# CFCE vs CFOP



## Vexatious (May 1, 2016)

For those who don't know what CFCE is, it's cross, f2l, Cxll(cmll recommended), ELL


On the wiki, the average move count is 54, compared to CFOP's 55. One move isn't that big of a difference, but CFCE has around 5 less algs. Ima roux solver so CFCE would be better to me, but since most use CFOP, I wanted to state the advantages and disadvantages of both.

CFCE has lower movecount(by 1 only though) and lesser algs(still in the 70's though). 

CFOP has higher skip chance-
Even though CFCE has lesser algs, the chance of CLL skip is around the same as the chance of a ELL skip. In CFOP, OLL skips don't happen very much, but PLL skips happen 1/21 times, which is not that rare compared to CFCE having a 1/42 CLL skip.

Ya


----------



## cubecraze1 (May 1, 2016)

You've got your statistics completely wrong. The probabilities of a PLL skip is actually 1/72, ELL skip is probably much rarer.

Also, you need to consider how much easier OLL/PLL is to recognise compared to a difficult CLL/ELL case.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 1, 2016)

> (cmll recommended)


you can't use CMLL because some of the algs ruin the M slice

OLL skip chance=1/(2^3*3^3)=1/216
PLL skip chance=1/(4!*4!/4/4/2)=1/72
OLL or PLL skip chance=1-(215/216)(71/72)~1.85%
CLL skip chance=1/(3^3*4!/4)=1/162
ELL skip chance=1/(2^3*4!/2)=1/96
CLL or ELL skip chance=1-(161/162)(95/96)~1.65%



cubecraze1 said:


> Also, you need to consider how much easier OLL/PLL is to recognise compared to a difficult CLL/ELL case.


I don't think recognition time is that different.


----------



## Vexatious (May 2, 2016)

CMLL disturbs m- slice as Roux users don't match the centers at this stage. CmLL only disturbs the corners and U face edges(I'm positive). Maybe a few algs might. I don't know full cmll yet. ELL is the main topic. ELL isn't as ergonomic as PLL, but recognition can be done by looking at one face only


----------



## h2f (May 2, 2016)

What is CxLL?


----------



## Isaac Lai (May 2, 2016)

h2f said:


> What is CxLL?


CLL but the X can be replaced with any restriction (e.g. COLL preserves EO, CMLL preserves everything but the M slice)


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 2, 2016)

CMLL has an M because it's allowed to affect the M slice, though most common algs only affect LL. So it's CLL ELL, and it's understood in context to be LL on 3x3 and not something like 2x2 CLL.

As it happens, I now do this on 4x4 when I see OLL parity, so I can take care of both parties during ELL in at most one alg.


----------



## h2f (May 2, 2016)

Isaac Lai said:


> CLL but the X can be replaced with any restriction (e.g. COLL preserves EO, CMLL preserves everything but the M slice)



Thanks.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 2, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> ELL isn't as ergonomic as PLL, but recognition can be done by looking at one face only


Not all cases. Do you mean by looking at the top face?http://algdb.net/Set/ELL. Try distinguishing between 2flip(opposite) and FB-flip H. 
Some CLL and ELL cases can be recognized just from the top, but not all. All OLLs can recognized from the top, but no PLLs can. You can however, recognize PLL from two sides.


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 2, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> All OLLs can recognized from the top


Really?


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 2, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> Really?


Oops. Except for the C shapes. And the awkward shapes. I think that's it.
Edit: a lot of OLLs can't be recognized just from the top. Like all of them lol


----------



## Vexatious (May 3, 2016)

Maybe I should have thought more before speaking. CFCE was made around the same time as CFOP. Wonder why it never became popilar


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 3, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> Edit: a lot of OLLs can't be recognized just from the top. Like all of them lol


Only 5 of the 57 can be recognized just from the top.


----------



## sqAree (May 3, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> Only 5 of the 57 can be recognized just from the top.



I'd say it's 7.
One OCLL case, two dot cases, the two big lightning bolt shapes and the other two with all corners oriented.


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 3, 2016)

sqAree said:


> I'd say it's 7.
> One OCLL case, two dot cases, the two big lightning bolt shapes and the other two with all corners oriented.


Forgot about the lightning bolts.


----------



## obelisk477 (May 3, 2016)

sqAree said:


> I'd say it's 7.
> One OCLL case, two dot cases, the two big lightning bolt shapes and the other two with all corners oriented.



If you mean purely the top stickers only, I can't imagine which OCLL you mean. You can't differentiate between T and U, Pi or H, S or AS. You can see the L OCLL, but you cant see which AUF it is without side stickers. I think the same is true of lightning bolts. The only OLLs I can think of that work from only top stickers are adj flip, opp flip, and 4 flip.


----------



## sqAree (May 3, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> If you mean purely the top stickers only, I can't imagine which OCLL you mean. You can't differentiate between T and U, Pi or H, S or AS. You can see the L OCLL, but you cant see which AUF it is without side stickers. I think the same is true of lightning bolts. The only OLLs I can think of that work from only top stickers are adj flip, opp flip, and 4 flip.



If you care for AUFS we shouldn't assume there are 57 cases because then there are quite a few more.


----------



## obelisk477 (May 3, 2016)

sqAree said:


> If you care for AUFS we shouldn't assume there are 57 cases because then there are quite a few more.



I'm not saying each AUF is an OLL, I'm saying you cant *execute* an OLL using only the top stickers except in corners solved cases.


----------



## sqAree (May 3, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> I'm not saying each AUF is an OLL, I'm saying you cant *execute* an OLL using only the top stickers except in corners solved cases.



Well, that's obviously correct, yep. One could argue about what was meant as it's absolutely legit to say an OLL case got recognized when you can tell which of the 57 it is.
Also, as there are 58 OLL cases in total, I'd say we have another one that can be recognized and also executed.


----------



## Vexatious (May 3, 2016)

The last layer is difference. Everyone knows what OLLCP is, but how many algs for OLLEP? Might be useful, might not. Has anyone generated algs for it?


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 3, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> The last layer is difference. Everyone knows what OLLCP is, but how many algs for OLLEP?


Over 600.


----------



## Vexatious (May 3, 2016)

Ok. That's not as useful as I thought


----------



## cubecraze1 (May 3, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> Ok. That's not as useful as I thought



And that A/E perms aren't as quick as U/H/Z.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 3, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> The last layer is difference. Everyone knows what OLLCP is, but how many algs for OLLEP? Might be useful, might not. Has anyone generated algs for it?


OLLEP would have exactly the same number of algs as OLLCP. So 331 algs


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 3, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> OLLEP would have the about same number of algs as OLLCP. So about 331 algs


I don't think so.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 3, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> I don't think so.


why ?


----------



## supercavitation (May 3, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> why ?



There should be the same number. If you fix the corners, there are 12 EP states and 6 CP states, but if you fix the edges, there are 6 EP States and 12 CP states. It's the same number of cases, just a different way of counting them.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 3, 2016)

supercavitation said:


> There should be the same number. If you fix the corners, there are 12 EP states and 6 CP states, but if you fix the edges, there are 6 EP States and 12 CP states. It's the same number of cases, just a different way of counting them.


yeah so its 331, not 600, right?


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 3, 2016)

supercavitation said:


> There should be the same number. If you fix the corners, there are 12 EP states and 6 CP states, but if you fix the edges, there are 6 EP States and 12 CP states. It's the same number of cases, just a different way of counting them.


I am retarded.
I was thinking of the 12 EPLL cases but obviously those come in pairs if you ignore corners.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2016)

I think that CFCE has potential(I learned a CFCE-like method as my beginner method)


----------



## Vexatious (May 5, 2016)

I dunno. Every method has potential, but I'm assuming CFOP has less m-slice algs and is more ergonmic


----------



## shadowslice e (May 5, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> I dunno. Every method has potential, but I'm assuming CFOP has less m-slice algs and is more ergonmic


I think it's more to do with the recognition. M-slice algs really aren't that bad (and are usually faster than non-slice algs)


----------



## Aaron Lau (May 5, 2016)

no offence but it really seems you should have done more research before posting this thread because it seems most of the things u thought weren't actually right....


----------



## Vexatious (May 5, 2016)

Since OLL-EP has so many algs, I was thinking whether this would work...
To force a pure flip( or H perm maybe), we could orient and permute all corners,while permutting edges(not necessarily orienting them). Something like COLL+ EP, but edges don't get oriented.


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 5, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> Since OLL-EP has so many algs, I was thinking whether this would work...
> To force a pure flip( or H perm maybe), we could orient and permute all corners,while permutting edges(not necessarily orienting them). Something like COLL+ EP, but edges don't get oriented.


You could just use ZBLL for this. 493 cases.

Edit: Actually, since you don't need to preserve edge orientation, you could possibly generate other algs for some of the cases. I doubt they'd be any better than the standard ZBLLs for most cases though.


----------



## supercavitation (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> would it be possible to have COL Last layer algorithms?



I assume you mean COALL? They've been generate a few times. The algs aren't good.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

I posted on the wrong thread, Im sorry.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

The best ZBLL idea Ive seen is lars petrus's: learn 40 algorithms and then use a combination of two of them to solve each ZBLL case. the only hard part is memorizing the case combinations, but that can be pronted out on a cheat sheet or something.
Its only 2-3 moves more than the optimal ZBLL cases, and its still fast, but lars petrus's algs aren't as clear as they could be, someone has to work on them.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 5, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> Since OLL-EP has so many algs, I was thinking whether this would work...
> To force a pure flip( or H perm maybe), we could orient and permute all corners,while permutting edges(not necessarily orienting them). Something like COLL+ EP, but edges don't get oriented.


Pure flips are generally the worst algs.


----------



## stoic (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> The best ZBLL idea Ive seen is lars petrus's: learn 40 algorithms and then use a combination of two of them to solve each ZBLL case. the only hard part is memorizing the case combinations, but that can be pronted out on a cheat sheet or something.
> Its only 2-3 moves more than the optimal ZBLL cases, and its still fast, but lars petrus's algs aren't as clear as they could be, someone has to work on them.


Did you see Kirjava's work on this kind of idea?
Don't know if he ever finished it, but I seem to recall he posted a lot of raw data in that thread.


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> The best ZBLL idea Ive seen is lars petrus's: learn 40 algorithms and then use a combination of two of them to solve each ZBLL case.


If you're going to use two algorithms anyway, then why would you not just use COLL-EPLL?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 5, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> If you're going to use two algorithms anyway, then why would you not just use COLL-EPLL?


I think the point is that the solutions will be nicer on average, that's what Kir was going for too but learning and recall were an issue.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> The best ZBLL idea Ive seen is lars petrus's: learn 40 algorithms and then use a combination of two of them to solve each ZBLL case. the only hard part is memorizing the case combinations, but that can be pronted out on a cheat sheet or something.
> Its only 2-3 moves more than the optimal ZBLL cases, and its still fast, but lars petrus's algs aren't as clear as they could be, someone has to work on them.



But the thing is the hardest part of learning ZBLL is linking the algorithm to its cases, not learning the algs themselves. If you did Lar's 1look 2 alg approach you would have already done like 60% of the work already, so you might as well just learn the algs.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 6, 2016)

Has anybody tried generating OLLEP algs?
I'm curious to see if OLLEP+CPLL could work. CPLL would be 8/12 A perms, 2/12 E perms, 1/12 solved, and 1/12 H perm. 
For most people, are U perms faster or A perms?


----------



## PurpleBanana (May 6, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> Has anybody tried generating OLLEP algs?
> I'm curious to see if OLLEP+CPLL could work. CPLL would be 8/12 A perms, 2/12 E perms, 1/12 solved, and 1/12 H perm.
> For most people, are U perms faster or A perms?


U perms are faster for me and I think for most others as well.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

the reason no one uses CFCE is that the 2-look systems are nonexistent, and so that means learning the 42 and 24 algorithms right at the start.


----------



## TDM (May 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> the reason no one uses CFCE is that the 2-look systems are nonexistent, and so that means learning the 42 and 24 algorithms right at the start.


They are existent.  2-look CLL is the same as 2-look CMLL/2x2 CLL, and 2-look ELL can be done with orient -> permute. That's 7+2+3+4 = 16 algs, the same as CFOP 4-look LL's 3+7+2+4.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

You could also solve the ELL as a Roux case if you're already practiced in that, which would be likely inefficient, but would work okay until you learned the algs


----------



## Vexatious (May 6, 2016)

Let's look at move effeciency for a second in the full Cll/Ell vs Oll/Pll


----------

