# Should We All Relearn PLL?



## dChan (Mar 17, 2008)

Last year I had stumbled upon a page in Lucas Garron's site "garron.us" that contained PLL algorithms processed through a cube solving tool. The algorithms reduced many of the usual moves required to solve each PLL case, turning a 13 move algorithm into a 9 move algorithms as well as reducing all the others by several moves. I probably would have taken to learning all of them over to get faster times but I took a break from cubing shortly afterwards and abandoned learning them. Now that I am back and I am thinking about simple ways to reduce your solving time, I thought back to those algorithms and started thinking, "What if we all relearned PLL or even OLL with those shorter algorithms?" Would it make us faster? I would think so.

What do you guys think? Or, more importantly, has this already been thought of while I was gone? I'm sure someone else saw the page which I can no longer find.

Has anyone thought of running every F2L, OLL, and PLL case through a cube solver to see what they got?


----------



## ExoCorsair (Mar 17, 2008)

Fingertrick-friendly algs are generally better than optimal ones.


----------



## Jai (Mar 17, 2008)

Most RFU-optimal algs are fingertrick friendly. Opticubes.com has long list of algos that are Optimal, RDU optimal, RFU optimal, and 3x3x2 (?)


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 17, 2008)

I use mostly RULM optimal algs for PLL and I think my set is one of the shortest anyone has got. Most of them are fast except my R's that are short but horrible to trig 

But it's not that important to me, I use COLL and get 8:12 U-PLL 2:12 Z-PLL, 1:12 H-PLL and 1:12 skips... if I not get a corner orientation skip (1:27), then I use all PLL's as ZB's to solve both COLL and EPLL in one go.


----------



## dChan (Mar 17, 2008)

Ah, I forgot all about finger-trick friendly algs. But are they really better than a short algorithm? Isn't it possible to be way faster with an 8 move algorithm, even if it has odd continuity as opposed to a 13 move algorithm with finger tricks? I mean, if you can turn 2 tps, tha shorter alg will be done in 4 seconds as opposed to the longer algorithm which would take 6.5 seconds and even with the finger tricks, isn't it more work(-2 seconds off but more movement)?


----------



## Dene (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, seeing as the fastest cubers can already execute their algorithms sub2 seconds, I'm not sure if learning new algorithms will help much...


----------



## dChan (Mar 17, 2008)

Wouldn't a few less moves to do for each alg, decrease their time a bit though? Maybe instead of sub-2 they'll be able to do it at 1 second flat.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 17, 2008)

dChan said:


> Wouldn't a few less moves to do for each alg, decrease their time a bit though? Maybe instead of sub-2 they'll be able to do it at 1 second flat.


Depends. Those algs are rarely much faster. Most people use quite a few optimals already, and the other algs are pretty close. People don't actually want fast or short algs, only the algs they think are fastest to execute (and are more comfortable with). 

watermelon has a better page, you know.

But sometimes I still get grumbly about my algs, and look for different generators in hope of a nicer one...

Here's my best suggestion:
Learn an optimal alg for each case (for linear FMC or so), but every time you find a faster alg, use that as your main _speedsolving_ alg until you find a faster one (and retain all interesting ones).

LU r'u2lU'R' d'R2UR2'UR2


----------



## dChan (Mar 17, 2008)

Thanks for that page, Lucas. I would not have known about it because I have only just recently been back surfing on the web for cube sites.

Yeah, I have a whole list of different algs for different OLL and PLL cases printed out and I always use it and try out different algorithms for different cases(I like lots of U,F,R,Rw,Fw,Uw moves). I guess it really just depends on the cuber. I think after I completely learn all the OLLs that I havn't learned I'll go back and see if learning those shorter algorithms is faster.

Does anyone use those at all, anyway? I have never heard anyone tell me that they use those shorter algs as opposed to the usual ones.


----------



## Jai (Mar 18, 2008)

dChan said:


> Thanks for that page, Lucas.



I pointed you to the same exact site. But Lucas gave the link to the PLL page 
Who uses these algos? I do. I changed my F perm, N perm, and R perm to one of the RFU optimal algos.


----------



## dChan (Mar 18, 2008)

Sorry, I only did a quick read through of the post and I completely forgot what the name of the site you gave was. When I saw Lucas's post he had a link that was all Blue and Shiny so it immediately attracted my attention, lol.

Does anyone, though, use these algs completely for their PLL?


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Mar 18, 2008)

Wow, thanks to everyone who posted the opticubes site, I've never seen it before...

Now the interesting question is, how do you start using a new alg? It's hard to forget the ones I've been using for a year  But I do love the T perm I got, I can't believe I didn't see it before... (the reverse of the one I use )


----------



## ExoCorsair (Mar 18, 2008)

Repeat it over and over again until you can generate it on-the-fly or it's pure muscle memory.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 18, 2008)

dChan said:


> Isn't it possible to be way faster with an 8 move algorithm


Whoa, an 8 moves PLL? Please show me! In HTM, of course, don't be a nitpicker like me.

I find it insulting that with all the time we've spent to find fast algs, you come here and suggest we've all been too blind for the obvious.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 18, 2008)

M2 U M E2 M E2 U' M2 ... 8 Stm


----------



## watermelon (Mar 18, 2008)

Jai said:


> Who uses these algos? I do. I changed my F perm, N perm, and R perm to one of the RFU optimal algos.



Would you mind sharing which ones you're using? I've never really taken the time to look through all of those algs before .


----------



## Stefan (Mar 18, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> M2 U M E2 M E2 U' M2 ... 8 Stm


Dude! Highlight my message you replied to!


----------



## watermelon (Mar 18, 2008)

How about R2 U (F B') R2 (F' B) U R2 = R2 U S' U2 S U R2 = 7 STM?

Edit:
You can see Jason Baum using this alg here (it might be the inverse but you get the idea):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEt1yRRQ7Mw


----------



## dChan (Mar 18, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> dChan said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it possible to be way faster with an 8 move algorithm
> ...



I think that is a little bit off Stefan. If you read my first post I said that I took a cubing break so I had no idea what was going on in the speedcubing world really. Not to mention I did write this, "Or, more importantly, has this already been thought of while I was gone? I'm sure someone else saw the page which I can no longer find."

In my turn I find it insulting that you would think I would be so ignorant as to not know that there has to be people who have done this.

But anyway, has anyone here adopted these algorithms completely? I myself would love to learn all the shorter versions of these PLL cases.

Oh, and to start using a new alg, simply remember it and then use it whenever you can. Whenever I learn a new alg, no matter what, whether I'm in public or at home practicing, I always use it even if it slows my times down in my cube log.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 18, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Kenneth said:
> 
> 
> > M2 U M E2 M E2 U' M2 ... 8 Stm
> ...



Ok, I can do that in the future. I normally do not when the post I'm replying is immediately above the one I'm writing.


----------



## Lofty (Mar 18, 2008)

People have thought and have run all OLL and PLL through a cube solver. And if for F2L you just mean the 41 cases then yes they have done that too. 
Optimal algs are often quite nasty to execute and contain random moves all over the cube that are not fun to execute at all.
I myself would love to learn RFU cases for all my PLL's.
And a lot of people here don't just search around on pages they make the pages.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 18, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Kenneth said:
> ...


Not quote. Highlight! So that you can see my hidden message!


----------



## Stefan (Mar 18, 2008)

dChan said:


> I think that is a little bit off Stefan.


Well, I feel how I feel.



dChan said:


> If you read my first post I said that I took a cubing break so I had no idea what was going on in the speedcubing world really.


Yeah but you said the break started last year. And we've been optimizing algs with computer help, including shortest algs, at least since 2003.



dChan said:


> The algorithms reduced many of the usual moves required to solve each PLL case, turning a 13 move algorithm into a 9 move algorithms as well as *reducing all the others by several moves*.


Only if your personal selection of algs truly sucked. Shortest PLL algs have been known, and for many cases used, for years!



dChan said:


> I mean, if you can turn 2 tps, [...]


For a PLL? Are you talking about total noobs?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 18, 2008)

Oh and only the edge-3-cycles and the corner-3-cycles have 9 move algs. If you used 13 moves for either of those, your alg selection was even worse than I thought. I never heard of anyone using 13 moves for those cases, and the 9 move solutions have probably been known since the early 1980s.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 18, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Not quote. Highlight! So that you can see my hidden message!



Ehm sorry, don't know how to do that, something I must have missed :-(


----------



## Stefan (Mar 18, 2008)

Simply drag your mouse cursor across the message text. But ok, I repeat it here:
" In HTM, of course, don't be a nitpicker like me."


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 18, 2008)

Aha, that type of highlight =)

Was afraid you should say something about HTM after I posted my alg


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 18, 2008)

Isn't all of this a complete misrepresentation of the order algs were found?

I think this is the correct order:
1) Algs were found by playing around and using commutators and setup-moves. These algs were mostly long and slow, but some nice ones were already found this way
2) Algs were improved for fewer moves by hand and some use of computers
3) Optimal algs were found for every case (mostly by use of computers)
4) Sub-optimal algs were found that were faster to execute (mostly by handpicking from a list of optimal/near-optimal algs, but also by combining common fingertricks or picking from a generated list of RFU-only moves)

Or short version:
1) Find an alg that does the job
2) Find an alg that does the job better
3) Find an alg that does the job in fewest moves
4) Find and alg that does the job in fastest moves (might require more moves)

The best example I can think of is a H-perm
1) (M D2 M') U2 (M D2 M') U2 (M D2 M') U (M D2 M') U2 (M D2 M') U2 (M D2 M') U'
2) (M2 U2 M2) U (M2 U2 M2) U'
3) U (R2 F2 B2 L2) D' (R2 F2 B2 L2) (10f*)
4) (M2 U) (M2 U2) (M2 U) M2

Another example would be U-perm
1) (M D2 M') U (M D2 M') U2 (M D2 M') U (M D2 M')
2) F2 U' (M' U2 M U2) U F2
3) F2 U' L R' F2 L' R U' F2 (9f*)(basically the same as 2))
4) R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2

And even right now, faster algs are still being found. Also, algs are being optimised for one-handed moves and even for big-cubes (R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2)
And even algs that are already RU-only can be improved. R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 (U2) is slower for me than (R U R' U')(R U R' U')(R U R' (U'))


----------



## Jai (Mar 19, 2008)

watermelon said:


> Jai said:
> 
> 
> > Who uses these algos? I do. I changed my F perm, N perm, and R perm to one of the RFU optimal algos.
> ...


F perm: U R2 F R F' R' U' F' U F R2 U R' U' R 
R perm: (it's the common one) R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2 U'
N perm: R U' R2 F2 U' R F2 R' U F2 R2 U R' U


----------



## Harris Chan (Mar 19, 2008)

watermelon said:


> How about R2 U (F B') R2 (F' B) U R2 = R2 U S' U2 S U R2 = 7 STM?
> 
> Edit:
> You can see Jason Baum using this alg here (it might be the inverse but you get the idea):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEt1yRRQ7Mw



It's Matt Walters signature move ;-)


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Mar 19, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> M2 U M E2 M E2 U' M2 ... 8 Stm



I love you.

I'm not making any promises, but I think that alg might actually work better for me than the one I'm using now  Even other people's arguments teach me nice new tricks!


----------



## Crzyazn (Mar 19, 2008)

Like i really want to learn an Nperm that's even HARDER to get fast......


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 19, 2008)

Arnud: I think Ra U2 Ra' Fa' U2 Fa goes for H-PLL number 3 and 4. It is ten turns HTM but is executed as six turns.


----------



## Dene (Mar 19, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> 4) R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2



Ok so I was playing around with this a bit. It seems to be a mirror or inverse or whatever (can't be bothered to think it through) of R' U R' U' R' U' R' U R U R2. I may just be showing my ignorance, but certainly the one I posted is much more finger-friendly? I'm now waiting for a top cuber to come and tell me that they execute your one sub-1, so damn you  . The R U just isn't nice to perform and can only be done with the right hand, whereas R' U' can be done with right wrist, left finger, which seems more comfortable to me.


----------



## Lofty (Mar 19, 2008)

I use both of those algs Dene  Depends on how the cube hands me the U and I can avoid cube rotations and AUF.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 19, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I think this is the correct order:
> 1) Algs were found by playing around and using commutators and setup-moves.


The first way I found algs was *not* with commutators but with the _"destroy what you have, repair it a different way, observe the side effects in the unsolved part of the cube"_-principle.


----------



## FU (Mar 19, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is the correct order:
> ...



He did mention 'playing around'


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 19, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> Arnud: I think Ra U2 Ra' Fa' U2 Fa goes for H-PLL number 3 and 4. It is ten turns HTM but is executed as six turns.


 
Can you translate that to RUFLDBrufldbMES notation?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 19, 2008)

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Mike/notation.html


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 19, 2008)

Ra U2 Ra' Fa' U2 Fa = RL U2 R'L' F'B' U2 FB

I know that alg for One-Handed. It is probably discovered at "stage 2"


----------



## dChan (Mar 19, 2008)

This is getting interesting but before anyone else says anything I just wanted to say that I am a newbie in terms of cubing history. I mean, I literally only began cubing near the start of last year(either end of January or beginning-to-mid February). And after about four months of cubing I took a break from cubing which means all I know about cubing was what I read about in those four months. I'm not being naive or stupid or whatever it is, I just have not been here as long as most of you top guys.


----------

