PapaSmurf
Member
Ortega algs are pretty good. The OLLs are better than these, and the PBLs are better than PLLs overall. If you're stuck for algs, just use Cyotheking's. They're all pretty good.
well I was thinking of an alternate way which was CLL then permute D layerIsn't that just LBL with a bit more freedom in making the first side and having to learn 21 algs? If you're able and willing to learn 21 algs, just learn CLL since its just 40 algs.
It really is.May sound bad at first and "just like EG" but really it's not.
LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ezFAQ (from other places where I talked about this):
Q: Why don't you learn EG?
A: Too many algs for a begginer-brain
I will give this to you. I hate those algs. adj-adj is cracked though.Q: Why don't you learn Ortega?
A: Diag-Adj / Adj-Diag is pain
The difference is that Ortega predates EG by like 25 years. And even when it was rediscovered, that was still 6 years before EG was developed.Q: Isn't that like EG?
A: Ortega is too but no-one's complaining
You also need to orient the top face, so EG is 2 look (if you don't predict anything). Ortega is is 3 look (if you don't predict anything).Q: How is Ortega like EG?
A: Well you solve the bottom layer and permute both layers (like a 2-look EG)
I'd rather die that stick with LBL.It really is.
LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ez
CLL has 40 algs and is 2 look. Sub2 potential if you can turn fast. And what's the point of 2x2 if you're not turning fast.
This is 20 algs and still 3 look. It also leaves you with adj and diag, which are both long algs.
I will give this to you. I hate those algs. adj-adj is cracked though.
However, I will say that it's really just a
Skill Issue
The difference is that Ortega predates EG by like 25 years. And even when it was rediscovered, that was still 6 years before EG was developed.
You also need to orient the top face, so EG is 2 look (if you don't predict anything). Ortega is is 3 look (if you don't predict anything).
I would:
1. Just stick with LBL if you're really adverse to learning algs.
2. Learn CLL if you want to be fast without learning 100+ algs.
3. But I get it, it's fun to come up with methods and get clout for being a method inventor. I'll try not to clown on someone if they recognize the downsides of their method. But if you're gonna try to tout this as a legitimate beginner/intermediate/advanced method, you're gonna have to show why it's better than other methods.
Even so, 2x2 mostly comes down to having good inspection/planning, a good pickup, fast recognition, and good turning. Your method or how many algs you know isn't super super important. Lucas Etter set the 1.51 2x2 WR average without knowing full EG because he was also cracked at planning and had stupid good turning.
I'd rather die that stick with LBL.This is not worth it for sure. Just use normal LBL if you don’t like Ortega and learning algs. I’m able to get sub4 avgs using white bottom only lol
Then use ortega.I'd rather die that stick with LBL.
I'd rather die that stick with LBL.
I think the goal was to avoid pbl adj-diag swaps, which Guimond also has.Or you could just use Guimond method
23 algs and average movecount of 16
Then my final suggestion would be to learn and use CLL. It's not too many algs and they're all short and fast. You can pick your favorite from this sheet.I'd rather die that stick with LBL.
you know what, deal.I think the goal was to avoid pbl adj-diag swaps, which Guimond also has.
Then my final suggestion would be to learn and use CLL. It's not to many algs and they're all short and fast. You can pick your favorite from this sheet.
Petrus is a timeless method.Petrus is outdated
This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block
Petrus is never outdated. It is always relevant in the cubing community.Petrus is outdated
This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block
> invents PetrusYeah but I don’t want to say it’s Petrus because I don’t like petrus