Difference between revisions of "CFOP method"

From Speedsolving.com Wiki
m (→‎The Steps: Fixed a grammar issue.)
(29 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|proposers=[[David Singmaster]]<br/>[[René Schoof]]<br/>[[Jessica Fridrich]]<br/>[[Hans Dockhorn]]<br/>[[Anneke Treep]]
 
|proposers=[[David Singmaster]]<br/>[[René Schoof]]<br/>[[Jessica Fridrich]]<br/>[[Hans Dockhorn]]<br/>[[Anneke Treep]]
 
|year=1981
 
|year=1981
|anames=CFOP
+
|anames=Fridrich Method
 
|variants=[[CLL]]/[[ELL]], [[VH]], [[ZB]],  [[MGLS-F]]
 
|variants=[[CLL]]/[[ELL]], [[VH]], [[ZB]],  [[MGLS-F]]
 
|steps=4 (Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL)
 
|steps=4 (Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL)
|algs=Total: 78 to 119<br/>F2L: 0 to 41<br/>LL: 78 (OLL: 57, PLL: 21)
+
|algs=Total: 78 to 119<br/>F2L: 0 to 41<br/>Full 2LLL: 78 (OLL: 57, PLL: 21)
|moves=55
+
|moves=~55
 
|purpose=<sup></sup>
 
|purpose=<sup></sup>
 
* [[Speedsolving]]
 
* [[Speedsolving]]
Line 21: Line 21:
 
}}
 
}}
  
'''CFOP''' (''Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL'', pronounced C-F-O-P or C-fop) is a 3x3 speedsolving method proposed by several cubers around 1981. It is also known as the '''Fridrich Method''' after its popularizer, [[Jessica Fridrich]]. In part due to Fridrich's publication of the method on her website in 1995, CFOP has been the most dominant 3x3 speedcubing method since around 2000, with it and its variants used by the vast majority of the top speedcubers.
+
'''CFOP''' (''Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL'', pronounced C-F-O-P or C-fop) is a 3x3 speedsolving method proposed by several cubers around 1981. It is also known as the '''Fridrich Method''' after its popularizer, [[Jessica Fridrich]]. In part due to Fridrich's publication of the method on her website in 1995, CFOP has been the most dominant 3x3 speedcubing method since around 2000, with it and its variants used by the vast majority of the top speedcubers such as [[Feliks Zemdegs]], [[Max Park]], [[Sebastian Weyer]], [[Mats Valk]], etc.
  
 
== Origin and Naming Dispute ==
 
== Origin and Naming Dispute ==
  
Jessica Fridrich is often erroneously credited as the sole inventor of CFOP. In reality, developments made in the early 80's by other cubers have contributed to the method in its current form. The constituent techniques and their original proposers are as follows:
+
Jessica Fridrich is often erroneously credited as the sole inventor of CFOP. In reality, many developments were made in the early '80s by other cubers who have contributed to the method in its current form. The constituent techniques and their original proposers are as follows:
 
* [[Cross]]: [[David Singmaster]]
 
* [[Cross]]: [[David Singmaster]]
* [[F2L]] (4x corner + edge pairs): [[René Schoof]] and possibly others
+
* [[F2L]] (4x corner + edge pairs): [[René Schoof]]
 
* [[OLL]]/[[PLL]]: [[Hans Dockhorn]], [[Anneke Treep]], with many algorithms developed by [[Jessica Fridrich]]
 
* [[OLL]]/[[PLL]]: [[Hans Dockhorn]], [[Anneke Treep]], with many algorithms developed by [[Jessica Fridrich]]
  
During the resurgence in speedcubing's popularity in the late 90s and early 2000s, there was a general lack of information on the sport. Fridrich's website offered a vast wealth of information for those entering the sport, including a full description of CFOP with complete lists of algorithms. As a result, many who learned from her website began to call this method "the Fridrich Method," which explains the common use of the term today.
+
During the resurgence in speedcubing's popularity in the late '90s and early 2000s, there was a general lack of information on the sport. Fridrich's website offered a vast wealth of information for those entering the sport, including a full description of CFOP with complete lists of algorithms. As a result, many who learned from her website began to call this method the "Fridrich Method," which explains the common use of the term today.
  
Several high-profile cubers have long disputed this terminology; [[Ron van Bruchem]], famously, has publicly written that he will never call CFOP "the Fridrich Method." The issue became well-advertised in the community around 2008. The term "CFOP" has since seen increasing usage, also in part motivated by efforts to standardize terminology in method classification, and is now seen as commonly as "Fridrich Method."
+
Several high-profile cubers have long disputed this terminology; [[Ron van Bruchem]], famously, has publicly written that he will never call CFOP the "Fridrich Method." This issue has become well-advertised within the cubing community around the year 2008, likely because of this. The term "CFOP" has since seen increasing usage compared to back then, also in part motivated by efforts to standardize terminology in method classification, and is now seen, commonly, as "Fridrich Method."
  
 
While some cubers still insist on the term "CFOP," Fridrich's contribution to the popularization of the method is undeniable, and many others accept the term "Fridrich Method" as established terminology and a perfectly valid synonym for "CFOP."
 
While some cubers still insist on the term "CFOP," Fridrich's contribution to the popularization of the method is undeniable, and many others accept the term "Fridrich Method" as established terminology and a perfectly valid synonym for "CFOP."
  
 
== The Steps ==
 
== The Steps ==
CFOP can be viewed as an advanced version of a [[Layer-By-Layer]] method. In particular, it combines some steps of the said method into one by using many more algorithms. Here, we outline pure CFOP without any additional trick.
+
CFOP can be viewed as an advanced version of a [[Layer-By-Layer]] method. In particular, it combines some steps of the said method into one by using many more algorithms. Here, we outline pure CFOP without any additional trick. Also, the cube is commonly solved with the white side on top for the cross, yellow on the bottom for the cross, and opposite for the other steps. However, it is NOT required.
  
  
Line 45: Line 45:
  
  
Make a cross on one side by solving all edges of a given color. Align the edges with the second-layer centers.
+
Make a cross on one side by solving all edges of a given face. A
 +
Make sure to align the edges with the second-layer centers.
 +
 
 +
It is recommended that you solve the cross on the bottom face and that you become familiar doing the cross with all colors; not just one.
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 63: Line 66:
 
Make the entire top side (the last layer) of the cube a solid color. 57 nontrivial cases.
 
Make the entire top side (the last layer) of the cube a solid color. 57 nontrivial cases.
  
''Those new to [[OLL]] break up the step into two. This greatly reduces the number of cases; [[2-look OLL]] has 9 cases.''
+
''Those new to [[OLL]] break up the step into two. This greatly reduces the number of cases; [[2-look OLL]] has 9 cases. However, note that this is a few seconds slower''
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 73: Line 76:
 
Finally, you finish the cube by permuting the top layer of the cube. 21 nontrivial cases.
 
Finally, you finish the cube by permuting the top layer of the cube. 21 nontrivial cases.
  
''Those new to [[PLL]] break up the step into two. This greatly reduces the number of cases; [[2-look PLL]] has 6 cases.''
+
''Those new to [[PLL]] break up the step into two. This greatly reduces the number of cases; [[2-look PLL]] has 6 cases. However, note that this is a few seconds slower''
 
|}
 
|}
 
  
 
== Pros ==
 
== Pros ==
  
This method is relatively easy to understand when compared to other methods. Therefore, it is the most tested and most popular method used. It has a reasonable number of algorithms to learn, and sub 15 second averages are definitely possible. This method has been used to set many world records. It takes less thinking than block-building methods because it's more algorithm based.
+
* '''Easy to learn''' - CFOP is widely considered to be the easiest method to learn, as it transitions easily from beginner's methods.
 +
* '''Doesn't require a large understanding of how the cube works''' - Due to the lack of blockbuilding or edge orientation needed in CFOP, the method relies more on pattern recognition and algorithms. Although the cross and F2L are solved intuitively, they are more straightforward than the blockbuilding with Roux or the edge orientation and blockbuilding with ZZ.
 +
* '''Is by far the most researched method''' - As CFOP is the most widely used method and has been for many years, there has been far more research done on CFOP than any other method, which means more resources, a larger variety of algorithms to choose from, and more community members to assist and give advice. All world records for the 3x3 Rubik's Cube since 2003 have been set with CFOP.
 +
*'''Statistically the fastest speedsolving method''' - Statistically speaking, CFOP has proven to currently be the fastest method, despite the move count. As of June 1, 2016, the top four speedsolvers in 3x3 average use the method, as well as the top fifteen speedsolvers in 3x3 single.
  
 
== Cons ==
 
== Cons ==
  
* '''Algs''' - CFOP has 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs for a total of 78 algs for 2 look. These can take some time to learn.
+
* '''Algorithms''' - CFOP with 4 Look last layer makes a total of 16 algorithms (10 2-look OLL algs and 6 2-look PLL algs). Full CFOP has 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs for a total of 78 algorithms. If a person learned one full CFOP alg a day (OLL and PLL), it would take a bit over 2 and a half months to learn all of them.
* '''Move count''' - CFOP has a slightly higher average movecount that ZZ and much higher movecount compared to Roux.
+
* '''Move count''' - CFOP has a slightly higher average movecount than that of ZZ and much higher movecount compared to Roux.
* '''Reliance on Inspection''' - CFOP makes heavy use of inspection time, which is fine when 15 seconds is given, but in situations where no inspection is used it can be a drawback. For example, when using reduction on big cubes or within multi-solve scenarios starting a CFOP solve can be difficult.
+
* '''Reliance on Inspection''' - CFOP relies on the use of inspection time, in order for the cross (and the first pair, depending on how advanced the user is) to be solved quickly. In instances where there is no inspection time, such as big cube solves where one must transition between the cube's reduction and 3x3x3 steps, this can be a drawback as the cross has to be done on the fly rather than being planned out. Although this may be the case, CFOP is still the most popular choice for the 3x3x3 stage on big cubes as the planning and execution of a Roux or ZZ solve is typically more difficult than doing CFOP.
* '''Difficulty of Transition''' from ZZ or Roux - Solving Cross and a slot-based F2L is very different from ZZf2l and Roux blocks. The possibility of using cross and a slot-based F2L can make it difficult to shake off old habits.
+
* '''Difficulty of Cross''' - Planning the cross during inspection can take a while to master. It requires a fair amount of experience, similar to planning the first block with Roux or the EOLine with ZZ.
* '''Difficulty of Cross''' - Cross is difficult to plan and execute in one step and takes a long time to master. New users should expect it to take in the order of years to achieve full Cross inspection in 15 seconds.
 
* '''2 Extra Cross Cubies to Solve''' - The first step of Fridrich (Cross) and ZZ (EOLine) are roughly comparable in terms of move-count. However, during cross, 2 extra cross pieces have to be solved when planning. This can make it more difficult to plan out for difficult scrambles.
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
 
* [[Cross]]
 
* [[Cross]]
* [[XCross]]
 
 
* [[F2L]]
 
* [[F2L]]
 
* [[OLL]]/[[PLL]]
 
* [[OLL]]/[[PLL]]
 +
* [[4LLL]]
 
* [[CFCE]]
 
* [[CFCE]]
 +
* [[ZZ]]
 +
* [[Roux]]
  
  
Line 114: Line 119:
 
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM Badmephisto's Intuitive F2L Tutorial]
 
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM Badmephisto's Intuitive F2L Tutorial]
 
* Speedsolving.com: [http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2322 Fridrich Method] - info on its origin.
 
* Speedsolving.com: [http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2322 Fridrich Method] - info on its origin.
 +
* [http://algdb.net/ All the CFOP algs that you can think off]
  
 
[[Category:3x3x3 methods]]
 
[[Category:3x3x3 methods]]

Revision as of 20:32, 18 September 2017

CFOP method
Fridrich method.gif
Information about the method
Proposer(s): David Singmaster
René Schoof
Jessica Fridrich
Hans Dockhorn
Anneke Treep
Proposed: 1981
Alt Names: Fridrich Method
Variants: CLL/ELL, VH, ZB, MGLS-F
No. Steps: 4 (Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL)
No. Algs: Total: 78 to 119
F2L: 0 to 41
Full 2LLL: 78 (OLL: 57, PLL: 21)
Avg Moves: ~55
Purpose(s):


Scramble 04.jpg

Scrambled cube -> Cross -> F2L -> OLL -> PLL -> Solved cube


CFOP is the most frequently used speedsolving method for the 3x3x3 cube.

Mini maru.jpg

CFOP (Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL, pronounced C-F-O-P or C-fop) is a 3x3 speedsolving method proposed by several cubers around 1981. It is also known as the Fridrich Method after its popularizer, Jessica Fridrich. In part due to Fridrich's publication of the method on her website in 1995, CFOP has been the most dominant 3x3 speedcubing method since around 2000, with it and its variants used by the vast majority of the top speedcubers such as Feliks Zemdegs, Max Park, Sebastian Weyer, Mats Valk, etc.

Origin and Naming Dispute

Jessica Fridrich is often erroneously credited as the sole inventor of CFOP. In reality, many developments were made in the early '80s by other cubers who have contributed to the method in its current form. The constituent techniques and their original proposers are as follows:

During the resurgence in speedcubing's popularity in the late '90s and early 2000s, there was a general lack of information on the sport. Fridrich's website offered a vast wealth of information for those entering the sport, including a full description of CFOP with complete lists of algorithms. As a result, many who learned from her website began to call this method the "Fridrich Method," which explains the common use of the term today.

Several high-profile cubers have long disputed this terminology; Ron van Bruchem, famously, has publicly written that he will never call CFOP the "Fridrich Method." This issue has become well-advertised within the cubing community around the year 2008, likely because of this. The term "CFOP" has since seen increasing usage compared to back then, also in part motivated by efforts to standardize terminology in method classification, and is now seen, commonly, as "Fridrich Method."

While some cubers still insist on the term "CFOP," Fridrich's contribution to the popularization of the method is undeniable, and many others accept the term "Fridrich Method" as established terminology and a perfectly valid synonym for "CFOP."

The Steps

CFOP can be viewed as an advanced version of a Layer-By-Layer method. In particular, it combines some steps of the said method into one by using many more algorithms. Here, we outline pure CFOP without any additional trick. Also, the cube is commonly solved with the white side on top for the cross, yellow on the bottom for the cross, and opposite for the other steps. However, it is NOT required.


Cross Cross


Make a cross on one side by solving all edges of a given face. A Make sure to align the edges with the second-layer centers.

It is recommended that you solve the cross on the bottom face and that you become familiar doing the cross with all colors; not just one.

F2L F2L (First Two Layers)


Fill in the four slots between the cross pieces, one slot at a time. Each slot is filled by inserting a corner and its corresponding edge simultaneously. Most of the 41 cases have reasonable intuitive solutions. The completion of this step leaves one with just the last layer, typically placed on top.

OLL OLL (Orientation of the Last Layer)


Make the entire top side (the last layer) of the cube a solid color. 57 nontrivial cases.

Those new to OLL break up the step into two. This greatly reduces the number of cases; 2-look OLL has 9 cases. However, note that this is a few seconds slower

PLL PLL (Permutation of the Last Layer)


Finally, you finish the cube by permuting the top layer of the cube. 21 nontrivial cases.

Those new to PLL break up the step into two. This greatly reduces the number of cases; 2-look PLL has 6 cases. However, note that this is a few seconds slower

Pros

  • Easy to learn - CFOP is widely considered to be the easiest method to learn, as it transitions easily from beginner's methods.
  • Doesn't require a large understanding of how the cube works - Due to the lack of blockbuilding or edge orientation needed in CFOP, the method relies more on pattern recognition and algorithms. Although the cross and F2L are solved intuitively, they are more straightforward than the blockbuilding with Roux or the edge orientation and blockbuilding with ZZ.
  • Is by far the most researched method - As CFOP is the most widely used method and has been for many years, there has been far more research done on CFOP than any other method, which means more resources, a larger variety of algorithms to choose from, and more community members to assist and give advice. All world records for the 3x3 Rubik's Cube since 2003 have been set with CFOP.
  • Statistically the fastest speedsolving method - Statistically speaking, CFOP has proven to currently be the fastest method, despite the move count. As of June 1, 2016, the top four speedsolvers in 3x3 average use the method, as well as the top fifteen speedsolvers in 3x3 single.

Cons

  • Algorithms - CFOP with 4 Look last layer makes a total of 16 algorithms (10 2-look OLL algs and 6 2-look PLL algs). Full CFOP has 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs for a total of 78 algorithms. If a person learned one full CFOP alg a day (OLL and PLL), it would take a bit over 2 and a half months to learn all of them.
  • Move count - CFOP has a slightly higher average movecount than that of ZZ and much higher movecount compared to Roux.
  • Reliance on Inspection - CFOP relies on the use of inspection time, in order for the cross (and the first pair, depending on how advanced the user is) to be solved quickly. In instances where there is no inspection time, such as big cube solves where one must transition between the cube's reduction and 3x3x3 steps, this can be a drawback as the cross has to be done on the fly rather than being planned out. Although this may be the case, CFOP is still the most popular choice for the 3x3x3 stage on big cubes as the planning and execution of a Roux or ZZ solve is typically more difficult than doing CFOP.
  • Difficulty of Cross - Planning the cross during inspection can take a while to master. It requires a fair amount of experience, similar to planning the first block with Roux or the EOLine with ZZ.

See also


F2L

edit


OLL (edit)


PLL (edit)
Permutations of corners only
Permutations of edges only
Permutations of corners and edges

External links