[Help Thread] CPLS and 2GLL discussion

[StachuK1992]

If you have a case with no good alg, you can contact me, I might know something better for that case.

Likewise.

 

[TDM]

2GLL

Why I'm trying to learn 2GLL now (when I'm really slow):

Spoiler

I've been learning ZZ-d recently. I decided to do this because I liked the idea of a 2-gen LL. I began with 2l2GLL because full 2GLL is something like 1lOLL that you only need to take a few seconds off your time. I then read that 2-gen algs take longer to learn because it is easy to forget which is which and make an error. As I don't want to waste a lot of time if I get to sub-20 or sub-15 trying to learn it, I began learning them now to make it easier for when I needed them.

But I'm still having huge problems with recognition, even though I'm only a couple of cases in. I've started with H (1-8) because it only has 8 algs; less than all others except O. I can do cases 1 and 4 and their inverses (6 and 8) and recognise these easily. But I can't recognise the other four, except whether it is 2 or 3, or whether it is 5 or 7 (the pair of colours on the side is either on the right of the face it is on or on the left). So here are my questions (mainly directed at people who know 2GLL, but any answers are helpful):

1. How do you recognise these cases?
2. Is recognition as difficult as this for the other groups (L, T, U etc.) where there isn't symmetry, but there are more cases?
3. How long could it take to learn all 84 algorithms if you're quite slow at learning new algs?

I know the last one is a bit vague, but just a range of times is fine. As I said before, any help will be useful to me.

 

[aznanimedude]

look at edge stickers and fighre out what's different between cases, should be able to detect the case by just looking at sticker on front edge and right edge (i think it's right, but you could also technically use left edge)

 

[antoineccantin]

Why I'm trying to learn 2GLL now (when I'm really slow):

Spoiler

I've been learning ZZ-d recently. I decided to do this because I liked the idea of a 2-gen LL. I began with 2l2GLL because full 2GLL is something like 1lOLL that you only need to take a few seconds off your time. I then read that 2-gen algs take longer to learn because it is easy to forget which is which and make an error. As I don't want to waste a lot of time if I get to sub-20 or sub-15 trying to learn it, I began learning them now to make it easier for when I needed them.

But I'm still having huge problems with recognition, even though I'm only a couple of cases in. I've started with H (1-8) because it only has 8 algs; less than all others except O. I can do cases 1 and 4 and their inverses (6 and 8) and recognise these easily. But I can't recognise the other four, except whether it is 2 or 3, or whether it is 5 or 7 (the pair of colours on the side is either on the right of the face it is on or on the left). So here are my questions (mainly directed at people who know 2GLL, but any answers are helpful):

1. How do you recognise these cases?
2. Is recognition as difficult as this for the other groups (L, T, U etc.) where there isn't symmetry, but there are more cases?
3. How long could it take to learn all 84 algorithms if you're quite slow at learning new algs?

I know the last one is a bit vague, but just a range of times is fine. As I said before, any help will be useful to me.

H and Pi are the two hardest cases to recognize, since they have all four corners twisted. I recognize them by the color patterns on the side of the cube. However, I recommend you start with the T or L or U cases.

 

[TDM]

H and Pi are the two hardest cases to recognize, since they have all four corners twisted. I recognize them by the color patterns on the side of the cube. However, I recommend you start with the T or L or U cases.

I've just been looking over the T cases, and it looks like recognition is easier. I'll try them. Thanks for the help.

 

[Shiv3r]

what about this:
-2x2x3+eo
-CP
2gf2L
2gll
(one proposal for step 1 included EO and 2 e-slice edges on left, then finishing 2x2x3 with U, R, and D moves)

 

[shadowslice e]

what about this:
-2x2x3+eo
-CP
2gf2L
2gll
(one proposal for step 1 included EO and 2 e-slice edges on left, then finishing 2x2x3 with U, R, and D moves)

1) nice bump
2) this is just ZZ-Porky
3) the other bit is ZZ-LOL

 

[Cale S]

what about this:
-2x2x3+eo
-CP
2gf2L
2gll
(one proposal for step 1 included EO and 2 e-slice edges on left, then finishing 2x2x3 with U, R, and D moves)

How do you recognize CP?

 

[Shiv3r]

1) nice bump
2) this is just ZZ-Porky
3) the other bit is ZZ-LOL

Shadowslice answer your conversations please

 

[Shiv3r]

1) nice bump
2) this is just ZZ-Porky
3) the other bit is ZZ-LOL

and not really. not ZZ-lol, were not finishing F2L all the way. and the lookahead is quite good, and it feels like a square-1 almost.

 

[shadowslice e]

and not really. not ZZ-lol, were not finishing F2L all the way. and the lookahead is quite good, and it feels like a square-1 almost.

ZZ-LOL is EoLOL, 2x2x3, finish F2L though you can do stuff inbetween.

 

[Shiv3r]

ZZ-LOL is EoLOL, 2x2x3, finish F2L though you can do stuff inbetween.

why are we calling everything that has an EO is a ZZ method? these should all be variants.
its like saying youre solving with corners first when youre really using roux: it is true, but not accurate.

 

[shadowslice e]

why are we calling everything that has an EO ZZ method? these should all be variants.
its like saying youre solving with corners first when youre really using roux: it is true, but not accurate.

Wait, what? We don't call everything with an EO step ZZ... You have Roux, Petrus, SSC, HTA etc. It's called ZZ because the steps are EOLine, F2L, some type of LL 2which is characteristic of a ZZ variant

 

[TDM]

why are we calling everything that has an EO is a ZZ method? these should all be variants.
its like saying youre solving with corners first when youre really using roux: it is true, but not accurate.

We're not, but the method you suggested was just the ZZ-LOL version of ZZ-d. You're starting with EOLine, doing CPF2L and then 2GLL, which is definitely ZZ.

 

[Shiv3r]

any method with an EO first step is considered ZZ, even if you don't do line.
It isn't line on left, because the line isn't mandatory.

 

[TDM]

any method with an EO first step is considered ZZ, even if you don't do line.
It isn't line on left, because the line isn't mandatory.

I don't agree with this. Does this mean 3OP is a ZZ variant?

 

[shadowslice e]

I was refering to this:

(one proposal for step 1 included EO and 2 e-slice edges on left, then finishing 2x2x3 with U, R, and D moves)

which quite clearly says to do what is essentially an EoLOL

 

[Shiv3r]

I don't agree with this. Does this mean 3OP is a ZZ variant?

3OP is BLd.
everyone who makes a EO-first method calls it a ZZ variant.

 

[shadowslice e]

3OP is BLd.
everyone who makes a EO-first method calls it a ZZ variant.

Oh, so SSC and HTA are ZZ variants?

 

[TDM]

3OP is BLd.
everyone who makes a EO-first method calls it a ZZ variant.

I don't think so, but to be fair I can't think of a time someone invented a method starting with EO that didn't have EOLine. However unless you can, neither of us have any evidence.

But for now, I'm saying that I don't think any EO-first method is ZZ. But EOLine -> F2L -> LL is ZZ.