• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

EG(D?) 2x2 method- 12.35 move avg.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
EG is a fairly advanced 2x2 method originally developed by Erik Akkersdijk and Gunnar Krig, and completed by me:cool: i also think that since i completed 1/3 of the method, its only fair i should be in the name. i'm thinking either EGD, or EDGE(Erik David Gunnar Expert method) if its ok with Erik and Gunnar

basically you solve one side of the cube, not necessarily permuted (like Ortega first layer.) i believe this step averages 3 moves. then you orient the last layer and permute both layers in one step. there are 143 algorithms for this, and they are divided into 3 sub-cases

Case 1: first layer is correctly permuted. this is just COLL optimized for 2x2. there are 47 algs for this case, averaging 8.79 moves.

Case 2: there is a "bar" in the first layer, where only two pieces need to be switched. you place the "bar" in the BD position and the solve the cube. there are 48 algs for this, averaging 8.43 moves.

Case 3: this is the one i designed. it is where the first layer is entirely mispermuted, where a diagonal swap is needed. the FL does not need to be in any specific position to solve the cube, maybe an AUF at the end. there are 48 algs for this case, averaging 8.58 moves.

this gives step two a total average of about 8.6 moves.


so 3 move FL+ 8.6 move solve+ .75 move AUF(needed only 3/4 of the time)= 12.35 move solution.

not only does it have a low move count, it is only 2-look, potentially 1-look with an easy first layer. this method is perfect for anyone who can easily recognize COLL cases on a 2x2 without referencing the first layer.

i think the only reason it has not gained popularity is because it was incomplete until last saturday! Erik and Gunnar have already started learning it, and i plan to start sometime soon as well.

any feedback is highly appreciated, and if anyone wants to start learning the first two cases, they can be found on Erik's 2x2 page. the third case should be up there soon.
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Are you going to learn it?
Also, how exactly do you find algs for 2x2? Did you use Ron's 2x2 solver?
i'm thinking about learning it. i'm really bad at the recognition though. and erik says on the site:
Ok, this are a lot formula's to know, only crazy guys would learn all these. I only suggest learning these when you want to be very very fast. When you just want to be very fast, I suggest learning Guimond or Ortega.
and yes i used ron's solver, but i still tried every alg for every case in order to see which one felt the best. this was particularly annoying when it turned up 40 9 moves algs for the same case. also when i didnt like any of the ones it gave me i had to rotate the cube and try them all again. all the ones i picked feel pretty good to execute though.

what about you? do you think this method has potential?
 

philkt731

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
638
Location
West Lafayette
WCA
2007THOM02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Of course it has potential, I'm just not sure it does for me. I also am really bad at recognition of the permutation of unoriented corners even when I have the white layer completely correct and my favorite LL color yellow for my corners, it takes forever for me to recognize it.

However, if I can get my recognition time down to my recognition to PBL, this would definitely help me, only 150 algs isn't too bad either. I might not make it my primary method, but for those cases where its only 1 or 2 moves for a face and I can recognixe the last step, it would definitely be worth it.

When will the algs be up?
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
i sent erik a message telling him about this and asking for his email on the day i completed it. unfortunately i completed it on the first day of the Czech open, where he could not read it, and i am afraid that it may have been lost under a tidal wave of congratulatory messages. right now it is in the form of an excel spreadsheet. i could send you a copy if you would like.
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,663
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hey,
first of all thanks for taking the effort to find all the algs. I do have to say that Henrik Buus-Aagaard already found all algs about a year ago. Of course the method is all about the idea itself, you can get your own algs for everything you want of course. :) Most algorithms on that very old site are not even nice and there are much better ones although it'd take much time to find them. For instance some algs can be RU, or RUL only and be 14 moves and be nicer than an optimal 9 move RUF algorithms.
I should learn them all xD
 

Kenneth

Not Alot
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
1,693
Location
Kauparve, Hejde, Gotland, Sweden
WCA
2005GUST01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Before Erik and Gunnar started I knew the full method and before me Lucasz Cialon from poland was the first one to learn this method (as far as I know). It is named EG becase it was Erik and Gunnar who first put it up on the net.

Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net :)
 

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Kenneth? You know all the algs? How many algs do you know for all the puzzles anyway? It seems like you just make up all the algs and know every one of them that ever existed!
 

brunson

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
1,124
Location
Westminster, CO
WCA
2008BRUN01
Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net :)
The Fridrich Method was called the Fridrich Method long before the inter-webs.

http://ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/history.html

She documented her method on the 'Net in 1997, but people were referring to CFOP as "Fridrich" in 1982 and I think she was pretty intrinsic in the development of it.
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net :)
The Fridrich Method was called the Fridrich Method long before the inter-webs.

http://ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/history.html

She documented her method on the 'Net in 1997, but people were referring to CFOP as "Fridrich" in 1982 and I think she was pretty intrinsic in the development of it.
i believe she created the idea for the slotting of f2l pairs, but the OLLs and PLLs were, for lack of a better word, taken from other sources.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,802
Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net :)
The Fridrich Method was called the Fridrich Method long before the inter-webs.

http://ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/history.html

She documented her method on the 'Net in 1997, but people were referring to CFOP as "Fridrich" in 1982 and I think she was pretty intrinsic in the development of it.
i believe she created the idea for the slotting of f2l pairs, but the OLLs and PLLs were, for lack of a better word, taken from other sources.
Nah, the Dockhorn-Treep method was the first published version of "Fridrich". For all I know, Guus RS learned his F2L method from there, but not LL.

I'm currently not interested in learning this because even my COLL recognition is horrible.
 
Last edited:

Kenneth

Not Alot
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
1,693
Location
Kauparve, Hejde, Gotland, Sweden
WCA
2005GUST01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Kenneth? You know all the algs? How many algs do you know for all the puzzles anyway? It seems like you just make up all the algs and know every one of them that ever existed!
Bah, I'm using Sune and Niklas to solve them all :p

I do not know all cases foe EG anymore, it took 3 months to learn them all and one month of no practice to forget 50% of them again. I know all CLL and therefore I can solve all inverse cases too using CLL + (-R) F2 R2 in the end (last R in wrong direction + two turns) For the cases where there are 1 bar in FL then I know most but not all (at least not right on, mabey if I think a lot it will come back).

Thing is, I'm pre retiered and got more time than I need, wery much of my cubing time has been spent looking for algs so of coure I know more algs than most people does. I'm sure there are no other cuber who has forgotten so many alg as me, and then relearn them again, "aha, it's that alg!!"

Some of the COLL's I can solve in like 10 diffrent algs :)
 
Last edited:

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
880
Location
0, 0
Vault312 said:
3 move FL+ 8.6 move solve+ .75 move AUF(needed only 3/4 of the time)

I know this is an old topic but are you considering the .75 AUF for before and after performing Step 2? Is the other .75 included in the 8.6 Step 2 average?

I think the idea is great, for people that don't mind the memorization. I don't think recognition would be any different from "normal" CxLL, you could have the D-layer's permutation and the location of the swapped corners memorized during preinspection.
 
Last edited:

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
880
Location
0, 0
I guess I don't know much about this, I'm not sure what the (1/6) is. I know there are some cases, like (from Gilles Roux's table) H1 and H6 (.50), and A6 (0) that require less than .75 but other than cases like those...the only idea I have is that (1/6) somehow has something to do with the location of the swapped D-layer corners.
 
Last edited:

Lt-UnReaL

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
1,142
Location
Rochester, NY
WCA
2008CLAY01
I think learning the adjacent EG case first is easier than learning CLL first. There are way more ways to make the FL with 2 edges that needed to be swapped adjacently than making the FL with all pieces in correct position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top