# Columns First - underestimated method?



## Sajwo (Jul 5, 2012)

Today I learnt Columns First method and I think it at least as fast as CFOP or roux. 

This is short summary of this method:
- Solve 4 F2L pairs.
- Orient last layer corners, (CO, 7 algs)
- Permute LL corners, (CP, 2 algs)
- Solve centres together with 2-3 first layer edges.
- Orient the remaining edges (EO, 5 or 9 cases depending on method)
- Permute last edges, one way is to solve the last one(s) to FL and use EPLL, another is to use Roux style and put RU-LU and then permute the M-slice. 

So; 4 F2L pairs can be done much faster than in fridrich method, because we can also use M-slice moves, so slots can be done very very quickly. We've got also very often after scrambling the cube at least one slot done. In my opinion 4 F2L pairs can be done in average under 18 moves.
Next step is CO and CP on last layer. Right there we can learn all CLL, so we can done this step using only 1 algorithm. Then we solve the centers with 2-3 FL edges, which is trivial and requires a few moves. The last step is EOLL and EPLL. We can done this of course in 1 algorithm, using ELL. Summarizing: we've got 18 moves for 4 slots, about 8-10 moves for CLL, 8 for centers and Dedges and ~11 for ELL, which gives us under 50 moves in average. This method is very friendly for CFOP and Roux users. So please express an opinion what do you think about my idea.

ps; Such a thought occurred to me when I did my first sub20 solve( and this was after spent 2 hours with this method). I can't do CLL and ELL, I am lame at dedges and I split 4th step into two stages, and I can still do sub20 solve. here you've go my video:


----------



## Aero (Jul 5, 2012)

This method is very interesting, as a CFOP and Roux user I think this might be the perfect method.


----------



## Anthony (Jul 5, 2012)

Sajwo said:


> *In my opinion* 4 F2L pairs can be done in average under 18 moves.





Sajwo said:


> Summarizing: we've got *18* moves for 4 slots, about *8-10* moves for CLL, *8* for centers and Dedges and *~11* for ELL, *which gives us under 40 moves* in average.



...


----------



## Sajwo (Jul 5, 2012)

fail, sorry, I'm just tired. But sub50 moves it's still very little


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 5, 2012)

And is it easy for you to sub-50 consistently? Please show some examples *speed*solves.
Also, EO in ColF is awkward to do.


----------



## Sajwo (Jul 5, 2012)

5BLD said:


> And is it easy for you to sub-50 consistently? Please show some examples *speed*solves.
> Also, EO in ColF is awkward to do.





Sajwo said:


> I can't do CLL and ELL, I am lame at dedges and I'm split 4th step into two stages, and I can still do sub20 solve.



please, read with understanding. I am pretty sure, you could get some sub10 solves with this method (if you know CLLs and ELLs), because of your experience with block building.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 5, 2012)

S MOVES ARE FAST


----------



## mDiPalma (Jul 5, 2012)

i used to use columns first

for the lse, place the DB edge while making the rest of the edges easy to orient
orient the edges with M' U' M or something else to force a better ep5
then use ep5: http://athefre.110mb.com/Step5.html

it's really not that bad

i just did a few speedsolves and reconstructed the best one

L' U2 R2 F' D2 R B' D2 L' D B2 L' R' B' R2 U B L D B2 F D' U2 B2 L'

xy (0 pair 1)
u R u' L U' (5 pair 2)
x U M' [i see that my other pair is really bad] R2 y R U2 R' (6 pair 3)
L' U2 L U L' U' L (7 pair 4)
R U2 R' U2 R' F R F' (cll 8)
R2 S R2 (3 centers and one edge)
M' U' M (3 one edge)
U2 M U M' U' M U' M' (8 one edge, orient, make easy ep5)
y M' U2 M (3 lucky ep5)
~43 stm

the only reason why i went back to zz was because there are too many steps in columns first. yes, i know many are only 3 or 4 moves, and you may skip a step very often, but it still seems to take ages to solve a cube when you have 9+ seemingly independent steps.

also, look ahead is impossible.

@5BLD, yeah it's impossible to consistently have <50 moves at any decent pace. 50-55 is probably the average. some lucky solves do come around, and it is fun to pretend you skipped a step on purpose.


----------



## applemobile (Jul 5, 2012)

I switched to Columns for a while as I really like it. But to me, it seems apparent that starting with a cross a la CFOP really does make things easier. Having edge pieces that you need, hidden in the bottom layer makes looking ahead so much harder. You have a lot more freedom with the cube, but I think if you would have a hard time sub 8'ing with it.

Just to add, To make your inspection time as efficient as you can be with roux or cfop, you would need to be able to plan your first 3 pairs. I'm no expert, but I can't see that being easy.


----------



## emolover (Jul 5, 2012)

I tried switching to it and was able to get in the 17's, but I do not think it is sub tenable. Doing four pairs is inefficient because of the hidden edges and placing the 3 edges. 

A better method I think would be this.

1) 2x2 or 1x2x3 
2) 2x2x3
3) Solve the last two F2L pairs, maybe use WV and SV
4) COLL or CP if WV or SV is used
5) Two look the last 5 edges


----------



## Ollie (Jul 5, 2012)

I love this, though once I'd solved the F2L slots and the upper corners the temptation was there to use 3-style BLD edgecycles to solve everything else. I'm averaging ~30-35s in the first hour of practicing solving it that way


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 5, 2012)

applemobile said:


> Just to add, To make your inspection time as efficient as you can be with roux or cfop, you would need to be able to plan your first 3 pairs. I'm no expert, but I can't see that being easy.



Actually this isn't too hard..


----------



## Endgame (Jul 5, 2012)

Before we can polish these methods, we should put more effort in building a stable foundation and a better documentation for these methods, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 5, 2012)

I have a 13.30 avg5 and 14.17 avg12 with this columns first method.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jul 6, 2012)

qqwref said:


> I have a 13.30 avg5 and 14.17 avg12 with this columns first method.



And with only about an hour or so of practice, I average 15-17ish with that variant.


----------



## Athefre (Jul 6, 2012)

Patch PLL into any method and suddenly it appeals to more people.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 6, 2012)

It's not just "oh, it's PLL, I'll use this method", though - I honestly do think that when PLL is a choice you need a pretty solid reason to choose something else. PLL has had a ton of experimentation go into every single case, has pretty short and fast algs on average, and has easy recognition (permutation only, so you can literally look at only one sticker from each piece, which also means good lookahead). It's certainly worth it to try to improve on it, but honestly I think the vast majority of ideas end up slower.


----------



## Athefre (Jul 6, 2012)

If it's fast, it's fast. And PLL is fast. I'm saying that I think it's possible there are fast alternatives that better fit the theme of a method or make the method more its own thing. Or at least wish more people were spending time searching for these alternatives.


----------



## Ickathu (Jul 6, 2012)

I was actually just thinking about a similar method
4 F2Ls
CMSLL (Corners [ignoring M and S] Last Layer)
F and B centers + DF, DB
cube rotation <<<
LSE

I was able to get sub40 with it after just a few minutes (normally 26)


----------



## HelpCube (Jul 6, 2012)

qqwref said:


> I have a 13.30 avg5 and 14.17 avg12 with this columns first method.



I'm getting a bad request error.

This seems semi-decent though, very easy to sub-40 with 5 minutes of practice. Might have to try it some more later.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 6, 2012)

Athefre said:


> If it's fast, it's fast. And PLL is fast. I'm saying that I think it's possible there are fast alternatives that better fit the theme of a method or make the method more its own thing. Or at least wish more people were spending time searching for these alternatives.


Remember, though, I based this off a method from Kenneth that did just that - he used CLL for the corners and then did L5EO/L5EP. I added some more little optimizations in the intuitive steps but I do think that making it more Fridrichy was an improvement, even if it was moving a little away from the 'theme' of the method. Kinda like how the blocks in Roux are a huge improvement over that CF method where you solve ledge+redge pairs.


----------



## already1329 (Jul 6, 2012)

PCMS seems good.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2012)

Roux is a perfect example of how trying to crowbar PLL into a method isn't always a good idea.


----------



## Smiles (Jul 6, 2012)

I looked at a bunch of methods before, and saw this one as one similar to Roux, like Corners First.
I'm no Roux expert (I don't use it), but I think Roux is definitely better.

Some D edges in Roux can be eliminated during inspection, making look ahead much easier, and then only 2 D edges will remain unsolved the rest of the time, but you see them while doing M turns anyway.
In columns first, after making the columns, not only is it harder to look ahead during the 4 pairs because of D edges, you'll have to return to the D layer after making the columns. Plus, it seems to take a little more thinking since it has so many steps.

And with CFOP, D edges are all completed during F2L, and OLL and PLL have extremely fast easy recognition and execution.
Overall, CFOP is just less intuitive, and what's great about that is the only improvised part (the cross) is thought up during inspection.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2012)

I love how you're all focusing on the order of steps and other silly things that hardly make a difference when the real problem is the movegroups being used.


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 6, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Also, EO in ColF is awkward to do.



As I said, movegroup is awkward especially for EO where its MSU. <M,S>isn't too bad tho, perhaps it'd not be a silly idea to do centres last or something?

Also order of steps and the steps themselves DO make a huge difference...


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Also order of steps and the steps themselves DO make a huge difference...



I'd be impressed if you could find an order of steps to negate the movegroup problems. The order of steps are in no way the biggest issue here.

Look at ZZRoux or FridrichRoux - there are quadrillions of step configurations that all basically amount to the same quality of system.


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 6, 2012)

Oh of course it's not the biggest issue. Nor does it 'hardly make any difference'. Don't get me wrong, all I'm saying is it does make a significant difference.

As for thinking up a way to reorder, I can probably think of a different example where it does matter. Just here the move group is quite a big problem and is awkward no matter where you put it. Or why not just not do it...? We could do something else maybe that's easier...

Edit: why not build 1x1x3 blocks then CLL then solve remaining columns? I find that faster and I did that in my 20sub20 vid. This is an example of re ordering which may be helpful


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I'm saying is it does make a significant difference.l



I don't see how it can make a significant different when the true bottleneck is <U,M,S(,D)>. Any (sensible) changes will be tiny compared to the change made by avoiding this movegroup.


----------



## drewsopchak (Jul 6, 2012)

Regardless of its practicality, I would like to see someone dedicate a couple years with it and see how far they get.


----------



## Ickenicke (Jul 6, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Regardless of its practicality, I would like to see someone dedicate a couple years with it and see how far they get.



Why can't you try?


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 6, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> Why can't you try?



He doesn't want to waste his own time, he wants to see someone else do it for him.


----------



## Ickenicke (Jul 6, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> He doesn't want to waste his own time, he wants to see someone else do it for him.



Yeah, columns first is probably as stupid as solving 4x4 with OBLBL


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 6, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> Yeah, columns first is probably as stupid as solving 4x4 with OBLBL



I'm not completely done wasting my time with that method, just postponing it until after US Nats


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 6, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> Why can't you try?



If I'm convinced I can get a similar or better movecount than with Roux then I will try after UKO for a month or so.


----------



## Ickathu (Jul 7, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Regardless of its practicality, I would like to see someone dedicate a couple years with it and see how far they get.



Maybe a couple years, maybe not, but I'm definitely going to practice it, and possibly switch from Roux to this (or even get to the point of doing CFOP/Roux/Columns first depending on the scramble)


----------

