[Help Thread] CPLS and 2GLL discussion

[StachuK1992]

I'm going to record quite shortly, which means the video shall be up tonight.
CPLS+2GLL recog video that is.
My A5 is my only decent cube with a normal color scheme, so I'll use that for the video

Phillip. urdoinitrong.
You only have 2-gen on the LL.

 

[joey]

But he's talking about 2gen scrambles.. which doesn't *really* count here.

 

[Toad]

Do you see this sub-method as something that should be adopted for (nearly) all solves or just for when certain cases come up that are nice with this?

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

You only have 2-gen on the LL.

Oh..

so wait... CPLS are not 2-gen friendly...

Well if you can develop a method that allows for entirely 2-gen after first 2 slots then I think it's worth it. I guess the idea would be to "do it on the fly" while doing 2-gen for the last 2x2x3 block. Otherwise, I'm not sure if it's worth it. What's the point of 2-gen LL (for ZZ anyhow) if you can't do the last block 2-gen?

 

[StachuK1992]

I just realized how hard this is to explain.
It's probably a lot better in words, so I'll just try to type out a better explanation in a bit. After like 20 recordings, it just didn't work out.

Toad: For OH, I think it would be very good to do all the time.
For 2H, however, I don't think it would give as much benefit, and would not recommend it.

Phillip: because 2-gen is fasts.

 

[Matt S]

Well if you can develop a method that allows for entirely 2-gen after first 2 slots then I think it's worth it. I guess the idea would be to "do it on the fly" while doing 2-gen for the last 2x2x3 block. Otherwise, I'm not sure if it's worth it

That's the Missing Link for ZZ-d. Good luck with the recognition even if you come up with an efficient mechanism (Lucas Garron came up with something, but I can't remember if it was efficient at all. In theory, it can be done with two extra moves).

 

[StachuK1992]

That's the Missing Link for ZZ-d. Good luck with the recognition even if you come up with an efficient mechanism (Lucas Garron came up with something, but I can't remember if it was efficient at all. In theory, it can be done with two extra moves).

My hope for the missing link being beneficial right during FB is really slim.
This is as close as I think you'll get without being crazy.

 

[Baian Liu]

I just realized how hard this is to explain.
It's probably a lot better in words, so I'll just try to type out a better explanation in a bit. After like 20 recordings, it just didn't work out.

Toad: For OH, I think it would be very good to do all the time.
For 2H, however, I don't think it would give as much benefit, and would not recommend it.

Phillip: because 2-gen is fasts.

I'll try to explain the recognition method on video when I have time.

 

[JeffDelucia]

As far is OH goes I don't see how CPLS+2GLL could be faster than CLS+PLL. From what I've seen OHPLL is faster and has easier recog than CPLS and (I think) CLS is faster than 2GLL. However I'd love to be proven wrong with some sub 15 averages. =D

 

[Cyrus C.]

As far is OH goes I don't see how CPLS+2GLL could be faster than CLS+PLL. From what I've seen OHPLL is faster and has easier recog than CPLS and (I think) CLS is faster than 2GLL. However I'd love to be proven wrong with some sub 15 averages. =D

Comparing their movecount and ergonomics.

CLS+PLL:

CLS - 9 move 2gen alg
PLL - 13, 14ish alright alg

CPLS+2GLL:

CPLS - 10 move alright alg
2GLL - 13 move 2gen alg

They're nearly the same in movecount, but CPLS + 2GLL has more 2 gen.

 

[JeffDelucia]

True but OH PLL can be done very fast. I Don't think that CPLS would be as fast. Also even if the recog for CPLS is better than it seems at first I don't think it could ever be faster than PLL recog.

 

[StachuK1992]

True but OH PLL can be done very fast. I Don't think that CPLS would be as fast. Also even if the recog for CPLS is better than it seems at first I don't think it could ever be faster than PLL recog.

As far as recog is concerned for CLS+PLL vs CPLS+2GLL is concerned:
CLS - look at 3 stickers after placing the DFR corner in (U/D)FR
CPLS - look at 3 stickers after placing the DFR corner in (U/D)FR and compare them rather quickly

PLL - look at 6 stickers and compare them
2GLL - look at CO and EP separately, probably, really looking at 2(edges)+4(corners) stickers. VERY QUICK comparison for EP

For both systems, you essentially look at six stickers.
For both systems, you can recog LS+LL easily by only looking at it from the UFR angle, if I can call it that.

 

[JeffDelucia]

As far as recog is concerned for CLS+PLL vs CPLS+2GLL is concerned:
CLS - look at 3 stickers after placing the DFR corner in (U/D)FR
CPLS - look at 3 stickers after placing the DFR corner in (U/D)FR and compare them rather quickly

PLL - look at 6 stickers and compare them
2GLL - look at CO and EP separately, probably, really looking at 2(edges)+4(corners) stickers. VERY QUICK comparison for EP

For both systems, you essentially look at six stickers.
For both systems, you can recog LS+LL easily by only looking at it from the UFR angle, if I can call it that.

Even though the amount of stickers you need to look at is the same I can't help but feel that the recog would be more natural with CLS+PLL

 

[StachuK1992]

The recog for CLS+PLL is more natural because you already know how to do those well.


Nonetheless, from an unbiased perspective, I'd have to say that
CPLS+2GLL recog would be a worse system for 2H, mainly because it has slower recog than
CLS+PLL, which has faster recog and TPS for 2H.

However, for OH, recog isn't *as* big of a deal, and 2Gen is a *bigger* deal.

As far as I'm concerned, CLS+PLL is 'better' for 2H while CPLS+2GLL could be 'better' for OH. Problem is, it hasn't been tested yet all that much.

 

[cincyaviation]

Comparing their movecount and ergonomics.

CLS+PLL:

CLS - 9 move 2gen alg
PLL - 13, 14ish alright alg

CPLS+2GLL:

CPLS - 10 move alright alg
2GLL - 13 move 2gen alg

They're nearly the same in movecount, but CPLS + 2GLL has more 2 gen.

Since when are most of the CLS 2 gen algs 9 moves?

 

[StachuK1992]

To comment on Cyrus and Cincyaviation:

Woah what.

CLS for me is like 13.
CPLS for me is like 9.

PLL for me is like 13.
2GLL for me is like 14.


For future reference, can we create a temporary name for CPLS+2GLL rather than writing (<--) over and over?
Any suggestions?

 

[Anthony]

For future reference, can we create a temporary name for CPLS+2GLL rather than writing (<--) over and over?
Any suggestions?

Forced 2GLL, idk.

 

[StachuK1992]

Forced 2GLL, idk.

I want to just call it 'd,' referencing ZZ-d.
Consensus?

Edit:
Or something silly like C,2G.

 

[a small kitten]

I I learn it...ZZ - Statue of Kitten

 

[StachuK1992]

I I learn it...ZZ - Statue of Kitten

Is that a name suggestion, saying you're learning the method, giving me a new nickname, or otherwise?
Am confuse.