# EG(D?) 2x2 method- 12.35 move avg.



## DavidWoner (Jul 15, 2008)

EG is a fairly advanced 2x2 method originally developed by Erik Akkersdijk and Gunnar Krig, and completed by me i also think that since i completed 1/3 of the method, its only fair i should be in the name. i'm thinking either EGD, or EDGE(Erik David Gunnar Expert method) if its ok with Erik and Gunnar

basically you solve one side of the cube, not necessarily permuted (like Ortega first layer.) i believe this step averages 3 moves. then you orient the last layer and permute both layers in one step. there are 143 algorithms for this, and they are divided into 3 sub-cases

Case 1: first layer is correctly permuted. this is just COLL optimized for 2x2. there are 47 algs for this case, averaging 8.79 moves.

Case 2: there is a "bar" in the first layer, where only two pieces need to be switched. you place the "bar" in the BD position and the solve the cube. there are 48 algs for this, averaging 8.43 moves.

Case 3: this is the one i designed. it is where the first layer is entirely mispermuted, where a diagonal swap is needed. the FL does not need to be in any specific position to solve the cube, maybe an AUF at the end. there are 48 algs for this case, averaging 8.58 moves.

*this gives step two a total average of about 8.6 moves.*


so 3 move FL+ 8.6 move solve+ .75 move AUF(needed only 3/4 of the time)= *12.35 move solution*.

not only does it have a low move count, it is *only 2-look, potentially 1-look* with an easy first layer. this method is perfect for anyone who can easily recognize COLL cases on a 2x2 without referencing the first layer.

i think the only reason it has not gained popularity is because it was incomplete until last saturday! Erik and Gunnar have already started learning it, and i plan to start sometime soon as well.

any feedback is highly appreciated, and if anyone wants to start learning the first two cases, they can be found on Erik's 2x2 page. the third case should be up there soon.


----------



## philkt731 (Jul 16, 2008)

Are you going to learn it?
Also, how exactly do you find algs for 2x2? Did you use Ron's 2x2 solver?


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 16, 2008)

philkt731 said:


> Are you going to learn it?
> Also, how exactly do you find algs for 2x2? Did you use Ron's 2x2 solver?



i'm thinking about learning it. i'm really bad at the recognition though. and erik says on the site:


> Ok, this are a lot formula's to know, only crazy guys would learn all these. I only suggest learning these when you want to be very very fast. When you just want to be very fast, I suggest learning Guimond or Ortega.



and yes i used ron's solver, but i still tried every alg for every case in order to see which one felt the best. this was particularly annoying when it turned up 40 9 moves algs for the same case. also when i didnt like any of the ones it gave me i had to rotate the cube and try them all again. all the ones i picked feel pretty good to execute though.

what about you? do you think this method has potential?


----------



## philkt731 (Jul 16, 2008)

Of course it has potential, I'm just not sure it does for me. I also am really bad at recognition of the permutation of unoriented corners even when I have the white layer completely correct and my favorite LL color yellow for my corners, it takes forever for me to recognize it. 

However, if I can get my recognition time down to my recognition to PBL, this would definitely help me, only 150 algs isn't too bad either. I might not make it my primary method, but for those cases where its only 1 or 2 moves for a face and I can recognixe the last step, it would definitely be worth it.

When will the algs be up?


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 16, 2008)

i sent erik a message telling him about this and asking for his email on the day i completed it. unfortunately i completed it on the first day of the Czech open, where he could not read it, and i am afraid that it may have been lost under a tidal wave of congratulatory messages. right now it is in the form of an excel spreadsheet. i could send you a copy if you would like.


----------



## MistArts (Jul 16, 2008)

Well, I think recognization would be harder for this.


----------



## Erik (Jul 16, 2008)

Hey,
first of all thanks for taking the effort to find all the algs. I do have to say that Henrik Buus-Aagaard already found all algs about a year ago. Of course the method is all about the idea itself, you can get your own algs for everything you want of course.  Most algorithms on that very old site are not even nice and there are much better ones although it'd take much time to find them. For instance some algs can be RU, or RUL only and be 14 moves and be nicer than an optimal 9 move RUF algorithms. 
I should learn them all xD


----------



## Kenneth (Jul 16, 2008)

Before Erik and Gunnar started I knew the full method and before me Lucasz Cialon from poland was the first one to learn this method (as far as I know). It is named EG becase it was Erik and Gunnar who first put it up on the net.

Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

Kenneth? You know all the algs? How many algs do you know for all the puzzles anyway? It seems like you just make up all the algs and know every one of them that ever existed!


----------



## brunson (Jul 16, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net


The Fridrich Method was called the Fridrich Method long before the inter-webs.

http://ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/history.html

She documented her method on the 'Net in 1997, but people were referring to CFOP as "Fridrich" in 1982 and I think she was pretty intrinsic in the development of it.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 17, 2008)

brunson said:


> Kenneth said:
> 
> 
> > Jessica Fridrich did not invent the Fridrich metod, but was the first to publish it on the net
> ...



i believe she created the idea for the slotting of f2l pairs, but the OLLs and PLLs were, for lack of a better word, taken from other sources.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 17, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > Kenneth said:
> ...



Nah, the Dockhorn-Treep method was the first published version of "Fridrich". For all I know, Guus RS learned his F2L method from there, but not LL.

I'm currently not interested in learning this because even my COLL recognition is horrible.


----------



## Kenneth (Jul 17, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Kenneth? You know all the algs? How many algs do you know for all the puzzles anyway? It seems like you just make up all the algs and know every one of them that ever existed!



Bah, I'm using Sune and Niklas to solve them all 

I do not know all cases foe EG anymore, it took 3 months to learn them all and one month of no practice to forget 50% of them again. I know all CLL and therefore I can solve all inverse cases too using CLL + (-R) F2 R2 in the end (last R in wrong direction + two turns) For the cases where there are 1 bar in FL then I know most but not all (at least not right on, mabey if I think a lot it will come back).

Thing is, I'm pre retiered and got more time than I need, wery much of my cubing time has been spent looking for algs so of coure I know more algs than most people does. I'm sure there are no other cuber who has forgotten so many alg as me, and then relearn them again, "aha, it's that alg!!"

Some of the COLL's I can solve in like 10 diffrent algs


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jul 17, 2008)

I think i might learn it....

This would be useful for CF anyway. I'll consider it anway... I'm already learning CLL


----------



## Gabriel (Mar 8, 2009)

The Erik's page already doesn't work, where can I find EG's algorithms?


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Mar 8, 2009)

Generate them: http://www.speedcubing.com/CubeSolver/MiniCubeSolver.html


----------



## Athefre (Mar 8, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> 3 move FL+ 8.6 move solve+ .75 move AUF(needed only 3/4 of the time)




I know this is an old topic but are you considering the .75 AUF for before and after performing Step 2? Is the other .75 included in the 8.6 Step 2 average?

I think the idea is great, for people that don't mind the memorization. I don't think recognition would be any different from "normal" CxLL, you could have the D-layer's permutation and the location of the swapped corners memorized during preinspection.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 9, 2009)

The AUF before Step 2 should be (1/6)(3/4) = 1/8 of the time. That is if the 8.6 isn't included.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 9, 2009)

I guess I don't know much about this, I'm not sure what the (1/6) is. I know there are some cases, like (from Gilles Roux's table) H1 and H6 (.50), and A6 (0) that require less than .75 but other than cases like those...the only idea I have is that (1/6) somehow has something to do with the location of the swapped D-layer corners.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Mar 9, 2009)

I think learning the adjacent EG case first is easier than learning CLL first. There are way more ways to make the FL with 2 edges that needed to be swapped adjacently than making the FL with all pieces in correct position.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 22, 2010)

Bump, got new data (and some comments).



DavidWoner said:


> basically you solve one side of the cube, not necessarily permuted (like Ortega first layer.) *i believe this step averages 3 moves*.


Has this been more thoroughly analyzed in the meantime?



DavidWoner said:


> there are 143 algorithms for this


The wiki now says 120 algorithms in the box on the right and 120 non-PBL algorithms in the text. I think all of these numbers are wrong, but I'm not sure enough to "correct" them. I think there are 128 algorithms, 42 for EG 2 (=CLL) and 43 for EG 1 and EG 0. Or 123 if not counting the five PBLs (though I don't see why one would ignore them). Maybe fewer algs are needed by clever reuse, but that's not obvious to me and should be explained. Thoughts?



DavidWoner said:


> Case 1: first layer is correctly permuted. this is just COLL optimized for 2x2. there are 47 algs for this case, averaging 8.79 moves.
> 
> Case 2: there is a "bar" in the first layer, where only two pieces need to be switched. you place the "bar" in the BD position and the solve the cube. there are 48 algs for this, averaging 8.43 moves.
> 
> Case 3: this is the one i designed. it is where the first layer is entirely mispermuted, where a diagonal swap is needed. the FL does not need to be in any specific position to solve the cube, maybe an AUF at the end. there are 48 algs for this case, averaging 8.58 moves.


This counts algs multiple times, probably because Erik arranged them in a 6x8 grid and didn't want to leave cells empty and thus duplicated algs (see first row here). Also, it would be nice to know whether the averages were weighted.

I also tried it myself now (computing my own optimal-length alg set) and came up with these statistics:


```
CLL=
            EG 2    EG 1    EG 0

 0 moves      1
 1 moves
 2 moves
 3 moves                      1
 4 moves
 5 moves      1
 6 moves      1       2       1
 7 moves      9       5       3
 8 moves      4      25      14
 9 moves     20      11      17
10 moves      6               6
11 moves      1               1

average     8.30    8.05    8.51
weighted    8.46    8.04    8.62

David       8.79    8.43    8.58
```

The main table shows how many cases need how many moves, then there's the average and weighted average (taking into account how often each cases occurs) and David's numbers for comparison. David, do you still have your statistics, and can you compare them to mine? (not counting duplicate algs, i.e. 42/43/43 instead of 47/48/48). I'll polish my statistics as well and post my alg set later...



DavidWoner said:


> *this gives step two a total average of about 8.6 moves.*


With my new computations, and assuming to really only focus on solving a face in the first step, I now get:
(8.46 + 4*8.04 + 8.62) / 6 = *8.21*


----------



## deadalnix (Jan 22, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> The wiki now says 120 algorithms in the box on the right and 120 non-PBL algorithms in the text. I think all of these numbers are wrong, but I'm not sure enough to "correct" them. I think there are 128 algorithms, 42 for EG 2 (=CLL) and 43 for EG 1 and EG 0. Or 123 if not counting the five PBLs (though I don't see why one would ignore them). Maybe fewer algs are needed by clever reuse, but that's not obvious to me and should be explained. Thoughts?



You are just right. I know EG and this is it.

Anyway, case EG 2 and EG 1 can be merged easily with several techniques.


----------



## Kenneth (Jan 24, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> The wiki now says 120 algorithms in the box on the right and 120 non-PBL algorithms in the text. I think all of these numbers are wrong, but I'm not sure enough to "correct" them. I think there are 128 algorithms, 42 for EG 2 (=CLL) and 43 for EG 1 and EG 0. Or 123 if not counting the five PBLs (though I don't see why one would ignore them). Maybe fewer algs are needed by clever reuse, but that's not obvious to me and should be explained. Thoughts?



A number of the EG 1 cases can be solved as CLL if you have one half of LL solved and put that part on the same side as the pair in FL.


Not important but related and a bit fun : R U R' L' U' L R U R' for setup, that makes a self simulating case, re orient so the B-side becomes D


----------



## qqwref (Jan 24, 2010)

Not important?! R U' R2' F R2 U' R' (an alg for that case) is very useful for Ortega.


----------



## Kenneth (Jan 24, 2010)

Did not say the alg was unimportant but the fact that the case is self simulating. Who needs to know that? 

And yes, I know your alg but I use mine, it is shorter than it looks because you execute it doing R and L simultainously, that way it is only 7 turns.

Edit: (to save a short post) David, yes, same... but diffrent =)


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 24, 2010)

They are the same alg.

Edit: I do not have any statistics. If anything was saved, it is on a computer I no longer have access to. However I feel whatever slight differences in movecount that arise are wholly inconsequential. The ability to execute quickly is not determined solely by movecount, nor the value of a method. I understand the interest to evaluate it from a statistical point of view, but I am no loner concerned with it.


----------



## Killermanp (Sep 25, 2010)

Hi guys, I have recently begun to learn EG, I had all the algs saved on my flash drive, but my flash drive ghot zapped. Does anyone know the site?


----------



## That70sShowDude (Sep 25, 2010)

Did you learn from here?


----------



## riffz (Sep 25, 2010)

http://dtwoner.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_42_EG1

http://www.speedcubing101.com/eg-1.html

In the future, though, post a question like this in the One Answer Question Thread.


----------



## Killermanp (Sep 25, 2010)

Thank u riffz!!! the one on speedcubing.com is the one I was looking for.


----------



## Anthony (Sep 26, 2010)

Killermanp said:


> Thank u riffz!!! the one on speedcubing.com is the one I was looking for.


 
I'm assuming you mean speedcubing101.com..
Anyway, it's funny that you bumped this thread today. I just added EG-2 to my site.


----------

