2-3 Look OLL(avg12) vs. 1 Look OLL(avg12)

Lt-UnReaL

Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
1,146
Location
Rochester, NY
WCA ID
2008CLAY01
This shows how much time learning OLL saves (for me, at least), minus the 7 easy ones with all 4 edges oriented. So if anyone is deciding to learn all OLL, maybe you would want to look at these times to get an idea of how much it saves.

2-3 Look OLL:
Average: 18.89
Times: 19.98, (24.36), 18.02, 18.87, 20.84, 18.64, (16.08), 18.83, 18.20, 18.74, 20.23, 16.56

1 Look OLL:
Average: 16.98
Times: (12.98), (20.00), 14.81, 19.19, 15.94, 15.94, 16.78, 18.77, 16.30, 18.34, 17.98, 15.75

So yeah, around 2 seconds.
 
What do you mean by 2-3 Look OLL?
This kinda firms up my belief that full 2-look doesn't give that much over 3LLL. Probably would be better if more people did this, and with more trials though.
 
Not really. When I get no edges oriented I do F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f'. That's one algorithm. I don't have to look in the middle of that.
 
The dot case is why I learned only the OLLs with all edges/zero edges permuted. Means I have a true 2 look last layer (except the 10-15 easy cases I know)

If you plan on not learning all the OLLs, at the minimum most people would recommend learning at least those 7 extra. They aren't that hard (3 of them are just doing your old alg from the correct angle to utilize it).
 
Yea, something like that, about 1.5 seconds or so for me, when I practiced the 3x3.

This reminds me that I STILL have to finish learning OLLs -__-.
 
Not really. When I get no edges oriented I do F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f'. That's one algorithm. I don't have to look in the middle of that.
Very good point. I didn't think of that.
That is just FRUR'U'F' + FURU'R'F'(from a different angle), so I'd still say that is 3 look. Most people just do FURU'R'F' + U + FRUR'U'F' or some variation of that when they have no edges oriented, which is basically not looking in between. (I'd still count it as 3 look, though.)
 
Last edited:
Not really. When I get no edges oriented I do F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f'. That's one algorithm. I don't have to look in the middle of that.
Very good point. I didn't think of that.
That is just FRUR'U'F' + FURU'R'F'(from a different angle), so I'd still say that is 3 look. Most people just do FURU'R'F' + U + FRUR'U'F' or some variation of that when they have no edges oriented, which is basically not looking in between. (I'd still count it as 3 look, though.)
So how would you solve the OLL case that F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f' solves? Probably the same algorithm. Or the same length, at least.
 
Not really. When I get no edges oriented I do F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f'. That's one algorithm. I don't have to look in the middle of that.
Very good point. I didn't think of that.
That is just FRUR'U'F' + FURU'R'F'(from a different angle), so I'd still say that is 3 look. Most people just do FURU'R'F' + U + FRUR'U'F' or some variation of that when they have no edges oriented, which is basically not looking in between. (I'd still count it as 3 look, though.)
So how would you solve the OLL case that F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f' solves? Probably the same algorithm. Or the same length, at least.
I don't quite understand what you mean. :x For that case I would do y2 M' U M U2 M' U M. I don't think that is what you meant, though, is it?
 
The way I learned oll is I first learned 2look oll, but the algorithm for the dot is pretty long and time wasting. So after I learned all 7 corner oll algorithms, I learned the "no edge oriented correctly" algorithms, then it was way easier.
 
Back
Top