2x2 theory for cbl

[Bttyx]

So I have been reading on cbl, which many people consider "unlearnable". But while I was reading, I thought "what if both layers had a solvable cll case?" So instead of separating the top and bottom colours, you desperate them while making sure that each layer is solvable with a cll Alg. This should reduce the number of algs from 4000+ or more to 42*42 algs(probably more calculations needed than that) which is learnable. What do you guys think?

 

[xyzzy]

There are 43 CLL cases in total, so 43^2 = 1849 CBL cases up to AUF/ADF. 1 of these is skip and 84 of these are normal CLL cases, which leaves 42^2 = 1764 nondegenerate CBL cases. (edit: specifically, the ones with solvable CLLs on both sides)

This still double-counts the cases with different CLLs on U and D; if you group those together, that leaves 42×43/2 = 903 cases.

There still are cases that are multiple-counted, namely, the ones that are CBL cases on multiple axes; this is annoying to account for (the collocations apply to specific AUFs) and is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[OtaMota]

So I have been reading on cbl, which many people consider "unlearnable". But while I was reading, I thought "what if both layers had a solvable cll case?" So instead of separating the top and bottom colours, you desperate them while making sure that each layer is solvable with a cll Alg. This should reduce the number of algs from 4000+ or more to 42*42 algs(probably more calculations needed than that) which is learnable. What do you guys think?

Who said that CBL was unlearnable? It’s only 2794 algs, 3x3 1LLL has more and that has been learned before

 

[Bttyx]

Who said that CBL was unlearnable? It’s only 2794 algs, 3x3 1LLL has more and that has been learned before

Kind of unlearnable

 

[WACWCA]

If CBL was fully developed, this would just be a subset of the algs. It would already be divided this way, so you can pick to only learn CLL cases as you asked

 

[efattah]

This is somewhat similar to something I suggested some time back which is essentially Ortega where you orient both top & bottom simultaneously, so, like CBL you separate the layers, then orient both at the same time and then permute. Likely not worth learning ,vs. EG.

 

[abunickabhi]

CBL sounds super daunting and impossible to me.

Hats off to the person who would take the effort to learn it yo!

 

[Bttyx]

CBL sounds super daunting and impossible to me.

Hats off to the person who would take the effort to learn it yo!

DO NOT LOOK AT THE 2X2 DISCORD SERVER

 

[abunickabhi]

DO NOT LOOK AT THE 2X2 DISCORD SERVER

Is it full of complex and infeasible algset?

I feel OO is doable tho if you are a top solver.

 

[Bttyx]

Is it full of complex and infeasible algset?

I feel OO is doable tho if you are a top solver.

The people in the 2x2 discord server are a bit... Sweaty, or you could say they try too hard to be fast

 

[abunickabhi]

The people in the 2x2 discord server are a bit... Sweaty, or you could say they try too hard to be fast

Sweaty as in, physical sweat?

Also trying hard to be fast is the mentality for all WCA speedsolving events right?

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

Sweaty as in, physical sweat?

Also trying hard to be fast is the mentality for all WCA speedsolving events right?

sweaty as in trying super hard to get fast (common term seen in gaming)

 

[abunickabhi]

sweaty as in trying super hard to get fast (common term seen in gaming)

Ahhh thanks for the clarification.

Trying super hard means grinding a lot right?
Insane amounts of practice and dedication

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

Ahhh thanks for the clarification.

Trying super hard means grinding a lot right?
Insane amounts of practice and dedication

yeah and learning TONS of algs

 

[WACWCA]

Is it full of complex and infeasible algset?

I feel OO is doable tho if you are a top solver.

OO is not a method that you can learn. Its mostly just a term for whats currently believed to be the fastest solution for a scramble

 

[Cubinginatree]

Is it full of complex and infeasible algset?

I feel OO is doable tho if you are a top solver.

OO is probably just a doable as 5-style. CBL I believe several top solvers are learning. Particularly Zayn.

 

[WACWCA]

OO is probably just a doable as 5-style. CBL I believe several top solvers are learning. Particularly Zayn.

Actually nobody is making an effort to learn any sizable chunk of OO. There's a bit of a disconnect between what top solvers and the rest of the community with that understanding. The top solvers know tons of different algs and advanced methods, and on certain scrambles they find creative face solutions or algorithms that cancel, usually by hand. When they say they use OO, its usually because either 1 - they've studied the scramble afterwards, and believe the solution they found could not be beat, or 2 - They encountered a very similar scramble before, thought it was difficult/interesting and investigated what the best solution would be, and have recalled that practice when the familiar scramble came up again.

They absolutely know a large amount of algorithms and are very good at learning from mistakes and finding patterns in scrambles, but they don't even think OO would be worth learning. Committing for that would be a poor use of your time

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

OO is basically the equivalent to learning every other 2x2 alg set and somehow cancelling a face into one of those alg sets with optimal fingertricks and finding the best case to cancel into.

objectively optimal

 

[Cubinginatree]

Actually nobody is making an effort to learn any sizable chunk of OO. There's a bit of a disconnect between what top solvers and the rest of the community with that understanding. The top solvers know tons of different algs and advanced methods, and on certain scrambles they find creative face solutions or algorithms that cancel, usually by hand. When they say they use OO, its usually because either 1 - they've studied the scramble afterwards, and believe the solution they found could not be beat, or 2 - They encountered a very similar scramble before, thought it was difficult/interesting and investigated what the best solution would be, and have recalled that practice when the familiar scramble came up again.

They absolutely know a large amount of algorithms and are very good at learning from mistakes and finding patterns in scrambles, but they don't even think OO would be worth learning. Committing for that would be a poor use of your time

That’s why I compared it to 5-style. I think that both is an incredible waste of time.