1 Look LL?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4.
  • Start date Start date
4. said:
Has anyone considered learning 1 look LL? or do you think the recognition time would be longer than actually orienting the last layer? How many cases would you have to learn?
Click to expand...

New method and its corresponding website coming up February or March 2011. It's been in the works for years, but I have been developing it seriously recently. I like to think of it as a new idea but when I release the concept there will probably be people claiming they thought of it first. If anyone is planning on learning a large method, you might want to wait for this.
 
New method and its corresponding website coming up February or March 2011. It's been in the works for years, but I have been developing it seriously recently. I like to think of it as a new idea but when I release the concept there will probably be people claiming they thought of it first. If anyone is planning on learning a large method, you might want to wait for this.
Click to expand...

What's the general idea?
 
a small kitten said:
What's the general idea?
Click to expand...

As much as I'd like to discuss it, it's best that I generate a good amount of the algorithms and graphics before talking. Otherwise people might swoop in and... yeah. Christmas time sounds about right for when I'll have done enough work to open up a thread.
 
People usually don't swoop in and take credit. I've never seen it happen here.

Even if you had algs, what would stop people from swooping in? They could still easily say they had the same idea.
 
Well, some define the invention of a method as thinking of the idea. But to me, if someone wants credit he/she either has to have had thought of it AND developed some algs/resources, or in cases like MGLS, developed nearly all of it. To just dream up a bunch of combinations and then harass someone who put effort into development is just wrong. That is why I want to significantly develop this method before releasing the concept. If at that point someone claims he/she had the idea first, proof of effort will have to be presented. Otherwise we could all open up websites, list all our random brainstorming results and expect credit.

EDIT: oh gosh did I just hijack this thread. Sorry!
 
BigSams said:
Well, some define the invention of a method as thinking of the idea. But to me, if someone wants credit he/she either has to have had thought of it AND developed some algs/resources, or in cases like MGLS, developed nearly all of it. To just dream up a bunch of combinations and then harass someone who put effort into development is just wrong. That is why I want to significantly develop this method before releasing the concept. If at that point someone claims he/she had the idea first, proof of effort will have to be presented. Otherwise we could all open up websites, list all our random brainstorming results and expect credit.

EDIT: oh gosh did I just hijack this thread. Sorry!
Click to expand...

If your method relates to OPs question, that I might have a similar plan as yours. I have no idea what yours is, but I have thought of something that relates to OP, but just never even tried develop anything for it, nor think about it for more than 5 minutes.

So, if what you are doing ends up being what I started thinking about, I really hope you release it. Save me the trouble of having to go through the work of developing everything. I just want to see the method written out and explained. So, i'll just wait patiently till next year.

And if your method has nothing to do with what I'm thinking about, then I'll just live with it, lol.
 
If you used edge control (especially using Petrus for the F2L) to make sure the edges were solved with the F2L, that would leave you with 42 configurations (plus mirrors and inverses) to solve the corners. Would that be a reasonable option for solving the last layer using one look? I think the recognition could be a lot better than using ZBLL. Also, if you wanted to generate algorithms for the last slot of the F2L, the recognition wouldn't be too hard, would it?

I'm sure at least some people would agree that if you wanted to do a 1LLL, then it would make sense to either use a 1 look/2 algorithm system, or to influence the last layer to decrease the number of cases, and decrease recognition time.
 
somerandomkidmike said:
If you used edge control (especially using Petrus for the F2L) to make sure the edges were solved with the F2L, that would leave you with 42 configurations (plus mirrors and inverses) to solve the corners. Would that be a reasonable option for solving the last layer using one look? I think the recognition could be a lot better than using ZBLL. Also, if you wanted to generate algorithms for the last slot of the F2L, the recognition wouldn't be too hard, would it?

I'm sure at least some people would agree that if you wanted to do a 1LLL, then it would make sense to either use a 1 look/2 algorithm system, or to influence the last layer to decrease the number of cases, and decrease recognition time.
Click to expand...


uhh petrus edge control does EO, not EP, so you'd still have EP after COLL, like you're describing. So you'd have 2-look, its the last layer in [wiki]VH[/wiki] method.
The reason it's easier than ZBLL is because ZBLL does everything you described + permute the LL edges, so of course it's harder to learn/reco.
 
Kenneth said:
Mabye, but that is not useful. I explaine you can do this, you read "I'm a hotshot who can do this" (that I did not mean to say) and then you make a flamming, non contributing post, like many of your posts are...
Click to expand...

but... it's Kirjava!
Being an elitist prick is what he does best.
 
Rpotts said:
uhh petrus edge control does EO, not EP, so you'd still have EP after COLL, like you're describing. So you'd have 2-look, its the last layer in [wiki]VH[/wiki] method.
The reason it's easier than ZBLL is because ZBLL does everything you described + permute the LL edges, so of course it's harder to learn/reco.
Click to expand...

did you actually think about his post before posting? He said "If you used edge control to make sure the edges were solved..."
In other words he meant come up with an edge control system that would completely solve the edges, not just their orientation.
 
uberCuber said:
did you actually think about his post before posting? He said "If you used edge control to make sure the edges were solved..."
In other words he meant come up with an edge control system that would completely solve the edges, not just their orientation.
Click to expand...
Which would take a too many moves and be hard to recog, and usually edge control is done in very few algs. Also, look at the other BS in that post, and tell me he knows what he's talking about.
 
Yeah, solving the edges before you get to the last layer sounds tricky, then Last 4 Corners isn't easy either. I think I'd rather just stick with basic f2l, OLL, PLL :/
 
cincyaviation said:
Which would take a too many moves and be hard to recog, and usually edge control is done in very few algs. Also, look at the other BS in that post, and tell me he knows what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

never said I agreed with him or that he knows what he is talking about, I was just correcting the person that failed to read correctly before posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top