The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread

[mark49152]

Cyoubx made a rotationless F2l video once and he did this, and called this a 'stupid version of Roux'.

He said that on the basis that it's "inefficient" but it's no more inefficient than regular CFOP F2L. If you can solve F2B faster as a series of short, fast inserts of pairs despite the higher move count, compared to block building, why not?

 

[TDM]

Just a quick question. I like Roux, but am just coming to it out of CFOP really just to do some practice with M, M' and M2 fingertricks. So I came up with a weird hybrid that I like to use when practicing which consists of these steps:

1) Solve two opposite cross pieces only, and leave the 'line' (EOline without the EO) on bottom, with the solved edges at LD and RD extending to the centers on the L and R faces.

2) Do f2l with no cube rotations, by doing EO with M or M' turns. So if the edge requires a cube rotation to place it, move the edge to UF or UB, and use M or M' to place it at the opposite position on U, and then do the f2l insertion with the newly oriented edge.

3) Roux from here on out with just M and U turns.

Not sure that this is any faster than Roux, but could be a useful way for people too accustomed to CFOP to get used to the system.

And so the question is, is this a thing? Like a method some people use? Or just a bad idea

You should search before posting. This was most recently suggested two weeks ago.
You also forgot CMLL.

 

[DeeDubb]

I feel like this method has to have been thought up already, but I've been playing around with it on 4x4. It's basically a combo of Roux and Yau. (Rau Method?)

First, solve your LB/RB centers (whichever colors you are most comfortable with)

Second, Build your 4x3x1 LB (First, you should do your DL edge and match with your center, then do the other blocks. Instead of matching an edge and a corner, your matching two edges and a corner, this is actually pretty easy to do as a Rouxer).

Third, use the free U layer to solve the rest of the centers

Fourth, Do the rest of the edges the same way as Yau (except you can only use one face for shifting edges around, because you can't mess with the block you created)

Fifth, Solve the second block, CMLL, and Last Six Edges (plus parity).

It's almost identical to Yau, except I think it's a bit more restrictive about how you move pieces around during edge paring. Any thoughts? I didn't really know how to search for this. I just searched for Yau and Roux, and came up pretty empty.


EDIT: Just found the Stadler Method. Looks interesting, though, that involves doing both blocks and CMLL before centers and edges. I'll play around with that.

EDIT2: Meyer method is apparently exactly how I explained... Why do people want to put their names on EVERYTHING? It's just Roux+Yau.

EDIT3: NM, I guess Meyer came before Yau? I need to research before I post.

EDIT4: Only added this edit for comedic effect.

 

[guysensei1]

What I'm proposing has been brought up briefly before, but there was another (somewhat heated) discussion going on when this substep was proposed, so it was largely unnoticed.

anyway,
1) Solve the cube up to the last F2L however you wish.
2) Form the last pair (either R U R' or R U' R')
3) Use some technique analagous to Winter/summer variation to solve the last pair and corner orientation.
4) Finish last layer with 1 alg.

I really think this last layer step is superior to ZBLL as there are (a lot) less cases. I'm not sure about recognition though.
What do you think?

EDIT: There has been some discussion about this, but most point to how the CO+LS is problematic, not to the actual LL step.

 

[Bindedsa]

What I'm proposing has been brought up briefly before, but there was another (somewhat heated) discussion going on when this substep was proposed, so it was largely unnoticed.http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=988761

anyway,
1) Solve the cube up to the last F2L however you wish.
2) Form the last pair (either R U R' or R U' R')
3) Use some technique analagous to Winter/summer variation to solve the last pair and corner orientation.
4) Finish last layer with 1 alg.

I really think this last layer step is superior to ZBLL as there are (a lot) less cases. I'm not sure about recognition though.
What do you think?

EDIT: There has been some discussion about this, but most point to how the CO+LS is problematic, not to the actual LL step.

How hard would CO+LS be, to start could you just use WV+SV, with some better algs that ignore EO?

 

[guysensei1]

How hard would CO+LS be, to start could you just use WV+SV, with some better algs that ignore EO?

People were saying that not all last slot solving results in a WV/SV pair. There are things like D R U R' D' (well WV can apply to this too.) or R2 U2 R2 U2 R2

 

[notfeliks]

What I'm proposing has been brought up briefly before, but there was another (somewhat heated) discussion going on when this substep was proposed, so it was largely unnoticed.

anyway,
1) Solve the cube up to the last F2L however you wish.
2) Form the last pair (either R U R' or R U' R')
3) Use some technique analagous to Winter/summer variation to solve the last pair and corner orientation.
4) Finish last layer with 1 alg.

I really think this last layer step is superior to ZBLL as there are (a lot) less cases. I'm not sure about recognition though.
What do you think?

EDIT: There has been some discussion about this, but most point to how the CO+LS is problematic, not to the actual LL step.

I proposed this idea a while back in this thread, but mainly focused on the LL algs themselves. The completed result didn't end up very successful, but here is the link for the algs (most of them aren't all that good).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zo7jCkXYqHVxRouJwXgG8fJM2cUAjxNQzSHauKLVpCA/

 

[guysensei1]

I proposed this idea a while back in this thread, but mainly focused on the LL algs themselves. The completed result didn't end up very successful, but here is the link for the algs (most of them aren't all that good).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zo7jCkXYqHVxRouJwXgG8fJM2cUAjxNQzSHauKLVpCA/

Ah, I was inspired by your post actually!

 

[supercavitation]

I really should have generated those algs on Acube. Recognition is surprisingly easy, especially compared to, say ZBLL. I wrote a description for how to recognize cases on the last page of the document back before we published it.

 

[elrog]

I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing before opening the spoiler.

The solutions do not include the last layer, but you are welcome to see what the last layers are common.

For scramble 1, your D color during the solve is on the right side when you start the scramble.
Scramble 1: R F' R' F2 U L2 D2 F2 D B2 L2 B2 U' B2 R B R U2 B2 U L D2 U
z' x' U' L2' U2 l' U R U' r2'
u R2 U2' R' u' U' R' U R U R2'
u2' R U R' u R U R' u R U' R' U R U' R'

For scramble 2, your D color during the solve is on the front side when you start the scramble.
Scramble 2: R2 B2 L2 R2 U' R2 U B2 D L2 D2 B' L' B L2 B2 R' B D' L2 U'
u L' u2 r' U2' F2 z
u R U' R' u' R' U' R' E R2
R U R' u R U' R' u R U R' u R U' R' U2 R U R' u'

Scramble 3: D2 L2 B2 U2 B' D2 F' D2 F' D L' F2 R F' D' L U' R U'
y' U' R U R U2' F U L2
u2 R' u' U' R' U R U R2'
u' U2 R' U2' R u' R' U R u

Spoiler: Explanation

In these solves, I did a type of edge orientation. Normally, you would orient edges in relation to an axis, such as in ZZ or HTA. This is different and I'm not sure how to describe it.

You can stay in this orientation by only doing the moves y, y', y2, R, R', u, u', u2, U, U', and U2, you must do an R move before an R' move, and you must not do two R moves in the same direction without the opposite direction R move being between them.

I have been messing around with staying in the orientation while allowing x2 and z2 rotations. Doing this is much harder. Doing an R2 changes the FR and BR edges from bad to good or good to bad. Doing R or R' changes the orientation of E layer edges differently than it does for U and D layer edges, and I don't know how to describe how it actually works because I am still trying to fully understand it. I am sure I will be able to find much more efficient solutions to edge orientation much quicker after messing around with it for some time. You are welcome to contribute.

Edit:
I added a third scramble and it orients the edges so that they are preserved by the same criteria except for R' coming before R.
I will add pictures to aid in recognition of bad edges when I get time.

 

[mark49152]

I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing before opening the spoiler.

I can't get either solve to work. The first solves F2L but not LL; the second leaves the cube apparently scrambled.

 

[elrog]

They are not supposed to solve the LL and I have fixed the mistake in the second solution.

 

[mark49152]

They are not supposed to solve the LL and I have fixed the mistake in the second solution.

Missed that, sorry. I still can't get the second solution to work. The last step messes up the cross.

Very intriguing though. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are doing.

 

[elrog]

You didn't miss it: I forgot to tell it. Also, the second scramble is working fine for me. I added a third scramble as well.

 

[mark49152]

You didn't miss it: I forgot to tell it. Also, the second scramble is working fine for me. I added a third scramble as well.

You are correct, I was turning E the wrong way. Whoever defined our notation with slices inconsistent to rotations should be fired

I still can't figure out how this works though.

 

[Dane man]

I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing before opening the spoiler.

That's different, but I kinda like it. It seems like a strange "free form" version of performing F2L. And I like how the edges end up oriented... You'll have to explain better how you're doing that (but you said that not even you understand yet, so... yeah). When you figure it out, let me know. It might be useful.

PS: The last move of the third solution should be just u, not u'?

Whoever defined our notation with slices inconsistent to rotations should be fired

I agree. M should spin like R, and E like U. S is fine though.

 

[elrog]

PS: The last move of the third solution should be just u, not u'?

I am making mistakes all over the place.

If you have read the first spoiler in my previous post (3 posts ago), this spoiler might help.

Spoiler: Pictures

These first two pictures show the orientations of U layer edges (for the previously discussed subgroup) if you do R before R'.

These are good edges.

These are bad edges.

E layer edges orientation can be determined by this same pattern if you substitute the U layer color in the correct color on the edge. This color can be determined by looking at the E layer centers. I can't find a good way to explain it, so I'll use a picture.

If the E layer edges are in this position:

You should see this:

Or rather, this:

In this case they are all correctly oriented.

 

[Kirjava]

I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing before opening the spoiler.

Why are you using <R,U,u> instead of <R,r,U> ?

 

[elrog]

Why are you using <R,U,u> instead of <R,r,U> ?

Well, I was building an F2L which is normally the bottom 2 layers... You could do it with <R,r,U> if that's what you prefer. I do find it easier turn quickly in the <R,r,U> group, but your right hand blocks your view, you will have to rotate for the LL, and at my speed, going slower would probably help me more than TPS.

 

[FallenCuber]

New Method Any Good? (McM Method)

Hello, before I start off, I just wanted to say that the name of this method (McM Method) had nothing to do with the actual cube. Instead, it is a few of the letters that go into the creator's name.

Okay, now for the background. I, have been cubing for around 3 weeks, and decided that although solving a Rubik's Cube is fun, I would enjoy getting faster and faster, so I decided to indulge myself into the world of speed-cubing. I started around a 10 days ago, and have been learning the Fridrich Method. The only flaw, is that I've realized I'm much better at memorizing algorithms than doing anything slightly harder than basic intuitively, which was a big no no for F2L! I instead, searched around, only to find this method. So, I have come here to ask if you guys (speed-cubers) think that this method will suit me, or to just keep on pushing Fridrich? Here are the Main plans for the McM Method. The only difference from Fridrich is that the F2L is split into to different steps, full of easy to learn algorithms.

The Method goes in this order:

CROSS (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6ncxw44mrjp83x/McManus Method Algorithms for CROSS. (Complete).docx
OF2L (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntekeg7i1...rithms for OF2L. (Intuitive) (Complete).docx
PF2L (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0k3c4ztf53rslr/McManus Method Algorithms for PF2L. (Complete).docx
OLL (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh1jdy2jf... Algorithms for OLL. (2 Look) (Complete).docx
PLL (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/we1q0hnpj... Algorithms for PLL. (2 Look) (Complete).docx