• 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 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

New aproach to ll? Cpeoll wv and ell

Piebomb

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
35
Location
Everett, WA
Okay first I'm sure this has been discussed already but if you use winter variation then cpeoll unless all corners are permuted in which case you would use full ell. Ell takes 11 moves on average pll takes 12 I think 27 wv algs 29 ell algs and 15 cpeoll thatls a little over 60 compared to oll and pll which is almost 80. Lemme know what you guys think
 
Winter variation has the slight problem that you have to have a prebuilt pair before identifying the case (so you probably lose a few moves there)...
wait... if there are 29 ELL cases when corners are solved, then wouldn't there be a lot more than 11 if you were taking into account opposite and adjacent corner permutations?
 
Personnally think it's useful to learn as many aproaches to the last layer as possible that way you can take advantage of certain things

That's what cpeoll takes care of
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personnally think it's useful to learn as many aproaches to the last layer as possible that way you can take advantage of certain things

That certainly is a reasonable theory, but there is a slight problem (which I think ZB epitomises) when it comes to speed solving with the last layer stages the time is taken by 1. recognising the case, 2. recollecting the alg 3. performing the alg. A more complicated LL system ususally means that it's harder to recognise the case, it will take longer to remember the alg (as you'll see it less often in practice) and similarly you'll have performed the alg a lot less so may not be as fast with it. So there is something to be said for finding a balance in speedsolving.
 
I'm sure that somebody could take this to obsurd levels like a winter variation that also permutes corners that would be what 108 algs not including mirrors and inverses

What about n perm I almost never use it and I still know it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"CPEOLL" (OLLCP-A) is one of the worst OLLCP sets by the way.

So you're doing that /and/ adding in WV to the solve.

I bet the movecount is even worse than OLL/PLL.
 
I know it's not the best but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any value

Does anybody happen to know any or all of these?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kirjava I'm sorry I got mad I've just been having a really rough time lately

I personally think it's a lot of fun and isn't that what cubing is about having fun and solving things that most people can't?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What true value does it have?

I guarantee someone has thought of it before but discarded the idea simply because they realized there are much better alternatives for whatever it's used for.

This.

This exact method is one of many things in my pile of ideas I thought I had first and I thought were good.

Except 1. I kept using OLL/PLL and 2. threads like these had scared me away from posting it, because I instinctively knew I'd face the wrath of Kir.

EDIT: Also, Piebomb, you can edit posts, you know that, right? Double posting is frowned upon.
 
I'd suggest learning most of the algs and seeing if you can get fast with it, personally I think it'll still be slower than simple OLL/PLL.

Prove us wrong, it'd be awesome if you did.
 
Even the worst OLLs and PLLs have all been done under 1 second, so with excellent recognition a low 2 second last layer is very possible even for something like, the Slash NEO OLL -> N perm.
 
Back
Top