# CPEOLL (Fridrich add on method)



## Kenneth (Aug 4, 2010)

[wiki]CPEOLL[/wiki]

How about that?

Would you find it useful?

Anyone that tried it before?

_(I will add upp cases and algs asp)_ ... cases done, only algs left now =)

And now all cases have algs... all are not that good :/ But some cases are really nice =)

Well, anyway, you are all free to add up more algs to the page, that is how it is supposed to work, this wiki thingy =)


----------



## nck (Aug 4, 2010)

would work with cls or wv.
But I don't see any advantage compared to oll+pll


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 4, 2010)

nck said:


> would work with cls or wv.
> But I don't see any advantage compared to oll+pll



Yes, that would work...

Well, if you also use ELL and the rest of the PLLs you will have a skip to ELL in 1:6, a skip to PLL in 1:8 and if you have to do this step anyway you will have a EPLL skip in 1:12

That sums up to... one skip in each average of five!


----------



## irontwig (Aug 4, 2010)

I've been thinking about this to, since I like the idea of EJF2L, but I'm not too fond of Petrus' EO, at least for speed.


----------



## Sa967St (Aug 4, 2010)

Ooh I like this. I'll put this on my list of algs to learn. Thanks


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 4, 2010)

Looks very nice.
I'll be sure to learn these, then use them whenever ELS is


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2010)

I already know algs for these cases.

It's a subset of what people have been calling OLLCP.


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I already know algs for these cases.
> 
> It's a subset of what people have been calling OLLCP.



XCLL (extended) I called it when I was learning it from a CLL perspective some years ago, I knew about 150 cases then. For most I used COLL algs and inserted M moves the same way as you do with J-PLL (or Sune as many do for OLL r U R'.. ). That way the same COLL solves 5 cases, 7 if you do M and U moves for setup and restoration (all is possible but then it will be many inserts, better to use a special alg for the 4-flip case).


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2010)

I prefer OLLCP since most users will be doing it as an alternative to OLL.

It gives a bigger avantage to an OLL/PLL user than a CLL/ELL user.

OLLCP is in turn a subset of KCLL.


----------



## MichaelP. (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm confused. Is this supposed to be like COLL, except instead of already having edges oriented, you have only corners oriented? But those cases are so few. I mean, are you going to use 'corner control' during F2L?


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 4, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> I'm confused. Is this supposed to be like COLL, except instead of already having edges oriented, you have only corners oriented? But those cases are so few. I mean, are you going to use 'corner control' during F2L?



As I wrote the idea is to use it when you get a CO skip but of course CC is an option if you like to use it as the main LL step.

But there's a bunch of cases in CC, 27 for each position of the pair.

BTW; anyone got a link to a page with all CC cases? I'm thinking of looking at a method that is a bit like columns first but here you do 3 pairs, last pair + CC, put 3 FL edges and centres, [wiki]L5EOP[/wiki] to fix edges and finaly PLL. You can speedsolve in 45-50 moves using that =)


----------



## JeffDelucia (Aug 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I already know algs for these cases.
> 
> It's a subset of what people have been calling OLLCP.



How many algs are there for OLLCP? It must be nearly as much as ZBLL right?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2010)

It depends what you mean by 'algs'. I consider sune and fatsune to be essentially the same alg, but for different cases.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Aug 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> It depends what you mean by 'algs'. I consider sune and fatsune to be essentially the same alg, but for different cases.



So how many cases are there?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2010)

About 300.


----------



## macky (Aug 4, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> MichaelP. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused. Is this supposed to be like COLL, except instead of already having edges oriented, you have only corners oriented? But those cases are so few. I mean, are you going to use 'corner control' during F2L?
> ...



For CFOP, it doesn't make sense to use full CC (i.e. 27 cases for each pair position) since you can insert an edge in 3 moves and do CLS.




Kenneth said:


> BTW; anyone got a link to a page with all CC cases? I'm thinking of looking at a method that is a bit like columns first but here you do 3 pairs, last pair + CC, put 3 FL edges and centres, [wiki]L5EOP[/wiki] to fix edges and finaly PLL. You can speedsolve in 45-50 moves using that =)



I see you wrote a lot of this page:
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Columns_First_Methods
This line isn't objective and doesn't belong in the wiki, regardless of whether or not it's true: "It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but there are very few people that uses columns."

I haven't convinced myself that Cross+F2L is faster than Columns First when both are mastered, but I don't think it's hard to see why Cross+F2L is the more popular speedcubing method. Solving the cross first reduces the number of possible edge, and hence also pair, positions. This makes it easier to make the solution for each case as an automatism (either by directly learning algorithms or as a result of repeating intuitive solves). And automatism (i.e. braindeadness) is great for speedcubing.

Note that the same can be said about Cross+F2L vs. Roux. Are there some Roux or Columns First variations that are better, when perfected, than Cross+F2L variations? Maybe. But in practice we should also consider how much extra effort it takes to master methods allowing more freedom.

I'd be interested to hear what Roux solvers think of Columns First variations. They're a better judge than Cross+F2Lers like me.


By the way, since CF is already in widespread use for Corners First, I don't know how to abbreviate Cross+F2L and Columns First. Note that Cross+F2L includes CFOP, Cross+F2L+MGLS+PLL, etc.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Aug 5, 2010)

Couldn't some of these potentially be used for blind as well?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 5, 2010)

macky said:


> This line isn't objective and doesn't belong in the wiki, regardless of whether or not it's true: "It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but there are very few people that uses columns."
> 
> I haven't convinced myself that Cross+F2L is faster than Columns First when both are mastered, but I don't think it's hard to see why Cross+F2L is the more popular speedcubing method. Solving the cross first reduces the number of possible edge, and hence also pair, positions. This makes it easier to make the solution for each case as an automatism (either by directly learning algorithms or as a result of repeating intuitive solves). And automatism (i.e. braindeadness) is great for speedcubing.


Don't bother, I tried pointing this out a while ago.



macky said:


> I'd be interested to hear what Roux solvers think of Columns First variations. They're a better judge than Cross+F2Lers like me.


I wouldn't call myself a Roux solver (well, I can do it, I've done a sub20 average) but I've done Columns First enough to be moderately fast at it (around 20). I think it certainly has some potential but the biggest problem is the relatively large number of rotations. S moves can be done but they are awkward and I don't know any way to do fingertricks with them (but hey, I said that about M moves too a while back, and look at what I know now), so in practice whenever you need to do those turns you have to do a y rotation. This doesn't happen just during the L8E step but during the columns step as well, because occasionally an edge you want is sitting in DL or DR, which is not only awkward to look for but (again) awkward to execute. So I think this method has potential, sub20 is definitely possible and sub15 probably is, but it won't be as fast as Roux or Fridrich (with good F2L technique) without some modification.



macky said:


> By the way, since CF is already in widespread use for Corners First, I don't know how to abbreviate Cross+F2L and Columns First. Note that Cross+F2L includes CFOP, Cross+F2L+MGLS+PLL, etc.


I don't know about cross+F2L, but for columns first, how about ColF?


----------



## riffz (Aug 5, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Couldn't some of these potentially be used for blind as well?



I think you know the answer to that.

Yes.


----------



## mynameiswillem (Aug 5, 2010)

puzzlemaster said:


> Couldn't some of these potentially be used for blind as well?



nope these algorithms are BANNED from BLD.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 5, 2010)

CrF for cross+F2L? C+F?


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 5, 2010)

qqwref said:


> macky said:
> 
> 
> > This line isn't objective and doesn't belong in the wiki, regardless of whether or not it's true: "It is a great mystery why these methods are not popular at all, it is fast, effective and easy but there are very few people that uses columns."
> ...



Mabye I put that in bad wordings but, there are billions of variations for CF or LBL, and on top of that there are loads of akward methods used, columns is obvious compared to many of those and still there are no users.

If you don't like some of my writings in the wiki, then just remove it, I don't own the wiki, nor the articles I put there. It is something that belongs to the community. I'm well aware of that when I write to there, if I had problems with people editing my writings I would not put it there. If it is a huge change that destroys hours of work for me, then please talk to me first (at the wiki talk page), mabye I can explain why I did like I did.



qqwref said:


> macky said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be interested to hear what Roux solvers think of Columns First variations. They're a better judge than Cross+F2Lers like me.
> ...



After practice you learn to save on rotations, Dw is a pretty obvious substitute for U + y. Putting down pairs you can use Rw U R' instead of F R' F' R or y U' L' U L. Solving pieces opposite to the previous instead of an adjacent in L8E if you have a option to do so can save two rotations.

The rotations are basicly only y, you loose on the grip shift but looking ahead is not a problem (exept for pieces that are stuck in D or are sitting on the backside but that is not due to rotations).


----------



## rubiknewbie (Aug 6, 2010)

The problem is that these occur rarely. My experience is that rarely practiced algorithms become forgotten algorithms. And you will not orient corners just to do this since orient edges gives better options.


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 6, 2010)

True, but 50% of the 10 cases that are not ELL or PLL have "intuitive" solutions (PLL with setup) so for those you don't need to learn a specific alg. So there is only five left, not so much to remember.

(One of those algs, the one that solves the "T" is useful for classic Pochmann BLD, it orients the edges while doing the T-perm, at least the one I put there, others may change permut for more LL edges)

And besides that, 1:27 is not "rarley" 

Compare to H-PLL for example, occures 1:72, and still you know an alg for it =)


----------



## qqwref (Aug 6, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> After practice you learn to save on rotations, Dw is a pretty obvious substitute for U + y. Putting down pairs you can use Rw U R' instead of F R' F' R or y U' L' U L. Solving pieces opposite to the previous instead of an adjacent in L8E if you have a option to do so can save two rotations.
> 
> The rotations are basicly only y



Dw can work, but i don't tend to use it because it doesn't seem to set itself up nicely. Besides a lot of the time when I'd want to use an S move I especially do not want a U or U' before it. The putting down pairs tricks don't help since an experienced F2L solver would know how to insert a paired pair without y rotations already, my concern is with S moves. The third tip is useful. I agree it's only y rotations in the method, same as Fridrich, but there are definitely more and it's better to not have to do them.

Here is a similar method I suggest:
- While you build the four pairs, also place DL and DR. I guess this can be done most effectively by putting the five pieces on left first (can be done in inspection?) and then the five on right.
- Now fix corners, might as well do it now, you can do it in one step and neglect the M slice.
- Last six edges. Orient first, then permute (I personally like placing UL/UR and then doing the M slice, but if you're really fast at ELLs you could place DF/DB first I suppose).
It's definitely more optimized than the normal columns first method


----------



## Kenneth (Aug 6, 2010)

Depends on what the user is used to I guess because I have trouble solving in sub 30 using Roux but not with columns where I average about 27 atm... But it also depends on the scramble, if I have a easy 1x2x2 to start with then of course Roux is an option.

As you know I tried a few methods and the columns I use now is the fastest for me so far. But of course, being my method it is adapted to what I can do (decently) fast.

---------------
Edit, don't like S moves, so you keep doing y? I just found this : setup R' U' R' U R .. inverse it to solve 

Well, won't solve all positions but... one down =)

Honestly I prefer (y) Lw' U L ..


----------



## Tnghia (Aug 6, 2010)

In my opinion, it will only work if you have already learn oll and pll. It may take more time to look than the old way.


----------



## TK 421 (Aug 6, 2010)

Omg...


----------



## irontwig (Aug 6, 2010)

Tnghia said:


> In my opinion, it will only work if you have already learn oll and pll. It may take more time to look than the old way.



That's what "Fridrich add on" means.


----------

