The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[Twisted101]

Yes, I did mean 2x2x3. By ELS, I meant EPLS.

I am pretty sure it is called LPEPLL not EPLS

 

[Averageof12]

ZR (ZZ-Roux) Method

1. Solve FD and BD edges+BL F2L pair.
2. Solve RD, FR, and BR edges.
3. Solve last F2L pair.
4. Do EO while inserting LD edge.
5. Solve OLL while inserting last 2 F2L corners. (Maybe SOME algs would be good.)
6. PLL.

Pros:
-Lookaheadable. I was able to plan Step 1 entirely during inspection, and during Step 4, the last 2 F2L corners don't move from U face.
-Rotationless F2L.
-Highly intuitive.

 

[Twisted101]

ZR (ZZ-Roux) Method

1. Solve FD and BD edges+BL F2L pair.
2. Solve RD, FR, and BR edges.
3. Solve last F2L pair.
4. Do EO while inserting LD edge.
5. Solve OLL while inserting last 2 F2L corners. (Maybe SOME algs would be good.)
6. PLL.

Pros:
-Lookaheadable. I was able to plan Step 1 entirely during inspection, and during Step 4, the last 2 F2L corners don't move from U face.
-Rotationless F2L.
-Highly intuitive.

EODL wouldn’t be bad cuz it is just L5EOP, but like what benefit does solving only edges of RB have over just solving rb. Sure solving only edges takes less moves but like that will likely not make up for the movecount of OCLL+2C. And also don’t make big 3 hybrids, all of them suck in comparison to the actual big 3.

 

[edward_9x]

Idea for eoline lookahead

During inspection, go through the inverse of your eoline solution in your head while tracking DL and DR. They will "end up" somewhere. The 2 edges currently in that spot will end up in DL and DR if you were to do the inverse of that inverse. (so, just the normal line solution). You now know which 2 edges DL and DR will be after executing your line solution.

 

[Silky]

ZR (ZZ-Roux) Method

1. Solve FD and BD edges+BL F2L pair.
2. Solve RD, FR, and BR edges.
3. Solve last F2L pair.
4. Do EO while inserting LD edge.
5. Solve OLL while inserting last 2 F2L corners. (Maybe SOME algs would be good.)
6. PLL.

Pros:
-Lookaheadable. I was able to plan Step 1 entirely during inspection, and during Step 4, the last 2 F2L corners don't move from U face.
-Rotationless F2L.
-Highly intuitive.

I don't see how this is related to ZZ or Roux in any way. It seems that a common theme in your method proposals are throwing random ideas at a wall and hoping they stick. Some advice: spend a bit more time thinking about why you are doing a certain step instead of making a step for the sake of making one. For example - Step (5) how do you do this without algs - if you are using algs what do they look like - how does the method benefit doing OLL while inserting the last 2 corners over doing them separately? I also encourage you to actually test these ideas out - make example solves - do some downsolves - compare it to other related methods - test out a recognition methods and check for blindspots, etc

 

[PapaSmurf]

Idea for eoline lookahead

During inspection, go through the inverse of your eoline solution in your head while tracking DL and DR. They will "end up" somewhere. The 2 edges currently in that spot will end up in DL and DR if you were to do the inverse of that inverse. (so, just the normal line solution). You now know which 2 edges DL and DR will be after executing your line solution.

Or just plan EOCross.

But to slightly expand, this is an inverse technique that is related to those used by FMCers. I don't really think this is super practical for speedsolving (I'd rather plan a pair for example), but it would be interesting to see if FMC techniques could be applied to speedsolving in any way beyond EO and comms.

 

[edward_9x]

Continuing my idea of solving EPLL+both parities at the same time on a 4x4: since alg genning on this puzzle is basically impossible, I wonder if any EPLL+parity case can be solved using only combinations of two different K4 ELLs. Since for example a U-perm plus OLL parity (a 3 cycle of dedges) can be seen as two 3-cycles of wings, then maybe we can combine two K4 ELL comms from Thom's website to solve this case, if it turns out to be faster than just the normal EPLL followed by OLL parity.

For stuff like H perm or Z perm, I don't think combining 3-cycles would work, but on the website there are other types of algs too.

 

[Averageof12]

Pseudo Method

1. Solve an X-cross+EO. This can be done in two ways: a) Solve cross then BL F2L pair, or b) Solve a 2x2x2 in the back left, then last two cross pieces. I believe this can always be done in 13 moves or less. Then EO.
2. Pseudo-multislot F2L. The most complicated step.
1. Solve FR and BR edges, then FDL corner.
2. D'. Then solve the FL F2L pseudo pair. Then solve the right as a pseudo pair. Align D layer.
3. ZBLL. Or, when you solve the right pseudo pair, WVLS+PLL.

Pros:
1. Rotationless F2L.
2. Average solution movecount ~45 moves.
3. Quite good lookahead.

 

[Twisted101]

Pseudo Method

1. Solve an X-cross+EO. This can be done in two ways: a) Solve cross then BL F2L pair, or b) Solve a 2x2x2 in the back left, then last two cross pieces. I believe this can always be done in 13 moves or less. Then EO.
2. Pseudo-multislot F2L. The most complicated step.
1. Solve FR and BR edges, then FDL corner.
2. D'. Then solve the FL F2L pseudo pair. Then solve the right as a pseudo pair. Align D layer.
3. ZBLL. Or, when you solve the right pseudo pair, WVLS+PLL.

Pros:
1. Rotationless F2L.
2. Average solution movecount ~45 moves.
3. Quite good lookahead.

Idk what to say, this is literally just standard zz-a but restricted

 

[PapaSmurf]

Pseudo Method

1. Solve an X-cross+EO. This can be done in two ways: a) Solve cross then BL F2L pair, or b) Solve a 2x2x2 in the back left, then last two cross pieces. I believe this can always be done in 13 moves or less. Then EO.
2. Pseudo-multislot F2L. The most complicated step.
1. Solve FR and BR edges, then FDL corner.
2. D'. Then solve the FL F2L pseudo pair. Then solve the right as a pseudo pair. Align D layer.
3. ZBLL. Or, when you solve the right pseudo pair, WVLS+PLL.

Pros:
1. Rotationless F2L.
2. Average solution movecount ~45 moves.
3. Quite good lookahead.

Check https://www.zzmethod.com/ out. You have seeds of a very good method.

 

[Averageof12]

Check https://www.zzmethod.com/ out. You have seeds of a very good method.

I think this is still a bit different than this method. My version has lower movecount (with ZBLL). CFOP LL for it only has 48 algs, wich is pretty low.
(21 PLL, 27 WVLS). I hope this one gets somewhere, as I think it has the potential to be a good speedsolving method. I did a few solves, and even got 2 sub-20 singles. There are no hiding spots for corners, as once you do a D', you only need to look at the front top. (for edges, the BR spot could be considered a hiding spot).

 

[PapaSmurf]

I think this is still a bit different than this method. My version has lower movecount (with ZBLL). CFOP LL for it only has 48 algs, wich is pretty low.
(21 PLL, 27 WVLS). I hope this one gets somewhere, as I think it has the potential to be a good speedsolving method. I did a few solves, and even got 2 sub-20 singles. There are no hiding spots for corners, as once you do a D', you only need to look at the front top. (for edges, the BR spot could be considered a hiding spot).

What you have described is literally ZZ though, with restrictions. If I do an XEOCross, I am doing ZZ. So this is ZZ. And this isn't a new idea either - I've had sub 8 singles with this "method".

 

[zzcuberman]

What you have described is literally ZZ though, with restrictions. If I do an XEOCross, I am doing ZZ. So this is ZZ. And this isn't a new idea either - I've had sub 8 singles with this "method".

This. Sorry buddy but it's just ZZ with more restrictions

 

[edward_9x]

Every CFOP F2L pair solution ends with a trigger that either solves the "split piece" 3-mover, or the "paired up" 3-mover.

What if, during last slot, instead of doing the last trigger of your F2L alg, you do option select between either VHLS or split pair ZBLS? It is less algorithms than full ZBLS, and you're no longer forced to reduce to the "paired up" case, so it should also be less moves than VHLS (on average).

 

[ProStar]

Every CFOP F2L pair solution ends with a trigger that either solves the "split piece" 3-mover, or the "paired up" 3-mover.

What if, during last slot, instead of doing the last trigger of your F2L alg, you do option select between either VHLS or split pair ZBLS? It is less algorithms than full ZBLS, and you're no longer forced to reduce to the "paired up" case, so it should also be less moves than VHLS (on average).

VHLS already contains split pair cases. The issue with it is that the extra look and extra algorithm you add to the solve is much slower than the time you save by using COLL or even ZBLL (except for a few cases)

 

[Averageof12]

1. Solve DB Edge. (Max.- 2 Moves) (Rotations- None) (Ergonomic: Yes)
2. Solve DL, DR, BL, BR Edges. (Max.- 8 Moves) (Rotations- None) (Ergonomic: Yes/No)
3. Using many move cancellations/triggers, Solve F2L. (Max.- 14 Moves) (Rotations: 0-1) (Ergonomics: Sort of)
[If someone asks for an example solve, I will post one].
4. Your preferred LL Method. (Moves/Rotations/Ergonomics vary).

 

[IsThatA4x4]

1. Solve DB Edge. (Max.- 2 Moves) (Rotations- None) (Ergonomic: Yes)
2. Solve DL, DR, BL, BR Edges. (Max.- 8 Moves) (Rotations- None) (Ergonomic: Yes/No)
3. Using many move cancellations/triggers, Solve F2L. (Max.- 14 Moves) (Rotations: 0-1) (Ergonomics: Sort of)
[If someone asks for an example solve, I will post one].
4. Your preferred LL Method. (Moves/Rotations/Ergonomics vary)

This is just CFOP/freefop but more restricted because you have a bunch of solved edges in the way

 

[Fred]

BEOF:
1. Solve two 1x2x2 squares (like Roux simultaneous blocks)
2. EOline/EOstripe - EO while solving DB and DF edges to finish up cross
3. Two ZZF2L pairs
4. ZBLL

It's like LEOR but rotated 90 degrees (and one more edge solved), so Back-EO-Front.

 

[tsmosher]

I've been thinking for a long time about how to make KALL into a useful LS/LL approach.

PapaSmurf is correct that it is no better than LS > 2-look OLL > PLL (which has only 31 cases to boot).
It is also hard to justify targeting EPLL as a final step when Z-PLLs are generally some of the slowest.

Here is my proposal:

1. Solve "sideways" Nautilus block-- unsolved is dfR.

Option #1 (4 looks)
2. Arrange dFR into a premade pair.
3. Insert dFR using WVLS.

Option #2 (4 looks)
2. Solve and insert dFR.
3. OCLL

4. "OLLCP/B"
5. L5EP-DR

Now, what is "OLLCP/B"?
It is my unimaginative name for a step very similar to OLLCP/A.
Assuming corners are oriented, OLLCP/A resolves CPLL and EOLL with a single alg.

Assuming corners are oriented, "OLLCP/B" (or "OLLCP/DR" or...) will resolve CPLL and L5EO-DR with a single alg.

This leaves L5EP-DR (almost entirely <RUS>) as a reasonably fast last step.

Are the algs good like OLLCP/A?
I'm sifting through Batch Solver now to find that out.

Does the 5th edge villify this LS/LL approach?

Tim.

 

[LukasCubes]

I have a crap ZZ/Waterman hybrid to post here

1. EO-Line
2. Finish bottom layer but without DL or DR edge
3. CLL
4. z/z' rotation followed by using U M2 U' or U' M2 U to solve 3 redges into yellow, does not have to be permutes correctly
5. Roux 4b and 4c

This method sucks but I wonder if I can gen some algset to solve UR/FR/UL instead of just UL and UR idk