How many PLL algs will I have to learn if I learn all Edge OLL algs?

[Laurentius]

Hey guys. I'm not new here but I haven't been very active.

So anyway I learned Dan Brown's beginner's method to solving the 3x3x3 rubik's cube a couple of months ago and with no OLLs, PLLs or anything I've gotten a highscore of 55 second I'm proud of that

So anyway I was thinking, after I've solved the F2L, and I've got the yellow cross on the up layer, and all edges are correct, I will only need to know 7 OLL algs for that (right?), and then I can start doing PLLs. Well, does anyone know how many PLL algs I would have to learn? Like, is it possible that every single case will appear, or just a limited amount?

Thanks in advance and sorry if this has been asked before, didn't find anything using the search function

 

[yurivish]

Every PLL case will appear, so you'll still have to learn the 21.

The good news is that with a 3-look last layer (edge OLL, corner OLL, PLL) you can get sub-20 times without too much trouble. And lots of practice.

 

[Laurentius]

Thanks for the reply, but what does edge OLL and corner OLL mean? Like, does an edge OLL algorithm orient the edges? Also, where are these algorithms to be found?

 

[yurivish]

Yes, I meant an algorithm to orient the edges.

Right now, you do the F2L. Then you have to get the cross on the top layer. You probably know one or two OLL algorithms to flip the four edges os that yellow is facing upwards.

After that, you have to flip all of the corners so that they are facing upwards too. You can do this with one or two algorithms, but you can learn 7 to get all 4 corners flipped with yellow upwards in one algorithm.

From there, you get one of the 21 PLL cases.

Edit: http://www.cubewhiz.com/oll.html – You can learn the "All Edges Flipped Correctly" cases.

 

[rjohnson_8ball]

Every PLL case will appear, so you'll still have to learn the 21.

The good news is that with a 3-look last layer (edge OLL, corner OLL, PLL) you can get sub-20 times without too much trouble. And lots of practice.

Until you learn them all, you can combine the PLL's you know to achieve what you need. At a minimum, you need an alg to swap 3 edges (U perm) and an alg to swap 3 corners (A perm). After that, algs to swap 2 pairs of edges, algs to swap opposing corners, and finally all the remaining ones. You might speed up only 5 seconds or less by doing one PLL in place of a combination.

I use 3 look last layer. I wish I could get sub-20 but I only get sub-50 half the time. Adding or saving an extra stage in the last layer does not seem to be my problem. It's the first 2 layers. (Plus slow recognition and slow fingers at 53 years old.)

 

[yurivish]

Every PLL case will appear, so you'll still have to learn the 21.

The good news is that with a 3-look last layer (edge OLL, corner OLL, PLL) you can get sub-20 times without too much trouble. And lots of practice.

Until you learn them all, you can combine the PLL's you know to achieve what you need. At a minimum, you need an alg to swap 3 edges (U perm) and an alg to swap 3 corners (A perm). After that, algs to swap 2 pairs of edges, algs to swap opposing corners, and finally all the remaining ones. You might speed up only 5 seconds or less by doing one PLL in place of a combination.

I use 3 look last layer. I wish I could get sub-20 but I only get sub-50 half the time. Adding or saving an extra stage in the last layer does not seem to be my problem. It's the first 2 layers. (Plus slow recognition and slow fingers at 53 years old.)

All I meant that it is possible to get sub-20 without learning more than a 3-look LL. Obviously it's possible just using the basic method, but you need rather fast fingers. I think Fridrich F2L + 3-look LL can get you a sub-20 without too impossibly fast turns.

It's what I currently use (or used, switching to ZZ), and I can't get sub-20 yet either. But it's a matter of practice.

 

[Laurentius]

So basically I just need to learn 28 new algorithms and I can get sub 20 with enough practice? Even if so, that seems kind of unrealistic, so do you guys think 30 would be a difficult goal to achieve?

 

[MTGjumper]

Sub-30 is a very realistic goal with basic PLL (A perms and U perms) 3-look OLL and good F2L. I was at this stage before I started to learn PLL.

 

[DAE_JA_VOO]

You'll need to learn a proper F2L method too though. LBL is VERY inefficient. I would recommend learning intuitive F2L. Look for badmephisto's videos on youtube.

Like you, i was at 55 seconds, and then i started with intuitive F2L. My times were FAR slower until i had learned intuitive F2L properly, and i was learning all the PLLs as well.

So, learn the 21 PLLs (the PLLs are easy to learn) and practice a proper F2L method

 

[brunson]

You'll need to learn a proper F2L method too though. LBL is VERY inefficient. I would recommend learning intuitive F2L. Look for badmephisto's videos on youtube.

Like you, i was at 55 seconds, and then i started with intuitive F2L. My times were FAR slower until i had learned intuitive F2L properly, and i was learning all the PLLs as well.

So, learn the 21 PLLs (the PLLs are easy to learn) and practice a proper F2L method

There's another thread where a couple of people posted sub-20 LBL times. Of course, I think one of them was Erik, so "normal human's" may or may not be able to do it.

 

[nitrocan]

a high score of 55 seconds! lol its like were playing a game

 

[DAE_JA_VOO]

You'll need to learn a proper F2L method too though. LBL is VERY inefficient. I would recommend learning intuitive F2L. Look for badmephisto's videos on youtube.

Like you, i was at 55 seconds, and then i started with intuitive F2L. My times were FAR slower until i had learned intuitive F2L properly, and i was learning all the PLLs as well.

So, learn the 21 PLLs (the PLLs are easy to learn) and practice a proper F2L method

There's another thread where a couple of people posted sub-20 LBL times. Of course, I think one of them was Erik, so "normal human's" may or may not be able to do it.

I know that those times are possible. I said that LBL is inefficient, which is true

 

[brunson]

Like I said, it may be beyond "normal humans" like myself.

 

[Laurentius]

a high score of 55 seconds! lol its like were playing a game

It is just a puzzle. Does it matter if I call it highscore, record, best or whatever? As long as you know what I mean I guess it's the same

Edit:
Guys, are (all of) the algorithms on Cubewhiz.com even correct?

Also, what is the difference between

(R' F) (R B') (R' F') (R B)
And
R' F R B' R' F' R B?

I didn't think there is a difference, but since I do exactly as it says and it obviously doesn't work that's the only reason I can see for why I'm doing something wrong except for if the algorithms are actually, wrong

 

[brunson]

a high score of 55 seconds! lol its like were playing a game

Edit:
Guys, are (all of) the algorithms on Cubewhiz.com even correct?

If you find an error, send Bob email. The algs have been pretty well hashed over, I learned most of mine from there or Macky's site.

Also, what is the difference between

(R' F) (R B') (R' F') (R B)
And
R' F R B' R' F' R B?

Nothing. People use parens to group how the think about or execute the alg.

I didn't think there is a difference, but since I do exactly as it says and it obviously doesn't work that's the only reason I can see for why I'm doing something wrong except for if the algorithms are actually, wrong

Nope, there's nothing wrong with that algorithm. I use it a dozen times a day. If you're having problems with it orienting OLL 06, then you really aren't doing it right.

 

[Laurentius]

When I take my time and do it really slowly and precisely as it shows, I get it right. So I guess I was wrong

However, what do you guys recommend for memorizing algorithms as easily/fast as possible? Should I like start on the first PLL case, do it back and forth over and over again 'til it sticks in to my hands? That's what makes more sense to me, but I also thought about doing them as I solve the cube. Not sure which is faster.

Sorry for all these question

 

[ExoCorsair]

So basically I just need to learn 28 new algorithms and I can get sub 20 with enough practice? Even if so, that seems kind of unrealistic, so do you guys think 30 would be a difficult goal to achieve?

Yes, I am someone who barely knows more than the 7 edge OLL and 21 PLL algorithms and I used to be able to average around 17-18s.

However, what do you guys recommend for memorizing algorithms as easily/fast as possible?

I would say just repeat the algs repeatedly to commit them to muscle memory.