Fridrich expansions

[Razorwolf]

Several months ago, I started learning the plain, basic Fridrich method. Now, I know all the pll's, the f2l, and a few chunks of the oll. However, I feel that I am capable of learning a few more algorithms to decrease my time. I've been looking at ways to "expand" the Fridrich method; MGLS, etc. I'm not very happy with those, so I wanted to know if anyone else had any ideas. I am looking for something that is between ~20 and ~75 algorithms that can be added to the Fridrich method and will definately decrease times in the long run.

If possible, I'd like to keep the pll (I like the algorithms and have trained on them for speed). The oll and f2l do not matter.

 

[byu]

57 algorithms- learn full OLL
56 algorithms- learn VHF2L+COLL

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

VHF2L+COLL is 32+40=72

Correct me if I'm wrong, unless you aren't counting mirrors.

 

[Razorwolf]

I was thinking of something in addition to the oll, or at least better than it.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I've been looking at ways to "expand" the Fridrich method; MGLS, etc. I'm not very happy with those, so I wanted to know if anyone else had any ideas.

Well, no. If any one had any ideas, and they were good, they're already out there.

I am looking for something that is between ~20 and ~75 algorithms that can be added to the Fridrich method and will definately decrease times in the long run.

Depending on what you want, make sure to look carefully at:

MGLS
ZBLS / ZBLL
Petrus
ZZ

Then realize that your times will decrease with any of them if you practice.

 

[Nukoca]

I do recommend Petrus. Fewer moves, less algs. Visit either Lars' site or Josh's site to learn it. If you switch, it should only take you a few weeks to build up your speed to match that of your Fridrich times.

Fridrich: 57 OLLs +21 PLLs= 78 algs. MGLS(34 ELS+104 CLS)=138
Petrus: 7 OLLs +21 PLLs= 28 algs. EJF2L= 16 algs

Fridrich MGLS is the same as Petrus EJF2L, but with less algs.

 

[Escher]

I do recommend Petrus. Fewer moves, less algs. Visit either Lar's site or Josh's site to learn it. If you switch, it should only take you a few weeks to build up your speed to match that of your Fridrich times.

Fridrich: 57 OLLs +21 PLLs= 78 algs. MGLS(34 ELS+104 CLS)=138
Petrus: 7 OLLs +21 PLLs= 28 algs. EJF2L= 16 algs

Fridrich MGLS is the same as Petrus EJF2L, but with less algs.

sorry? 10char

 

[Nukoca]

sorry? 10char

ELF2L does the same thing as MGLS, but since you already have edges oriented, the cases are reduced to 16. I think MGLS is a little different, but...
Never mind. I'm not too good at explaining things. Just watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yn1wLkC1eI

 

[Escher]

No, I know what EJF2L is and what MGLS is, I just don't think that what you said makes very much sense.

EDIT: sorry, I'll elaborate a bit more - EJF2L is just a subset of MGLS. Fridrich-MGLS is all of MGLS. Two different things, right? You can use all of CLS in Petrus. So yeah, 'petrus MGLS' involves less algs than Fridrich MGLS because the orientation is already done for ELS, all you have to do is place the slot, but saying that EJF2L is the petrus version of fridrich-MGLS is stretching it a little far.

 

[qqwref]

I do recommend Petrus. Fewer moves, less algs. Visit either Lar's site or Josh's site to learn it. If you switch, it should only take you a few weeks to build up your speed to match that of your Fridrich times.

This paragraph is very entertaining to me. fewer algs. his name is lars. fewer moves != faster. a few weeks? you kidding? maybe if your avg is >30

Anyway for an expansion to Fridrich I recommend COLL, which is about 40 algs. It solves the LL corners in one step if you already have the LL edges oriented. There are many ways to get the edges oriented - you could try VH (where you orient them while inserting the last F2L pair) or ZZ (you orient ALL of the edges at the beginning, and then make the entire F2L with just moves of R, U, and L, and of course get to use COLL every time). Of course, you can also use COLL without any of this, just by applying it whenever your last layer starts with oriented edges, or even by immediately orienting the LL edges and then applying COLL every time (even that is more efficient than 2-look OLL plus PLL).

Mathematically, if you have the edges oriented, you have a 1/27 chance of already having the corners oriented (and the PLL skip is more rare). But if you do COLL, the COLL skip is rare, but then you have a 1/12 chance of skipping the step after that (and even if you don't skip it is guaranteed to be U, Z, or H perm). So with COLL you are more likely to get a one-look last layer.

 

[Nukoca]

No, I know what EJF2L is and what MGLS is, I just don't think that what you said makes very much sense.

EDIT: sorry, I'll elaborate a bit more - EJF2L is just a subset of MGLS. Fridrich-MGLS is all of MGLS. Two different things, right? You can use all of CLS in Petrus. So yeah, 'petrus MGLS' involves less algs than Fridrich MGLS because the orientation is already done for ELS, all you have to do is place the slot, but saying that EJF2L is the petrus version of fridrich-MGLS is stretching it a little far.

Oh.... Ok, I had a little bit of confusion there. How many algs would that be for full Petrus MGLS then? Just the CLS, right? That'd be... 104 algs. A little more than I thought.

EDIT:

I do recommend Petrus. Fewer moves, less algs. Visit either Lar's site or Josh's site to learn it. If you switch, it should only take you a few weeks to build up your speed to match that of your Fridrich times.

This paragraph is very entertaining to me. fewer algs. his name is lars. fewer moves != faster. a few weeks? you kidding? maybe if your avg is >30

Mispelling error on the "Lar's." I wasn't kidding about him taking a few weeks to get up to speed again, because

Several months ago, I started learning the plain, basic Fridrich method.

His average probably isn't below 30, so won't have too much trouble switching methods at this point.

EDIT2: 222nd post!

 

[brunson]

No, I know what EJF2L is and what MGLS is, I just don't think that what you said makes very much sense.

EDIT: sorry, I'll elaborate a bit more - EJF2L is just a subset of MGLS. Fridrich-MGLS is all of MGLS. Two different things, right? You can use all of CLS in Petrus. So yeah, 'petrus MGLS' involves less algs than Fridrich MGLS because the orientation is already done for ELS, all you have to do is place the slot, but saying that EJF2L is the petrus version of fridrich-MGLS is stretching it a little far.

I don't think that's right. EO during Petrus will eliminate the need for ELS, which is only 7 algs. The majority of MGLS is CLS, which you still need.

 

[soccerking813]

Several months ago, I started learning the plain, basic Fridrich method.

His average probably isn't below 30, so won't have too much trouble switching methods at this point.

I only started learning Fridrich 3 months ago, and I average around 26 seconds. With several month I could easily average sub-20.

 

[Razorwolf]

To clear things up, I just did a session of 12 with average about 30.

 

[soccerking813]

I would suggest that at this time, you look a a couple of other methods, like Roux, ZZ, Petrus, and see if you like any of them. Do that for a few weeks. Even if you decide that you still like Fridrich, then your times will have dropped with it, because you will have more knowledge of the cube and different little tricks.

 

[Escher]

No, I know what EJF2L is and what MGLS is, I just don't think that what you said makes very much sense.

EDIT: sorry, I'll elaborate a bit more - EJF2L is just a subset of MGLS. Fridrich-MGLS is all of MGLS. Two different things, right? You can use all of CLS in Petrus. So yeah, 'petrus MGLS' involves less algs than Fridrich MGLS because the orientation is already done for ELS, all you have to do is place the slot, but saying that EJF2L is the petrus version of fridrich-MGLS is stretching it a little far.

I don't think that's right. EO during Petrus will eliminate the need for ELS, which is only 7 algs. The majority of MGLS is CLS, which you still need.

Sorry, i was in a rush...

I disagreed with nukoca because he said that fridrich-MGLS and petrus-EJF2L were equivalent, but implied that petrus-EJF2L was better.
I was trying to argue that fridrich-MGLS is completely different because of the lack of a pre-orientation stage and the lack of the 'pseudo-pairing' that you need to do in EJF2L.

Nukoca would be right if he'd said that petrus-CLS was the equivalent of fridrich-MGLS and required less algs, but he said EJF2L, so i disagreed.

I think thats right, anyway...

 

[brunson]

No, I know what EJF2L is and what MGLS is, I just don't think that what you said makes very much sense.

EDIT: sorry, I'll elaborate a bit more - EJF2L is just a subset of MGLS. Fridrich-MGLS is all of MGLS. Two different things, right? You can use all of CLS in Petrus. So yeah, 'petrus MGLS' involves less algs than Fridrich MGLS because the orientation is already done for ELS, all you have to do is place the slot, but saying that EJF2L is the petrus version of fridrich-MGLS is stretching it a little far.

I don't think that's right. EO during Petrus will eliminate the need for ELS, which is only 7 algs. The majority of MGLS is CLS, which you still need.

Sorry, i was in a rush...

I disagreed with nukoca because he said that fridrich-MGLS and petrus-EJF2L were equivalent, but implied that petrus-EJF2L was better.
I was trying to argue that fridrich-MGLS is completely different because of the lack of a pre-orientation stage and the lack of the 'pseudo-pairing' that you need to do in EJF2L.

Nukoca would be right if he'd said that petrus-CLS was the equivalent of fridrich-MGLS and required less algs, but he said EJF2L, so i disagreed.

I think thats right, anyway...

Sorry, I meant to reply to nukoca. You posted between the time I read his post and watched enough of the video to understand EJF2L. It confused me because you had the "Edit:" which made me think the post I was replying to had been edited from what I remember. We're in agreement.

Anyway, Nukoca.

I do recommend Petrus. Fewer moves, less algs. Visit either Lars' site or Josh's site to learn it. If you switch, it should only take you a few weeks to build up your speed to match that of your Fridrich times.

Fridrich: 57 OLLs +21 PLLs= 78 algs. MGLS(34 ELS+104 CLS)=138
Petrus: 7 OLLs +21 PLLs= 28 algs. EJF2L= 16 algs

Fridrich MGLS is the same as Petrus EJF2L, but with less algs.

This is what I was disagreeing with.

EJF2L = EO + 104 CLS

 

[Lord Voldemort]

If you really want to try something, try partial edge control for the first three pairs. For the last pair, try VHF2L. Then use COLL and EPLL.
1/12 chance of a 1LLL, and there's also a 2/3 (correct me if I'm wrong) chance of U Perm, which is easy to sub 2. So total, it's 32 + 40 + 4 = 76 algorithms, which is better than Fridrich, and most (if not all) VHF2L cases are completely intuitive. I really wonder now why VHF2L + COLL + EPLL isn't standard setup for Fridrich... If used with partial edge control, you can avoid all the really bad cases, and 1/12 chance of LL skip and 2/3 chance of U perm is pretty nice...

If you're considering switching methods, go ZZ... after EOline, F2L in only <R,U,L> is pretty sweet. And COLL + EPLL is still nice, with only 46 algs.

 

[JustinJ]

If you really want to try something, try partial edge control for the first three pairs. For the last pair, try VHF2L. Then use COLL and EPLL.
1/12 chance of a 1LLL, and there's also a 2/3 (correct me if I'm wrong) chance of U Perm, which is easy to sub 2. So total, it's 32 + 40 + 4 = 76 algorithms, which is better than Fridrich, and most (if not all) VHF2L cases are completely intuitive. I really wonder now why VHF2L + COLL + EPLL isn't standard setup for Fridrich... If used with partial edge control, you can avoid all the really bad cases, and 1/12 chance of LL skip and 2/3 chance of U perm is pretty nice...

My guess would be that it's because the VHF2L case isn't particularly nice to set up, but I haven't really tried.

Also, people have been saying 1LLL, but is it really a 1LLL if you have to recognize that you got a skip? If you can see the edges being solved at COLL then it would be, but otherwise?

 

[Lord Voldemort]

?
Do R U' R'.
There are separate algorithms for cases where the pair is like that and when there's an F2L pair made. So the set up is making a pair so that you can insert in 3 moves normally. And the cases are pretty intuitive if you know a bit about edge orientation in F2L.

"Also, people have been saying 1LLL, but is it really a 1LLL if you have to recognize that you got a skip? If you can see the edges being solved at COLL then it would be, but otherwise?"

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.