2LLL with 10 algorithms + commutators

[really]

I've been using a method to accomplish something similar to a 2LL with minimal memorization. I'm not very fast with it, so am curious if others have tried it, or would suggest improvements.

Step 1: Solve the F2L normally, orienting and phasing the edges of the last layer intuitively while inserting the corner edge pair.
Step 2a: If the edges are solved, the corners can be solved using either two commutators or one orientation algorithm (6 CLL orientation algorithms to memorize).
Step 2b: If the edges are not solved, use setup moves to solve one corner and last two edges (4 PLL algorithms to memorize).
Note: Sometimes a corner is already solved, and two edges are unsolved. In this case, solve the edges using a PLL algorithm, then proceed to step 3.
Step 3: If corners are still unsolved, use a commutator or one of the CLL algorithms required to solve the remaining three corners.


Some concerns:
1. Orientation can be inefficient if flipping more than two edges in step 1.
2. Recognition for step 2 can be difficult.

Thoughts?

 

[pizzacrust]

Wouldn’t the use of commutators make this more than 2lll/ lookahead based?

 

[TheSpeedSkewber]

Interesting idea, not very practical, but interesting. I think @pizzacrust above has a point, that commutators might make this more than 2lll based.

My idea is that this could make a good progression step inbetween learning 4lll and 2lll, but it may hinder progression as normal 2lll is very different.

This is also impractical for lookahead, but if you got used to it then your could maybe optimise lookahead to suit it.

 

[pizzacrust]

My idea is that this could make a good progression step inbetween learning 4lll and 2lll, but it may hinder progression as normal 2lll is very different.

I think this is in interesting prospect, I’ve also thought of this as a potential way to introduce FMC theories to beginners, what is the estimated average move count?

 

[OreKehStrah]

this is an L3C reduction method like snyder, fish and chips, ZZBT+, etc.

 

[ruffleduck]

this is an L3C reduction method like snyder, fish and chips, ZZBT+, etc.

I forgot that the meme name for my variant became standard. Got a good chuckle out of me

 

[zzcuberman]

This is lle + 1c or fish n chips or snyder last layer

 

[really]

Interesting idea, not very practical, but interesting. I think @pizzacrust above has a point, that commutators might make this more than 2lll based.

Once the edges are phased, it is always possible to complete the last layer using two move sequences, either 2 algs, 1 alg and a corner commutator, or 2 corner commutator. When I speak of commutators, I mean specifically 3-cycles of corner pieces that solve orientation and permutation simultaneously. Because of this, I don't think the corner commutators specifically make this more than 2 looks. However, can have a similar move count to an algorithm, so I'm open to arguments that it is really a 3 look method.

My idea is that this could make a good progression step inbetween learning 4lll and 2lll, but it may hinder progression as normal 2lll is very different.

This is also impractical for lookahead, but if you got used to it then your could maybe optimise lookahead to suit it.

This is essentially why/how I got the idea, I hate trying to memorize all of the algorithms for normal 2lll, and this was a workaround.

 

[really]

I think this is in interesting prospect, I’ve also thought of this as a potential way to introduce FMC theories to beginners, what is the estimated average move count?

Not really sure on this point. From the solves that I have done there is wide variation. It is not uncommon to have some nice skips due to the "encouragement" of the phasing. Once past the phasing step, the move count should be similar to a CFOP last layer, since permutation algs+1-2 setup moves are being used, and the 3-cycles for the corners aren't too long. The worst cases by move count are cases where the orientation and phasing step for the edges are unfavorable (4 edges unoriented). I don't have an exact move count here, but the solves feel long when this occurs, and I suspect that a CFOP 2lll is more efficient in this case. While this is the worst case scenario, I would estimate that the phasing step would take under 10-15 moves on average. I have no proof for that number, it is an estimate from the solves I have done so may be widely inaccurate.

TLDR: Move count will be similar to CFOP ll post phasing, phasing step can be really quick and induce skips, but may also be quite long.

 

[zzcuberman]

Once the edges are phased, it is always possible to complete the last layer using two move sequences, either 2 algs, 1 alg and a corner commutator, or 2 corner commutator. When I speak of commutators, I mean specifically 3-cycles of corner pieces that solve orientation and permutation simultaneously. Because of this, I don't think the corner commutators specifically make this more than 2 looks. However, can have a similar move count to an algorithm, so I'm open to arguments that it is really a 3 look method.

This is essentially why/how I got the idea, I hate trying to memorize all of the algorithms for normal 2lll, and this was a workaround.

This is heise/snyder

 

[really]

This is heise/snyder

I failed to mention this in my original post, but there is a nuanced difference in the phasing step between this approach and the Heise/Synder method as described on the wiki. The phasing in this approach permutes exactly two opposite colored edges, allowing for two unsolved edges post-phasing.

This is different then Synder's method which solves one edge, then three edges + 1 corner. Snyder's method is inefficient on this step, because it allows for cases where 3 edges need to be cycled while placing a corner. Forcing the opposite color edges to be opposite of each other in the phasing step is quick (requiring only RUL moves), has a low move count once orientation is complete, and eliminates the awkward edge cylces from Snyder's approach.

This difference in phasing approach is also different from Heise's method which solves all of the edges in the phasing step. This is a little slower than just solving two opposite colored edges. So, there will be cube states post-phasing with two unsolved edges, which does not occur in the Heise method.

However, I agree with you that this approach is in the same family of methods as Heise/Synder.