# L2L4 Documentation ("Finished") and Discussion



## StachuK1992 (Dec 13, 2010)

As a few of you know, I decided a few days ago that I would document and learn L2L4.
It seems as though no one else was taking major initiative in working on it, and I needed a new documentation project, so 12 days later, I'm done generating the 220 algorithms and documenting them.

The previous thread was here where some discussion and a tiny bit of progress was made. I still need to sift through this for algorithms and whatnot to make my list better.

This is the general idea of L2L4:
Solve a 1x3x3 block, often called a "layer" in any typical layer-by-layer method.
Solving one edge at a time, solve the edge and corner orientations and permutations, in whatever order.

As you can imagine, this method is extremely alg-heavy, totaling for a "pure" system to be 220.
Through a bit of research, the order presented here seems to be the most fitting.

Without further ado, here are the algs:
CO, which solves FL while orienting the LL corners.
CP, which solves FR while permuting the LL corners, making sure not to disturb the orientations of said corners.
then do a y2!
EO, which solves FL while orienting the remaining edges making sure not to disturb anything other than the final 6 edges which are in the working zone
EP, which permutes the final 5 edges.

A few example solves:


Kirjava said:


> F2 R L U' B2 F' D B F L2 D F' U F2 U D L' B2 L2 U R U' D' R2 U2
> 
> 1) U B' L F L F' L2 F2 L' F R U' x2
> 2) R' D2 L2 D F D R2 U2 R'
> ...


 
U L' B' L U F D U2 B R' F2 R B' R B' U' D L B2 R D R2 B2 R' F2
1) (x2 F2 U2 L F R' D L F) (R D2 L' D2 R U2 R') as you can tell, Thom's better than me at FL 
2) U d2 R U R' U L' F2 L2 F2 L
3) U2 R U R U D' R U R' D R2 U2 R' U R'
4) y2 U' R U R' F' U2 R' F' R F
5) U' R U R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U' R' U2

Be warned - these algs...they need much revision. I wanted to get this idea out there, and an alg ready for ever case. If you have any additions/changes/fixes, please let me know. In fact, I still need one alg for CP. 

Advantages:
After the first layer, the average TPS should be fairly fast as it's essentially just alg after alg.
Recognition is *not* a problem. Just find the edge while looking at the last layer.
Good for TeamBLD?

Disadvantages:
Movecount, perchance.
lots of algs.


I will be learning these, apart from CO, and here's why I feel that my CLS hack for L2L4 shall be sufficient:
Rather than doing a full 1x3x3, I plan to do a 1x2x3 with a 1x1x2 attached (basically FL - a corner)
Then, using a CLS alg or a WV case, or even an intuitive F2L 'alg' I can solve that final corner, CO, and the final edge.
Then just continue with the rest of the method.


I do realize that I make a lot of these threads where I just publish something and it gets bashed. Oh well; I put time into these and I know they have a decent potential.


Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts.
Stachu

PS - Please please please give me better algs.


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 13, 2010)

<3 statue. I might just learn this for some purpose yet to be determined, I'll see how it does with OH.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 13, 2010)

For learning this, here's the order I guess I'd learn this in:
EP - because it's Easy to Practice 
EO - because it's really hard to do intuitively (for me) on the spot and it's a good large chunk.
CP - because it's probably faster to learn than CO, and CO can be done swiftly in two steps with just 'normal' LL algorithms.
and finally CO


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 13, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> For learning this, here's the order I guess I'd learn this in:
> EP - because it's Easy to Practice
> EO - because it's really hard to do intuitively (for me) on the spot and it's a good large chunk.
> CP - because it's probably faster to learn than CO, and CO can be done swiftly in two steps with just 'normal' LL algorithms.
> and finally CO


Honestly i would learn EP last because it's just 2 easy 3 cycles. I would probably just learn them in order, maybe do CP first though.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 13, 2010)

inb4lrn2waterman


----------



## riffz (Dec 13, 2010)

I might learn some of these 5-cycle edge algs in the hopes that they may pop up in a BLD solve 

I would like to learn this because I'm very curious about the method's potential, but I am truly terrible at block building a first layer.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 13, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Honestly i would learn EP last because it's just 2 easy 3 cycles. I would probably just learn them in order, maybe do CP first though.


 Aww, you didn't get my EP joke (Easy to Practice!) But hrm, I'll probably just jump around in sets from different steps.


riffz said:


> I would like to learn this because I'm very curious about the method's potential, but I am truly terrible at block building a first layer.


 For some reason, I just can't blockbuild on while/yellow half as well as any other face. I may switch to another color as my main just for this method.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 14, 2010)

irontwig said:


> inb4lrn2waterman


 
I don't fully understand, but this are my thoughts to believe in the higher potential of L2L4 
- watermann requires CLL recognition wich was harder to learn (at least for me)
- also the edge steps in watermann require some "piece searching" in the back of the cube,
- you use many .. turn R as apropiet ... unturn R ... stuff , witch may not be super speed friendly

EDIT The old thread is a bit overcrouded but I try to repeat some of the highlights of L2L4

Most algs belong in the CP category (over 100) but if just know the cases where the edge is in U layer its just 27 + 27(with missoriented edge) the other cases have a probability of less than 2%
Your chances to get an placed edge (for free) are over 20%
reachen EO with on additional edge placed (E or U layer) gives you the option to 3-cycle (two 3cycles) to the end. 

Learn EP first, cause from the 16 cases, 4 are EPLLs, 1 is a conjugated H-Perms, 2 are conjugated Z-Perms , 3 are conjugated Us, only 6 are new 5-cycles.
It may come handy if you get an solved LS corner fro free + COLL + EP5


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 14, 2010)

Awesome. A solve using this will look so funny.


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 14, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Awesome. A solve using this will look so funny.


 
Imagine if feliks or rowe learned this. 1st layer... gogogo DONE!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 14, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Imagine if feliks or rowe learned this. 1st layer... gogogo DONE!


 My plan:

Do LBL solves for a while being 'color neutral.'
Every time I used red cross, "WOAHH LL SKIP."

Red crosses -> LL skips. Fact.


----------



## Zubon (Dec 14, 2010)

I love reading about new methods and I think you've done a great job!

However in the time it takes me to solve one layer, I could just use F2L and insert the edges at the same time. For me, there is not much difference in time between solving the first layer and first two layers using CFOP.

If I understand your method correctly?

CFOP - Cross + CE pairs + 2 algs
L2L4 - Cross + corners + 4 algs

If some people could make the first layer using block building or another method, L2L4 would not require a cross, but I am not good enough to do that.... 

So this method is useful for people that would rather do 2 more algs than insert CE pairs instead of corners.


----------



## Diniz (Dec 14, 2010)

Zubon said:


> If some people could make the first layer using block building or another method, L2L4 would not require a cross, but I am not good enough to do that....
> 
> So this method is useful for people that would rather do 2 more algs than insert CE pairs instead of corners.



Thats the idea Zubon, blockbuild the first layer, so it would be First layer + 4 algs

And CFOP is more like: Cross- CE Pair -CE Pair -CE Pair -CE Pair- 2 algs =p


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 14, 2010)

Zubon said:


> I love reading about new methods and I think you've done a great job!
> 
> However in the time it takes me to solve one layer, I could just use F2L and insert the edges at the same time.



I belive Mark Waterman mentioned to solve First Layer with Corners First strategy in 16 moves. If corners or the cross are very simple I would go that way, but most of the time I use basic blockbuilding.

That way I often just need 13 moves or less. I also feel that it's easiest (to finish 1st layer) if you started with a 1x2x3, but that might just be because I cannot plan ahead full first layer befor starting. 

... so in contrast to stachu I prefer to skip an edge in first layer.

But just dealing with on color should make this kind of blockbuilding much easier than for example Petrus

Personally I also feel that doing L2L4 color neutral is much easier than F2L or waterman color neutral.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Dec 14, 2010)

Zubon: If you were to build a layer "F2L style," don't forget that it is easily done without any cube rotations. Obviously though, as stated, using a block building method would be far more efficient for building a layer.

Stachu: I really appreciate all the work done with this, this is actually something I've been wanting to toy with, but I'm far too lazy (and busy) to put in the time that you have for this!


----------



## irontwig (Dec 14, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I don't fully understand, but this are my thoughts to believe in the higher potential of L2L4
> - watermann requires CLL recognition wich was harder to learn (at least for me)
> - also the edge steps in watermann require some "piece searching" in the back of the cube,
> - you use many .. turn R as apropiet ... unturn R ... stuff , witch may not be super speed friendly


 
But then again it's more efficient (low 40stm, even sub-40 with good FL, which rivals full ZB), requires half the number of algs and is proven to be fast. Has anybody thought of doing CLL on R rather than U for Waterman thus saving one or two rotations?


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Dec 14, 2010)

irontwig said:


> But then again it's more efficient (low 40stm, even sub-40 with good FL, which rivals full ZB), requires half the number of algs and is proven to be fast. Has anybody thought of doing CLL on R rather than U for Waterman thus saving one or two rotations?


 
I've tried with some cases. The sune on the right is easy. There are some cases that are very difficult.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 14, 2010)

A quick idea I'm having, that is making me wary because it's not 'pure.'

regular first 3 steps. This will lead us to be having 6 edges remaining (FL, FR, U-layer) and everything else solved.

FL+FR
ELL.

Thoughts? ELL can be done extremely fast, and recognition for both parts seems feasible. Also, you can use ELL for other methods, unlike pure L2L4 that can only be very seldom used.

Concerning waterman, I have never actually looked into it much besides when I initially started cubing - I'll be sure to do that at some point today.

Zubon, fat: always a pleasure developing. 

I'm going to explore the possible FL+FR idea now, but I thought it would be important to get 'pure' L2L4 out and running first.

-statue

Edit -
FL+FR, ELL idea:
36 cases + 29 cases = 65

compared to pure:
56 cases + 29 cases = 72 algs

Advantages:
ELL is fast, and can be totally <M,U>
ELL is already documented and researched pretty well.
Less # of cases

Disadvantages:
I feel bad for not using a 'pure' system.
EP6 is totally <R,U> and is nice.

I'll have to check move-count after I find some decent stuff for these 36.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 14, 2010)

Here are some FL+FR algs.
A lot of them are just ELL hacks.


```
An alternative for the EO and EP steps in L2L4:

-Solve FL and FR after completing the y2 or d2.		36 cases
-ELL.							29 cases

ELL has already been documented well

Number of cases for FL + FR

FL good		4
	FR good		continue
	FR bad		R2 U2 R2 U' F R D R2 D' F' R'
	UF good		R2 U' R U R U R U' R' U' R
			x M' U' M U2 M' U' M x' 
	UF bad		y' R U R U R U' R' U' R' U' 
	
FL bad		4
	FR good		y' {FL good FR bad}
	FR bad		F R2 U2 R' L F2 L' U R' L F' L' F'
	UF good		x U (r U R' U') M (U R U' R') x'
	UF bad		F2 U R U F U2 F' R' F'

FR good		4
	FL good		F2 U2 F2 U2 F2
	FL bad		U M U' R' U' M' U R
	UF good		x M' U M U2 M' U M x'
	UF bad		x M2 U' M' U2 M U' M2 x'
	
FR bad		4
	FL good		x R2 U' M U R2 U M' U' x'
	FL bad		U F U' F' R F R' U' R U F' R'
	UF good		U F M U' M U F' U' 
	UF bad		x U' (L' U' L U) M' (U' L' U l) U x'
	
UF good		10
	FL good		x M' U' M U2 M' U' M x'
	FL bad		x U' (l' U' L U) M (U' L' U L) U x' 
	FR good		L U L U L2 U' L' U' L' U2
	FR bad		F R' F2 R2 U' R' L F L2 U2 L F'
			U R2 U2 R2 U' R F' R' F2 R U F U' R'
			R U R' F' U2 R' F' R F' U2 F2 U2 F2
	UL good		U' L' F' U2 F L U R U2 R'
	UL bad		U2 R U2 R' U' L' F' U2 F L
	UB good		F U2 R U' R' L F L' U2 F'
	UB bad		F' L F2 L2 U' L2 F2 L2 U' L F
			F R U2 R' U' L U F2 U' L' F' U
	UR good		U' R F U F' R' U' L' U' L U2
	UR bad		F L U L F2 L' U' L' F'
	
UF bad		10
	FL good		x M2 U M' U2 M U M2 x'
	FL bad		x U (R U R' U') M' (U R U' r') u' x'
	FR good		(U L' U M') (U' L U M)
	FR bad		F2 R2 F R U' F' R2 F R U F' R' F
	UL good		R' D' F' D R U R U R' U'
	UL bad		U' L' U L U R F U' F' R'
	UB good		F' U2 R' F' R F U2 R U R'
			F' U2 R' F' R L' U L U2 F
	UB bad		L2 F' U2 L2 U2 L2 U2 L2 F L2 
	UR good		F U R U R' L F' L' U' F' 
	UR bad		U2 F R2 F2 R2 U' R2 F2 R2 U' F'
```

This idea = ~11+11=22 moves.
Original, pure idea = 12+12=24 moves.

This idea = mainly <R,U,F> then <M,U>
Original = mainly <R,U,F> then <R,U>


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 14, 2010)

irontwig said:


> But then again it's more efficient (low 40stm, even sub-40 with good FL, which rivals full ZB), requires half the number of algs and is proven to be fast. Has anybody thought of doing CLL on R rather than U for Waterman thus saving one or two rotations?



I think Kirjava did - but how to do CLL recognition on R when my hand covers the R Layer? I also end up in the high 40stm / low 50 stm though I believe the my penalty for not knowing all Watermann EO cases should be only 4 moves and for not knowing watermann optimal CLL mayby 1 move penalty.

Also the fact that watermann is rarly used, makes me believe that a more mainstream compatibel system, could become more used even if it requires faster turning.


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 14, 2010)

Yay I finally know what L2L4 is  Seems like a really good method, I may end up learning it. But 220 is a lot of algs...


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Dec 14, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I think Kirjava did - but how to do CLL recognition on R when my hand covers the R Layer? I also end up in the high 40stm / low 50 stm though I believe the my penalty for not knowing all Watermann EO cases should be only 4 moves and for not knowing watermann optimal CLL mayby 1 move penalty.
> 
> Also the fact that watermann is rarly used, makes me believe that a more mainstream compatibel system, could become more used even if it requires faster turning.


 
Although I don't doubt the potential of L2L4, I don't see how it would be a more mainstream compatible system than Waterman.

Can you explain what you mean by "more mainstream compatible"?


----------



## BigSams (Dec 14, 2010)

Mmm very symmetrical method, I like it. So nice how as you solve an F2L edge, a bit of LL is done each time. Not too many algs either, compared to some other alg sets. This is history happening before our own eyes. Did any person/people in particular discover and announce the idea first?
Didn't want to comment yesterday before thinking about it properly, but lets see:
I'm personally ambidextrous in cubing so L moves are quite acceptable. But there are many cubers who have a very dominant - let's say H for either right or left - hand in cubing. Those cubers could do the 1x3x3 block on R or L, and use mostly H, U, F,D moves for all four algorithms. Might even get a better view of the relevant pieces that way. I also find x cube rotations easier than y, or z, and most rotations during algs and the 180 turn between algs 2 and 3 woul be x, x' or x2 this way.
@ stachu, Speaking of the 180 turn, I thought you said you were making it a d2? Much better than y2, and if the above variant were used, an h2 wideturn would be used (meaning r2 or l2) - even better.
If you're using a CLS hack, you are being considerate of the other 3 F2L edges and the orientation of the LL edges... since you're using CLS on slot 1 even though it was designed for slot 4, doesnt that waste moves?
anyway, I really like the pure method, it was cool of you to develop it. BTW, what does L2L4 stand for?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 15, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Yay I finally know what L2L4 is  Seems like a really good method, I may end up learning it. But 220 is a lot of algs...


I don't plan to learn that many. I plan to learn 95.  Knowing CLS really helps here, I guess.


somerandomkidmike said:


> Although I don't doubt the potential of L2L4, I don't see how it would be a more mainstream compatible system than Waterman.
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by "more mainstream compatible"?


I also don't think it would be very mainstream, at least for a few years; it's just too many algs for most people to try learning.



BigSams said:


> ~quoting by section:~


 "So nice how as you solve an F2L edge, a bit of LL is done each time."
Yes, it feels rewarding; it looks to others like you're just placing an edge in, but you know it's more than that. 

"H, U, F,D"
Hrm, I'll look into the use of these; I was thinking about this in regards to CP mainly.

I will do a d2. I'm hoping people will have the intuition to do whichever is faster for them.

"If you're using a CLS hack..."
I'll optimize the nasty cases.

I've no idea of the history or naming.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 15, 2010)

History:

L2L4 = *L*ast *2 **L*ayer in *4* steps it was first developed by Duncan Dicks early this century

Promotion

If you don't like doing y2 during the solve do d2 or u2 since the method does not require you to Sync your D - Layer all the time (but I currently feel better with syncing D and centers)

I call it 'mainstream compatible' because it is easy to describe, easy recognition, alg count can be reduced by skipping / avoiding unlikely cases. 
Although if someone would post a sub waterman time with L2L4,
it would boost L2L4 much more, then posting a new watermann record, would boost watermann popularity.

*EO can be don intuitivly *   <- I should add more of these but I'm in a hurry


Intuitiv/iterativ EO

if you hear iterative it's aparent I'm doing something like Roux EO or more precisly the same as Kenneth on his L5E wiki page

Summery of the system:

If you don't know an EO alg 
1. change target -> you now whant to place FR edge (this requires no moves, but make sure you know wich edge you want to send to DF later on with the final M )
2. move an oriented edge (not FR itself ) to UF position ( 0-1 move)
3. F (1 move)
4. AUF + M'U2M ,AUF + M'UM, AUF + M'UM, AUF + M'U2M, <- this is no algorithem but a building block notation you never need all 4 blocks like noted here , 3 is the maximum , 2 the average. 
5. AUF + F' + y

Please note after doing the starting F turn the definition of orientation for a middle layer edge will flip (Yes, the definition flips not the edge ! It becomes aparent if you try it out.)

Please note also that successive M slice turns must always alter direction to preserve DB edge. (this is the only difference to Roux EO)

I'm sorry I have no more time now to explain further, (Roux User should already know everything)

This is in fact my sedcond try to get the iterator thing running (the frist try had an akward ending, but that's fixed now as you see)

When I'm getting some spare time, I will compare all EO cases : how good the iterator is. And add some tweaks (if I find some)

If someone believes he can discribe this better - please do so


----------



## irontwig (Dec 15, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I call it 'mainstream compatible' because it is easy to describe, easy recognition, alg count can be reduced by skipping avoiding unlikely cases.



Doesn't it make more sense to call Waterman more mainstream since it shares more algs and concepts with CFOP/CFCE/Petrus/Roux/CF?



> Although if someone where to post a sub waterman time with L2L4 it would boost L2L4 much more then posting a new watermann record would boost watermann popularity.



lol, what "Waterman popularity"? There's like one person using Waterman and he doesn't even know all algs yet.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 15, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Doesn't it make more sense to call Waterman more mainstream .






irontwig said:


> lol, what "Waterman popularity"? There's like one person using Waterman and he doesn't even know all algs yet.


 
with Stachu and me that makes two users for L2L4 , means it is twice as maintream as waterman - (I'm really sorry for this polemics , but I can't resist) 

For the second You are right, it's worthless to mention a method could be faster than waterman, instead I shoul compare it to some popular method and state that was faster than 90% of that methods users could do (that would be even more polemic )


----------



## Zubon (Dec 15, 2010)

I would love some more example solves. 

Especially ones showing tricks to quickly do the first layer with block building.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 15, 2010)

Zubon said:


> I would love some more example solves.
> 
> Especially ones showing tricks to quickly do the first layer with block building.


 Sure, although I warn you that I'm not great.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 15, 2010)

Zubon said:


> I would love some more example solves.
> 
> Especially ones showing tricks to quickly do the first layer with block building.


 
I threw together three example, needless to say I'm not too used to this step:

U B2 F' D2 B L' F2 B R' D' F' D2 F' B U' B2 F L' R B' F R' F' D' R2
R E2 F' L' B u' R2 B R B' x2 M' U r' U R U' R' U R (19s)

D' F2 L2 B L' R F2 B' L2 U2 R2 B R L D2 R' D' F B R F B U' B' U 
y2 R B' U' R' D2 r2 R' U R y U2 R U R u R' U' R' U R M U M' (22s)

F2 R B D' R' F' U' R2 B R' B' D U' F' B R' L2 U L F2 U2 B' L2 R B
F x' U R' F U2 F R' x' y R2 U' R2 S' U2 S (15s)

A rouxer could probably do better.

Edit: Just two more:

U2 B F2 U R2 F L2 D' F U2 L2 B2 R F2 L2 U2 R D2 L2 R2 F2 B2 U2 D F
U2 r2 L U L' U2 b' R r2 F L' z' M' U2 M (14s)

B2 R' L2 B' F2 L D2 R2 L U' B2 F' R' D R' F B U B' R F U D B2 R2 
B' L' U' F R2 F' U2 F2 z2 y U2 R' S' U S (13s)

I forgot to say that these are just the first five random scrambles I got from qq and they're all on U.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 15, 2010)

F2 D F2 B2 R2 D' U F2 R2 U' F' B' L R' F2 D2 F B R' B D R2 U' F' U2
1x2x2: F L F2 (3)
1:2x3: R2 U' M r' U x' (5/8)
1x3x3: U' R2 U' R U' R' U (7/13)

F2 B L B2 U2 R2 B R2 B' R F D' R2 F2 L R2 D' B2 U F2 U R2 L2 D B
y R' U r2 R D2 (5)
x z L M' U M B' (5/10)
l' U2 L' U L' U2 (6/16)

U' B2 F' R2 F' R' U2 R' L' B2 U2 D2 F R' U2 F2 R' F2 L F' D2 U L F' B
D2 R2 L' D (4)
x' z
U M' U' r2 U R2 U' (7/11)
x
r' U2 R2 U2 R2 U R' U R U' (10/21)
Ugh pathetic.

more shall be posted later.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 15, 2010)

Ill do some solves later, Although i suck at block building... Im probably better than you ;P (or not lol idk)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 16, 2010)

Movecount-related stuff

According to my documentation:
CO = 9.1 moves
CP = 12.2

EO, EP 'pure' = 12.2 + 11.9
FL+FR, ELL = 11+11

The first layer should be 15 moves or less by human, I'd suppose.
So essentially,
Pure = 15 + 9.1 + 12.2 + 12.2 + 11.9 = 60.4 moves
Alternate = 15 + 9.1 + 12.2 + 11 + 11 = 58.3 moves

Hrm, thoughts?

Be aware that I do NOT have the best algs.

Also, this isn't like F2L or a block-building method where you have to look ahead tons and work stuff out as you go; these moves will be pre-programmed into you, so will take less time on average.

Personally, I'm liking the alternate, as ELL has uses outside of this method as well. 

Edit: where's Kirjava? I had expected him to post here already!


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 16, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Movecount-related stuff



Besides feeling that many algs can still be tuned, I feel that your way of "counting" does not include probability (would that higher or lower the movecount), and it doesn't iclude shortcuts (there is no common sense for them at the moment).

Regarding ELL I think knowing all fast ELLs (9 or 10) (like all edge 3-cycles, all oriented) is stongly recommend for L2L4 anyway, (two of them appear even in OLL, 4 in PLL)

though when I reach the L2L4 - EO step (6 edges left) to force an easy ELL I should place FR+FL+ "one more edge" (EDIT someone out there knows how to do this, without raising alg count ?)

So my personal strategy is a little less restrictiv like: just FL + "any two more edges" (as a shortcut case) that will give you an edge 3-cycle at the end (one of the fast ELL's but one edge starts in E -Layer)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 16, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Besides feeling that many algs can still be tuned, I feel that your way of "counting" does not include probability (would that higher or lower the movecount), and it doesn't iclude shortcuts (there is no common sense for them at the moment).
> 
> Regarding ELL I think knowing all fast ELLs (9 or 10) (like all edge 3-cycles, all oriented) is stongly recommend for L2L4 anyway, (two of them appear even in OLL, 4 in PLL)
> 
> ...


 
You're right, it does not include probability. These were meant to just be estimates.

I'm not sure if I like the half-and-half FL+Whatever strategy. L2L4 was meant to be a fairly static method, and I believe that this might harm that.

OLL has sent me some nice CP algs; I'll be publishing those and some more information tonight. Thanks!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 16, 2010)

U' F' U2 R F2 L2 U2 B2 U2 L F2 D2 L D F2 B R2 F' R' L U F2 B' L' R2

x'yD2FUBR'BUrB'UR2U2R'UR'U : 16
z' U2 F L2 F' L2 F' L U L' : 9
y L U L U L U' L' U' L' : 9
y U2 F' R2 U' R2 F2 R' U' F U2 R U2 F2 U R : 15
R U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R U R' U' R' U' R2 U2 R : 15
U'D : 2

I love the feeling of this method.

EDIT: lol 64 moves. i had the worst EO case >.>


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 16, 2010)

If I am right, you should only actually need to learn 2 of the cases for EO. Because AUF doesnt matter.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 16, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> If I am right, you should only actually need to learn 2 of the cases for EO. Because AUF doesnt matter.


 lolwat.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 17, 2010)

Zubon said:


> I love reading about new methods and I think you've done a great job!



Not new.



Zubon said:


> However in the time it takes me to solve one layer, I could just use F2L and insert the edges at the same time. For me, there is not much difference in time between solving the first layer and first two layers using CFOP.



This is meaningless information.



Zubon said:


> So this method is useful for people that would rather do 2 more algs than insert CE pairs instead of corners.



You could also say that it's useful to people who like the method.



oll+phase+sync said:


> ... so in contrast to stachu I prefer to skip an edge in first layer.



Pseudosandwich method.



oll+phase+sync said:


> But just dealing with on color should make this kind of blockbuilding much easier than for example Petrus



A layer is more awkward than a 2x2x2.



oll+phase+sync said:


> Personally I also feel that doing L2L4 color neutral is much easier than F2L or waterman color neutral.



Why? 



irontwig said:


> Has anybody thought of doing CLL on R rather than U for Waterman thus saving one or two rotations?



Won't save any time really.



BigSams said:


> I'm personally ambidextrous in cubing so L moves are quite acceptable.



Right handed people never use algs with L moves in.



StachuK1992 said:


> Edit: where's Kirjava? I had expected him to post here already!



Hey baby <3 Want me to do some more example solves sometime?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 17, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Hey baby <3 Want me to do some more example solves sometime?


 That would be lovely! Really, I'm looking for FL examples. After that, it's fairly straight-forward (unless you can use a nifty way to MOO L6E? I know I mentioned it earlier in this thread, after OLL (I need something better to call you!) mentioned it in the other thread.)

OLL has already sent me some algs (which are much appreciated!) that I'll will be updating the list with before too long.
Also, a nice wiki page is needed, so I'll work on that in the coming days.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 17, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Right handed people never use algs with L moves in.


 
What do you mean?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 17, 2010)

BigSams said:


> What do you mean?


 That was sarcasm. Plenty of right-handed cubers use L moves. 'Twas a rebuttal in a sense.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 17, 2010)

Ah I see, can't tell sometimes when it's in writing.
Was't really warranted though. I mentioned a block-on-side variation because there are people that really hate non-dominant side moves and do just about everything with their dominant hand. Kirjava's just looking to pick a fight as usual, probably because I said something about many of his comments being useless a while back. Just because there are cubers with dominant hands that are ok with non-dominant side moves, it doesn't mean there are no cubers who prefer avoiding non-dominant moves. In fact, most fast cubers today who use RUF are faster than RUL. Don't ask me for a proof, it's just something I've noticed. I personally think that RUL has greater potential but even if that comes true, there will still be people who prefer RUF.


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 17, 2010)

BigSams said:


> In fact, most fast cubers today who use RUF are faster than RUL. Don't ask me for a proof, it's just something I've noticed..


Well, if you're going to state it as a fact, then i want proof. You had to notice it somehow? How did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## riffz (Dec 17, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Kirjava's just looking to pick a fight as usual, probably because I said something about many of his comments being useless a while back.


 
No, you just don't understand.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 17, 2010)

So let's get back on topic.
Which variation (original post or FL+FR, ELL) do you like more?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 17, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Kirjava's just looking to pick a fight as usual, probably because I said something about many of his comments being useless a while back.



No, I'm just pointing out stupid things you said because you say them a lot.



BigSams said:


> In fact, most fast cubers today who use RUF are faster than RUL. Don't ask me for a proof, it's just something I've noticed.


 
It's great that you can come up with thoughts like that all by yourself.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 17, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Pseudosandwich method.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pseudosandwich method. <- not meant as method but as help to simplyfy CO-Step (I haven't learnd all the algs jet)

A layer is more awkward than a 2x2x2. <- 4 against 8 thats not fair

Why? being colorneutral an a 2x2x2 is more common than on a 3x3x3 - because edge handling on a 2x2x2 is much simpler (really) - since edge juggling in L2L4 is algorithmic I think being colorneutral is easier, AFTER I have learned the methode.

@stachu 

Yes I need a new username.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 17, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Pseudosandwich method. <- not meant as method but as help to simplyfy CO-Step (I haven't learnd all the algs jet)



I'm telling you that that's what that method is (sort of) called.



oll+phase+sync said:


> A layer is more awkward than a 2x2x2. <- 4 against 8 thats not fair



Then why was it fair when you made the original comparison? To add, a layer is more awkward than a 2x2x3. 

More awkward doesn't have to mean higher movecount.



oll+phase+sync said:


> Why? being colorneutral an a 2x2x2 is more common than on a 3x3x3 - because edge handling on a 2x2x2 is much simpler (really) - since edge juggling in L2L4 is algorithmic I think being colorneutral is easier, AFTER I have learned the methode.



Algorithmic = easier to be colour neutral? Since when?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 18, 2010)

R D' B R F R F' R U B' F D R' B' R2 B F' D2 R' B' F2 D2 R' L' B'

FBD2L'BR'U2R2U

F L U' B' R F B2 U' B R U' D2 F' B2 U' L2 B D' L R2 B2 L2 U L2 D

LB'RFR2DU2R2U'B'

R2 L' B R2 F' R D' R' U' D F B L' B' D U' R L2 B2 F2 U F2 L2 B2 F'

LRU'D'F2UEL'U2LE' (lolmessy)

R' L2 B2 R2 L2 F2 R' D B2 L R F' U B2 L D' R' L D L U2 R U L R'

L2FL'UF'L2yU2RU'R'U

D' U R2 D2 L' D' B F2 R2 B L' B' D2 R' L2 B' U' R B' D' R2 D' B L R'

R'U'R2ULBy'M'UMy'M'U2M

L B2 F' R U R2 L2 F L R U2 L D' F R B2 D2 B2 U D L2 D' F U R2

B'D'F'R2UF'z2RU'r'U2M2U'

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

BL2D'Ryx'RU'r'UR'U'R'U

L D R U D2 R' L B L2 U2 R' F2 B L2 B F2 U' F2 U' B' U D2 R2 L U

DF2U'L2BL'U2R2URUR'U'

D F' L U2 F' U L R U2 B' R2 F2 B2 D L F2 U2 R2 F' U2 F R' U2 B' D

DR'B'R2DRU'R'UDR2D'


----------



## HavoCentral (Dec 18, 2010)

I am defiantly putting this on my list of methods to learn.
I might start this as soon as i get better at block building,
I will also learn the ELL version first, then later on the pure version.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Algorithmic = easier to be colour neutral? Since when?



Intuitiv LL scenario:
I remember my own experience when started with petrus. each time a different top color (mem clear after 6) , then the search for a pair (to do a niklas)... I had a complete color neutral vison of the cube, but was slow like hell. 

Algorithmic LL scenario:
Learning CLL by pattern recognition (a lot to learn but all cases are now narrowed down now to 42) I never really trained doing CLL color neutral but I am. 
Doing F2L for example I'm not more color neutral than I was before. So I belive fixed alg sets simplify pattern recognition. 

A more interessting question might be, how much could be gaind by being color neutral in L2L4 on a average scramble?

Regarding awkwardness : I petrus step 1 and step 2 I have more freedom how to turn, right. But I never mastered to think of an 2x2x3 as one step , wich makes it awkward.

Obviously your reason to call a layer awkward must be a differnt .. wich?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 19, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Learning CLL by pattern recognition (a lot to learn but all cases are now narrowed down now to 42) I never really trained doing CLL color neutral but I am.
> Doing F2L for example I'm not more color neutral than I was before. So I belive fixed alg sets simplify pattern recognition.



This is no real justification at all. It's all anecdotal.



oll+phase+sync said:


> Regarding awkwardness : I petrus step 1 and step 2 I have more freedom how to turn, right. But I never mastered to think of an 2x2x3 as one step , wich makes it awkward.



You're just replying to what I said because I replied to you and you can't drop something because you think it makes you look weak.

Try listening to my advice for once instead of trying to correct me, you can learn a lot from me.

I really don't like talking to you. Some of the things you say are odd, others just don't make any sense. It's hard to understand what you're saying a lot of the time.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> ~solution examples~


 Thanks!

Hrm, yet another idea (I'd like to find the best concept before dedicating myself to learning something.
First layer
EO
FL + CO
FR + CP
Finish​
EO is 18 cases
"CO" is 59
"CP" is 15
which adds up to 92 cases.

But how much is fin? I'm working on the math, but someone checking it would be awesome.


----------



## mr. giggums (Dec 19, 2010)

6!/2 for edge permutation / 4 for AUF - 1 solved case = 89 cases


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 19, 2010)

Thanks!


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 20, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> [
> EO is 18 cases
> "CO" is 59
> "CP" is 15
> ...


 
I think in a layer (E or U doesnt matter) you can have 4 patterns with an even number of oriented edges 2 with an odd number -> 4*4 + 2*2 = 20 - 1 solved = 19. But I dont believe you care about one more.

There are also cases were doing y will swich from on case into another, but sadly that doesnt reduce the number of cases (Edit: but maybe help magic)

You should be able to preserve an solved edge during EO, right?

And maybe there is some kind of "E2/R2E2R2 - insertion magic" during or with less magic at the end or start of EO to get one more edge solved. 

Even if success ratio for getting a solved edge during EO would just be sufficciently high, one could live with 2step LSE - You not if I'm right?

EDIT:
rethinking about EO+1 That would at first reduce the nuber of algs greatly,

but CO must preserve 1 EEdge and don't disturb orientation, algs may get longer
CP must preserver 2 EEedges ...

but there is one more concern:
I was first thinking about EO +1 just solve any edge and we just turn the cube afterwards in a way the edge gets to the slot we prefer ...
but Edges are oriented meanwhile, so we may not be able to do this ..
Instead we must add additional CO and/or CP algs to make up for this

I believe doubling CP cases would be enough. 


P.S. 
anecdotal knowledge is the source of wisdom


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 23, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> P.S.
> anecdotal knowledge is the source of wisdom


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 10, 2011)

Quick update:
1/4 of L2L4 memo'd.

Also, I found the following here


Chris Hardwick said:


> This method is an extension and variation on the keyhole method. There are 4 substeps to be learned, each can be learned individually without knowledge of the others and provide a fast method, or all of them can be learned for the most advanced version of the method. The goal is to learn the 4th substep, but knowledge of all the substeps would allow for the choice of the best startegy based on the given scramble. The strategy changes for each substep, but the overall strategy is to break up the F2L solve into various steps making sure to always perform useful affects on the last layer at each F2L step. This makes the F2L solve longer than a Fridrich style solve, but it drastically shortens the LL solve by building it and the F2L at the same time. The average number of moves for the L2L4 strategy is 53-55, which is about the same as Fridrich. 53 algorithms are required for the most advanced L2L4 version. This method also includes useful variations for the ZB method (see below).


Anyone have any idea what this 53-alg thing is?

Secondary source, currently reading:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080113153901/http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/cubertscubicle


----------



## Cool Frog (Feb 10, 2011)

I was reading this this morning, I think im going to learn this also, Where would you go about learning this first?


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Feb 11, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Quick update:
> 1/4 of L2L4 memo'd.


 
great!

I did an deeper research on the last 5 edges step (even with some pictures) 
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...kwOGQtOTg0ZjJhOTA4YTAz&hl=en&authkey=CO6H3boP

It has an average move count of ~ 9.8 and I spent alot of time the last month in incorporating this sub step into my petrus solves. (usage in step 4 is obvious , but what I go for is simplying step 2 of petrus.
I believe it might be even more usefull to ZZ users who already use COLL.

P.S.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_value


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 28, 2011)

Just a quick note: I'm now over 1/4 of memo done for this.
I plan to be halfway done by the end of the month.

Also, expect a quick, simple webpage for this by the end of the week.


----------



## nickvu2 (Mar 1, 2011)

^
Stachu, you are so badass! Looking forward to seeing the website.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 1, 2011)

I hope you end up making this your main method :3


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 1, 2011)

If anyone would like to follow how progress is coming along, check out my half-organized google doc. You can't edit it.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (May 18, 2014)

(BUMP)
Are you done learning the algs by now?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 18, 2014)

filipemtx said:


> (BUMP)
> Are you done learning the algs by now?



He knows some but mostly uses hacks. He has forgotten a lot though. I know a little also.


----------

