[Help Thread] Edge Control

[philkt731]

i think you mean it allows you to skip oll.

Edge control only means you will have the ll edges oriented when your done with the f2l.

this means theres a 1/27 chance the corners will be oriented thus being a full oll skip, so yes I'd consider that lucky

 

[brunson]

Hmmm...

Edge control => 1/27 OLL skip == lucky
COLL => 1/12 PLL skip == lucky

What probability is the top end of non-lucky? 1/4? 1/2?

 

[Malachai]

I'd say if you changed the probability to 25% it'd be non-lucky, but that number will change from one person to the next.

 

[Lofty]

It seems about every 6 months or so I'll decide I want to do ZB or something crazy like that so this is what I have thought of this time. Keep in mind I have OH in mind when I do this.
I have tried ZZ before but stuff like EOLine is just too much of a change for me who has already been doing Fridrich for so long.
So here is what I got when solving F2L and pairing up there are a few cases that happen

1.) A properly oriented edge is moved from the top layer to the middle layer
2.) A not oriented edge is moved from the top layer to the middle layer
3.) A middle layer edge is moved from the top layer to the middle layer

1 should never be performed. 2 Should always be performed and 3 is neutral. Doing this I can almost always get all my edges oriented. At worst you just have to add a Petrus style trigger at the end to get the last two.
If you want to get really into it you would also have to think what edge is brought to the top layer in exchange for the one removed in some of the cases. Like exchanging a good edge for another good edge is more neutral. Keep in mind this is OH so we get about 10 seconds for our F2L instead of just the 6 or 7 that speedsolving gives you.

My second idea is a sub-optimal ZBF2L. For many of the cases I've encounterd I've been able to do a three move trigger that would change my regular pair into one that when solved normally I know will have all the edges oriented. Obviously this is a couple more moves on average then ZBF2L but still isnt too bad because your pair would be three triggers most cases. I'm sure there are still a large handful of cases that you would need to memorize an alg for but not 306 cases.
So those are my ideas. If anything I've improved my natural ability to do edge control even if I dont fully implement these . The first goal doesn't really add moves it just requires you to be aware of more then one pair at a time so you can chose the right order or the right alg to solve the pairs.

 

[fanwuq]

I like your first idea. I'll keep that rule in mind and try a few solves. I think using that way, you will have at least 2 edges oriented before you insert your last slot. VHF2L would work there; I don't quite get what's your sub-optimal ZBF2L. Petrus isn't too bad. Today I've gotten a few Petrus-CN OH solves that aren't any worse than my usually Fridrich solves. (Around 30 seconds).

 

[JLarsen]

I like Petrus for OH a lot. Especially with CLS that way step 4 and oll are completely 2 gen.

 

[Lofty]

I try to keep it in mind but it can be very hard to actually do at any kind of speed. You will for sure get at least two. I feel like for the last two edges its easier to orient the edges and then insert the pair. That way its just a trigger and a 2-gen instead of VH cause some of those arent nice.
The sub-optimal ZB is basically you memorize a U-adjust and a trigger for every ZB case instead of an entire long alg. Then from there you should see how to solve it in 7 or so moves without memorizing anything. For example do RU'R'F'U'FU'RU2R'U2 to set up. I would just memorize that I do a U2 and then a "Double Kick" (old teamBLD lingo, RU2R). After the double kick I can know what to do with basic edge pairing. It turns out for this case the ZB alg is exactly the same as what I would do with my "method" but this is where I got the idea.
I agree Petrus isn't bad. Its just hard for me to switch now after so long on Fridrich.

 

[byu]

I actually came up with a edge control system that allows me to orient all LL edges during F2L intuitively, and I average sub-17 with it. If people are interested, I can try explaining it.

 

[Lofty]

I actually came up with a edge control system that allows me to orient all LL edges during F2L intuitively, and I average sub-17 with it. If people are interested, I can try explaining it.

Of course, go for it.

 

[fanwuq]

Using your first system and a few VH tricks, I did 30 solves.
I got 16 all correct, 14 2 correct, and 0 all wrong edges.
I think it's not bad. It's just a general rule to pay attention to half the time, not something to really think about. Quite useful. It helps avoid the worst VH cases.

 

[*LukeMayn*]

Woah, I'd say, please explain byu!

 

[Chuberchuckee]

I actually came up with a edge control system that allows me to orient all LL edges during F2L intuitively, and I average sub-17 with it. If people are interested, I can try explaining it.

I'm interested.

I wouldn't have to memorize 50 more algorithms

 

[byu]

EOFS - Edges Orient Final Slot
Invented by Brian Yu
Version 1


First make a connected 4th f2l pair at UFL and UF.

3 LL edges oriented-
Use a normal R U' R'

2 LL edges oriented-
First do an F- move. Do an AUF to bring the not oriented LL edge to UR and do F. Now use the normal R U' R' insertion

1 LL edge oriented-
Use a F' AUF F to bring the correct edge to UL. Now do R U R' U' and solve the two edge case

0 LL edges oriented-
F' U F and then a 1 edge case

This is far fromoptimal and I am still refining it, but I assure you it can become very fast

 

[fanwuq]

EOFS - Edges Orient Final Slot
Invented by Brian Yu
Version 1


First make a connected 4th f2l pair at UFL and UF.

3 LL edges oriented-
Use a normal R U' R'

2 LL edges oriented-
First do an F- move. Do an AUF to bring the not oriented LL edge to UR and do F. Now use the normal R U' R' insertion

1 LL edge oriented-
Use a F' AUF F to bring the correct edge to UL. Now do R U R' U' and solve the two edge case

0 LL edges oriented-
F' U F and then a 1 edge case

This is far fromoptimal and I am still refining it, but I assure you it can become very fast

What's original about it?
VHF2L is faster. I can do it this way intuitively, but VH is more optimal and only a few algs that are mostly very obvious. Just need to learn recognition.

 

[Lofty]

Yea, I agree with fanwuq, it is far too many moves.
VH is already inefficient enough.

 

[Insomnia]

Yeah, i started speedcubing a while ago but I´m a bit lazy in learning algorithms

Currently I´m using Friedrich method f2l, 2 look oll and 1 look pll.
Wanted to start learning full oll now but I´m not sure if thats necessary since it´s possible to orient all the edge while inserting the last f2l pair (and there are only a few cases).

Anyone tried this yet? Is a full oll faster or should i go for partial edge control, corner orientation and permutation?

Regards,
Andy

 

[DAE_JA_VOO]

What is your average? Why don't you just go ahead and learn full OLL?

 

[Insomnia]

What is your average? Why don't you just go ahead and learn full OLL?

I´m still very slow, around 30 seconds per solve with a 2 look oll.
Well my question was if it´s necessary to learn the full oll or just do a partial edge control but i think full oll will be less moves and shorter recognition or am i wrong?

 

[Lord Voldemort]

There are 32 cases to orient edges while inserting the last pair, and I'd bet it's slower than OLL/PLL because you have to recognize three cases. I'd go for full OLL, because you're only saving 15 algorithms and you add an extra "look" to your LL.

OLL isn't that hard to learn but learn them slowly, like 2-3 every week.

 

[brunson]

I keep coming back to this over and over... there's always a chance that you can "accidentally" make your last pair while solving the third. What do you do if that happens and you have an OLL you don't know. Just learn the OLLs. Advanced techniques should *augment* your basic method, not try to replace parts of. Stop being lazy and learn them.