# Why Not Teach CLL/ELL?

#### dChan

##### Member
I do not know if I have it right but it seems that CLL + ELL has less algorithms than OLL + PLL. CLL combined with ELL has 70 algorithms altogether compared to OLL + PLL which has 78 algorithms altogether. That's only a difference of 8 algorithms but in each case the number of algorithms required to learn a CLL or ELL step is less than what is need to learn for the OLL or PLL step if you say that OLL = CLL and ELL = PLL(not literally, but in terms of order of the steps). However, I am asking a question more than I am making a statement. What I want to know is what the average number of moves is for a CLL and an ELL algorithm and how many mirrors does each step have. Does anyone know a site that has this information or do you already have the information? I would love to see it because if each step has, not only less moves, but a lot of mirror cases then I think they might be easier to learn.

-dChan

#### shelley

##### chang
Well, if you're going to go with fewer algorithms, why not teach Roux? That's even more intuitive and less algorithm-heavy.

It looks like speedcubing.com has CLL and ELL algs, but a (very!) quick Google search hasn't given me much else. Speedcubing.com's OLL and PLL algorithms aren't exactly the best when it comes to execution though (they're optimized for minimizing move count rather than ease of execution), so if you're really looking to learn it, I would advise looking around a bit more.

##### Member
I think the MAIN reason ppl choose OLL/PLL over CLL/ELL is case recognition, as OLL is easy to see what "needs to go up" and PLL has lots of shapes to identify cases. In CLL/ELL you have to look for "2" things in each step - color needing to go up AND movement of pieces, where as OLL/PLL is only one thing per step - color to go up in OLL and movement of pieces in PLL. I noticed the less algs needed for CLL/ELL when i started out too but soon realized why ppl chose OLL/PLL...

##### Member
Or petrus with oll/pll . Thinking in number of alg isn't in the avantage of a methode like fridrich, whatever the way you do your last layer.

#### watermelon

##### Member
I believe either option would be equally fast for 2H solving, it's just a matter of practice and preference. However, ELL isn't great for OH solving .

#### dChan

##### Member
@Erik: Great pages Erik. I will definitely keep those in mind if I try learning CLL/ELL myself. I don't know if that will be very soon however as I have already learned OLL and PLL so I want to get my times down below 20 before I think of switching my method completely.

@CanadianPires: Yeah, I too, noticed that fact. But if I were to adopt something like COLL that would require almost identical mechanics in case recognition. I have actually learned some COLL algorithms and it doesn't seem too hard to do those on the fly during OLL when I get a case where all the edges are already oriented so I don't think it would be hard to do the same for full CLL + ELL. But, then again, for a beginner it might not be that easy.

#### fanwuq

##### Member
ELL is nice to use for TuRBo BLD.
what's the difference between COLL and CLL?

#### watermelon

##### Member
CLL ignores the LL edges altogether, COLL preserves LL edge orientation.

#### Erik

##### Member
Why not learn a mix and do both?
More than half of the algorithms are the same for aswell CLL/COLL/CMLL or at least about the same. For the very hard cases you can just learn some new algorithms, try to find a compromise, that's what I'm planning to do.

#### pcwiz

##### Member
Hi guys. This may sound like a pretty dumb question, as now I know what CLL and ELL are, I saw Erik's 2x2 CLL pictures, and I'm not into the 2x2 too much.

But if you use CLL on the last layer for the 2x2, isn't that like really fast if you're solving the layer by layer method? I mean you're comining OLL and PLL (that's how I do it), and it can be done really fast right?

Last edited:

#### Swordsman Kirby

##### Member
Hi guys. This may sound like a pretty dumb question, as now I know what CLL and ELL are, I saw Erik's 2x2 CLL pictures, and I'm not into the 2x2 too much.

But if you use CLL on the last layer for the 2x2, isn't that like really fast if you're solving the layer by layer method? I mean you're skipping OLL and PLL (that's how I do it), and it can be done really fast right?
You can skip OLL and PLL?! I want to be able to do that. (Be careful how you word it)

By the way, the current world record 2x2x2 average was done with CLL.

#### dChan

##### Member
@pcwiz: It combines the permutation and orientation of the corners into one step so, yes, it can reduce your times. But if you want to really get fast at the 2x2x2 I think you should check out the more advanced systems on Erik's site(e.g. where you orient all corners then permute them).

#### Kenneth

##### Not Alot
If you like 2-gen MU algs for ELL:

http://web.comhem.se/solgrop/kub/ELL.htm

The page is a bit old and I have lost my password to it so I can't update it but most of the algs are those I use also for normal 3x3x3 ELL.

My java does not work, if the animations does not work for you then the best thing to do I think is to copy the page HTML and put it into a folder where you also store animcube.jar (found here) and then change my hardcoded ( ) links = codebase="http://members.chello.se/solgrop/Binary/". (the page was moved by my internet company).

If I had time I would do it myself and then put it into a zipfile and upload it to here but not now.

Last edited:

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
just putting this out there,, oll involves looking at 8 peices and 20 stickers, pll uses all 8 pieces and 12 for a total of 16 and 32

cll only looks at 4 pieces and 12 stickers, ell 4 pieces and only 8 stickers for a total of 8 and 20

conclusion: cll/ell should have faster look ahead and recognition,, the reason that oll/pll is dominating right now is the pecentage. like over 90% of fridrich users use oll/pll, if more used cll/ell i think it is just as effective for the LL

#### shelley

##### chang
People don't recognize OLL by looking at all 20 stickers though. You look at the shape on top, and then you look at the orientation of one or two corner stickers to determine which case it is. It can be done at a glance.

CLL and ELL require identifying two things from each piece, orientation and also permutation (so colors on the side as well as colors on top). I'm not sure that recognition is necessarily faster than OLL/PLL. My COLL recognition is definitely slower than OLL or PLL recognition.

But maybe it's all a matter of practice. Do any fast people use CLL/ELL as their primary LL method? I have a friend who learned CLL/ELL, but she has yet to break sub-30.

#### JohnnyA

##### Member
COLL has lightning fast recognition I believe. But OLL is faster, more fingertrick friendly and easier tp predict the shape on top during F2L, from my experience.

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
i have yet to learn either of them,but my friend has broken the 30second border with cll/ell,, i have broken the 20 second border with 4look LL

#### dChan

##### Member
Woah, this is an old thread. I did not expect to see one of my threads from when I was relatively noobish pop up, haha.

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
so do you use CLL/ELL or OLL/PLL yourself?