[Help Thread] Edge Control

[fanwuq]

I will never learn full OLL. Sure I can memorize them all in a few hours, but I don't see the benefit. It's only speed, no extra understanding or fun provided. Right now I know most of VHF2L and maybe 1/2 of COLL and use ROLL when I don't know the COLL. I average 17-18s on a good day and 19-20s on a bad day. I also know a bit of random MGLS and useless special cases. OLL-PLL is a good system, but it's not for everyone. Learn it if you want, don't learn it if you don't want.

Edit:
Kian, No. It is possible, I've done that accidental many times. The many F2L algs affect other pieces in the LL. One flip or swap here and there and you just changed the other pair in LL.

 

[Kian]

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.

Not if you use an alg-based f2l or just don't use empty slots when you are solving other slots. You'll never accidentally solve an f2l pair except conceivably during the cross.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

He said "make" the last pair, not solving it. And then it is possible.

 

[Insomnia]

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.

Not if you use an alg-based f2l or just don't use empty slots when you are solving other slots. You'll never accidentally solve an f2l pair except conceivably during the cross.

happened to me as well...i don´t use any algs for f2l, i do it intuitivley and i use empty slots to pair others up.
I´ll learn full oll then and maybe some other technics later, basic stuff first
thx for help guys

and btw: there are only 16 cases to insert the last pair and orient all edges, not 32

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

There are 32, unless you count mirrors as one.

 

[brunson]

Not if you use an alg-based f2l or just don't use empty slots when you are solving other slots. You'll never accidentally solve an f2l pair except conceivably during the cross.

Well, you're quite a bit faster than I am, but I imagine you could be even faster if you used empty slots to improve the efficiency of your F2L.

 

[Kian]

He said "make" the last pair, not solving it. And then it is possible.

fair enough. of course, then of course you just use two look oll, which wouldn't really any slower b/c you didn't have to make your last pair.

 

[brunson]

I will never learn full OLL. Sure I can memorize them all in a few hours, but I don't see the benefit. It's only speed, no extra understanding or fun provided. Right now I know most of VHF2L and maybe 1/2 of COLL and use ROLL when I don't know the COLL. I average 17-18s on a good day and 19-20s on a bad day. I also know a bit of random MGLS and useless special cases. OLL-PLL is a good system, but it's not for everyone. Learn it if you want, don't learn it if you don't want.

It almost sounds like you've rebelled against OLL simply to be rebellious. If you ever finish learning COLL, then you'll know all of OLL.

It's particularly curious to me since you really do seem to be into the understanding of the cube. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to learn OLL. If you knew someone that used some alternative to OLL-PLL, wouldn't you think it's still a good idea to know full PLL?

Not that I really care, but in this case the OP *is* learning a CFOP based method, so you're really just muddying the water for the sake of argument. However, you are definitely correct that one size does not fit all, which is why I always encourage exploring alternative methods.

 

[rubixfreak]

does anybody use Cll - Ell instead of OLL - PLL? asaik there are less algorythms. does anybody know if it is faster than OP?

 

[DavidWoner]

I will never learn full OLL. Sure I can memorize them all in a few hours, but I don't see the benefit. It's only speed, no extra understanding or fun provided.

What an ignorant assertion. Jai made all of his OLLs, some of which are quite good. I am guessing he probably has a better understanding of OLL than you do of COLL because of this. Sure, going to the wiki and just memorizing algs may not be fun or insightful, but you act like that is the only way. If you take the time, find the best alg for each case and really work to understand it than it works out great. One of the reasons I don't get OH or Feet amnesia is because I understand my algs and know where all of the pieces should be going as I do the alg. And as someone who is so big on FMC, I am surprised you are refusing to learn algs, since every OLL alg is also a 1LLL alg.

 

[4Chan]

Well, i dont know full oll, and edge control is okay.

Its not as great as full oll i admit, but I use VH-f2l at times, and its moderately fast.

 

[fanwuq]

I will never learn full OLL. Sure I can memorize them all in a few hours, but I don't see the benefit. It's only speed, no extra understanding or fun provided.

What an ignorant assertion. Jai made all of his OLLs, some of which are quite good. I am guessing he probably has a better understanding of OLL than you do of COLL because of this. Sure, going to the wiki and just memorizing algs may not be fun or insightful, but you act like that is the only way. If you take the time, find the best alg for each case and really work to understand it than it works out great. One of the reasons I don't get OH or Feet amnesia is because I understand my algs and know where all of the pieces should be going as I do the alg. And as someone who is so big on FMC, I am surprised you are refusing to learn algs, since every OLL alg is also a 1LLL alg.

I found about 20 OLL algs by myself by hand. I found many PLLs by hand, ACUBE, and visiting various websites. I know over 5 algs for several PLL cases, and probably around 60 PLL algs in total. That was for my quest to find my perfect set of PLLs before I even started FMC. I know most of my algs mirrored, rotated, and inversed (inverse is usually at a slower speed). For FMC, I would rather learn Guus's list of all LL algs less than 10 moves and understand exact how the alg affect each piece rather than knowing the OLLs and only see the effect on orientation. For FMC, there is little value to be gained from learning all the OLLs. Guus's alg list is the most useful for FMC, but by knowing several algs for each COLL case, you can hit 1LLLs every few solves without being considered “Lucky.”
For speed, the main weakness is the pause between OLL and PLL. If you know all your OLLs, you can't anticipate a skip unless you are also very very familiar with ROLL and how all your OLLs effect CP and EP (I doubt many Fridrich users are). With COLL, you can always anticipate the LL skip from basic patterns (many cases are just pure 3-cycles). One of my main issues is actually that OLL is not fingertrick friendly enough for OH. A simple alg that takes 1.5 seconds might take over 5 seconds OH. COLL algs are about the same length, but a bit faster to execute on average. The power of COLL is that you can easily look ahead to the next step.
I don't dislike learning algs. I like to use algs that I can use on a regular basis in different situations effectively.
But to tell the truth, the my main reason for refusing to learn OLL is completely subjective and pointless: I just don't like the shapes of some of the OLLs. There. I said it. The shapes just don't look appealing, maybe it's the asymmetry. Lame excuse.

 

[Insomnia]

There are 32, unless you count mirrors as one.

http://cubefreak.net/Fridrich/misc.html

only found those 16 so far and i never had a case that didnt suit them so where are the 16 missing ones?

 

[blah]

And as someone who is so big on FMC, I am surprised you are refusing to learn algs, since every OLL alg is also a 1LLL alg.

Think Arnaud.

 

[David Pritts]

Hey folks,

I'm just getting back into cubing a little bit... have done it on and off for
years, but haven't done it for a long time. I use fridrich with 3LLL.

My F2L has gotten pretty slow and I know I can decrease it from 24 seconds-ish
to around 18 with a week of practice or so.

I have two questions

1) Regarding speeding up F2L: when you look ahead, are you able to identify all
the possible pairs, and find which one will be fastest? Or is it more important
to find ANY pair such that the time between pairs is eliminated?

2) Are there any new techniques I should learn? I'm fascianted by partial edge
control... looks fun. Is it worth it?

Thanks!

David

 

[miniGOINGS]

Hey folks,

I'm just getting back into cubing a little bit... have done it on and off for
years, but haven't done it for a long time. I use fridrich with 3LLL.

My F2L has gotten pretty slow and I know I can decrease it from 24 seconds-ish
to around 18 with a week of practice or so.

I have two questions

1) Regarding speeding up F2L: when you look ahead, are you able to identify all
the possible pairs, and find which one will be fastest? Or is it more important
to find ANY pair such that the time between pairs is eliminated?

2) Are there any new techniques I should learn? I'm fascianted by partial edge
control... looks fun. Is it worth it?

Thanks!

David

1) I would think that it would be better to determine the first F2L pair while inspecting and doing the cross. Then while solving the first pair, you can find the best one to do second. While doing the second, search for the third, and finally the forth. Just my opinion though.

 

[PCwizCube]

1) Regarding speeding up F2L: when you look ahead, are you able to identify all
the possible pairs, and find which one will be fastest? Or is it more important
to find ANY pair such that the time between pairs is eliminated?

Usually I find just the quickest pair so I don't waste timing looking for pairs, but occasionally I can see another pair and if it's much better than the first pair I saw, then I will go for it.

2) Are there any new techniques I should learn? I'm fascianted by partial edge
control... looks fun. Is it worth it?

For if it's worth it:
Definitely! Especially if you use 2 look OLL (but it'll still help with full OLL). Because if you can get most of the time at least 2 edges oriented, it's really helpful. In the rare times where I can't do partial edge control (probably because I don't know how to in those cases), I get the ugly dot and it usually adds like 2+ seconds to my times which is not cool

And sometimes when you can use partial edge control to get all edges oriented, that's even better. I get good times on those

 

[waffle=ijm]

2) Partial is worth it. When you get easy cases, you can take advantage of it. And if you are interested new techniques, then look into other methods.

 

[David Pritts]

Are there any good tutorials for this (LL edge control)? Or does anyone have recommendations for learning to implement it?

Perhaps a tutorial isn't necessary (Macky's site, for example, has a list of algs for edge control.. maybe I just need to practice and understand them), but if a tutorial existed, it would probably be helpful.

I looked through all the "HOWTOS" and didn't find anything. There were a few stickies on "intermediate/advanced" F2L techniques (and lots of debate on what these words mean -_- ) but the only tutorials I saw were yo.utube videos.

This doesn't work for me because y.outube is blocked in the country where I live now.

Thanks!

David

 

[4Chan]

Pish posh, forget partial control.

Use TOTAL control.
ZZ ftw. (or ZB)

It's intuitive, and only requires practice. (Unless you chose ZB)