# CMLL vs. COLL for Roux - And Pages



## pjk (Apr 21, 2008)

Hello,
I am working on learning full Roux, and will begin learning to orient and permute U slice corners. Now I am not sure which I should learn, CMLL, or COLL. For what I understand, CMLL will orient and permute corners, but will also affect other edges in the U slice (which for Roux, doesn't really matter). COLL will only affect the 4 corners I am dealing with. Now if I learn CMLL, the algs I find may be a bit more finger friendly, and even shorter since there aren't as many restrictions. If I learn COLL, the algs may be slightly longer and less optimized, but I will be able to use COLL on other methods I work towards (Fridrich in particular). What do you suggest I learn, and why?

Also, does anyone know of any pages that has CMLL algs, or has anyone her generated any CMLL's? I just want a heads up so I don't end up generating all the algs to find out many good ones exist already.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## deadalnix (Apr 21, 2008)

COLL preserve only the orientation of the edge of last layer (and the f2l part of M slice).

CMLL doesn't care what append on edges.

Keep in mind that CMLL and COLL are often the same (sune/niklas/evelyn/eve, etc . . .) because they are very short. Il you learn CMLL, you'll get a good base to learn COLL after.

In my opinion, learning CMLL is the good choice : use COLL for easy case and CMLL for harder ones.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Apr 21, 2008)

I say COLL, because then you can start to learn ZBLL xD


----------



## alexc (Apr 21, 2008)

Since, in Roux, it doesn't matter what happens to the edges of the U slice, you should learn CMLL. That way, the algs are optimized for Roux.


----------



## Dirk BerGuRK (Apr 21, 2008)

pjk said:


> Also, does anyone know of any pages that has CMLL algs



Here is a page from Thom Barlow. It's pretty good and what I took some of mine from.
http://helm.lu/cube/cmll/cmll.html



alexc said:


> Since, in Roux, it doesn't matter what happens to the edges of the U slice, you should learn CMLL.



Yea, technically you are right. But what makes CMLL algs unique is they will mess up with M slice at times (which of course does not matter in Roux at that point). LL corner algs that disturb the U slice edges only are generally referred to as just plain ol' CLL.

CMLL - solves corners but disturbs U and M slice edges
CLL - solves corners but disturbs U slice edges
COLL - solves corners but disturbs U slide edge permutation only



pjk said:


> What do you suggest I learn, and why?



It is difficult to say what you should learn. If you are going to stick with Roux for a while I say you learn the fastest C*LL algs you can regardless of what they do. As deadalnix said, many of the algs you would learn are already COLL anyway.


----------



## gogozerg (Apr 21, 2008)

@pjk

Even if you don't know the best optimized sequences (you have time to change and find the best ones for you), keep in mind the first challenge is: Fast recognition of corner configurations.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 22, 2008)

Pat, I would say learn COLL, because you can then use it for other things... on 2x2, there is no M slice, and if you happen to get all 4 edges oriented, you can get use it in your regular speedsolving too.


----------



## pjk (Apr 22, 2008)

Thanks for the responses.

Gilles: True. However, I plan on working on Roux for the next couple of years, and I learned the hard way with Fridrich. I want to learn "good" algs now, so I will only have to change a couple later on. Recognition will come with practice.

Dan: True. However, I plan on going all out Roux now. I want to stay sub-17 or so w/ Fridrich, but plan on getting much quick with Roux, and learning CMLL may be the way to go. I am wondering if the advantages of more optimized and shorter CMLL algs outweighs the amount I will use COLL algs with other methods. Heck, I may learn both CMLL and COLL eventually.


----------



## deadalnix (Apr 22, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Pat, I would say learn COLL, because you can then use it for other things... on 2x2, there is no M slice, and if you happen to get all 4 edges oriented, you can get use it in your regular speedsolving too.



There is no M slice so he can use CMLL too.

Is regular speedsolving will probably be roux method so he need CMLL too.

No hesitation for me, CMLL, then if you are interested in COLL you'll have a realy good base.

Remember that roux can be sub-15. It's a realy good method.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 22, 2008)

I just realized that I was thinking something totally stupid when I said you need COLL for 2x2. I was thinking that CMLL algs used the M slice, but I know the M slice doesn't mean anything.


----------



## mizzle (Apr 22, 2008)

CMLL and COLL overlap for most algs.

Learn COLL first. You can apply it to every solve, regardless of method, so you'll get good with it faster, and learn to recognize the corners in a variety of configurations (F2L, F2L with oriented LL edges, Roux blocks, corners first, etc.). If you want to later, I recommend going back and learning algs that specifically mess with the M slice and U edges, for specific Roux solving when you notice a bad case coming for when you finish corners.

Definitely learn COLL first. Trust me.


----------



## CanadianPires (Apr 22, 2008)

I haven't learned CLL, COLL, or CMLL fully so I cant vouch for one over the other but wouldn't:

most freedom = most optimized

which leads me to belive CMLL is best for roux?

Yes I understand that many overlap, but for all the other cases CMLL would be best best. Also that COLL, CLL can transfer over to other methods, but he said he was going to go at roux fully so...

And you have to deal with LL edges regardless in roux so why care if it messes them up, if you do COLL it won't afect them but if they are messed up to begin with then you'll still have to deal with them. Only rarely will they be correct and then COLL would preserve them, but that wouldn't be very often at all.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 22, 2008)

Learn both and see how they affect edges to simultaneously solve corners and orient edges? Or more practically avoid bad cases or skip sometimes.


----------



## pjk (Apr 23, 2008)

Alright. I will probably going with learning COLL, then then go from there and learn CMLL, since there appears to be a lot of overlap.

Do you guys know of any pages for COLL other than Bob's, Ron's, Dan's and Lar's?


----------



## Lofty (Apr 23, 2008)

Yes!
If you are a fan of LUR algs you can check mine.
Other than that Leyan also has a COLL page and Tomy sent me these links tho I don't actually know how to get to them other ways.
http://www.planet-puzzle.com/cll/coll_23.html
http://www.planet-puzzle.com/cll/coll_21.html
http://www.speedcubing.com/final_layer_corners_no_edge_flips.html


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 23, 2008)

COLL? why not CLL? Shorter algs than COLL and more like MCLL if you like to switch later. CLL uses more of the standar OLL alg set than COLL, Guess you can solve some 30% of the CLL's using the OLL's you already know, add some mirrors and inverses and you are close to 50%

For example, the 7 OLL's where the edges are oriented are all diffrent CLL's, some got mirrors and some got mirrors and inverses. but on the other hand, they all works as COLL's as well.


----------



## gogozerg (Apr 23, 2008)

pjk said:


> Gilles: True. However, I plan on working on Roux for the next couple of years... I want to learn "good" algs now...



So, why would you learn COLL sequences (that even preserve U-edges orientations) ?
If you're serious, learn optimized sequences, and help me find the best ones.


----------



## mizzle (Apr 23, 2008)

I would learn COLL instead just for being able to see your orientation case early.

Plus, some of us like to work toward EO skips, or all easy cases. COLL is great for that.


----------



## gogozerg (Apr 24, 2008)

mizzle said:


> I would learn COLL instead just for being able to see your orientation case early.



1. COLL preserves edges orientations, but it can permute them. So you don't know what orientation pattern you'll get.

2. When you get used to sequences, you know where and when to track and analyze edges to anticipate edges orientations.


----------



## pjk (Apr 24, 2008)

gogozerg said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > Gilles: True. However, I plan on working on Roux for the next couple of years... I want to learn "good" algs now...
> ...


By the sounds of it (from reading this thread), it helps a lot to learn COLL first. And if they overlap a lot, that makes learning CMLL easy. If I get to a COLL case that is horrible, I will search for a CMLL alg that is much easier.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 24, 2008)

pjk said:


> If I get to a COLL case that is horrible,



*R F' U' R2 F U' F' U R2 U F R'*

X = R F' U' R2
Y = F U' F' U



pjk said:


> I will search for a CMLL alg that is much easier.



*R U R' U R U' B U' B' R'*

Both algs also sets up the case. First alg is the best I found for the COLL case, maybe someone has got a better one? The second is, pretty obivious, a Sune + "FRURUF" (RBU in this case).


----------



## gogozerg (Apr 25, 2008)

[U2] F (R2 U') (R2' U) (R2' U) F' y (R U2' R')
==> (R'FRU)(FU'RUR'U'F')

(R' U2) (R F' R' F) U2 (F' R F)
==> (RB')U(R'B'RU'R'B)

(R U2') (R2' U') (R2 U') (R2' U2' R)
==> F(RUR'U'RUR'U')F'

And others.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 25, 2008)

This isn't that on topic but using COLL I have done a couple Roux solves and I really love the method!
I think I would recommend CMLL tho especially if you want to go all out on this method.


----------

