2x2 Orgeta Method (SLOW)

[CubeX]

Hello everyone!

I just want to ask, how come when i use the Orgeta Method to solve the 2x2, i get like avg. 13-14 sec? I have learned all the algorithms for it, but lots of people have said that you should get avg. about 5 sec. And i have a fast cube though.

EDIT: I just got sub-10 average... 9.93 sec
(Also changed to 2x2x2 Eastsheen)

p.s I could have done better with those scrambles

 

[Paul Wagner]

When I first started out I was around 10 seconds on average but 8 with fridrich but now I am about 4-5 seconds with Ortega.

 

[Ellis]

"Learn this method, and you'll be this fast on average."

If only that's the way it actually worked...

 

[CubeX]

"Learn this method, and you'll be this fast on average."

If only that's the way it actually worked...

But how do they get that fast though, like avg.5 sec?

Is it about their look ahead, their cube, or what?

 

[Lt-UnReaL]

Be color neutral, find easy ways to make the first face, look ahead and try to find ways to cancel moves with the OLL, know how your first layer is arranged so you can know the possible cases that come up for PBL, learn PBL algs from different angles.

 

[jacob15728]

Wouldn't it be better to use R D R' D' for the first layer than COLL for the last layer? Justa noob question, I don't actualyl have a 2x2x2

 

[Ellis]

Wouldn't it be better to use R D R' D' for the first layer than COLL for the last layer?

What do you mean? You said first layer, then last layer. That's like saying "Isn't if faster to use LBL for the first two layers than 2LLL for the last layer?" It doesn't make sense.

And this is Ortega which has nothing to do with RDR'D' or CLL.


CubeX - What ever happened to practicing? My point was that the rule isn't "learn this method with these algs and you'll immediately be 5 seconds average." Cubing has never been like that. I've known Ortega for months and I'm not averaging 5 seconds. 5 seconds average in competition is literally top 50 in the world. There's no secret the everyone is hiding from you. Yes, you should work on look ahead and yes you should probably break your cube in a little more, but that's not all. That alone with decent method won't yield you 5 second averages. You need to get better at solving through lots of practice.

 

[Kian]

Hello everyone!

I just want to ask, how come when i use the Orgeta Method to solve the 2x2, i get like avg. 13-14 sec? I have learned all the algorithms for it, but lots of people have said that you should get avg. about 5 sec. And i have a fast cube though.

If you could help me, that would be great.

Thanks!

Well there's your problem. The Ortega method can be very fast, that Orgeta guy is little backwards.

 

[shelley]

The fastest Fridrich solvers average 11-12 seconds. I learned all the Fridrich algorithms, why am I not at 12 seconds?

 

[IamWEB]

I sense a genius in the area.

 

[mrbiggs]

Clearly something's slow.

1. How fast are your algorithms? If any take more than two or maybe three seconds, you need to speed that up.

2. How's your lookahead? If you pause on a 2x2x2 solve, you're not going to have a good time.

3. How much of the solve do you see before starting? You shouldn't spend time looking around for pieces on a 2x2x2. You may not be able to see the entire solve from the beginning, but you should be able to see the first layer.

4. How many moves do you take putting together the first layer? I believe someone posted that 6 moves is the maximum necessary to put together the first layer, though I think that's color neutral. Take a bunch of solves and see how many moves you're using. A 6 move first layer is (surprisingly) not too difficult; I think it's similar to an 8 move cross in Fridrich in terms of difficulty. Maybe a bit harder because of the whole color-neutral thing.

 

[Yes We Can!]

Orgeta ^^

 

[byu]

"Learn this method, and you'll be this fast on average."

If only that's the way it actually worked...

But how do they get that fast though, like avg.5 sec?

Is it about their look ahead, their cube, or what?

Practice, persistence, patience.

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

The Heismer Guimond (or something like that) method is more advanced and requires more algorithims, but is even faster then Ortega when you really practice.

 

[*LukeMayn*]

The Heismer Guimond (or something like that) method is more advanced and requires more algorithims, but is even faster then Ortega when you really practice.

not that it'll help when you avg. 13secs with ortega...

 

[Mike Hughey]

The Heismer Guimond (or something like that) method is more advanced and requires more algorithims, but is even faster then Ortega when you really practice.

not that it'll help when you avg. 13secs with ortega...

I disagree entirely. I was averaging about 11-12 seconds with Ortega, and I switched to Guimond, and now I'm easily sub-10. (That means I average about 9.5. ) In other words, I still stink, but I stink significantly less than I did before.

A better method certainly helps, but you still need to practice to get fast. And I still need to do a lot more practicing.

But I guess I'm saying it can REALLY help to learn Guimond, because when you're REALLY slow like me (and apparently like the OP), just cutting out a few moves makes a big difference. I think I was averaging 23 to 24 moves with Ortega, and I average somewhere in the 17 to 18 move range with Guimond. (I like doing practice solves and just counting moves. With Guimond, it seems like I'm somewhere from 15 to 20 moves on 90% of my solves.)