• 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
631
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
======
Update
======

Due to some smarter and more experienced cubers giving their advice, I reconsidered using CLL instead of COLL. I did some more research, and I've decided that my previous argument...

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.
...has a flaw. As Fillipe Teixeira said:

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)
After more research, I agree with him. I've decided to learn CLL instead of COLL. If anyone can recommend good algs/vids I'd appreciate it, as I can't find a good list.
 

Xtreme Cuber

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
63
Location
Beyond the Outer Rim...
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.
What makes that an unfair comparison? I believe the point was that CFOP is better at its current development, compared to CFCE's development. I think it's pretty obvious that more developed methods are better than less-developed ones. This isn't to say that CFCE shouldn't be pursued or developed further, nor that you can't get fast with it, just that at the present time and with present available resources, CFOP is faster.

In addition, last layer is a bit faster with CFOP than CFCE, especially because most ELL cases are essentially LSE cases with two edges solved, which means they use a lot of M moves, which are usually slower than RUFD moves, which is what most PLL cases are made up of. In addition, recognition is definitely a bit slower in CFCE. Both methods have been around since at least 1982. One all but vanished and one became the number one method for top cubers across the world. There might just be a reason for that. ;)

Again, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from learning CFCE or furthering its potential. I just think it's worth mentioning that when judging the merits of a method, one should take into consideration all aspects including maximum TPS and number of resources. I agree that CFCE isn't a lot worse than CFOP, but I personally don't see any good reasons to choose it over other faster and easier methods except for proof of concept.
 
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
728
YouTube
Visit Channel
As Fillipe Teixeira said: "..."
...If anyone can recommend good algs/vids I'd appreciate it, as I can't find a good list.
Thanks for the mention!

Recognition guides

I suggest using the videos to learn recognition and drilling the CLL algs that fit you the best.

Notice that in the end, you have to develop your own technique for recognition and execution... use what works the best for you!
 
Last edited:

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
631
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
Thanks for the mention!

Recognition guides

I suggest using the videos to learn recognition and drilling the CLL algs that fit you the best.

Notice that in the end, you have to develop your own technique for recognition and execution... use what works the best for you!
Thanks!
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,659
If anyone can recommend good algs/vids I'd appreciate it, as I can't find a good list.
I already linked Justin's CLL/ELL list in the first page…

especially because most ELL cases are essentially LSE cases with two edges solved, which means they use a lot of M moves, which are usually slower than RUFD moves, which is what most PLL cases are made up of.
Is this really true? Are you sure something like (M' U M U)3 isn't faster than almost every PLL case? What about ELL algs that are RUF, like R' U2 R U' R' U' R' F R2 U R' U' R' F' R2? What about the 3-cycle comms like [R' F R, S] or [R U R' U', M']?

There are good ELL cases and there are bad ELL cases… which is pretty much the same situation as PLL. If you're looking at old alg lists for ELL (like all the garbage on AlgDb), then yes, a lot of the cases have bad MU algs. We know better now.

What makes that an unfair comparison? I believe the point was that CFOP is better at its current development, compared to CFCE's development. I think it's pretty obvious that more developed methods are better than less-developed ones.
I agree that more development would generally mean that more of the method's potential has been exposed, and hence it would likely be faster. However, my point was that CFOP and CFCE are so similar that it's not necessary to do much CFCE-specific development—most of what we already know for CFOP can directly be used with CFCE, without any modifications. Instead of comparing CFOP with all its extensions to baseline CFCE, we should be comparing CFOP with all its extensions to CFCE plus the same extensions that can be used with CFCE; CFOP stops being an obvious win over CFCE if you do this.

It's not like we're comparing CFOP against some obscure method like Belt; in that case, one might legitimately make the claim that even if Belt had the same potential as CFOP (almost certainly not, but just for the sake of argument), it has had a lot less development and it's so dissimilar to any other popular method that one shouldn't expect Belt to be faster than CFOP at this point in time.

(Good CLL and ELL algs have already been generated. Sure, there might be even better algs that we haven't found yet, but these improvements are generally marginal—if the algs are hard to find, they can't be much better than what we already have. We have tools like AlgExplorer that make finding good algs much easier than it used to be in 1980-2015.)
 

Xtreme Cuber

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
63
Location
Beyond the Outer Rim...
Is this really true? Are you sure something like (M' U M U)3 isn't faster than almost every PLL case? What about ELL algs that are RUF, like R' U2 R U' R' U' R' F R2 U R' U' R' F' R2? What about the 3-cycle comms like [R' F R, S] or [R U R' U', M']?
I don't know about you, but I can perform Ua, Ub, Aa, Ab, Ra, and T perms faster than (M' U M U)3, none of which use M moves. I didn't want to come across as saying every ELL case is horrible and every PLL case is amazing. However, the fact that PLL cases have virtually no M moves means that, given the same length of algorithms, PLL cases are usually faster. (And yes, I have looked at the ELLs you linked in your first post.)

I agree that more development would generally mean that more of the method's potential has been exposed, and hence it would likely be faster. However, my point was that CFOP and CFCE are so similar that it's not necessary to do much CFCE-specific development—most of what we already know for CFOP can directly be used with CFCE, without any modifications. Instead of comparing CFOP with all its extensions to baseline CFCE, we should be comparing CFOP with all its extensions to CFCE plus the same extensions that can be used with CFCE; CFOP stops being an obvious win over CFCE if you do this.
Okay, that makes more sense. Out of curiosity, what CFOP subsets were you thinking of that could be applied to CFCE? However, even if we're comparing baseline CFOP and CFCE, CFOP is still faster because of better recognition and max TPS and I don't think the 0.28 move difference compensates for that. A while back I was actually looking to learn CFCE because I thought it would be just as fast, but those were the two things that made me switch back to CFOP.

Again, I don't have a problem with anyone believing the two methods are equal and I think it's great that people are branching out to try new (or old?) methods, but in my experience, I haven't found any compelling reason to choose CFCE over CFOP. :)
 
Top