The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[hyn]

Isn't that just LBL with a bit more freedom in making the first side and having to learn 21 algs? If you're able and willing to learn 21 algs, just learn CLL since its just 40 algs.

 

[TGWCubing]

Isn't that just LBL with a bit more freedom in making the first side and having to learn 21 algs? If you're able and willing to learn 21 algs, just learn CLL since its just 40 algs.

well I was thinking of an alternate way which was CLL then permute D layer

 

[OreKehStrah]

This is not worth it for sure. Just use normal LBL if you don’t like Ortega and learning algs. I’m able to get sub4 avgs using white bottom only lol

 

[GenTheSnail]

May sound bad at first and "just like EG" but really it's not.

It really is.

FAQ (from other places where I talked about this):
Q: Why don't you learn EG?
A: Too many algs for a begginer-brain

LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ez
CLL has 40 algs and is 2 look. Sub2 potential if you can turn fast. And what's the point of 2x2 if you're not turning fast.
This is 20 algs and still 3 look. It also leaves you with adj and diag, which are both long algs.

Q: Why don't you learn Ortega?
A: Diag-Adj / Adj-Diag is pain

I will give this to you. I hate those algs. adj-adj is cracked though.
However, I will say that it's really just a

Spoiler

Skill Issue

Q: Isn't that like EG?
A: Ortega is too but no-one's complaining

The difference is that Ortega predates EG by like 25 years. And even when it was rediscovered, that was still 6 years before EG was developed.

Q: How is Ortega like EG?
A: Well you solve the bottom layer and permute both layers (like a 2-look EG)

You also need to orient the top face, so EG is 2 look (if you don't predict anything). Ortega is is 3 look (if you don't predict anything).


I would:
1. Just stick with LBL if you're really adverse to learning algs.
2. Learn CLL if you want to be fast without learning 100+ algs.
3. But I get it, it's fun to come up with methods and get clout for being a method inventor. I'll try not to clown on someone if they recognize the downsides of their method. But if you're gonna try to tout this as a legitimate beginner/intermediate/advanced method, you're gonna have to show why it's better than other methods.

Even so, 2x2 mostly comes down to having good inspection/planning, a good pickup, fast recognition, and good turning. Your method or how many algs you know isn't super super important. Lucas Etter set the 1.51 2x2 WR average without knowing full EG because he was also cracked at planning and had stupid good turning.

 

[fabdabs1234]

Really not viable, 3 look and you get diag/adj swap 5/6 solves = average 20+ moves
Ortega is much better as there are fewer and faster algs. Im not sure what you have against adj/diag diag/adj, but the algs are very fast (faster than pure diag).

 

[TGWCubing]

It really is.


LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ez
CLL has 40 algs and is 2 look. Sub2 potential if you can turn fast. And what's the point of 2x2 if you're not turning fast.
This is 20 algs and still 3 look. It also leaves you with adj and diag, which are both long algs.


I will give this to you. I hate those algs. adj-adj is cracked though.
However, I will say that it's really just a

Spoiler

Skill Issue

The difference is that Ortega predates EG by like 25 years. And even when it was rediscovered, that was still 6 years before EG was developed.


You also need to orient the top face, so EG is 2 look (if you don't predict anything). Ortega is is 3 look (if you don't predict anything).


I would:
1. Just stick with LBL if you're really adverse to learning algs.
2. Learn CLL if you want to be fast without learning 100+ algs.
3. But I get it, it's fun to come up with methods and get clout for being a method inventor. I'll try not to clown on someone if they recognize the downsides of their method. But if you're gonna try to tout this as a legitimate beginner/intermediate/advanced method, you're gonna have to show why it's better than other methods.

Even so, 2x2 mostly comes down to having good inspection/planning, a good pickup, fast recognition, and good turning. Your method or how many algs you know isn't super super important. Lucas Etter set the 1.51 2x2 WR average without knowing full EG because he was also cracked at planning and had stupid good turning.

I'd rather die that stick with LBL.

This is not worth it for sure. Just use normal LBL if you don’t like Ortega and learning algs. I’m able to get sub4 avgs using white bottom only lol

I'd rather die that stick with LBL.

 

[Sajwo]

Or you could just use Guimond method

23 algs and average movecount of 16

 

[fabdabs1234]

I'd rather die that stick with LBL.


I'd rather die that stick with LBL.

Then use ortega.

 

[GenTheSnail]

Or you could just use Guimond method

23 algs and average movecount of 16

I think the goal was to avoid pbl adj-diag swaps, which Guimond also has.

I'd rather die that stick with LBL.

Then my final suggestion would be to learn and use CLL. It's not too many algs and they're all short and fast. You can pick your favorite from this sheet.

 

[OreKehStrah]

Otherwise, just get good XD

 

[TGWCubing]

I think the goal was to avoid pbl adj-diag swaps, which Guimond also has.


Then my final suggestion would be to learn and use CLL. It's not to many algs and they're all short and fast. You can pick your favorite from this sheet.

you know what, deal.

 

[Burrito]

New Mehta Variant — Rhetta

The only difference is that you solve a Roux like block and then solve the DM slice and then continue into EO.

Roux + Mehta = Rehta (sounds better to say Rhetta)

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Or you could just use Petrus.

 

[Burrito]

Petrus is outdated

This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Petrus is outdated

This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block

Petrus is a timeless method.

You are literally building a 223 block the same way many APB users do (Which is based on Petrus and both solve 223 the same way) and then doing EO (i:e 223>>EO). That sounds likes Petrus with a possible Mehta-style algorithmic ending (Which would still be Petrus).

 

[Burrito]

Yeah but I don’t want to say it’s Petrus because I don’t like petrus

Doesn’t mean it’s bad I just don’t like it

 

[abunickabhi]

Petrus is outdated

This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block

Petrus is never outdated. It is always relevant in the cubing community.

 

[Swagrid]

Yeah but I don’t want to say it’s Petrus because I don’t like petrus

> invents Petrus
> changes the name because they don't like Petrus

???

 

[GenTheSnail]

afaik mehta is largely dead so I don't think you really need to appeal to that group of cubers anymore.

In addition, this sounds like just another way of solving the petrus 223 or actually just doing LEOR (LEOR predates mehta and mehta is just sideways LEOR).

 

[1001010101001]

Using 5 stickers and AUF to recognise 4c after EOLR

EZ4C+

This recognition method is developed as an extension to EZ4C, to solve all 3-Cycle cases. The letters that correspond to each sticker is shown below, for AUF of U (Simply mirror it for U’ AUF): This flowchart generates the algorithm to solve 4c, and is executed at the end:

docs.google.com

The spreadsheet may look complicated but it's easy to execute quickly after a little practice, with only one extra step compared to ordinary EZ4C.