# Best/fastest Last Layer (F2L + LL) 3x3 (Mainly CFOP)



## Bunyanderman (Oct 24, 2013)

Many different methods than oll and pll on the last layer are in question and becoming popular, as people get more advanced and faster.
To start with the last layer methods, you can influence the last layer on how you insert the last pair.
This being *WV* = Winter Variation or *VHLS*(edge control.)

WV orientates all of the corners on the last layer while inserting the last pair, and VHLS orientates the last layer edges while inserting the last pair(while many cases in VHLS take more moves to insert last pair and orientate just edges, than to insert last pair and perform oll normally). Does this mean you can always solve orientate the last layer while inserting the last pair. Yes you can, but with a unreasonable amount of moves to do so. 

Getting down to learning *COLL* or *ZBLL*, they can be very controversially useful. COLL will orientate the corners and solve the them (useful if edges are orientated (Note you can not use COLL if you use WV because the corners will be orientated, and many people don't learn COLL for the sune cases because the are to awkward to preform fast .)) ZBLL if very useful if one does completely memorizes and recognizes the patter given, ZBLL (493 algorithms needed.) will completely solve the last layer given the edges are orientated. Only a handful of people have tried using and memorizing ZBLL and many times the can't always remember what case goes with what algorithm. 

So what are the best styles to be combined to form the fastest/best last layer? This is where the community comes into place, so please voice your opinion.
(I believe partial edge control + COLL + ZBLL for sune/anti-sune)


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 24, 2013)

best proven system is currently OLL/PLL with random extra stuff

best potential system in my opinion is the flowcharting abstract LL thing I was working on


----------



## kcl (Oct 24, 2013)

Well, COLL/ELL can be fast I know, but generally OLL PLL is best.


----------



## Lchu613 (Oct 24, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> best proven system is currently OLL/PLL with random extra stuff
> 
> best potential system in my opinion is the flowcharting abstract LL thing I was working on



Where? I'm interested. Flowcharts are kewl.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Oct 24, 2013)

Lchu613 said:


> Where? I'm interested. Flowcharts are kewl.



There's a link in his sig.


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> Well, COLL/ELL can be fast I know, but generally OLL PLL is best.


CLL/ELL. COLL when you're ignoring edges would have too many extra unnecessary moves.

I've been thinking about this for ZZ. I'm thinking WV is probably best for 2H and some variant of ZZ-d for OH.


----------



## kcl (Oct 24, 2013)

TDM said:


> CLL/ELL. COLL when you're ignoring edges would have too many extra unnecessary moves.
> 
> I've been thinking about this for ZZ. I'm thinking WV is probably best for 2H and some variant of ZZ-d for OH.



Sorry, CLL!


----------



## mDiPalma (Oct 24, 2013)

Why don't people ever consider OCELL/CPLL after F2L+EO?


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 24, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> Why don't people ever consider OCELL/CPLL after F2L+EO?



Interesting... This would seem to work better on the ZZ method but you would need dedication to learn and the 2-look last layer is still not very good, once you preform OCELL then you might get a nasty E-Perm and that it terrible to preform. Although this might be useful for OH because orientating the corners and permuting edges is 2-gen.


----------



## Username (Oct 24, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> nasty E-Perm and that it terrible to preform.



If you know how to perform it correctly it isn't bad at all. Actually one of my favourite PLL's


I still like OLL/PLL though


----------



## scottishcuber (Oct 24, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> Why don't people ever consider OCELL/CPLL after F2L+EO?



You think OCELL is better than COLL in terms of recognition and speed?

EPLL is definitely better than CPLL.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 24, 2013)

Username said:


> If you know how to perform it correctly it isn't bad at all. Actually one of my favourite PLL'
> 
> I still like OLL/PLL though


That's a thought but what would you like to have a U-perm or E-Perm?


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> Why don't people ever consider OCELL/CPLL after F2L+EO?


All 2-look LL methods are going to take about the same time to do, with the exception of ones where one stage is 2-gen, which is better for OH. OCELL/CPLL isn't going to be that much faster than OLL/PLL, and the same with COLL/EPLL. The fastest methods are probably ones where you affect LL during F2L, but not enough to slow you down by very much.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 24, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> That's a thought but what would you like to have a U-perm or E-Perm?



A fairer comparison would be Z perm with E perm. You shouldn't compare two sets by specifying the worst case from one set and good cases from the other.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 24, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> A fairer comparison would be Z perm with E perm. You shouldn't compare two sets by specifying the worst case from one set and good cases from the other.



Yes I understand that seemed unfair, a fair comparison would be A-perm and U-perm. U-perm seems better any way you put it.


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> Yes I understand that seem unfair, a fair comparison would be A-perm and U-perm. U-perm seems better *any way you put it*.


Not _any_ way. The HTM optimal A perm is faster than the optimal U perm. But other than that, U perms are better. But remember OCEPLL is 2-gen, and COLL isn't.


----------



## Username (Oct 24, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> Yes I understand that seem unfair, a fair comparison would be A-perm and U-perm. U-perm seems better any way you put it.



A-perm > U-perm for me


----------



## mDiPalma (Oct 24, 2013)

Username said:


> A-perm > U-perm for me



Same

for me: 
A>U (~.7 sec vs ~1 sec)
E=Z
H=H

I tried once to learn OCELL, but the recognition was not compatible with my COLL recognition habits, thus taking longer for me. 

But I'm confident that OCELL/CPLL is superior to COLL/EPLL with regards to execution, at least. 

And if you spent enough time adapting to the weird (but easy) OCELL recognition, it very likely would be approximately as quick as COLL recognition.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 24, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> Same
> 
> for me:
> A>U (~.7 sec vs ~1 sec)
> ...



Everyone Is different and I think it is good that we have different opinions, to show the most effective method for the variety of different solving styles.


----------



## EMI (Oct 24, 2013)

TDM said:


> Not _any_ way. The HTM optimal A perm is faster than the optimal U perm. But other than that, U perms are better. But remember OCEPLL is 2-gen, and COLL isn't.



I believe my htm optimal U-perms and A-perms are appr. the same time. My M slice U-perms are quite a bit faster of course.


----------



## brian724080 (Oct 26, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> best proven system is currently OLL/PLL with random extra stuff



That, or ZBLL if all your edges are oriented and you don't mind learning 3 million algorithms


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 26, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> That, or ZBLL if all your edges are oriented and you don't mind learning 3 million algorithms



Nope. ZBLL hasn't shown to be good yet.


----------



## Escher (Oct 26, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Nope. ZBLL hasn't shown to be good yet.



Yeah, ZBLL is kinda weak imo, too many cases for most people to maintain. 

Knowing a bunch of good OLLCPs and having very fast PLLs is a simple system to build for yourself and easy to maintain, along with really helping your PLL prediction. I don't consider anything to be more viable unless somebody manages to make a really insightful system for interpreting full last layers in one look. 

Besides that, I think last pair + some LL effect systems are really good. Honestly though, I think it'd be better to think about the latter part of solving the cube in a more general sense in terms of reducing variance, minimising bad cases and improving your ability to see lucky ones. Some edge control in f2l, a reasonable knowledge of F2L+LL tricks and a useful amount (but not too many) OLLCPs are really helpful in achieving this. Asking for a golden bullet system is simply the wrong way to think about it, imo.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 26, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> That, or ZBLL if all your edges are oriented and you don't mind learning 3 million algorithms



In a perfect world, on paper this is definitely the best proven system. One *can not * learn and use all algorithms to one look last layer every time(given edges are orientated.) Even if you could to recognize and preform the case would be %75 of the time to recognize and preform oll/pll.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 26, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> One *can not * learn and use all algorithms to one look last layer every time(given edges are orientated.)



I'd love to know how you're so certain of this.


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 26, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> I'd love to know how you're so certain of this.


In oll/pll you learn to use the algorithms better when you successfully apply the algorithm if a full solve. In ZBLL you could learn and algorithm and not get the chance to use it until 1000 solves after learning it. By then you have forgotten how to preform/recognize. (Method proposed in 2002 here and 11 years later no one has fully learned all the algorithms. IF some one dedicated their life to this is could definitely be done, but not in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly all my opinion)


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> In oll/pll you learn to use the algorithms better when you successfully apply the algorithm if a full solve. In ZBLL you could learn and algorithm and not get the chance to use it until 1000 solves after learning it. By then you have forgotten how to preform/recognize.



When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)


----------



## Bunyanderman (Oct 26, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)



Yes, i do agree that you wont forget easy algorithms, but when you learn *500* of them you tend to mis-recognize a few.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 26, 2013)

Bunyanderman said:


> Yes, i do agree that you wont forget easy algorithms, but when you learn *500* of them you tend to mis-recognize a few.



Mis-recognize? Yes. Mis-execute? I don't think so.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 26, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Mis-recognize? Yes. Mis-execute? I don't think so.



Both are possible, but both can also be avoided just fine. Either is a sign that you didn't learn well enough.


----------



## stoic (Oct 26, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)



I remembered an alg for solving F2L edges fully 20 years after learning it in the 80s. 
Funnily enough, having learnt full CFOP over the last couple of years I now have no idea what it was


----------



## Nilsibert (Oct 26, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)



I forgot the simple algs I used when solving with some beginner method. I also forgot some OLLs when I used ZZ for about 2 months. Or I mistook them for some other alg, because the cases look similiar. I can imagine that being even worse with ZBLL.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 26, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> I forgot the simple algs I used when solving with some beginner method. I also forgot some OLLs when I used ZZ for about 2 months. Or I mistook them for some other alg, because the cases look similiar. I can imagine that being even worse with ZBLL.



The first situation happens to most beginners because they don't yet have a knowledge base of patterns to pull from, so they don't really know what to look for when memorizing new algs. The second situation is essentially the same thing, you didn't learn those OLLs particularly well, didn't create the proper associations in your mind to aid in remembering the cases/algs. If someone is going to attempt to learn a large alg set like ZBLL, they would presumably be more advanced and actually know how to learn algs. If you know how to learn algs, forgetting them will not be a notable problem.

Why has nobody yet demonstrated full ZB? Because most people would simply rather work on something else, not because it can't be done.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 26, 2013)

Escher said:


> I think it'd be better to think about the latter part of solving the cube in a more general sense in terms of reducing variance, minimising bad cases and improving your ability to see lucky ones.



Thumbs up for a good idea.



Bunyanderman said:


> In a perfect world, on paper this is definitely the best proven system. One *can not * learn and use all algorithms to one look last layer every time(given edges are orientated.) Even if you could to recognize and preform the case would be %75 of the time to recognize and preform oll/pll.





Bunyanderman said:


> In oll/pll you learn to use the algorithms better when you successfully apply the algorithm if a full solve. In ZBLL you could learn and algorithm and not get the chance to use it until 1000 solves after learning it. By then you have forgotten how to preform/recognize. (Method proposed in 2002 here and 11 years later no one has fully learned all the algorithms. IF some one dedicated their life to this is could definitely be done, but not in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly all my opinion)



You are very very wrong. People have learnt ZBLL. I personally learned OLLCP which is an algset with a similar size in a couple of months. It's entirely possible to do so.

There's not even a huge problem with recalling and recognising - it just takes time to get used to doing it fast. It's very possible to get coherent at this, just a matter of putting effort into it.


----------



## Nilsibert (Oct 26, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> The first situation happens to most beginners because they don't yet have a knowledge base of patterns to pull from, so they don't really know what to look for when memorizing new algs. The second situation is essentially the same thing, you didn't learn those OLLs particularly well, didn't create the proper associations in your mind to aid in remembering the cases/algs. If someone is going to attempt to learn a large alg set like ZBLL, they would presumably be more advanced and actually know how to learn algs. If you know how to learn algs, forgetting them will not be a notable problem.
> 
> Why has nobody yet demonstrated full ZB? Because most people would simply rather work on something else, not because it can't be done.



Not sure I agree. I learned the beginner method about 8-9 years ago, and for years, recognition was fast and based on patterns as I use them now for other algs. I also don't think it's quite fair to imply that I'm a beginner who doesn't know about pattern recognition and that I don't know how to learn algs, all based on my post.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 26, 2013)

Nilsibert said:


> Not sure I agree. I learned the beginner method about 8-9 years ago, and for years, recognition was fast and based on patterns as I use them now for other algs. I also don't think it's quite fair to imply that I'm a beginner who doesn't know about pattern recognition and that I don't know how to learn algs, all based on my post.



I interpreted your first statement to mean that you were forgetting algs back _while_ you were using your beginner's method, not that you have forgotten them now, after ceasing use of a beginner's method. Wasn't meaning to imply that you are a beginner now, since I know nothing about you, sorry about that.

As for your second statement (about forgetting OLLs after messing with ZZ), that _does_ imply that you didn't learn the OLLs well enough. Algs shouldn't be forgotten after not using them for a mere couple of months. But at the same time, that example is hardly relevant, because if you are learning/using ZBLL, you should never go a couple of months without seeing/using/practicing any given alg (EDIT: at least not during the stage of still learning it; once you've truly finished learning the set, you'd probably go work on other stuff to your heart's content with less time spent practicing 3x3/ZBLL).


----------



## Nilsibert (Oct 26, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> I interpreted your first statement to mean that you were forgetting algs back _while_ you were using your beginner's method, not that you have forgotten them now, after ceasing use of a beginner's method. Wasn't meaning to imply that you are a beginner now, since I know nothing about you, sorry about that.
> 
> As for your second statement (about forgetting OLLs after messing with ZZ), that _does_ imply that you didn't learn the OLLs well enough. Algs shouldn't be forgotten after not using them for a mere couple of months. But at the same time, that example is hardly relevant, because if you are learning/using ZBLL, you should never go a couple of months without seeing/using/practicing any given alg (EDIT: at least not during the stage of still learning it; once you've truly finished learning the set, you'd probably go work on other stuff to your heart's content with less time spent practicing 3x3/ZBLL).



Oh I get it sorry. I guess I wasn't clear. I forgot those simple algs a while after I learned CFOP, which was about 10 months ago.

You may be right that I didn't learn those cases well enough. Still, one of the "W" shape cases was so easy and I was so good at recognizing and performing it, I was really surprised that I forgot it and had a "oh of course" moment when I looked it up. But it's true that I didn't use it for very long before I used ZZ.

Anyway, it would take A LOT of time to fully be able to recognize and solve each ZBLL case like most people do with, say, PLL. Not impossible to do, but not really probable either.


----------

