<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Tony+Snyder</id>
	<title>Speedsolving.com Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Tony+Snyder"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Tony_Snyder"/>
	<updated>2026-10-20T12:18:31Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.8</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=14392</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=14392"/>
		<updated>2011-04-04T00:12:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a rough website setup now with videos and more of my opinions at:  [http://www.snydermind.com snydermind]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My personal cubing goals are as follows...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)  document and illustrate full lists of fewest move algorithms for LLE+1C&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2)  add LL direct solve algorithms wherever they save 5+ turns&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
3)  find ways to reduce the F2L looks&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
4)  finish development and documentation for my fingering techniques&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
5)  document the full method, so others can learn it&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
6)  then start working on the various theories I have to achieve a consistent human direct-solve&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=14311</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=14311"/>
		<updated>2011-03-18T00:24:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a rough website setup now with videos and more of my opinions at:  www.snydermind.com&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My personal cubing goals are as follows...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)  document and illustrate full lists of fewest move algorithms for LLE+1C&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2)  add LL direct solve algorithms wherever they save 5+ turns&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
3)  find ways to reduce the F2L looks&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
4)  finish development and documentation for my fingering techniques&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
5)  document the full method, so others can learn it&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
6)  then start working on the various theories I have to achieve a consistent human direct-solve&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=14310</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=14310"/>
		<updated>2011-03-18T00:08:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  (Anthony has since added optional starts using a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x3, also with or without the cross.)  Then the final CE pair is placed while simultaneously orienting and placing a minimum of one LLE.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main objective to the Snyder Method is to orient and permute each piece at each stage simultaneously rather than separate steps, as he claims several strategic advantages to this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* a simultaneous orient and permute helps the person visualize piece relationships useful to intuitive cube solving&lt;br /&gt;
* Snyder is convinced there is a mathematical advantage to simultaneous orient and permute, though he has not proven this&lt;br /&gt;
* all LL algs learned that fit this philosophy will also be a subset of the LL direct solve method, thereby making more efficient use of the learning process for people who have as an ultimate goal a LL direct solve&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI a newer demo, easier to see], and here he is seen doing 5 speed solves using Snyder Method 2 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEKjAHDyKLo showing how fast it is despite his handicaps].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Though there are many cases to first solving the LLE+1C, the more common cases can generally be solved in 6-10 turns, making it quite turn efficient.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer, and therefore claims that his system is one of the most efficient systems based primarily on human originated algorithms.  In the 80&#039;s there was a general stereotype that using a computer was cheating, plus Anthony enjoyed thinking up his own algorithms.  However, he states that he will upgrade his system using computer modeling in the near future, possibly making it a serious contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, a 7 algorithm system that is easy to learn.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not yet put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=14309</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=14309"/>
		<updated>2011-03-18T00:07:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  (Anthony has since added optional starts using a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x3, also with or without the cross.)  Then the final CE pair is placed while simultaneously orienting and placing a minimum of one LLE.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main objective to the Snyder Method is to orient and permute each piece at each stage simultaneously rather than separate steps, as he claims several strategic advantages to this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* a simultaneous orient and permute helps the person visualize piece relationships useful to intuitive cube solving&lt;br /&gt;
* Snyder is convinced there is a mathematical advantage to simultaneous orient and permute, though he has not proven this&lt;br /&gt;
* all LL algs learned that fit this philosophy will also be a subset of the LL direct solve method, thereby making more efficient use of the learning process for people who have as an ultimate goal a LL direct solve&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI a newer demo, easier to see], and here is seen doing 5 speed solves using Snyder Method 2 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEKjAHDyKLo showing how fast it is despite his handicaps].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Though there are many cases to first solving the LLE+1C, the more common cases can generally be solved in 6-10 turns, making it quite turn efficient.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer, and therefore claims that his system is one of the most efficient systems based primarily on human originated algorithms.  In the 80&#039;s there was a general stereotype that using a computer was cheating, plus Anthony enjoyed thinking up his own algorithms.  However, he states that he will upgrade his system using computer modeling in the near future, possibly making it a serious contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, a 7 algorithm system that is easy to learn.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not yet put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11442</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11442"/>
		<updated>2010-11-10T17:41:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  (Anthony has since added optional starts using a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x3, also with or without the cross.)  Then the final CE pair is placed while simultaneously orienting and placing a minimum of one LLE.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The main objective to the Snyder Method is to orient and permute each piece at each stage simultaneously rather than separate steps, as he claims several strategic advantages to this:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* a simultaneous orient and permute helps the person visualize piece relationships useful to intuitive cube solving&lt;br /&gt;
* Snyder is convinced there is a mathematical advantage to simultaneous orient and permute, though he has not proven this&lt;br /&gt;
* all LL algs learned that fit this philosophy will also be a subset of the LL direct solve method, thereby making more efficient use of the learning process for people who have as an ultimate goal a LL direct solve&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI a newer demo, easier to see].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Though there are many cases to first solving the LLE+1C, the more common cases can generally be solved in 6-10 turns, making it quite turn efficient.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer, and therefore claims that his system is one of the most efficient systems based primarily on human originated algorithms.  In the 80&#039;s there was a general stereotype that using a computer was cheating, plus Anthony enjoyed thinking up his own algorithms.  However, he states that he will upgrade his system using computer modeling in the near future, possibly making it a serious contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, a 7 algorithm system that is easy to learn.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not yet put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11421</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11421"/>
		<updated>2010-11-03T03:10:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming at least a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms or the conditional addition of two more turns, so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI a newer demo, easier to see].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11420</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11420"/>
		<updated>2010-11-03T03:09:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming at least a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms or the conditional addition of two more turns, so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI narrated demo].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11419</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11419"/>
		<updated>2010-11-02T00:24:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming at least a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms or the conditional addition of two more turns, so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI newer video].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11418</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11418"/>
		<updated>2010-11-02T00:21:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming at least a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms or the conditional addition of two more turns, so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI&amp;amp;layer_token=4c6cb630c79181e3 newer video].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11417</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11417"/>
		<updated>2010-11-02T00:20:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. The start is similar to [[Petrus]], forming at least a 2x2x2 block with optional [[XCross]].  Then a variety of methods may be used to complete the rest of the F2L except for one CE.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms or the conditional addition of two more turns, so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method], and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fra6go0CMgI&amp;amp;layer_token=4c6cb630c79181e3].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11416</id>
		<title>Snyder Metric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11416"/>
		<updated>2010-11-02T00:07:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;In this metric, every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the puzzle is counted as one turn, regardless of the puzzle shape or the complexity of the turn. So this is more or less equivalent to the [[Axial Turn Metric]], where a movement of any layers (on the same axis) in any direction(s) counts as one turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Snyder Notation]] may be used to represent turns using this metric.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples:==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following algorithm for a corner 2-twist uses only 12 turns in this metric, fewer than most popular algorithms. In  normal and [[Snyder Notation]]:&lt;br /&gt;
* R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L U2 L U L&#039; U (14 turns [[HTM]])&lt;br /&gt;
* R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U (12 turns Snyder Metric)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the [[PLL#H_Permutation|H perm]] can be solved in 6 turns in the Snyder Metric:&lt;br /&gt;
* R L U2 R&#039; L&#039; F&#039; B&#039; U2 F B (10 turns [[HTM]])&lt;br /&gt;
* R+o&#039; U2 R&#039;o+ F&#039;o+ U2 F+o&#039; (6 turns Snyder Metric)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1983.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11387</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11387"/>
		<updated>2010-10-23T21:56:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11386</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11386"/>
		<updated>2010-10-23T21:51:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony simultaneously permutes and orients each piece at every stage, including the LL.  In 2005 [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] came up with the same LL method as Anthony, calling it &amp;quot;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11385</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11385"/>
		<updated>2010-10-23T21:41:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My personal cubing goals are as follows...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)  document and illustrate full lists of fewest move algorithms for LLE+1C&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2)  add LL direct solve algorithms wherever they save 5+ turns&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
3)  find ways to reduce the F2L looks&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
4)  finish development and documentation for my fingering techniques&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
5)  document the full method, so others can learn it&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
6)  then start working on the various theories I have to achieve a consistent human direct-solve&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11347</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11347"/>
		<updated>2010-10-09T23:45:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advanced Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11346</id>
		<title>Talk:Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11346"/>
		<updated>2010-10-08T21:13:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I&#039;m a bit new to modern cubing terminology, so if anyone sees a misuse of any term please let me know.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] 21:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11345</id>
		<title>Snyder Metric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11345"/>
		<updated>2010-10-08T21:10:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is by far the simplest method for counting turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the puzzle is counted as one turn, regardless of the puzzle shape or the complexity of the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Snyder Notation]] may be used to represent algorithms that include anti-slices and imbalanced anti-slices, as well as compound multilayer slices and anti-slices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, solving for the U-Twist (headlights) using this algorithm in [[Snyder Notation]] is more efficient than any of the existing more popular algorithms...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = 12 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And solving for the H-PLL using the Snyder Metric...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039;o+ F&#039;o+ U2 F+o&#039; = 6 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1983.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11343</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11343"/>
		<updated>2010-10-06T22:04:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movements&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11342</id>
		<title>Snyder Metric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11342"/>
		<updated>2010-10-06T22:02:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is by far the simplest method for counting turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the puzzle is counted as one turn, regardless of the puzzle shape or the complexity of the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Snyder Notation]] may be used to represent algorithms that include anti-slices and imbalanced anti-slices, as well as compound multilayer slices and anti-slices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, solving for the U-Twist (headlights) using this algorithm in [[Snyder Notation]] is more efficient than any of the existing more popular algorithms...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = 12 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And solving for the H-PLL using the Snyder Metric...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039;o+ F&#039;o+ U2 F+o&#039; = 6 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11341</id>
		<title>Snyder notation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11341"/>
		<updated>2010-10-06T22:02:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This notation method may be used for any puzzle involving turns, whereby each layer is parallel to at least one face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:  far simpler more intuitive way to represent turns in a large number of multilayer puzzles.  It works with cubes, dodecahedrons, pyramids, and many other puzzles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two formats are used, one for a face turn, and one for all other types of turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Letters are only used to indicate face layers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other symbols describe the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Identifying Face Layers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face Layers for Cubes:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face layers for the Dodecahedron&#039;&#039;&#039; are the same as the cube, plus a spare face for each.  When looking directly at the front face, the spare face is adjacent, down and right.  Then the right face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  Then the left face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The back face is adjacent to the right face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The upper face spare hangs off the back left.  And the down face spare meets the upper face spare from the bottom, on the back left.  In this way all the primary moves use primary faces, and usually resemble 3x3x3 moves, yet the notation may handle any degree of sophistication desired in representing algorithms for dodecahedron shaped puzzles, including multilayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* f = Front Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* u = Upper Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* r = Right Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* l = Left Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* d = Down Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
* b = Back Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A turn is defined as any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous movement&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;.  Slices, anti-slices, imbalanced anti-slices, compound slices and anti-slices, compound imbalanced anti-slices, whole cube rotation, and double layer turns, are all recorded as one turn, using one format.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each turn notation begins with a face letter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If only the face layer is turned to the next position clockwise, then no more markings are necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Otherwise, if only the face layer moves to some other position, then one symbol is added.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And, if any layer other than or in addition to the face layer moves to any new position, then a symbol is added for every layer parallel to and including the face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* blank        = 1 position clockwise (in a face only turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* +            = 1 position clockwise (in a multilayer turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* 2            = 2 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 4+ positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* 3            = 3 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 5 positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;            = last position clockwise (or 1 position counterclockwise)&lt;br /&gt;
* o            = doesn&#039;t move (lower case letter o)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These symbols are arranged left-to-right after the face letter, in the same order as the puzzle layers relative to the indicated face layer.  To aid in visualizing this, imagine grasping the indicated face layer with your left hand, temporarily holding the cube so that the other layers are arranged to the right of the indicated face layer, then you&#039;ll see them in the same order as the notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns counterclockwise relative to the right face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an imbalanced anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns 180.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;F&#039;&#039;o+&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a multi-layer move on a [[4x4x4]] where the front face turns counterclockwise along with the next layer in, while the 3rd layer in doesn&#039;t move, and while the back layer turns clockwise relative to the face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Lo&#039;o&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the middle layer turns forward (counterclockwise relative to the left face).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...a 12 turn U-Twist (headlights) algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Ro2o U Ro2o U2 Ro2o U Ro2o = M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...an H-Permutation algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+++&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle clockwise one position relative to right face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;U222&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle 2 positions clockwise relative to upper face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Cubing Terminology]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Puzzle Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11334</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11334"/>
		<updated>2010-10-04T20:42:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My personal cubing goals are as follows...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)  document and illustrate full lists of fewest move algorithms for LLE+1C&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2)  add LL direct solve algorithms wherever they save 5+ turns&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
3)  find ways to reduce the F2L looks&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
4)  finish development and documentation for my fingering techniques&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
5)  document the full method, so others can learn it&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
6)  then start working on the various theories I have to achieve a consistent human direct-solve&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11333</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11333"/>
		<updated>2010-10-04T20:33:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My personal cubing goals are as follows...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)  document and illustrate full lists of fewest move algorithms for LLE+1C&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
2)  find ways to reduce the looks&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
3)  finish development and documentation for my fingering techniques&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
4)  document all stages to my technique, so others can learn it&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
5)  then start working on my various theories to achieve a consistent human direct-solve&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Last_Three_Corners&amp;diff=11332</id>
		<title>Last Three Corners</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Last_Three_Corners&amp;diff=11332"/>
		<updated>2010-10-04T20:11:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Last Three Corners&lt;br /&gt;
|image=L3C.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[Anthony Snyder]], [[Ryan Heise]]&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=L3C&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[L4C]], [[CxLL]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=1&lt;br /&gt;
|algs=22&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=~10 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]], [[FMC]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Last three corners&#039;&#039;&#039;, abbrevaited &#039;&#039;&#039;L3C&#039;&#039;&#039; (or 3LC), is a [[method]] that solves three of the [[last layer]] corners preserving all the rest, a sub group of [[L4C]], [[ZBLL]] and [[ZZLL]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Usage:&#039;&#039;&#039; besides L4C, [[CxLL]], ZBLL and ZZLL it is useful for [[FMC]] and the 3-cycles are nice for [[Freestyle BLD]].  L3C is the final stage in the [[Snyder Method]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;See also:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Last Four Corners]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Beyer-Hardwick Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=L3C Cases=&lt;br /&gt;
The group have 27 cases including solved, 3*3 orientations and 3 permutations. Most of the cases (18) are pure [[3-cycle]]s, the rest are pure twists U, T, L, S and -S. Some of the twist occures 2 times (U, T and L) and the T-twist is the same as the U-twist if the puzzle is reoriented. Subtracting the duplicates and solved it will be 22 cases left. 16 of them are pure L3C cases and listed at this page, the rest are in one of two sub groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Sub groups:===&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Pure twists&#039;&#039;&#039; you can find at the [[Corner orientation|Corner orientation page]].&lt;br /&gt;
*&#039;&#039;&#039;Only permutation&#039;&#039;&#039;, see [[CPLL]], corner permutation of the last layer.&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &#039;&#039;&#039;naming system&#039;&#039;&#039; used here is adapted to BLD, the ULB corner is always the solved one and URF is the &#039;buffer&#039; with U as the buffer sticker. The piece in the buffer will go to two places, either URB or UFL and the sticker in U will go to any of the three stickers on each goal position and that sticker is in uppercase, the other two letters will be in lowercase. The second half of the name is the same but from the goal position of the first. The last piece will always go to the first buffer position so that will not be in the name.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Example: CW A-PLL is Ufl-Urb and CCW A-PLL is Urb-Ufl.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Algorithms==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Algnote}}&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|border=&amp;quot;0&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;100%&amp;quot; valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; cellpadding=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=&amp;quot;f0f4f8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
The following four cases are mirror + inverses of the first so you only need &#039;1 alg&#039; for all.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=&amp;quot;f0f4f8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
Mirror to the side and inverse in diagonal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== uFl-Urb ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case1(a).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}} &lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|R2 D R&#039; U2 R D&#039; R&#039; U2 R&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== uRb-Ufl ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case&lt;br /&gt;
|image=L3C case1(b).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y) L2 D&#039; L U2 L&#039; D L U2 L}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ufl-uRb ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case1(c).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y) L&#039; U2 L&#039; D&#039; L U2 L&#039; D L2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== Urb-uFl ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case1(d).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|R U2 R D R&#039; U2 R D&#039; R2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=&amp;quot;f0f4f8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
The following four cases are mirror + inverses of the first so you only need &#039;1 alg&#039; for all.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=&amp;quot;f0f4f8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
Mirror to the side and inverse in diagonal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== ufL-uRb ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case2(a).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y x) R2 D2 R U2 R&#039; D2 R U2 l}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== urB-uFl ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case2(b).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(x) L2 D2 L&#039; U2 L D2 L&#039; U2 r&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== uFl-urB ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case2(c).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|r U2 L D2 L&#039; U2 L D2 L2 (x&#039;)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== uRb-ufL ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case2(d).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=9 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y) l&#039; U2 R&#039; D2 R U2 R&#039; D2 R2 (x&#039;)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=&amp;quot;f0f4f8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
The following four cases are mirror + inverses of the first so you only need &#039;1 alg&#039; for all.&lt;br /&gt;
| bgcolor=&amp;quot;f0f4f8&amp;quot; |&lt;br /&gt;
Mirror to the side and inverse in diagonal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== ufL-Urb ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case3(a).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=8 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y) r&#039; U&#039; R U L U&#039; R&#039; U (x)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(x&#039;) R U R&#039; D R U&#039; R&#039; D&#039; (x)}}&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== urB-Ufl ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case3(b).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=8 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y2) l U L&#039; U&#039; R&#039; U L U&#039; (x)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg| r U R&#039; U&#039; r&#039; F R F&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== Ufl-urB ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case3(c).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=8 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(x&#039;) U L&#039; U&#039; R U L U&#039; l&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== Urb-ufL ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case3(d).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=3-cycle commutator&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=8 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y x&#039;) U&#039; R U L&#039; U&#039; R&#039; U r}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(x&#039;) D R U R&#039; D&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; (x)}}&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== ufL-urB ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case4(a).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Niklas&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=8 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|R&#039; U L U&#039; R U L&#039; U&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== urB-ufL ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case4(b).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Niklas b&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=8 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|U L U&#039; R&#039; U L&#039; U&#039; R}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|-valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== uFl-uRb ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case5(a).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Anti Niklas a&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=10 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|B L&#039; U2 L B&#039; L&#039; B U2 B&#039; L}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y2 x&#039;) U2 R2 D R U2 R&#039; D&#039; R U2 R U2 (x y2)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y&#039; x) R2 U2 L U R2 U&#039; L&#039; U R2 U R2 (x&#039; y)}}&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
=== uRb-uFl ===&lt;br /&gt;
{{case |image=L3C case5(b).jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Anti Niklas b&lt;br /&gt;
|methods=[[L3C]], [[L4C]], [[BLD]]&lt;br /&gt;
|optimal=10 [[HTM]]&lt;br /&gt;
|text=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|L&#039; B U2 B&#039; L B L&#039; U2 L B&#039;}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y2 x&#039;) U2 R&#039; U2 R&#039; D R U2 R&#039; D&#039; R2 U2 (x y2)}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Alg|(y&#039; x) R2 U&#039; R2 U&#039; L U R2 U&#039; L&#039; U2 R2 (x&#039; y)}}&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== External links ===&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/corner_3_cycles.html] Ryan Heise explains a intuitive approach to solve the last three corners.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Sub Steps]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Last Layer Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11331</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11331"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:53:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11330</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11330"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:52:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using [[Snyder Notation]]:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U.  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of fast-fingers techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11329</id>
		<title>Snyder notation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11329"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:40:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This notation method may be used for any puzzle involving turns, whereby each layer is parallel to at least one face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:  far simpler more intuitive way to represent turns in a large number of multilayer puzzles.  It works with cubes, dodecahedrons, pyramids, and many other puzzles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two formats are used, one for a face turn, and one for all other types of turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Letters are only used to indicate face layers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other symbols describe the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Identifying Face Layers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face Layers for Cubes:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face layers for the Dodecahedron&#039;&#039;&#039; are the same as the cube, plus a spare face for each.  When looking directly at the front face, the spare face is adjacent, down and right.  Then the right face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  Then the left face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The back face is adjacent to the right face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The upper face spare hangs off the back left.  And the down face spare meets the upper face spare from the bottom, on the back left.  In this way all the primary moves use primary faces, and usually resemble 3x3x3 moves, yet the notation may handle any degree of sophistication desired in representing algorithms for dodecahedron shaped puzzles, including multilayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* f = Front Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* u = Upper Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* r = Right Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* l = Left Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* d = Down Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
* b = Back Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A turn is defined as any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;.  Slices, anti-slices, imbalanced anti-slices, compound slices and anti-slices, compound imbalanced anti-slices, whole cube rotation, and double layer turns, are all recorded as one turn, using one format.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each turn notation begins with a face letter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If only the face layer is turned to the next position clockwise, then no more markings are necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Otherwise, if only the face layer moves to some other position, then one symbol is added.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And, if any layer other than or in addition to the face layer moves to any new position, then a symbol is added for every layer parallel to and including the face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* blank        = 1 position clockwise (in a face only turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* +            = 1 position clockwise (in a multilayer turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* 2            = 2 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 4+ positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* 3            = 3 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 5 positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;            = last position clockwise (or 1 position counterclockwise)&lt;br /&gt;
* o            = doesn&#039;t move (lower case letter o)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These symbols are arranged left-to-right after the face letter, in the same order as the puzzle layers relative to the indicated face layer.  To aid in visualizing this, imagine grasping the indicated face layer with your left hand, temporarily holding the cube so that the other layers are arranged to the right of the indicated face layer, then you&#039;ll see them in the same order as the notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns counterclockwise relative to the right face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an imbalanced anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns 180.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;F&#039;&#039;o+&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a multi-layer move on a [[4x4x4]] where the front face turns counterclockwise along with the next layer in, while the 3rd layer in doesn&#039;t move, and while the back layer turns clockwise relative to the face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Lo&#039;o&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the middle layer turns forward (counterclockwise relative to the left face).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...a 12 turn U-Twist (headlights) algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Ro2o U Ro2o U2 Ro2o U Ro2o = M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...an H-Permutation algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+++&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle clockwise one position relative to right face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;U222&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle 2 positions clockwise relative to upper face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Cubing Terminology]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Puzzle Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11328</id>
		<title>Snyder Metric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11328"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:37:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is by far the simplest method for counting turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the puzzle is counted as one turn, regardless of the puzzle shape or the complexity of the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Snyder Notation]] may be used to represent algorithms that include anti-slices and imbalanced anti-slices, as well as compound multilayer slices and anti-slices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, solving for the U-Twist (headlights) using this algorithm in [[Snyder Notation]] is more efficient than any of the existing more popular algorithms...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = 12 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And solving for the H-PLL using the Snyder Metric...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039;o+ F&#039;o+ U2 F+o&#039; = 6 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11327</id>
		<title>Snyder Metric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11327"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:37:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is by far the simplest method for counting turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the puzzle is counted as one turn, regardless of the puzzle shape or the complexity of the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Snyder Notation]] may be used to represent algorithms that include anti-slices and imbalanced anti-slices, as well as compound multilayer slices and anti-slices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, solving for the U-Twist (headlights) using this algorithm in [[Snyder Notation]] is more efficient than any of the existing more popular algorithms...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = 12 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And solving for the H-PLL using the Snyder Metric:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039;o+ F&#039;o+ U2 F+o&#039; = 6 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11326</id>
		<title>Snyder Metric</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Metric&amp;diff=11326"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:24:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is by far the simplest method for counting turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the puzzle is counted as one turn, regardless of the puzzle shape or the complexity of the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Snyder Notation]] may be used to represent algorithms that include anti-slices and imbalanced anti-slices, as well as compound multilayer slices and anti-slices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Solving for the U-Twist (headlights) using the Snyder Metric:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = 12 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Solving for the H-PLL using the Snyder Metric:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
R+o&#039; U2 R&#039;o+ F&#039;o+ U2 F+o&#039; = 6 turns&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11325</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11325"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T23:23:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], his last layer method differs considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 1-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  Many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11321</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11321"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T17:02:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], their last layer methods differ considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL may be solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either a shortest-move algorithm, combination, or substitution&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11320</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11320"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:54:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], their last layer methods differ considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of variations that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either shortest-move algorithms, or combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11319</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11319"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:49:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]].  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], their last layer methods differ considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of &amp;quot;convenience variations&amp;quot; that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either shortest-move algorithms, or combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11317</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11317"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:37:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though his F2L method closely resembles the F2L in [[Petrus]], their last layer methods differ considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of &amp;quot;convenience variations&amp;quot; that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either shortest-move algorithms, or combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11316</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11316"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:33:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a block that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then CE pairs are added to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner.  Then the [[last three corners]] are solved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though the F2L method closely resembles the [[Petrus]] method, their last layer methods differ considerably.  Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Snyder Method includes a number of &amp;quot;convenience variations&amp;quot; that are applied wherever convenient.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* when a 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with either a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then assembles those into a F2L minus one CE&lt;br /&gt;
* two or more CE may be solved simultaneously to complete the F2L faster&lt;br /&gt;
* the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2, using either shortest-move algorithms, or combinations&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11315</id>
		<title>Snyder notation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11315"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:22:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This notation method may be used for any puzzle involving turns, whereby each layer is parallel to at least one face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:  far simpler more intuitive way to represent turns in a large number of multilayer puzzles.  It works with cubes, dodecahedrons, pyramids, and many other puzzles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two formats are used, one for a face turn, and one for all other types of turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Letters are only used to indicate face layers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other symbols describe the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Identifying Face Layers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face Layers for Cubes:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face layers for the Dodecahedron&#039;&#039;&#039; are the same as the cube, plus a spare face for each.  When looking directly at the front face, the spare face is adjacent, down and right.  Then the right face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  Then the left face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The back face is adjacent to the right face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The upper face spare hangs off the back left.  And the down face spare meets the upper face spare from the bottom, on the back left.  In this way all the primary moves use primary faces, and usually resemble 3x3x3 moves, yet the notation may handle any degree of sophistication desired in representing algorithms for dodecahedron shaped puzzles, including multilayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* f = Front Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* u = Upper Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* r = Right Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* l = Left Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* d = Down Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
* b = Back Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A turn is defined as any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;.  Slices, anti-slices, imbalanced anti-slices, compound slices and anti-slices, compound imbalanced anti-slices, whole cube rotation, and double layer turns, are all recorded as one turn, using one format.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each turn notation begins with a face letter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If only the face layer is turned to the next position clockwise, then no more markings are necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Otherwise, if only the face layer moves to some other position, then one symbol is added.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And, if any layer other than or in addition to the face layer moves to any new position, then a symbol is added for every layer parallel to and including the face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* blank        = 1 position clockwise (in a face only turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* +            = 1 position clockwise (in a multilayer turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* 2            = 2 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 4+ positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* 3            = 3 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 5 positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;            = last position clockwise (or 1 position counterclockwise)&lt;br /&gt;
* o            = doesn&#039;t move (lower case letter o)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These symbols are arranged left-to-right after the face letter, in the same order as the puzzle layers relative to the indicated face layer.  To aid in visualizing this, imagine grasping the indicated face layer with your left hand, temporarily holding the cube so that the other layers are arranged to the right of the indicated face layer, then you&#039;ll see them in the same order as the notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns counterclockwise relative to the right face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an imbalanced anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns 180.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;F&#039;&#039;o+&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a multi-layer move on a [[4x4x4]] where the front face turns counterclockwise along with the next layer in, while the 3rd layer in doesn&#039;t move, and while the back layer turns clockwise relative to the face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Lo&#039;o&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the middle layer turns forward (counterclockwise relative to the left face).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...the U-Twist (headlights) algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Ro2o U Ro2o U2 Ro2o U Ro2o = M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...the H-Permutation algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+++&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle clockwise one position relative to right face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;U222&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle 2 positions clockwise relative to upper face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Cubing Terminology]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Puzzle Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11314</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11314"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:17:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.  Though the F2L method closely resembles the [[Petrus]] method, their last layer methods differ considerably.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Snyder does not stick to one consistent method with each solve, as he strays in several ways:  when the 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2 block, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then puts together either a 2x2x3 or the entire F2L minus one CE.  Additionally, he has a number of algorithms to simultaneously solve two CE to complete the F2L faster.  And the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11313</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11313"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:12:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.  Though the F2L method closely resembles the [[Petrus]] method, their last layer methods differ considerably.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Snyder does not stick to one consistent method with each solve, as he strays in several ways:  when the 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2 block, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then puts together either a 2x2x3 or the entire F2L minus one CE.  Additionally, he has a number of algorithms to simultaneously solve two CE to complete the F2L faster.  And the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  This is the stage that evolved over time since he felt computer lists and help from others would spoil the fun.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the block+cross start, then up to 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11312</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11312"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T16:08:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.  Though the F2L method closely resembles the [[Petrus]] method, their last layer methods differ considerably.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Snyder does not stick to one consistent method with each solve, as he strays in several ways:  when the 2x2x3 block is not immediately apparent he will start with a 1x2x3 or a 2x2x2 block, then immediately finish the 2x2x3 block with a second look, or, he puts together several CE pairs as in [[Heise]], then puts together either a 2x2x3 or the entire F2L minus one CE.  Additionally, he has a number of algorithms to simultaneously solve two CE to complete the F2L faster.  And the LL is oftentimes solved in 1 look rather than 2.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  This is the stage that evolved over time since he felt computer lists and help from others would spoil the fun.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the mini-cube+cross start, then 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11311</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11311"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T15:51:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  This is the stage that evolved over time since he felt computer lists and help from others would spoil the fun.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the mini-cube+cross start, then 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11310</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11310"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T15:37:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  This is the stage that evolved over time since he felt computer lists and help from others would spoil the fun.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the mini-cube+cross start, then 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Methods&amp;diff=11309</id>
		<title>Category:Methods</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Methods&amp;diff=11309"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T15:32:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Methods used to solve all or part of various cubes/puzzles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Complete List of Methods by Purpose ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Presented below is a complete list of methods (and their variants) for solving various twisty puzzles. Use the Wiki links in the table to find out more about each method, or the methods in each category.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;TablePager&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;padding:3px; border-spacing:0&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!| Name&lt;br /&gt;
!| Original Proposer(s)&lt;br /&gt;
!| Variants&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot; | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:2x2x2 Beginner Methods | 2x2 Beginner]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[LBL]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| Waterman Last Layer&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Beginner Guimond]]&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Conrad Rider]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:2x2x2 Speedsolving Methods | 2x2 Speed]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Ortega]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Victor Ortega,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;Josef Jelinek&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Guimond]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Gaétan Guimond&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Waterman]] ([[CLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
| Marc Waterman&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[EG]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Erik Akkersdijk, Gunnar Krig&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[OFOTA]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Erik Akkersdijk&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[SS]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Stern-Sun&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[[VOP]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Kenneth Gustavsson&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:3x3x3 Beginner Methods | 3x3 Beginner]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[LBL]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| [[Keyhole]], [[XG]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Corners First]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Marc Waterman&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Edges First]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Beginner Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[8355]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Reheart Sheu&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Sexy Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods | 3x3 Speed]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[ZZ]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Zbigniew Zborowski&lt;br /&gt;
| [[ZZ-VH]], [[ZZ-a]], [[ZZ-b]], [[ZZ-d]],&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;[[ZZ-WV]], [[MGLS | MGLS-Z]], [[ZZ-blah]], [[EJLS]], [[JTLE]],[[jsls]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Waterman]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Marc Waterman&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Tripod]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Michael Gottlieb&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|- &lt;br /&gt;
| [[Hahn]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Eric Hahn&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods | 3x3 Speed]]/[[:Category:SpeedBLD Methods|SpeedBLD]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[CFOP]] (Fridrich)&lt;br /&gt;
| Jessica Fridrich,&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;and others&lt;br /&gt;
| [[CLL]]/[[ELL]], [[VH]], [[ZB]], [[MGLS | MGLS-F]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods | 3x3 Speed]]/[[Fewest Moves Techniques|FMC]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Lars Petrus &lt;br /&gt;
| [[JTLE]], [[EJLS]], [[MGLS | MGLS-P]],[[jsls]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Roux]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Gilles Roux&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Heise]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Ryan Heise&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Anthony Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:Blindsolving Methods | 3x3 BLD]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[3OP]]&lt;br /&gt;
| John White?&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Old Pochmann]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Stefan Pochmann&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[M2/R2]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Stephen Pochmann&lt;br /&gt;
| Deadalnix ([[M2]]),&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;Freestyle for Dummies ([[R2]])&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[TuRBo]] &lt;br /&gt;
| Erik Akkersdijk&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[BH]] &lt;br /&gt;
| Daniel Beyer,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chris Hardwick&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[ZBLD]] &lt;br /&gt;
| Chris Tran&lt;br /&gt;
| ZBLD-2Cycle, ZBLD-3Cycle&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:Experimental Methods | Experimental]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Human Thistlethwaite]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Morwen Thistlethwaite&amp;lt;br/&amp;gt;Ryan Heise&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Belt]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Salvia Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
| David Salvia&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Triangular Francisco]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Orient First]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Lars Nielsson&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[E15 / E35]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[3CFCEP]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[3CFCE]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[PEG]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[PORT]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:Big Cube Methods | Big Cubes Speed]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Reduction]]&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Cage]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Per Kristen Fredlund &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[K4]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Thom Barlow&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Sandwich]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ?? &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Kenneth&#039;s Big Cubes Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[js4]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[:Category:Blindsolving Methods | Big Cubes BLD]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[r2]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Erik Akkersdijk&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[BH]] &lt;br /&gt;
| Daniel Beyer,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;Chris Hardwick&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Pyraminx Methods | Pyraminx]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | Corners First]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | Layer First]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
|  &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | Last 4 Edges]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ?? &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ?? &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | Face Permute]]&lt;br /&gt;
| ??&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | WO]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Oscar Andersen (Odder)&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pyraminx Methods | Oka Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Yohei Oka&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Megaminx Methods | Megaminx]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| ...&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Square-1 Methods | Square-1]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[SSS1M]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Shelley Chang&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Vandenbergh Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Lars Vandenbergh&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Rubik&#039;s Clock Methods | Rubik&#039;s Clock]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| ...&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Methods for Other Puzzles | Magic]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| ...&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Master Magic Methods | Master Magic]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Pochmann Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Stephan Pochmann &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Ooms]]&lt;br /&gt;
| Alexander Ooms &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Skewb Methods | Skewb]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| ...&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot; style=&amp;quot;background-color:#f5f5f5; text-align:center;&amp;quot;  | &#039;&#039;&#039;[[Rubik&#039;s 360 Methods | Rubik&#039;s 360]]&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| ...&lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
| &lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Common Sub Steps]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Algorithm Database]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Solving Variants]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External Links ==&lt;br /&gt;
* Speedsolving.com: [http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2402 BCE Methods] - methods based around Blockbuilding, Corners First and Edges First.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Resources]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11308</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11308"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T15:28:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  This is the stage that evolved over time since he felt computer lists and help from others would spoil the fun.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the mini-cube+cross start, then 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Cubing Terminology]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11307</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11307"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T09:02:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;more efficient&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of fast-fingers techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11306</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11306"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T09:01:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;more efficient&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of fast-fingers techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets 1 minute study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11305</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11305"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T08:59:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== About Myself ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;more efficient&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of fast-fingers techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets no study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11304</id>
		<title>User:Tony Snyder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Tony_Snyder&amp;diff=11304"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T08:41:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly.  For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge.  However, I still do the Rubik&#039;s Cube because I have a long ways to go yet.  I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago.  These achievements are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I picked up my first cube in 1981, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date).  That of course doesn&#039;t mean I&#039;m better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique.  I&#039;ve always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun.  I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I&#039;d get upset, because I wanted to figure it out for myself.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling.  Over the years I&#039;ve procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate method all by myself.  Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I&#039;m thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982.  This approach has since been called the [[Snyder Method]].  In conversation I refer to it as &amp;quot;my advanced method&amp;quot;, since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school.  And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms.  I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time.  And all this using my human-originated algorithms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my opinion the [[Snyder Method]], though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing.  And I&#039;m convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules.  I never understood why they follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; of the cube as one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  None of these will count the way it works now.  For example, I far prefer solving the U (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;more efficient&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop.  And it also reveals who&#039;s minds are driven by stereotypes and who&#039;s aren&#039;t, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes.  I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website:  [http://www.areyoulogical.com www.areyoulogical.com].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stereotypes ==&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;m peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, &amp;quot;isn&#039;t that cheating?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching.  Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, &amp;quot;can you solve that thing?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Oftentimes an educator will ask &amp;quot;now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?&amp;quot;  In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve.  You&#039;d think an educator would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms.  Sometimes when I don&#039;t feel like explaining I&#039;ll simply respond, &amp;quot;it&#039;s relaxing, much like playing tennis&amp;quot;, which is also true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And many times I&#039;ve heard, &amp;quot;that&#039;s getting old, the solution&#039;s in a book&amp;quot; - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking &amp;quot;what if&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Or, &amp;quot;that game is old school&amp;quot;.  Hmm, what about chess?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I&#039;ll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I&#039;ll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says &amp;quot;that&#039;s freaky&amp;quot;, then stomps off.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And my grandmother says, &amp;quot;put that toy down and get a life!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik&#039;s Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The object is simple.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It appears to be much simpler than it really is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that&#039;s beside the point).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that can be applied elsewhere.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 8th one is the big one.  There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stats ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For people interested in my stats, here they are...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* first solved a cube in 1981:  I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Semiahmoo&#039;s International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, &amp;quot;when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all&amp;quot;, he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I&#039;m barely in control, everyone is chanting &amp;quot;Gordon, Gordon, Gordon...&amp;quot; - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend&#039;s name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik&#039;s Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says &amp;quot;1983&amp;quot;, but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn&#039;t allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the [[Snyder Method]])&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp&#039;s contests&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* attempted a blind-fold solve in 1983&#039;ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* and today I&#039;m gradually improving after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contest Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* use the [[Snyder Metric]] for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of fast-fingers techniques&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* add a &amp;quot;Composite Scoring&amp;quot; event, where the cube solver gets no study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11302</id>
		<title>Snyder notation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11302"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T08:29:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This notation method may be used for any puzzle involving turns, whereby each layer is parallel to at least one face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:  far simpler more intuitive way to represent turns in a large number of multilayer puzzles.  It works with cubes, dodecahedrons, pyramids, and many other puzzles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two formats are used, one for a face turn, and one for all other types of turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Letters are only used to indicate face layers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other symbols describe the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Identifying Face Layers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face Layers for Cubes:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face layers for the Dodecahedron&#039;&#039;&#039; are the same as the cube, plus a spare face for each.  When looking directly at the front face, the spare face is adjacent, down and right.  Then the right face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  Then the left face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The back face is adjacent to the right face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The upper face spare hangs off the back left.  And the down face spare meets the upper face spare from the bottom, on the back left.  In this way all the primary moves use primary faces, and usually resemble 3x3x3 moves, yet the notation may handle any degree of sophistication desired in representing algorithms for dodecahedron shaped puzzles, including multilayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* f = Front Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* u = Upper Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* r = Right Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* l = Left Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* d = Down Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
* b = Back Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A turn is defined as any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;.  Slices, anti-slices, imbalanced anti-slices, compound slices and anti-slices, compound imbalanced anti-slices, whole cube rotation, and double layer turns, are all recorded as one turn, using one format.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each turn notation begins with a face letter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If only the face layer is turned to the next position clockwise, then no more markings are necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Otherwise, if only the face layer moves to some other position, then one symbol is added.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And, if any layer other than or in addition to the face layer moves to any new position, then a symbol is added for every layer parallel to and including the face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* blank        = 1 position clockwise (in a face only turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* +            = 1 position clockwise (in a multilayer turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* 2            = 2 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 4+ positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* 3            = 3 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 5 positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;            = last position clockwise (or 1 position counterclockwise)&lt;br /&gt;
* o            = doesn&#039;t move (lower case letter o)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These symbols are arranged left-to-right after the face letter, in the same order as the puzzle layers relative to the indicated face layer.  To aid in visualizing this, imagine grasping the indicated face layer with your left hand, temporarily holding the cube so that the other layers are arranged to the right of the indicated face layer, then you&#039;ll see them in the same order as the notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns counterclockwise relative to the right face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an imbalanced anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns 180.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;F&#039;&#039;o+&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a multi-layer move on a [[4x4x4]] where the front face turns counterclockwise along with the next layer in, while the 3rd layer in doesn&#039;t move, and while the back layer turns clockwise relative to the face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Lo&#039;o&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the middle layer turns forward (counterclockwise relative to the left face).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...the U Twist (headlights) algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Ro2o U Ro2o U2 Ro2o U Ro2o = M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...the H Permutation algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+++&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle clockwise one position relative to right face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;U222&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle 2 positions clockwise relative to upper face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Puzzle Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11301</id>
		<title>Snyder Method</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_Method&amp;diff=11301"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T08:19:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Method Infobox&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Snyder&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Snyder.png&lt;br /&gt;
|proposers=[[user:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]]&lt;br /&gt;
|year=1982&lt;br /&gt;
|anames=&lt;br /&gt;
|variants=[[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Petrus]]&lt;br /&gt;
|steps=3-5&lt;br /&gt;
|moves=36-45&lt;br /&gt;
|purpose=&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Speedsolving]]&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[user:Tony Snyder|Tony Snyder]] in 1982, the &#039;&#039;&#039;Snyder Method&#039;&#039;&#039; is both a [[fewest moves]] [[method]] and a [[speedsolving]] [[method]] for the [[3x3x3 cube]]. You start the same way as with [[Petrus]] forming a [[2x2x2 block]] or sometimes a [[2x2x3 block]] that includes a [[XCross]] either simultaneously or as a second step.  Then 1-2 more CE pairs would go in to nearly complete the F2L.  Then while putting in the final CE pair, a quick glance at the remaining edges makes possible a simple adjustment in the choice of algorithms so that a minimum of 2 LL edges are oriented.  This is a very easy way to cut down the LL scenarios.  Then all LL edges are solved together with one corner in the fewest turns possible (with a few exceptions due to the human-originated algorithms).  Then solving the [[last three corners]] in the fewest turns possible completes the cube.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Video of [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2Pb9_iNBI Anthony demonstrating the Snyder Method].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony claims to have the only cube solving method that consistently relies on a simultaneous permute and orient at every stage.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the early 80&#039;s Anthony came up with a complete set of fewest-move solutions for the CE pair cases and for the [[last three corners]] cases.  However, he relied more extensively on the use of combinations and exchanges to efficiently put in the LL edges + corner.  This is the stage that evolved over time since he felt computer lists and help from others would spoil the fun.  He makes up for this with a large selection of approximate direct-solves on the entire LL, claiming to switch to this mode about 20% of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method requires 1-2 looks for the mini-cube+cross start, then 1 look each for the 2-3 CE pairs, then 1-2 looks for the last layer.  Though there are a lot of looks, an attentive solver can be quite efficient, and average around 40 turns.  Though a beginner will likely take a lot more than this, and a pro taking their time may get his/her average down to about 36.  This method was developed in 1982, though many of the shorter algorithms were added throughout the 80&#039;s and 90&#039;s, and the library of LL direct solves were mostly added in the 00&#039;s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anthony came up with nearly all of the algorithms without advice from others, and without using a computer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1981 he printed his simple solution, which only used 7 algorithms total.  It was entitled, &amp;quot;Tony Snyder&#039;s Simplest Solution to Solve a Rubik&#039;s Cube&amp;quot;, and though he personally only taught a handful of people this technique, a classmate took a copy and passed it out to students in a number of schools.  He has not put to print his advanced technique.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Note:&#039;&#039;&#039; Having complete sets of short algorithms was very unusual in the 1980&#039;s (combining 2 algs in 1-look was a common solution). [[Kenneth Gustavsson]] suggested the same LL-method (&#039;Fish &amp;amp; Chips&#039;) in 2005 but with [[VHF2L]] and the rest in two clearly defined steps, [[EP]] + 1 corner (36 cases, the &#039;fish&#039; step) and then [[L3C]] (22 cases, the &#039;chips&#039; step), this makes a 2-look [[ZBLL]], often a little more effective than [[COLL]]/[[EPLL]].&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Anthony&#039;s Turn Counting Protest:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &amp;quot;I have never understood why the turn counting rules/standards follow a &#039;range of motion metric&#039; rather than an &#039;efficiency metric&#039;.  Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency.  In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to figure that any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; is one turn.  This would also make the rules far simpler.  Experienced cube solvers know that anti-slices and even imbalanced anti-slices can be easier to operate than slices and sometimes easier than 180 singles.  Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices.  Examples:  I far prefer solving the U (headlights) with R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric (using [[Snyder Notation]] the same algorithm:  R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U).  This requires only 12 &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous moves&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U&#039; R2 U R2 U F U&#039; F2 D R2 D&#039; R2.  Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the [[Snyder Metric]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fewest Moves Techniques]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Heise Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Petrus Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[L3C]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;Tony Snyder wrote:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In 1983 I set the world record for unassisted play on a video game called Q*Bert at a place called Showbiz Pizza in Minneapolis. I decided to solve the cube before starting and then again after, just to see what condition my mind would get to. Before starting the game I solved the cube in 31 seconds (early am, bad time). Then I spent half the week playing Q*Bert non-stop, finishing after 57 hours of continuous play and no sleep. I was awake for 3 hours before it started. So after 60 hours of no sleep I then solved the cube in 25 seconds. They showed some of this on local TV, and they did a write-up in March 1984 Electronic Games Magazine. BTW, I unexpectedly went colorblind for about 30 minutes during play, then recovered - lost about 300 Q*Berts during that time, but I had over 800 saved up so it was no big deal.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br clear=&amp;quot;all&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;hr&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
If you have edges oriented when starting the last layer you can often do using only Sune, double Sune (or inverse and/or mirrors), J-PLL a/b or U-PLL a/b for the first look. Here are a couple of examples that show how this is done:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &#039;&#039;&#039;Scramble&#039;&#039;&#039;                                 &#039;&#039;&#039;Solution&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
 F U F&#039; L2 B&#039; U&#039; B U L2 F U&#039; F&#039; U         AUF to U-PLL a on the left side, (L3C 3-twist).&lt;br /&gt;
 L&#039; U R U&#039; B2 U&#039; B2 U B2 R&#039; L U&#039;          AUF J-PLL b, (L3C &#039;Anti Niklas&#039;)&lt;br /&gt;
 B&#039; F R2 U&#039; R2 U R2 U F&#039; U&#039; B U&#039;          J-PLL b, (L3C Niklas)&lt;br /&gt;
 R2 F2 R2 U R&#039; F2 R U&#039; R2 F2 R U R U      left side double Antisune (L&#039; U2 L U...)&lt;br /&gt;
 R&#039; F U2 F U L&#039; U L F U&#039; F U F R U2       left side double Antisune (again!)&lt;br /&gt;
 B L2 F&#039; D F&#039; D&#039; F2 L2 B&#039; U&#039;              y J-PLL a (setup L&#039; before the y for [[1LLL]])&lt;br /&gt;
 L U2 L D&#039; B2 D L&#039; U2 L D&#039; B2 D L2 U&#039;     y2 left Antisune.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sometimes more than one of these solutions are possible. Working like this solves the step in an easy 2:5 times, maybe more. It is effective, fast and OH-friendly, but recogniton for the sune/doublesune cases is horrible without loads of practice. For the cases where two opposite edges needs to be swapped [[COLL]] is a recommended alternative and for the cases with edges correct, one or two look [[L4C]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:3x3x3 Speedsolving Methods]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Fewest Moves Methods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11300</id>
		<title>Snyder notation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Snyder_notation&amp;diff=11300"/>
		<updated>2010-10-02T07:38:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Tony Snyder: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This notation method may be used for any puzzle involving turns, whereby each layer is parallel to at least one face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Advantages:  far simpler more intuitive way to represent turns in a large number of multilayer puzzles.  It works with cubes, dodecahedrons, pyramids, and many other puzzles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Only two formats are used, one for a face turn, and one for all other types of turns.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Letters are only used to indicate face layers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other symbols describe the turn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Identifying Face Layers==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face Layers for Cubes:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Face layers for the Dodecahedron&#039;&#039;&#039; are the same as the cube, plus a spare face for each.  When looking directly at the front face, the spare face is adjacent, down and right.  Then the right face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  Then the left face is adjacent to the front face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The back face is adjacent to the right face, and its spare is adjacent, down and right to it.  The upper face spare hangs off the back left.  And the down face spare meets the upper face spare from the bottom, on the back left.  In this way all the primary moves use primary faces, and usually resemble 3x3x3 moves, yet the notation may handle any degree of sophistication desired in representing algorithms for dodecahedron shaped puzzles, including multilayer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* F = Front Face&lt;br /&gt;
* f = Front Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* U = Upper Face&lt;br /&gt;
* u = Upper Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* R = Right Face&lt;br /&gt;
* r = Right Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* L = Left Face&lt;br /&gt;
* l = Left Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* D = Down Face&lt;br /&gt;
* d = Down Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
* B = Back face&lt;br /&gt;
* b = Back Face Spare&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Notation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A turn is defined as any &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;parallel simultaneous move&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt;.  Slices, anti-slices, imbalanced anti-slices, compound slices and anti-slices, compound imbalanced anti-slices, whole cube rotation, and double layer turns, are all recorded as one turn, using one format.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each turn notation begins with a face letter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If only the face layer is turned to the next position clockwise, then no more markings are necessary.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Otherwise, if only the face layer moves to some other position, then one symbol is added.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And, if any layer other than or in addition to the face layer moves to any new position, then a symbol is added for every layer parallel to and including the face layer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* blank        = 1 position clockwise (in a face only turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* +            = 1 position clockwise (in a multilayer turn)&lt;br /&gt;
* 2            = 2 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 4+ positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* 3            = 3 positions clockwise (used in puzzles with 5 positions per face)&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;            = last position clockwise (or 1 position counterclockwise)&lt;br /&gt;
* o            = doesn&#039;t move (lower case letter o)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These symbols are arranged left-to-right after the face letter, in the same order as the puzzle layers relative to the indicated face layer.  To aid in visualizing this, imagine grasping the indicated face layer with your left hand, temporarily holding the cube so that the other layers are arranged to the right of the indicated face layer, then you&#039;ll see them in the same order as the notation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Examples==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039;&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns counterclockwise relative to the right face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents an imbalanced anti-slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the right face turns clockwise, the middle plane doesn&#039;t move, and the left plane turns 180.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;F&#039;&#039;o+&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a multi-layer move on a [[4x4x4]] where the front face turns counterclockwise along with the next layer in, while the 3rd layer in doesn&#039;t move, and while the back layer turns clockwise relative to the face.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Lo&#039;o&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...represents a slice on a [[3x3x3]] where the middle layer turns forward (counterclockwise relative to the left face).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+o&#039; U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039;o+ U2 L U L&#039; U = R L U2 R&#039; U&#039; R U&#039; R&#039; L&#039; U2 L U L&#039; U&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...the U (headlights) algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;Ro2o U Ro2o U2 Ro2o U Ro2o = M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...the H algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;R+++&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle clockwise one position relative to right face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;pre&amp;gt;U222&amp;lt;/pre&amp;gt; ...rotates entire puzzle 2 positions clockwise relative to upper face&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Metric]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Snyder Method]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Puzzle Notation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Invented by [[User:Tony Snyder|Anthony Snyder]] in 2010.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Tony Snyder</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>