The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[scottishcuber]

So... this is an idea, and I want to know if it could be faster than CFOP (only the OP bit tho)


Cross - F2L - (ZBLL///OLLCP - EPPL)


after f2l either using ZBLL or OLLCP depending on whether the cross comes up or any other case...
I understand that in order to correctly know ´how to recognize and execute roughly 750 algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, could it be faster than CFOP?

OPINIONS PLEASE?

You can't just combine 2 already existent LL methods, put your name on it and pass them off as your own idea...they already existed so you have no claim over them.

 

[GG]

You can't just combine 2 already existent LL methods, put your name on it and pass them off as your own idea...they already existed so you have no claim over them.

Sorry, unexperienced cuber here, no need to be harsh!
After about an hour of researrch I have decided to go ahead and learn full cfop first (I already know half of oll and full pll anyway) ;
and then learn full COLL and see if I am faster using VH.
The only real reason I'd like to test out VH is to see if it could be faster than cfop... I'd love to be different from all cfop users (no offense!!), but I don't really feel like learning roux or petrus XD
It would be cool to say : no! I use VH .
I'm a bit stupid but I'd like to experiment with it once I know full cfop.
At least then I'll have something to fall back on if I suck at VH

 

[brian724080]

I understand that in order to correctly know how to recognize and execute roughly 43 quintillion algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, it would be faster than CFOP and ZB, right? Because if it is I'll just stop learning those algs and switch right over now.

Yup, just wait, in a few years, the top speed-cubers will be one-looking 3x3s

 

[Kirjava]

This is silly.

 

[GG]

Nobody gets sarcasm nowadays. Kirjava, I knew you would be here but I imagined you'd have more negative input (jk you're awesome)
I'm in the middle of learning oll's and after that I'll learn VH (intuitive VH and COLL) just to know more stuffs, cause otherwise Ill get bored,
Seriously though, I wasn't honestly proposing memorizing all 750 algorithms, for that there is ZB, I was just wondering if it would work (HYPOTHETICALLY!!)
I just really want there to be something faster than cfop.

 

[pipkiksass]

I understand that in order to correctly know how to recognize and execute roughly 43 quintillion algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, it would be faster than CFOP and ZB, right? Because if it is I'll just stop learning those algs and switch right over now.

Lol! If this forum only had an emoticon that could encapsulate how much I love this post...

just really want there to be something faster than cfop.

There's plenty faster than CFOP. For example ZZ + ZBLL, or ZBF2L + ZBLL. As Coolster's post implies, however, the more you try to do with a single alg, the more permutations there are, and so more algs and cases to recognise.

The joy of CFOP is that it reduces hundreds of LL cases into a handful of algs. That's the trade off: ease of use vs.efficiency.

 

[GG]

I get it, I don't know why but i saw that some girl had learnt like 270 ZBLL'S and thought it would be fun to join in;
fact of the matter is, cfop is only faster because recog is so easy, thanks everyone for helping me get through my "mid-OLL" crisis.

 

[Kirjava]

Kirjava, I knew you would be here but I imagined you'd have more negative input

There's no point giving more input really, it's more just discarding it.

Anyhoo, I do like the idea of meta steps or systems - but they are very difficult to get right, and it's tricky trying to guess if they are at all even viable.

 

[pipkiksass]

It's not 43 quintillion algs if you consider mirrors and inverses!

 

[IRNjuggle28]

So... this is an idea, and I want to know if it could be faster than CFOP (only the OP bit tho)


Cross - F2L - (ZBLL///OLLCP - EPPL)


after f2l either using ZBLL or OLLCP depending on whether the cross comes up or any other case...
I understand that in order to correctly know ´how to recognize and execute roughly 750 algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, could it be faster than CFOP?

OPINIONS PLEASE?

Yes, technically speaking, it could be faster than CFOP. You know what else could, technically speaking, be faster? 1 look last layer. Or 1 look 3x3 solves. Or optimal 3x3 solutions.

EDIT: wow, ninja'd by 2 different people. *facepalm*

 

[TheNextFeliks]

Yes, technically speaking, it could be faster than CFOP. You know what else could, technically speaking, be faster? 1 look last layer. Or 1 look 3x3 solves. Or optimal 3x3 solutions.

EDIT: wow, ninja'd by 2 different people. *facepalm*

That's not even ninja'd. It was hours before. Ninja'd is like seconds or a few minutes.

I don't actually understand what the idea is? OLLCP and EPLL?

 

[Phillip1847]

That's not even ninja'd. It was hours before. Ninja'd is like seconds or a few minutes.

I don't actually understand what the idea is? OLLCP and EPLL?

If cross on LL = true:
1 look with ZBLL
Else:
2 look with OLLCP + EPLL

When playing around with skewb, I found it really easy to attatch 3 adjacent centers to 3 adjacent corners(or layer -1corner + 2 centers).
Would you be able to make anything out of this? How many cases for the rest(Not terribly familiar with skewb CO rules)?

 

[mark49152]

I get it, I don't know why but i saw that some girl had learnt like 270 ZBLL'S and thought it would be fun to join in;
fact of the matter is, cfop is only faster because recog is so easy, thanks everyone for helping me get through my "mid-OLL" crisis.

By the time you've learned all the OLLs and practised CFOP enough to be decently fast, you'll have forgotten about this thread and learned that F2L is where you should invest your time to get faster.

 

[mark49152]

Just curious as to whether anyone uses the following method.
1. Solve DL and DR with adjacent centres. M slice centres don't matter (2.9 moves).
2. Solve F2L pairs, with free use of the M slice (24.1 moves).
3. Solve DF and DB, and M slice centres (5.2 moves).
4. Finish with OLL/PLL or LL of your choice.

Advantages and reasons I find this appealing:-
1. Step 1 is very short and simple, so planning first pair during inspection is easier (compared to cross).
2. F2L pairs are solved in <URrLlM> with no rotations and no F or B moves.
3. Because the M slice is unrestricted, pair solutions are slightly shorter on average (24.1 versus 27.5 for CFOP).
4. Step 3 is <MU> and based on a few common patterns/triggers, so can be faster TPS than cross, which typically involves several faces.
5. It's easier to look ahead into OLL because the corners aren't changed by step 3.

The only disadvantage I can see is that lookahead is a little harder because you have to be aware of what's in DF and DB while solving pairs.

Regarding move counts, I tried both this and CFOP against the same 12 scrambles, and that's where the estimates above come from (it's only a small sample set, I know). Counts are in STM. Total F2L move count was 32.2 for this method, compared to 33.7 for CFOP. Effectively, cross, which averaged 6.2 moves, was replaced by 8.1 moves for steps 1&3, but that 2-move increase was offset by the more efficient pairs.

Clearly the small decrease in move count isn't enough of an advantage in itself, but move count doesn't appear to be worsened either, so I'm wondering if the other advantages listed above make this worthy of further exploration. I'm considering documenting the F2L cases/solutions.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[TDM]

Just curious as to whether anyone uses the following method.
1. Solve DL and DR with adjacent centres. M slice centres don't matter (2.9 moves).
2. Solve F2L pairs, with free use of the M slice (24.1 moves).
3. Solve DF and DB, and M slice centres (5.2 moves).
4. Finish with OLL/PLL or LL of your choice.

Advantages and reasons I find this appealing:-
1. Step 1 is very short and simple, so planning first pair during inspection is easier (compared to cross).
2. F2L pairs are solved in <URrLlM> with no rotations and no F or B moves.
3. Because the M slice is unrestricted, pair solutions are slightly shorter on average (24.1 versus 27.5 for CFOP).
4. Step 3 is <MU> and based on a few common patterns/triggers, so can be faster TPS than cross, which typically involves several faces.
5. It's easier to look ahead into OLL because the corners aren't changed by step 3.

The only disadvantage I can see is that lookahead is a little harder because you have to be aware of what's in DF and DB while solving pairs.

Regarding move counts, I tried both this and CFOP against the same 12 scrambles, and that's where the estimates above come from (it's only a small sample set, I know). Counts are in STM. Total F2L move count was 32.2 for this method, compared to 33.7 for CFOP. Effectively, cross, which averaged 6.2 moves, was replaced by 8.1 moves for steps 1&3, but that 2-move increase was offset by the more efficient pairs.

Clearly the small decrease in move count isn't enough of an advantage in itself, but move count doesn't appear to be worsened either, so I'm wondering if the other advantages listed above make this worthy of further exploration. I'm considering documenting the F2L cases/solutions.

Thoughts, anyone?

Why not replace steps 1 and 2 with Rouxblocks?

 

[mark49152]

Why not replace steps 1 and 2 with Rouxblocks?

Because blockbuilding is hard. This is just a variant of F2L pairs so follows the same principle - higher move count than blockbuilding but easier to lookahead and spam TPS.

 

[TDM]

Because blockbuilding is hard. This is just a variant of F2L pairs so follows the same principle - higher move count than blockbuilding but easier to lookahead and spam TPS.

If you're looking for easy lookahead and spamming TPS, I'd have thought CFOP would be easier. Also, blockbuilding isn't hard for everyone, just people who don't use blockbuilding methods as their main method, plus maybe a few others (although that does mean it's hard for most people. I'm just saying it won't be for everyone).

 

[mark49152]

If you're looking for easy lookahead and spamming TPS, I'd have thought CFOP would be easier. Also, blockbuilding isn't hard for everyone, just people who don't use blockbuilding methods as their main method, plus maybe a few others (although that does mean it's hard for most people. I'm just saying it won't be for everyone).

Yeah I know about CFOP and Roux. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the idea above. Have you tried it?

 

[TDM]

Yeah I know about CFOP and Roux. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the idea above. Have you tried it?

I haven't tried it yet, but I know from trying to look ahead with Roux that I won't be very good with this method. I do my second block almost the same as this (make pair 1, DR edge, insert pair, pair 2), and I can't look ahead at any point. For a CFOP user, it's much harder because the edges can be in so many places. You also have to regrip for stage 3 and then back again for stage 4, which doesn't help.

 

[Renslay]

Because blockbuilding is hard.

No, it's not. It's just different than F2L.