XG (New Method Based on Fridrich!)

[Lucas Garron]

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.

 

[hawkmp4]

>.>
Shhhhhh.
Nothing more needs to be said. Hawkmp4 had a stupid moment.

 

[DuJello]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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!

 

[FJT97]

Please don't bump old threads.

Also, I think you missed the joke

Why?

 

[shadowslice e]

Why?

Don't bump old threads if you have nothing new to add. It's just good etiquette and also in the forum rules.

 

[YouCubing]

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!

i mean i have an official 39 with cfinity (not just a lucky LL skip, I actually tried for it)

 

[Piotr Grochowski]

You can improve on F2L by taking advantage of free slots, for example:

 

[mDiPalma]

You can improve on F2L by taking advantage of free slots, for example:

or sometimes you can just use petrus, which is a less efficient variant of XG
F2 U F U' F2

 

[Piotr Grochowski]

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?

 

[Ranzha]

You can improve on F2L by taking advantage of free slots, for example:

F Rw U Rw' F' for that case

Please don't unnecessarily bump old threads, particularly joke ones!

 

[shadowslice e]

F Rw U Rw' F' for that case

Please don't unnecessarily bump old threads, particularly joke ones!

This is a joke? :-O

 

[Piotr Grochowski]

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.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

why is this in the wiki as a serious method?

 

[shadowslice e]

why is this in the wiki as a serious method?

Because it is a serious method.