# Fridrich with early edges orientation



## Pyjam (Mar 28, 2011)

Hi there,

Since this weekend, I’m playing with a method I would call CEOFCOP : Cross – Edges Orientation – F2L – Corners Orientation – PLL. Hum… no, I wouldn’t call it like this. Maybe Fredo = Fridrich (with early) EDges Orientation.

I suppose you get the idea: after the cross, I orient the 8 remaining edges. As I may choose the cube orientation before, there are rarely more than 6 edges to orient, often only 2 or 4. Orientation is easy and I found a couple of algorithms to orient 4 edges in one step. So, it’s relatively fast.

You see the pros: very fast F2L without cube orientation or F/F’ moves. Easy OCLL. OLL skip chance is 1/27.

I’m not interested by ZZ or Petrus for the moment. I’m awful with block-building, and I don’t want to prepare orientation for 12 edges during the inspection!

I’m not seeing this as a revolutionary speedsolving method. Not at all. I'm averaging around 30 for the moment, and my idea is more to train my look-ahead during F2L while avoiding tricky cases. It also trains my ability to recognize edge orientation. It could be a preparation for another method.

I’m wondering if there were previous discussions about this method or available resources. The Wiki does not mention it.

Also, if you used this method, or have anything to say about it, feel free to express. Thank you.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 28, 2011)

inb4movecount is bad


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Mar 28, 2011)

ZZ is and will be better because you can use inspection of eo and it not count in the time. but you can always get the reconization down to a minimum. LOL this reminds me of the methods I have created in 1 1/2 years:
FCOP (like CFOP)
Random pairs (like hiese: more complex)
Buttermilk (1x2x3 : EO+expantion to 2x2x3 : Finish F2L with block build : COLL : EP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------(ZBLL)


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Mar 28, 2011)

Isn't this just a slight modification of ZZ:
EOLine - Cross - F2L <RUL> - LL


----------



## cyoubx (Mar 28, 2011)

I literally started trying this a couple days ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish.

After my first day, I got 20 second averages and plenty of sub 20 singles (I average 14-15 with CFOP).

I used
1. EO
2. Cross
3. Fridrich F2L
4. OLL/WV if the case was easy
5. PLL

My verdict: It's definitely slower. Although it creates easy F2L pairs, think about the movecount. The EO itself takes 6 extra moves (on average), and F2L isn't necessarily faster. For a few cases, it's better to use cube rotations than strictly use three-gen.

I only see this worthy for people either unfamiliar with OLL and/or are interested in converting to ZZ. Otherwise, this is highly inefficient and killed my times.


----------



## Julian (Mar 28, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Isn't this just a slight modification of ZZ:
> EOLine - Cross - F2L <RUL> - LL


That would be EOCross, a very limiting form of ZZ.


----------



## PeterNewton (Mar 28, 2011)

cyoubx said:


> I literally started trying this a couple days ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish.


You gotta see this


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 28, 2011)

cyoubx said:


> I literally started trying this a couple days ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish
> [...]
> My verdict: It's definitely slower. Although it creates easy F2L pairs, think about the movecount. The EO itself takes 6 extra moves (on average), and F2L isn't necessarily faster. For a few cases, it's better to use cube rotations than strictly use three-gen.



My opinion is that you're already too fast for this.

*BUT…*

this is not my method.

The method I described is :

0. Plan the cross during inspection.
1. Cross
2A. Rotate the cube to minimize the number of misoriented edges.
2B. Orient 6 edges, but often only 4 or 2. Like in the Petrus method.
3. F2L

This is not ZZ. This is not a FMC method.

It's at best a speedsolving method for intermediate cubers. Perhaps, a method better than CFOP with 2-look OLL. It doesn't pretend to be more.


----------



## KYLOL (Mar 28, 2011)

cyoubx said:


> I literally started trying this a couple *years* ago, but neglected to post anything because the idea seemed fairly foolish.


----------



## Cool Frog (Mar 28, 2011)

KYLOL said:


>


 
This


----------



## cyoubx (Mar 28, 2011)

PeterNewton said:


> You gotta see this


 
HAHAHA, that's great! Not my intention, but it's almost completely parallel 



Pyjam said:


> The method I described is :
> 
> 0. Plan the cross during inspection.
> 1. Cross
> ...



I feel like 2A and 2B take too long though. I wasn't claiming it was the same as ZZ at all, but EO is definitely the striking similarity. Orientation is used at the beginning of ZZ because it's hard to recognize in the middle of solving. I feel like planning out the cross first then doing EO would be slow simply because of recognition. Cross, on the other hand, consists of 4 pieces, so it can be recognized relatively easy.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 28, 2011)

Someone I used to know used this method (in like 2009 or something). I can't remember the nickname he went by, though. He was pretty decent with it (16ish average?) but it always seemed to me to take too many moves compared to normal Fridrich, and to not really save much in terms of ergonomics/rotations.


----------



## cyoubx (Mar 28, 2011)

KYLOL said:


>


 
...the use of  confuses me. It's more coincidental that it was two days. The point of that was to remark on the coincidence, not the fact that it was thought of before...


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 28, 2011)

cyoubx, try any other method you don't already know *during one day* only. Aren't you a couple of seconds slower? What do you conclude?

Anyway, in my opinion, sub-20 cubers will never take profit from this method.

It's targeted to 30 s.- 1 min. cubers who use 2-look OLL and want something potientially faster because of the easier F2L.


----------



## KYLOL (Mar 28, 2011)

I believe it was Ron van Bruchem and another fellow ( someone who was very active in the community, and very fast at solving, Sorry I forgot his name ) brought up the idea that orienting all edges before you even started the cross would greatly reduce inconvenient cases throughout your entire solve. This was years and years ago, but this idea sounds remarkably similar.


----------



## cyoubx (Mar 28, 2011)

I was merely commenting on the order of the steps, not necessarily whether or not it would be good for beginners. 
My first post was more or less saying that it would be ineffective for faster cubers (which you acknowledged later).

My second post was actually going over the steps of YOUR method, which has nothing to do with me trying it anymore.

I agree that F2L would be faster, and OLL would be easier, all I'm commenting on is how it would be faster *overall?* As I mentioned before, recognizing mis-oriented pieces during a solve seems impractical even for beginners.

Cross - 4 pieces - relatively easy to find without inspection
EO - 6 pieces - relatively *difficult* to find. Most beginners are not color neutral, so they would have a hard time dealing with colors other than the cross color.

In any case, those were just my thoughts, I'm not bashing your ideas at all. I'm just questioning the order of the steps


----------



## collinbxyz (Mar 29, 2011)

When I am timing a method I just created, what I do is after 2 minutes and I run into a parity, I scramble the cube and solve it with CFOP. 

just saying


----------



## Cool Frog (Mar 29, 2011)

collinbxyz said:


> When I am timing a method I just created, what I do is after 2 minutes and I run into a parity, I scramble the cube and solve it with CFOP.
> 
> just saying


 
Solve parity.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2011)

It's a good idea as far as it goes (I'm glad you don't intend it to be a legit speedsolving method). However, even as an intermediate step, I would consider any significant time investment into this idea a bad move.

Here's the problem: rather than help your lookahead, it will completely eff it up. I use ZZ, and every time I go Fridrich just for fun, I find it nearly impossible to smoothly solve F2L pairs that have a bad edge because I'm so used to never having to do so. Yes, you get to avoid bad cases, but unfortunately you'll be doing so in a way that will not only slow you down, but also force you to become more and more reliant on bad habits.

On the other hand, if you suddenly become interested in ZZ, you can always PM me....


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

cyoubx, if 6 edges are already too difficult for a beginner, what about 12? There is no need to be color neutral to identify the orientation (I'm not). I only need to know simple rules and to open my eyes.

On my opinion, this method is not worse than Petrus. Is it? Petrus is a decent method, I guess.
*EDIT :* I wonder why orienting edges after the cross would be worse than after the first block like in Petrus, or after the F2L like in CFOP, which are both considered decent methods. Aren’t they?
*EDIT 2 :* I mean, why would it be slower than Petrus while the situation is almost the same?

I agree with you Anonymous. There's a risk to develop bad habits if I only practice this method. But it could be good a complement to the complete CFOP method: an exercise among others. I would like to try it a couple of weeks, to see.

Regarding ZZ... hum, lot of buZZ, sure. But I'm not convince it's a better method than CFOP (even for who is crazy enough to learn the 500 billions algs for 1-look LL). Perhaps, but I don't know who use it among the top cubers.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 29, 2011)

6gen F2L >>>>> 3gen f2l.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> On my opinion, this method is not worse than Petrus. Is it? Petrus is a decent method, I guess.



Statements like these will do well to discredit your ideas.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

You're right. I rephrased my statement.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> 6gen F2L >>>>> 3gen f2l.


 
Elaborate?


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2011)

EO after 2x2x3 and EO after cross are two extremely different situations.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> EO after 2x2x3 and EO after cross are two extremely different situations.


Could you explain why, please? I'm sincerely interested.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2011)

Recog is easier for EO after a 2x2x3, it produces 2gen and not 3gen, you can quite easily recog/fix two bad edges while connecting a 1x2x2 to a 2x2x2. There are other minor advantages.

The greatest skill of a truly good method developer is the ability to recognise when an idea is poor and abandon it.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

_— Recog is easier for EO after a 2x2x3._

I don’t understand why. I tried both situations and, for me, it’s the same thing.

_— it produces 2gen and not 3gen_

Good point.

_— you can quite easily recog/fix two bad edges while connecting a 1x2x2 to a 2x2x2._

I can do the same while finishing the cross.

_— There are other minor advantages._

I believe you.

_— The greatest skill of a truly good method developer is the ability to recognise when an idea is poor and abandon it. _

Certainly, but fortunately I have no such ambition. The cube is also a game and I would like to play with my ideas.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Mar 29, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> The greatest skill of a truly good method developer is the ability to recognise when an idea is poor and abandon it.


 
You guys should try not to take offence to that statement. He's had a similar conversation (with sincerity) a few times prior to this thread. When it comes to developing methods / learning them, Kirjava is definitely a good resource for help.

Don't forget guys that there are alternate insertion methods for pairs that also allows for partial edge control. Also don't forget that you can't have just one flipped edge, so you can use this to help predict bad edges.

Alternate insertion method: R' F R F' (Sledge Hammer)
Alternate #2: F R' F' R (I believe this is called Hedge Slammer?)
Alternate #3: r U R' U' M

PeterNewton: That Dilbert strip, priceless!


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

I feel no offense. I don't consider myself a “method creator”, neither a good speedcuber. I'm playing with my cubes and some ideas. I will not abandon them because someone says they're bad. It doesn't forbid to discuss them, and to learn more about other methods.

_Alternate insertion method: R' F R F' (Sledge Hammer)
Alternate #2: F R' F' R (I believe this is called Hedge Slammer?)
Alternate #3: r U R' U' M
_
I use them (and also (F' r U r') on the left side, and (f R' f') in the rear). I also added (U2) l R U' R' U l' and (U') F R' F' R2 U R' to the Wiki…

…and 10 algo for other cases. Some more useful, I hope.


----------



## uberCuber (Mar 29, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> cyoubx, if 6 edges are already too difficult for a beginner, what about 12?


 
The difference here is that the 12 can be looked at during inspection, but the 6 (8?) must be inspected during the solve.


----------



## teller (Mar 29, 2011)

It's a good type of exercise, regardless. Recognizing edge orientation now, rather than later, is a good thing.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 29, 2011)

Anonymous said:


> Elaborate?


 
A lot of cases in the <R, U, L> moveset are long and nasty, and you are so restricted. RUL is only advantageous if you have the blockbuilding freedom allowed by ZZ.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> _— Recog is easier for EO after a 2x2x3._
> 
> I don’t understand why. I tried both situations and, for me, it’s the same thing.



Less pieces, less rules for what makes a 'bad edge'.



Pyjam said:


> _— you can quite easily recog/fix two bad edges while connecting a 1x2x2 to a 2x2x2._
> 
> I can do the same while finishing the cross.



Not as easily.



Pyjam said:


> _— There are other minor advantages._
> 
> I believe you.



Think of half the cross edges as a restriction. Wouldn't it be better to do LineEO (not EOLine) instead? This way is just setting yourself up for a higher movecount. There's a reason why "Place DR" isn't a step in Petrus.

This is a bit of a nutty alternative to suggest for EOLL, don't you think?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 29, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> A lot of cases in the <R, U, L> moveset are long and nasty, and you are so restricted. RUL is only advantageous if you have the blockbuilding freedom allowed by ZZ.


 
Oh I see what you're saying. I thought you were including ZZ in your statement.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Less pieces, less rules for what makes a 'bad edge'.


7 edges to look at for Petrus, 8 for “my method”, no more than 6 has a bad orientation in both case. And I do not have to deal with the DR edge. I'm more trained for my method and actually I find it easier.

I'm convinced that Petrus is a better speedsolving method. I say: if you're trained enough (I think of weeks of training), EO in my method isn't that difficult.

Blockbuilding is only a torture for my brain. You really have no idea of my difficulty to build a 2x2 block. I almost can solve the cube by the time I build one. :fp Planning 12 EO during inspection is too hard for me.

But, there are two things I can: cross planning during inspection and 8 EO during the solve. Therefore “my method”.



Kirjava said:


> Think of half the cross edges as a restriction. Wouldn't it be better to do LineEO (not EOLine) instead? This way is just setting yourself up for a higher movecount. There's a reason why "Place DR" isn't a step in Petrus.
> 
> This is a bit of a nutty alternative to suggest for EOLL, don't you think?


I don't understand everything. I tried 1/2 cross during inspection but it's not enough. I can do more during inspection but not EO. 3/4 cross + partial EO is the next step.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> 7 edges to look at for Petrus, 8 for “my method”, no more than 6 has a bad orientation in both case. And I do not have to deal with the DR edge.



You still have to look in more places and detect edge orientation in more than two layers. This alone makes it harder. Not having to deal with DR is offset by the massive burden of having to look for EO on /all/ midges. There are more cases to learn because there are more places the edges can be in. EO will take more moves on average after cross as opposed to after 2x2x3.



Pyjam said:


> I'm more trained for my method and actually I find it easier.



Bias.



Pyjam said:


> I'm convinced that Petrus is a better speedsolving method. I say: if you're trained enough (I think of weeks of training), EO in my method isn't that difficult.



CPLS isn't difficult. It's not good, either.



Pyjam said:


> Blockbuilding is only a torture for my brain. You really have no idea of my difficulty to build a 2x2 block. I almost can solve the cube by the time I build one. :fp Planning 12 EO during inspection is too hard for me.
> 
> But, there are two things I can: cross planning during inspection and 8 EO during the solve. Therefore “my method”.
> 
> I don't understand everything. I tried 1/2 cross during inspection but it's not enough. I can do more during inspection but not EO. 3/4 cross + partial EO is the next step.



Saying you use something because you can't use something else isn't a good way to advocate a method. But, I know you're not trying to advocate it, so no worries  

I'd be interested in seeing some movecount stats from you of using EO vs not using EO. I know that the movecount for CFOP will be lower than this method (even with 2LOLL), but maybe you're gonna produce some funky statistics 

This thread kinda reminds me of our foray into RouxZZ. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

Movecount isn't my priority.
Depending on the location of the bad edges, EO can be fast or not.
The worse cases aren't those with more bad edges.
4 bad edges on top: F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f' (12 moves)
8 bad edges: (R2 U R' U' M2' D L' D' r2) y (9 moves)

A couple of examples.

====
Yellow on top, Green on front.
Scramble: B2 R U B' L F2 L F2 B' L2 B' F2 U R' L2 U2 R2 D B' R D2 L D2 R D2
Cross: u L2 u U F R'
I look at the equatorial slice around the cube. Left would be a perfect rear side because FL and BL are oriented: yellow and red beside the orange center. On the right side, both edges are bad (if orange is the back): yellow is on the front, bleu is beside the red center. On the top, 2 good and 2 bad (UR: yellow on the side, UB: green on top). It's an easy case.
EO: R2 U R' U' R2 (y)
It's done. 4 bad edges, 5 moves.
====
Scramble: F2 B D' L U' B2 U L F L2 D2 B F2 L B2 F2 L2 R' B' U2 L' U2 B' U2 L
Cross: L u F R' L' F2
Look around the cube. I see 2 yellow on opposite sides: FL and BR. FR and BL are bad. On top, 2 bad edges. Easy case again.
(F' U' F) u2 (F' U2 F)
It's done. 4 bad edges, 6 moves (u2 completes the cross).
====
Scramble: F2 D U' R' L' F' B U B2 R2 B D2 U2 L2 R' F' B U L' F' U B2 L2 B D2
Cross: U D L D R B'
Look around the cube. Right should be on the rear.
Bad edges: FL + 3 on top. Not a handy case when the bad edge is on the right after rotation.
(y) F' U' (L' U' L U) F u2 
It's done. 4 bad edges, 7 moves (u2 completes the cross)
====
Scramble : R2 D' F2 R D' L D R2 D2 B' L' U' F2 U' F' L' R F U' F2
Cross : D' U' R' F B' u2 L2
Look around the cube: 3 bad edges. On top: only 1 if we put Orange/Red on front.
(L U2 L') u2 (y) (R U2 R' F U' F)
4 bad edges, 10 moves.
If we choose Green/Bleu on front :
(u2 F' U' F) (y) (U R2 U R' U' R2) (y)
6 bad edges, 10 moves.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> The worse cases aren't those with more bad edges.
> 4 bad edges on top: F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f' (12 moves)
> 8 bad edges: (R2 U R' U' M2' D L' D' r2) y (9 moves)


 
4 bad edges on top: L' R' B' R2 U2 B L R (8 moves)


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 29, 2011)

Thanks.

So, it's probably never more than 9 moves, and maybe average 6 or 7 moves. First of 2-look OLL is 6 moves on average.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2011)

You're forgetting that after EO the movecount of F2L is increased.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm not. But speed is supposed to be increased.


----------



## cyoubx (Mar 30, 2011)

Maybe...
1. EO may not be a lot of moves, but it's not necessarily fast for beginners with pseudo-finger tricks
2. F2L is definitely faster without a three-gen stipulation.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2011)

So you're getting higher movecount and restrictions on moves you can perform?

If speed was your aim you are doing it wrong.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 30, 2011)

Since the beginning I understand why it would not work for everyone, but it would for people who struggle with the F2L and want to practice the easier cases. If you do your F2L in 5 seconds, obviously you don't need that.

OH, I already gained almost 1 minute! You see my level…


----------



## Godmil (Mar 30, 2011)

I think learning a temporary extra step (which involves more algs that aren't used if you drop this approach) is a bad plan.
However, learning to quickly identify the orientation of edges during the F2L could be really useful in the long run (for cutting down on cube rotations).
So it has good and bad points.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> Since the beginning I understand why it would not work for everyone, but it would for people who struggle with the F2L


 
I don't think people who struggle with F2L would be very good at EO.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I don't think people who struggle with F2L would be very good at EO.


 
I guess you're kind of right. Someone who has experience with F2L but is bad at it will likely not find adding EO into the equation to help them.

On the other hand, the skills needed for each are, obviously, very different, and I for one am reasonably good at EO but horrible at Fridrich F2L. I think it all depends on the person. Not that this addresses the other problems with what's been suggested.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 30, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> there are never more than 6 edges to orient


 
That's not true, there can still be 8 misoriented edges, regardless of cuberotation. (eg pureflip )

But whats about, plannig your cross in a way that just the 4 F2L edges become oriented. That still gives you rotationless F2L and an easier lookahead for partial edge control.


----------



## Pyjam (Mar 30, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> That's not true, there can still be 8 misoriented edges, regardless of cuberotation. (eg pureflip )


Exact. I saw it yesterday: 8 bad edges: (R2 U R' U' M2' D L' D' r2) y (9 moves)



oll+phase+sync said:


> But whats about, plannig your cross in a way that just the 4 F2L edges become oriented. That still gives you rotationless F2L and an easier lookahead for partial edge control.


It's seems more complicated for only a partial result. I appreciate the first-look OLL skip every time.

You know, most of the time, I see some of the bad edges while finishing the cross, there are often 2 bad edges on a side and 2 on top, I do R2 U R' U' R2 (y) and it's done.

It's really not as hard and slow as some who maybe have never tried are saying, at least for cubers SUP-30.


----------



## Cyragia (Jun 7, 2013)

*Edge Orientation + Fridrich*

Hello,
First I'd like to say I've only been cubing for about 2 months, so i'm not that good yet (~40s average).
But while looking through some tutorials I came up with an idea, it's very likely somebody else already came up with it, but I couldn't find anything.
My idea is to orient all edges like in the ZZ method before doing the cross (or during the cross), then you can do F2L without F and B turns and less/no cuberotations.
The OLL is also massively simplified as the cross is already finished so you only need to know 7 out of the 57 OLL algorithms. (the ones used in 2-look OLL)
Is this an improvement over the standard Fridrich method ?
Would it be worth it to put my time into properly learning how to orient all the edges, or would i be better off learning the full 57 OLL algorithms and practice F2L a bit more ?


----------



## Username (Jun 7, 2013)

This would simply be ZZ with EOCrosses, which are harder to plan than EOLines


----------



## etshy (Jun 7, 2013)

It's callled ZBLS 
lots of algs , You should definitely work on your F2l and Plls and Olls before even considering this


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 7, 2013)

No eo cross. Zz or not.


----------



## kcl (Jun 7, 2013)

etshy said:


> It's callled ZBLS
> lots of algs , You should definitely work on your F2l and Plls and Olls before even considering this



Nono VHF2L all the way.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 7, 2013)

etshy said:


> It's callled ZBLS
> lots of algs , You should definitely work on your F2l and Plls and Olls before even considering this


That's something different.


----------



## etshy (Jun 7, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> That's something different.



could you mention the difference between them ?

as far as i know they are the same except vhf2l has less algs because the pair is already matched


----------



## Cyragia (Jun 7, 2013)

Afaik this isn't the same as ZBLS.
I'm 'my' method you do EO -> Cross (without messing up edge orientation) -> Fridrich slot based F2L (only LRU turns) -> OLL (which is automatically reduced to 1-look / 7 algs) -> PLL (which doesn't change)
So it's completely the same apart from the EO part and the simplified F2L and OLL.



TheCubeMaster said:


> If your averaging sub 40 I would not bother wasting your time learning full oll and pll algs, 4 look is good enough for now. Although it is a good idea I would not worry about F and B moves in your f2l, and just a tip - Don't use B Moves!! They are slow, a rotation is even faster than them (in f2l) practice your fingertricks and try using a thing called Look Ahead.



I wasn't planning on learning 2-look LL yet, I'm just thinking about how things could be simplified/improved. And don't worry, I don't use B moves, but I do use F moves (which are slow for me because I almost always have to do a cube rotation)



Username said:


> This would simply be ZZ with EOCrosses, which are harder to plan than EOLines


Kinda, It also uses Fridrich slot-based F2L instead of block building. and If you're doing EO then Cross it's not that hard.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 7, 2013)

Cyragia said:


> Afaik this isn't the same as ZBLS.
> I'm 'my' method you do EO -> Cross (without messing up edge orientation) -> Fridrich slot based F2L (only LRU turns) -> OLL (which is automatically reduced to 1-look / 7 algs) -> PLL (which doesn't change)
> So it's completely the same apart from the EO part and the simplified F2L and OLL.
> 
> ...



The problem with your method (which really is just eocross instead of eoline) is that you're losing a large part of the major benefits that come from using ZZ. Blockbuilding is way more efficient than using an F2L style of edge-corner pairing and insertion (F2L really is just a simplified and highly constrained "blockbuilding"). If you're going to go to all the trouble of orienting your edges, why negate some of that advantage by using an inefficient blockbuilding system?


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 7, 2013)

This is not a new thing, just a worse version of an old thing. Feel free to defend it as much as you want, but don't try to pass it off as a new method or your own method. Kinda reminds me of the guy who made "his own method" which was just CFOP with beginner's method LL. This is obviously not as bad though.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 8, 2013)

etshy said:


> could you mention the difference between them ?
> 
> as far as i know they are the same except vhf2l has less algs because the pair is already matched


VHLS is indeed a subset of ZBLS, but my point was that the OP is not talking about ZBLS. ZBLS is irrelevant.


----------



## Jorghi (Jun 8, 2013)

Thought of this a hella long time ago. I checked and found out that since all the edges are oriented using the method, the f2l algorithms drop dramatically (no rotations or F/B moves). So multislotting is what makes this method desirable (the number of algorithms is pretty low ... 20 + 1 solved case?).


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 8, 2013)

Jorghi said:


> Thought of this a hella long time ago. I checked and found out that since all the edges are oriented using the method, the f2l algorithms drop dramatically (no rotations or F/B moves). So multislotting is what makes this method desirable (the number of algorithms is pretty low).


I tried it for a while and found that although you can avoid rotations and F/B, some F2L cases are more awkward. Abandoned it because EO was taking me way longer before F2L than after.


----------



## Jorghi (Jun 8, 2013)

Well.. You can at least orient the F2L edge(s) that you lookahead at while solving the cross. Just wondering but you don't need to orient the last layer edges.


----------



## Pyjam (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm the OP (2 years ago). I'm not sure the merge of the two topics is relevant.

I defended the possibility to do cross then EO, not EO then cross.

Half cross (DF+DB) then EO is certainly a better idea than cross + EO. However, ZZ is an even better idea.

The only reason I see to do half cross then EO is for the 4x4.


----------

