crafto22
Member
ECE, or E-slice edges, Corners, Edges is a solving method that focuses on many things that make a method great:
- ergonomics
- low movecount
- good lookahead
- quick execution
There are many variants of the ECE solving style. I will go over these variants and give my thoughts on each one and which one is better suited for different solvers.
The Original Variant:
The L6E Variant:
Broken Variant
The Permute-Last Variant
EZD (Easy D-layer) Variant
The NoEO Variant
Which variant is the best?
According to the statistics, the EZD, NoEO or L6E variants should be the best with theoretical optimal execution times of 8 seconds and an average movecount of around 44. I do believe these are the best variants for me, specifically the EZD variant. I have achieved a sub-15 average of 12 with the EZD variant and am sub-18 with ALL variants. I think you should choose the method that suits you best. ZZ solvers will prefer the Broken Variant, Roux solvers will lean towards the L6E variant and CFOP solvers will go for the Permute-Last variant. Despite all this, the Original method is the simplest and can be very fast, considering I have gotten a 15.91 average of 12 using it.
- ergonomics
- low movecount
- good lookahead
- quick execution
There are many variants of the ECE solving style. I will go over these variants and give my thoughts on each one and which one is better suited for different solvers.
The Original Variant:
Steps:
1. Solve 3 E-slice edges whilst simultaneously placing 3 oriented corners in the D layer
Moves: 5-9
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
2. Pair up the last E-slice edge with a corner and insert the pair whilst orienting the remaining corners on the cube through a CO method (WV, MGLS, etc)
Moves: 9-11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
3. Separate corners into their layers and then permute them using 5 square-1 algorithms
Moves: 11
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
4. Solve the D layer edges whilst orienting the remaining edges
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 3-4 seconds
5. Permute the remaining edges trough EPLL
Moves: 7
Execution time: 1 second
Total moves: ~47 STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-15 seconds
Pros:
- Easy to learn
- Low movecount
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- Low algorithm count
- Effecient use of inspection time
- Placing D layer edge placement is tedious
- Lookahead from one step to the next is good
Cons:
- Bad recognition for second step
- Semi-difficult first step
- D layer edge placement is tedious
1. Solve 3 E-slice edges whilst simultaneously placing 3 oriented corners in the D layer
Moves: 5-9
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
2. Pair up the last E-slice edge with a corner and insert the pair whilst orienting the remaining corners on the cube through a CO method (WV, MGLS, etc)
Moves: 9-11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
3. Separate corners into their layers and then permute them using 5 square-1 algorithms
Moves: 11
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
4. Solve the D layer edges whilst orienting the remaining edges
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 3-4 seconds
5. Permute the remaining edges trough EPLL
Moves: 7
Execution time: 1 second
Total moves: ~47 STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-15 seconds
Pros:
- Easy to learn
- Low movecount
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- Low algorithm count
- Effecient use of inspection time
- Placing D layer edge placement is tedious
- Lookahead from one step to the next is good
Cons:
- Bad recognition for second step
- Semi-difficult first step
- D layer edge placement is tedious
The L6E Variant:
This variant is simple and only slightly changes the last steps. This variant is better suited for Roux solvers.
Steps:
Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds
4. Place two opposite D layer edges whilst optimizing edge orientation for the following step (L6E)
Moves: 8
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
5. L6E with optimized edge orientation
Moves: 10-12
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
Total moves: ~45 STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-14 seconds
Pros:
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- L6E finish is more effecient than the Original Variant's EPLL finish
- Lower movecount than the Original Variant
- Good lookahead
- L6E is very fast when edges are pre-oriented/easily orientable
Cons:
- L6E is occasionally slow despite being effecient
- This strategy requires more "looks" than the Original Variant
Steps:
Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds
4. Place two opposite D layer edges whilst optimizing edge orientation for the following step (L6E)
Moves: 8
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
5. L6E with optimized edge orientation
Moves: 10-12
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
Total moves: ~45 STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-14 seconds
Pros:
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- L6E finish is more effecient than the Original Variant's EPLL finish
- Lower movecount than the Original Variant
- Good lookahead
- L6E is very fast when edges are pre-oriented/easily orientable
Cons:
- L6E is occasionally slow despite being effecient
- This strategy requires more "looks" than the Original Variant
Broken Variant
The Broken Variant solves the first two layers quite differently and results in a PLL finish. This variant is better suited for ZZ solvers.
Steps:
1. The first step resembles EOLine, but the line is built on the left of the cube using the appropriate E-slice edges
Moves: 6-7
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
2. This step is identical to the first and second step of the Original Variant, but it will be significantly easier due to their being half of the E-slice pre-built
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
3. Place the FD and BD edges
Moves: 3-4 moves
Execution time: 1 second
4. Finish the first two layers using R2, L2 or U moves.
Moves: 15-18
Execution time: 4-6 seconds
5. Permute the last layer
Moves: 11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
Total moves: ~50 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-14 seconds
Pros:
- Orienting edges at the beginning premotes effeciency
- Individual steps are faster than in the Original Variant
- Pre-oriented edges creates a faster first two layers
Cons:
- Higher movecount than the Original Variant
- First two layer strategy lacks freedom
- PLL is substantially slower than EPLL
Steps:
1. The first step resembles EOLine, but the line is built on the left of the cube using the appropriate E-slice edges
Moves: 6-7
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
2. This step is identical to the first and second step of the Original Variant, but it will be significantly easier due to their being half of the E-slice pre-built
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
3. Place the FD and BD edges
Moves: 3-4 moves
Execution time: 1 second
4. Finish the first two layers using R2, L2 or U moves.
Moves: 15-18
Execution time: 4-6 seconds
5. Permute the last layer
Moves: 11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
Total moves: ~50 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-14 seconds
Pros:
- Orienting edges at the beginning premotes effeciency
- Individual steps are faster than in the Original Variant
- Pre-oriented edges creates a faster first two layers
Cons:
- Higher movecount than the Original Variant
- First two layer strategy lacks freedom
- PLL is substantially slower than EPLL
The Permute-Last Variant
The Permute-Last Variant focuses on rapid turning that makes up for a higher movecount. CFOP users will enjoy this variant most.
Steps:
Steps 1 and 2 are identical to those of the Original Variant
Moves: 14-16
Execution time: 3-5 seconds
2. Build the first two layers without caring for corner permutation or D layer edge permutation. Do note that corner orientation does matter. Do note that it may be necessary to use slice moves to orient some D-layer edges, although this only occurs on certain occasions.
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
3. Orient the remaining edges and separate them into their respective layers.
Moves: 6-9 moves
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
4. Permute the remaining layers in a two step system (Recognize both PLL cases, execute PLL, rotate, execute PLL)
Moves: 20-22
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
Total moves: ~55 STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-17 seconds
Pros:
- Ignoring initial permutation promotes fast turning and fluid execution
- The permutation step can be done in one look allowing for continuous movement
Cons:
- Reliance on fast turning ruins effeciency
- Permuting both layers requires a rotation unless one learns a new set of PLLs
Steps:
Steps 1 and 2 are identical to those of the Original Variant
Moves: 14-16
Execution time: 3-5 seconds
2. Build the first two layers without caring for corner permutation or D layer edge permutation. Do note that corner orientation does matter. Do note that it may be necessary to use slice moves to orient some D-layer edges, although this only occurs on certain occasions.
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
3. Orient the remaining edges and separate them into their respective layers.
Moves: 6-9 moves
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
4. Permute the remaining layers in a two step system (Recognize both PLL cases, execute PLL, rotate, execute PLL)
Moves: 20-22
Execution time: 2-4 seconds
Total moves: ~55 STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-17 seconds
Pros:
- Ignoring initial permutation promotes fast turning and fluid execution
- The permutation step can be done in one look allowing for continuous movement
Cons:
- Reliance on fast turning ruins effeciency
- Permuting both layers requires a rotation unless one learns a new set of PLLs
EZD (Easy D-layer) Variant
This variant brings a slight change to the last steps that improves execution time for the lengthiest step of the Original Variant.
Steps:
Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds
4. Place the D-layer edges whilst orienting all edges without caring for edge permutation.
Moves: 8-12
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
5. Permute edges from both layers through a special set of algorithms I will generate.
Moves: 7-9
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
Total moves: ~43 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-13 seconds
Pros:
- This variation is the most effecient
- Permuting multiple pieces at once can be done far more quickly
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- Quicker D layer edges allows for better lookahead
- Permuting the edges of layers i surprisingly fast and using nice <UMD> algorithms
Cons:
- Admittingly EPLL is definetely faster than this variant's multi-edge permutation
Steps:
Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds
4. Place the D-layer edges whilst orienting all edges without caring for edge permutation.
Moves: 8-12
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
5. Permute edges from both layers through a special set of algorithms I will generate.
Moves: 7-9
Execution time: 1-2 seconds
Total moves: ~43 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-13 seconds
Pros:
- This variation is the most effecient
- Permuting multiple pieces at once can be done far more quickly
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- Quicker D layer edges allows for better lookahead
- Permuting the edges of layers i surprisingly fast and using nice <UMD> algorithms
Cons:
- Admittingly EPLL is definetely faster than this variant's multi-edge permutation
The NoEO Variant
The NoEO Variant is once again a slight modification on the Original Variant's last two steps.
Steps:
Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds
4. Place the D layer edges.
Moves: 8-12
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
5. Solve the 4 remaining edges.
Moves: 10-11
Execution time: 1 second
Total moves: 44 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-12 seconds
Pros:
- ELL is more effecient than an EO + EPLL strategy
- ELL uses faster algorithms than EZD's final step algorithms
- This variant is more effecient than every other variant apart from the EZD variant
Cons:
- ELL recognition may be even worse than that of EZD's last step strategy
Steps:
Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds
4. Place the D layer edges.
Moves: 8-12
Execution time: 2-3 seconds
5. Solve the 4 remaining edges.
Moves: 10-11
Execution time: 1 second
Total moves: 44 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-12 seconds
Pros:
- ELL is more effecient than an EO + EPLL strategy
- ELL uses faster algorithms than EZD's final step algorithms
- This variant is more effecient than every other variant apart from the EZD variant
Cons:
- ELL recognition may be even worse than that of EZD's last step strategy
Which variant is the best?
According to the statistics, the EZD, NoEO or L6E variants should be the best with theoretical optimal execution times of 8 seconds and an average movecount of around 44. I do believe these are the best variants for me, specifically the EZD variant. I have achieved a sub-15 average of 12 with the EZD variant and am sub-18 with ALL variants. I think you should choose the method that suits you best. ZZ solvers will prefer the Broken Variant, Roux solvers will lean towards the L6E variant and CFOP solvers will go for the Permute-Last variant. Despite all this, the Original method is the simplest and can be very fast, considering I have gotten a 15.91 average of 12 using it.
