Higher Chance of X-Cross with Limited OLL/PLL Control

[JonWhite]

Note: If you want to hate, you can go hate in the sandbox for once.

The general idea: When feasible, construct an alternate cross (example set up with M2U2M2) that can be used for limited OLL/PLL control.

The alternate cross is “fixed” by applying the lightning-fast M2U2M2 at any point during the solve; the key is that the U face can have two orientations before applying this move, allowing for LL control. Recognition for OLL is the same. Only the OLLs with exactly 2 adjacent edge pieces oriented correctly can benefit from this trick. Depending on personal preference for OLLs, a long OLL case can be switched to a better OLL case with minor setup (M2U2M2 is insanely fast, and with practice, no second look at the cube is necessary). If the solver cannot or does not wish to change the OLL, he may save the LL control opportunity for PLL. Unfortunately, PLL requires a new set of cases to be recognized; however, this task may be worthy investment for top-notch cubers. Because the LL can be oriented in two ways before M2U2M2, one may choose between two PLLs. My preliminary PLL experimentation shows you can avoid F and R perms entirely, doing M2U2M2 with T and A perms, respectively.

I have not finished experimentation, but I believe that the OLL/PLL control alone evenly balances out the M2U2M2 setup. However, when considering the extra cross possibilities (nearly doubling the chances of X-cross or very simple crosses), the alternate cross is actually useful.

The best part of the alternate cross is the huge freedom associated with it. If a regular cross or X-cross is easy enough, you can follow the normal cross pathway. If the cuber deems it favorable to construct an alternate (X-)cross, he may still choose when and how to use the M2U2M2 setup move. When used during OLL/PLL, it can even be placed before or after the main algorithm depending on finger-friendliness.

Unfortunately, due to a hectic winter schedule, I am unable to further pursue experimentation. If anyone has time to spare, I strongly recommend looking deeper into this neat trick. One downside: since everyone has different OLL/PLL preferences, I doubt there is a one-size-fits-all type of approach with the alternate cross; everyone would have to experiment with the timing of the M2U2M2.

Happy Holidays and Happy Cubing!

 

[Escher]

I have played with this a bit, David Woner taught me the parity EPLLs the other day. Imo somebody needs to put in a bunch of time and effort to codify the system. I think it has some potential but I'm not sure if adding extra (complex) layers of choice during your solves is a good idea - I have personally come to the conclusion that using OLLCP for more than a few cases is not a good idea for CFOP.

I think if there are any budding method 'creators' out there who want to give this a shot they should, it would be cool if it can be shown that these several extra layers of choice are outweighed by the benefits...

P.s. I know that Kanneti uses these kind of tricks occasionally, I'm not sure to what extent.

 

[JonWhite]

Thanks for a respectful response; I haven't seen many of those on threads about potential new methods/variations.

About the extra choices: Once a cuber sorts out the optimal solutions for PLL, he can calculate the expected time saved on PLL. Then, he can predetermine for each OLL whether it's worthwhile to spend the M2U2M2 on the OLL instead of PLL, and whether to do it before or after a real OLL alg. The cuber can use inspection time to decide which path (normal or alternate cross) to take. At this point, everything has been predetermined; during the solve, there is no need for choice -- the optimal choices for that cuber have been predetermined and (hopefully) memorized and drilled.

 

[Dene]

This sounds like an interesting idea. I personally suck at M2 U2 M2 so it wouldn't be worth my time unless I could really avoid a bad OLL, but then I think it might just be better to learn full edge control. I also suck at constructing x-crosses unless they're obvious. I'll play around a bit with this idea later.

 

[aronpm]

meePLL

 

[Dene]

I did a little experimentation, and some observations:
- Inspection is a bit weird, which might be a CN thing
- Maybe it's because I'm CN, maybe it would happen to anyone, but the opposite cross kinda throws me off during CE pairing; I find myself wanting to put pairs in the wrong place. I guess I look at cross colour, not centre colour, when I do CE pairing.
- My worst OLL turns into a 6-mover! (setup do FRUR'U'F' U M2U2M2)

 

[Tim Major]

- My worst OLL turns into a 6-mover! (setup do FRUR'U'F' U M2U2M2)

Sune FRUR'U'F'.
Sune is almost as quick as M2 U2 M2.
I use white/yellow and I agree about the disorienting F2L. More a little voice saying I've done it wrong, like if anyone here has played Ocarina of Time, Navi saying: Hey, listen, those edges are wrong!
It doesn't slow me down however, (except for the added .5s for parity).

One observation however, for the top cubers some can sub 1 every PLL. They can't sub .5 any of them, so if the difference is that small, maybe forcing a better PLL could hinder your solves.

 

[Dene]

Sune FRUR'U'F'.
Sune is almost as quick as M2 U2 M2.

I know, but there is the added benefit of the x-cross!

 

[CuberMan]

I suck at executing M2U2M2, and it makes me need to regrip because OLL / PLL algs use more R U rather than M slice. So, I prefer executing the LL normally rather than using this trick.

 

[jla]

I just did some times with this technique and I find it pretty useful. Times were approx. .25-.5 above average but with some recognition drills I might be able to use this techique for fast solves too. Will probably experiment some with this after christmas and new year.

And by the way! Merry Christmas!

 

[JonWhite]

It's been a week; any results or conclusions yet?

(and my apps still aren't done...)

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Just throwing in a slightly different variation that I thought of after reading this, probably sucks since Roux-CFOP hybrids usually do, but might not.
Wrong cross > F2L > CLL > LSE style finish (allows the incorrect edges to be misorientated too, which makes cross easier but would disrupt F2L recognition even more).