The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[PapaSmurf]

Alright I have a cool (may not be good), Pyraminx method I came up with when solving. It might be used to build up to intuitive top first solving. Hope you like

Step 1: Create a backbone whilst orienting the RD and LD edges. (2 corners around one edge Piece) in the back of the Pyraminx To form a backbone. More detail on this is on the speedsolving wiki backbone method. Except what is different is that whilst we do the backbone in this method, you orient the RD and LD edge pieces simultaneously. To orient an edge piece on a Pyraminx, it should be able to be solved with only L and R moves. The recognition for this is difficult at first, but becomes better as you practise. To orient an unoriented edge piece, you can do a U or B move.

Both creating the backbone and orienting the RD and LD edge pieces are very easy to do together and can be seen in inspection. Normally, I’m fairly certain (though this is approximate and not recorded) that it takes on average 2-3 moves to do this step. Not many moves, just a lot of thinking.

Step 2: Solve the RD and LD edge pieces and the centres. At this point, only the R and L layers are unsolved. Because we oriented the two edges needing to be solved in the previous step, this step can be done with only R and L moves!!! This makes this step quick and intuitive. Example solves will provide more insight. But this step only takes around 5-7 moves (not sure though)

Step 3: L3E! Very quick and very easy. All the centres are solved so there is very easy recognition and no need for AUF’s.

Example solves:

1. U B' U B' R B' U B r b' u
inspection: y z’ y
Backbone and LD and RD: L’ U R U (u’ b’)
Reduction to L3E (solve RD and LD and centres): L R L R L
Step 3: U’ R U R’ L R’ L’ R (l’)

Moves: 17 (if only not a bad L3E) excluding tips

2. U' R' U B' L R U' B' l' r' b
inspection: z’
Step 1: R’ U’ B’ U (u b’)
Step 2: L R L R’ L’
Step 3: U R U’ R’ (r)

Moves: 13

3. B' U' L' B' U R' B' L R' b'
inspection: z’ y’
Step 1 (this solution helps step 2 a little so a few more moves): U R U’ L U’
Step 2: R L R (cancel into L3E)
Step 3: U L U’ (l)

11 moves


Notice how this method has no Pyraminx rotations....and..... is very very fingertrickable due to an only L and R phase in stel 2 and very rare b moves only in step 1. The movecount is generally what was shown in the example solves, however, usually a little less for step 1, and a little more for step 2. I’d say the average movecount is around 13-14. This method could be one-lookable maybe..... but definitely can be two looked. Hope you like it and open to feedback and constructive criticism!!!!

edit: This may look really complicated and difficult...but please open you eyes to it and try it if you are a fellow Pyraminx Solver. Even if you don’t wanna switch methods (I don’t want to switch to this either ahaha) it gives deeper insight to the technical aspects of the cube.

You could alternatively do backbone but EO of everything, L5E, but either way I think that this style of method is a lot more fun than the current ones, even if it's probably slower, which is kinda sucky.

2x2 method:

make side skipping 1 piece

valk slot the final corner

pbl

See: HD method.

 

[Cubing Forever]

Not sure if this is already proposed.
Cross with one LL edge
F2L
OLL
HKPLL
(Basically CFOP but cross is shorter because you can insert a random LL edge instead of the final cross edge.)

A ZZ variant:
EOCross with one LL edge.
F2L
COLL
L5EP

 

[DNF_Cuber]

Not sure if this is already proposed.

it is , and it is called:

HK

 

[PapaSmurf]

For ZZ, that's called Portico (more accurately EODB, F2L, COLL, L5EP). For CFOP, it probably has been proposed too, but it's very similar to HK.

 

[Cubing Forever]

it is , and it is called:

It isn't HK. It's similar to it

 

[DNF_Cuber]

It isn't HK. It's similar to it

So it is the same except you make sure an F2L edge isn't in DF?

 

[Cubingcubecuber]

It isn't HK. It's similar to it

https://sites.google.com/view/hkmethod/3x3/variants/hkx
It uses HKOLLs instead of OLLs because algs are the same or better

 

[crazykitten499]

See: HD method.

not quite the same because mine uses wv and pbl rather than lols and nll.

so less algs but ~20 moves.

i guess a HD/varasano hybrid

 

[Ohmzitalibun]

I was looking around at the belt method, looking if there was a way it would be possible to make it faster. I realized most of the belt method is intuitive, so maybe if we develop an algorithm set that will skip piece placement, and both parities

Here is how a imagine a solve would be:
1. Create the belt
2. Preform algorithm that will place the pieces in the right place, and solve any parities.
3. OLL/PLL top
4. OLL/PLL bottom


I don't think there would be many algorithms, maybe around 60 because the edges can be in any place.

Please share your ideas and maybe I could develop an algorithm set for this. I feel like if this will be done it would be a very efficient method.

 

[SH03L4C3]

What if we treat it like after cubeshape on square one?

Sent from my Samsung microwave.

 

[PapaSmurf]

I was looking around at the belt method, looking if there was a way it would be possible to make it faster. I realized most of the belt method is intuitive, so maybe if we develop an algorithm set that will skip piece placement, and both parities

Here is how a imagine a solve would be:
1. Create the belt
2. Preform algorithm that will place the pieces in the right place, and solve any parities.
3. OLL/PLL top
4. OLL/PLL bottom


I don't think there would be many algorithms, maybe around 60 because the edges can be in any place.

Please share your ideas and maybe I could develop an algorithm set for this. I feel like if this will be done it would be a very efficient method.

This is still completely inferior to any fast method. The problem with belt like this is that 2 LLs suck. The other problem is that you remove a lot of quarter turns (which are faster as you travel less distance). For example, CFOP's movecount isn't anything to shout home about, yet is very fast from having a lot of quarter turns. You don't get that with belt.

 

[Nir1213]

This is still completely inferior to any fast method. The problem with belt like this is that 2 LLs suck. The other problem is that you remove a lot of quarter turns (which are faster as you travel less distance). For example, CFOP's movecount isn't anything to shout home about, yet is very fast from having a lot of quarter turns. You don't get that with belt.

true. Half turns might be a small time loss against Quarter turns, but they add up really fast.

 

[qwr]

I'm a bit sad I never had the wits to come up with my own cubing method and just looked up the pogobat tutorial like everyone else.
So I vowed to create my own method that wasn't CFOP or Roux. The goal was to use minimal algorithms and only easy algorithms I came up with myself, but the method ends up kind of long-winded and I was too lazy to finish it. It's really just a mashup of all the basic cubing stuff I already know. Disclaimer: I came up with it last night after not being able to sleep and playing with the cube on my dresser next to my bed.

1. F2L slots
Solve four F2L pairs on white bottom but without the cross. This is done intuitively although basic knowledge of F2L would make it easy.

2. Orient top corners
Beginner's method: move over each corner over the front right slot and repeat R' D' R D until its solved. Yeah not very original. But at least I can vaguely justify why it works: the corners have orientation invariant that is always preserved no matter what moves are made.

3. Permute top corners
This follows my cuboid method. (R2 D' R2 D)2 R2 does a adjacent corner swap on top and diagonal corner swap on bottom. Thus to swap the two front top corners, use the algorithm twice with U moves in between: (R2 D' R2 D)2 R2 U (R2 D' R2 D)2 R2 U'. Now "columns" are solved.


4. Edge Orientation
Here's where it gets a little complicated. Of the unsolved white or yellow edges, an even number of them are "bad edges": edges where white or yellow is not facing up or down but to the side. If there's two or six bad edges, I believe either a M or S slice move can convert it to a zero, four, or eight bad edges case, but I'm not sure.
Then line up three bad edges on top and one on bottom: left top, front top, right top, and front bottom, and do M' U M U' do flip the four bad edges into good edges. This might require some setup moves, including U, D, R, and then undoing them.

5. Top/bottom faces
Now we solve yellow edges on top and white edges on bottom. There are two algorithms: (R2 F2)3 swaps front and right edges of top/bottom, and (M2 U2)3 swaps front and back edges of top/bottom. Again solved intuitively: swap top and bottom edges until there's a similar pattern on top and bottom and then do one of the algs one more time.

6. ???
At this point I realized I might as well just do first two blocks in the beginning and do roux. I've come to the conclusion that I haven't had an original 3x3 thought in my life. Everything is just what I already know.



bonus: horrendous H perm
(R2 F2)3 U (R2 F2)3 U2 (R2 F2)3 U2 (R2 F2)3 U (R2 F2)3 U2

 

[RadicalMacaroni]

this has been invented many times

 

[qwr]

this has been invented many times

wow I totally didn't realize that... /s

 

[Deleted member 55877]

i invented something pretty similar in the past lol

 

[qwr]

i invented something pretty similar in the past lol

i am convinced this is my life
i have never done anything original in my life! makes me sad. i think i peaked in creativity in middle school. as i get older, i try to relive something vaguely better from the past. my hobbies nowadays are the same as they were 10 years ago.
i should take my meds. i forgot to in the past few days

 

[DNF_Cuber]

i am convinced this is my life
i have never done anything original in my life! makes me sad. i think i peaked in creativity in middle school. as i get older, i try to relive something vaguely better from the past. my hobbies nowadays are the same as they were 10 years ago.
i should take my meds. i forgot to in the past few days

don't get into a rut.
Unless it is about how my solving skills are far superior to those of yours!

 

[EngiNerdBrian]

i am convinced this is my life
i have never done anything original in my life! makes me sad.

Don't stress it. True originality is merely a myth anymore. All the ideas and concepts we dream up these days are merely modifications or constructions of ideas created by standing on the pillars of knowledge shared by all the humans before us. Mark Twain wrote this pretty cool letter to Hellen Keller once on the subject. The terms "plagiarism" and "originality" are synonymous in terms of "take aways" for this particular writing.

IMO we often get discouraged because we "Invent" something only to find out it's been done before. But no! This conclusion is accepted with fault. The truth is that although you didn't "INVENT" a method you did DISCOVER it through your own conscious reasoning...That my friend is an accomplishment! In this digital age we often forget to ask why? We forget to wonder. We forget to think for ourselves. We research instead of create. You pondered and conceptualized a method by means of your own thinking! That's cool.

I hold this perspective mainly from my engineering background. Everything I do will have already been done before. All of the structures I will design in my lifetime will rely on principles already used and documented by others. I will design a bridge girder feel accomplished and then find out my boss already did the same thing in half the time. BUT I DID INDEED DO IT MYSELF! To truly understand something and be able to apply and organize those thoughts in to methods/ideas/concepts/calculations/writings/or actions I think it one of life's greatest joys.

Don't beat yourself up too much. To actually sit and try and create a cube method is something the vast majority of cubers will never do. Tons of kids with amazing finger dexterity and brains like sponges (i.e. very young) will be quick to tell you it's been done before though. It sort of a downfall of this community; we all act like we're hot sh!t because of our times but in reality most of us are just regurgitating moves we learned on YouTube instead of truly indulging in the puzzling essence of solving like you've done in your method exploration here. Below is the Mark Twain thing I referenced.

"Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that “plagiarism” farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul—let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances—is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech, you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men—but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it is his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone, or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit, and we forget the others. He added his little mite—that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that."

 

[qwr]

@EngiNerdBrian thank you for your perspective. I think I was a little carried away in my own evaluation - part of my frustration is that since I learned to solve the cube when I was much younger, I didn't give myself the chance to discover anything on my own. I re-thought about it from a mathematics or CS research point of view and I'm always reminded of the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Even the people who do cutting-edge research are usually doing it in the margins, in the grand scheme of things extending humanity's knowledge a little bit into the unknown. People who truly contribute something fresh are rare and I have to be realistic in acknowledging that.

For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.