Best/fastest Last Layer (F2L + LL) 3x3 (Mainly CFOP)

[brian724080]

best proven system is currently OLL/PLL with random extra stuff

That, or ZBLL if all your edges are oriented and you don't mind learning 3 million algorithms

 

[Kirjava]

That, or ZBLL if all your edges are oriented and you don't mind learning 3 million algorithms

Nope. ZBLL hasn't shown to be good yet.

 

[Escher]

Nope. ZBLL hasn't shown to be good yet.

Yeah, ZBLL is kinda weak imo, too many cases for most people to maintain.

Knowing a bunch of good OLLCPs and having very fast PLLs is a simple system to build for yourself and easy to maintain, along with really helping your PLL prediction. I don't consider anything to be more viable unless somebody manages to make a really insightful system for interpreting full last layers in one look.

Besides that, I think last pair + some LL effect systems are really good. Honestly though, I think it'd be better to think about the latter part of solving the cube in a more general sense in terms of reducing variance, minimising bad cases and improving your ability to see lucky ones. Some edge control in f2l, a reasonable knowledge of F2L+LL tricks and a useful amount (but not too many) OLLCPs are really helpful in achieving this. Asking for a golden bullet system is simply the wrong way to think about it, imo.

 

[Bunyanderman]

That, or ZBLL if all your edges are oriented and you don't mind learning 3 million algorithms

In a perfect world, on paper this is definitely the best proven system. One can not learn and use all algorithms to one look last layer every time(given edges are orientated.) Even if you could to recognize and preform the case would be %75 of the time to recognize and preform oll/pll.

 

[uberCuber]

One can not learn and use all algorithms to one look last layer every time(given edges are orientated.)

I'd love to know how you're so certain of this.

 

[Bunyanderman]

I'd love to know how you're so certain of this.

In oll/pll you learn to use the algorithms better when you successfully apply the algorithm if a full solve. In ZBLL you could learn and algorithm and not get the chance to use it until 1000 solves after learning it. By then you have forgotten how to preform/recognize. (Method proposed in 2002 here and 11 years later no one has fully learned all the algorithms. IF some one dedicated their life to this is could definitely be done, but not in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly all my opinion)

 

[kunparekh18]

In oll/pll you learn to use the algorithms better when you successfully apply the algorithm if a full solve. In ZBLL you could learn and algorithm and not get the chance to use it until 1000 solves after learning it. By then you have forgotten how to preform/recognize.

When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)

 

[Bunyanderman]

When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)

Yes, i do agree that you wont forget easy algorithms, but when you learn 500 of them you tend to mis-recognize a few.

 

[kunparekh18]

Yes, i do agree that you wont forget easy algorithms, but when you learn 500 of them you tend to mis-recognize a few.

Mis-recognize? Yes. Mis-execute? I don't think so.

 

[uberCuber]

Mis-recognize? Yes. Mis-execute? I don't think so.

Both are possible, but both can also be avoided just fine. Either is a sign that you didn't learn well enough.

 

[stoic]

When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)

I remembered an alg for solving F2L edges fully 20 years after learning it in the 80s.
Funnily enough, having learnt full CFOP over the last couple of years I now have no idea what it was

 

[Nilsibert]

When an alg is there in your muscle memory, you won't forget it even if you use the alg once per thousand solves. The first time I picked up a cube 3 years after I learned how to solve, I still remembered the U perms and A perm I had learned (R2 U F B' R2 F' B U R2, R2 U' F B' R2 F' B U' R2 and R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)

I forgot the simple algs I used when solving with some beginner method. I also forgot some OLLs when I used ZZ for about 2 months. Or I mistook them for some other alg, because the cases look similiar. I can imagine that being even worse with ZBLL.

 

[uberCuber]

I forgot the simple algs I used when solving with some beginner method. I also forgot some OLLs when I used ZZ for about 2 months. Or I mistook them for some other alg, because the cases look similiar. I can imagine that being even worse with ZBLL.

The first situation happens to most beginners because they don't yet have a knowledge base of patterns to pull from, so they don't really know what to look for when memorizing new algs. The second situation is essentially the same thing, you didn't learn those OLLs particularly well, didn't create the proper associations in your mind to aid in remembering the cases/algs. If someone is going to attempt to learn a large alg set like ZBLL, they would presumably be more advanced and actually know how to learn algs. If you know how to learn algs, forgetting them will not be a notable problem.

Why has nobody yet demonstrated full ZB? Because most people would simply rather work on something else, not because it can't be done.

 

[Kirjava]

I think it'd be better to think about the latter part of solving the cube in a more general sense in terms of reducing variance, minimising bad cases and improving your ability to see lucky ones.

Thumbs up for a good idea.

In a perfect world, on paper this is definitely the best proven system. One can not learn and use all algorithms to one look last layer every time(given edges are orientated.) Even if you could to recognize and preform the case would be %75 of the time to recognize and preform oll/pll.

In oll/pll you learn to use the algorithms better when you successfully apply the algorithm if a full solve. In ZBLL you could learn and algorithm and not get the chance to use it until 1000 solves after learning it. By then you have forgotten how to preform/recognize. (Method proposed in 2002 here and 11 years later no one has fully learned all the algorithms. IF some one dedicated their life to this is could definitely be done, but not in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly all my opinion)

You are very very wrong. People have learnt ZBLL. I personally learned OLLCP which is an algset with a similar size in a couple of months. It's entirely possible to do so.

There's not even a huge problem with recalling and recognising - it just takes time to get used to doing it fast. It's very possible to get coherent at this, just a matter of putting effort into it.

 

[Nilsibert]

The first situation happens to most beginners because they don't yet have a knowledge base of patterns to pull from, so they don't really know what to look for when memorizing new algs. The second situation is essentially the same thing, you didn't learn those OLLs particularly well, didn't create the proper associations in your mind to aid in remembering the cases/algs. If someone is going to attempt to learn a large alg set like ZBLL, they would presumably be more advanced and actually know how to learn algs. If you know how to learn algs, forgetting them will not be a notable problem.

Why has nobody yet demonstrated full ZB? Because most people would simply rather work on something else, not because it can't be done.

Not sure I agree. I learned the beginner method about 8-9 years ago, and for years, recognition was fast and based on patterns as I use them now for other algs. I also don't think it's quite fair to imply that I'm a beginner who doesn't know about pattern recognition and that I don't know how to learn algs, all based on my post.

 

[uberCuber]

Not sure I agree. I learned the beginner method about 8-9 years ago, and for years, recognition was fast and based on patterns as I use them now for other algs. I also don't think it's quite fair to imply that I'm a beginner who doesn't know about pattern recognition and that I don't know how to learn algs, all based on my post.

I interpreted your first statement to mean that you were forgetting algs back while you were using your beginner's method, not that you have forgotten them now, after ceasing use of a beginner's method. Wasn't meaning to imply that you are a beginner now, since I know nothing about you, sorry about that.

As for your second statement (about forgetting OLLs after messing with ZZ), that does imply that you didn't learn the OLLs well enough. Algs shouldn't be forgotten after not using them for a mere couple of months. But at the same time, that example is hardly relevant, because if you are learning/using ZBLL, you should never go a couple of months without seeing/using/practicing any given alg (EDIT: at least not during the stage of still learning it; once you've truly finished learning the set, you'd probably go work on other stuff to your heart's content with less time spent practicing 3x3/ZBLL).

 

[Nilsibert]

I interpreted your first statement to mean that you were forgetting algs back while you were using your beginner's method, not that you have forgotten them now, after ceasing use of a beginner's method. Wasn't meaning to imply that you are a beginner now, since I know nothing about you, sorry about that.

As for your second statement (about forgetting OLLs after messing with ZZ), that does imply that you didn't learn the OLLs well enough. Algs shouldn't be forgotten after not using them for a mere couple of months. But at the same time, that example is hardly relevant, because if you are learning/using ZBLL, you should never go a couple of months without seeing/using/practicing any given alg (EDIT: at least not during the stage of still learning it; once you've truly finished learning the set, you'd probably go work on other stuff to your heart's content with less time spent practicing 3x3/ZBLL).

Oh I get it sorry. I guess I wasn't clear. I forgot those simple algs a while after I learned CFOP, which was about 10 months ago.

You may be right that I didn't learn those cases well enough. Still, one of the "W" shape cases was so easy and I was so good at recognizing and performing it, I was really surprised that I forgot it and had a "oh of course" moment when I looked it up. But it's true that I didn't use it for very long before I used ZZ.

Anyway, it would take A LOT of time to fully be able to recognize and solve each ZBLL case like most people do with, say, PLL. Not impossible to do, but not really probable either.