Zarxrax
Veteran
I would say that if you learn them like that you might be more likely to get the algs mixed up.
2x2 EG (Erik-Gunnar) Method
- Thread starter hansho13
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2x2 eg cll algs fast
DavidWoner
The Punchmaster
- Joined
- May 7, 2008
- Messages
- 3,936
- Location
- Kansas City, MO, USA
- WCA ID
- 2008WONE01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
John-Michael Clay advocated this back when people started taking CLL and EG seriously (ie after Rowe learned it). There are two major drawbacks-the first being that the solved bar always needs to be in back, which leads to ugly face-building fingertricks or a mandatory rotation. Second, people who know ortega will already know a good chunk of CLL, more if they already know COLL/CMLL. Also many of the regular CLL algs can be applied to 3x3 solving. (I only know CMLL because of all the 2x2 stuff I've learned)
That being said, I wouldn't necessarily recommend against learning EG-1 first, as solves where you don't know the alg are likely to be faster compared to CLL solves where you don't know the alg.
AustinReed
Veteran
It better not be more efficient. I just finished EG-1. It doesn't sound like it would be any better though.
Rubiksfreak
Veteran
2x2 EG method
What are your thoughts on this method? If you guys have learned it, what are you averages?
What are your thoughts on this method? If you guys have learned it, what are you averages?
Isaac Paurus
Veteran
Chris Olson (Rubiks560) uses EG and has the current WR average for 2x2. (not to mention he's a MN cuber too). i haven't learned it yet, but i remember chris saying "Only learn it if you really want/plan to get fast with it" he can average Sub 2 at home sometimes. i think he would be better to talk about this. Take it away, chris, if you get to seeing this...
Noahaha
blindmod
It's a ton of work, but it is objectively the fastest method. You could just learn CLL or a different method and be almost as fast with less algorithms, but if you want to be as fast as possible, EG is necessary.
Rubiksfreak
Veteran
Wow, i might have to send him a pm lol! Im having a hard time recognising the different cases
I was planning on just learning cll, but even that seems a bit difficult!
Last edited by a moderator:
Rubiks560
Nub
If you just wanna average sub 3 CLL works fine. But if you want to absolutely maximize your speed, EG is 100% needed. I can probably average 2.4-2.5 at the very max with only CLL.
AustinReed
Veteran
You mean "minimum"?
Rubiks560
Nub
I confused. I was just saying that the max speed I can achieve with CLL is about 2.4
Kian
Veteran
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,476
- Location
- East Brunswick, NJ
- WCA ID
- 2007BARR01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Austin was referring to the fact that it is the minimum time.
Godmil
Premium Member
Since CLL is a third of EG, you could just learn that, then later if you feel you want to add more you can.
Noahaha
blindmod
Isn't it more useful to learn EG-1?
Sebastien
Premium Member
Technically: Sure.
CLL is more convenient to learn for beginners though, as having a full layer and no specific ADF before executing an algorithm is nicer if you have to work on CLL-recognition as well.
CLL is more convenient to learn for beginners though, as having a full layer and no specific ADF before executing an algorithm is nicer if you have to work on CLL-recognition as well.
Rubiksfreak
Veteran
So do you have all 120 algs down already?
Rubiks560
Nub
Yup. Then a bunch of extras for different angles.
Rubiksfreak
Veteran
Did you find the recognition to be tricky at all?
Rubiks560
Nub
At first, but after watching Rowe Hesslers videos on YouTube, it made complete sense.
