#### TerryD

##### Member
Tony Snyder says he intuitively creates algorithms to solve things like EO+EP+1C and I was wondering what possible ways of doing that were.

#### TerryD

##### Member
I was hoping there was another method, because I'm really bad at 5e+2c. It usually takes me 20 or more moves. This means that even pure Heise takes ~60 moves for me. If I do a Petrus EOF2L-1 so it's more similar to Snyder, I estimate my movecount will be 60+, which defeats the purpose of using Snyder.

#### Athefre

##### Member
For easy intuitive, you can:

1. F2L-1 + EO
2. CP
3. Create and insert the last F2L pair while ensuring an LL corner is oriented
4. EPLL - Recognize by looking at the oriented corner.

You can combine steps 2 and 3 or rearrange the steps a little to fit what you like; such as doing CP after the F2L pair. For efficiency while solving intuitively, the Heise techniques mentioned by RedstoneTim are probably the best way to go.

#### WarriorCatCuber

##### Member
For easy intuitive, you can:

1. F2L-1 + EO
2. CP
3. Create and insert the last F2L pair while ensuring an LL corner is oriented
4. EPLL - Recognize by looking at the oriented corner.

You can combine steps 2 and 3 or rearrange the steps a little to fit what you like; such as doing CP after the F2L pair. For efficiency while solving intuitively, the Heise techniques mentioned by RedstoneTim are probably the best way to go.
Lol. Don't use the words "easy" and "CP" in the same post

#### Athefre

##### Member
Lol. Don't use the words "easy" and "CP" in the same post
Of course CP without the last F2L corner placed isn't so easy without using tricks. So that's why the suggestion of rearranging steps was given. I think I was wrongly assuming that the intention of TerryD was slow solving and not speed solving and so I meant "simple" instead of "easy". Simple as in broken into smaller, more manageable steps compared to Heise. For speed solving, intuitive things like this and Heise have yet to be shown as viable. As nice as that would be.