Fridrich with early edges orientation

[Pyjam]

Hi there,

Since this weekend, I’m playing with a method I would call CEOFCOP : Cross – Edges Orientation – F2L – Corners Orientation – PLL. Hum… no, I wouldn’t call it like this. Maybe Fredo = Fridrich (with early) EDges Orientation.

I suppose you get the idea: after the cross, I orient the 8 remaining edges. As I may choose the cube orientation before, there are rarely more than 6 edges to orient, often only 2 or 4. Orientation is easy and I found a couple of algorithms to orient 4 edges in one step. So, it’s relatively fast.

You see the pros: very fast F2L without cube orientation or F/F’ moves. Easy OCLL. OLL skip chance is 1/27.

I’m not interested by ZZ or Petrus for the moment. I’m awful with block-building, and I don’t want to prepare orientation for 12 edges during the inspection!

I’m not seeing this as a revolutionary speedsolving method. Not at all. I'm averaging around 30 for the moment, and my idea is more to train my look-ahead during F2L while avoiding tricky cases. It also trains my ability to recognize edge orientation. It could be a preparation for another method.

I’m wondering if there were previous discussions about this method or available resources. The Wiki does not mention it.

Also, if you used this method, or have anything to say about it, feel free to express. Thank you.

 

[Kirjava]

inb4movecount is bad

 

[Jaysammey777]

ZZ is and will be better because you can use inspection of eo and it not count in the time. but you can always get the reconization down to a minimum. LOL this reminds me of the methods I have created in 1 1/2 years:
FCOP (like CFOP)
Random pairs (like hiese: more complex)
Buttermilk (1x2x3 : EO+expantion to 2x2x3 : Finish F2L with block build : COLL : EP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------(ZBLL)

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Isn't this just a slight modification of ZZ:
EOLine - Cross - F2L <RUL> - LL

 

[cyoubx]

I literally started trying this a couple days ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish.

After my first day, I got 20 second averages and plenty of sub 20 singles (I average 14-15 with CFOP).

I used
1. EO
2. Cross
3. Fridrich F2L
4. OLL/WV if the case was easy
5. PLL

My verdict: It's definitely slower. Although it creates easy F2L pairs, think about the movecount. The EO itself takes 6 extra moves (on average), and F2L isn't necessarily faster. For a few cases, it's better to use cube rotations than strictly use three-gen.

I only see this worthy for people either unfamiliar with OLL and/or are interested in converting to ZZ. Otherwise, this is highly inefficient and killed my times.

 

[Julian]

Isn't this just a slight modification of ZZ:
EOLine - Cross - F2L <RUL> - LL

That would be EOCross, a very limiting form of ZZ.

 

[PeterNewton]

I literally started trying this a couple days ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish.

You gotta see this

 

[Pyjam]

I literally started trying this a couple days ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish
[...]
My verdict: It's definitely slower. Although it creates easy F2L pairs, think about the movecount. The EO itself takes 6 extra moves (on average), and F2L isn't necessarily faster. For a few cases, it's better to use cube rotations than strictly use three-gen.

My opinion is that you're already too fast for this.

BUT…

this is not my method.

The method I described is :

0. Plan the cross during inspection.
1. Cross
2A. Rotate the cube to minimize the number of misoriented edges.
2B. Orient 6 edges, but often only 4 or 2. Like in the Petrus method.
3. F2L

This is not ZZ. This is not a FMC method.

It's at best a speedsolving method for intermediate cubers. Perhaps, a method better than CFOP with 2-look OLL. It doesn't pretend to be more.

 

[KYLOL]

I literally started trying this a couple years ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish.

 

[Cool Frog]

This

 

[cyoubx]

You gotta see this

HAHAHA, that's great! Not my intention, but it's almost completely parallel

The method I described is :

0. Plan the cross during inspection.
1. Cross
2A. Rotate the cube to minimize the number of misoriented edges.
2B. Orient 6 edges, but often only 4 or 2. Like in the Petrus method.
3. F2L

This is not ZZ. This is not a FMC method.

It's at best a speedsolving method for intermediate cubers. Perhaps, a method better than CFOP with 2-look OLL. It doesn't pretend to be more.

I feel like 2A and 2B take too long though. I wasn't claiming it was the same as ZZ at all, but EO is definitely the striking similarity. Orientation is used at the beginning of ZZ because it's hard to recognize in the middle of solving. I feel like planning out the cross first then doing EO would be slow simply because of recognition. Cross, on the other hand, consists of 4 pieces, so it can be recognized relatively easy.

 

[qqwref]

Someone I used to know used this method (in like 2009 or something). I can't remember the nickname he went by, though. He was pretty decent with it (16ish average?) but it always seemed to me to take too many moves compared to normal Fridrich, and to not really save much in terms of ergonomics/rotations.

 

[cyoubx]

...the use of confuses me. It's more coincidental that it was two days. The point of that was to remark on the coincidence, not the fact that it was thought of before...

 

[Pyjam]

cyoubx, try any other method you don't already know during one day only. Aren't you a couple of seconds slower? What do you conclude?

Anyway, in my opinion, sub-20 cubers will never take profit from this method.

It's targeted to 30 s.- 1 min. cubers who use 2-look OLL and want something potientially faster because of the easier F2L.

 

[KYLOL]

I believe it was Ron van Bruchem and another fellow ( someone who was very active in the community, and very fast at solving, Sorry I forgot his name ) brought up the idea that orienting all edges before you even started the cross would greatly reduce inconvenient cases throughout your entire solve. This was years and years ago, but this idea sounds remarkably similar.

 

[cyoubx]

I was merely commenting on the order of the steps, not necessarily whether or not it would be good for beginners.
My first post was more or less saying that it would be ineffective for faster cubers (which you acknowledged later).

My second post was actually going over the steps of YOUR method, which has nothing to do with me trying it anymore.

I agree that F2L would be faster, and OLL would be easier, all I'm commenting on is how it would be faster overall? As I mentioned before, recognizing mis-oriented pieces during a solve seems impractical even for beginners.

Cross - 4 pieces - relatively easy to find without inspection
EO - 6 pieces - relatively difficult to find. Most beginners are not color neutral, so they would have a hard time dealing with colors other than the cross color.

In any case, those were just my thoughts, I'm not bashing your ideas at all. I'm just questioning the order of the steps

 

[collinbxyz]

When I am timing a method I just created, what I do is after 2 minutes and I run into a parity, I scramble the cube and solve it with CFOP.

just saying

 

[Cool Frog]

When I am timing a method I just created, what I do is after 2 minutes and I run into a parity, I scramble the cube and solve it with CFOP.

just saying

Solve parity.

 

[Anonymous]

It's a good idea as far as it goes (I'm glad you don't intend it to be a legit speedsolving method). However, even as an intermediate step, I would consider any significant time investment into this idea a bad move.

Here's the problem: rather than help your lookahead, it will completely eff it up. I use ZZ, and every time I go Fridrich just for fun, I find it nearly impossible to smoothly solve F2L pairs that have a bad edge because I'm so used to never having to do so. Yes, you get to avoid bad cases, but unfortunately you'll be doing so in a way that will not only slow you down, but also force you to become more and more reliant on bad habits.

On the other hand, if you suddenly become interested in ZZ, you can always PM me....

 

[Pyjam]

cyoubx, if 6 edges are already too difficult for a beginner, what about 12? There is no need to be color neutral to identify the orientation (I'm not). I only need to know simple rules and to open my eyes.

On my opinion, this method is not worse than Petrus. Is it? Petrus is a decent method, I guess.
EDIT : I wonder why orienting edges after the cross would be worse than after the first block like in Petrus, or after the F2L like in CFOP, which are both considered decent methods. Aren’t they?
EDIT 2 : I mean, why would it be slower than Petrus while the situation is almost the same?

I agree with you Anonymous. There's a risk to develop bad habits if I only practice this method. But it could be good a complement to the complete CFOP method: an exercise among others. I would like to try it a couple of weeks, to see.

Regarding ZZ... hum, lot of buZZ, sure. But I'm not convince it's a better method than CFOP (even for who is crazy enough to learn the 500 billions algs for 1-look LL). Perhaps, but I don't know who use it among the top cubers.