# COLL/EPLL faster than OLL/PLL by how much?



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 24, 2009)

I want to know if anyone has/can take an average for their LL using COLL/EPLL and take a separate average using OLL/PLL. I want to see how much of an advantage COLL has over the other (and I'm sure others do, too).

I've already started learning how to recognize the COLL cases of the inverses/mirrors of the OLLs I know with all edges oriented and want to know if I should continue with learning COLL.


----------



## byu (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't know how much faster it actually is, but the only reason I would learn COLL is to increase the chance of a PLL skip.


----------



## hr.mohr (Apr 24, 2009)

Why do you believe that COLL are faster? Move count? Execution time? Recognition time?


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 24, 2009)

Won't you also need EOLL?


----------



## mazei (Apr 24, 2009)

Isn't it just ELL and CLL


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 24, 2009)

mazei said:


> Isn't it just ELL and CLL



I presume that you already have the cross pieces oriented? =P
thus, COLL + EPLL.
CLL and ELL is totally different...well not really =P CLL does not preserve edge orientation...ELL solves the edges after CLL, be it oriented or not.


----------



## Aeonstorm (Apr 24, 2009)

The point of learning COLL is that you either get a PLL Skip or an exceptionally easy to recognize and execute PLL involving only the edges.

I'm not sure about whether it is actually faster, but remember that you also have to learn 32 VH algorithms to orient the last layer edges at the same time as your last F2L pair. Otherwise, you have to manually do that, which just becomes 2-look COLL, which is slower than just OLL.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 24, 2009)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember: 

COLL = Orient and permute corners in one step, without messing up edge orientation
CLL = Same as COLL, but with side-effects on edge orientation
EPLL = Permute edges in one step (and is actually a subset of PLL)
ELL = Permute and orient edges in one step

COLL/EPLL is only usable in a solve where the edges are already oriented at the end of F2L, such as VH, ZZ or ZB.

If edges are not completed, then it would be better to do CLL/ELL, since preservation of edge orientation in COLL would just be wasting moves. In this case you might as well just do OLL/PLL since case recognition is thought to be easier than CLL/ELL.


Now to answer the question: Assuming you are working with a method which orients the LL edges during F2L:

I don't have the exact stats on this, but as far as I remember the average move count of OLL and COLL are about the same (around 9 moves).

COLL reduces the final edges permutation stage to 4 simple PLL cases (Ua, Ub, H and Z, aka EPLL) which has a lower average move count than full PLL, plus there's a better chance of of PLL skip.

Using OLL/PLL means that only the corner orientation cases of OLL need to be used, which again reduces the move count on the OLL phase.

Because I don't know the exact stats I'm not sure whether COLL/EPLL or OLL/PLL has a lower move count. However, it could be argued that case recognition for COLL/EPLL is easier than OLL/PLL, since more of the non U-face stickers are on the U-face for COLL. Recognition of the 21 PLL cases requires more looking round the sides of the cube than EPLL.

So Is COLL/EPLL faster than OLL/PLL? Well, move count is similar and recognition is easier, so in theory yes. But I only know OLL/PLL so don't take my word for it 


Does anyone have the average move counts for OLL/PLL and COLL/EPLL, it'd be interesting to compare??


----------



## Stefan (Apr 24, 2009)

rachmaninovian said:


> ELL solves the edges after CLL, be it oriented or not.


Not necessarily. Edges can be solved first and corners afterwards, which apparently is actually shorter:
http://www.ai.univ-paris8.fr/~bh/cube/


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 24, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > ELL solves the edges after CLL, be it oriented or not.
> ...




Aha: Cheers for that link Stefan, so:
OLL(corners only) + PLL = 9.41 + 11.21 = 20.62
COLL + EPLL = 9.78 + 8.75 = 18.53

... so as well as a case recognition advantage (which is largely down to opinion), there is a solid move-count advantage of over 2 moves with COLL/EPLL.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 24, 2009)

Cride, you're wrong about the OLL(corners only) step there. When you follow with PLL anyway, there's no need to keep the corner permutation while orienting them. Hence the 9.41 might be too high.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 24, 2009)

To clear up any confusion, I'm not doing any extra work to orient edges. I'm just solving and edges happen to be oriented.

@Cride5: Yea, it should be 9.22.
OLL(corners only) + PLL = 9.22 + 11.21 = 20.41
COLL + EPLL = 9.78 + 8.75 = 18.53

Dan Cohen did an average of 12 for each of these...Turns out OLL/PLL was ~13% faster than COLL/EPLL for him. So, I don't know. I think I'll just learn the COLLs that are no more than 0.5 sec slower than the regular OLL that I'd use for that COLL. It's probably a lot more useful to learn all of COLL for a cube like 4x4, though.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 24, 2009)

yeah, I tested it out and OLL/PLL was definitely faster on 3x3. I really think the advantage comes on higher order puzzles, as a G perm takes much more time than a U perm, offsetting the recognition time for COLL.


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 24, 2009)

Isn't COLL just Corner OLL and CLL Corner OLL and PLL?


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 24, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> Cride, you're wrong about the OLL(corners only) step there. When you follow with PLL anyway, there's no need to keep the corner permutation while orienting them. Hence the 9.41 might be too high.


Soz, my bad 



SimonWestlund said:


> Isn't COLL just Corner OLL and CLL Corner OLL and PLL?



That would be a more logical meaning to COLL, but apparently not. See:
http://www.cubefreak.net/other/glossary.html

You're right about CLL though.


----------

