• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

2x2 LBL vs Ortega

Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,232
Likes
11
Location
North Carolina
Thread starter #1
Everyone says that you when learning 2x2, you should try ortega, because it's so much better than LBL, and blah blah blah. So you know, I believed it of course. I have used ortega for maybe 5 months now, and my average has come down to just under about 9 seconds.

But, I've started learning CLL recently, so the first layer was something of a concern for me. I was curious how much slower I would be if I had to build a full layer instead of just a face. Doing some timing of just the first layer, I found that I'm about 1 second slower with the whole first layer, which seemed about right (about 3 seconds for a face, about 4 for a layer).

And then, just for fun, I thought I would try doing an average with LBL method, just to see how much slower it was than ortega for me. So, having not even really tried LBL method in many months, I proceeded to take an average.
And the results shocked me. I set a new PB single & a new PB average. (4.61, and 7.67, respectively).
After the initial shock, I immediately realized what was going on. LBL method has a very high chance (1/6) of a PLL skip!
In ortega, a PBL skip is impossible (unless you solve the full first layer, in which case you are just doing LBL).

anyway, my point is that I had always just dismissed the normal LBL method because everyone says to go with ortega, but LBL in fact has it's own advantages, and can be very fast! (and I suppose it didn't help me any that I learned about 2x2 methods from Erik's site, where he says you can get 'just about sub 10' with the LBL method and 5.25 with ortega. Ortega is twice as fast, LOLZ)

Now, on to my question. I was just wondering what sorts of averages other people get for both LBL (first layer, oll, pll), and also ortega. It would be interesting to see comparisons from a broad sample.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
947
Likes
0
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canada
WCA
2008WUNE01
YouTube
NeoW63
#4
Well 7 seconds isn't fast for either method. I have gotten sub-3.5 ao5 with Ortega and about 5 with LBL, and Ortega is definitely faster for me. I think you just need to practice Ortega more, sub-6 isn't hard and is definitely achievable in 5 months.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,375
Likes
75
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
RowanKinneavy
#6
I think all you need to do is compare average move counts. Everything else, like turning speed or PLL prediction or PBL execution etc is determined by the individual and practice.

Anyway, I just did two averages of 12: got something like 4.1 with LBL, and 3.3 with Ortega.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
294
Likes
0
Location
Brazil
WCA
2009DINI01
YouTube
fenhirbr
#7
You can get good times with both. I use LBL and i just did a 5.30 avg12.
A pro can do the first layer in about 1 sec, so i think Rowe could avg low 3s with LBL
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,232
Likes
11
Location
North Carolina
Thread starter #10
I think all you need to do is compare average move counts. Everything else, like turning speed or PLL prediction or PBL execution etc is determined by the individual and practice.

Anyway, I just did two averages of 12: got something like 4.1 with LBL, and 3.3 with Ortega.
Well then, the difference in move counts would likely be seen mainly in the first layer then. For ortega, 3-4 move face should be average. And for a full layer, I think you need about 6 moves on average. So, let's give ortega a 3 move advantage there. Now, some of the PBLs are shorter on average than PLLs, so let's say ortega gets a 4 move advantage there.
So, we have a total 7 move advantage for ortega at this point.
Now for LBL, both PLLs are 11 moves each, and there is a 1/6 chance of a skip. So 1/6 times, your LBL solve will be reduced by 11 moves. Or just factoring this into everything, this reduces ortega's advantage by 2 moves.

So, all in all, it seems that ortega gets about a 5 move advantage over LBL. (can be higher or lower depending on how lucky you get with LBL skips)
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,375
Likes
75
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
RowanKinneavy
#13
Yeah, my estimates come out around the same.
Btw, J perm can be done with R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R2 for 9 moves, not 11, and I average around 4.5-5 moves for FL if I take my time.

EDIT: scrap that J perm (it's 10 with AUF anyway), Dan Cohen just showed me this alg I'd forgotten about: [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]x U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' R2[/FONT]​
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
1,141
Likes
4
#14
I like Ortega. I've been using it for about a month, and my best average of 12 is 6.68. I also use the corners first method for 3x3, so I guess I practice that method more than most people. My PB single for LBL is 3.xx (LL skip) and I average around 12 seconds. My PB single for Ortega is 2.61 (easy first face, OLL skip, and easy PBL), and of course my average has improved very significantly. I usually get around 4 with a OLL skip, and easy first faces are very useful.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
221
Likes
0
Location
Dallas
WCA
2010MAND01
YouTube
MrMandanici
#16
I was thinking about the exact same thing just yesterday after I solved in 5 seconds with LBL. I solve the 3x3 in about 30 seconds, so I was thinking that if I can get that fast, the LBL couldn't be that bad on a 2x2. If you don't have time to learn Ortega before a competition, LBL is a good alternative.

There are a lot of PLL skips, but the bad thing is that if you only get one during a competition then it doesn't help your average at all.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,232
Likes
11
Location
North Carolina
Thread starter #17
I like Ortega. I've been using it for about a month, and my best average of 12 is 6.68. My PB single for LBL is 3.xx (LL skip) and I average around 12 seconds.
Is that a typo? You average almost twice as much with LBL?

I think LBL should be better if you are going for good singles, because 1 out of 6 times it will have lower movecount than ortega (by about 5 moves!)
I've done a few more averages with LBL, and my times generally come out about the same as my ortega times. I suppose I would attribute this to PBL recognition being much harder for me (takes me about 1 second), whereas PLL recognition can be instant.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
4,409
Likes
12
WCA
2007GOUL01
YouTube
cardologist
#18
I've done a few more averages with LBL, and my times generally come out about the same as my ortega times. I suppose I would attribute this to PBL recognition being much harder for me (takes me about 1 second), whereas PLL recognition can be instant.
This thread is basically about how you "suck" with ortega?


ps: PBL recog = PLL recog, because you should know your FL.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
365
Likes
21
Location
Sweden, Växjö
#19
To see the whole first layer in advance (inspection time) in Ortega is very easy, almost too easy. :eek:The first layer solution in LBL is more of a challenge ( to see in inspection), at least in the beginning.
The danger with practicing LBL is that the step to the CLL-world is not far away.:p
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,232
Likes
11
Location
North Carolina
Thread starter #20
This thread is basically about how you "suck" with ortega?

ps: PBL recog = PLL recog, because you should know your FL.
Yes, I know I suck at ortega. But, PBL recognition is still more difficult than PLL, even if you know the first layer. You have to first check all the sides on top for a bar, then if you don't find one, if you had a bar on bottom, then you have to find the side on top that aligns with it. Plus sometimes you have to flip the cube upside down to perform your algs, unless you go through all the trouble of learning upside down algs.

With PLL, you pretty much know what you have. 4 out of 6 times, you will just get an adjacent edge swap. Another 1/6 times you get a skip. So there are only 1/6 chance that you will get a diagonal edge swap that can cause you to slip up. You can just always assume the adjacent edge swap, and it wont hurt you that often.
 
Top