[Help Thread] 2x2 Discussion

[muchacho]

There are also some (just a few) 5 move cases:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?10285-2x2x2-move-count/page2&p=152726#post152726

 

[DELToS]

It can be done in 4 moves and if you struggle with some cases: http://www.amvhell.com/stuff/cubes/ortega.html.

oh wow thank you for that (not sarcastic)

 

[Tanish]

I average like 8-10 seconds on 2x2 using the LBL method. Is it the correct time to learn Ortega?? Like CFOP should generally be started when you are averaging about 45 seconds, should I get to like 7 seconds before learning Ortega or is it fine if I just start now?

 

[Saransh Grover]

I average like 8-10 seconds on 2x2 using the LBL method. Is it the correct time to learn Ortega?? Like CFOP should generally be started when you are averaging about 45 seconds, should I get to like 7 seconds before learning Ortega or is it fine if I just start now?

You can get faster with the lbl method. Go to like 5-6 seconds and then learn ortega/varsano.

 

[Tanish]

You can get faster with the lbl method. Go to like 5-6 seconds and then learn ortega/varsano.

Can you give me tips on how to improve my T and Y Perms on 2x2

 

[jaredye]

You can get faster with the lbl method. Go to like 5-6 seconds and then learn ortega/varsano.

I don't agree. Ortega only consists about 12 algos and you can learn it in an hour (and probably only half of them are new to you). Why not just spend 1 hour learning these algs and then whenever you practice, you get to practice recognizing and executing these algs?

Since you're already averaging 8-10 seconds, you should be pretty familiar with the puzzle. I think you can start looking at some CLL cases. Maybe start with the H case since it's the easiest to recognize and execute.

 

[mafergut]

@Tanish, I agree with jaredye, there's no right or wrong speed to learn any speedcubing method. If you plan on learning Ortega, the sooner you learn it the better. In my case, I have never really done LBL, just learned Ortega. And the only reason I don't learn CLL/EG is because I'm not sure that I want to put all that effort into 2x2 but, if I was sure, I would start right now, even though I'm only 5.5 on average with Ortega and there's still room for improvement.

 

[Tanish]

I don't agree. Ortega only consists about 12 algos and you can learn it in an hour (and probably only half of them are new to you). Why not just spend 1 hour learning these algs and then whenever you practice, you get to practice recognizing and executing these algs?

Since you're already averaging 8-10 seconds, you should be pretty familiar with the puzzle. I think you can start looking at some CLL cases. Maybe start with the H case since it's the easiest to recognize and execute.

Thanks for the advice, but I think that CLL is too advanced for me right now I'll probably learn it when I get to around 4 seconds

 

[Tanish]

I don't agree. Ortega only consists about 12 algos and you can learn it in an hour (and probably only half of them are new to you). Why not just spend 1 hour learning these algs and then whenever you practice, you get to practice recognizing and executing these algs?

Since you're already averaging 8-10 seconds, you should be pretty familiar with the puzzle. I think you can start looking at some CLL cases. Maybe start with the H case since it's the easiest to recognize and execute.

@Tanish, I agree with jaredye, there's no right or wrong speed to learn any speedcubing method. If you plan on learning Ortega, the sooner you learn it the better. In my case, I have never really done LBL, just learned Ortega. And the only reason I don't learn CLL/EG is because I'm not sure that I want to put all that effort into 2x2 but, if I was sure, I would start right now, even though I'm only 5.5 on average with Ortega and there's still room for improvement.

Ok so I'll start learning Ortega now!:tu

 

[Tanish]

Lol I'm done learning all the Ortega algs . Now I just need to improve my recognition!!

 

[TheoLyh]

I learned ortega when i was 8-10 in average.
I think you should go learn it now.
Its really easy(there isnt many algs) and can do you solves alot faster... ;-) good luck ;-)

 

[PurpleBanana]

I learned ortega when i was 8-10 in average.
I think you should go learn it now.

It appears he already did.

 

[Saransh Grover]

I don't agree. Ortega only consists about 12 algos and you can learn it in an hour (and probably only half of them are new to you). Why not just spend 1 hour learning these algs and then whenever you practice, you get to practice recognizing and executing these algs?

Since you're already averaging 8-10 seconds, you should be pretty familiar with the puzzle. I think you can start looking at some CLL cases. Maybe start with the H case since it's the easiest to recognize and execute.

Getting 6 second solves with lbl is pretty easy. 8-10 seconds is not the best time to learn ortega as even though you will know the algs , you will still not be able to execute them efficiently and just solve the cube with a better tps and movecount. 2 algs required for ortega are anyway needed for lbl.

 

[mafergut]

Getting 6 second solves with lbl is pretty easy. 8-10 seconds is not the best time to learn ortega as even though you will know the algs , you will still not be able to execute them efficiently and just solve the cube with a better tps and movecount. 2 algs required for ortega are anyway needed for lbl.

And what is stopping him from getting better? Nothing, just practice. But, instead of doing that with LBL he will already know Ortega when he comes to the point where he would be around 6 seconds with LBL he will be already around 4.5 with Ortega. Is it written in stone somewhere that you have to be super-proficient with your current method before you learn a better one?

 

[AlphaSheep]

I'm a rebel. I was averaging around a minute on 2x2 when I learnt Ortega. (In other words, basically as soon as I started)

Some people prefer mindless repetition and don't like to learn anything new. Some get bored if they're not constantly learning. I'm in the second group. It's up to you to figure out which one you are in.

 

[Isaac Lai]

I see absolutely no reason why you should not start by learning Ortega. LBL is akin to common sense if you can solve a 3x3; so since you (probably) already know how to solve a 3x3, why should you wait to learn Ortega?

 

[Tanish]

For me, learning Ortega is kind of like learning F2L. I take a lot of time to find the easiest face, then OLL is comparatively easy but PBL recognition takes up a lot of time. Its just like F2L because at first you take a lot of time to recognize pairs and your times worsen, but over time they drop.

 

[mafergut]

For me, learning Ortega is kind of like learning F2L. I take a lot of time to find the easiest face, then OLL is comparatively easy but PBL recognition takes up a lot of time. Its just like F2L because at first you take a lot of time to recognize pairs and your times worsen, but over time they drop.

I recommend you to watch Chris Olson's videos on tips & tricks for Ortega, like predicting where you are going to get the bar in the 1st face (or if you are going to get a solved layer or a diagonal swap, of course), etc. It will help you a lot with PBL recognition and with your times.

 

[EntireTV]

Ortega is really great but cyotheking (and I agree) says that LBL or Ortega can be used to do sub 5 averages. LBL can get PL skips though, which Ortega can't do.

 

[Chree]

Ortega is really great but cyotheking (and I agree) says that LBL or Ortega can be used to do sub 5 averages. LBL can get PL skips though, which Ortega can't do.

Sure it does, but in Ortega you'd call that a PBL skip. Happens to me all the time. One out of 6 times I choose to go for a solved first layer, as a matter of fact.