The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[ruffleduck]

Lol, I like how you blur out the link to the method page

 

[Quốc Hưng]

Lol, I like how you blur out the link to the method page

Ha, that is cool, right ?

 

[V Achyuthan]

If all of the edges are already done, wouldn’t the only PLL cases be the A perms and E perm? (and skip, obviously)

might be a H perm as well.

 

[V Achyuthan]

This is just a variant of petrus but with higher TPS since the are 4 consecutive algorithmic step. this might be discussed already or not. I don't know about that.
Here are the steps
1. 222 + 223
2. FR1 edge (referring to as FR1 because there will another step coming up that would involve a different FR piece)
3. solve D layer corners using one alg (can use DCAL or a maybe new algs can be generated since BR edge isn't solved leading to lower movecount)
4. (do a y rotation placing the 223 on the back) EO in one alg
5. solve DF and the current FR (current FR is the previous step's BR) using one algorithm
6. ZBLL (which is also one alg)

Here are some examples
1. F' D L U R2 D L2 F2 L2 F2 D' B2 R2 U2 R B F R B2 L2 R
z2 U R2 U2 F' L B2 // 222
F' R2 F2 R' F2 // 223
R U' R // FR1
U R' U' R // Corners of D layer
y R' F' U' F U R // EO
R U' M' U2 M U' R' // DF and FR2
U2 L' U R U' L U' R D R' U2 R D' R2 // ZBLL
45 STM

2. F U' D' R' B2 L' F' L' U D2 F' B U2 D2 F L2 B' D2 F R2 U2
z2 D' L U' F' L2 // 222
R U' L F L' R' F2 // 223
U2 R' // FR1
U' R' U2 R' U' R U2 R // Corners of D layer
y M' U R U M U' R' // EO
R U' M' U2 M U' R' // DF and FR2
R U2 L' U R' U' R U R' U' R L U2 R' U' // ZBLL
51 STM
45 with cancellations

3. B2 R D2 R' D2 F2 D2 F2 R' F2 R2 B2 D' L2 U2 B' L B D R2
z2 D2 U F2 R D2 // 222
U' R' U R B2 // 223
U2 R' // FR1
U R' U' R' U' R U R // Corners of D layer
y M' U' R U M U' R' // EO
U2 M2 R U M2 U M U2 M' R' // DF and FR2
U2 M' U2 y R' U2 R U2 F l U' z' U // ZBLL
48 STM

Let me know your thoughts on this

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

This is just a variant of petrus but with higher TPS since the are 4 consecutive algorithmic step. this might be discussed already or not. I don't know about that.
Here are the steps
1. 222 + 223
2. FR1 edge (referring to as FR1 because there will another step coming up that would involve a different FR piece)
3. solve D layer corners using one alg (can use DCAL or a maybe new algs can be generated since BR edge isn't solved leading to lower movecount)
4. (do a y rotation placing the 223 on the back) EO in one alg
5. solve DF and the current FR (current FR is the previous step's BR) using one algorithm
6. ZBLL (which is also one alg)

This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?

 

[Quốc Hưng]

Lol, I like how you blur out the link to the method page

What do you think about ZZ44. Can it get faster ?

 

[V Achyuthan]

This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?

TBH. This might be at the same level as APB. One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet. Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.

 

[PiKeeper]

TBH. This might be at the same level as APB. One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet. Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.

You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.

 

[V Achyuthan]

You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.

probably could say the same to APB can't you?

 

[V Achyuthan]

This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?

Also during higher levels a solver should be able to plan 222 + 223 + FR1 in inspection Ig. Then the rest of the solve would be just algs.

 

[V Achyuthan]

You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.

Mehta is like a damn god method. you can't just go comparing every new method that someone invents with that.

 

[PiKeeper]

Also during higher levels a solver should be able to plan 222 + 223 + FR1 in inspection Ig. Then the rest of the solve would be just algs.

That's literally the whole idea of Mehta. And the whole point is the compare new methods with already existing methods to see if they are an improvement. You have yet to give a clear reason why your method is better than Mehta or APB.

 

[V Achyuthan]

That's literally the whole idea of Mehta. And the whole point is the compare new methods with already existing methods to see if they are an improvement. You have yet to give a clear reason why your method is better than Mehta or APB.

ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?

 

[PiKeeper]

ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?

Chill out. You wanted my thoughts on this method, I gave you my thoughts. Also if you want to claim that your method is five steps, Mehta-TDR is four steps.

 

[V Achyuthan]

Chill out. You wanted my thoughts on this method, I gave you my thoughts. Also if you want to claim that your method is five steps, Mehta-TDR is four steps.

and may I ask how?
don't say 3QB + EOLE is one step

 

[PiKeeper]

and may I ask how?
don't say 3QB + EOLE is one step

FB+3QB would be considered one step. It's literally the first step of your method

 

[V Achyuthan]

FB+3QB would be considered one step. It's literally the first step of your method

ok. please don't start an argument now. the rest of my method is different right? also it is easier recognition I think. There is just a thing I want to just confirm. When athefre came out with the APB method, everyone said it is good/great/improved version of petrus. but when I come out with any method people just give mean comments. Is it because athefre has given a good explanation and has more experience and I didn't give a good explanation and I have only one year experience? again don't want to start an argument and no offense to athefre or anyone. and definitely not saying APB is bad, I have actually tried it and it is definitely a lot better than petrus and maybe even ZZ.

 

[V Achyuthan]

I am not gonna argue anymore. I don't care (no offense) if anyone likes this method or not. I am proud of my invention and that is all that matters to me.

 

[PapaSmurf]

No one was arguing, you turned it into an argument. If you really feel so defensive about your method that no one can criticise it, you are way too emotionally attached to it. It's great that people are coming up with new ideas, but very very very rarely are they good or genuinely new. Take the criticism and either improve the method or move on.

 

[Athefre]

ok. please don't start an argument now. the rest of my method is different right? also it is easier recognition I think. There is just a thing I want to just confirm. When athefre came out with the APB method, everyone said it is good/great/improved version of petrus. but when I come out with any method people just give mean comments. Is it because athefre has given a good explanation and has more experience and I didn't give a good explanation and I have only one year experience? again don't want to start an argument and no offense to athefre or anyone. and definitely not saying APB is bad, I have actually tried it and it is definitely a lot better than petrus and maybe even ZZ.

I put a lot of thought into ideas before I decide to post them somewhere. I've thrown away thousands more ideas than I've actually developed. I only develop things that I know are completely unique for the time and or appear to be good for speedsolving. The important thing is to examine every detail of an idea that you have and to not be attached to it just because it is your idea and because you really want it to be good. If it isn't good, then you have to move on to another idea. Keep trying ideas with no self bias and you'll come across one that is objectively good.

If you put an idea out there, expect for it to receive judgement. My judgement is that I don't like that there are pieces in the way for the algorithm-based F2L steps. The same as in Mehta there is an edge in the way of the other pieces. So when you solve the corners the algorithms have to work around or take out the edge. This is as opposed to APB where the first step keeps the pair on the U layer out of the way and the edges are oriented while inserting this pair. Then the L3P step is almost completely free with the RUS moveset available without having to disturb the pair too much. I'm a fan of freedom in methods. But maybe others like the restrictions. Also, try to do something along with the EO step. This will reduce the number of steps and likely also the overall movecount.