The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[PetraPine]

That is basically K4, is the variant used in the video and was proposed in the original proposal thread by Erik Akkersdijk. This is also similar to K4 in the sense that it's a direct solving LBL but is, imo, better because L9W has better ergos than ELL.

just solving Edge permutation than oll pll has even better ergonomics(i think)
even though its less efficient, and is also already algorithmized.

IGNORE the rest of the video except for LL

 

[PapaSmurf]

If you wanna do that, you could use FRu to pair the edges more quickly. Both work.

 

[Gnome]

just solving Edge permutation than oll pll has even better ergonomics(i think)

You are correct, directly solving each edge as it's own piece (intuitive pairing) as opposed to attempting OLL into EPLL or EOLL into PLL, both of which imo are ilogical, is far easier to manage intuitively, ergonomically and at speed.

This is simply because of your ability to abuse the fact that mis-oriented edges are a single quarter slice from solved, you would need to do a double slice and or a double face turn to set them up (for the first two edges) if you were to orient them first.

None of this however affects the last 2 edges (or those cases that end with a pure 3 cycle) which are present in many methods but simply have more cases when solving by-layer or directly.

 

[PetraPine]

I guess K4 is the next petrus lol,
exploding back to popularity out of nowhere

 

[PapaSmurf]

I guess K4 is the next petrus lol,
exploding back to popularity out of nowhere

By exploding back to popularity out of nowhere, do you mean 1 more person switching and someone else maybe switching to a direct solving method that's similar? Then yes, it is exploding back to popularity.

 

[Spacey10]

This is probably not comp legal but I might know how to always avoid parity for 4x4.

How about colored screws or making the plastic pieces under the center pieces colored the color of the solved state.

So parity only comes when the centers are misaligned right? Ignoring 4 opposite centers and 2 (counter) clockwise cycles.

So what if you always put X color's center pieces on the same colored plastic for all of them? Shouldn't you always avoid parity then?

 

[Hazel]

This is probably not comp legal but I might know how to always avoid parity for 4x4.

How about colored screws or making the plastic pieces under the center pieces colored the color of the solved state.

So parity only comes when the centers are misaligned right? Ignoring 4 opposite centers and 2 (counter) clockwise cycles.

So what if you always put X color's center pieces on the same colored plastic for all of them? Shouldn't you always avoid parity then?

This might avoid PLL Parity, but I don't think it would avoid OLL parity. And this definitely would not be competition legal
EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure if it would affect either parity.

 

[PapaSmurf]

The only way to avoid OLL parity that I know of is bld tracing the wings. If you have an odd number of targets, you have to do an odd number of slice moves before 3x3 stage. It would be cool though if there was some sort of way to figure out how to avoid parity easily.

 

[Spacey10]

Oh ok, I thought so because on the void cube if the centers are off in a way, you get parities

 

[tsmosher]

Kinda like forced block building:

Build arrow on DF, DR, DL.
Put correctly oriented UL or UR edge into UF.
Execute: M.
Insert matching FL and FR F2L pairs.
Swivel each into place with L and R' respectively.
Insert matching F2L pair into FR or FL.
Swivel into place with F or F' respectively.
Insert final F2L pair.
LL. (limitless possibilities)

If any of the first 3 F2L insertions can be done with a Sledgy (i.e., R' F R, and its numerous mirrors/inverses), the next swivel step is skipped.

Alternatively, as ZZ variant requiring no regrips since all insertions are into FR or FL:

Build EOArrow on DF, DR, DL.
Execute: M.
Insert matching FL and FR F2L pairs, preserving EO.
Swivel each into place with L and R' respectively.
Insert matching F2L pairs into FR and FL, preserving EO.
COLL. (42 alg)
EP5. (16 alg)

I imagine these ideas cannot be 100% new. They've decreased my F2L times drastically though.

 

[PetraPine]

New petrus 4x4 method?
kinda simular to hoya and obli in a since.
1.solve opposite centers(like hoya)
2.solve cross edges of the two opposite centers and put them in place
3.solve bottom and back centers while solving the back cross edge.
4.solve back two edges and than attach these with there corners to solve (3x4x3?) what would be 2x2x3 in petrus once reduced
5.solve one edge to bottom if there already is one paired.
use 2 style edgepairing to solve multiple edges while solving one into bottom
6.solve rest of the edges.
7.petrus

 

[CyoobietheCuber]

Kinda like forced block building:

Build arrow on DF, DR, DL.
Put correctly oriented UL or UR edge into UF.
Execute: M.
Insert matching FL and FR F2L pairs.
Swivel each into place with L and R' respectively.
Insert matching F2L pair into FR or FL.
Swivel into place with F or F' respectively.
Insert final F2L pair.
LL. (limitless possibilities)

If any of the first 3 F2L insertions can be done with a Sledgy (i.e., R' F R, and its numerous mirrors/inverses), the next swivel step is skipped.

Alternatively, as ZZ variant requiring no regrips since all insertions are into FR or FL:

Build EOArrow on DF, DR, DL.
Execute: M.
Insert matching FL and FR F2L pairs, preserving EO.
Swivel each into place with L and R' respectively.
Insert matching F2L pairs into FR and FL, preserving EO.
COLL. (42 alg)
EP5. (16 alg)

I imagine these ideas cannot be 100% new. They've decreased my F2L times drastically though.

makes sense until steps 6 & 7. Are you able to explain it more?

 

[PetraPine]

solve first layer - back edge front edge and right corner
than do rest of edges fransisco style untill last pair,
solve last pair normally
solve cmll
LSE
decent begginers method as an introduction into roux
and i think is much less complicated as a starting point
(could use anyway to solve top corners)
now averaging ~21-22

 

[tsmosher]

makes sense until steps 6 & 7. Are you able to explain it more?

Sure. The original placement of the UR/UL edge on UF (in step 2) sets up steps 6 and 7.

You are essentially inserting your DF cross edge and the matching corner in these steps.

Let's assume White top, Green front. Let's assume the edge I found back in step 2 was WO. It is now in DF. I would insert WG+WGO F2L pair into FR. Then, F swivels the square into place-- leaving one final F2L slot.

 

[KillKqt]

What do you mean by fransico style, does it use The M slice

 

[Username: Username:]

solve first layer - back edge front edge and right corner
than do rest of edges fransisco style untill last pair,
solve last pair normally
solve cmll
LSE
decent begginers method as an introduction into roux
and i think is much less complicated as a starting point
(could use anyway to solve top corners)
now averaging ~21-22

Please just do normal Roux, it's way worse.

 

[PetraPine]

Please just do normal Roux, it's way worse.

i know lol i said this is a begginers method
i average 14 with roux

 

[Username: Username:]

i know lol i said this is a begginers method
i average 14 with roux

Just do normal Roux, it's not that hard...... you'll get a way better method and it's not that harder than this method.

 

[PetraPine]

Just do normal Roux, it's not that hard...... you'll get a way better method and it's not that harder than this method.

you transistion from this to roux,
the concepts here are easier and actually teach you more about the cube/blockbuilding than the beginner version of roux

 

[Username: Username:]

you transistion from this to roux,
the concepts here are easier and actually teach you more about the cube/blockbuilding than the beginner version of roux

no. like, just do Roux I beg you, also, nice to see an unproven claim at the end.