4LLL vs 3LLL -> Worth the Effort?

[Cuber1974]

I'm in the process of moving from LBL to Int Cross/F2l & 4LLL

I keep hearing though that whilst 2 Look OLL vs 1 Look is only a matter of a couple secs at advanced speeds, the difference from 1 look to 2 look PLL is actually quite substantial. Is this true?


What are people's experience with going 3LLL - how long did 1 look PLL take you to learn?

I've already learned the 6 PLL algs for 2 look anyway... so I'm curious to see if it's really going to be worth going the whole hog with all 21 for 1 look. What sort of time saving can I expect to make over 2 look?

Anyone got a good site that lists the 1 look PLL algs? I know of Badmephisto's PLL page, but his setup isn't really printer friendly and I'd really love to get something I could print off and carry around for reference. (although Bad's 2 Look print friendly sheets are ace!)

Advice and feedback appreciated!

 

[Stefan]

What sort of time saving can I expect to make over 2 look?

I'd say 1-2 seconds.

 

[rahulkadukar]

No man you can save atleast 4 seconds

 

[enigmahack]

I think when you're at Stefan's level, 1-2 seconds is pretty accurate. If you take around 45 seconds to solve, you should drop to down to around 40 seconds or so...

When I started cubing, I went straight to 3LLL (I learned all 21 PLLs) however based on experience with people that aren't using 3LLL that move to it, it does seem to save some time overall but if you plan on seriously cubing, it's probably better to learn it anyway.

 

[Zaxef]

Learning full PLL is not as hard as it looks, just keep at it and you'll get it eventually.

 

[Stefan]

If you take around 45 seconds to solve, you should drop to down to around 40 seconds or so.

I still disagree and believe it saves much less. It's much easier to get good at recognizing+executing six fast algs than all 21, which include hard to recognize and execute cases. I did two-look PLL mostly as Tperm+Uperm, easy to recognize and execute fast. Should be easy to get let's say 6 seconds 2-look PLL even when you're still a slow cuber, and dropping 5 seconds from that is probably impossible.

But yeah, Cuber1974 really ought to tell us how fast his PLL is. That was half of the point of my above blanket statement.

 

[enigmahack]

When you put it like that Stefan, it totally makes sense.

I guess like you said, we'll have to see how fast his PLL actually is before we can determine how much time he could be saving.

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

I took it VERY slow with my PLL's, maybe 1-2 a week if I felt like memorizing stuff. Oh, and I really procrastinated on the G perms. But now I use full PLL and don't regret it one bit.

 

[Cride5]

Learning full PLL is not as hard as it looks, just keep at it and you'll get it eventually.

Agreed. Remember, you don't have to learn all 21 algs. For my PLLs I mirrored the following: A, U, J, R, two Gs and N-perm. That saves you 7 algs, meaning you only really need to learn 14 unique algorithms. Being able to reflect algorithms is a good skill, particularly if you want to do a rotation-free F2L, or if you plan on learning more algorithm-heavy systems in future. If you find that execution of mirrored algs is a little slow, you can always add on algorithms as you go

 

[mazei]

Actually just one G. You just mirror, reverse and mirror+reverse. And Y and T is basically 2 of the same OLLs.

 

[soccerking813]

Don't wait, if you feel like starting to learn them, then do it.

And the G-perms aren't that scary once you understand what to look for. I prefer one or two of them over at least half of my other algs.

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

I refused to mirror algorithm and get faster ones. Cause I"m a speed-demon .

 

[rahulkadukar]

I refused to mirror algorithm and get faster ones. Cause I"m a speed-demon .

No offense but you are already a speed demon as seen from your WCA profile

 

[Cuber1974]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

My PLL varies, but it's usually about 10 secs for the 2 algs. Yeah, I know, it's pretty slow at present but I'm still learning (only been cubing for about 4 months) so I'm in no real rush.

My biggest setback atm is my F2L and like most people, where the majority of my time savings will come with practise.

I'll stick with 2 Look for the moment and focus more on my F2L until I can get it under 10 secs.

Thanks again everyone!

 

[Stefan]

My PLL varies, but it's usually about 10 secs for the 2 algs.

Let me assume this:
2 seconds to recognize and AUF corner permutation
3 seconds to solve corner permutation
2 seconds to recognize and AUF edge permutation
3 seconds to solve edge permutation

Then I'd say if you were just as good but knew all PLL algs, it'd look about this:
3 seconds to recognize and AUF permutation
4 seconds to solve corner permutation

So you'd save 3 seconds. But your 2-look PLL really ought to look like this real soon:
1.5 seconds to recognize and AUF corner permutation
2 seconds to solve corner permutation
1.5 seconds to recognize and AUF edge permutation
2 seconds to solve edge permutation

That's 7 seconds, and with all PLLs it might be 2+3=5, so saving 2 seconds like I originally said.

The numbers are probably off but good enough to show the point that you wouldn't be twice as fast (and thereby save 5 seconds) with 1-look PLL.

 

[KubeKid73]

If you want a small page for all the PLLs, http://www.cosine-systems.com/cubestation/cs2/3x3x3/cfop/pll/pllprintablepage.php, and I printed in portrait and it worked fine. The only thing I don't understand is why are there ?2's sometimes. Isn't ?2 and ?2' the same thing?
? is any letter.

 

[Stefan]

Isn't ?2 and ?2' the same thing?

No.

 

[KubeKid73]

Why not? I mean the end result, not the move itself. Its exactly the same.

 

[Stefan]

There. You just answered your own question.

 

[jacob15728]

It's to make fingertricks easier. If you already had your grip in a certain position to do certain moves then you have to do a 180 degree turn, it will be easier in some cases to do it backwards because you don't have to re-grip. Also, when mirroring algorithms it just comes out that way because the opposite of, say, U2 is U2'