# Beginners CFCE



## Findnf (Aug 17, 2022)

So this a step by step Guide for beginners CFCE

1. make a cross
2. Do F2L
3. Orient All the corners with Ortega OLL algs
4. do 2 look PLL to correct all the corners
5. and then correct the 2 of the non solved edges
6. flip the rest of the corners with corner fliping algs

Video tutorial for the method: 




is this a new type of CFCE?

Just got a 20 with the method ( witch is an amazing time for me ) so that proves that you can get good times with 4-look CFCE


----------



## Timona (Aug 17, 2022)

Does CFCE count as it's own method, or is it just a variation of CFOP, like FreeFOP? 

Also, I just got a 16 which is nice, considering I avg 11-12.


----------



## Findnf (Aug 17, 2022)

Timona said:


> Does CFCE count as it's own method, or is it just a variation of CFOP, like FreeFOP?
> 
> Also, I just got a 16 which is nice, considering I avg 11-12.


It is a completely different last layer so i think it is a different method


----------



## Timona (Aug 17, 2022)

Do you know full CFCE, like full CLL and ELL?


----------



## Findnf (Aug 17, 2022)

Timona said:


> Do you know full CFCE, like full CLL and ELL?


Yes but this tutorial is on my beginners Version of CFCE



Timona said:


> Do you know full CFCE, like full CLL and ELL?


And yes it is CLL then ELL

This is insane i just got a 10 with 4-look CFCE close to sub-10 but insane for a 4 look method


----------



## LBr (Aug 17, 2022)

I think your approach to solving the edges is unsound. And they should probably just be solves with OELL + EPLL as oell is better than just permuting the edges first, which could be done faster anyway as eo doesn’t have to be preserved, but my way has much easier recognition and it is also more compatible with cfop. Also I wouldn’t refer to the corner orientation step as per the Ortega algs, as the H OLL for 2x2 is much shorter and can’t be used on 3x3, I think this would improve the method but if you don’t want to change the method consider genning some faster algs for the cases instead


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 17, 2022)

Is this _new_? Probably not.

Is this _good_? Eh, it's a 4LLL method; none of them are especially good or bad compared to each other.

Also the text description of the method in the OP is indecipherable:


Findnf said:


> 5. and then correct the 2 of the edges
> 6. flip the rest of the corners with coner fliping algs


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 17, 2022)

Considering CFCE was what was used before CFOP, this is a very old beginners method. Except most people would probably orient the permute for 2look ELL


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 17, 2022)

Timona said:


> Does CFCE count as it's own method.


It's a method for the last layer, why not? It would be absolutely ridicules to call it CFOP because here's the thing, CFOP isn't a word, it's an acronym. If we're going to call CFCE CFOP why not call CFPO or CFEC CFOP? It just doesn't make sense to not allow it its own name.



Timona said:


> or is it just a variation of CFOP, like FreeFOP?


I don't understand why you would think this here. Is it a variation of CFOP? Sure, just as much as it's a variation of CFEC and CF1. If you consider a variation of CFOP because CFOP is more popular then there is still a problem with that. CFCE was being used before CFOP meaning that CFOP was probably once considered a variation of CFCE. This is the kind of thing that doesn't change over timer. I'm not saying that CFOP is a variation of CFCE because they solve the last layer in different ways. They are really just LL variations, not of each other. ZBLL, CE, EC, OP, PO, ZZLL, AZBLL, 1LLL, these are all just variations of the last layer.

Now what really (and I mean really) upsets me about his post is that you call FreeFOP a variation of CFOP. I would like to request why you said something so untrue. Are you misinformed? Did you not think it through? Did you create some kind of rationalization for this? FreeFOP involves solving the F2L in whatever order is most efficient. This can involve a Roux block followed by the last three cross edges giving an xxcross. It can involve Cross followed by F2L, it can involve a pseudo style solving. This is all FreeFOP. We get separate methods like CFOP or Petrus when we stop doing it freestyle and instead solving the first two layers in a set way every solve. For FreeFOP you might solve cross followed by F2L, say, 50% of the time but when you do that every single solve it's no longer really FreeFOP because you are not doing it freestyle. So we assign names to subset of FreeFOP. Ultimately every LL method is a subset of a greater method which I like to call FreeFALL (which stands for Freestyle F2L All of Last Layer) where you solve F2L freestyle and do 1LLL. Now, 1LLL is a lot of algorithms. Only one person knows it in its entirety. Because of this we break it into two look or influence the last layer to give us a reduction of cases (this is most often done in the form of ZBLL)

So no, FreeFOP is not a variation of CFOP. CFOP is a subset of FreeFOP which is a subset of FreeFALL which is a subset of F3L (literally just optimal solution).


----------



## Findnf (Aug 17, 2022)

LBr said:


> I think your approach to solving the edges is unsound. And they should probably just be solves with OELL + EPLL as oell is better than just permuting the edges first, which could be done faster anyway as eo doesn’t have to be preserved, but my way has much easier recognition and it is also more compatible with cfop. Also I wouldn’t refer to the corner orientation step as per the Ortega algs, as the H OLL for 2x2 is much shorter and can’t be used on 3x3, I think this would improve the method but if you don’t want to change the method consider genning some faster algs for the cases instead


True there is probably a faster way to orientate the corners than ortega algs and for the H OLL I just do the 3x3 2 look oll H for that



xyzzy said:


> Is this _new_? Probably not.
> 
> Is this _good_? Eh, it's a 4LLL method; none of them are especially good or bad compared to each other.
> 
> Also the text description of the method in the OP is indecipherable:


Yeah im not very good a describing things sorry about that


----------

