• 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!

My Journey in Switching 3x3 Methods

How do You Think CFCE Compares to CFOP?


  • Total voters
    39

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
691
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
Yes, I am switching my 3x3 method. Try to guess which method I'm switching to!

I currently use CFOP

It's not very popular

It’s very similar to CFOP

CFCE!




Did you get it right?



Probably not...




That’s right, I am switching to the method known as Cross, F2L, Corners, Edges, or CFCE for short.


Overview of CFCE

In CFCE, you solve the first two layers using Cross + F2L, the same as CFOP. The difference comes in the last layer. Instead of doing OLL and PLL, you orient and permute the corners with one alg(two for beginners), and then orient and permute the edges with one alg(two for beginners). Solving the corners in 1 look takes 42 algorithms. This can be accomplished by knowing one of three algorithm sets: CMLL, CLL(for 3x3), or COLL. After the corners are solved, you use one of the 29 algs in the ELL algorithm set, thus completing the cube.

Why Did I Make This Thread?

I wanted to document my journey through switching methods, and decided this would be a good way to do it. It will raise awareness of this obscure method and allow those reading this to give advice. I will structure this thread similar to the thread by @PetrusQuber, “My Journey to Sub 8 Petrus”. I will post how I’m practicing, my improvements, what I’m learning, and maybe some more info on CFCE.

Why Am I Switching?

Although it originated in 1981, CFCE isn’t a popular method, which is appealing to me. It is, in my opinion, just as good as CFOP. I also won’t lose the progress I’ve made in Cross + F2L, as CFCE shares those first two steps with CFOP.

There is another reason I’m switching, and it takes the form of a story. While messing with the cube at around midnight about a week ago, I decided to try to create a new method, or at least modify an existing one. I know CFOP and Roux, the basics of Petrus, as well as the basics of ZZ (like really basic, I can’t solve with it). Over the next couple of days, I came up with a few methods, including RouxFOP, Petroux, and an outlandishly unrealistic corners-first method (I’m lousy at names, I know). Eventually, I came up with an idea I liked. I first solved FB and SB, like Roux, then used M moves to finish F2L, then solved the LL corners, then solved the LL edges. (sound familiar?) I decided that this might have merit as a method, and began to develop it seriously.

The prototype name I decided on was “FBCL”, standing for “First 2 Blocks(F2B), Bottom 2 Edges(B2E), Corners of the Last Layer(CLL), Last 4 Edges(L4E). Later, I decided to rename the last step “Edges of the Last Layer(ELL)”. I went to the SS wiki and searched ELL, just in case it was the name for something already, and this page came up. I read through it, and something I saw caught my eye: “...normally after performing CLL to solve the last layer corners…”

Soo… yeah. The method already existed. I did some research, and found out about CFCE. After doing more research, I found CFCE appealing to me, and after trying it out, I decided to switch, hence this thread.

Where Am I at Currently?

After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs.

I've decided to learn CLL, as the time I'd save with COLL whenever a cross is already made is less than the time I'll save with CLL's better algs whenever there isn't a cross(which is more often)

I currently use a 4lll I made up using a few algs from the two algorithm sets I need to learn(CLL and ELL). Without CFOP, I averaged about 25-8 seconds, and after doing about 30 solves with CFCE(using my 4lll), I averaged around the same. I also got my fifth ever sub-20 solve, and another one that would’ve been sub-20 had I not fumbled the cube. Now that I’ve assured I haven’t lost any progress, I decided to begin learning CLL. I plan to start with the H cases, but if any experienced cubers think that there is a better path for learning the cases - Instead of H, Pi, etc. - I would appreciate if they posted their suggest order. I’m using J Perm’s COLL tutorials for learning them, but he doesn’t have any videos for Sune/Antisune. After CLL, I’ll learn ELL, then maybe some COLL so that I can take advantage of whenever I get a cross solved automatically.

What I’m Learning + Times

What I’m Learning


CLL: 0/42
About to start learning

ELL: 1/29
Won’t start learning until after CLL

Times

Best CFCE Single: 17.45
Best CFCE Ao5: 22.22
Best CFCE Ao12: 23.31

Current Session Average(50+ Solves): 25.88

============================================================================================================

Last Updated: December 13, 2019
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nathanael

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2017
Messages
38
Location
Sydney, Australia
WCA
2019ROBE21
YouTube
Visit Channel
I feel like if I were to switch from CFOP to CFCE it would be a waste. This is because I find Cross and F2L the hardest parts of CFOP. I already do 3LLL and I find it really quick. This is the only reason I wouldn't switch.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
691
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
Oll + Pll has better recognition (and mostly better algs) than cfce
COLL is already used by advanced CFOP solvers, and for ELL almost all cases have only two edges flipped, with 1-2 oriented but incorrectly permuted. If you think about it in the correct way(recognizing the ELL case that is), it's not that hard. The recognition system is different from PLL, but not necessarily worse.

I feel like if I were to switch from CFOP to CFCE it would be a waste. This is because I find Cross and F2L the hardest parts of CFOP. I already do 3LLL and I find it really quick. This is the only reason I wouldn't switch.
I currently use 4lll, and all algs for CO apply to COLL. I also won't lose any progress for Cross + F2L, because CFCE has those same steps.
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
180
Yes, I am switching my 3x3 method. Try to guess which method I'm switching to!

I currently use CFOP

It's not very popular

It’s very similar to CFOP

CFCE!




Did you get it right?



Probably not...




That’s right, I am switching to the method known as Cross, F2L, Corners, Edges, or CFCE for short.


Overview of CFCE

In CFCE, you solve the first two layers using Cross + F2L, the same as CFOP. The difference comes in the last layer. Instead of doing OLL and PLL, you orient and permute the corners with one alg(two for beginners), and then orient and permute the edges with one alg(two for beginners). Solving the corners in 1 look takes 42 algorithms. This can be accomplished by knowing one of three algorithm sets: CMLL, CLL(for 3x3), or COLL. After the corners are solved, you use one of the 29 algs in the ELL algorithm set, thus completing the cube.

Why Did I Make This Thread?

I wanted to document my journey through switching methods, and decided this would be a good way to do it. It will raise awareness of this obscure method and allow those reading this to give advice. I will structure this thread similar to the thread by @PetrusQuber, “My Journey to Sub 8 Petrus”. I will post how I’m practicing, my improvements, what I’m learning, and maybe some more info on CFCE.

Why Am I Switching?

Although it originated in 1981, CFCE isn’t a popular method, which is appealing to me. It is, in my opinion, just as good as CFOP. I also won’t lose the progress I’ve made in Cross + F2L, as CFCE shares those first two steps with CFOP.

There is another reason I’m switching, and it takes the form of a story. While messing with the cube at around midnight about a week ago, I decided to try to create a new method, or at least modify an existing one. I know CFOP and Roux, the basics of Petrus, as well as the basics of ZZ (like really basic, I can’t solve with it). Over the next couple of days, I came up with a few methods, including RouxFOP, Petroux, and an outlandishly unrealistic corners-first method (I’m lousy at names, I know). Eventually, I came up with an idea I liked. I first solved FB and SB, like Roux, then used M moves to finish F2L, then solved the LL corners, then solved the LL edges. (sound familiar?) I decided that this might have merit as a method, and began to develop it seriously.

The prototype name I decided on was “FBCL”, standing for “First 2 Blocks(F2B), Bottom 2 Edges(B2E), Corners of the Last Layer(CLL), Last 4 Edges(L4E). Later, I decided to rename the last step “Edges of the Last Layer(ELL)”. I went to the SS wiki and searched ELL, just in case it was the name for something already, and this page came up. I read through it, and something I saw caught my eye: “...normally after performing CLL to solve the last layer corners…”

Soo… yeah. The method already existed. I did some research, and found out about CFCE. After doing more research, I found CFCE appealing to me, and after trying it out, I decided to switch, hence this thread.

Where Am I at Currently?

After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs. I currently use a 4lll I made up using a few algs from the two algorithm sets I need to learn(COLL and ELL). Without CFOP, I averaged about 25-8 seconds, and after doing about 30 solves with CFCE(using my 4lll), I averaged around the same. I also got my fifth ever sub-20 solve, and another one that would’ve been sub-20 had I not fumbled the cube. Now that I’ve assured I haven’t lost any progress, I decided to begin learning COLL. I plan to start with the H cases, but if any experienced cubers think that there is a better path for learning the cases - Instead of H, Pi, etc. - I would appreciate if they posted their suggest order. I’m using J Perm’s COLL tutorials for learning them, but he doesn’t have any videos for Sune/Antisune. After COLL, I’ll learn ELL, then I guess maybe some VHLS/ZBLS so that I can get a cross on top more often, increasing my chances of a H/Z/U perm or even an ELL skip.

What I’m Learning + Times

What I’m Learning


COLL: 0/42
About to start the H cases

ELL: 1/29
Won’t start learning until after COLL

Times

Best CFCE Single: 17.45
Best CFCE Ao5: 24.16
Best CFCE Ao12: 25.40

Current Session Average(30+ Solves): 27.88

============================================================================================================

Last Updated: December 11, 2019
I thought about doing this but I’m currently working on a different alg set. I’m thinking about learning ELL and using CFCE I’m weird OLL cases
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
467
WCA
2017BRYA06
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yes Coll is used by some cfop solvers on some solves, but honesty even that isn't worth the recognition time most of the time, and only really worth it on fast easy to recognize cases (which most are not). Coll recognition for some cases is super annoying and way slower than oll recognition, plus the algs are (mostly) worse than oll. Ell recognition is easy in a way, but still not as fast as pll, plus the algs are worse than pll. Do what you want, but this is just my experience with the method (for reference I average sub 10 with roux, and I know full 2lll and coll, cmll, and cll, and some ell).
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,663
My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm
CLL for 222 ≠ CLL for 333. Obviously you shouldn't be using 222 CLL algs if you want to preserve F2L. Check this list of some speed-optimised 333 CLL algs.

(That said, knowing alternative algs to preserve or force EO might be useful, especially for OH or big cubes where some of the ELL cases are much worse than U perms, e.g. pure opposite flip or pure 4-flip.)
 

Xtreme Cuber

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
63
Location
Beyond the Outer Rim...
One more thing to keep in mind about CFCE is that LL average move count is 21.22, compared to 21.5 on CFOP. I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is not worth it, especially with 1) recognition being easier on CFOP and 2) more developments, optimized algorithms, and subsets to learn in the future. Notice I'm NOT saying you won't get far with this method. In fact, there have been some sub-10 CFCE solvers, but I'd say that CFOP is probably better. Again, not trying to discourage you. If you want to try out CFCE, then go right ahead! Excited to see your progress!
 
Last edited:

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
691
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
learn CLL instead of COLL, algs are better
After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't CLL algs(the 3x3 version, not 2x2) ignore any edges that may be flipped correctly?

Also, is the time I'd save by getting a H/Z/U perm(only on some case tho) less than the time I'd save by faster corners(of course, I'd save time on all solves, not just some of them)?
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,312
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
One more thing to keep in mind about CFCE is that LL average move count is 21.22, compared to 21.5 on CFOP. I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is worth it, especially with 1) recognition being easier on CFOP and 2) more developments, optimized algorithms, and subsets to learn in the future. Notice I'm NOT saying you won't get far with this method. In fact, there have been some sub-10 CFCE solvers, but I'd say that CFOP is probably better. Again, not trying to discourage you. If you want to try out CFCE, then go right ahead! Excited to see your progress!
0.28 is nothing xD especially with such better algorithms.
I agree though - you can absolutely get far with CFCE, but it's pretty much objectively inferior to CFOP at both of the methods' current development-ness.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
691
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
======
Update
======

I took part in Ciparo's thread Race to sub-x on a 3x3(if you don't participate in it already, I would recommend doing so) and I got some of my best times ever, CFOP or CFCE. I got a 23.31 Ao12, 22.22 Ao5, and a sub-20 single. Using CFCE is becoming more natural, instead of reverting to using CFOP. I also did the SS weekly comp and got a 25 Ao5 in 3x3. I'm making good progress!
 

Xtreme Cuber

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
63
Location
Beyond the Outer Rim...
0.28 is nothing xD especially with such better algorithms.
I agree though - you can absolutely get far with CFCE, but it's pretty much objectively inferior to CFOP at both of the methods' current development-ness.
Oops! I thought I had typed "I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is NOT worth it." I fixed it now. Thanks for catching that.
 

Shaun Mack

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2019
Messages
38
Yes Coll is used by some cfop solvers on some solves, but honesty even that isn't worth the recognition time most of the time, and only really worth it on fast easy to recognize cases (which most are not). Coll recognition for some cases is super annoying and way slower than oll recognition, plus the algs are (mostly) worse than oll. Ell recognition is easy in a way, but still not as fast as pll, plus the algs are worse than pll. Do what you want, but this is just my experience with the method (for reference I average sub 10 with roux, and I know full 2lll and coll, cmll, and cll, and some ell).
if cxll recog is any more difficult than the oll for you then youre doing it wrong
 
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
731
YouTube
Visit Channel
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't CLL algs(the 3x3 version, not 2x2) ignore any edges that may be flipped correctly?

Also, is the time I'd save by getting a H/Z/U perm(only on some case tho) less than the time I'd save by faster corners(of course, I'd save time on all solves, not just some of them)?
IMHO if you want to get advantage that the cross is solved you are losing the advantage to use better algorithms when the other case is true. (whitch will occur more often)
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,312
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Oops! I thought I had typed "I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is NOT worth it." I fixed it now. Thanks for catching that.
I knew what you meant so say :p

if cxll recog is any more difficult than the oll for you then youre doing it wrong
As someone who knows COLL and used it for a long while before going back to regular OLL/PLL, I can agree with Tipster here. COLL has inherently more things you need to recognize than regular OLL, so of course it will take longer. For H and Pi since the colors to recognize COLL are top, it doesn't really take extra time, but for the others it's just faster to not worry about COLL.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,663
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't CLL algs(the 3x3 version, not 2x2) ignore any edges that may be flipped correctly?

Also, is the time I'd save by getting a H/Z/U perm(only on some case tho) less than the time I'd save by faster corners(of course, I'd save time on all solves, not just some of them)?
If you have edges already oriented when you reach the last layer, sure, go for COLL, but if not, some of the CLL algs are a lot faster. Like, diag pi COLL is pretty awful but the CLL is average-ish (R' U' R' F R F' R U' R' U2 R or R' F' U' F U' R U R' U R); diag-U has a nice COLL, but even nicer CLL (F R U R' U' F').

it's pretty much objectively inferior to CFOP at both of the methods' current development-ness.
How much harder can you develop CFOP to make the bad OLL and PLL cases good?

That's right, you can't; you just replace them with something else that's hopefully better. OLLCP, 1LLL, fruruf into T ZBLLs, etc. You can do the exact same thing with CFCE. It's not an argument for or against CFCE, unless you're comparing CFOP-with-so-many-extensions-that-it's-not-even-really-"cross-F2L-OLL-PLL"-anymore with base CFCE, which is obviously an unfair comparison.

If CFCE is worse than CFOP, it's not worse by a lot, and that's a big if. Some things are better (CLL seems pretty fast with Justin Taylor's optimised algs—which already exist, I've already linked them, so you can't say the algs haven't been optimised yet), some things are worse (recognition?). You can't just say it's "objectively worse" when it's at most subjectively worse.

(Conversely, if CFCE is better, it also can't be better by much for the same reasons! I'm not defending CFCE here, for what it's worth.)
 
Top