Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:01 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: COLL & ELL
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: KC, MO: USA
i keep seeing these COLL pages that only include the LL's edges in the top cross. does this mean that you only do COLL if you run into those scenarios or do you orient the LL into a cross then do COLL?

plus, what exactly is ELL? and where is there a good site that has the ELL method?

_________________
333 ave = 20.85 as of 5-1-06


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
I think many of those that do COLL combine it with orienting the LL edges while inserting the last pair in Fridrich. A few do this with ZBF2L which is over 300 algorithms and some do it with VH, which is 16 algorithms. In VH you first pair upp the last corner and edge and orient the LL edges when you insert the pair. In ZBF2L you orient the LL edges while pairing up the last F2L corner and edge.

ELL is orienting and permuting edges in one go. Ususally combined with a previous CLL. One place with algs for both is http://rokumentai.akimoto3.com/GRSM-e.htm. CLL + ELL is just as viable as OLL + PLL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 4:08 am
I use CLL ELL for my LL, as well as knowing about half of COLL. I can attest that it is just as viable as OLL PLL. I believe that CLL is easier to recognize than OLL, especailly when you use Ron's FFBB notation. I have a PB average of 15.26, using CLL ELL.

This said, I believe the REAL speed in a solve is in the F2L. Work on that hard and you are guaranteed good solves even with a mediocre LL.

Quinn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: KC, MO: USA
yeah, i know what you mean with the f2l thing. my LL times are generally from 8-12 seconds. with my f2l times at about 12-16 seconds. i am trying the many different techniques on speading up my f2l...all i can say is it's working.



and when pairing up the last pair (in the VH system), is the idea to get a cross at the top color? plus, is their any sites that describe the VH system in more detail? cubezone and cubestation don't have it up.

thanks


ps
is that site supposed to be in russian?

_________________
333 ave = 20.85 as of 5-1-06


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
The last dot in the adress seems have screw things up. Try http://rokumentai.akimoto3.com/GRSM-e.htm instead.

The insertion of the last pair is actually a subset of the algorithms for ZBF2L. You'll find them as the first 8 cases for ConU_1a and ConU_1b respectively on Cubezone.be


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: KC, MO: USA
oooohhhhhhhh....now that makes sense. and the link works, thanks.

_________________
333 ave = 20.85 as of 5-1-06


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:37 pm
Hello all,

I seem to have been hinting at similar questions in another thread I started, thus forgive any redundancy in my asking this. Yet I am a bit confised on how to discern what algorithms one should learn when trying to improve an existing system or learn an entirely different method. For example it was mentioned that the ZBF2L method has over 300 algorithms, while others are much shorter. How does one deicern what to learn/memorize (I do not think I have it in me to memorize over 300!), or is it more of a case where one should simply be looking at the established algorithms as exmples and suggestions and then be more focused on understanding the cube rather than any memorization at all?

Thanks for the help!

Always,

Sam

_________________
______________________
Ad Astra Per Aspera


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
In addition to the ~300 algs for ZBF2L comes about another ~500 for the last layer to do it "true" to the ZB system, which means finishing in one step when ZBF2L is done.

How to memorize and how fast one can do it seems to be different for everyone. Don't get too stuck up just leaning algorithms. Simply knowing many algorithms has little to do with actual speed of solving. For example: Doing F2L Fridrich-style and finishing with a 3 step LL is not that many algorithms (around 30, excluding F2L which can be done intuitively) and can be done in sub 20 seconds for some people.

So... find a method you like and try it out for some time. Learn at least some of the necessary algorithms and understand the intuitive bits. If you want to switch to another method later, no worries. Everything you've previously learned and practiced will still be useful regardless of method. Especially since recognition is a big part of solving fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:37 pm
Gustav wrote:
How to memorize and how fast one can do it seems to be different for everyone. Don't get too stuck up just leaning algorithms... Learn at least some of the necessary algorithms and understand the intuitive bits.
Code:

Hello!

  Actually this is where I am stuck; that is deciding what the necessary algorithms are that should be memorized. For example I was looking at the multiple algorithms necessary to place the lower layer edge, and the middle layer corner, cubies with the same move via the Knights' method. I tried several of the algorithms shown yet they only worked for very specific circumstances. As such I did not see either which of the algorithms for this one move was/were the necessary to memorize, thus it seemed like I had to learn them all (and there were many). Beyond this I agree with the need to look at/feel the cube in an intuitive manner.

  I am sorry if I am being obtuse about this... I realy am trying to get it!    :oops:

   Thanks for the help!

Always,

Sam

_________________
______________________
Ad Astra Per Aspera


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
Santeh wrote:
For example I was looking at the multiple algorithms necessary to place the lower layer edge, and the middle layer corner, cubies with the same move via the Knights' method.

You mean lower layer corner and middle layer edge right? If I get you right this is the first 42 or so algorithms for Fridrich method (which Dan Knight uses).

You can learn them all as algorithms... I did, and now I know them fairly well and feal they are intuitive rather than as predermined algorithms. Many people recommend though that you don't learn these algorithms, but instead try to solve it intuitively from the very beginning. I think this is also further boosted by the fact that some of the "new" bright stars on the speedsolving sky don't solve the F2L as strictly as most people did before.

Try some of these algorithms out and try not to memorize them but to learn what they actually do. Most of them are built around a few simple principles which you can learn and adapt to your situations. Then practice practice practice... Use the algorithms as reference those times you feel you're might not doing things right. If you used 10 moves and the algorithm uses 7 moves you can something from that.

A method is only as good as the amount of time you put into it. If you decide to go on with the Fridrich/Knights way, practice your cross and Corner/Edge pairs the most. Begin with a 4 step Last Layer and when you feel confident with the F2L you might want to move on to a 3 step LL. Only when you are really good on the F2L and if you are really into speedcubing I would suggesting taking it all the way to a 2 step LL.

F2L intuitively: 0 algorithms
4 step LL: ~3+8+2+4=17 algorithms
3 step LL: ~3+8+21=32 algorithms
2 step LL: ~57+21=78 algorithms

These number include mirrors and might be higher/lower depending on how you do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: LL
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
There are many different approaches to the Last Level.

A 4 "look" LL needs only 4 algorithms
A 2 or 3 look LL needs differing numbers of algorithms depending on how you approach it.

If you go by one measurement leaving out inverses and mirrors CLL is 25 and ELL is 19, so CLL ELL only needs 44 algs total. This is fewer than OLL alone!

Cheers,

David J


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:37 pm
[/quote]
You mean lower layer corner and middle layer edge right? If I get you right this is the first 42 or so algorithms for Fridrich method (which Dan Knight uses).[/quote]

Yes, sorry about that! I did indeed mean lower layer corners and middle layer edges!


I have to admit that I feel it will not be the easiest, nor perhaps the best choice, for me to try and learn a multitude of algorithms. It took me long enough to learn the array needed for the 7 step beginners solve in the Knight's method.

Also until now I have just been using what I have memorized and, with the knowledge, attempted to solve the cube as fast as I can. Yet this is clearly not going to work. It would seem to be the right time to slow down the solves and study the cube... I was also thinking of getting an inexpensive metronome to help with rithym...

Thoughts?

Thanks again for the advice and insights!

Respectfully,

Sam

_________________
______________________
Ad Astra Per Aspera


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
Slowing down and just trying to solve in as few moves as possible sounds like agood idea. Take whatever time you need, but try to do clever things. And if you do something clever use that in the future.

When you start to feel confident you can take the step to the metronome, but start really slow, say like one every other second or so. Only increase the speed when you feel like you can solve at the current speed every time.

Don't worry about having a hard time learning algorithms. It seems to become easier the more familiar you become with you cube...

Good Luck


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LL
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:00 pm
David J wrote:
If you go by one measurement leaving out inverses and mirrors CLL is 25 and ELL is 19, so CLL ELL only needs 44 algs total. This is fewer than OLL alone!


Since when is 44 less than 40?
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Mike/orient.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LL
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
Hi Stefan,

StefanPochmann wrote:
David J wrote:
If you go by one measurement leaving out inverses and mirrors CLL is 25 and ELL is 19, so CLL ELL only needs 44 algs total. This is fewer than OLL alone!


Since when is 44 less than 40?
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Mike/orient.html


Since I rarely do OLL first, and I don't use other's algs, I was going by what I was repeatedly told, "OLL is 57 algs."

Cheers,

David J


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
Yeah, I mentioned 57 but also:

Gustav wrote:
These numbers include mirrors and might be higher/lower depending on how you do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: algs
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
Hi Gustav,

Gustav wrote:
Yeah, I mentioned 57 but also:

Gustav wrote:
These numbers include mirrors and might be higher/lower depending on how you do it.


Yes, but can I assume that your "57" includes inverses, and the cases of inverse mirrors?

I've seen people take counts, average moves and such, for LL strategies, and I was very disappointed to find that some were taken with incomplete data, excluding inverses, mirrors and mirrored inverses. :P

I made a list of CLL positions you actually face and I got 45 including the solved state. I should probably look at orientations and count them for myself.

Thanks,

David J


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:47 am
Ok then... I find 57 to be "all inclusive". The same number as you will find on "Peter's Magical Finger Tricks" on Speedcubing.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group