Roe Rohan cubin
Member
is the cll method better than ortega method to solve a 2x2? i currently use the same fridrich idea to solve a 2x2x2 :confused:
I practice Ortega right now. Is it better to learn Ortega first?
Definitely, plus, CLL has a lot more algorithms and has a much higher learning curve
What is learning Curve ?? I currently use ortega
What is learning Curve ?? I currently use ortega
You guys are cray, Ortega's the best.
but i see many people avg around 2 secs using ortega.
You guys are cray, Ortega's the best.
I don't know of a single competitor that uses ortega only and has an official sub3 average. I know that Chris Olson can sub3 an average of 12 with ortega, but that hardly counts. He will only use Ortega in an official solve where building a face/layer gives him OLL skip right into PBL. Otherwise he ignores it.
At any rate, learn Ortega because I said so
CLl is 1 look last layer for 2x2. It's like 40 algs. (42?)But as far as I know Cll has only two algorithms. One for a line (in which most people do t perm ) . And the other one which has no bar. Am I Wrong??
oh that explains why you use CLL
CLl is 1 look last layer for 2x2. It's like 40 algs. (42?)
I revoke my previous statement, OrtegaZB is the real best method.