better idea to do something like this: CSP, corners, DL+DR, L6EP. It ends up being 91 algs for L6EP, 34 for DL+DR and some amount for corners, depending on how you end up solving them. I think this could be a good competitor to Vandenburgh, although it is quite similar to Roux n Screw (but then Roux is quite similar to columns).

 

[Username: Username:]

Fireman method:
FBEO, solving FB + EO, similar to the first step of EOMR, medium
2 corners, solve 2 corners on D, super easy.
FCOLL, do an algset which does COLL and ignores the permutation of 9 edges, easy, 42
solve 3 redges using an algorithm, medium, alternative approach: do the 3 redges intuitively, 27 algorithms.
L6EP, medium, 95 algs approximate, alternative approach but not as good: EOLRb + 4c. 90 algorithms

edit:
3 redges using an alg would be wayyy too much algorithms, so instead of 3, you solve two redges using an alg, insert 3rd redge intuitively, then do L6EP,
but what's different with this and the similar 2 redge using an alg step in the modern Waterman method is that the edges are already oriented, making the algcount very restricted.

edit2:
I've looked over it again, 3 redges using an alg wouldn't be that much? Waterman's step is actually solving 3 edges, LU edge, and 2 redges, which is 100 ish algs, but those edges were not oriented, if they were, 3 redges' algcount wouldn't be much.

edit3:
So, Athefre came up with the idea of solving the 2 corners not on the same layer as FB, but on the D layer, COLL on left will become FCOLL (normal COLL but ignoring the permutation of 9 edges which is super insane) then for the 3 redges step, do it with an alg (same thing in the original proposal), I think the algcount would be somewhere like 27, BRUH 27! WHICH IS COMPLETELY INSANE!!!!!! (solving 3 pieces x 9 positions = 27 cases, the math would be wrong I guess) and by making COLL not on the left, recog would be soooo much better.

edit4:
So LeumaZZ on Discord suggested an idea when you solve the 3 redges, so you solve everything else using an alg (L6EP) dunno, the amount of intuitive steps would be outweighed by the algorithmic steps, too many restrictions are not that good, but the efficiency and TPS for L9P (3 redges + L6EP) is pretty good though

edit5:
bruh the algcount is in the hundreds for the 3 redges step rip my math was completely wrong, although cause of some weird things like AUF and symmetry I think it would be lowered

Fireman ftw!

 

[Athefre]

I don't know how many people will see this, but I wanted to make a post clarifying the differences among conjugation, transformation, and pseudo/non-matching blocks. Recently the terminology has been used interchangeably.

Conjugation:

Conjugation is very broad. This is the general term for A B A'. You perform a setup, do some moves, then undo the setup. You have performed a setup so that you can easily perform the moves in "B". The A setup moves cause the puzzle to be in an offset state, changing the appearance. Then you undo the offset later. However, traditionally there is no further intent within this setup move. It wasn't until around 10 years ago that the technique of offsetting a layer was applied with the intent to reduce large algorithm sets and the overall move count of a method. That is where the term Transformation comes in. It refers to this specific technique.

Transformation:

Transformation is the application of a conjugate to change the state of the cube to gain a large advantage in the future. This is a relatively new term in the community. Transformation technically is conjugation, but there is a big difference in the intent. The reason for the application is completely different from the traditional use of A B A' setup, moves, setup undo. In transformation you are intentionally trying to change a case into another. You are taking advantage of the state of the pieces to improve the rest of the solve. Transformation is used to reduce the number of moves and the number of cases in a method. Conjugation doesn't specifically refer to this intent; it is a general term. Transformation is a different technique under the conjugation umbrella.

Setup = L' U R U' L U R' U'. This is one of the Sune orientation cases. But if you use the URF+UR pair and do an R' turn, you get the below state.

You have now transformed a Sune case into an L case. This is the L case solved by r U R U' L' U R' U'. So if you do r U R U' L' U R' U' then R (which undoes the R' turn in the last example), it will be solved.

Example methods/applications: NMLL, A2, CTLS, 42, and other case reduction applications.

Pseudo/Non-Matching:

This is when pieces are put together in such a way that the colors don't match. This is referring to the building process. We are only talking about the current state of the pieces. It is all about what everything looks like right now - not about your future intent.



Example methods/applications: Roux, Heise, ZZ, FMC, A2, A3, and it can be used in pretty much everything else.

In summary, the difference is in intent. In language, we have many separate words to clarify intention and reason. It is important to understand the differences for clarity. When someone says "conjugated Roux" or "conjugated ZBLL", it isn't clear what is meant and it requires them to provide an explanation. Do they mean Roux/ZZ with non-matching blocks? For Roux, do they mean 42? For ZZ, do they mean CTLS? Or do they mean something else? Because pseudo/non-matching and transformation fall under conjugation, it is important to use the correct term for the specific technique that is being used.

 

[Athefre]

It seems a trend the past few years, possibly unintentionally, has been to develop all of the methods that do EO + left, middle, and right 1x2x3s. Below are the possibilities (without the unnecessary mirrored block order versions):

LMR (L + EO) = Left 1x2x3+EO, M 1x2x3, then right 1x2x3 = EOMR
LMR (M + EO) = LEOR
LMR (R + EO) = ?

MLR (L) = ?
MLR (M) = ZZ
MLR (R) = ? (mirrored version of MLR (L))

LRM (L) = ?
LRM (M) = ZBRoux
LRM (R) = ?

- LMR (R) is just a Petrus variant that has been proposed many times. It is an alternate way to build the 2x2x3.
- MLR (L) and MLR (R) involves doing EO after the line and while solving both blocks. This is a method that I have worked on over the years and I have a few example solves on the forum. It works kind of like XEOCross but with more freedom and possibilities. You plan the line+preserve/create blocks+EO, leading to an easy F2L. The line between this method and ZZ is blurred.
- LRM (L) may be an ok method. Because of the EO, it would probably be easy to recognize and place D edges while solving the right side block. A roux version of this has been proposed where you do EOFB, right block, CMLL, then LSE.
- LRM (R) also might not be too bad of a method, though a little difficult. There are lots of tricks that can be done though. While completing the right side 1x2x2, edges can be oriented while pairing and an oriented edge can be placed at DB while aligning the 1x2x2. Similar tricks apply for the final pair of the 1x2x3.

So it looks like there are a few methods within this family that haven't yet been fully developed.

 

[brododragon]

- LMR (R) is just a Petrus variant that has been proposed many times. It is an alternate way to build the 2x2x3.

Isn't that LEOR?

 

[Athefre]

Isn't that LEOR?

In this, you would solve the left block, then DF+DB, then orient edges while solving the right block. In LEOR you solve the left block, orient edges while solving DF+DB, then solve the right block. It's a different order, just like the rest of the possibilities in the list.

 

[Owen Morrison]

This has probably been thought of before but I couldn't find anything about it so I will post it here:

EO2x2
2x2x3
F2L
ZBLL

Really similar to Petrus except EO is done at the beginning of the solve while solving a 2x2 block instead of after 2x2x3.

This would get rid of EO recog in the middle of the solve while keeping a low movecount.

 

[N's-cvt]

I'm not sure how EO2x2 would work well, but it is nice using inspection to do eo-recog instead of in the middle however the petrus eo step is one of my favorite steps in the big 4 methods

 

[WarriorCatCuber]

This has probably been thought of before but I couldn't find anything about it so I will post it here:

EO2x2
2x2x3
F2L
ZBLL

Really similar to Petrus except EO is done at the beginning of the solve while solving a 2x2 block instead of after 2x2x3.

This would get rid of EO recog in the middle of the solve while keeping a low movecount.

This is basically ZZ with an EO223

 

[ribbon method]

So i made a new method called zz bridge im working on it to make it better firstly learned ocll now im learning coll/ocllcp then maybe full oll but im doing eo so don't know tell me your thoughts and yes I am learning full pll I got half the algs down of full pll just started with coll

 

[Hazel]

How does your method work?

 

[ribbon method]

So the steps are eo cross keyhole with random corners but they have to be oriented then ocll cause of eo or coll then pll on top then pll on bottom

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

Sounds awful

 

[OreKehStrah]

That sounds incredibly bad for speed, and screams “I’m gonna do something obviously bad just to be different” to me.

 

[Username: Username:]

Yeah, like others have pointed out, it sounds really bad for speedsolving, it's a Belt variant that is probably already been proposed too, and you know Belt methods are not going to be good, but Belt methods like this is actually kinda fun to use outside of any practical uses.

 

[ribbon method]

guys, I'm now understanding its bad. I'm now a freefop solver also sub 50 nearly sub 40

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

Alright, I've come up with a very simple method, I can't find a method like this on the internet, and I would like to know if it is viable.

1) Arrow

2) F2L

3) CMLL

4) L5E

So it's basically a hybrid of CFOP, Hawaiian Kociemba and Roux with L5E.
Since it has CMLL, you only need to know 9 Algorithms to solve.
I thought that look-ahead would be easier from the arrow, and that it would be easier to plan first pair.
The arrow also makes F2L slightly easier, since you have another side for double moves.
Please help!