Being Good at 2x2

[Shahir]

Hey I want to average sub 3 in 2x2
Current I use ortega and avarage sub 6. Tell me some way to learn cll eg
Bit fast cos my vacation after exam will end soon

 

[Discomantis]

Learn CLL. The algs are very easy. I'd recommend to start learning from here:

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZQ2Xp5mPcrqBvn4j4VvGXsXzQZXhW0b5

 

[UncleFrank]

CLL might be 42 algs, but you don't have to learn 42 new algs.
You already know 9 of them are from Ortega, and several more from 3x3 OLL.

 

[Deleted member 74176]

I definitely recommend learning 2x2 specific algorithms. Many of the algorithms from 3x3 (COLLs mostly) are long and bad for 2x2.
CLL really doesn't take that long to learn, if you learn a set per day you can easily finish within a week, give it some practice and you can be sub-3!

 

[Shahir]

I definitely recommend learning 2x2 specific algorithms. Many of the algorithms from 3x3 (COLLs mostly) are long and bad for 2x2.
CLL really doesn't take that long to learn, if you learn a set per day you can easily finish within a week, give it some practice and you can be sub-3!

Thanks

 

[NigelTheCuber]

Hey I want to average sub 3 in 2x2
Current I use ortega and avarage sub 6. Tell me some way to learn cll eg
Bit fast cos my vacation after exam will end soon

to average sub 3:

learn cll, it's 42 algs but like half are really easy
you DO NOT need eg for sub 3- just have good cll recognition and executions, and make your layer decently well (you can watch Youtube example solves)
if you want to get faster (sub 2 etc), try one looking and learn eg, but the tips i mentioned above is all you need for sub 3

 

[Shahir]

Oh thsnks for suggestion

 

[SpiFunTastic]

Oh thsnks for suggestion

I use CLL. I would highly recommend getting sub 5 with ortega first. It is possible, I was sub 4 with ortega before I moved to CLL. I would highly recommend watching Chris Olson (ceotheking on youtube) on how to get sub 4 with ortega. Apply all the tips and practice till you get sub 5. Then learn CLL from J perm's tutorial.

 

[VarasanoNotOrtega]

Hey I want to average sub 3 in 2x2
Current I use ortega and avarage sub 6. Tell me some way to learn cll eg
Bit fast cos my vacation after exam will end soon

Learn this unknown method. I think it is better than learning CLL. With CLL there is a recognition step you have to do the first 4 corners then look at the last 4 corners. In order to be really good at CLL, you ahve to be able to 'look ahead" and see the cube state after your first 5-8 moves solving the corners.

With this method, you do your looking ahead in the preinspection phase. You see the first step which is usually 2-3 moves literally. you will be able to see the cube state for step 2 because it's easy to visualize 2-3 moves... a LOT easier than visualizing 5-8 moves. SO essentially, step 1 and step 2 are done in one look, as ONE STEP.


the first step is to put 4 corners on one side of the cube with 2 of the corners oriented. The permutation doesn't matter.
the second step is to perform one of these algs (see attached document) which is 7 moves on average
the third step is PBL.

Varasano is a subset of this method. If you already do Varasano method then you should try to learn the rest of these algs they're so short...

Once you get good at the method, you can incorporate the knowledge of position. So each alg in the doc has a second diagram to show if pieces are permuted by that alg and how.... so if you know the position of the bottom 4 corners, and you have a knowledge of the position of the top 4 corners, and how the alg moves them, then you konw the positions of all of the oriented corners. Then you can know how to adjust the U and or D layer to line up PBL.... you can again 'look ahead' to step 3 and know which case you will be getting... if you can figure this out with consistency, and fully predict the PBL case every time, this method is truly a 1 look method.


I read about this years ago and decided to work on it myself. I'm ok with it but not a fast cuber in general. i would LOVE for someone younger and faster than me to get really reaaaaally good with it and see how it compares to the best 2x2 solvers

thanks for reading and sorry it wasn't more concise lol

 

[SkewbIsTheBestEvent]

When you made this thread, did you not read what was in red? It says, "This is not the place to get help or ask questions!"

So please change the thread to Cubing Help & Questions.

 

[abunickabhi]

I want to be as fast in 2x2 as Like Li. She did amazing at world championship yesterday.

 

[Deleted member 74176]

Learn this unknown method. I think it is better than learning CLL. With CLL there is a recognition step you have to do the first 4 corners then look at the last 4 corners. In order to be really good at CLL, you ahve to be able to 'look ahead" and see the cube state after your first 5-8 moves solving the corners.

With this method, you do your looking ahead in the preinspection phase. You see the first step which is usually 2-3 moves literally. you will be able to see the cube state for step 2 because it's easy to visualize 2-3 moves... a LOT easier than visualizing 5-8 moves. SO essentially, step 1 and step 2 are done in one look, as ONE STEP.


the first step is to put 4 corners on one side of the cube with 2 of the corners oriented. The permutation doesn't matter.
the second step is to perform one of these algs (see attached document) which is 7 moves on average
the third step is PBL.

Varasano is a subset of this method. If you already do Varasano method then you should try to learn the rest of these algs they're so short...

Once you get good at the method, you can incorporate the knowledge of position. So each alg in the doc has a second diagram to show if pieces are permuted by that alg and how.... so if you know the position of the bottom 4 corners, and you have a knowledge of the position of the top 4 corners, and how the alg moves them, then you konw the positions of all of the oriented corners. Then you can know how to adjust the U and or D layer to line up PBL.... you can again 'look ahead' to step 3 and know which case you will be getting... if you can figure this out with consistency, and fully predict the PBL case every time, this method is truly a 1 look method.


I read about this years ago and decided to work on it myself. I'm ok with it but not a fast cuber in general. i would LOVE for someone younger and faster than me to get really reaaaaally good with it and see how it compares to the best 2x2 solvers

thanks for reading and sorry it wasn't more concise lol

This method is very much heard of, it’s called Ortega. (Originally called Varasano, but the name was changed) it’s not that fast, and the EG method is much better.

 

[VarasanoNotOrtega]

This method is very much heard of, it’s called Ortega. (Originally called Varasano, but the name was changed) it’s not that fast, and the EG method is much better.

As my username says, it’s Varasano not Ortega… it was never changed it was just stolen/renamed lol. This is a different system… i don’t think you read my post fully… or maybe you didn’t look at the PDF? The Varasano method is a subset of this Method, and only includes 8 orientation algs.. you should open up the PDF and have a look. There are many algs in there beyond Varasano method. There are several ways that this system is better… first of all it doesn’t require nearly as many algs.. secndly you can look ahead to step 2 much easier because the movecount for step 1 is so much lower. Finally, once you get good and understand how each alg permutes, you cam do 1 look solves, because you can loook ahead to step 3.

anyway i think it has a lot of potential, and it’s unexplored. nobody is “GOOD’ with this method that i know of.. if there is i would love to meet and talk to them compare algs etc…

 

[Isaiah Scott]

Ho w about just don't do 2x2

 

[Discomantis]

I think it is better than learning CLL.

Yes, CLL might seem slower, but there are a few people who claim to average 2.3ish with CLL without one looking. Ram Thakkar has an unrecorded 2.3x official average doing that.

Even if this method is better, it is not the way to get really good at 2x2. This method is essentially 2 look EG, which is slower than one look EG, or in other words the EG method.

With CLL, transitioning to the EG method is easy, as you only need to learn 1 more algset, how to do anti-CLL, and you know how to recognize cases.

With this method, it is a lot harder to transition,and you will have to learn CLL eventually in order to get good at 2x2, so you might as well start learning it instead of this if you want to get fast.

However, the low algorithm count does give this method justice, and it is easy for beginners who don't care about being really good in the long run.

 

[Deleted member 74176]

Yes, CLL might seem slower, but there are a few people who claim to average 2.3ish with CLL without one looking. Ram Thakkar has an unrecorded 2.3x official average doing that.

Even if this method is better, it is not the way to get really good at 2x2. This method is essentially 2 look EG, which is slower than one look EG, or in other words the EG method.

With CLL, transitioning to the EG method is easy, as you only need to learn 1 more algset, how to do anti-CLL, and you know how to recognize cases.

With this method, it is a lot harder to transition,and you will have to learn CLL eventually in order to get good at 2x2, so you might as well start learning it instead of this if you want to get fast.

However, the low algorithm count does give this method justice, and it is easy for beginners who don't care about being really good in the long run.

Agreed, except for the part where you talk about anti-cll, because EG-2 is much better (better and algs and fingertricks and auf recognition)
Also I'd like to add that I personally global sub-2.5 with just CLL and no one-looking and I have a 2.64 official average doing this.

 

[Discomantis]

Agreed, except for the part where you talk about anti-cll, because EG-2 is much better (better and algs and fingertricks and auf recognition)
Also I'd like to add that I personally global sub-2.5 with just CLL and

Yeah, I agree. Anti-CLL adds about 0.3-0.5 to my solve time compared to something like EG-1 or CLL.

For me, it's even worse than making an EG-1 face and rotating to put your bar at the back.