Comparison of OCLL and CLS

Discussion in 'Puzzle Theory' started by JLarsen, Aug 9, 2009.

Welcome to the You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. JLarsen

    JLarsen Premium Member

    I'm trying to determine if using CLS during step 4b during bad cases, actually yields a lower move count if I turn it into a CLS case, instead of fixing it and doing oll. Just for ease of comparison I will use the following case:

    R U2 R' U R U' R' U

    The inverse would be my solution to solve this case normally, but turning it into a CLS case makes the solution merely

    R U R'

    This is 5 saved moves, but I'm wondering if it really is 5 saved moves.

    I can calculate the average move counts for both oll and CLS, but I cannot factor in which cases occur most often, and give an actual average move count for oll or cls. Can anyone help me?
  2. blah

    blah brah

    Dec 30, 2007
    You mean OCLL. What I don't get is, why would you want to learn 100+ CLS algorithms when you already know all 20 F2L cases (with the edge oriented) and all 7 OCLL algorithms?

    I can tell you right now that the average move count for inserting the last F2L edge is 2.6 (with probability of occurrence factored in). You'd have to ask Lucas for the average move count for CLS.
  3. JLarsen

    JLarsen Premium Member

    Wow I really meant to say the subset of CLS I + Im which are the cases where the corner are in place but twisted. I'm sorry...=\

    I use it for Petrus. "EJF2L"
  4. JLarsen

    JLarsen Premium Member

    So I decided I'm no longer using cls because the algs aren't as fast as my olls, and on average I found it saved about 1 move.

    17, 22 = -5

    17, 20 = -3

    23, 20 = +3

    17, 17 = 0

    17, 15 = +2

    16, 16 = 0

    15, 18 = -3

    14, 18 = -4

    20, 21 = -1

    15, 16 = -1

    These were random step 4b cases I got to using RU scrambles, and solving Step 4a. I only used cases I would normally turn into cls cases, and I solved the case with CLS, counted it (left), and then undid it, and solved it as I would with normal ocll. I took the average difference of the move counts and found it was 12/10 moves saved. But then again I guess it's not exactly hurting my I'm not sure what to do. It can be really helpful if I get a really really nice case for it, like a 2x2 with a twisted corner. Okay, I'll keep it but I'm no longer advising those I teach to learn it as in my opinion it is not worth learning.
  5. blindalchemist

    blindalchemist Member

    Aug 2, 2009
    Northern California
    When you constrain your cases to the I group, their relative probabilities stay the same as they were in full CLS. I0 occurs four times as often as I7. I0=4/27. I1=4/27, I2=2/27,...

    The average move count of I is the sum of (# of moves)*(prob. of occurence) for each case.

    The move count for full CLS is listed as ~9.5.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2009
  6. *LukeMayn*

    *LukeMayn* Member

    Apr 11, 2008
    New Zealand, Auckland
    I believe that it would be quicker just to do OLL after as it is easy as to recognize (since you are doing 2-gen stuff anyway) and you should be able to get all of the sub 1.5 and a few sub 1.

Share This Page