Findnf
Member
Weird method I made for a JOKE bc everybody hates N-perms
there is MGLS by @Lucas Garron where you insert edge orienting edges, inser corner orienting corners, and do PLLI came up with a last slot method for 3x3. I call it GLS
1.F2l-1
2. Insert corner.
3. insert the edge while orienting all LL edges.
4.LL
I will start genning algs for this.
If this has already been invented, just tell me.
That is one big step1.F2l-1
It hasIf this has already been invented, just tell me.
In this substep, you do the corner first then you do the edge.here is MGLS by @Lucas Garron where you insert edge orienting edges, inser corner orienting corners, and do PLL
and what's the advantage?In this substep, you do the corner first then you do the edge.
1. Get out.The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.
bruh, no one specified to me that I have to breath to stay alive. I'm just not plain dumbThe 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.
So then why are you proposing a method that's not good or original? APB is a great method proposal, RUBAR is an original method. Yours is a method anyone can think up. This thread already has enough method dumps. If you're going to chide people for criticizing your method at least make the method good.The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.
It is just ZB with more steps.I came up with a last slot method for 3x3. I call it GLS
1.F2l-1
2. Insert corner.
3. insert the edge while orienting all LL edges.
4.LL
I will start genning algs for this.
If this has already been invented, just tell me.
I'm telling you guys, if the first line of a post reads like this, the method was made in 5 minutes.random Rubik's cube method
You didn't solve the M Centers.random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL
i made it in five daysI'm telling you guys, if the first line of a post reads like this, the method was made in 5 minutes.
You didn't solve the M Centers.
BLS should exist somewhere. The algs are better that ELSOLL, but are longer than VLS.
1 min a dayi made it in five days
Another way you can say it is:random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL
that's cll+ell and many people know what it is. it is slower than normal oll+pllI thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.
These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
The average moves for PLL are 13.4
OLL is likely slower than PLL, and <M,U> perms are faster than the average PLL. So solving the corners, then edges, should be faster than solving OLL, then PLL.
Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?that's cll+ell and many people know what it is. it is slower than normal oll+pll
Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?
Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.
For a lot of ELL cases <MU> isn't optimal, <S,R,U,M> would be better (Though obviously, you won't have all of that in very many algs.)Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?
Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.
Don't even bother.