• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

HD Method (2x2, alternative to CLL+)

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
486
Hello everyone! I should first note that this is NOT officially my method, it is the product of @Thermex and @Sue Doenim! I am simply a proponent and alg genner, as was the other main "creator" the method @Shiv3r.

Here is a link to the HD Method Guide, it includes a linked algsheet and goes into much more detail than what's given here.

So what is the HD Method exactly? This method was conceived by Thermex and Sue Doenim soon after viewing the VOP Method. What was realized is that by implementing CLL+ elements into this method, you could achieve similar lookahead/efficiency to CLL+EG1/2 with less than half of the algs! And with the help of myself and Shiv3r, we devised this and assisted in making the algs for this outstanding 2x2 method. This method can get someone to sub-3 quite quickly and with little effort.

It has 3 steps officially but it can easily be 2looked with some practice (as explained in the formal guide) Here they are:

1: V- Build a V with DFR missing on the bottom. Similar to Ortega, the corners do NOT need to be permuted

2: LOLS- Orient the last 5 corners while preserving the permutation of V, 23 algs, Ortega OLL brings down to 16 algs that are all quite easy to learn and are very fast

3: NLL- While this name is somewhat inaccurate, it solves the cube in 36 algs

This method is able to achieve some crazy singles and still has similar efficiency to CLL and it's variants while having significantly less algorithms! So let us know our thoughts and if anyone has any algs the would like to give or have any questions at all about the method, please respond in the thread and we will respond as soon as possible! Thank you all for reading and I hope you enjoy this method!
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,873
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
thetx789
If it can't always be one-looked not worth it. 42 algs isn't that many any way.

This isn't as effecient CLL has two steps therefore it is better. To be good at 2x2 you need to learn hundred of algs. Always one looking.
 

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
486
I believe it should be noted that this is a method created for people who want to get fast with ought having to learn a stupid number of algs and is not intended to switch people from CLL.

The appeal of this is the low alg count while achieving similar times to CLL+EG. Lack of one looking can be a disadvantage, however V and LOLS can be predicted in inspection easily as well as being able to determine your NLL set so all you have to do is identify your NLL which all are extremely easy to recognize and even know as you are finishing LOLS.

This in no way is meant to influence people switching from CLL+, it provides a nice alternative for people who don't want to learn hundreds of algs but would still like to be fast at 2x2. Oh and it's actually about the same efficiency as pure CLL with high probability of >12 move singles.

I understand hesitations of the method, I hope this provides some context as to why the method was created as well as assist in the understanding of the method as a whole. While there are officially 3 steps, it really boils down to 2 and the second step has almost instant recognition for advanced users.

Thank you to everyone for there concerns and I am more than happy to discuss the method further!

EDIT: Replying to next post here so it's not spam

I understand your sentiment and I will be sure to never state that one is better than the other. Only provide positives for this method and participate in intelligent discussion. HD advanced has much less algs than full EG+CLL and adding in LEG+TCLL, this has about a quarter of the algs and is capable of achieving similar times. I believe the methods are aproximately equal, but I understand all portions of the debate and am more than willing to discuss further!
 
Last edited:

Sajwo

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
982
Location
P(r)oland
WCA
2012SZEW01
YouTube
SajwoPL
So intermediate version of your method has as many algs as CLL. And you can't really much expand it, unless you learn advanced with 59 algs, which is comparable to knowing CLL, half of EG-1 and anti-CLL. I don't buy it, sorry :(
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
guys, this method is extremely easy onelooked. the amount of LOLS is low enough and the avg movecount for the V is 1. If you can see 1 move ahead, then you're set.
since there are only 15 LOLS, you can memorize fairly easily how each affects corner permutation of the last 5 corners, and since you don't need to track Orientation, you can figure out your NLL in inspection fairly trivially.
 

WACWCA

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
712
Location
Maryland
WCA
2012CALL01
YouTube
Will Callan
I believe it should be noted that this is a method created for people who want to get fast with ought having to learn a stupid number of algs and is not intended to switch people from CLL.

The appeal of this is the low alg count while achieving similar times to CLL+EG. Lack of one looking can be a disadvantage, however V and LOLS can be predicted in inspection easily as well as being able to determine your NLL set so all you have to do is identify your NLL which all are extremely easy to recognize and even know as you are finishing LOLS.

This in no way is meant to influence people switching from CLL+, it provides a nice alternative for people who don't want to learn hundreds of algs but would still like to be fast at 2x2. Oh and it's actually about the same efficiency as pure CLL with high probability of >12 move singles.

I understand hesitations of the method, I hope this provides some context as to why the method was created as well as assist in the understanding of the method as a whole. While there are officially 3 steps, it really boils down to 2 and the second step has almost instant recognition for advanced users.

Thank you to everyone for there concerns and I am more than happy to discuss the method further!

EDIT: Replying to next post here so it's not spam

I understand your sentiment and I will be sure to never state that one is better than the other. Only provide positives for this method and participate in intelligent discussion. HD advanced has much less algs than full EG+CLL and adding in LEG+TCLL, this has about a quarter of the algs and is capable of achieving similar times. I believe the methods are aproximately equal, but I understand all portions of the debate and am more than willing to discuss further!
I don't believe this will achieve similar times though, two algs is much slower than 1 alg.
 

Shiv3r

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
802
Location
San Diego or thereabouts
WCA
2016LEWI04
YouTube
channel/UCEuVjmTxYfw16pARBLpQaEA
I don't believe this will achieve similar times though, two algs is much slower than 1 alg.
but the point isn't to be similar to a method it doesn't compare well to(EG+TCLL+CLL). compare it to other methods that take as much effort to learn, such as CLL. it is the only one in it's advancedness that has the possibility to easily onelook.
 

WACWCA

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
712
Location
Maryland
WCA
2012CALL01
YouTube
Will Callan
but the point isn't to be similar to a method it doesn't compare well to(EG+TCLL+CLL). compare it to other methods that take as much effort to learn, such as CLL. it is the only one in it's advancedness that has the possibility to easily onelook.
Neuro said it would produce similar times, which I just don't believe is true, so I don't believe it's useful to learn this instead of CLL, because you are just setting yourself back if you want to get fast
 

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
446
There's another variation on this method that was kind of forgotten, but has a lot of potential. I'm calling it HD-Guimond, or HD-G. Basically, it combines steps one and two by using a Guimond style orientation algorithm at the start, and tweaking it so it ends up in an NLL cube state. It has just as many algorithms and less moves. One-looking is feasible, usually, you only have to look ahead 5 or 6 moves to the NLL. Here are the example solves from the original post:
Example solves:
Scramble- F' U' F' U' R F' R2 U R
V+CO- U R' U2 F R' (5/5)
NLL- D R2 U' R2 B2 U' R2 U R2 (9/14)

Scramble- F' R2 F' R2 F R2 F2 R2 U'
V+CO- R U R' F' (4/4)
NLL- R2 F2 U' R2 U (5/9)

Scramble- F' U' R2 F' R U2 R2 U' R2 U'
z y
V+CO- U' R2 F2 U' F (5/5)
NLL- D R2 U' R2 B2 U' R2 U R2 U' (10/15)
And some more:
Scramble- F2 R' U R2 U' R F2 U2 R
V+CO- z' R2 U R' (3/3)
NLL- U' F2 U F2 U' R2 U F2 U' (9/12)

Scramble- U F R2 U R2 U R' F2 R
V+CO- z' y U' R U R' F' (5/5)
NLL- y U' R U' R F2 R2 U2 R U R' U2 (12/17)

Scramble- U' R2 F2 U' R F2 R F2 R'
V+CO- y' U' F R U' R' (5/5)
NLL- U2 F2 R2 U R2 U' F2 R2 U2 (9/14)

Scramble- R' F' U F2 R2 U R F2 R2
V+CO- x' y' L' U L F2 (4/4)
NLL- y R' F' R U R2 F2 R U R U' (11/15)

Scramble- U' F' R2 F R' U F' U2 F' U
V+CO- z y' U R2 U R' U L2 (6/6)
NLL- U2 R2 U' F2 U R2 U' B2 U' (9/15)

14.6 average movecount . . . looks pretty close to EG's 12.35. And, NLLs have yet to be optimized, and the sample size was small. Including my previous example solves, average is 13.875.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
519
And some more:

14.6 average movecount . . . looks pretty close to EG's 12.35. And, NLLs have yet to be optimized, and the sample size was small. Including my previous example solves, average is 13.875.
For the record I do not believe in the claimed 12.35 movecount for EG. I use EG all the time when I start my 3x3 LMCF solves and the average movecount seems more like 13.5-14. Not sure how/who calculated 12.35. It is not a matter of the number of moves to make a face and then the average algorithm count, you need to add in U-setup moves (0.75) and AUF. Furthermore on CLL solves you can technically save a move by building your face to avoid a U move setup, but this usually results in very poor finger tricks to make the face, so not realistic. In that sense a 14.6 move count for HD is really good.
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,221
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
How fast should I get with the simplest variant of HD (3/4 Layer -> inserting any corner in DFR oriented -> OLL -> 1 of 6 NLL cases) before I learn more NLL? Which NLL set should I learn next?
Also, the link to the 50 V example solves on the wiki doesn't work.
 

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
486
idk how fast that can get but maybe sub 5? I'd recommend going to the diag swap NLL next and then just progress from there. I'd learn LOLS ASAP though, it's really easy and it should help you significantly. Good luck!
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,221
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
Neuro said it would produce similar times, which I just don't believe is true, so I don't believe it's useful to learn this instead of CLL, because you are just setting yourself back if you want to get fast
I think HD is mainly for people like me who currently use Ortega/LBL and want to get better at 2x2 but don't care about it enough to memorize 100+ algs to have potential to be world-class
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,221
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
Question, are there any 2x2ers who use HD that average pretty fast (~5 seconds or faster)? I kinda want to learn full LOLS/NLL but I'm not sure if it would be worth it to switch from ortega
Also, could anyone create trainers for LOLS and NLL?
 
Last edited:

Thermex

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Messages
188
Location
The Milky Way
Question, are there any 2x2ers who use HD that average pretty fast (~5 seconds or faster)? I kinda want to learn full LOLS/NLL but I'm not sure if it would be worth it to switch from ortega
Also, could anyone create trainers for LOLS and NLL?
I'm still learning NLLs, so maybe another couple months till I get there. Honestly if you learn how to one-look the solve sub-3 is achievable.
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,221
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
I'm still learning NLLs, so maybe another couple months till I get there. Honestly if you learn how to one-look the solve sub-3 is achievable.
That would be amazing, and I'd love to watch some averages on video with it for fun, just to see what the average speedsolve looks like
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,221
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
Sorry for double post, but I just got a 1.15 solve with HD, 1-looking everything except AUF. 1 Move V (permuted), LOLS skip and R2 U R2 U' R2 NLL! This method really is great, and will be even better once I know LOLS- and the other 30 NLLs
 

Miro

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
33
Hi, thank you for very interesting method.

I think in LOLS- algorithm set is error. Case 3 and 6 are the same (Sledgehammer). And there missing mirror case with one yellow/white sticker on top, two yellow/white stickers on some side and yellow/white sticker on other side.
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,221
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
Hi, thank you for very interesting method.

I think in LOLS- algorithm set is error. Case 3 and 6 are the same (Sledgehammer). And there missing mirror case with one yellow/white sticker on top, two yellow/white stickers on some side and yellow/white sticker on other side.
Are you using the right doc? I'm looking at mine and cases 3 and 6 are different, and that alg is there. I use this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uSyHp9G8Uwv-dJLMz1JCheIDdS-2-c8u9cX5Rf9lEWY/edit?usp=sharing
 
Top