The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Platform_]

The perfect layer method is CFL Cross+F2L+Last(resolution all cases Last Layer) I know the existence: Line,ZBLL,ELL,PLL.
I use only Line, something case Line is a PLL.
I use 96 algo, 25 for create case Line and 71 for solving cases Line.
CFOP is no good for this because if you make OLL you dont complete Last Layer in one algo.
How many cases exist for LL?
CFP(Cross+F2L+Platform) and CFOP (Cross+F2L+OLL+PLL) are emplifications to the perfect method CFL.
In CFL no utility building case Line or building case PLL because I want solve all case LL with one algo.
Exist a project to create CFL?

 

[OreKehStrah]

The perfect layer method is CFL Cross+F2L+Last(resolution all cases Last Layer) I know the existence: Line,ZBLL,ELL,PLL.
I use only Line, something case Line is a PLL.
I use 96 algo, 25 for create case Line and 71 for solving cases Line.
CFOP is no good for this because if you make OLL you dont complete Last Layer in one algo.
How many cases exist for LL?
CFP(Cross+F2L+Platform) and CFOP (Cross+F2L+OLL+PLL) are emplifications to the perfect method CFL.
In CFL no utility building case Line or building case PLL because I want solve all case LL with one algo.
Exist a project to create CFL?

Already done

1LLL.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[PapaSmurf]

Please stop posting pointless threads. Your platform one (CFP) should've been a profile post and this is a very old idea. Do research before just thinking of something. Also, for actually new ideas, there's the new method/substep/concept thread.

 

[Delta Phi]

For a while I've been interested in pursuing Pinkie Pie, but have been prohibited by not knowing full OLLCP yet. However, today I bit the bullet and started using it in speedsolves with a multi-look substitute which I think may be useful to others interested who do not know OLLCP. Here are some different ways of doing it that can be tried:

• OELL/OCLL/PCLL. By far the least number of algs at 12, with 3 to orient edges (OELL), 7 to orient the corners (OCLL), and 2 to permute the corners (PCLL). Any current Roux user should be able to pick this way up in no time, and is always a reliable backup option when you forget/are in the process of learning an alg.
• OELL/COLL: At 45 algs, this is also a rather economical option, especially if you already know many COLLs. About half the time I use this way, and the other half of the time i use the 3-look way for COLLs I don't know from CMLL.
• CLL/OELL: Also 45 algs, and the same as OELL/COLL except the order is reversed. This would be good if you dont wish to learn COLLs, and already know a lot of CLLs from learning CMLL for Roux, and your CLL recog is good, but I personally feel faster doing EO before without worrying about which of my CMLLs mess with the DF edge.
• OLL/PCLL: 59 algs, but great if you happen to already know OLL from CFOP.
• PCLL/2GOLL: 59 algs, might not be a terrible idea. Basically you have to solve OLL RrUM gen or using SuneOLLs to preserve CP. I can't imagine anybody would find this the easiest way to get started though.
• OEPCLL/OCLL: idk how many algs this would be, or how to recog it. There's really no good excuse to try this.

Once you know one of the 2-look ways, you can learn the OLLCPs at your own pace without worrying about not being able to do real pinkie pie solves. Hope this helps someone out there just champing at the bit to switch to pinkie pie!

 

[MuaazCubes]

I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,

1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.

2. Make 2 edges on the bottom layer (ex. white green edge and white blue edge)

3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.

4. Now solve the last layer with standard OLL and PLL algorithms.

I just thought of this up, have to use it some more to see if it's good or not. and I hope I explained it well.

 

[Deleted member 55877]

3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.

The cube won't necessarily be 2-gen because the edges are most likely not oriented. If you add a step where you orient all edges then you basically have a Petrus variant. However it still will be worse than Petrus because building a 1x2x3 block then inserting remaining 2 edges is much less efficient than making a 2x2x2 block then extending it to 2x2x3

 

[DNF_Cuber]

I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,

1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.

2. Make 2 edges on the bottom layer (ex. white green edge and white blue edge)

3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.

4. Now solve the last layer with standard OLL and PLL algorithms.

I just thought of this up, have to use it some more to see if it's good or not. and I hope I explained it well.

That is just LEOR without EO.

 

[ProStar]

I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,

1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.

2. Make 2 edges on the bottom layer (ex. white green edge and white blue edge)

3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.

4. Now solve the last layer with standard OLL and PLL algorithms.

I just thought of this up, have to use it some more to see if it's good or not. and I hope I explained it well.

You can't do Step 3 2-gen unless EO has been finished, and can only do Steps 3 & 4 2-gen if you do EO and CP

 

[Vitaliy Sokolov]

Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
I named it Fork Last Layer (FLL), and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.

Standard 3LLL (2-look OLL+full PLL)

Cons:
- 21 complex algs for full PLL;
- 21 cases for PLL recognition.

Fork last layer (full version)

Fork Last Layer (PLL reduction version)

Edge Fork - is double state - 50% solving Edge and 50% solving with 2 opposite Edge Permutation.
EFLL - Edge Fork of the Last Layer
OCLL-EFP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Fork Permutation
OCLL-EPP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Permutation Preserved
OCLL- OES - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Opposite Edge Swap

FLL pro:

• Simple finger tricks (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs consist fast «sexy» and Sune variations);
• Simple recognition for all 3 steps;
• In 2/3 cases CPLL has short (9 moves) algorithms (A-perms);
• 1/12 probability CPLL skip.

FLL cons:

• Cannot be extended to 2-look method;
• For Cross with adjacent color cases not have 2-look solving, only 3-look solving (but you can pre-look OCLL-EPP)

Spoiler: Step 1 EFLL

Step 1EFLL

Spoiler: Step 2 OCLL-EFP (sexy/sune algs)

Step 2 OCLL-EFP

Spoiler: Step 2 OCLL-EFP (many algs)

Spoiler: Step 3 CPLL

Step 3 CPLL

 

[Scollier]

Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
I named it Fork Last Layer (FLL), and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.

Fork last layer (full version)
View attachment 14580

Fork Last Layer (PLL reduction version)
View attachment 14581

Edge Fork - is double state - 50% solving Edge and 50% solving with 2 opposite Edge Permutation.
EFLL - Edge Fork of the Last Layer
OCLL-EFP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Fork Permutation
OCLL-EPP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Permutation Preserved
OCLL- OES - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Opposite Edge Swap

EFLL Substep
View attachment 14582

Wow this is really interesting! It looks like you put a lot of work into it! Also, welcome to the forums!

 

[PapaSmurf]

Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
I named it Fork Last Layer (FLL), and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.

Fork last layer (full version)
View attachment 14580

Fork Last Layer (PLL reduction version)
View attachment 14581

Edge Fork - is double state - 50% solving Edge and 50% solving with 2 opposite Edge Permutation.
EFLL - Edge Fork of the Last Layer
OCLL-EFP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Fork Permutation
OCLL-EPP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Permutation Preserved
OCLL- OES - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Opposite Edge Swap

EFLL Substep
View attachment 14582

Why not 2 look OLL+PLL? It's 31 algs and faster than any of these. I like the idea of phasing during EO though for reducing alg count. It reminds me of ZZ-R.

 

[Vitaliy Sokolov]

Why not 2 look OLL+PLL? It's 31 algs and faster than any of these. I like the idea of phasing during EO though for reducing alg count. It reminds me of ZZ-R.

Yes, if you know full PLL then can use ver 2 with PLL reduction. Then you must use any alg from OCLL-EPP and OCLL-EOS.
For me full version better (me with cube 2 month), sune and sexy algs faster for fingers and this method like pre look PLL (in 2/3 case is short 9 HTM AA or Ab perm and 1/12 is skip). Other PLL algs to 16-20 HTM.

 

[PapaSmurf]

True, but FELL and OCLL-EPP are both longer than their 2L-OLL counterparts. And PLL algs aren't that complex, unless you're scared of algs (not a good thing to be). They're also all fast, so forcing a specific subset (that would include more N-Perms) isn't a great idea.

 

[Vitaliy Sokolov]

True, but FELL and OCLL-EPP are both longer than their 2L-OLL counterparts. And PLL algs aren't that complex, unless you're scared of algs (not a good thing to be). They're also all fast, so forcing a specific subset (that would include more N-Perms) isn't a great idea.

Yes, i scared algs (any complex algs too slow for my fingers). And i also develop my method f2l, but I was told it was Keyhole Edge First (my intuitive fridrich f2l without algs too slow, need learn algs, and only then training look ahead), And is also good method for intermediate, i make look ahead now and without pauses. Some people make sub(20) with keyhole (keyhole edge first make easy look ahead and simple 3-4-moves algs). But i like F2L and want work with them.
Anyway, FLL it's not "pro" method, but simple for memorize algs and small moves (from 23, average 30) is simple alternative for 4LLL methods.

 

[Jam88]

I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.

I would say that you can make a new thread for it. @abunickabhi and the other mods might not think so though. f you want it to be seen, making a wiki page for it might be a good idea.

 

[Athefre]

A series of method variants that I've been working on the past few months and have been calling MI3. I first talked here about one variant during the last method competition. These variants can be seen as a combination of MI1, Joseph Briggs' M-CELL, and something new. The basic concept is FB -> blockbuild -> LL / LSLL+DF or DB. Then EO can be added in at various stages if desired.

Spoiler: LL Variant

Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build three squares, forming F2L. Two squares form a 2x2x2. Three squares form a 2x2x3. The squares can be normal or pseudo.
Step 3: LL

This is the most basic variant of the method. A fun way to achieve the LL state with a low movecount and good look-ahead.

Spoiler: CLL + L5E Variant

Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares plus a right side pair. Can be viewed as right block plus the DB or DF edge.
Step 3: CLL
Step 4: L5E

This is likely the variant with the lowest move-count. L5E (MU) is currently an unexplored alg set with around 200 cases. I'm currently generating the set. With EO performed at some point, the last step would be L5EP. EO can be completed before or after FB, after the first two squares, before or while inserting the final pair, or other places.

Spoiler: Transformed L5C + L5E

Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares
Step 3: Build any pair from anywhere on the cube, attach it to the right side and perform an R/R' move to make a pseudo right block. Then perform an M/M' to place any oriented edge on the D layer
Step 4: CLL
Step 5: ELL
Step 6: Undo transformation

This variant allows the user to take advantage of any free or easy to build pair and solve the remaining corners using the same number of algs as CLL. The same goes for the edges. Inserting any oriented edge reduces L5E to ELL.

Spoiler: Example Solve

Scramble: F D' B2 L2 U2 R2 U2 R2 B D2 F' R F' D' R' D' U B
FB: y2 x' M2 F' R' D U2 M F
Two squares: M U' M2 U2 R' U' R'
Place any pair: U2 M U2 M' U' R'
Place any edge: U' M
TL5C: U' r U' r' F U2' r2' F r U' r
TL5E: M' U2 M U2 M' U M U2 M' U2 M
Undo L5E transformation: U M'
Undo L5C transformation: U R U

Spoiler: 2GLL+1

Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares + EO
Step 3: Insert right side pair + CP
Step 4: 2GLL+1 (LL + D edge)

The idea of 2GLL+1 has been talked about on the ZZ Discord server a few times for use in Portico. It fits in well as a variant here. CP can also be solved before FB Briggs style or at some other point.

Spoiler: CLL+2 / COLL+2

Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares plus a right side pair.
Step 3: Solve CLL plus any two edges. Or COLL+2 if in EO state.
Step 4: L3E

This variant provides a pretty high skip chance for the last step. The movecount for this may compete with the CLL + L5E variant. An interesting thing for COLL+2 is that, when generating the set, it could be specified to always solve two opposite edges (likely with the requirement of learning more algs). This would make for an easy U2M'U2 3-cycle finish with cancellations possible during the COLL+2 alg.

I think this is a simple method concept with many possibilities, several alg sets to choose from, and is easy to learn. There are likely several other great variant candidates. One of the great advantages is that extremely low movecounts can be achieved with some of the variants. There is a lot of freedom for pseudo techniques. The passive blockbuilding aspect of A3 is a natural fit - blockbuild with the pairs/pieces in any position then correct them during one of the algorithm steps.

 

[abunickabhi]

Wow nice all variants sound interesting, F E' R E R' E2 R' E R E F'.

It is good to know that so many Roux variants can be devised.

 

[efattah]

During my attempts to improve the ergonomics of LMCF, it seems clear that several edges piece must be solved at the same time as the corners. Years ago when WaterRoux was proposed, the idea was to solve Roux first block, and all the corners, in one look. Most considered that unrealistic. That would require solving 3 edges plus all the corners in one look, during inspection. An alternative, even more difficult, is to fully solve all four 3x1 columns in one look (all corners plus FR+FL+BL+BR edges). Again, most considered this nearly impossible. However, not long ago I was having a DM chat with WACWCA, who is a top 2x2 solver. He told me that he frequently can inspect three or even FOUR possible 2x2 solutions during the 15-second inspection time, and then, choose the solution that is the fastest of all of them. This implies, almost without question, that indeed it would be possible to solve many edges and the corners in one look. Instead of inspecting 3-4 corner-solving solutions in the inspection, the solver chooses only the first one, even if it might not be the fastest. That leaves most of the inspection time to figure out how to either solve the 3 edges needed for Roux first block, or, for all 4 columns. Make no mistake; if any solver can solve either roux first block plus all the corners, or all the columns, in the inspection, I believe this almost certainly would result in the fastest method ever designed. Consider that Roux solvers solve 5-7 pieces during inspection, CFOP solvers that can do XCross solve 6 pieces; LMCF solves 8 pieces in the inspection, yet now it seems that solving 11-12 pieces in the inspection is possible. If it takes 1.5 seconds on average to solve the corners (top 2x2 average), the extra time to solve 3 edges would be quite low as move freedom is extremely high, and slice moves at the start of the solve do not affect the corner solution. Not unrealistic to say that in 1.9 seconds the solver could finish Roux first block and all the corners. All that is left now is an LMCF triplet (1.1 seconds) (for waterroux), followed by LSE, or LMCF pair (0.8 seconds) + LSE for columns. In the case of columns, LSE is the same as Roux (1.5 seconds), whereas if you choose the WaterRoux style, LSE is slower because the 2-edges on one side case, allowing 1.9 seconds. This predicts an average for WaterRoux of 1.9+1.1+1.9 = 4.9 seconds, and for columns, 1.9+0.8+1.5 = 4.2 seconds. The basis of this is the claim by WACWCA that top 2x2 solvers can see 3-4 solutions in the inspection. How they 'got' to that point is beyond me, but if true, opens a great deal of possibilities to solve 11-12 pieces in the inspection. Even if I am being over-optimistic in the splits, and even if you add 1 full second, it still predicts 5.9 and 5.2 second averages.

 

[Silky]

During my attempts to improve the ergonomics of LMCF, it seems clear that several edges piece must be solved at the same time as the corners. Years ago when WaterRoux was proposed, the idea was to solve Roux first block, and all the corners, in one look. Most considered that unrealistic. That would require solving 3 edges plus all the corners in one look, during inspection. An alternative, even more difficult, is to fully solve all four 3x1 columns in one look (all corners plus FR+FL+BL+BR edges). Again, most considered this nearly impossible. However, not long ago I was having a DM chat with WACWCA, who is a top 2x2 solver. He told me that he frequently can inspect three or even FOUR possible 2x2 solutions during the 15-second inspection time, and then, choose the solution that is the fastest of all of them. This implies, almost without question, that indeed it would be possible to solve many edges and the corners in one look. Instead of inspecting 3-4 corner-solving solutions in the inspection, the solver chooses only the first one, even if it might not be the fastest. That leaves most of the inspection time to figure out how to either solve the 3 edges needed for Roux first block, or, for all 4 columns. Make no mistake; if any solver can solve either roux first block plus all the corners, or all the columns, in the inspection, I believe this almost certainly would result in the fastest method ever designed. Consider that Roux solvers solve 5-7 pieces during inspection, CFOP solvers that can do XCross solve 6 pieces; LMCF solves 8 pieces in the inspection, yet now it seems that solving 11-12 pieces in the inspection is possible. If it takes 1.5 seconds on average to solve the corners (top 2x2 average), the extra time to solve 3 edges would be quite low as move freedom is extremely high, and slice moves at the start of the solve do not affect the corner solution. Not unrealistic to say that in 1.9 seconds the solver could finish Roux first block and all the corners. All that is left now is an LMCF triplet (1.1 seconds) (for waterroux), followed by LSE, or LMCF pair (0.8 seconds) + LSE for columns. In the case of columns, LSE is the same as Roux (1.5 seconds), whereas if you choose the WaterRoux style, LSE is slower because the 2-edges on one side case, allowing 1.9 seconds. This predicts an average for WaterRoux of 1.9+1.1+1.9 = 4.9 seconds, and for columns, 1.9+0.8+1.5 = 4.2 seconds. The basis of this is the claim by WACWCA that top 2x2 solvers can see 3-4 solutions in the inspection. How they 'got' to that point is beyond me, but if true, opens a great deal of possibilities to solve 11-12 pieces in the inspection. Even if I am being over-optimistic in the splits, and even if you add 1 full second, it still predicts 5.9 and 5.2 second averages.

So, on a similar note, I've been thinking about ECE. Based on your analysis, if it is possible to plan columns in inspection, planning psuedo-columns could be very feasible. Following this I believe that generating NLL algs from HD-G would be an excellent idea. NLL would mean that you would combine separation and permutation of corners into one step with the caveat that you need to force L cases on top and bottom. You could generate all NLL cases but that would increase the alg count significantly. Based on the move count from HD-G, NLL would save around 3 moves. Then you can choose any L8E variant to finish the solve. This could lower the average movecount to 40 with EZD. This would also make it into a 3.5-4 look method. Pseudo-columns => NLL => EO/Separation => EZD. In HD-G you can predict the subset of NLL in inspection and then you just need to recognize the case which accounts for the 'half' look. This would also be done in only around 100 algs !!

 

[PetraPine]

alg.cubing.net

alg.cubing.net

if anyone here is good at metha try this?
basically, you do ZZ EO
FB, 3/4 belt (do on oriented side)rotate to have block on left
from here, you want to reorient the E slice edges by doing a E/u move
to make the edges reoriented to the new side.
than just do whatever mehta variant you want-having to orient edges.