CPEOLL (Fridrich add on method)

[wiki]CPEOLL[/wiki]

How about that?

Would you find it useful?

Anyone that tried it before?

(I will add upp cases and algs asp) ... cases done, only algs left now =)

And now all cases have algs... all are not that good :/ But some cases are really nice =)

Well, anyway, you are all free to add up more algs to the page, that is how it is supposed to work, this wiki thingy =)

would work with cls or wv.
But I don't see any advantage compared to oll+pll

nck said:

would work with cls or wv.
But I don't see any advantage compared to oll+pll

Click to expand...

Yes, that would work...

Well, if you also use ELL and the rest of the PLLs you will have a skip to ELL in 1:6, a skip to PLL in 1:8 and if you have to do this step anyway you will have a EPLL skip in 1:12

That sums up to... one skip in each average of five!

I've been thinking about this to, since I like the idea of EJF2L, but I'm not too fond of Petrus' EO, at least for speed.

Ooh I like this. I'll put this on my list of algs to learn. Thanks

Looks very nice.
I'll be sure to learn these, then use them whenever ELS is

I already know algs for these cases.

It's a subset of what people have been calling OLLCP.

Kirjava said:

I already know algs for these cases.

It's a subset of what people have been calling OLLCP.

Click to expand...

XCLL (extended) I called it when I was learning it from a CLL perspective some years ago, I knew about 150 cases then. For most I used COLL algs and inserted M moves the same way as you do with J-PLL (or Sune as many do for OLL r U R'.. ). That way the same COLL solves 5 cases, 7 if you do M and U moves for setup and restoration (all is possible but then it will be many inserts, better to use a special alg for the 4-flip case).

I prefer OLLCP since most users will be doing it as an alternative to OLL.

It gives a bigger avantage to an OLL/PLL user than a CLL/ELL user.

OLLCP is in turn a subset of KCLL.

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be like COLL, except instead of already having edges oriented, you have only corners oriented? But those cases are so few. I mean, are you going to use 'corner control' during F2L?

MichaelP. said:

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be like COLL, except instead of already having edges oriented, you have only corners oriented? But those cases are so few. I mean, are you going to use 'corner control' during F2L?

Click to expand...

As I wrote the idea is to use it when you get a CO skip but of course CC is an option if you like to use it as the main LL step.

But there's a bunch of cases in CC, 27 for each position of the pair.

BTW; anyone got a link to a page with all CC cases? I'm thinking of looking at a method that is a bit like columns first but here you do 3 pairs, last pair + CC, put 3 FL edges and centres, [wiki]L5EOP[/wiki] to fix edges and finaly PLL. You can speedsolve in 45-50 moves using that =)

Kirjava said:

I already know algs for these cases.

It's a subset of what people have been calling OLLCP.

Click to expand...

How many algs are there for OLLCP? It must be nearly as much as ZBLL right?

It depends what you mean by 'algs'. I consider sune and fatsune to be essentially the same alg, but for different cases.

Kirjava said:

It depends what you mean by 'algs'. I consider sune and fatsune to be essentially the same alg, but for different cases.

Click to expand...

So how many cases are there?

About 300.

Kenneth said:

MichaelP. said:

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be like COLL, except instead of already having edges oriented, you have only corners oriented? But those cases are so few. I mean, are you going to use 'corner control' during F2L?

Click to expand...

As I wrote the idea is to use it when you get a CO skip but of course CC is an option if you like to use it as the main LL step.

But there's a bunch of cases in CC, 27 for each position of the pair.

Click to expand...

For CFOP, it doesn't make sense to use full CC (i.e. 27 cases for each pair position) since you can insert an edge in 3 moves and do CLS.

Kenneth said:

BTW; anyone got a link to a page with all CC cases? I'm thinking of looking at a method that is a bit like columns first but here you do 3 pairs, last pair + CC, put 3 FL edges and centres, [wiki]L5EOP[/wiki] to fix edges and finaly PLL. You can speedsolve in 45-50 moves using that =)

Click to expand...

I see you wrote a lot of this page:
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Columns_First_Methods
This line isn't objective and doesn't belong in the wiki, regardless of whether or not it's true: "It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but there are very few people that uses columns."

I haven't convinced myself that Cross+F2L is faster than Columns First when both are mastered, but I don't think it's hard to see why Cross+F2L is the more popular speedcubing method. Solving the cross first reduces the number of possible edge, and hence also pair, positions. This makes it easier to make the solution for each case as an automatism (either by directly learning algorithms or as a result of repeating intuitive solves). And automatism (i.e. braindeadness) is great for speedcubing.

Note that the same can be said about Cross+F2L vs. Roux. Are there some Roux or Columns First variations that are better, when perfected, than Cross+F2L variations? Maybe. But in practice we should also consider how much extra effort it takes to master methods allowing more freedom.

I'd be interested to hear what Roux solvers think of Columns First variations. They're a better judge than Cross+F2Lers like me.


By the way, since CF is already in widespread use for Corners First, I don't know how to abbreviate Cross+F2L and Columns First. Note that Cross+F2L includes CFOP, Cross+F2L+MGLS+PLL, etc.

Couldn't some of these potentially be used for blind as well?

macky said:

This line isn't objective and doesn't belong in the wiki, regardless of whether or not it's true: "It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but there are very few people that uses columns."

I haven't convinced myself that Cross+F2L is faster than Columns First when both are mastered, but I don't think it's hard to see why Cross+F2L is the more popular speedcubing method. Solving the cross first reduces the number of possible edge, and hence also pair, positions. This makes it easier to make the solution for each case as an automatism (either by directly learning algorithms or as a result of repeating intuitive solves). And automatism (i.e. braindeadness) is great for speedcubing.

Click to expand...

Don't bother, I tried pointing this out a while ago.

macky said:

I'd be interested to hear what Roux solvers think of Columns First variations. They're a better judge than Cross+F2Lers like me.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call myself a Roux solver (well, I can do it, I've done a sub20 average) but I've done Columns First enough to be moderately fast at it (around 20). I think it certainly has some potential but the biggest problem is the relatively large number of rotations. S moves can be done but they are awkward and I don't know any way to do fingertricks with them (but hey, I said that about M moves too a while back, and look at what I know now), so in practice whenever you need to do those turns you have to do a y rotation. This doesn't happen just during the L8E step but during the columns step as well, because occasionally an edge you want is sitting in DL or DR, which is not only awkward to look for but (again) awkward to execute. So I think this method has potential, sub20 is definitely possible and sub15 probably is, but it won't be as fast as Roux or Fridrich (with good F2L technique) without some modification.

macky said:

By the way, since CF is already in widespread use for Corners First, I don't know how to abbreviate Cross+F2L and Columns First. Note that Cross+F2L includes CFOP, Cross+F2L+MGLS+PLL, etc.

Click to expand...

I don't know about cross+F2L, but for columns first, how about ColF?

puzzlemaster said:

Couldn't some of these potentially be used for blind as well?

Click to expand...

I think you know the answer to that.

Yes.

puzzlemaster said:

Couldn't some of these potentially be used for blind as well?

Click to expand...

nope these algorithms are BANNED from BLD.