# Re: [zbmethod] Ambitionlessness -

```Recently I experienced a method that would orient all edges exept the LL
edges so that F2L could be solved with only L U and R and thus no cube
rotations.```
```
It hought that this would be useful, especially for OH-cubing but the way I
orient the edges is not very powerful.
I put as much non-oriented edges as I can on the F face, and then just do F
to orient them.
When I have 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 misoriented adges, it's easy (if I have 3, the
4th would be a LL edge).

If I have more, then I have a problem.
Or I could rotate the cube because there are only 8 edges on F2L. So is 5 of
them are misoriented, I just have to do y to have only 3 edges misoriented.

But anyway, this takes a bit of time. :-(

Gilles

2007/1/19, Mike Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
```
```
I don't see how that would do much good.  Solving cross first would
still make a massive number of cases to try to solve the LL, and then the
F2L would still have a ton.

Perhaps Cross+F2L Edges only > Corners > ELL?  Or even Edges > Corners?

Personally, I'd like to look into Orient Edges > F2L minus final pair >
Final pair+influence or solve LL Corner Orientation > Drastly reduced ZBLL.
With multislotting, this becomes a very, very attractive method.

I think the other route to go would be an L2L4 approach, where the
beginning is simple and we are constantly making the later steps easier,
while solving some other bit.  I have the feeling that you can influence or
even solve some of the later steps while placing the First layer corners,
instead of just doing them alone, like in Duncan's method.  Perhaps that's a
source of improvement?  Couple that with an X cross and you start having
some extra potential.

Block methods are another possible route to explore.  I don't have too
many specific ideas there, except possibly changing the definition of
oriented during the orientation step of Petrus, so that you're left with a 2
gen finish.

Any thoughts, anyone?

-Mike

On 1/19/07, Gilles van den Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   ok so should we start ?
>
> What about a method that solves Cross, then LL, then F2L...
> Weird...
>
> another idea ? :D
>
> Gilles
>

```