# Why you should learn COLL for 4x4x4



## blah (Jun 12, 2009)

Disclaimer: This is nothing new. Just some numbers trying to convince you to do what the thread title says.

After doing your OLL parity alg which pops up half the time, assuming you're not stupid, your chances of getting an LL with all edges oriented is 5/16 on a 4x4x4, as opposed to 1/8 on a 3x3x3. In other words, you're *2.5 times* as likely to get an LL with all edges oriented on a 4x4x4 than on a 3x3x3. Another way to put it (probably _sounds_ more convincing to laymen) is *COLL is 250% as useful on a 4x4x4 as it is on a 3x3x3*.

After COLL, the probability of getting a PLL skip is 1/24, as opposed to 1/288 if you just did your usual alg. So *you're 12 times as likely to get a PLL skip with COLL as you are without, that's 1200%* (not 120%, it's 1200%).

After COLL, the probability of getting a 1-look PLL is 17/24 (I consider PLL skip a 0-look PLL although there's a 3/4 chance of a required AUF), as opposed to _slightly more than 1/2_ (I didn't bother counting) if you just did your usual alg. That's _almost 1.5 times_ as likely (it's a little less than 1.5). Edit: I found a better way to put this. Without COLL, approximately *half the time*, you need to do 2-look PLL; with COLL, exactly *1/4 of the time*, you need to do a 2-look PLL, _AND_ the second PLL is _always_ a U perm, read on to find out how to achieve this.

And finally, with COLL:

*3/4 of the time* you're gonna get a 0-look or 1-look PLL
*1/6 of the time* you can do PLL parity alg from any direction and get a U perm anyway (which means you save time and moves not doing unnecessary AUFs)
*1/12 of the time* you have to do "the other PLL parity alg" (the one that swaps 2 adjacent edges) to get a U perm, otherwise you get an annoying Z perm, and fortunately enough for you, there are only 2 such cases and they're easy to recognize - opposite colors are opposite each other (try your best to understand this, it's really easy to recognize but not easy to describe )

Oh, and COLL is _really_ easy to learn - more than half of them are intuitive. "Intuitive" here does not mean the exact same thing as it does in "intuitive F2L". "Intuitive" here is like: I know that Niklas is a commutator, and all commutators are intuitive, but when I execute Niklas, I'm not really thinking commutators; heck I'm not even thinking, I'm just executing it like any other alg. But _learning/memorizing_ the alg is easy because it's just a commutator.

Edit: I don't have proof or stats for this, but I guess it's pretty obvious that the (execution time on 4x4x4) : (execution time on 3x3x3) ratio for a <R,U> 2-gen alg is lower than that for a non <R,U> 2-gen alg.

Edit: This thread's probably not gonna get any replies, is it?


----------



## mazei (Jun 12, 2009)

With that, I will pick up a few algos for COLL.

Off-topic: aren't you working and said you have no time for stuff like these?


----------



## blah (Jun 12, 2009)

mazei said:


> With that, I will pick up a few algos for COLL.
> 
> Off-topic: aren't you working and said you have no time for stuff like these?



I have no time to pick up a cube and practice. I have time while sitting/standing on a bus/train, while waiting for a bus/train, while having lunch, while having dinner, and right now at 3 in the morning. Doesn't take more than 5 minutes to do a couple of probability calculations, and I don't even have my calculator with me now


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 12, 2009)

Since learning COLL, I've given up on using it on 3x3. it seems like too much of a waste, since my EPLLs aren't much faster than the rest. On bigcubes, I love using it though, because OLLs are somewhat awkward to begin with, and U perms can be so much faster than other algs. My recognition is still horrible, but I'm working on that


----------



## blah (Jun 12, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> Since learning COLL, I've given up on using it on 3x3. it seems like too much of a waste, since my EPLLs aren't much faster than the rest.


Ditto.



masterofthebass said:


> On bigcubes, I love using it though, because OLLs are somewhat awkward to begin with, and U perms can be so much faster than other algs.


Ditto.



masterofthebass said:


> My recognition is still horrible, but I'm working on that


No ditto. Recognition for COLL, or recognition for the paritied-EPLLs? Last I checked, you use hyperorientation for recognition, am I right? Why not try the "normal" recognition system? There's definitely at least one benefit - no cube tilts/rotations for recognition. Besides, how often do you get NMCxLL if you don't use Roux? I disagree with how Dan Harris and Lars Vandenbergh and Jason Baum AUF to recognize the cases. I always thought my system that I discovered on my own was the "common" system that everyone uses since it's so intuitive, but so far I haven't seen anyone else who uses it, but then again, I've only been at COLL for a week or so. So maybe I have to look around a little more  I'll share it here once I'm sure no one else uses it, to make sure I don't look like a moron.

And you type 2 spaces after every period


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 12, 2009)

One is supposed to type two spaces after the end of each sentence. I've been doing so for two years.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 12, 2009)

blah: Hyperorientations isn't the problem, its just that I'm bad at remember which alg goes to which case fast enough for certain orientations  Not all of the hyperorientations even work for NMCxLL anyway. 

As for the 2 space thing, my mom taught me that when I first started papers for school and it has totally stuck with me. It sometimes messes me up on some typing tests, but as Stachu said, it's common practice.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 12, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> As for the 2 space thing, my mom taught me that when I first started papers for school and it has totally stuck with me. It sometimes messes me up on some typing tests, but as Stachu said, it's common practice.


Yeah. On longer essays, it'll actually add a good few lines to your paper, without having to do things like increasing your font, decreasing your margins, or other easy-to-stop "cheats."


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Jun 12, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> One is supposed to type two spaces after the end of each sentence. I've been doing so for two years.



I used to do that years ago for typewritten pages. Then I learned that word processors now expect just a single space after a period. Otherwise a new line might be broken between the 2 spaces, causing the next sentence to begin on the next line with a leading space. Maybe some (all?) processors solved this problem over the years.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 12, 2009)

You're definitely right about the 2.5 bit... that's convinced me that it might be worthwhile to learn. Do you have a list of good COLL algs (for 4x4) somewhere?


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

qqwref said:


> You're definitely right about the 2.5 bit... that's convinced me that it might be worthwhile to learn. Do you have a list of good COLL algs (for 4x4) somewhere?



I use the same ones as i do for 3x3 they all work enough and i have no problems comfort-wise with them.

http://jmbaum.110mb.com/coll.htm

of course you can modify the algs slightly for you personal style which shouldnt take more then a min of thought


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jun 12, 2009)

blah said:


> After COLL, the probability of getting a PLL skip is 1/24, as opposed to 1/288 if you just did your usual alg. So *you're 12 times as likely to get an LL skip with COLL as you are without, that's 1200%* (not 120%, it's 1200%).


You mean PLL skip instead of LL skip?

I use about 14-15 COLLs right now for 3x3 and higher. I don't use them all mainly because of how bad the algorithms are compared to the best algorithm for that OLL. For example, let's say for a certain COLL case:

Sune - ~0.8 sec
G perm - ~2.0 sec

COLL for that Sune - ~2.1 sec
U perm - ~1.4 sec

Also, according to your data, COLL would be useful especially on any even numbered cube, 4x4 and higher.


----------



## JLarsen (Jun 12, 2009)

Well as a Petrus user I find the oll's with all edges oriented incredibly nice, and I don't use COLL, but then again I've never really tried it. I've heard recog is actually slower and that makes sense to me too. Oh and on top of that the post above me says the algs are bad =\.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 13, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Well as a Petrus user I find the oll's with all edges oriented incredibly nice, and I don't use COLL, but then again I've never really tried it. I've heard recog is actually slower and that makes sense to me too. Oh and on top of that the post above me says the algs are bad =\.



I know all the Pi, Double Sune, and Triple Sune cases. They are all fast algs.
I know most of Headlights and Chameleon and they aren't bad either. All the COLL algs I know so far can be executed in less than 1.5 seconds. Many of them are simple 8 or 9 move commutators. I know the COLL algs for Sune, but I can't recognize them (Niklas, Sune, Bob, Buffy, and Anti-Buffy are pretty fast LUR algs, but I don't really like Doug Li's move.)

http://lar5.com/cube/yB.html

Edit:

Show me a case that "sucks hard." The average COLL should be faster than the average PLL. No COLL case is anywhere near as slow as N or E perms.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 13, 2009)

blah said:


> *1/12 of the time* you have to do "the other PLL parity alg" (the one that swaps 2 adjacent edges) to get a U perm, otherwise you get an *annoying Z or H perm,* and fortunately enough for you, there are only 2 such cases and they're easy to recognize - opposite colors are opposite each other (try your best to understand this, it's really easy to recognize but not easy to describe )



Unless you have severe brain damage you should never get H-perm after PLL parity.

And I agree that a lot of COLL cases suck hard, but some are quite useful.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 13, 2009)

Some people use an adjacent dedge swap.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 13, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > After COLL, the probability of getting a PLL skip is 1/24, as opposed to 1/288 if you just did your usual alg. So *you're 12 times as likely to get an LL skip with COLL as you are without, that's 1200%* (not 120%, it's 1200%).
> ...



dude... sune COLL cases are the worst thing ever. Period.


----------



## pjk (Jun 13, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> Since learning COLL, I've given up on using it on 3x3.


Did you give up on Roux, Dan? 

Using COLL on 4x4 is quite nice. There is really no point not to other than the fact that some of the cases are so crappy that it may be faster to not use COLL.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 13, 2009)

I didn't give up on Roux. I learned all the CMLLs, and then filled in the gaps missing of COLL. Surprisingly quite a few algs carry over.


----------



## blah (Jun 13, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > After COLL, the probability of getting a PLL skip is 1/24, as opposed to 1/288 if you just did your usual alg. So *you're 12 times as likely to get an LL skip with COLL as you are without, that's 1200%* (not 120%, it's 1200%).
> ...


Uh, yeah. Thanks for pointing that out  As I've mentioned, it was 3 in the morning when I did this 



Vault312 said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > *1/12 of the time* you have to do "the other PLL parity alg" (the one that swaps 2 adjacent edges) to get a U perm, otherwise you get an *annoying Z or H perm,* and fortunately enough for you, there are only 2 such cases and they're easy to recognize - opposite colors are opposite each other (try your best to understand this, it's really easy to recognize but not easy to describe )
> ...


Yes, as a matter of fact, I did have severe brain damage due to severe lack of sleep last night. My bad. Thanks for pointing that out too 



masterofthebass said:


> dude... sune COLL cases are the worst thing ever. Period.


To execute? I don't know, yet. To recognize? Not at all. It's definitely as easy as any other COLL case, well at least it is when I use my recognition system.

By the way I use RUL algs (mostly) for COLL, because 1. I learned COLL for OH and it's been tremendously useful, and 2. I prefer RUL algs to RFU ones on big cubes, I just lock up less.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 14, 2009)

Blah, 
can you post your LUR COLL algs? 
And how do you recognize using your system?


----------



## Anthony (Jun 14, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Blah,
> can you post your LUR COLL algs?
> And how do you recognize using your system?



I second that.


----------



## blah (Jun 16, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Blah,
> can you post your LUR COLL algs?
> And how do you recognize using your system?





Anthony said:


> I second that.



I'll start working on that now. But don't get your hopes up. _It's nothing new!_ It's just a really intuitive system that _naturally_ came as I was trying to recognize cases. I'm not too sure how Dan and Lars (of VH) recognize because there really isn't a very comprehensive description on Dan's page, but I'm pretty sure mine is almost identical to theirs, only the Sune and Antisune cases are different.


----------



## cpt.Justice (Jun 17, 2009)

As for recognizing, I find the way Rowe does it quite easy and fast (I'll admit, I suck at it. But it's obviously fast enough for him).
CBA to link his videos on youtube though


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 7, 2011)

masterofthebass said:


> ... Not all of the hyperorientations even work for NMCxLL anyway.


 
What? Do you know wich cases don't work? 

When reading your COLL Page http://cube.danrcohen.com/coll.html I wondered why your "recognition stickers" are not as I would have predicted

Not that I'm the biggest fan of hyperorientation, or think the page http://home.comcast.net/~quadricode/hyperorientations/ is easy to understand.

But getting NMCxLL for free, made me believe every roux solver who starts learning CMLL, should be adviced to learn Hyperorientation - am I wrong?
http://home.comcast.net/~quadricode/hyperorientations/


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 7, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> What? Do you know wich cases don't work?
> 
> When reading your COLL Page http://cube.danrcohen.com/coll.html I wondered why your "recognition stickers" are not as I would have predicted
> 
> ...


 
Hyperorientations work for like 90% of R2 NMCLL, but in reality, any CLL recognition technique is just a tool to learn. At a certain point, you end up learning what the case looks like, so whatever you use can work.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

You should learn C*LL for 4x4x4 so you don't have to do step 6 in two looks.

:3


----------



## reyrey (Jun 7, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> What? Do you know wich cases don't work?
> 
> When reading your COLL Page http://cube.danrcohen.com/coll.html I wondered why your "recognition stickers" are not as I would have predicted
> 
> ...


 


Kirjava said:


> You should learn C*LL for 4x4x4 so you don't have to do step 6 in two looks.
> 
> :3


 
No, you should learn not to bump 2 year old threads.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 7, 2011)

no kirjava and masterofthebass can
no one can tell them what to do :3

cuz they cool and stuff.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You should learn C*LL for 4x4x4 so you don't have to do step 6 in two looks.
> 
> :3


 
i almost always need to do step 6 2 look, but i switched methods


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

That's a massively douchey thing to say.

There's nothing wrong with a bump when it's adding new content.

There's especially nothing wrong in replying to a thread that has already been bumped.

However, backseat moderation *is* something that is frowned upon.

You can't complain about people having a legit discussion about cubing. You obviously don't understand *why* bumping old threads is not liked.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That's a massively douchey thing to say.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with a bump when it's adding new content.
> 
> ...


 
exactly this. A person bumped a thread with a new question pertaining to the topic of that thread. THIS IS WHAT THREADS ARE FOR. They exist to contain information. If new information is added to a thread, regardless of the amount of time between posts, it makes the thread relevant again. 

Please let the moderators do their jobs and moderate the forum. I would not have replied to the question if it wasn't properly posted.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 7, 2011)

blah said:


> Disclaimer: This is nothing new. Just some numbers trying to convince you to do what the thread title says.
> After doing your OLL parity alg which pops up half the time, assuming you're not stupid, your chances of getting an LL with all edges oriented is 5/16 on a 4x4x4, as opposed to 1/8 on a 3x3x3.



If I understand correctly if I just know 2 parity algs for the 4x4x4 I already get this 5/16 ? How many parity algs do I need to know to have 16/16 ? Is Somebody using this?



masterofthebass said:


> Hyperorientations work for like 90% of R2 NMCLL, but in reality, any CLL recognition technique is just a tool to learn. At a certain point, you end up learning what the case looks like, so whatever you use can work.


 
Have you found a way to handle the missing 10% ( exsample scramble R2U2 RU2R'U'RU'R')

Hyperorientation is still a nice option (for Roux), but not providing real NMCLL makes it loose alot to me. 


P.S. regarding bumping - just change your forum display setting to show newest posts first.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 7, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Hyperorientation is still a nice option (for Roux), but not providing real NMCLL makes it loose alot to me.


 
Can you provide evidence that R/R' blocks provide an advantage in a large enough number of solves? xNMCLL recognition is as fast and even faster in some cases than regular CLL recognition and I can get over memorizing the 83 sequences. But, in my five years of experimenting with it:

- I haven't found that lucky cases happen often enough during the second block.
- I haven't found an easy way to recognize EO as fast as with matching and R2 blocks, other than tracking a certain L/R edge before Step 4. I would even be fine with finding a completely different Step 4 solution.
- The extra one move during Step 4 is sometimes annoying and slightly awkward.

I really want some new cuber to learn NMCMLL and prove how fast it can be.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2011)

R/R' is just too much messing about to be worth it imo. R2 is an easy addition that doesn't require much effort to implement.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 7, 2011)

That's definitely what it seems like.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 7, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> If I understand correctly if I just know 2 parity algs for the 4x4x4 I already get this 5/16 ? How many parity algs do I need to know to have 16/16 ? Is Somebody using this?


well if theres oll parity theres an odd amount of edges flipped, since there is 4 edges there will either be 1 flipped right or 3. the one people use flip one dedge, so if you use 2 oll parity algs you will always have all 4 dedges oriented.
also that other parity alg you use is for pll parity (i dont see how it couldnt) which isnt relevant for this topic


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 9, 2011)

Athefre said:


> Can you provide evidence that R/R' blocks provide an advantage ... 83 sequences.


I can't proof, it's a speed advantage - and I also try to avoid it on serious speedsolves,
but the whole blockbuilding thing feels much more relaxing to me when not even careing about R-alignment.



Athefre said:


> xNMCLL recognition


What is that? 



Athefre said:


> - I haven't found an easy way to recognize EO as fast as with matching and R2 blocks, other than tracking a certain L/R edge before Step 4. I would even be fine with finding a completely different Step 4 solution.


Tracking one L/R-edge is enought, but I still track both - wich makes EO comparable but it keeps worse. I also planned to use some Watermann EO to improve EO (especially in this case), but never did.



Athefre said:


> - The extra one move during Step 4 is sometimes annoying and slightly awkward.


at least sometimes you even get a better Ending than normal.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 9, 2011)

vcuber13 said:


> ...
> also that other parity alg you use is for pll parity (i dont see how it couldnt) which isnt relevant for this topic



In fact I was thinking of a set of algs that correct OLL Parity + PLL Parity + EO in one go, but maybe regognition would suck.

But after COLL it would be easier to do an EPLL + PLL Parity ( 1 solved + 1 H + 2 Z + 4 U ) makes 8 PLL parity algs ( not sure I counted right)


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 9, 2011)

EPLL+Parity is 8 algs total,
Ua,Ub,H,Z
Adjacent & Opposite PLL parity
Cyclic parity (edges are a U/U' turn away) and an Odd case (figure-8 cycle). I have algs for them here: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:MaeLSTRoM/Z4


----------



## Aleksandr (Jun 9, 2011)

I will pick up a few algos for COLL too.


----------

