[Help Thread] What should I learn next?

[alexc]

I have 22 more OLL's to go before I know full Fridrich. I am wondering in what order should I start introducing the fine techniques? I already do Pieces Stuck in Another Slot and Using Empty Slots intuitively. Should I continue doing these intuitively or should I learn algs for them? When should I introduce multi-slotting and mis-aligned pairs? COLL? VH and maybe ZB? Also, for multi-slotting and mis-aligned pairs is it possible to learn these intuitively and how?

 

[badmephisto]

multi-slotting can probably be done intuitively to some degree, because from what i saw they share some common tricks. I just always wonder if the extra time you spent thinking is worth it.

 

[pjk]

I'd say just work on minimizing your move count during the F2L. That is what dropped me from 21 to 16. Work on making the best of every situation. Good luck.

 

[Inusagi]

Is it possible to do 2 pair at the same time? Possible= Do the experts

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

The best times with the method are mostly pure Fridrich with occassional x-cross and COLL. It's not like you're going to get much further with the method.

 

[rybaby]

Should I learn COLL or 3x3x3 CLL?

I want to learn a CxLL group because I think it would be useful for many methods, including Waterman, CFCE, and CLL for 2x2x2. The positive I see to CLL is it requires fewer moves than COLL because there are no edge restrictions. I like the idea of COLL on 3x3x3 because I could orient edges beforehand with VH or EOLL or Petrus and only have a quick EPLL afterward.

Which should I learn and why?

 

[waffle=ijm]

learn both so you have a better arsenal of algs. also CLL doesn't only affect LL edges unless you actually have an algset for it.

 

[brandbest1]

Like the above post, you should learn both. Though if you want a minimal number of algs, go for coll.

Also, you can't really do CLL on a 3x3 due to the edges...

 

[Sa967St]

If you have to pick one it should definitely be OCLLCP (a.k.a. COLL). It's very useful for OH and big cubes when you combine it with EOLS (a.k.a. ZBLS). Also, OCLLCP can be used in place of 3CLL and 2CLL (although it's not as efficient move-count-wise, but it works and there's some overlap anyway). If you intend on learning more than one CxLL set, IMO OCLLCP is the best one to start with.

Also, you can't really do CLL on a 3x3 due to the edges...

Yes you can. They're not the same algs used for 2x2x2 CLL.

 

[brandbest1]

Yes you can. They're not the same algs used for 2x2x2 CLL.

Well I meant algs like R2 U2 R U2 R2 don't really work on the 3x3.

 

[Sa967St]

Well I meant algs like R2 U2 R U2 R2 don't really work on the 3x3.

Yup, that's not a 3x3x3 CLL alg.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CLL_algorithms_(3x3x3)

 

[rj]

COLL. It can be used in place of CLL, not vice versa.

 

[mark49152]

If you have to pick one it should definitely be OCLLCP (a.k.a. COLL).

I googled that and didn't find a single hit except this thread (nothing cubing related, anyway). Did you just make it up?

 

[Sa967St]

I googled that and didn't find a single hit except this thread (nothing cubing related, anyway). Did you just make it up?

The acronym "COLL" doesn't make sense and it doesn't follow our naming system. I know "OCLLCP" won't become mainstream, but I like saying it because it makes more sense and it's clear what it means based on other similar acronyms.

 

[Poke2000]

I think you should learn COLL. It's more useful. You could use it to force EPLL, or you could subsitute it for CLL ( e.g. 2x2 CLL, 4x4 k4, etc) and it will not increase much time.
The methods that use 3x3 CLL aren't really fast ( in my opinion.)

 

[Forte]

If you're going to just learn one for the sake of learning one, then learn COLL cause you can use it for all of them.
Then if you start to do more flexible alg sets (such as CLL on 3x3), then just replace the COLLs bit by bit with better algs.
Also usually doing COLL on 3x3 speedsolves results in a worse time lol
Do it for OH man!
The best thing that comes out of learning this is learning the recog and how your normal OLLs affect the corners. For example, even if I only use 1 alg for each OLL, I can tell before I execute the OLL algorithm if my corners are going to be solved at PLL (or if I'm going to get headlights).

 

[antoineccantin]

Also usually doing COLL on 3x3 speedsolves results in a worse time lol

This really depends on which specific case. Some COLLs aren't all that great, so you'd probably get worse times if you use it, do others are almost as fast as your normal OLL, and so they often result in faster times. Also, using COLL gives you a much higher chance of getting PLL skips.

Do it for OH man!

Spoiler: Shameful advertizing

Check out my awesome list of algs -> Clicky!

 

[Ninja Storm]

Well if you learn COLL and forget OLL, then Stefan will be happy you found your C.

On a serious note, I'd learn COLL. It's far more universally useful than CLL.

 

[rybaby]

So it seems like the prevailing opinion here is COLL....Come to think of it, the only reason I liked CLL was it uses fewer moves--but only about .5 of a move I discovered. I went through labelling CLLs by which, if any, edges get flipped. I figured this could help me predict the ELL. But COLL seems better because if edges are oriented, then there are only 4 EPLL cases, and more likely to get a PLL skip. Plus fewer algorithms to know, unless I choose VH to orient edges.

I have found good algorithms for COLL on Jason Baum's website. Are there any other sites that one would recommend?

 

[TDM]

Cubezone and Cubewhiz.