The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[PetraPine]

i did. HD requires you to make 3/4 of a side and my method requires you to make 3/4 of a layer. This reduces to the total alg count of the method from 59 to 29. I know this isnt as good ass CLL or EG and possibly Ortega just as well as you do. I am just poining out the differences of this and HD.

but it would just be like worse?
so like why?
learning 59 2x2 algs isnt that bad...

 

[Ashton]

So basically ZZ-blah but purely H? And OCLL/PLL is 100% faster and only has 28 algs.

Yes, ZZ-blah but purely H. Eight algorithms to solve the last layer. Of course, OCLL/PLL is better and has only 28 algorithms. My interest is to know how many algorithms are needed to build the H pattern if one does not have the ability to do it intuitively. I still have to see that. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[LukasCubes]

People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)

im not mad.

but it would just be like worse?
so like why?
learning 59 2x2 algs isnt that bad...

learning 29 is better. This can be a varient of HD.

 

[PetraPine]

im not mad.


learning 29 is better. This can be a varient of HD.

who cares about learning a couple more algs if the method is better?

 

[Athefre]

I am prepared to get criticized. Well this is a 2x2 method so here ya go.

3/4 of a layer
TTLS (23 algs)
TTLL (corners only) (6 algs)

I have not learned all these algs yet but once I do, ima make a doc about this method. I do not have a name of the method yet so... yeah.

Check out VOP on the wiki.

 

[LukasCubes]

who cares about learning a couple more algs if the method is better?

it is just a variant of HD so maybe this is a good place to start.

Check out VOP on the wiki.

i did already

 

[PapaSmurf]

CLL is a subset of EG just as this is a subset of HD, although I would say that because full HD is only about 30 more algs, you might as well learn it. To a point, fewer algs doesn't mean better when there is an obvious advantage (such as 2 look PLL vs PLL compared to OLL/PLL vs 1LLL). Anyway, what I's saying is that this can be seen as a stepping stone (and probably one used already) to full HD, so could be an intermediate version.

Yes, ZZ-blah but purely H. Eight algorithms to solve the last layer. Of course, OCLL/PLL is better and has only 28 algorithms. My interest is to know how many algorithms are needed to build the H pattern if one does not have the ability to do it intuitively. I still have to see that. Thanks for your feedback.

For the R U' R' insert you should need something like 15 algs? I'm not sure exactly, but somewhere in that ball park.

 

[LukasCubes]

CLL is a subset of EG just as this is a subset of HD, although I would say that because full HD is only about 30 more algs, you might as well learn it. To a point, fewer algs doesn't mean better when there is an obvious advantage (such as 2 look PLL vs PLL compared to OLL/PLL vs 1LLL). Anyway, what I's saying is that this can be seen as a stepping stone (and probably one used already) to full HD, so could be an intermediate version.

Now we talkin

 

[Hazel]

Now we talkin

There's still a problem, that your method is identical to the VOP method. You build a V, orient everything, then permute everything, yes? That is identical to VOP.

 

[LukasCubes]

There's still a problem, that your method is identical to the VOP method. You build a V, orient everything, then permute everything, yes? That is identical to VOP.

ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------

 

[BenChristman1]

ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------

People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)

 

[LukasCubes]

im not mad. I know it sucks. This is just an experimental method for 2x2. NOT recomended for a CF method on 3x3.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

im not mad. I know it sucks. This is just an experimental method for 2x2. NOT recomended for a CF method on 3x3.

CF methods aren't recommended anyway, so imagine one with this

 

[Athefre]

My point is just to create a good 2x2 method that has NOTHING to do with CF on 3x3.

I recommend that you spend some time learning about the methods that already exist. This will give you a knowledge base from which to work. If you know what is already there and what is good, then you will be more capable of creating something that is both new and good. Thinking of something new isn't easy. With the creation of internet communities, many ideas have already been thought of and either developed or they have been dismissed as not good enough to be developed. It's fun to try to think of new ideas. But it's also important to thoroughly research and go over the idea to determine if it is new and if it is useful for the community.

2x2 methods especially are already really advanced. So if you are wanting to create a good 2x2 method, it may be difficult. For the methods that are currently being used, EG is still the most advanced. However, there other systems and methods that are even more advanced than EG. You can check out the A2 system, which is a way to take existing 2x2 methods into their various pseudo forms. In this post I also detailed many other advanced 2x2 methods that haven't yet been developed. Those are the sibling methods of EG and many are likely the same speed and movecount as EG. So, look at those methods and what is on the wiki. Then you will have a starting point to think of something new that may be good.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

been brainstorming some weird methods for 3x3, here's a very funny one

XCross (pair in DBR)

Solve FR and BL edges

Use a VHLS to solve last pair

Solve back pair

Alg to orient corners + place last corner

PLL

Even if bad method, can we use the alg set as an add on to TOLS or TSLE?

 

[PetraPine]

ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------

I already do this in good cases+already prob exist
and the best way to do it actually,
is to example
1.create white bar, add any yellow pieces as other two bottom pieces,
2recognize CMLL and solve CMLL
3.use a couple moves to solve pieces

 

[LukasCubes]

I recommend that you spend some time learning about the methods that already exist. This will give you a knowledge base from which to work. If you know what is already there and what is good, then you will be more capable of creating something that is both new and good. Thinking of something new isn't easy. With the creation of internet communities, many ideas have already been thought of and either developed or they have been dismissed as not good enough to be developed. It's fun to try to think of new ideas. But it's also important to thoroughly research and go over the idea to determine if it is new and if it is useful for the community.

2x2 methods especially are already really advanced. So if you are wanting to create a good 2x2 method, it may be difficult. For the methods that are currently being used, EG is still the most advanced. However, there other systems and methods that are even more advanced than EG. You can check out the A2 system, which is a way to take existing 2x2 methods into their various pseudo forms. In this post I also detailed many other advanced 2x2 methods that haven't yet been developed. Those are the sibling methods of EG and many are likely the same speed and movecount as EG. So, look at those methods and what is on the wiki. Then you will have a starting point to think of something new that may be good.

can i have a link to that a2 system thing?

 

[PapaSmurf]

He gave you one in the post.

 

[LukasCubes]

He gave you one in the post.

oh yeah sorry lol

 

[Zubin Park]

I'll be completely honest: learning x amount of algs and countless hours of dedication, practice, and hard work... for a sub-2 2x2 solve? I'm not cut out for this lol