# PLL's little brother: NEO-PLL



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

NEO-PLL stands for No Edges Oriented PLL. The basic idea is to solve PLL while orienting the LL edges. 

You can do an OLL alg to get to the oriented LL, but you can also do an OLL alg to get to here. 







You can use this set when:
- You get this OLL after you're finished with F2L;
- This OLL is easier to get to (using an OLL algorithm) than a fully oriented layer.

The advantages of knowing these are:
- You virtually double your chance of an OLL skip;
- You can always avoid bad OLL algs.

Disadvantages are:
- The algorithms are slightly slower;
- You have to recognize EP on the U-face, this will take some practise;
- No chance of a PLL skip.

In my opinion, this is a nice addition to CFOP, and it is only useful when you either get this OLL after F2L, or when it is much easier to get to than a fully oriented LL.

If this confused you, just try one of these algorithms and try to understand it.

Aa: l L2 U R' U2 L U' R' F2 R2 U' M'
Ab: U' M U R'2 F2 R U L' U2 R U' (L M')
E: M' U R U' r' U2 F U2 r U r' U2 R' F' R U'thanks Rowan
F: U' M' U' r2 F2 r2 U' R' U L' U2 R U' R
Ga: R' D' r U' r' D R2 U R' d' r' F2 r
Gb: U2 r' F2 r d R U' R2 D' r U r' D R
Gc: L D R' F R D' L2 U' L d R U2 R'
Gd: U2 R U2 R' d' L' U L2 D R' F' R D' L'
H:	M U R U R' U' M2 U R U' r'
Ja:	R' L F' R2 L2 U2 F R2 F' R L U R2 U' R2 F2 
Jb:	F R U' R2 U2 R U F U R2 U' F' R U R'2 F'
Na:	l' U R2 F2 U L' u2 R U' x' U2 L2 F' r 
Nb:	r U' R2 f2 U' L u2 R' U x U2 R2 F L'
Ra:	R U' R2 F2 U' R F R' U F2 R2 U R'
Rb:	U2 R' U R2 B2 U R' B R U' B2 R2 U' R
T:	F R' F R2 U R' U' F2 U' L F' L' F U2
Ua:	U M U' r U2 r' U' R U' M' U R' U R U2 R'
Ub:	U' M' U r' U2 r U R' U M U' R U' R' U2 R
V:	r U2 x' U2 r U' x' U' R' U L' U' R2 U' l' U2 r' U2 
Y:	U' R' U2 F L2 R U R' U' L2 F2 U2 F R
Z:	M' U2 M U2 M U M'2 U' M U2 M U2 M'
Skip:	M' U' M' U' M' U' M' U M' U' M' U' M' U' M' U

If anybody has any better algs than these, please share them


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 23, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> NEO-PLL stands for No Edges Oriented PLL. The basic idea is to solve PLL while orienting the LL edges.
> 
> You can do an OLL alg to get to the oriented LL, but you can also do an OLL alg to get to here.
> 
> ...



ummmmmmmm......
good job you came up with ZBLL algs...


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 23, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > NEO-PLL stands for No Edges Oriented PLL. The basic idea is to solve PLL while orienting the LL edges.
> ...



Do you even know what ZBLL is?


----------



## Carrot (Apr 23, 2010)

I never get those cases


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 23, 2010)

Is it really worth it? How often do you get that case. If you don't get that case, it just makes more sense to solve the OLL & do a PLL that's probably faster.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

When you have OLL #3 or OLL #4, I think it might be faster to do a sune and then a NEO-PLL.


----------



## shelley (Apr 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Is it really worth it? How often do you get that case.



It's the rarest of the OLLs (1/216)


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

It's exactly as rare as an OLL skip, that's why it has exactly as much permutation cases, and that's why I chose this to be PLL's brother.

I'm actually going to use this for dot OLLs I think. I just need to take a bit more time finding algorithms, some of these are horrible...


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Apr 23, 2010)

So at what point do you orient the edges? At the moment it seems to be more efficient to learn all the zbf2l algs I believe, as (I might be wrong here?) they will orient all your edges for you, and most of the COLL's are quite easy.


----------



## Feryll (Apr 23, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> So at what point do you orient the edges?



During the PLL.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Apr 23, 2010)

I remember thinking this was a good idea a while ago, but not being able to find half-decent algs. I'll try these out later when I get a chance.


----------



## Edward (Apr 23, 2010)

The disadvantages seem to out-weigh the advantages .


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Apr 23, 2010)

Wow, I completely didn't realize the new posted algs also orient the LL edges as well as PLL. I think I just thought they were plain old PLLs *sigh*


----------



## Weston (Apr 23, 2010)

I think a better idea (until you find better algs) is to do COLL when you have no edges oriented, and then finish the edges off with an MU alg.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 23, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> H	M U R U R' U' M2 U R U' r'
> Ua	U M U' r U2 r' U' R U' M' U R' U R U2 R'
> Ub	U' M' U r' U2 r U R' U M U' R U' R' U2 R
> Z	M' U2 M U2 M U M'2 U' M U2 M U2 M'
> ...


H	Rw U R' U' M2 U R U' R' U' M' 
Ua	M' U M U M' U2 (M' U)*2 M (U M')*2
Ub	M' U' M U'M' U2 (M' U') *2 M (U' M')*2 
Z	M' U M U2 M' U M2 U' M' U2 M U' M'

yay ELL!




jms_gears1 said:


> ummmmmmmm......
> good job you came up with ZBLL algs...


lol.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 23, 2010)

Interesting idea, similar concept to CLLEF (edge flipping COLL). The only concern I would have with it is that each case occurs with such low probability (much lower than each ZBLL) that the algs would almost never be used.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

The probability of these cases are exactly as big as the PLLs, yet you don't think that with PLL. The difference is that you always end up at PLL with normal CFOP. If you know Neo-PLL, you can end up with either PLL or Neo-PLL.

The point of this add-on is that you can choose to which PLL set you want to go.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 23, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> The probability of these cases are exactly as big as the PLLs, yet you don't think that with PLL. The difference is that you always end up at PLL with normal CFOP. If you know Neo-PLL, you can end up with either PLL or Neo-PLL.
> 
> The point of this add-on is that you can choose to which PLL set you want to go.



Oh right, so you're still using an OLL alg before going to NEOPLL. OK I can see it makes sense, sorry!


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

There are certain cases I don't like, especially some no edges oriented OLLs. Doing for example a sune and then NEOPLL seems a lot faster then.


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

When discussing this thread:






Is it just me that found that too funny?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Apr 23, 2010)

If you want to avoid no edges oriented OLL's, you can force two edges to be oriented. For the simple RU'R' case, you can do the sledgehammer isntead (R'FRF'), and for the RUR' case, you can orient all 4 edges with R U' R2 F R F' U2 R' F R F'. That's very similar to OLL 17 (17 has R U2 instead of R U'), and it orients all edges. I posted in that thread I was going to find algs to orient 2 edges (in the event you had 2 edges already oriented) so you didn't have to do the F RUR'U' F' move, and especially f RUR'U' f' back to back with no edges oriented, but for all the RU'R' cases I found it was easier on move count to just sledgehammer it (depending on the two edges already oriented) or just solve it and F/f RUR'U' f'/F'.


----------



## joey (Apr 23, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> There are certain cases I don't like, especially some no edges oriented OLLs. Doing for example a sune and then NEOPLL seems a lot faster then.


This post made me understand.


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> If you want to avoid no edges oriented OLL's, you can force two edges to be oriented. For the simple RU'R' case, you can do the sledgehammer isntead (R'FRF'), and for the RUR' case, you can orient all 4 edges with R U' R2 F R F' U2 R' F R F'. That's very similar to OLL 17 (17 has R U2 instead of R U'), and it orients all edges. I posted in that thread I was going to find algs to orient 2 edges (in the event you had 2 edges already oriented) so you didn't have to do the F RUR'U' F' move, and especially f RUR'U' f' back to back with no edges oriented, but for all the RU'R' cases I found it was easier on move count to just sledgehammer it (depending on the two edges already oriented) or just solve it and F/f RUR'U' f'/F'.



But some two edges oriented algs are horrid...

eg this:





The OLL for it is awful but you could do:
y' F (U R U' R') F'
And then use NEOPLL...

It's cases like this that make it worth it.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Apr 23, 2010)

Well I'm still on 2LOLL so I only know the 7 required algs or whatever, plus a few dot ones (which I don't need anymore heh, due to me finding those algs). I just looked that up on the wiki and I'd probably just do F R U R' U' F' then corresponding COLL.


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

Lol why comment when you're only on 2LOLL...?

I was wondering why your post made no real sense


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

OLLs I might use this on when I master NEO-PLL:

1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 34, 35, 41, 42, 50

That's 18/57, so in theory I could use NEO-PLL with an advantage about 1/3 of the time.


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

Go to sleep now Maarten...


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 23, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> The OLL for it is awful



(y) R' F R F' R' F R F' R U R' U' R U R'
Just sayin'.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

Oh my god that algorithm is sooooo fast not

@Mark: But I don't want to @{


----------



## joey (Apr 23, 2010)

maarten: this is your dad, using joey's account. Go to bed now please.


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

And no Maarten we don't care if there's a noisy cafe in your road, just sleep.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 23, 2010)

BUT NOT WANT SLEEP DO @{


----------



## Escher (Apr 23, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> BUT NOT WANT SLEEP DO @{



@{


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Apr 23, 2010)

Seems like a good idea to me. Am I right to think the number of PLLs with 4 edges bad is equal to the number of PLLs with 4 edges good? If so, memorizing twice the number of PLLs is not too bad.


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> Seems like a good idea to me. Am I right to think the number of PLLs with 4 edges bad is equal to the number of PLLs with 4 edges good? If so, memorizing twice the number of PLLs is not too bad.



Yes it is exactly the same since orientation and permutation are not related on a cube


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 23, 2010)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> Seems like a good idea to me. Am I right to think the number of PLLs with 4 edges bad is equal to the number of PLLs with 4 edges good? If so, memorizing twice the number of PLLs is not too bad.



Yup its the same number, but don't forget ... if you use this then there are some OLLs which you may as well forget 

EDIT, ninja'd by a ninja-toad!


----------



## Toad (Apr 23, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> rjohnson_8ball said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like a good idea to me. Am I right to think the number of PLLs with 4 edges bad is equal to the number of PLLs with 4 edges good? If so, memorizing twice the number of PLLs is not too bad.
> ...



Not forget, just learn new algs for.

And what I said is only strictly true because this OLL has the same symmetries as OLL solved (full symmetry ).


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 24, 2010)

Goodnight.


----------



## Toad (Apr 24, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Goodnight.



Finally.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 24, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > rjohnson_8ball said:
> ...



Hmm, are you sure? I was thinking that _theoretically_, you only need to know about 1/2 of your OLL's if you're using NEOPLL. You certainly don't need any of the no-edge flipped cases, because you can just use OCLLs for them. 

For cases with two flipped edges, it seems like only half the number need to be known. For example imagine sune with a vertical bar:




Well if you know that, then you don't need to know this:




because applying an alg for the first case on the second one will give you an all-edge flip OLL. The same story is true of all the 'bar' cases.

Similarly, take this adjacent edge-flip sune:




And this one.




Applying the alg for one of these cases to the other gives an all-edge flip case, meaning you only need to know the alg for one of these two cases. And similarly for all (I think) adjacent edge flip OLLs.
The only set which you need to know all algs for is the all-corners oriented OLLs, and one of them is a NEOPLL OLL-skip!


If this is indeed the case, then it means that using NEOPLL+PLL can involve _less_ algs than straight OLL/PLL


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 24, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> fatboyxpc said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to avoid no edges oriented OLL's, you can force two edges to be oriented. For the simple RU'R' case, you can do the sledgehammer isntead (R'FRF'), and for the RUR' case, you can orient all 4 edges with R U' R2 F R F' U2 R' F R F'. That's very similar to OLL 17 (17 has R U2 instead of R U'), and it orients all edges. I posted in that thread I was going to find algs to orient 2 edges (in the event you had 2 edges already oriented) so you didn't have to do the F RUR'U' F' move, and especially f RUR'U' f' back to back with no edges oriented, but for all the RU'R' cases I found it was easier on move count to just sledgehammer it (depending on the two edges already oriented) or just solve it and F/f RUR'U' f'/F'.
> ...



why the hell would you do that instead of doing (R' U' R U R' U2 R)[sune] (F R U R' U' F') for OLL. I fail to see how that case is worth doing anything other than OLL/PLL.


----------



## keemy (Apr 24, 2010)

This is a bad idea because it is the worst subset of KLL (ELL+CPLL) so bad in fact that when thinking of methods for KLS that Tim Sun suggested it would be smarter to double the algs to always force 2 edges at least.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Apr 24, 2010)

Toad: What didn't make sense about my post? I was telling him how to avoid the dot cases. You can either A) do the sledgehammer, or for the RUR' alg do the alg I posted. And I'm still on 2LOLL but you don't really much more. If the alg I said didn't make sense, I meant a f instead of F, but you get the point. I looked up the alg for the OLL you posted, saw why you said it's not fun, and posted what I'd do in the situation if the alg was that bad for me.


----------



## riffz (Apr 24, 2010)

This actually looks pretty promising. How difficult is recognition for NEO-PLL?

And I agree with Cride that since you can use the same algorithms for multiple OLL cases that the number of algorithms isn't really any more (could even be less) than just OLL --> PLL.

But if you already know your OLLs then I guess you'd just end up forgetting some of them.

EDIT: I don't think I'd bother learning it but it might be good for someone who doesn't already know all their OLLs.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 24, 2010)

I'm still raging after gear's post. D:<
I wasn't here when this thread was created.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 24, 2010)

4Chan said:


> I'm still raging after gear's post. D:<
> I wasn't here when this thread was created.



lolololwut?

Unless i read it wrong which is possible i suppose....

The proposal was flip the edges and permute the pieces.
This is basically corners oriented ZBLL is it not?


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Apr 24, 2010)

ZBLL = All LL edges oriented.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 24, 2010)

Don't try to justify yourself.


----------



## cincyaviation (Apr 24, 2010)

i like this, F2L, 2x2 OLL, then NEOPLL, if you get good at recognition and have good algs i could see it being just about as fast


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 24, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> i like this, F2L, 2x2 OLL, then NEOPLL, if you get good at recognition and have good algs i could see it being just about as fast



2x2 OLL isn't enough... You need to get all edges oriented or no edges oriented, otherwise the number of algs would be about 160 if I'm estimating correctly.


----------



## Toad (Apr 24, 2010)

I still reckon this is a great idea and could save an average if used when it fits... Have you done any solves with it? How do you feel it's going?


----------



## Sir E Brum (Apr 24, 2010)

It seems that this is effectively a set of 1LLL algs. Just for no edges oriented. Recognition shouldn't be too hard with all corners oriented, but without that, you would have to identify, CO EO CP. That just seems like too much to handle.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 24, 2010)

But with NeoPLL you only recognize EP and CP, just like PLL. The only difference is that the edges are flipped.

I have done about 30 timed solves with it (only NeoPLL, so F2L, OLL to misorient all the edges, then NeoPLL), and so far I have managed a 13.18 single and an 18.75 avg12. I now know half of the algorithms.

I have found that recognizing NeoPLL is very different to normal PLL, but not at all harder. The big difference is that where PLL allows you to use blocks to recognize, NeoPLL requires pure cycle recognition. This takes a lot of practise, but I think it can be done just as fast as normal block recognition on PLL.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 24, 2010)

> 18:14:50 <@j`ey> say yoou have sune +4flip
> 18:14:58 <+DanCohen> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCQyaYdj6-8
> 18:14:58 <@j`ey> you do sune and neo
> 18:15:00 <+DanCohen> man i'm so good
> ...





> 18:22:26 <+Kirjava> I'm just skeptical of LL 'methods' that are a collection of algs that only apply in specific situations
> 18:22:45 <@j`ey> isnt that what algs do
> 18:23:43 <+Kirjava> no
> 18:23:49 <+Kirjava> OLL/PLL applies in every situation
> ...


----------



## Sir E Brum (Apr 24, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> 18:24:21 <+Kirjava> and only dumb people learn coll who don't use ZBF2L


ZZ Ftw.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 24, 2010)

or petrus


----------



## Dene (Apr 24, 2010)

joey said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > There are certain cases I don't like, especially some no edges oriented OLLs. Doing for example a sune and then NEOPLL seems a lot faster then.
> ...



I'm in the same boat. I had no idea what was going on until I saw that post.

BTW: I don't really think this is a good idea. To be honest, I actually quite like that OLL case (although I always use partial edge control anyway).


----------



## Stefan (Apr 25, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> 18:22:26 <+Kirjava> I'm just skeptical of LL 'methods' that are a collection of algs that only apply in specific situations



So I guess you're also skeptical of PLL?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2010)

OLL/PLL is the method people generally use to solve the last layer, not PLL alone.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 25, 2010)

So what's wrong with OLL/NeoPLL?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2010)

You mean OLL/PLL/NeoPLL? You need all of them.

There's nothing explicitly /wrong/ with it, I just don't see it viable enough to be useful. It's one potentially learnable subset of many.

I do not foresee it outperforming partial edge control, for example.

On an unrelated note, I'd learned three of the 'NeoPLL' cases before this thread popped up already for something else ^_^.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 25, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> So what's wrong with OLL/NeoPLL?



because the OLL would just be leading to another OLL case that you use a set of algs to solve in 1 look. Instead of using OLL which would go to all pieces oriented, and then PLL which has much nicer algs, and recognition seems like itd be easier.

Until you can address the issue of worse algs and recog. It wont be anywhere near worth it.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 25, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You mean OLL/PLL/NeoPLL? You need all of them.
> 
> There's nothing explicitly /wrong/ with it, I just don't see it viable enough to be useful. It's one potentially learnable subset of many.
> 
> ...



lol, so how many algs do you need to learn?

assuming theres an alg for each of the 40 cases that flip 0,2,4,6 thats 160 isnt it?


----------

