Partial EO during Cross

[BigSams]

Hey all,

I have been thinking about something for a couple weeks, but I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already or if people are using it - just thought I'd propose it here and see your reactions. When Faz got his 3x3 avg wr, I was wondering if he added a little something to Fridrich to spice it up.

One thing that came to mind was orienting F2L edges as I mentioned here http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?25517-Predict-Faz-s-secret! . This would mean orienting all non-LL edges during simultaneously with making cross.
Faz said that he likes "to keep edges oriented during F2L" here http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?25517-Predict-Faz-s-secret!/page4 , though there IS a chance he was kidding. That aside, I think there could be some potential here.

Full EO takes a lot of inspection time and is especially difficult to master when combining it with Line or Cross. Imagine orienting just Layer 2 edges and permuting Layer 1 edges - not too difficult; I have been practicing for 2 weeks and as expected it's easier than EO-cross.

Though it is not really justification for partial EO, this could be an option for full Fridrich-ers who don't want to discard most of their OLLs, but still want fast {R, U, L} 3-gen slots every time.

Any comments?

P.S. @ a small kitten, no this is not the method I mentioned in that other thread.

 

[Lucas Garron]

You've heard of ZZ-TOP, I hope?

 

[BigSams]

Sorry for double post, but I didn't want to edit the original post in case some controversy came up afterwards.
I forgot to say that simultaneous Partial EO + Cross is not only easier than EO-cross but also easier than just EO-Line.
Here is why: usually to orient edges, you would put 4 unoriented ones in F or B and do a quarter turn there. But here you just put any number (1-4) of unoriented Layer 2 edges in the F or B and fill up the rest with LL edges whose orientations you don't care about.

 

[Diniz]

I just tried to do partial EO just ignoring yellow edges (so just 8 edges at max to orient), and it was still hard to do the cross in 1L..

 

[Kirjava]

"or you could use ZZ"

during cross? yah, this is dumb

 

[Diniz]

Yeah... and 3gen F2L has higher move count, the nice thing of ZZ for is is the easy block building F2L..

 

[BigSams]

@Diniz, you could easily keep doing blockbuilding by doing partial EO+line, even simpler than PEO-Cross. There are many cubers who don't want to learn a large number of algs like ZBLL and so would prefer OLL+PLL, and incorporating PEO with Cross or Line could save time on F2L, whether you use blockbuiding or slots.

 

[Diniz]

I mentioned blockbuilding because doing the cross mess up with it =p

 

[Kirjava]

All your ideas are terrible.

 

[a small kitten]

Aside from having the opportunity to spam OH 2gen...the only reason I use ZZ is the possibility of a stronger last layer. I think the only thing that keeps ZZ competitive (I don't know if that's the right word) with cfop is that since the ll edges are already oriented, you can further influence the ll pieces in order to make a 1lll viable. Not caring about the ll edges just makes the f2l the same or inferior to cfop.

P.S. @ a small kitten, no this is not the method I mentioned in that other thread.

I hope not. This idea is super meh. It's also been done before.

 

[uberCuber]

@Diniz, you could easily keep doing blockbuilding by doing partial EO+line, even simpler than PEO-Cross. There are many cubers who don't want to learn a large number of algs like ZBLL and so would prefer OLL+PLL, and incorporating PEO with Cross or Line could save time on F2L, whether you use blockbuiding or slots.

seriously why not just use ZZ...

 

[a small kitten]

I think this is targeted towards cfop users who normally don't care about EO. It's somewhat useful if it can be done with minimal moves. However, if you use too many moves to orient pieces it kind of hurts you because instead of using those moves, you could be solving pieces directly. This is what makes the beginning of cfop attractive. It's more productive.

 

[StachuK1992]

Enh. Not worth it.

 

[BigSams]

@uberCuber, read the last sentence of the post you quoted. For ZZLL, you either do OCLL+PLL or ZBLL unless you do tricks on the last slot. Lotsa algs, which not all of us want to memorize. a small kitten is correct.

Funny how when stachu proposes something meh like Seth, it is hailed as something for other ideas to spin off or "to have fun" but when anyone with less than a couple thousand total posts mentions an idea its "terrible". :rolleyes:

Guys, relax. I liked the idea, but it's supposedly a fail; no biggie.

 

[StachuK1992]

Funny how when Stachu proposes something meh like Seth, it is hailed as something for other ideas to spin off or "to have fun" but when anyone with less than a couple thousand total posts mentions an idea its "terrible". :rolleyes:

To be fair, I defended it better, and had a much more complete first post.
I went through usage for various methods, provided algs, example solves, etc, and had worked on the method for weeks previously.
This, combined with my background of publishing ideas (although usually not so good ones) does give me a *slight* upper hand; deserving or not, I'm not sure.
Also, I think that over the past 2 years I've shown that although I make (too) many posts, they've been progressively been getting more and more well-written and helpful.

Sorry, I just felt like half-defending myself there. I really need to post less and making threads. :/

Nonetheless, this particular idea has been exposed previously, hence Lucas' post concerning ZZ-TOP.

Nonetheless again, "Guys, relax. I liked the idea, but it's supposedly a fail; no biggie." This. People need to calm down.

PS - we need to talk (tomorrow?) about that other thing.

 

[Athefre]

Funny how when stachu proposes something meh like Seth, it is hailed as something for other ideas to spin off or "to have fun" but when anyone with less than a couple thousand total posts mentions an idea its "terrible". :rolleyes:

This is something you'll have to get used to. It's not just because of post count, it's because of popularity. People are more willing to consider something and more able to see the positive side when it's coming from someone they like, or someone they like likes. And it doesn't just happen on this forum, or only on the internet.

 

[Kirjava]

Funny how when stachu proposes something meh like Seth, it is hailed as something for other ideas to spin off or "to have fun"

Actually, KYLOL said what needed to be said in that topic.

but when anyone with less than a couple thousand total posts mentions an idea its "terrible". :rolleyes:

Get over yourself, I don't care about something as trivial as postcount - a bad idea is a bad idea.

 

[Cyrus C.]

The way I see it:

1. Doing the moves to solve EO at the beginning, could be replaced by just a y or a y2 later on in the solve.
2. You're already doing EO, why not just do 4 more moves and finish it up?

 

[oll+phase+sync]

You've heard of ZZ-TOP, I hope?

As far as I remember you didn't like your ZZ-Top idea yourself?

I tried it a few times, just placing one or two Cross edges, but joining one or two CE Pairs (no need to be a slot pair) , too.

This got me in some very easy F2Ls .

Doing only line or even cross in my opinion is not worth the hassle.

But placeing at least DF or DB , and joining two pairs or even an 1x2x2 might be.

I don't know if the inspection to achieve this possible within 15 sec, though.

 

[Joël]

Enh. Not worth it.

I remember that's what Ron thought when he first came across the idea of F2L...