• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

XG (New Method Based on Fridrich!)

jacob15728

Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
209
Location
New York
Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.
 

jacob15728

Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
209
Location
New York
Oh... I just read the rest of this thread and now I feel like a bit of an idiot. But I think not recognizing that it is a joke and realizing that it is a horrible method is nowhere near as bad as actually falling for it.
 

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
I knew it was a joke. But it's a dumb joke. Not even funny.
Experiment over. Hypothesis confirmed.
This thread has significantly more replies (55) than any serious ideas I've ever posted. The only threads I've ever started that gained more replies were SF09 (61) and the 2-gen contest (71).

Anyhow, the point wasn't so much a joke with which I wanted people to go along. It's supposed to make some of you realize that you're posting stuff which is just as stupid, with the pretense of knowing what you're doing. I wanted to capture all those minor-facepalm components I try to restrain myself from getting angry about.

As for the method, it's actually not bad for speed LBL. It's good if you want a high-TPS solve, or maybe if you want to show off with fast moves to people who don't care so much about the time.
After reading Lucas's message, I wouldn't even give you a facepalm.
 

Edward

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,499
Location
Your default internet browser
WCA
2011KING01
YouTube
twistnturn44
Lucas on the XG thread:

Aug 18 21:45:23 <lgarron> Ethan_Rosen: It's a grand parody of all the stupid threads out there.
Why the Heck are all threads presenting new ways to solve the cube stupid. I don't get you guys. You promote sharing your ideas, but when someone does, you automatically write them off. I find it wierd how instantly Lucas' post got serious replies (of course some were just playing along).
 

hawkmp4

Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,396
I have no problem with a well thought out idea, with the merits of the new method explained over the old. But they're all really just 'what if we did...[this]?' where lately [this] has been solve the E slice first and fumble around the rest of the cube dealing with separating out into layers and fixing awkward parities.
 

Tomk

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
51
Location
UK
Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.
 

hawkmp4

Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,396
Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.
can you show us how you got those numbers? I think this method has potential.
 

Lucas Garron

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,557
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
LucasGarron
Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.
lern2math

(The average would be 43,252,003,274,489,856,000, not half of that.)
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Indy
WCA
2009ROAC01
I just found a way to improve the F2L of the XG method:
My idea is to call it the XG-F2LWITHOUTANYALGSMETHOD. The basic idea of this method is to take XG and just make the F2L by inserting pairs; it's a very advanced method, so I can't really explain it, therefore badmephisto made a video about this (he already used the method), I hope you guys can follow this.
DUDE I JUST WENT SUB 10 MINUTES
 

hawkmp4

Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,396
Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.
lern2math

(The average would be 43,252,003,274,489,856,000, not half of that.)
Wouldn't the actual number be higher? If I'm thinking about this correctly, 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 is assuming with every move you're visiting a new cube state.
 

Lucas Garron

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,557
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
LucasGarron
Why don't people read through the whole post?
yeah, good question, its only like 2 pages.

Anyone someone refers to page x, I feel like pointing out that my forum settings are 40 posts per page, so my page numbering is different. I should have the same right to be ignorant of other people and expect them not to get confused, rihgt?
 
Top