• 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!

[New] My Journey in Switching 3x3 Methods

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
691
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
(I made a new account, so I had to replace the old one in order to edit the main post)

Yes, I am switching my 3x3 method. 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 25-28 seconds, and after a couple months of practice I'm averaging about 22 seconds.

What I’m Learning + Times

What I’m Learning


CLL: 7/42
O: 2/2
H: 4/4
Pi: 1/6
U: 0/6
T: 0/6
Sune: 0/6
Anti-Sune: 0/6
L: 0/6

ELL: 4/29
Won’t start learning until after CLL(Only know the EPLLs)

Times

Best CFCE Single: 13.88
Best CFCE Mo3: 16.00
Best CFCE Ao5: 18.46
Best CFCE Ao12: 19.37
Best CFCE Ao100: 22.52

Current Session Average(115+ Solves): 24.76

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

Last Updated: January 11, 2020
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
58
YouTube
Visit Channel
Dude, I mean CFCE is good but CFOP last layer recognition is faster.
I'm not saying that CFCE is bad, I'm saying that CFOP is faster.
If CFCE was faster, all the pro cubers that use CFOP would be using it.
Also, there are almost as many algs (only a few less)

P.S. i once tried but just found last layer recognition for CFCE too slow compared to CFOP

Anyway good luck!!!!
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
839
Location
my house, cubing.
WCA
2020XIEC01
And so the CFOP/CFCE argument begins. He is trying to use CFCE. He does not need extra discouragement from what he is trying to do. He just wants to post times, what he is doing, etc here. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care that much about if this method is better or worse, etc.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your meanings in any way, I just thought it would be good to explain the point of this thread. (@ProStar, feel free to correct this)

Good luck anyway!
 

RedstoneTim

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
36
Location
Germany
YouTube
Visit Channel
Since you stated that you might learn some OLLCPs, I'd also advise you to have a look on a method called "Zipper".
It's basically CFCE with an extra edge. You solve like usually until last slot and then insert one corner (you can usually insert the corner while solving another pair beforehand), then you either do OLLCP and L5EP (L5EP can be completely <RU>-gen and doesn't have a lot of cases) or CFRLL (just 3x3 CLL but with better algs since you don't have to preserve the FR edge, though you could also just use normal CLL algs if you wanted to) and then L5E (ELL is a subset of L5E, so you should already be familiar with some of the cases, the rest could be done semi-intuitively).
In my opinion, Zipper is better than CFOP/CFCE since you still end up with a 2 look ending and have to solve one pair less, but decide for yourself.
All in all I'm happy people are starting to use other methods than standard CFOP, so I wish you a lot of fun learning CFCE!
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
691
Location
An uncolonized sector of Mars
Dude, I mean CFCE is good but CFOP last layer recognition is faster.
I'm not saying that CFCE is bad, I'm saying that CFOP is faster.
Recognition being slower has a lot to do with how much you'd practiced OLL/PLL vs. CLL/ELL. Recognizing CLL is the same as COLL.

If CFCE was faster, all the pro cubers that use CFOP would be using it.
You could say that about any method, like Roux. CFOP has definitely been developed more, but that doesn't mean other methods are slower.

And so the CFOP/CFCE argument begins. He is trying to use CFCE. He does not need extra discouragement from what he is trying to do. He just wants to post times, what he is doing, etc here. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care that much about if this method is better or worse, etc.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your meanings in any way, I just thought it would be good to explain the point of this thread. (@ProStar, feel free to correct this)

Good luck anyway!
I solidly believe that CFCE can be just as fast as CFOP. Even if it has slightly worse LL recognition(the main argument against it), the difference is marginal; not large enough to make a difference for someone with my average, or beyond.
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
529
CFCE might be pretty good, but I think a missing item here is skip probabilities. With CFOP you get your PLL skip 1 in 72.
With CFCE, you could get a CLL skip (1 in 152), or an ELL skip (for which I don't know the probability--perhaps someone can chime in).
I can try to guess ELL skip chance:
Orientations: 8, Permutations: 10, so I think 80 combinations of which 1 is solved, so ELL skip could be 1 in 80
 

Etotheipi

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
325
Location
under your bed.
CFCE might be pretty good, but I think a missing item here is skip probabilities. With CFOP you get your PLL skip 1 in 72.
With CFCE, you could get a CLL skip (1 in 152), or an ELL skip (for which I don't know the probability--perhaps someone can chime in).
I can try to guess ELL skip chance:
Orientations: 8, Permutations: 10, so I think 80 combinations of which 1 is solved, so ELL skip could be 1 in 80
Skips don't effect averages much, which are what most people care about, so I don't really see why this is at all a noticeable flaw in the method, at most it could raise an average by a couple hundredths of a second.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,663
CFCE might be pretty good, but I think a missing item here is skip probabilities. With CFOP you get your PLL skip 1 in 72.
With CFCE, you could get a CLL skip (1 in 152), or an ELL skip (for which I don't know the probability--perhaps someone can chime in).
I can try to guess ELL skip chance:
Orientations: 8, Permutations: 10, so I think 80 combinations of which 1 is solved, so ELL skip could be 1 in 80
1/162 for CLL skip (I think you typo'd this) and 1/96 for ELL skip.

But I don't think skip rates should be a relevant concern anyway—they really favour methods with a step that doesn't do much (e.g. with EO-ZBLL there's a 1/8 chance of EO skip), and it's not like a LL substep skip completely determines whether a solve is good or bad since a 3×3×3 solve doesn't just consist of solving the last layer. (There's the converse relation, where it's true that extremely good solves (as in top 0.05% of a person's times) have skips disproportionately often (probably well over 20%), but this isn't the important direction. Bayes's theorem!)
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
529
What I am trying to get at is to examine the chance of good and bad random events. For example, CFOP solves dread N-Perms, but there are no N-Perms in CFCE, even the worst CLL and worst ELL aren't too bad, even if recognition is debatable. It is also true that ELL algorithms are very fast to execute.
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
529
Like any method you will need to learn to recognize the CLL cases from all possible angles, which is a time consuming process. Otherwise, recognition takes too long.
 

ProStar

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

So I've been majorly slacking on learning CLL lately, but I finally started learning Pi. I'm hoping to be done with them in under a week(I'm mostly taking my time with learning algs, I usually do 1 a day)
 
Top