PurpleBanana
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2015
- Messages
- 378
Well, RIP in peace anyone who tries to memorize that.
Rest in peace in peace?
Well, RIP in peace anyone who tries to memorize that.
Rest in peace in peace?
thatsthejoke.jpg
How many OLL cases do you know 1LLL for, including the OCLLs?
Only 9 in full, most of the cases are just random. For example, I know like two OLLCP sets for F (sexy)2 F', and for most OLLs I just know random cases that have nice algs and are easy to recognize.
Isn't it annoying to have to pause to see whether you know the 1LLL for a certain case, and then discover you don't? As opposed to knowing full OLL sets, where you would immediately know whether or not you know the case just by recognizing the OLL?
Right. Which is very annoying.Well it would be about the same as not knowing full PLL or full OLL really.
Well, what can you do? Just wait until you finish learning.Right. Which is very annoying.
Well, what can you do? Just wait until you finish learning.
Sent from my M1005D using Tapatalk
My point is that with 1LLL, there IS a way to learn them in such a manner that you know whether you know the case without recognizing the whole case; I suppose this exists for OLL as well (for example, I might know I know the L cases but not the W cases) but it is much less clear-cut.
That said, I suppose that learning full OLL sets would involve wasting a lot of time learning cases which are not useful or hard to recognize, time which would be better spent learning random easy cases from all the OLLs, although Jabari will have to learn those hard cases sooner or later since he does plan to learn full 1LLL.
He and I have discussed more organized approaches to this before. The problem is, as we've realized, when learning large alg sets, the organized approach often gets boring. Learning them at random is less efficient, but often far more fun.
Isn't it annoying to have to pause to see whether you know the 1LLL for a certain case, and then discover you don't? As opposed to knowing full OLL sets, where you would immediately know whether or not you know the case just by recognizing the OLL?
I appreciate this. However I really avoid L moves.Some time ago when l was interested in ZB l generated all the algorithms for ZBLS, they are very RUL heavy.
Honestly, I could gen the entire set in mostly Rru with a bit of RUF in a day, I just haven't taken the time to. I'll get around to eventually, but the stuff I want to do piles higher and higher and I have... like responsibilities and stuff.I appreciate this. However I really avoid L moves.
Do you know of any R/r U M or F heavy sets?
no, l didn't continue with that project so these are the only algorithms l compiled.I appreciate this. However I really avoid L moves.
Do you know of any R/r U M or F heavy sets?
Yes I know what you mean.Honestly, I could gen the entire set in mostly Rru with a bit of RUF in a day, I just haven't taken the time to. I'll get around to eventually, but the stuff I want to do piles higher and higher and I have... like responsibilities and stuff.
Yes I know what you mean.
How does one generate algs? as I really have no idea