0 Look??!!

julesv

julesv

Regular
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
82
Location
London, England
Why are some people saying they are practicing "0-Look OLL or PLL"?? Is it like you induce the 0 look when you are doing F2L?
 
Where did you hear this?

EDIT: Actually it doesn't matter, because it doesn't exist. Or it doesn't exist in relation to what 2-Look, 3-Look and 1-Look mean.
 
Last edited:
IamWEB said:
Where did you hear this?

EDIT: Actually it doesn't matter, because it doesn't exist. Or it doesn't exist in relation to what 2-Look, 3-Look and 1-Look mean.
Click to expand...

It exists, it's the 1/15000 case. :P

I've had it once in my 3 months of cubing oo.
 
If you want to achieve true 0-look last layer, you need not only LL skip but also AUF skip. That's 1/60000, not 1/15000. :p
 
For all practical purposes;
* Most advanced cubers use 2 look last layer (some don't know every single OLL, but they often know some extra tricks as well)
* Nobody uses 1 look last layer.
* Maybe 5 people in the whole world are actually learning 1 look last layer (ZBLL)
* Nobody is ever going to learn 0 look last layer

Why are some people saying they are practicing "0-Look OLL or PLL"??
Click to expand...
You should provide at least 1 link to someone who is saying this
 
ChromisElda said:
IamWEB said:
Where did you hear this?

EDIT: Actually it doesn't matter, because it doesn't exist. Or it doesn't exist in relation to what 2-Look, 3-Look and 1-Look mean.
Click to expand...

It exists, it's the 1/15000 case. :P

I've had it once in my 3 months of cubing oo.
Click to expand...

0-Look LL =/= LL Skip, since because you can't Use a LL skip. They just happen.

x-Look LL implies how many steps you take on the LL. Yes, it can take 0 if you're EXTREMELY lucky, but you can't actually use it like the Thread Starter said people claimed to have been.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation though.
 
0 look last layer = two dimentional puzzle
if you say 0 look it means that the last layer doesn't even exist....
 
soccerking813 said:
Yes, but would that be possible? Purposefully skipping the LL means purposefully solving the LL, which would be 1 Look LL in a way.
Click to expand...

that's what i thought too
and i just said that it is only possible on two dimentional puzzles bcause all puzzle that are 3D always have a "last layer"
 
soccerking813 said:
So 2D puzzles wouldn't have any layers, or would they be one layer?
Click to expand...

3D: 3(length) X 3(width) X 3(layer)

2D: 3(length) X 3(width) X (oh sxxt, where is my layer???)





technically it would only exist in 2D puzzles, but 3D puzzles constructed to REPRESENT a 2D puzzle is accptable


and a 3x3x1 does not count either, because the first layer=its last layer




but if you change it to "third layer" instead of "last layer" then yes, it exists in 3D puzzles, but not the 3x3x3 because it do have a third layer
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top