# MGLS-F vs. Full Fridrich?



## MalusDB (Mar 30, 2011)

I'm new, and I've been doing more reading than practicing lately, but it feels like i want to make the first real step the right one. Looking for some opinions on MGLS-F in comparison to the Full Fridrich approach.

I have to get some sleep right now, but I will return in around 12 hours. Try and be nice and give me something to help me decide which is for me 

Personally I would prefer more 2-gen algs in my method, even if it means more moves on average, so I'm swinging towards (i think this has more lol) MGLS, but if anybody can enlighten me, I would be happy to hear it.

Also ZZ and Petrus are fully welcomed, although im pretty sure the fastest method for me will involve some form of F2L Fridrich style, since im familiar.

I'll shut up now


----------



## AvidCuber (Mar 30, 2011)

All methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

MGLS is cool because not many people use it. CLS is also 2-gen which is sexy. 2-gen is also good for one-handed if you're interested in that, because 2-gen algs are easier to execute OH. The bad thing about MGLS is the amount of algs, but the ELS cases are pretty easy (sorta like intuitive F2L, where you know what exactly what you're supposed to do for each case so it's kind of algorithmic but not really. ELS is sort of the opposite; it's best to learn the algs but once you see how the algs work it's rather intuitive). Also, CLS cases are easier to learn than regular OLLs, apparently.

About full CFOP, there are more resources so if you ever have a question there are plenty of people who can help you out.

And if you want to try ZZ or Petrus, you should! Even if you're not used to them, you would become so eventually.

Just try whatever method is interesting to you and you really want to learn it (i.e. have the motivation for it).


----------



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

AvidCuber said:


> CLS cases are easier to learn than regular OLLs, apparently.


 
Why? The only cases I can solve intuitive are the ones with less than 2 missoriented corners. And I / Im cases I just learned. 

For MGLS-Fridrich I just read it can be as fast as Fridrich, Using in combination with VH-F2L/ZB-F2L it gives the option for an simplified extended cross. I don't somebody is doing this.

For Petrus it is usefull to simplify Step 2 or do a one look Step 4 - I think It's most usefull there.


----------



## irontwig (Mar 30, 2011)

AvidCuber said:


> Also, CLS cases are easier to learn than regular OLLs, apparently.



2gen makes it very easy to confuse algorithms.


----------



## Godmil (Mar 30, 2011)

hmm, so the LL orientation stage of MGLS is 125 Algs, apposed to Fridrich's 57...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 30, 2011)

irontwig said:


> 2gen makes it very easy to confuse algorithms.


 This. Very much this. 2gen are easy to learn but hard to retain for long periods of time, which is what matters (to me).
I forget most of my O cases.


----------



## MalusDB (Mar 30, 2011)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I defintely want to retain algs, and now that you mention it Godmill it does seem like it would be easy to confuse some, they are extremely similar in certain circumstances. Also 57 is alot less than 125 for the LL stages lol. Think I'll learn Fridrich to a decent level first, then think about branching.

Thanks guys!


----------



## uberCuber (Mar 30, 2011)

off-topic: why do people feel the need to use such phrases as "Full Fridrich" or "Full CFOP"? The terms "Fridrich method" or "CFOP" already refer to full OLL and full PLL.

on-topic: I can agree with what above people have said about retaining a large set of 2-gen algs being difficult. It is the reason i don't know 2GLL right now. However, if you are willing to put enough time into it to get the separate cases down and practice enough to not start forgetting them, 2-gen algs certainly are sexy. I would say that whether or not you should try MGLS depends on how much effort you are willing to put into learning a method.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 30, 2011)

If you do learn CLS, I'd recommend this page and this page.


----------



## Godmil (Mar 30, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> off-topic: why do people feel the need to use such phrases as "Full Fridrich" or "Full CFOP"? The terms "Fridrich method" or "CFOP" already refer to full OLL and full PLL.



Because tons of people claim they use Fridrich, but only use 2-look OLL (and sometimes 2-look PLL).


----------



## ~Adam~ (Mar 30, 2011)

I find 2 gen algs easy to learn and retain by turning them into a sequence of numbers.
For example

R' U' R U' R U R U' R' U R U R2 U' R' U -> 2-1-1-3-2-3-double-2-1

You just have to remember what you start on and if a prime follows a double.


----------



## irontwig (Mar 30, 2011)

cube-o-holic said:


> I find 2 gen algs easy to learn and retain by turning them into a sequence of numbers.
> For example
> 
> R' U' R U' R U R U' R' U R U R2 U' R' U -> 2-1-1-3-2-3-double-2-1
> ...



Yeah that seems really useful for speed >_>.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 30, 2011)

1.5-gen is information-theoretically quite low-entropy: RUR'URUR'U'RU2R' > 1 1 1 ' 2

Full CLS is also not significantly harder to keep in muscle memory compared to OLL.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 31, 2011)

I've always wondered how many CLS cases have better non-2gen solutions.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 31, 2011)

How to decode
1 1 1 ' 2 
to
RUR'URUR'U'RU2R' 
reminds me of Professor Layton 

Are there many cases in CLS where R turns are alternating direction like here? 

I remember this like 21321 U² -1


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I've always wondered how many CLS cases have better non-2gen solutions.


 
That would depend on someone's preferences, wouldn't it.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 31, 2011)

How many people do you think prefer the <R,U> H perm to the <M,U> H perm?


----------



## cincyaviation (Mar 31, 2011)

MalusDB said:


> Thanks for the feedback guys. I defintely want to retain algs, and now that you mention it Godmill it does seem like it would be easy to confuse some, they are extremely similar in certain circumstances. Also 57 is alot less than 125 for the LL stages lol. Think I'll learn Fridrich to a decent level first, then think about branching.
> 
> Thanks guys!


Keep in mind that if you practice a reasonable amount (a few solves a day) it will probably not be very hard at all to retain all those algs.


----------



## AvidCuber (Mar 31, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> How many people do you think prefer the <R,U> H perm to the <M,U> H perm?


 They're still both 2-gen.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 31, 2011)

Congratulations! You missed the point!


----------



## AvidCuber (Mar 31, 2011)

Yeah, I know what you meant. I agree that <R,U> 2-gen isn't for some people, and I think that it wouldn't help too much in a method unless you use it for OH.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 31, 2011)

AvidCuber said:


> Yeah, I know what you meant. I agree that <R,U> 2-gen isn't for some people


 
That's not what I meant.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> How many people do you think prefer the <R,U> H perm to the <M,U> H perm?



That's a good point. I guess I'm overly defensive of RU 2-gen. xP


----------

