Learning EG-1 before CLL on 2x2

[mjm]

I was wondering if it would be more beneficial to learn EG-1 before I learn CLL. EG-1 is for the cases with an adjacent corner swap, and there is a 2/3 chance that the easiest face to make will have two corners swapped adjacently and only a 1/6 chance that it will be fastest to build a layer.
What are your thoughts?

 

[DELToS]

I think CLL would be better first, just because it kinda introduces you to the EG method, and EG-1 is kind of hard to use as a method on its own, while CLL is really easy. I think it's better to always, every solve use CLL than Ortega with all of EG-1. Of course, unless their is a really good scramble for ortega/EG-1

 

[WACWCA]

When i wanted to learn CLL this is exactly what i thought, but the algorithms for EG-1 are much harder i feel, and i think CLL first helps you learn EG-1

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

imo it doesnt make a difference, but you will be faster with eg1/ortega than with cll/ortega. you will want to learn both anyway so do watever u want.

also, eg1 algs are WAY better then cll

 

[mjm]

also, eg1 algs are WAY better then cll

I've heard they're better, I've heard they're worse. I'll probably learn both in quick succession, and maybe at the same time--e.g. the H set of CLL and the H set of EG-1 at the same time.

 

[DELToS]

I've heard they're better, I've heard they're worse. I'll probably learn both in quick succession, and maybe at the same time--e.g. the H set of CLL and the H set of EG-1 at the same time.

I'm learning CLL, and I just learn one set at a time, then practice recognizing and executing until I know all from that set pretty well. I do a set every few days, right now I have the H, Pi, and pretty much U, just have to practice it.

 

[TMarshall]

also, eg1 algs are WAY better then cll

Where did you get your eg1 algs? From my experience my cll algs tend to be faster than the 20 or so eg1 algs I know.

 

[Coolster01]

Here's the thing: Only 1/6 of the time will you get EG-1 and not have to rotate to get to the correct position. So really it's the same as CLL (you never have to rotate in CLL). And, CLL algs are generally better than EG-1, so I'd advise starting with CLL.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

Where did you get your eg1 algs? From my experience my cll algs tend to be faster than the 20 or so eg1 algs I know.

I got them from where everyone gets them: Chris' website. Most of them are RUF and can be executed incredibly quickly.

Here's the thing: Only 1/6 of the time will you get EG-1 and not have to rotate to get to the correct position. So really it's the same as CLL (you never have to rotate in CLL). And, CLL algs are generally better than EG-1, so I'd advise starting with CLL.

well thats with no "tricks". I only rotate like 1/10 solves. Most of the time, its possible to find a way to do it rotationless while still keeping the solution fingertricky. example: instead of R U' R' y' you can do F R' F'. (but im guessing u already knew that)

 

[shadowslice e]

You could try NMLL.

I don't do any specialised algs for 2x2 (I use CMLL) but can average ~4.5 (although I have some 3.9x Ao12s and 3.3x Ao5) using NMLL cause they cancel a lot with the first layer and the layer is usually only 2-4 moves long in a lot of scenarios.

But, as shown above, I am not the fastest on 2x2 cause I don't practise

 

[FailCuber]

, but you will be faster with eg1/ortega than with cll/ortega.

Why would you use Ortega if you already know eg1

 

[Isaac Lai]

Why would you use Ortega if you already know eg1

Because you can't do diag swaps?

 

[GlowingSausage]

If I ever learn any 2x2 Imma prob. learn EG1 before CLL. Not cuz of this thread tho.

 

[mjm]

Here's the thing: Only 1/6 of the time will you get EG-1 and not have to rotate to get to the correct position. So really it's the same as CLL (you never have to rotate in CLL). And, CLL algs are generally better than EG-1, so I'd advise starting with CLL.

Is learning both at the same time viable? I will probably start taking these bigger sets more seriously after my upcoming comp.

 

[WACWCA]

I wouldn't learn both sets at once, you want to have one set completely down first so you know that if you get one of those cases your sure you know it.

 

[ottozing]

CLL is a better 2 look method than EG-1 is, so imo learning EG-1 before CLL is like learning OLL before PLL (In the sense that it's a dumb idea).

 

[JZ]

CLL algorithms are easier to execute and AUF. They help you learn EG1.
You can still use ortega in EG1 cases. It won't be slow.

 

[tseitsei]

CLL is a better 2 look method than EG-1 is

Please explain why?

I'm not good at 2x2 and dont know cll or eg1.
But that said it makes more sense to me to learn eg1 first. Because, as said before, most of the time it is easier to make eg1 "layer" than real layer.
Also you dont really need to rotate nearly as often as coolster said.
You can most often plan the first layer so that the bar will already be at the back.

I dont know the algs though so only reason I can think of why cll would be better is that the algs are better. Can people who know both sets tell their opinions about the algs?

 

[Cale S]

With EG-1 you can get away with only 20 algs, because for opposite cases you can put the bar opposite where it normally is and cancel the opposite alg into F2 R2 F2 or R2 F2 R2, which only adds 2 moves at most

 

[kid who cubes]

Well, if you learn the 47 or so cll algs you can avoid other algorithms.
First of all CLL can lower your times significantly, plus what if there is a really easy layer and you only know EG-1 you would be missing out massively .
Also, if you don't mind the extra moves you can build a face with 2 diagonal corners swapped do the CLL alg then cancel into R2 D2 R2 B2 which would stop you from learning EG-2.