[Help Thread] 2x2 CLL Method Discussion

[gpt_kibutz]

No he uses CLL.
Ortega is good if you want to be better at 2x2, but to be the best, learn CLL.

 

[Toad]

Use Ortega until you average atleast sub6 then you could start learning CLL but there's no point in learning it now at all...

 

[CubesOfTheWorld]

I might consider CLL, then

 

[cincyaviation]

In ortega you first get a side (the pieces dont need to be permuted so not a layer just a side). Then you orient the top. Then you do pbl (permute both layers) to finsh. If you already know oll and pll for 2x2 its only a few algs more.

you make a face (not a layer) then do oll and then do pbl( permute both layers)

did you two even read the first post?
also, i am ranked 72nd in the US using fridrich for 2x2, with a 6.47 seconds avg, i think you need to get a bit better at ortega first

 

[CubesOfTheWorld]

In ortega you first get a side (the pieces dont need to be permuted so not a layer just a side). Then you orient the top. Then you do pbl (permute both layers) to finsh. If you already know oll and pll for 2x2 its only a few algs more.

you make a face (not a layer) then do oll and then do pbl( permute both layers)

did you two even read the first post?
also, i am ranked 72nd in the US using fridrich for 2x2, with a 6.47 seconds avg, i think you need to get a bit better at ortega first

lucky...

 

[IamWEB]

In ortega you first get a side (the pieces dont need to be permuted so not a layer just a side). Then you orient the top. Then you do pbl (permute both layers) to finsh. If you already know oll and pll for 2x2 its only a few algs more.

you make a face (not a layer) then do oll and then do pbl( permute both layers)

did you two even read the first post?
also, i am ranked 72nd in the US using fridrich for 2x2, with a 6.47 seconds avg, i think you need to get a bit better at ortega first

An appropriate response is this:

Did you even read the post above theirs?

 

[CubesOfTheWorld]

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DISRUPT MY POST STREAK!

 

[Sa967St]

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DISRUPT MY POST STREAK!

Spoiler

this? you're an idiot

 

[masterofthebass]

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DISRUPT MY POST STREAK!

Spoiler

this? you're an idiot

Yeah, he got banned for that.

 

[ianini]

I've subbed 4 before w/ ortega and 2x2 is too dependent on the scrambles. Not worth the time to learn cll.

 

[Anthony]

I've subbed 4 before w/ ortega and 2x2 is too dependent on the scrambles. Not worth the time to learn cll.

Yes, 2x2 is very dependent on the scrambles, but if you actually want to get good at 2x2 then CLL is very worth it.

 

[cincyaviation]

In ortega you first get a side (the pieces dont need to be permuted so not a layer just a side). Then you orient the top. Then you do pbl (permute both layers) to finsh. If you already know oll and pll for 2x2 its only a few algs more.

you make a face (not a layer) then do oll and then do pbl( permute both layers)

did you two even read the first post?
also, i am ranked 72nd in the US using fridrich for 2x2, with a 6.47 seconds avg, i think you need to get a bit better at ortega first

An appropriate response is this:

Did you even read the post above theirs?

i'm dumb

 

[Anthony]

also, i am ranked 72nd in the US using fridrich for 2x2, with a 6.47 seconds

Exactly. Failure.
lol sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

[Ashmnafa]

also, i am ranked 72nd in the US using fridrich for 2x2, with a 6.47 seconds

Exactly. Failure.
lol sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Awwwww. I thought you were going to post something about how EG is better than CLL...

 

[nlCuber22]

I'm almost sub-5 with Ortega. I want to be sub-3 eventually so I guess I need to get on with learning the rest of CLL. I guess I'm one of the few people who actually cares about 2x2 speed.

And I agree with the people above, 2x2 is very dependent on the scramble. I get stupid things like U' F' U R from qqTimer sometimes.

 

[Anthony]

I'm almost sub-5 with Ortega. I want to be sub-3 eventually so I guess I need to get on with learning the rest of CLL. I guess I'm one of the few people who actually cares about 2x2 speed.

And I agree with the people above, 2x2 is very dependent on the scramble. I get stupid things like U' F' U R from qqTimer sometimes.

Short isn't always easy and easy isn't always short.

With "easy" scrambles the better 2x2 solvers can see the whole solve in inspection and that certainly doesn't mean that the scramble was only a few moves long. However, sometimes nasty scrambles show up, like the ones in the final round of MIT, and a tear rolls down every competitors's cheek.

 

[nlCuber22]

I'm almost sub-5 with Ortega. I want to be sub-3 eventually so I guess I need to get on with learning the rest of CLL. I guess I'm one of the few people who actually cares about 2x2 speed.

And I agree with the people above, 2x2 is very dependent on the scramble. I get stupid things like U' F' U R from qqTimer sometimes.

Short isn't always easy and easy isn't always short.

With "easy" scrambles the better 2x2 solvers can see the whole solve in inspection and that certainly doesn't mean that the scramble was only a few moves long. However, sometimes nasty scrambles show up, like the ones in the final round of MIT, and a tear rolls down every competitor's cheek.

I'm aware of that. In Rowe's stackmat 2.80 avg12, he used 24 move scrambles, right? And what was that one at Stanford Fall 2009 that lots of people got low 1's, and the solution was a sune-a couple moves+AUF?

I also find it amazing how people look ahead to their whole solve, I can only look ahead when I have a 4 move or less FL.

When it comes down to it, I suck at 2x2 and I shouldn't be talking.

 

[Rosette]

Thanks for advices. I'll practice Ortega for now
and when I think I'm good enough
I'll switch to CLLs

 

[miniGOINGS]

What about EG? One third is CLL...

 

[caseyd]

CLL HELP

Im looking to try to start learning cll, but can't find ways that I understand or a good way to start learning them, any help or suggestions?