at what point should someone learn EG1?

[Weston]

I have recently learned CLL (about 3 weeks ago) and I am itching to learn EG1 but I know I'm not ready yet since i only average around 4.5 seconds and I am very inconsistent.
For those people that do know EG1, what were you averaging when you learned it?
I asked Rowe this and he said probably not until you are sub 3, but I know that there are many more people that know EG1 than that are sub 3. EDIT: (never mind. This is probably wrong)

I am thinking around 3.5 seconds average would be a good time to learn EG1.

EDIT: Of course, when I say "When SHOULD someone learn EG1", I am implying that they are planning to learn it at once point.
I guess the better way of wording this would be what is the best time to learn EG1 if you are indeed going to learn it at some point.

 

[rowehessler]

weston....there are only like 2 other people that i know of that know any EG at all and neither of them are sub 3, but honsetly EG1 is almost useless in averages, it only helps to get fast singles. especially if youre only avging 4.5. i almost never use EG1 and im about 2.7ish avg with just CLL. if you just learned CLL three weeks ago its completely idiotic learning EG now. cramming so many algs at once isnt good. but if you want man...go for it

 

[Weston]

lol. The one person I have already asked replies first.

I am fairly sure that Justin Jaffray uses it in averages fairly often. It looks like it is working out pretty well for him.

Are the CLL algs significantly better than the EG algs? If so, then then I wouldn't be as eager to learn EG.

Oh, and I never actually planned to learn EG anytime soon. I'm just excited.

 

[DavidWoner]

Justin Jaffray does this:

look for good layer
then if none
look for bad layer
then if none
do a face and pray for an easy EG case.

You should definitely be consistently sub4 with a lot of low 3 avgs before you start EG.

 

[Weston]

ah. So when you say "easy" EG case, i guess that means a lot of them are bad?

if thats the case, i wont learn them until someone compiles a list of good algs.
Or when I stop improving.

I think I will call EG EDGE just for you.

 

[DavidWoner]

Uhh yeah don't call it that please. >_>

 

[Weston]

hahaha
Why not? Wasnt that name originally your idea?

 

[Escher]

EG1 is only useful when you've planned the entire solve in inspection. Using it without predicting the case is probably actually no faster than just doing a bad layer and getting an averagely fast CLL.
Anybody can average ~3.5 with CLL as long as you have an efficient (and colour neutral) FL, good recognition, good lookahead during preinspection, and can turn fast.

I had some decent algs for some cases (and uploaded some of them to the wiki), but really you should generate your own. Spending ages searching for a good alg for a case is really rewarding & helps you learn it.

If you do begin learning it, you should probably wait until you're between 3-3.5.

The only people I know of that know or knew EG1 are: Rowe, Kenneth, Justin, & Spef. Spef got bored and forgot most of them pretty quickly though, I think, and Kenneth isn't really a speedcuber anymore.
Me and David have learnt bits, I'm not sure about anybody else (probably Erik &/or Gunnar has learnt some here and there?).

Imo, you should learn PBL based methods after CLL, before you learn EG1, like Guimond, or OFOTA, or SS. Just cos they're cool

 

[jim32]

i know only ortega now and i avg about 4,9 -5,7 .i was planning to learn cll but i am useful to build layers so i thoutght ti go immediately to eg1 .so i have llearned H,U and pi cases (12 algs) .but these comments aere kind of dissappointing.so its not possible to reach sub 3 average with only eg1 (and ortega)

 

[WACWCA]

i know only ortega now and i avg about 4,9 -5,7 .i was planning to learn cll but i am useful to build layers so i thoutght ti go immediately to eg1 .so i have llearned H,U and pi cases (12 algs) .but these comments aere kind of dissappointing.so its not possible to reach sub 3 average with only eg1 (and ortega)

this is an old source, I think you should keep practicing with Ortega some more first, get sub 4.5 at least. Personally, I would do CLL first, which is what most people do, but if you've already done EG-1, it's definitely useful, and basically just one look when you have 3/4 move layers as much as you can and just go fast if you can't predict the case

 

[jim32]

this is an old source, I think you should keep practicing with Ortega some more first, get sub 4.5 at least. Personally, I would do CLL first, which is what most people do, but if you've already done EG-1, it's definitely useful, and basically just one look when you have 3/4 move layers as much as you can and just go fast if you can't predict the case

yeah.i think that one looking with eg1 is a good combimation.but we see.although cll its too attractive as its algs are easier and is a really good method too

 

[Hazel]

I don't know EG1, but I'd recommend that, if you want to learn EG1 at some point, to wait a while after learning CLL to learn EG1 for two reasons:
1) To become faster and more consistent with CLL, to practice the algs and fast recognition, etc.
2) To become super comfortable with CLL so that you never accidentally do a CLL alg for an EG1 case and vice versa

 

[efattah]

I learned EG1 before CLL because making a random face it has a 66% chance of being EG1, 16% of being CLL and 16% of EG2. I did some stats in real world solves and 70% of my solves use EG1. The rest use CLL or Ortega (if it is EG2).

Some of the EG1 algorithms are faster than their CLL counterparts and vice versa. On average I would say they are the same.

Having said that learning CLL and/or EG1 does not automatically make you way faster than with Ortega. I am only 1 second faster with EG1+CLL than with pure Ortega. EG1 and CLL have much slower recognition compared to Ortega, but it is still fast if you practice it. Unlike Ortega, you will really need to do a lot of drills to make CLL/EG1 useful in my opinion.