keemy
Regular
Recently I realized there are not enough things named after me (sad I know). So I decided to devise a ZBLL alternative to be named after me (I'd like to make it very clear I am not advertising this as something to be learned in place of OLL/PLL but rather for people who are considering learning a sh**ton of algs)
In this list I excluded reflections that were within the same subset (i.e. some were removed for T and F but the right and left hand cases of the R perm subsets are both included) and rotation (ie could do a y, y', or y2 to get to a different case) but I left in inverses and reflection to different subsets. So that makes 145 algs for the last layer.
This method is basically ELL+CPLL (or the way I organized it PLL+EOLL). I think that it has some advantages over ZBLL such as less algs (ZBLL has 177 not counting inverses and mirrors) and this has less counting most mirrors and inverses. Also, the recognition has a lot more potential (though I may just be saying this as i have a hard time with CLL) as you can see the CLL and usually 2 eges in the right spot which is enough to determine the PLL if you know how to recognize PLL from any angle. Also the chance of OLL skips entirely is higher if that maters (1/8 rather than 1/27). Which leads me to the main downfall which is the last slot setup will be pretty bad (but not so bad) if you pair the c/e piece you could use winter variation but without having the edges oriented or you could use a variation on winter variation that doesn't preserve the EO which would be faster.
I'll post links to all the cases below (if you find any mistakes please tell me in a reply, same goes for better algs as I basically just use cube explorer and had it spit out optimals)
In this list I excluded reflections that were within the same subset (i.e. some were removed for T and F but the right and left hand cases of the R perm subsets are both included) and rotation (ie could do a y, y', or y2 to get to a different case) but I left in inverses and reflection to different subsets. So that makes 145 algs for the last layer.
This method is basically ELL+CPLL (or the way I organized it PLL+EOLL). I think that it has some advantages over ZBLL such as less algs (ZBLL has 177 not counting inverses and mirrors) and this has less counting most mirrors and inverses. Also, the recognition has a lot more potential (though I may just be saying this as i have a hard time with CLL) as you can see the CLL and usually 2 eges in the right spot which is enough to determine the PLL if you know how to recognize PLL from any angle. Also the chance of OLL skips entirely is higher if that maters (1/8 rather than 1/27). Which leads me to the main downfall which is the last slot setup will be pretty bad (but not so bad) if you pair the c/e piece you could use winter variation but without having the edges oriented or you could use a variation on winter variation that doesn't preserve the EO which would be faster.
I'll post links to all the cases below (if you find any mistakes please tell me in a reply, same goes for better algs as I basically just use cube explorer and had it spit out optimals)
Last edited by a moderator:
