Should I learn full algorithmic EG-2 or LEG-1

[Discomantis]

I want to learn some more 2x2 algorithm subsets.

I currently know CLL and most of EG-1, as well as anti-CLL.

I am wondering if I should full LEG-1, or go for fully algorithmic EG-2 instead

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

LEG-1?

 

[Discomantis]

LEG-1?

It's EG-1 but with the bar on the left side

 

[Twisted101]

EG-2 as you can already do EG-1 with algorithms

 

[ProStar]

Learn full EG method first, then add stuff from there

 

[efattah]

I learned LEG1 before EG-2, but in general I don't recommend that path.
I think people are missing the fact that the OP knows anti-CLL, so he can solve EG-2 cases in 1 look using that.

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

So is there LEG-1 and REG-1?

 

[OtaMota]

So is there LEG-1 and REG-1?

REG exists. but it is very impractical as having two choices of where to put the bar (left, back) is more than enough. I would imagine REG could be useful for left handed cubers, but if you had to learn REG, I don't think you would learn LEG as well.

IMO, I think Eg-2 is more important, but there are some good 2 gen LEGs that might be worth learning, especially since some of their EG-1 equivalents are not that good.

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

Imagine LEG-1, REG-1, FEG-1, BEG-1, UEG-1, and DEG-1

 

[ProStar]

Imagine LEG-1, REG-1, FEG-1, BEG-1, UEG-1, and DEG-1

The point of the additional sets is that 1. the bar is easier made on that side/removes a rotation, and 2. some of the algs with bar on a different side is better. It would be completely pointless to learn anything beyond EG-1 and LEG-1, and there are more useful 2x2 sets

 

[efattah]

I agree that MANY of the LEG-1 algorithms are WAY better than the EG-1 versions. Plus LEG-1 has extra use in certain 3x3 methods, like LMCF-H and WaterRoux.