COLL/EPLL vs. OLL/PLL

[Feryll]

In short, you still use 2 algorithms for the LL, but PLL skip chance is much higher, and if there is no skip, U-perms, H-perms and Z-perms are quick to perform.

 

[EricReese]

Its used a lot of the time in Big Cubes, because doing 2gen stuff like U perms etc are much better then having to perform like a G perm or somethin

 

[Sa967St]

Its used a lot of the time in Big Cubes, because doing 2gen stuff like U perms etc are much better then having to perform like a G perm or somethin

This. It's far more useful for big cubes, especially for 4x4x4.

 

[blade740]

COLL is great. It may not be all that useful for regular 3x3 Fridrich solves, but once you learn it, you already know CLL, CMLL, 2x2 CLL, etc. The hardest part to learn is recognition: you can learn faster algs for a few 2x2 cases as you go along if that's what you want to do. Plus, I use it for 4x4 (non-redux) and, as Sarah linked above, it's super effective for redux as well.

 

[Julian]

To get faster and stuff.

 

[Andrew Ricci]

Once you learn it, you already know CLL, CMLL, 2x2 CLL, etc.

While that may be true, COLL is very inefficient for something like 2x2. If you want to use 2x2 CLL, you will most likely have to relearn many of the algorithms.

 

[Anonymous]

While that may be true, COLL is very inefficient for something like 2x2. If you want to use 2x2 CLL, you will most likely have to relearn many of the algorithms.

Whether or not this is what he meant, what he said is still true in a sense- even if you don't use the exact same algs, mastering COLL not only gives you experience recognizing all other types of CxLL, but does also give you a lot of free / very algs.

Also, with regard to the other thing Blake said about recognition being the most difficult part, while I agree, I should stress that for some people, it becomes as or more automatic than, say, full OLL or PLL recognition.

 

[Sa967St]

While that may be true, COLL is very inefficient for something like 2x2. If you want to use 2x2 CLL, you will most likely have to relearn many of the algorithms.

<-- uses COLL for 2x2

It's not that bad, some algs are fine. You won't have to relearn recog. at least.

 

[Kirjava]

I find CLL a lot easier than PLL to recog. It just depends what you practise more.

 

[blade740]

While that may be true, COLL is very inefficient for something like 2x2. If you want to use 2x2 CLL, you will most likely have to relearn many of the algorithms.

Read the very next sentence of the post please.

While I don't have any numbers to back this up, it seems to me that at least half of COLL is either optimal on 2x2 or not far from it.

 

[Rpotts]

the COLLs that are optimal for 2x2 are sune, anti sune, niklas, anti niklas and other 3 cycle comms like R2 D' R U2 R'.... for headlights. However, most of the optimal comms are bad for 2x2, other than niklas imo.

 

[miniGOINGS]

the COLLs that are optimal for 2x2 are sune, anti sune, niklas, anti niklas, FRURUF, and 3 cycle comms like R2 D' R U2 R'.... for headlights. However, most of the optimal comms are bad for 2x2, other than niklas imo.

>.>

 

[eastamazonantidote]

I will say that as a VH user COLL recognition is absolutely instantaneous. I actually recognize based on sticker pairs faster than tracking yellow pieces for OLL (assuming yellow U), even with all edges oriented. I started learning COLL when it was thought to be only the gateway to ZBLL, and that is why I learned it. Since then people have come to recognize it's uses for big cubes (especially even numbered ones) as well as a standalone LL method. EPLLs are blindingly fast when you know they're coming and you get to practice them every solve. The 1/12 chance for a PLL skip is nice, as well.

So, in sum, why people learn COLL:
First, OLL stage:
1) Extremely fast recognition that can surpass OLL recognition time.
2) Algorithms are not that much longer than corresponding OCLL cases (there are a few bad apples though), easily made up for in PLL step.
3) Extremely high skip rate when edges are oriented (necessary for performing COLL effectively) at 1/27.
Second, PLL step:
1) Recognition for EPLLs is absolutely instantaneous. Even for me, who averages around 19 seconds.
2) EPLLs are extremely fast, especially when they're the only ones you do. I can sub-1.5 only 7 PLLs. All 4 EPLLs fall in this category. I can sub-1 only 3 PLLs. They are Ua, Ub, and H. And on big cubes you want EPLLs as much as possible.
3) 1/12 chance of a skip.
4) EPLLs are sexy.
Lastly, general cubing:
1) Natural lead into ZBLL. This is what made me learn it.
2) Optimal COLL + EPLL has lower movecount than optimal OLL + PLL on average.

 

[Kirjava]

2) Optimal COLL + EPLL has lower movecount than optimal OLL + PLL on average.

You should be comparing it to OCLL -> PLL, not OLL -> PLL.

 

[CubezUBR]

how should i progress, should i lean COLL

im a 15 second pb, almost sub 20 average and want to progress. i have just about got all the pll's done. the thing is it takes me 2 days+to memorize an alg so oll will be tricky.i solve using cfop with cross f2l VH cross done oll then pll and i dont want to learn oll because its 50+ algs compared to 42 of COLL. becase i use VH and have got very good at it it seems like i would suit coll very well. sorry for having to post this thread. please leave reasonable advice. aknowledge the fact i hate learning algs to.

 

[Username]

You don't need to learn either yet

 

[antoineccantin]

Sure, sounds reasonable. However, don't expect to learn 24 algs. There are 42 algs for COLL.

 

[speedcuber50]

I don't think that VHF2L + COLL is the best combination. It's better to just finish the F2L before trying to mess with the LL. Do start learning full OLL. I has really helped me.

Don't be put off by the number of algs. I was put off at first, but it gets easier and easier, and it's well worth it too! It took me 2 days to learn my first 5 OLLs, but I've now learnt around 20 (which is almost half) in another 2 days (OK, they weren't 4 days in a row, but that's how long it took). So start by writing down maybe four or five from the wiki (choose the easiest cases to recognise; it's actually recog, not algs, which is the hardest thing about OLL), then learn them over the course of 2 or 3 days. Build it up from there. It will be easy and helpful in the long run.

 

[uvafan]

just do OCLL/PLL unless you like OH a lot. OCLL/PLL is just as good as COLL/EPLL for 2H.

 

[antoineccantin]

I don't think that VHF2L + COLL is the best combination. It's better to just finish the F2L before trying to mess with the LL. Do start learning full OLL. I has really helped me.

Don't be put off by the number of algs. I was put off at first, but it gets easier and easier, and it's well worth it too! It took me 2 days to learn my first 5 OLLs, but I've now learnt around 20 (which is almost half) in another 2 days (OK, they weren't 4 days in a row, but that's how long it took). So start by writing down maybe four or five from the wiki (choose the easiest cases to recognise; it's actually recog, not algs, which is the hardest thing about OLL), then learn them over the course of 2 or 3 days. Build it up from there. It will be easy and helpful in the long run.

I see no reason to avoid VHF2L+COLL+EPLL.