# Technique to quickly compare EO for 2 orientations!



## ruffleduck (May 17, 2021)

_*This is mainly for ZZ users who solve on 2 orientations. (e.g. x2y CN)*_

I will refer to edges containing U/D layer colors (for me, white/yellow) as U/D edges, and edges that do not contain U/D layer colors as E edges.

You will have to keep track of the bad edges difference as you recognize. It starts out as zero and can be negative. I will call this number "diff"

*For edges on the U/D layers*
- Ignore U/D edges
- For E edges: If it's good, add 1 to "diff". Otherwise (i.e. if it's bad) subtract 1.

*For edges on the E layer*
- Ignore E edges
- For U/D edges: If it's good, add 1 to "diff". Otherwise (i.e. if it's bad) subtract 1. _*(same thing)*_

In case you don't understand, "diff" represents the difference in bad edges between your orientation and the adjacent y. For example if "diff" is negative 2 that means that your orientation has 2 more bad edges than the one adjacent y.

With this technique, you can quickly decide what orientation you want to solve on, without having to check each orientation individually.

I hope this helps. It would be cool if this idea could be extended to 3 orientations.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 17, 2021)

Very cool! This will totally motivate me to practice with two orientations!


----------



## AlgoCuber (Jun 2, 2021)

The problem is that I would rather have 4 bad edges than 2, 8 than 6, and 12 than 10, so the difference in bad edges doesn't play such an important role by itself. However, if you count the number of bad edges in the first orientation, then you can determine whether the second orientation is favorable or not. Basically, you subtract the "diff" from the number of bad edges in the first orientation to get the number of bad edges in the second orientation, then determine which one is better. For example, if there are 6 bad edges in the first orientation in the first orientation and the diff is -2, I would still choose the second orientation which has 8 bad edges. This is a very useful system and I will certainly be using it in my solves!


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 2, 2021)

AlgoCuber said:


> The problem is that I would rather have 4 bad edges than 2, 8 than 6, and 12 than 10, so the difference in bad edges doesn't play such an important role by itself. However, if you count the number of bad edges in the first orientation, then you can determine whether the second orientation is favorable or not. Basically, you subtract the "diff" from the number of bad edges in the first orientation to get the number of bad edges in the second orientation, then determine which one is better. For example, if there are 6 bad edges in the first orientation in the first orientation and the diff is -2, I would still choose the second orientation which has 8 bad edges. This is a very useful system and I will certainly be using it in my solves!


2 edges and 4 edges are usually equally good. 6 is usually better than 8 because you have a lot more flexibility and thus you can influence the line a lot more easily.

I've been practicing this technique for a while, and I don't actually keep track of "diff" consciously anymore. Rather, I intuitively tell which orientation is better, then pick that one. Kind of like how a CN CFOP solver chooses a cross.


----------



## Silky (Sep 1, 2022)

Has this been expanded to 3 orientations yet? Would love to see this improved upon


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 1, 2022)

Silky said:


> Has this been expanded to 3 orientations yet?


That is too complicated to have a linear approach for. You should build a neutral EO recognition intuition.


----------



## Silky (Sep 2, 2022)

ruffleduck said:


> That is too complicated to have a linear approach for. You should build a neutral EO recognition intuition.


For x2y or full cn?


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 2, 2022)

Silky said:


> For x2y or full cn?


When examining 3 axes during inspection, I think in terms of x2y sets, but you can think in terms of F/B color sets too (theoretically faster, but I am much more used to thinking in an x2y mindset as I am primarily an x2y solver)


----------

