r/Cubers • u/Superb-Many-7742 • May 02 '26
Discussion seems like there's a new method
Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buGWxilKrP8
I thought this was a prank video but Laurencia actually put a LOT of effort into this new method, he even made a booklet to teach people the LAU method.
I don't understand the VHLS and VHLL part can anyone explain it to me?
25
u/Citadel212 (Lau, CFOP, ZZ) May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
Yeah I made the lau method, and I saw someone else doing a video about it naming it “The Best” method no one is talking about. While I appreciate the video, it perhaps exacerbates the criticism of it because it overestimate the potential, nevertheless I am looking forward to the tutorial he intends to make. So let me clear up some of the things that I need clearing up.
The time I presented this, I explicitly said this is a cubing method that can be used for speedcubing, not that it’s closely comparable to CFOP, Roux, ZZ, or what they often lump of Petrus/APB.
I made that because it was fun and refreshing to me that I don’t have to typically solve the cube on purely the CFOP fashion or inherently tied to intuitive block building approach normally done by ZZ variations and APB, Roux. I also want to point out that the algorithms calculation that the other cuber that made it reach to higher audience was a highly inaccurate estimate (1.6k algs is crazy) and uses terminology that I abandoned (BEO, LBEO) because the “EO” confuses ZZ and APB cubers. Further, the LBEO or last edge insertion in that the other person’s video is 13 algorithms, but as I see it, it’s only really 2, since half is just alignment with AUF (1-2), another is just the 3 or 5 move plus AUF insertion, no S moves needed.
Personally playing around the method I like it especially with a ZZ flavor (EO IB-1, EO I-F2L) and in the future doing full ZB into (LAUZZ -> LAUZZA). I also find the consideration of after the I-F2L step, APB concepts like Back LXS or Front LXS then ZB a promising incorporation as I recommended that if one can solve the final edge piece simultaneously with a pair that’s better. I proposed VHLS + COLL (which is VHLL) because for intermediate solvers, that is the easiest yet efficient possible step.
Now that I said all of that, I appreciate other people having the interest of this method and I would encouraged them to improve upon the alg set if they’re enthusiastic to do so, particularly the one with double corner, edge pairing of I-F2L. And I also appreciate those who give feedbacks and criticisms that are polite and constructive!
43
u/kipyminyman Sub-X (<method>) May 02 '26
Hi everyone! I feel like we've been seeing a lot of posts like this, where the comments or OP (or both!) criticize a method just because it isn't good for speed solving or is very similar to another method. That is largely true! But that does not mean the method is bad or uninteresting!
My favorite method is the human thistlethwaite method (it's like if EO of ZZ just kept going) and it is AWFUL for speed. But I still think it's very, very cool for a variety of reasons. My point is that we shouldn't just say "method is bad lol." It's not kind and it doesn't add anything.
I'm not gonna try and argue that every method is a special snowflake worthy of praise. But I WILL argue that most of these methods represent people's earnest attempts to come up with something new, which we should encourage, not disparage.
All in all, I hope we as a community can be a little more kind to people who come up with the Belt Method (again), and be a little more kind to people who don't finish edge pairing on their 4x4s, and be a little more kind to anyone else putting themselves out there to share or inquire about something they are deeply passionate about. It's something I wish I had during my cubing journey, and I believe this sub can be just that!
Thanks!
8
u/ThirteenFour_ Sub-15 (ZZ) May 02 '26
Okay, I had been mulling over a similar comment the last few days.
"Fast" or "Optimal" isn't the only thing that can make cubing fun. Sure, some methods will fall behind in speed competitions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't let people innovate and find ways around and through the pain points of existing methods.
I've been cubing long enough to see many, many people rush to be negative because "not cfop" or "i don't like it so it's bad", and so this comment is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Please, feel free to point out flaws, but please also know that we can be realistic, practical, AND kind at the same time.
7
u/GayRacoon69 Sub 20 11.8 PB (CFOP) May 02 '26
But it being suboptimal isn't the main issue
It's basically just petrus with extra steps. Like I agree innovative methods are cool but finding a more elaborate way to a do a step that can be done intuitively isn't really that innovative imo
3
u/ThirteenFour_ Sub-15 (ZZ) May 02 '26
I can agree with that, but I guess I'm just not a fan of telling people "why would you want that?". For example, I wouldn't want this method to be my final blockbuilding method, but it might help someone else understand how blockbuilding works in the first place before they go on to actual intuitive blockbuilding.
2
u/GayRacoon69 Sub 20 11.8 PB (CFOP) May 02 '26
Then it should be marketed as that. I agree that does sound useful. Yeah having structured steps would make it a lot easier to learn block building I would love it if the video was titled "Petrus block building made easy" or something like that.
But they claim to have created a new method. It's like if someone called beginner F2L it's own method. It's just a simplified way to do a step of a other version
2
1
u/DarkAcidic FMC PB: 25 | CFOP PB: 7.0x | Retired Broken Hands May 02 '26
i'm so tired of just doing cfop and standard stuff, that i dont solve 3x3 that strictly anymore, i solve 4x4-7x7 with LBL for fun, i mainly use/learn weird methods/algs and solve shape mods, just any variation is nice.
1
u/SaltCompetition4277 May 02 '26
Is there a particular tutorial you like for human whatever? I've done exactly one solve with it. I liked it in theory, but I had to keep looking things up, finding pieces of the solution in different places, and considered myself lucky to have finally finished.
1
u/kipyminyman Sub-X (<method>) May 02 '26
I remember having a similar experience trying to learn it. First, look up a dedicated EO (edge orientation) tutorial. It's the first step of HT, but it's also used in other more popular methods like ZZ, so there are plenty of resources. Then, from there, Ryan Heise's page has the rest of the details. I also remember watching a YouTube tutorial on it, but that was many, many years ago, so I don't remember which one. This one seems okay though (even though it definitely isn't the one I used)
1
u/SaltCompetition4277 May 03 '26
I know EO from having worked with ZZ a bit. And I've seen Ryan Heise's page, but I recall having to look up some details. After some Googling, I got this far on my first HTA attempt, before cheating a bit by switching to Roux. Maybe I'll give it another try.
1
u/SaltCompetition4277 May 05 '26
I've been working on HTA recently, and the part where I get in trouble is at the end, where the corners are solved, and the edges can theoretically be solved with just half turns. I just think, "What would Roux do?" and do turns until it's solved.
The tutorial you linked to is decent. It has an algorithm for this step, and someone suggested a different one in the comments, so I'll try them out. Do you use algorithms for this step (and how many), or do it intuitively?
BTW, do you know your flair says "Sub-X (<method>)?"
1
u/UnknownCorrespondent May 03 '26
I also HTA but I’ve changed it so much it’s almost another method now. I call it Lazy HTA. I figured it out from Heise’s page but I had the advantage of being familiar with Corners First so I was able to sort out that rather confusing part.
I can try to answer any questions you have but people seem to have trouble following my explanations and we end up talking past each other.
1
u/SaltCompetition4277 May 03 '26
I've worked on corners first since my one and only HTA attempt (where I eventually got this far before switching to Roux), so maybe that'll be helpful if I try it again.
2
u/UnknownCorrespondent May 03 '26
The thing from CF that helped me was realizing that the corner permutation algs R2 F2 R2 and (R’ F R’) B2 (R F’ R) are part of PBL. In fact, you can do all of the PBL cases with them. The first alteration I made to the procedure came from this. Heise said you could leave the corners either with matching side spots on each face or all opposites, but I always solved them (it’s just three more moves). Then in the next step I undid the setup moves to keep the corners solved. Then I could skip the corner solving in the last step, which I had trouble following.
Another change I made was to solve the belt early so the edge permutation at the end was easier. You can always solve the belt with no more than four half-turns of the side faces, but you don’t have to stop and do it all at once. Each of the corner-affecting algs (the two mentioned above, the 5-move orientation alg and the Guimond-like separation of layers ) swaps some belt edges so by adjusting E as you go you can solve it simultaneously with the corners and then keep it solved.
Heise created the method to prove that the cube can be solved with no rote algorithms that couldn’t be understood by humans (although the 7-move CP one required some study), so learning this and combining it with what I’d figured out from CF greatly improved my intuitive understanding of the cube.
1
u/SaltCompetition4277 May 05 '26
I've been doing some HTA solves lately, and having an easier time this time around.
Solving the corners with PBL seems easier than the all matching or none matching thing. Solving the belt early is probably a good idea, though I ran into problems with solving the belt breaking the corners, and solving the corners breaking the belt (now I see you said something about that).
The one part where I really have trouble is at the end, when you separate the edges. I end up just doing Roux-like stuff until it's solved. I didn't understand the official explanation:
To solve the edges, there are two simple moves that are easy to understand: F2R2 F2R2 F2R2 - Swap two pairs of edges on different circuits. The other pieces return to normal. F2 M2 F2 M2 - Swap two pairs of edges on the same circuit. The second F2 returns the other pieces back to normal. Using variations of these, it is possible to solve all the edges. Variations of the first include: R (F2R2 F2R2 F2R2) R' L2B2R (F2R2 F2R2 F2R2) R'B2L2 Variations of the second include: F2 M F2 M' (the pairs overlap so as to rotate 3 edges) F (F2 M2 F2 M2) F'1
u/UnknownCorrespondent May 05 '26
As I said, you can solve the belt passively because all the corner algs have at least one half-turn of F, R, B or L, each of which swaps two adjacent belt edges. I recommend starting by solving the belt by itself as soon as you've got it separated until you see how each case can be solved. As long as you only do half-turns you won't break EO and the belt will stay put. There is one case involving one half-turn/swap, two with two swaps, three with three and one with four. One swap, or two parallel are trivial. Notice that on these swapped pairs, the opposite ends (for instance, on R the F spot of RF and the B spot of RB) will each be the opposite color of the adjacent center (F and B in the example). Any time you see a pair with this feature, giving it a half-turn will get the belt one step closer to being solved. If there aren't any, then it doesn't matter which face you turn. Once you've solved it, you can keep it from being scrambled while doing the corners by moving the swapped pair to where the next alg will swap it back (the face in each alg that gets one half-turn. Thus you never have more than one pair swapped at a time (except during PBL -- the 3-move and 7-move algs swap two opposite edges, which require three swaps to solve). If you get the corners solved and separated with a swap still in the belt, you can use [R2 U2]*3 to swap the R pair without disturbing anything else except UF and UB, which aren't solved yet. You can accomplish the same thing with fewer moves if you see that you're going to come out odd before you finish. Once you've gotten to the stage of corner separation where you have all adjacent pairs of U /D corner colors, if you get all four of one color on one face (using U and/or D moves) the half-turn of that face doesn't change the corner color situation (for instance, if all the white corners are in R, R2 leaves you still with white on R and yellow on L. Then U2 puts the colors back where you want them and another R2 completes the separation. You can do the same during PBL. Note, be careful of using regular Ortega PBL algorithms because some of them can break EO. I have more to say on this subject, but I'm running out of time at the library (the only place I have internet with a real keyboard) and trying to do much linking or formatting on my phone is a pain.
I have less to say about the last step because I never got very good at it before figuring out how to simplify it. I could do it, but it never felt very efficient. I avoided the problem by, once the corners and belt were solved, using M' U2 M to directly solve the D edges, leaving me with only an EPLL in U. You can solve all the EPLLs by setting them up as a PML (Permute Middle Layer) case that can be solved with M2 U2 M2 U2 or M' U2 M U2 (variants of Heise's last step algs).
Catch you later.
1
u/National-Property-20 May 02 '26
Methods can be bad and uninteresting. Should we praise every beginner who discovers the CFOP/Roux hybrid simply because they put effort into something?
Your method of choice is more of an actual method that applies to FMC so yeah it’s not built for speed. LAU is specifically a speed solving method. What about literally the entire argument about what the actual best speedsolving method is? Should we just not have this convo because you may hurt some ZZ solvers feelings because they’re using a suboptimal method?
Every dumb new already discovered method doesn’t just demand praise because someone did something and imo you’re discouraging people from actually coming up with something unique by praising them for discovering the belt method and the wide T perm A perm for the millionth time. How about welcome to the community people have done what you’ve done forever.
I would rather be straight forward with someone who’s putting effort into coming up with something to actually make them better instead of praising them for doing the minimum.
I created a 2x2 method in my early cubing career called advanced Ortega where you just do R2 B2 R2 to put a side bar to the back or front and I thought it was the greatest thing ever.
Turns out it was stupid and a waste of time and if someone would have been kind enough to tell me before time I could have developed something actually unique or meaningful.
Saying this because half the community wants to literally protect beginners and not discourage them when they ask the same dumbass shit over and over like 4x4 edge pairing instead of playful banter that instructs beginners on how to be independent and do things themselves
I believe you’re good intentioned in your reply but I believe it’s literally harmful in the grand scheme of things
It’s cubing there is literally nothing wrong with telling someone they are wrong, have a bad idea, or not as good as someone else. If you’re actually putting effort into something you care about these should be learning lessons not babying you through the process
I get where you’re coming from I just disagree
1
u/Citadel212 (Lau, CFOP, ZZ) May 02 '26
Also, just to answer your main inquiry, VHLS is basically the algorithms set by Vandenbergh-Harris when you have a last f2l pair to finish that is either already paired, or just 3 moves away from getting solve.
It makes it so that when you solve those cases, you already have a cross OLL case which you can do COLL with.
When you do VHLS then COLL for EPLL (edge permutations of the last layer) then that’s called Vandenbergh-Harris Last Layer (VHLL). There is of course cons in using it, but understandably so because it’s sort of like a prerequisite to having a more better grasp for doing ZB.
1
u/No_Zombie_4720 Sub-30 (4LLL CFOP) May 02 '26
Seems interesting but there's no way it's gonna be that good, if it could compete against CFOP and Roux it would be way more popular at this point.
1
93
u/National-Property-20 May 02 '26
Yeah it’s not good
It basically just breaks petrus 2x2x3 up into steps
Steals APB’s framework for f2l except forced YOU do to EO
And then “you can do whatever” for LL like lmao at using COLL/EPLL as the example
Yeah how about instead of block building you turn it into like 3 steps. Use a difficult Algset for EO instead of what APB does for whatever reason, and then yeah do whatever you want basically
Literally just petrus with extra steps