• 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!)

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.)
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.
Huh?

Roll a die until you get a 6 and count how many rolls that took.
Repeat the experiment a few times.
 

DuJello

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
7
Isn't this simply less efficient than CFOP which is already only good because of easy look-ahead? You're just increasing move count needlessly. CFOP already has a pretty bad move count for a speedcubing method but you almost doubled it. While I understand the general sentiment, learning and using algs isn't a bad way to solve until you try to learn way more algs than you could possibly ever practice and get fast at. Most decent cubers know from 50 to 130 algs which they can execute at full speed. There really isn't a need to consider methods with fewer algs unless your alg count is on the order of hundreds like zb or 1lll.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,880
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Shadowslice
Isn't this simply less efficient than CFOP which is already only good because of easy look-ahead? You're just increasing move count needlessly. CFOP already has a pretty bad move count for a speedcubing method but you almost doubled it. While I understand the general sentiment, learning and using algs isn't a bad way to solve until you try to learn way more algs than you could possibly ever practice and get fast at. Most decent cubers know from 50 to 130 algs which they can execute at full speed. There really isn't a need to consider methods with fewer algs unless your alg count is on the order of hundreds like zb or 1lll.
Please don't bump old threads.

Also, CFOP isn't actually too bad movecountwise when you measure it in SQTM
Also, I think you missed the joke
 

DGCubes

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
1,707
Location
Over there
WCA
2013GOOD01
YouTube
DGCubes
Isn't this simply less efficient than CFOP which is already only good because of easy look-ahead? You're just increasing move count needlessly. CFOP already has a pretty bad move count for a speedcubing method but you almost doubled it. While I understand the general sentiment, learning and using algs isn't a bad way to solve until you try to learn way more algs than you could possibly ever practice and get fast at. Most decent cubers know from 50 to 130 algs which they can execute at full speed. There really isn't a need to consider methods with fewer algs unless your alg count is on the order of hundreds like zb or 1lll.
No, this method is notably better. With this method, you have a really long time to recognize F2L, OLL, and PLL cases due to the length of each of their first steps. With CFOP, it can take seconds to recognize these same exact cases, which result in long, unnecessary pauses.

Although, if we're talking about better alternatives to CFOP, CFinity is definitely the way to go.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
101
Location
near Brisbane
YouTube
Benjamin Warry
I actually tried CFinity once. It took me 2 months. However I suspect that the fact that I was using a shengshou was the main reason for my slowness. I wonder if this could be applied to something like a 4x4. Think of it! Reduxinity! Make the centres, pair up the edges and if it isn't solved repeat! With this method you could solve the 4x4 intuitively every time! :eek:
 

YouCubing

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
2,377
Location
Not close enough to the nearest comp
WCA
2015JOIN01
YouTube
channel/UC85RnSL8xLGBkHIACO5bzkw
I actually tried CFinity once. It took me 2 months. However I suspect that the fact that I was using a shengshou was the main reason for my slowness. I wonder if this could be applied to something like a 4x4. Think of it! Reduxinity! Make the centres, pair up the edges and if it isn't solved repeat! With this method you could solve the 4x4 intuitively every time! :eek:
i mean i have an official 39 with cfinity (not just a lucky LL skip, I actually tried for it)
 
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
105
1. It breaks different pieces than the algorithm shown on picture; with my alg, you can rotate the D face to break different corners, and does not break any edges.
2. Isn't JUP for big cubes?
 
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
105
F Rw U Rw' F' for that case :)

Please don't unnecessarily bump old threads, particularly joke ones!
1. This breaks different pieces than the marked piece
2. This isn't for beginners. Beginners simply find it easier to rotate down face, then insert the edge.
 
Top