[Help Thread] 2x2 Discussion

[shadowslice e]

And Roux is or can be as as fast and "advanced" as CFOP. But, in this case, learning Ortega first will let you know the 2x2 better and will be a good fallback option for when you just know half your CLLs / EGs, as the beginner method you use now is not very efficient. I thought you would at least know LBL. At least you could use diferent OLLs instead of just sunes. I assume you at least know 2look OLL algs for 3x3 because you will use those in Ortega for OLL.

I think he meant that if you get good at one method it doesn't help learning something quite different (like Roux vs CFOP) rather than CFOP being better than Roux (though I agree that Roux is as good as CFOP)

 

[Kyle Reyes]

It sets you up more nicely for EG (in terms of concepts and is fewer algs) in general but you will need to learn CLL after though.

Even if I have no plan of learning EG?

 

[shadowslice e]

Even if I have no plan of learning EG?

It's still fewer algs.

 

[mafergut]

I'd say that Ortega can be almost as fast as CLL alone. The way to go for fast 2x2 cubers is to learn CLL, full EG and even some additional cases like part of TCLL, etc. So, if you don't plan on learning EG maybe the extra effort of learning the full CLL (like 42 algs) if not worth it. What Ortega loses by being a 3-look method against CLL (wich we can say is a 2-look method) it takes back with added flexibility in building your 1st face, which for CLL has to be a layer.

You can argue that CLL can be one-looked but, to be honest, if you are good enough at inspection so as to one-look every solve with CLL you can, even more easily, predict your OLL with Ortega and probably even your PBL too, as Ortega faces are on average less moves than a CLL layer. And the time you save on learning algs you can devote to optimizing your prediction, face building...

I average around 5.5 with Ortega and I don't think I could get much more than 0.5 seconds faster with CLL if at all.

 

[FastCubeMaster]

I'd say that Ortega can be almost as fast as CLL alone. The way to go for fast 2x2 cubers is to learn CLL, full EG and even some additional cases like part of TCLL, etc. So, if you don't plan on learning EG maybe the extra effort of learning the full CLL (like 42 algs) if not worth it. What Ortega loses by being a 3-look method against CLL (wich we can say is a 2-look method) it takes back with added flexibility in building your 1st face, which for CLL has to be a layer.

You can argue that CLL can be one-looked but, to be honest, if you are good enough at inspection so as to one-look every solve with CLL you can, even more easily, predict your OLL with Ortega and probably even your PBL too, as Ortega faces are on average less moves than a CLL layer. And the time you save on learning algs you can devote to optimizing your prediction, face building...

I average around 5.5 with Ortega and I don't think I could get much more than 0.5 seconds faster with CLL if at all.

You're mostly right, Ortega might not be that much slower than CLL, but you can definitely get mid 3s with CLL 2-looking.

 

[mafergut]

You're mostly right, Ortega might not be that much slower than CLL, but you can definitely get mid 3s with CLL 2-looking.

I agree that fast people can get to those speeds with CLL. I just can't, I'm on the mid-40s already and my fingers are not that fast

 

[FastCubeMaster]

I agree that fast people can get to those speeds with CLL. I just can't, I'm on the mid-40s already and my fingers are not that fast

Oh ok, makes sense. Although when you get to bigger cubes, you'll have more of an opportunity

 

[mafergut]

Oh ok, makes sense. Although when you get to bigger cubes, you'll have more of an opportunity

Exactly the reason why I practise less 2x2 and 3x3 lately and I'm getting into 4x4 and 5x5. Also a Yuxin 6x6 oon the mail that I hope will arrive soon. Anyway, I was slow at coming to this conclusion so I just recently started practicing big cubes, which means I'm still slow at those too

 

[Kyle Reyes]

I'd say that Ortega can be almost as fast as CLL alone. The way to go for fast 2x2 cubers is to learn CLL, full EG and even some additional cases like part of TCLL, etc. So, if you don't plan on learning EG maybe the extra effort of learning the full CLL (like 42 algs) if not worth it. What Ortega loses by being a 3-look method against CLL (wich we can say is a 2-look method) it takes back with added flexibility in building your 1st face, which for CLL has to be a layer.

You can argue that CLL can be one-looked but, to be honest, if you are good enough at inspection so as to one-look every solve with CLL you can, even more easily, predict your OLL with Ortega and probably even your PBL too, as Ortega faces are on average less moves than a CLL layer. And the time you save on learning algs you can devote to optimizing your prediction, face building...

I average around 5.5 with Ortega and I don't think I could get much more than 0.5 seconds faster with CLL if at all.

Thanks so much; you've convinced me.

 

[WACWCA]

I'd say that Ortega can be almost as fast as CLL alone. The way to go for fast 2x2 cubers is to learn CLL, full EG and even some additional cases like part of TCLL, etc. So, if you don't plan on learning EG maybe the extra effort of learning the full CLL (like 42 algs) if not worth it. What Ortega loses by being a 3-look method against CLL (wich we can say is a 2-look method) it takes back with added flexibility in building your 1st face, which for CLL has to be a layer.

You can argue that CLL can be one-looked but, to be honest, if you are good enough at inspection so as to one-look every solve with CLL you can, even more easily, predict your OLL with Ortega and probably even your PBL too, as Ortega faces are on average less moves than a CLL layer. And the time you save on learning algs you can devote to optimizing your prediction, face building...

I average around 5.5 with Ortega and I don't think I could get much more than 0.5 seconds faster with CLL if at all.

CLL can get you wayyyyy faster than 5 sec, its not to difficult to get sub 3 with CLL, I averaged around 4.5 with ortega, and got down to at least 2.9 in 2 months. The bottom line is that Ortega is almost always another algorithm longer. Also, if you take the time to learn where and what the PBL is after OLL, than you already know recognition for CLL, so you might as well learn that, and CLL really doesnt take much time to lear, it can be easily done in a week

 

[Kyle Reyes]

CLL can get you wayyyyy faster than 5 sec, its not to difficult to get sub 3 with CLL, I averaged around 4.5 with ortega, and got down to at least 2.9 in 2 months. The bottom line is that Ortega is almost always another algorithm longer. Also, if you take the time to learn where and what the PBL is after OLL, than you already know recognition for CLL, so you might as well learn that, and CLL really doesnt take much time to lear, it can be easily done in a week

So are you saying that I should go straight to CLL? I don't have plans on learning EG. I average around 7-8 seconds because I just got back to cubing again.

 

[mafergut]

CLL can get you wayyyyy faster than 5 sec, its not to difficult to get sub 3 with CLL, I averaged around 4.5 with ortega, and got down to at least 2.9 in 2 months. The bottom line is that Ortega is almost always another algorithm longer. Also, if you take the time to learn where and what the PBL is after OLL, than you already know recognition for CLL, so you might as well learn that, and CLL really doesnt take much time to lear, it can be easily done in a week

I'm not saying CLL cannot get you faster than 5 sec, I'm saying I don't think it can get me faster than that because at my age my TPS at 2x2 is somewhat limited. If you were talking about CLL + full EG I agree that the bottom line is you have 1 step less and 1 alg less but with just CLL that's not completely true. Faces are probably 2 moves shorter than layers on average, maybe even 3, which means also much better chance of predicting the following step, because you have less moves to visualize and you only have to predict the OLL and not the full CLL case, which needs much clearer vision of all the stickers not just the top face ones. Also, if you get a double diag swap the "alg" is just a 3-move trigger that can be done really fast, the more so if you have already predicted it during OLL. Okay, I know that this case is not very frequent but its probability can be increased a bit if you know how to force it here and there. So I don't think CLL can get you from 4.5 to sub 3.0 just by itself. I would tend to think that you got faster in the process as well because of practise. There are people that are sub 3.5 with just Ortega. Of course not many because people that becomes that fast end up learning CLL and EG in the long run to become even faster.

 

[CLL Smooth]

at my age my TPS at 2x2 is somewhat limited.

It really doesn't take incredible TPS to get sub-5. Fast recognition and good algs are more important. Also, as with any event, practice.

 

[WACWCA]

So are you saying that I should go straight to CLL? I don't have plans on learning EG. I average around 7-8 seconds because I just got back to cubing again.

I think you should definitely learn ortega first, i just meant that CLL is definitely faster, and is worthwhile learning if you ever do want to get serious in 2x2

 

[dylan0606]

i have recently started 2x2 solving and was wondering which tecnique is better and why. LBL or Ortega? thanks in andvance for answeers!

 

[shadowslice e]

i have recently started 2x2 solving and was wondering which tecnique is better and why. LBL or Ortega? thanks in andvance for answeers!

Just learn both. You need to know LBL algs for Ortega/Varasano anyway. (but Ortega is likely faster as it is generally more efficient IIRC). With the exception of some PBL algs you should already know all the algs needed for both.

 

[dylan0606]

i average about 10 seconds using Ortega how can i get faster still using Ortega and then when would be a good time to switch to something like CLL

 

[shadowslice e]

i average about 10 seconds using Ortega how can i get faster still using Ortega and then when would be a good time to switch to something like CLL

practise predicting the OLL case while doing the initial face so you can predict the cases and don't have to pause to recognise.

Switch to CLL whenever you want and feel like learning the algs though the two methods are not completely separate as some algs for CLL can be implemented to get better solves in varasano and vice versa

 

[dylan0606]

practise predicting the OLL case while doing the initial face so you can predict the cases and don't have to pause to recognise.

Switch to CLL whenever you want and feel like learning the algs though the two methods are not completely separate as some algs for CLL can be implemented to get better solves in varasano and vice versa

what is varasano?

 

[shadowslice e]

Varasano is the term which a few people use to refer to what others call Ortega because Jeff Varasano created the method but Victor Ortega popularised it so initially people referred to it as Ortega but after Chris Olsen did some digging and posted a video on a topic more and more people have been referring to it as Varasano. It's similar to how people refer to CFOP as Fridrich sometimes because Jessica Fridrich popularised the method and is sometimes mistakenly credited as the sole creator despite simply improving on a previous concept by creating new algs and making it popular.

See the wiki page for the full story.