# Square-1 Edge Permutation



## MTGjumper (Dec 22, 2008)

Although I want to become fairly quick at the Square-1 in the near-ish future, I have no intention to learn all of the different edge permutations for Lars' method, which are both numerous and difficult to recognise quickly.

What is an equivalent of 2-look for Square-1 edge permutation? Is it advisable to permute the top layer edges, then move the D layer to the top using (1,0) / (6,6) / (-1,0) and permute those edges, or is there a quicker/more efficent way?


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 22, 2008)

I do what you explained (solve U layer, switch D and U layers, solve "D" layer, switch back). You could just learn the clockwise and counterclockwise edge cycles for the D layer...


----------



## erc (Dec 22, 2008)

I think you should at least learn the first 20 algorithms at Lars' site.
It's not too hard to learn.You can use the 3 algorithms for 1 edge swap in U layer and 1 edge swap in D layer to simplify the cases.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 22, 2008)

I only know about 7 EPs. I do EP in 2-4 algs, usually. Just learn the single swaps in each layer (adj-adj, opp-opp, opp-adj) and the U perms. you should be fine with that.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 22, 2008)

For the Z-perm, an alg which is very easy to remember: (1,0)/(-1,-1)/(3,0)/(1,1)/(-3,0)/(-1,-1)/(0,1) (this is basically three "M2").


----------



## qqwref (Dec 22, 2008)

Personally I solve the entire puzzle with the layers swapped, then do EP on the D layer (which is on top), swap layers, and solve EP on the U layer (which is on top). But if you want to get fast on Square-1 without learning all the EPs, you should probably follow Dan's advice: learn to mirror algorithms (to do a U perm on the bottom without learning a new alg, for instance), and memorize all three 2-2-swap EPs, and then solve the whole EP in several quick algs. It's not the most efficient way to go, but it can be quite fast! 

Incidentally, if you really don't like having to deal with parity, you might want to learn Eido's way to deal with CP/EP. He solves parity during CP, which means that you have to recognize PLLs and learn a set of parity+CP algs, although they are generally pretty fast (I only know one, which is /(3,3)/(1,2)/(2,-4)/(-2,4)/(-1,-2)/(-3,-3)/), but it means that when you get to EP you will always have one of the non-parity EPs. Apparently you can actually do quite a lot of those by doing two CP algs: for example you can do a U on top and a U on bottom with two J/J algs.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 22, 2008)

My system for parity/CP/EP is as michael described. I use 2 sets of corner permutation algs: the "standard" ones, as on lars' site, and the "parity" ones, which solve corner permutation while affecting parity as well. This makes for a little bit more recognition during CP (you check if the top and bottom layers are valid PLL's (on 3x3), if both are or both aren't, do a regular CP. If one is but the other isn't, do a parity CP), but it's not too much longer, and I think my worst parity CP algs are still better than most parity EP algs. That's the other thing: this reduces you to only half of the edge permutation algorithms. The good half. Also, for those who are still learning, the half that are solvable completely with simple 2-2 swaps in combination, like dan suggested.

The other tip that michael gave that I'll clarify is doing EP with CP algs. Basically, you can use the "standard" CP algs to do any combination of U's and H's during EP. As you (should) know, all the standard CP algorithms are basically ortega PBL's. They use the square-1 as a turn-limited 2x2. 

Take the J/J algorithm. /(-3,0)/(3,3)/(0,-3)/ Very quick, very easy to remember. You should also know that you can execute the algorithm from a different angle (say, after a (1,0) or a (1,-1)) to move different edges with the same corners. Well, try to do J/J from the normal angle, then again from a different angle. It will do some sort of U-perms. It's fairly easy to figure out how the angles you use affect where your U's are, which direction they cycle, and how to use other CP algorithms (ones that do N's, to be exact) to do H perms in combination as well. 

And yes, being able to mirror algs is a great skill. When you think that nearly half of all algorithms on the puzzle are simply a vertical reflection of another, you will realize how important it is. Unless you like learning algs you already know over again.


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 11, 2009)

My apologies for bumping an old topic, but I started it an wanted to follow up now that I'm more serious about square-1.

I'm at the stage where I average mid-low 18s and have noticed I seem to get to EP at similar times to some faster people, but have a comparitively slow EP, due to knowing fewer algs. Obviously, the number I could learn is daunting, so I'm not sure where to start really.

Currently I know:

Adj-adj
Opp-opp
O perm both directions on U
Z perm on either layer
H perm, either layer
O perm + adjacent, both directions, either layer
Opp-adj, either layer (was wondering if there was a nicer one for adj-opp)

I also plan on learning the single edge swap cases on U (Opp or adj) M(?) perm on U, and O perm on D (either direction) but I need better algs for that. After that, however, I'm lost. Any help?


----------



## Pedro (Sep 11, 2009)

wait, you don't know parity fix?


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 11, 2009)

O perm = parity fix


----------



## TMOY (Sep 11, 2009)

O-perm + opposite ? These algs are intuitive and easy to learn (in fact they're only slignt variations of the Z-perm I gave earlier in this thread).


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 11, 2009)

Well first I'd recommend learning adj parity and Opp-H on both layers. They're both extremely useful parity algs if you are just using O-perm atm. Or you could learn parity CP.

W-adj is nice, and it makes solving a lot of cases much easier.

There are also a lot of algs that can be done with M2, like opp-opp + opp-O = H-Z or opp-O + Z = O-O etc. Things you already know the algs for, but may not know how to do.


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 11, 2009)

H-Z I've normally just done with opp-opp then opp-O perm. I'm tempted to get all of the different U perm combinations out of the way (of which there are 8(?) (CW-none, ACW-none, none-CW, none-ACW, CW-CW, ACW-ACW, CW-ACW, ACW-CW)) as I remember them being shorter than doing adj-adj with set-up moves in between.



TMOY said:


> O-perm + opposite ? These algs are intuitive and easy to learn (in fact they're only slignt variations of the Z-perm I gave earlier in this thread).



Whoops. I meant O perm-opp, not O perm-adj in my earlier post. Yeah, I already know those, and are some of my quickest EPs


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 11, 2009)

two of the U/U combinations are actually optimal with 2 adj/adj swaps. The other two are a nice alg. Definitely learn the single layer U perms.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 11, 2009)

I don't know about parity EP (I hear opp/H is good) but for nonparity I'd say learn all the combinations of U, then all the 3/1 swap cases, then the rest of the 2/2 cases. That's (roughly) how I did it (I learned the Us later, but they really should've been first).


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Sep 11, 2009)

if you dont want to learn all the algs then stick wiyh jason baums method only 50 algs that are fairly easy to recognize and execute 
http://http://jmbaum.110mb.com/square1.htm


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 11, 2009)

cubeninjaIV said:


> if you dont want to learn all the algs then stick wiyh jason baums method only 50 algs that are fairly easy to recognize and execute
> http://http://jmbaum.110mb.com/square1.htm



I use a slight variation of lars method... and that requires less algs than jasons. Also, jason's method is just not worth learning... for anyone.


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm already sub-20 with the method use by the majority of the best square-1 solvers. Why switch?

(I'm not trying to sound rude by the way  I'm already well practiced with this method, have learnt a bunch of the algs and had success. Also, I'm under the impression that Timothy Sun's(?) LBL method is better.)


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Sep 11, 2009)

> Originally Posted by cubeninjaIV
> if you dont want to learn all the algs then stick wiyh jason baums method only 50 algs that are fairly easy to recognize and execute
> http://http://jmbaum.110mb.com/square1.htm
> 
> ...


why? its working great for me i avg around 30 seconds as opposed to lars method which took me around 1:10


----------



## vcuber13 (Feb 28, 2010)

i average about ~50 seconds using cp then doing ep in two steps 3 if i have parity and i know 5/7 olls 4/4 regular ep on the top layer (without parity) and the ajacent parity fix
what would you guys suggest for me to average ~40 seconds?


----------



## Neo63 (Mar 1, 2010)

since vcuber has bumped the thread...

I know ~35 EPs IIRC but I'm really bad at executing them so I'm still averaging 18-19 (I used to get 15s but stopped practicing for a while). 

BTW the chinese EPs are quite good (this chinese guy wrote a list of almost all EPs, and most of them are better than lars' algs)...maybe I'll post it someday


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 1, 2010)

Tomasu's EPs are better than Lars's as well.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Mar 1, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Tomasu's EPs are better than Lars's as well.



Link?


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 1, 2010)

jazzthief81 said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > Tomasu's EPs are better than Lars's as well.
> ...



http://web.telia.com/~u24323048/stuff/square-1/

I haven't gone through and tried all of them, but what I've tried I like.


----------

