# My Journey in Switching 3x3 Methods



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

Yes, I am switching my 3x3 method. Try to guess which method I'm switching to!



Spoiler: Hint



I currently use CFOP





Spoiler: Hint 2



It's not very popular





Spoiler: Hint 3



It’s very similar to CFOP





Spoiler: Answer



CFCE!






Did you get it right?



Probably not...




That’s right, I am switching to the method known as Cross, F2L, Corners, Edges, or CFCE for short.


*Overview of CFCE*

In CFCE, you solve the first two layers using Cross + F2L, the same as CFOP. The difference comes in the last layer. Instead of doing OLL and PLL, you orient and permute the corners with one alg(two for beginners), and then orient and permute the edges with one alg(two for beginners). Solving the corners in 1 look takes 42 algorithms. This can be accomplished by knowing one of three algorithm sets: CMLL, CLL(for 3x3), or COLL. After the corners are solved, you use one of the 29 algs in the ELL algorithm set, thus completing the cube.

*Why Did I Make This Thread?*

I wanted to document my journey through switching methods, and decided this would be a good way to do it. It will raise awareness of this obscure method and allow those reading this to give advice. I will structure this thread similar to the thread by @PetrusQuber, “My Journey to Sub 8 Petrus”. I will post how I’m practicing, my improvements, what I’m learning, and maybe some more info on CFCE.

*Why Am I Switching?*

Although it originated in 1981, CFCE isn’t a popular method, which is appealing to me. It is, in my opinion, just as good as CFOP. I also won’t lose the progress I’ve made in Cross + F2L, as CFCE shares those first two steps with CFOP.

There is another reason I’m switching, and it takes the form of a story. While messing with the cube at around midnight about a week ago, I decided to try to create a new method, or at least modify an existing one. I know CFOP and Roux, the basics of Petrus, as well as the basics of ZZ (like really basic, I can’t solve with it). Over the next couple of days, I came up with a few methods, including RouxFOP, Petroux, and an outlandishly unrealistic corners-first method (I’m lousy at names, I know). Eventually, I came up with an idea I liked. I first solved FB and SB, like Roux, then used M moves to finish F2L, then solved the LL corners, then solved the LL edges. (sound familiar?) I decided that this might have merit as a method, and began to develop it seriously.

The prototype name I decided on was “FBCL”, standing for “First 2 Blocks(F2B), Bottom 2 Edges(B2E), Corners of the Last Layer(CLL), Last 4 Edges(L4E). Later, I decided to rename the last step “Edges of the Last Layer(ELL)”. I went to the SS wiki and searched ELL, just in case it was the name for something already, and this page came up. I read through it, and something I saw caught my eye: “...normally after performing CLL to solve the last layer corners…”

Soo… yeah. The method already existed. I did some research, and found out about CFCE. After doing more research, I found CFCE appealing to me, and after trying it out, I decided to switch, hence this thread.

*Where Am I at Currently?*

After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs.

I've decided to learn CLL, as the time I'd save with COLL whenever a cross is already made is less than the time I'll save with CLL's better algs whenever there isn't a cross(which is more often)

I currently use a 4lll I made up using a few algs from the two algorithm sets I need to learn(CLL and ELL). Without CFOP, I averaged about 25-8 seconds, and after doing about 30 solves with CFCE(using my 4lll), I averaged around the same. I also got my fifth ever sub-20 solve, and another one that would’ve been sub-20 had I not fumbled the cube. Now that I’ve assured I haven’t lost any progress, I decided to begin learning CLL. I plan to start with the H cases, but if any experienced cubers think that there is a better path for learning the cases - Instead of H, Pi, etc. - I would appreciate if they posted their suggest order. I’m using J Perm’s COLL tutorials for learning them, but he doesn’t have any videos for Sune/Antisune. After CLL, I’ll learn ELL, then maybe some COLL so that I can take advantage of whenever I get a cross solved automatically.

*What I’m Learning + Times

What I’m Learning*

CLL: 0/42
About to start learning

ELL: 1/29
Won’t start learning until after CLL

*Times*

Best CFCE Single: 17.45
Best CFCE Ao5: 22.22
Best CFCE Ao12: 23.31

Current Session Average(50+ Solves): 25.88

============================================================================================================

Last Updated: December 13, 2019


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 12, 2019)

Oll + Pll has better recognition (and mostly better algs) than cfce


----------



## Nathanael (Dec 12, 2019)

I feel like if I were to switch from CFOP to CFCE it would be a waste. This is because I find Cross and F2L the hardest parts of CFOP. I already do 3LLL and I find it really quick. This is the only reason I wouldn't switch.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

TipsterTrickster said:


> Oll + Pll has better recognition (and mostly better algs) than cfce



COLL is already used by advanced CFOP solvers, and for ELL almost all cases have only two edges flipped, with 1-2 oriented but incorrectly permuted. If you think about it in the correct way(recognizing the ELL case that is), it's not that hard. The recognition system is different from PLL, but not necessarily worse.



Nathanael said:


> I feel like if I were to switch from CFOP to CFCE it would be a waste. This is because I find Cross and F2L the hardest parts of CFOP. I already do 3LLL and I find it really quick. This is the only reason I wouldn't switch.



I currently use 4lll, and all algs for CO apply to COLL. I also won't lose any progress for Cross + F2L, because CFCE has those same steps.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 12, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Yes, I am switching my 3x3 method. Try to guess which method I'm switching to!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought about doing this but I’m currently working on a different alg set. I’m thinking about learning ELL and using CFCE I’m weird OLL cases


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 12, 2019)

Yes Coll is used by some cfop solvers on some solves, but honesty even that isn't worth the recognition time most of the time, and only really worth it on fast easy to recognize cases (which most are not). Coll recognition for some cases is super annoying and way slower than oll recognition, plus the algs are (mostly) worse than oll. Ell recognition is easy in a way, but still not as fast as pll, plus the algs are worse than pll. Do what you want, but this is just my experience with the method (for reference I average sub 10 with roux, and I know full 2lll and coll, cmll, and cll, and some ell).


----------



## GAN 356 X (Dec 12, 2019)

Sandwiches forever lol


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 12, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm


CLL for 222 ≠ CLL for 333. Obviously you shouldn't be using 222 CLL algs if you want to preserve F2L. Check this list of some speed-optimised 333 CLL algs.

(That said, knowing alternative algs to preserve or force EO might be useful, especially for OH or big cubes where some of the ELL cases are much worse than U perms, e.g. pure opposite flip or pure 4-flip.)


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 12, 2019)

Good luck! But sandwiches is the superior method to everything


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 12, 2019)

Well there somebody else on my journey


----------



## Xtreme Cuber (Dec 12, 2019)

One more thing to keep in mind about CFCE is that LL average move count is 21.22, compared to 21.5 on CFOP. I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is not worth it, especially with 1) recognition being easier on CFOP and 2) more developments, optimized algorithms, and subsets to learn in the future. Notice I'm NOT saying you won't get far with this method. In fact, there have been some sub-10 CFCE solvers, but I'd say that CFOP is probably better. Again, not trying to discourage you. If you want to try out CFCE, then go right ahead! Excited to see your progress!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 12, 2019)

learn CLL instead of COLL, algs are better


----------



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> learn CLL instead of COLL, algs are better





DarkSavage said:


> After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs.



Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't CLL algs(the 3x3 version, not 2x2) ignore any edges that may be flipped correctly?

Also, is the time I'd save by getting a H/Z/U perm(only on some case tho) less than the time I'd save by faster corners(of course, I'd save time on all solves, not just some of them)?


----------



## Hazel (Dec 12, 2019)

Xtreme Cuber said:


> One more thing to keep in mind about CFCE is that LL average move count is 21.22, compared to 21.5 on CFOP. I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is worth it, especially with 1) recognition being easier on CFOP and 2) more developments, optimized algorithms, and subsets to learn in the future. Notice I'm NOT saying you won't get far with this method. In fact, there have been some sub-10 CFCE solvers, but I'd say that CFOP is probably better. Again, not trying to discourage you. If you want to try out CFCE, then go right ahead! Excited to see your progress!


0.28 is nothing xD especially with such better algorithms.
I agree though - you can absolutely get far with CFCE, but it's pretty much objectively inferior to CFOP at both of the methods' current development-ness.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 12, 2019)

======
*Update*
======

I took part in Ciparo's thread Race to sub-x on a 3x3(if you don't participate in it already, I would recommend doing so) and I got some of my best times ever, CFOP or CFCE. I got a 23.31 Ao12, 22.22 Ao5, and a sub-20 single. Using CFCE is becoming more natural, instead of reverting to using CFOP. I also did the SS weekly comp and got a 25 Ao5 in 3x3. I'm making good progress!


----------



## Xtreme Cuber (Dec 12, 2019)

Aerma said:


> 0.28 is nothing xD especially with such better algorithms.
> I agree though - you can absolutely get far with CFCE, but it's pretty much objectively inferior to CFOP at both of the methods' current development-ness.


Oops! I thought I had typed "I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is NOT worth it." I fixed it now. Thanks for catching that.


----------



## Shaun Mack (Dec 12, 2019)

TipsterTrickster said:


> Yes Coll is used by some cfop solvers on some solves, but honesty even that isn't worth the recognition time most of the time, and only really worth it on fast easy to recognize cases (which most are not). Coll recognition for some cases is super annoying and way slower than oll recognition, plus the algs are (mostly) worse than oll. Ell recognition is easy in a way, but still not as fast as pll, plus the algs are worse than pll. Do what you want, but this is just my experience with the method (for reference I average sub 10 with roux, and I know full 2lll and coll, cmll, and cll, and some ell).


if cxll recog is any more difficult than the oll for you then youre doing it wrong


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 13, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't CLL algs(the 3x3 version, not 2x2) ignore any edges that may be flipped correctly?
> 
> Also, is the time I'd save by getting a H/Z/U perm(only on some case tho) less than the time I'd save by faster corners(of course, I'd save time on all solves, not just some of them)?


IMHO if you want to get advantage that the cross is solved you are losing the advantage to use better algorithms when the other case is true. (whitch will occur more often)


----------



## Hazel (Dec 13, 2019)

Xtreme Cuber said:


> Oops! I thought I had typed "I'd say the extra 0.28 move per solve is NOT worth it." I fixed it now. Thanks for catching that.


I knew what you meant so say  



Shaun Mack said:


> if cxll recog is any more difficult than the oll for you then youre doing it wrong



As someone who knows COLL and used it for a long while before going back to regular OLL/PLL, I can agree with Tipster here. COLL has inherently more things you need to recognize than regular OLL, so of course it will take longer. For H and Pi since the colors to recognize COLL are top, it doesn't really take extra time, but for the others it's just faster to not worry about COLL.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 13, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't CLL algs(the 3x3 version, not 2x2) ignore any edges that may be flipped correctly?
> 
> Also, is the time I'd save by getting a H/Z/U perm(only on some case tho) less than the time I'd save by faster corners(of course, I'd save time on all solves, not just some of them)?


If you have edges already oriented when you reach the last layer, sure, go for COLL, but if not, some of the CLL algs are a lot faster. Like, diag pi COLL is pretty awful but the CLL is average-ish (R' U' R' F R F' R U' R' U2 R or R' F' U' F U' R U R' U R); diag-U has a nice COLL, but even nicer CLL (F R U R' U' F').



Aerma said:


> it's pretty much objectively inferior to CFOP at both of the methods' current development-ness.


How much harder can you develop CFOP to make the bad OLL and PLL cases good?

That's right, you can't; you just replace them with something else that's hopefully better. OLLCP, 1LLL, fruruf into T ZBLLs, etc. You can do the exact same thing with CFCE. It's not an argument for or against CFCE, unless you're comparing CFOP-with-so-many-extensions-that-it's-not-even-really-"cross-F2L-OLL-PLL"-anymore with base CFCE, which is obviously an unfair comparison.

If CFCE is worse than CFOP, it's not worse by a lot, and that's a big if. Some things are better (CLL seems pretty fast with Justin Taylor's optimised algs—which already exist, I've already linked them, so you can't say the algs haven't been optimised yet), some things are worse (recognition?). You can't just say it's "objectively worse" when it's at most subjectively worse.

(Conversely, if CFCE is better, it also can't be better by much for the same reasons! I'm not defending CFCE here, for what it's worth.)


----------



## ProStar (Dec 13, 2019)

======
*Update*
======

Due to some smarter and more experienced cubers giving their advice, I reconsidered using CLL instead of COLL. I did some more research, and I've decided that my previous argument...



DarkSavage said:


> After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs.



...has a flaw. As Fillipe Teixeira said:



Filipe Teixeira said:


> IMHO if you want to get advantage that the cross is solved you are losing the advantage to use better algorithms when the other case is true. (whitch will occur more often)



After more research, I agree with him. I've decided to learn CLL instead of COLL. If anyone can recommend good algs/vids I'd appreciate it, as I can't find a good list.


----------



## Xtreme Cuber (Dec 13, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> That's right, you can't; you just replace them with something else that's hopefully better. OLLCP, 1LLL, fruruf into T ZBLLs, etc. You can do the exact same thing with CFCE. It's not an argument for or against CFCE, unless you're comparing CFOP-with-so-many-extensions-that-it's-not-even-really-"cross-F2L-OLL-PLL"-anymore with base CFCE, which is obviously an unfair comparison.


What makes that an unfair comparison? I believe the point was that CFOP is better at its current development, compared to CFCE's development. I think it's pretty obvious that more developed methods are better than less-developed ones. This isn't to say that CFCE shouldn't be pursued or developed further, nor that you can't get fast with it, just that at the present time and with present available resources, CFOP is faster.

In addition, last layer is a bit faster with CFOP than CFCE, especially because most ELL cases are essentially LSE cases with two edges solved, which means they use a lot of M moves, which are usually slower than RUFD moves, which is what most PLL cases are made up of. In addition, recognition is definitely a bit slower in CFCE. Both methods have been around since at least 1982. One all but vanished and one became the number one method for top cubers across the world. There might just be a reason for that. 

Again, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from learning CFCE or furthering its potential. I just think it's worth mentioning that when judging the merits of a method, one should take into consideration all aspects including maximum TPS and number of resources. I agree that CFCE isn't a lot worse than CFOP, but I personally don't see any good reasons to choose it over other faster and easier methods except for proof of concept.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 13, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> As Fillipe Teixeira said: "..."
> ...If anyone can recommend good algs/vids I'd appreciate it, as I can't find a good list.


Thanks for the mention!



Spoiler: the algs



Ss wiki CxLL Database





Spoiler: videos



Recognition guides


Spoiler: Kian mansour video













Spoiler: Jperm playlist












[COLL] Algorithms + Recognition + Finger Tricks


All my COLL algorithms and how I execute them! There is no sune because cubers typically don't use the sune COLL subset.




www.youtube.com










Spoiler: Feliks Zemdegs playlist












COLL Recognition


Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.




www.youtube.com











I suggest using the videos to learn recognition and drilling the CLL algs that fit you the best.

Notice that in the end, you have to develop your own technique for recognition and execution... use what works the best for you!


----------



## ProStar (Dec 13, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Thanks for the mention!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 14, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> If anyone can recommend good algs/vids I'd appreciate it, as I can't find a good list.


I already linked Justin's CLL/ELL list in the first page…



Xtreme Cuber said:


> especially because most ELL cases are essentially LSE cases with two edges solved, which means they use a lot of M moves, which are usually slower than RUFD moves, which is what most PLL cases are made up of.


Is this _really_ true? Are you sure something like (M' U M U)3 isn't faster than almost every PLL case? What about ELL algs that are RUF, like R' U2 R U' R' U' R' F R2 U R' U' R' F' R2? What about the 3-cycle comms like [R' F R, S] or [R U R' U', M']?

There are good ELL cases and there are bad ELL cases… which is pretty much the same situation as PLL. If you're looking at old alg lists for ELL (like all the garbage on AlgDb), then yes, a lot of the cases have bad MU algs. We know better now.



Xtreme Cuber said:


> What makes that an unfair comparison? I believe the point was that CFOP is better at its current development, compared to CFCE's development. I think it's pretty obvious that more developed methods are better than less-developed ones.


I agree that more development would generally mean that more of the method's potential has been exposed, and hence it would likely be faster. However, my point was that CFOP and CFCE are so similar that it's not necessary to do much CFCE-specific development—most of what we already know for CFOP can directly be used with CFCE, without any modifications. Instead of comparing CFOP with all its extensions to baseline CFCE, we should be comparing CFOP with all its extensions to CFCE plus the same extensions that can be used with CFCE; CFOP stops being an obvious win over CFCE if you do this.

It's not like we're comparing CFOP against some obscure method like Belt; in that case, one might legitimately make the claim that even if Belt had the same potential as CFOP (almost certainly not, but just for the sake of argument), it has had a lot less development and it's so dissimilar to any other popular method that one shouldn't expect Belt to be faster than CFOP at this point in time.

(Good CLL and ELL algs have already been generated. Sure, there might be even better algs that we haven't found yet, but these improvements are generally marginal—if the algs are hard to find, they can't be much better than what we already have. We have tools like AlgExplorer that make finding good algs much easier than it used to be in 1980-2015.)


----------



## Xtreme Cuber (Dec 14, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Is this _really_ true? Are you sure something like (M' U M U)3 isn't faster than almost every PLL case? What about ELL algs that are RUF, like R' U2 R U' R' U' R' F R2 U R' U' R' F' R2? What about the 3-cycle comms like [R' F R, S] or [R U R' U', M']?


I don't know about you, but I can perform Ua, Ub, Aa, Ab, Ra, and T perms faster than (M' U M U)3, none of which use M moves. I didn't want to come across as saying every ELL case is horrible and every PLL case is amazing. However, the fact that PLL cases have virtually no M moves means that, given the same length of algorithms, PLL cases are usually faster. (And yes, I have looked at the ELLs you linked in your first post.)



xyzzy said:


> I agree that more development would generally mean that more of the method's potential has been exposed, and hence it would likely be faster. However, my point was that CFOP and CFCE are so similar that it's not necessary to do much CFCE-specific development—most of what we already know for CFOP can directly be used with CFCE, without any modifications. Instead of comparing CFOP with all its extensions to baseline CFCE, we should be comparing CFOP with all its extensions to CFCE plus the same extensions that can be used with CFCE; CFOP stops being an obvious win over CFCE if you do this.


Okay, that makes more sense. Out of curiosity, what CFOP subsets were you thinking of that could be applied to CFCE? However, even if we're comparing baseline CFOP and CFCE, CFOP is still faster because of better recognition and max TPS and I don't think the 0.28 move difference compensates for that. A while back I was actually looking to learn CFCE because I thought it would be just as fast, but those were the two things that made me switch back to CFOP.

Again, I don't have a problem with anyone believing the two methods are equal and I think it's great that people are branching out to try new (or old?) methods, but in my experience, I haven't found any compelling reason to choose CFCE over CFOP.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 28, 2019)

(I made a new account, so I had to replace the old one in order to edit the main post)

Yes, I am switching my 3x3 method. I am switching to the method known as Cross, F2L, Corners, Edges, or CFCE for short.


*Overview of CFCE*

In CFCE, you solve the first two layers using Cross + F2L, the same as CFOP. The difference comes in the last layer. Instead of doing OLL and PLL, you orient and permute the corners with one alg(two for beginners), and then orient and permute the edges with one alg(two for beginners). Solving the corners in 1 look takes 42 algorithms. This can be accomplished by knowing one of three algorithm sets: CMLL, CLL(for 3x3), or COLL. After the corners are solved, you use one of the 29 algs in the ELL algorithm set, thus completing the cube.

*Why Did I Make This Thread?*

I wanted to document my journey through switching methods, and decided this would be a good way to do it. It will raise awareness of this obscure method and allow those reading this to give advice. I will structure this thread similar to the thread by @PetrusQuber, “My Journey to Sub 8 Petrus”. I will post how I’m practicing, my improvements, what I’m learning, and maybe some more info on CFCE.

*Why Am I Switching?*

Although it originated in 1981, CFCE isn’t a popular method, which is appealing to me. It is, in my opinion, just as good as CFOP. I also won’t lose the progress I’ve made in Cross + F2L, as CFCE shares those first two steps with CFOP.

There is another reason I’m switching, and it takes the form of a story. While messing with the cube at around midnight about a week ago, I decided to try to create a new method, or at least modify an existing one. I know CFOP and Roux, the basics of Petrus, as well as the basics of ZZ (like really basic, I can’t solve with it). Over the next couple of days, I came up with a few methods, including RouxFOP, Petroux, and an outlandishly unrealistic corners-first method (I’m lousy at names, I know). Eventually, I came up with an idea I liked. I first solved FB and SB, like Roux, then used M moves to finish F2L, then solved the LL corners, then solved the LL edges. (sound familiar?) I decided that this might have merit as a method, and began to develop it seriously.

The prototype name I decided on was “FBCL”, standing for “First 2 Blocks(F2B), Bottom 2 Edges(B2E), Corners of the Last Layer(CLL), Last 4 Edges(L4E). Later, I decided to rename the last step “Edges of the Last Layer(ELL)”. I went to the SS wiki and searched ELL, just in case it was the name for something already, and this page came up. I read through it, and something I saw caught my eye: “...normally after performing CLL to solve the last layer corners…”

Soo… yeah. The method already existed. I did some research, and found out about CFCE. After doing more research, I found CFCE appealing to me, and after trying it out, I decided to switch, hence this thread.

*Where Am I at Currently?*

After research, I decided I would COLL as my alg set to solve corners. My reasoning behind this is that if a cross is solved after F2L, CMLL or CLL will mess up the cross, while COLL will force a U, H, or Z perm; an easier case than most ELLs.

I've decided to learn CLL, as the time I'd save with COLL whenever a cross is already made is less than the time I'll save with CLL's better algs whenever there isn't a cross(which is more often)

I currently use a 4lll I made up using a few algs from the two algorithm sets I need to learn(CLL and ELL). Without CFOP, I averaged about 25-28 seconds, and after a couple months of practice I'm averaging about 22 seconds.

*What I’m Learning + Times

What I’m Learning*

CLL: 7/42
O: 2/2
H: 4/4
Pi: 1/6
U: 0/6
T: 0/6
Sune: 0/6
Anti-Sune: 0/6
L: 0/6

ELL: 4/29
Won’t start learning until after CLL(Only know the EPLLs)

*Times*

Best CFCE Single: 13.88
Best CFCE Mo3: 16.00
Best CFCE Ao5: 18.46
Best CFCE Ao12: 19.37
Best CFCE Ao100: 22.52

Current Session Average(115+ Solves): 24.76

============================================================================================================

Last Updated: January 11, 2020


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Dec 28, 2019)

Dude, I mean CFCE is good but CFOP last layer recognition is faster. 
I'm not saying that CFCE is bad, I'm saying that CFOP is faster.
If CFCE was faster, all the pro cubers that use CFOP would be using it.
Also, there are almost as many algs (only a few less)

P.S. i once tried but just found last layer recognition for CFCE too slow compared to CFOP

Anyway good luck!!!!


----------



## RyanP12 (Dec 28, 2019)

The recognition is harder for CLL, but arguably easier or at least the same for ELL, and it’s easy to get fast at CLL recog anyway. Good luck!


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 28, 2019)

And so the CFOP/CFCE argument begins. He is trying to use CFCE. He does not need extra discouragement from what he is trying to do. He just wants to post times, what he is doing, etc here. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care that much about if this method is better or worse, etc.
Sorry if I misinterpreted your meanings in any way, I just thought it would be good to explain the point of this thread. (@ProStar, feel free to correct this)

Good luck anyway!


----------



## RedstoneTim (Dec 28, 2019)

Since you stated that you might learn some OLLCPs, I'd also advise you to have a look on a method called "Zipper".
It's basically CFCE with an extra edge. You solve like usually until last slot and then insert one corner (you can usually insert the corner while solving another pair beforehand), then you either do OLLCP and L5EP (L5EP can be completely <RU>-gen and doesn't have a lot of cases) or CFRLL (just 3x3 CLL but with better algs since you don't have to preserve the FR edge, though you could also just use normal CLL algs if you wanted to) and then L5E (ELL is a subset of L5E, so you should already be familiar with some of the cases, the rest could be done semi-intuitively).
In my opinion, Zipper is better than CFOP/CFCE since you still end up with a 2 look ending and have to solve one pair less, but decide for yourself.
All in all I'm happy people are starting to use other methods than standard CFOP, so I wish you a lot of fun learning CFCE!


----------



## ProStar (Dec 28, 2019)

Parity Nightmare said:


> Dude, I mean CFCE is good but CFOP last layer recognition is faster.
> I'm not saying that CFCE is bad, I'm saying that CFOP is faster.



Recognition being slower has a lot to do with how much you'd practiced OLL/PLL vs. CLL/ELL. Recognizing CLL is the same as COLL. 



Parity Nightmare said:


> If CFCE was faster, all the pro cubers that use CFOP would be using it.



You could say that about any method, like Roux. CFOP has definitely been developed more, but that doesn't mean other methods are slower.



PetrusQuber said:


> And so the CFOP/CFCE argument begins. He is trying to use CFCE. He does not need extra discouragement from what he is trying to do. He just wants to post times, what he is doing, etc here. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care that much about if this method is better or worse, etc.
> Sorry if I misinterpreted your meanings in any way, I just thought it would be good to explain the point of this thread. (@ProStar, feel free to correct this)
> 
> Good luck anyway!



I solidly believe that CFCE can be just as fast as CFOP. Even if it has slightly worse LL recognition(the main argument against it), the difference is marginal; not large enough to make a difference for someone with my average, or beyond.


----------



## efattah (Dec 28, 2019)

CFCE might be pretty good, but I think a missing item here is skip probabilities. With CFOP you get your PLL skip 1 in 72.
With CFCE, you could get a CLL skip (1 in 152), or an ELL skip (for which I don't know the probability--perhaps someone can chime in).
I can try to guess ELL skip chance:
Orientations: 8, Permutations: 10, so I think 80 combinations of which 1 is solved, so ELL skip could be 1 in 80


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 28, 2019)

efattah said:


> CFCE might be pretty good, but I think a missing item here is skip probabilities. With CFOP you get your PLL skip 1 in 72.
> With CFCE, you could get a CLL skip (1 in 152), or an ELL skip (for which I don't know the probability--perhaps someone can chime in).
> I can try to guess ELL skip chance:
> Orientations: 8, Permutations: 10, so I think 80 combinations of which 1 is solved, so ELL skip could be 1 in 80


Skips don't effect averages much, which are what most people care about, so I don't really see why this is at all a noticeable flaw in the method, at most it could raise an average by a couple hundredths of a second.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 28, 2019)

efattah said:


> CFCE might be pretty good, but I think a missing item here is skip probabilities. With CFOP you get your PLL skip 1 in 72.
> With CFCE, you could get a CLL skip (1 in 152), or an ELL skip (for which I don't know the probability--perhaps someone can chime in).
> I can try to guess ELL skip chance:
> Orientations: 8, Permutations: 10, so I think 80 combinations of which 1 is solved, so ELL skip could be 1 in 80


1/162 for CLL skip (I think you typo'd this) and 1/96 for ELL skip.

But I don't think skip rates should be a relevant concern anyway—they really favour methods with a step that doesn't do much (e.g. with EO-ZBLL there's a 1/8 chance of EO skip), and it's not like a LL substep skip completely determines whether a solve is good or bad since a 3×3×3 solve doesn't just consist of solving the last layer. (There's the _converse_ relation, where it's true that extremely good solves (as in top 0.05% of a person's times) have skips disproportionately often (probably well over 20%), but this isn't the important direction. Bayes's theorem!)


----------



## efattah (Dec 28, 2019)

What I am trying to get at is to examine the chance of good and bad random events. For example, CFOP solves dread N-Perms, but there are no N-Perms in CFCE, even the worst CLL and worst ELL aren't too bad, even if recognition is debatable. It is also true that ELL algorithms are very fast to execute.


----------



## RyanP12 (Dec 29, 2019)

Where did you find your CLL algorithms?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 29, 2019)

RyanP12 said:


> Where did you find your CLL algorithms?



I'm mainly using Kian's CMLLs, but I use the SS wiki for any that disrupt the M slice.


----------



## Skittleskp (Jan 2, 2020)

noob question but what does CFCE stand for.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 2, 2020)

Skittleskp said:


> noob question but what does CFCE stand for.


It’s Cross, F2L, CLL(corners of the last layer),ELL(edges of the last layer)


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 2, 2020)

I can't really say much except good luck to you in this journey! Keep trying throughout the year and don't give up!


----------



## efattah (Jan 2, 2020)

Like any method you will need to learn to recognize the CLL cases from all possible angles, which is a time consuming process. Otherwise, recognition takes too long.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 2, 2020)

efattah said:


> Like any method you will need to learn to recognize the CLL cases from all possible angles, which is a time consuming process. Otherwise, recognition takes too long.



No more time consuming than oll...


----------



## ProStar (Jan 12, 2020)

===
*UPDATE*
===

So I've been majorly slacking on learning CLL lately, but I finally started learning Pi. I'm hoping to be done with them in under a week(I'm mostly taking my time with learning algs, I usually do 1 a day)


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 12, 2020)

i got it right........because ive seen you talk about cfce befre


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 29, 2020)

i guess theres a benifet of cfce, it easier to do cll on 2x2


----------



## ProStar (Jan 29, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> i guess theres a benifet of cfce, it easier to do cll on 2x2



I've switched back to CFOP


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I've switched back to CFOP


this is awkward


----------



## ProStar (Jan 29, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> this is awkward



lol yeah


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> lol yeah


how come


----------



## ProStar (Jan 29, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> how come



I was tired of trying to find good algs, sources, and help for CFCE. I still firmly believe that CFCE is just as good as CFOP, but I'm not good enough to be the one to develop it.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I was tired of trying to find good algs, sources, and help for CFCE. I still firmly believe that CFCE is just as good as CFOP, but I'm not good enough to be the one to develop it.


There are good algs. algdb for ELL and the wiki for CLL.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 30, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> There are good algs. algdb for ELL and the wiki for CLL.



Trying to look at the algs on the wiki for CLL is awful for me. I hadn't seen algdb's ells. The main problem is if I want to know how to fingertrick an alg, or what to do next, or anything like that, it's almost impossible to find a video quickly for CFCE. For CFOP, I can find 10+ instantly


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Trying to look at the algs on the wiki for CLL is awful for me. I hadn't seen algdb's ells. The main problem is if I want to know how to fingertrick an alg, or what to do next, or anything like that, it's almost impossible to find a video quickly for CFCE. For CFOP, I can find 10+ instantly


I guess. I personally never use execution videos and figure out the fingertricks on my own.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 30, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I guess. I personally never use execution videos and figure out the fingertricks on my own.



I'm actually planning on learning CLL/ELL one day so that I can take advantage of an easy LL if it comes up. I literally just did a solve where I had a horrific F2L but it was still sub-20 because of a CLL skip.


----------



## efattah (Jan 31, 2020)

You are pioneering a new method (CFCE) that is vastly underdeveloped. You don't 'look' for good algorithms for the last layer, you're the one expected to generate new and better algorithms. You don't look for videos on how to finger trick the algorithms, you are the one expected to find the finger tricks and post youtube how-to videos so your 'followers' can click on your videos and learn from you, and skip all the hard work.
I've been developing LMCF for 5 years and it is slow, hard work, and measurable progress can be seen every 6 months or so. I'd expect similar progress with your journey.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Feb 1, 2020)

There actually are some good CFCE resources, they're just kind of hidden. For example there is this for full CFCE and this for ELL.
(I also remember someone mentioning that they would release a sub-1 ELL video soon, though I don't think it's been finished yet.)


----------

