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.

Speaking from someone who started with Ortega and eventually learned CLL and EG1, I think the HD method's true advantage hasn't really been discussed. When I am solving with CLL and EG1, my times are faster than Ortega but not by that much-- if I am unable to 1-look the solve, the case recognition time for CLL/EG slows the solve down dramatically. On the fly recognition for CLL/EG is WAY slower than Ortega. If you can one look the solve then CLL/EG is way faster than Ortega. If not, they are only marginally faster and for the first few months you will even be slower with CLL/EG.

The advantage of the HD method is you have:
(1) way faster recognition than CLL/EG, more similar to Ortega style
(2) great chance to easily 1-look the first V and the first algorithm

I find it very hard to 1-look in 15 seconds with CLL/EG. In fact I can only do it about 1 in 10 solves. I have not had the patience to practice 1-looking (it takes years to master and even the champions sometimes get solves they can't 1-look).

HD would allow you to hit world class times WAY FASTER than CLL/EG. While the ultimate times may be slightly worse than the limit with CLL/EG, the chance of actually getting world class at CLL/EG are pretty slim, and in my opinion you would probably enter the top 100 in the world faster, by using HD. Furthermore your times would be more consistent. If you look at the masters 2x2 times, you can easily see the solves they could not 1-look. They Ao5 looks something like 1.91, 1.78, 2.05, 3.52, 1.99. You can instantly see the solve that had a recognition time involved, it is usually a full second slower than the others.

surely this is better. if there are only 23 lols cases and you memorise how they work with 1looking then it would be easier to 1look than eg as they have the same move count for the first step(s)

surely this is better. if there are only 23 lols cases and you memorise how they work with 1looking then it would be easier to 1look than eg as they have the same move count for the first step(s)

This version is kinda outdated. It's probably the best way to first learn the method, but once you get more advanced, you'll want to learn HD-G (Guimond), where you solve the V and CO simultaneously. It's not super difficult, mostly, you just use the exact algs, but maybe tweak the last move, or cancel into or out of it. This version isn't quite as efficient as that or EG is, but it's a good stepping stone. It should be at least equal to EG when it gets better. At this point, the NLLs are kind of lacking in ergonomics.

I think the method has a lot of potential, however the algs used are unfigertricky. And to get them to a better R U F move gen I think the length will go up. Making the method a decent bit less efficient.

The thing killing it for me is the bad algs for NLL. I prefer 2 or 3 gen but things like (U') F2 U R2 U' B2 D R2 kill this. 5 gen with awkward moves I think with better algs though it would be a good intermediate method.

The thing killing it for me is the bad algs for NLL. I prefer 2 or 3 gen but things like (U') F2 U R2 U' B2 D R2 kill this. 5 gen with awkward moves I think with better algs though it would be a good intermediate method.

Yeah, it's not great yet. Work needs to be done in fixing algs. I'm working on it, but it's going pretty slow. If we had a dozen people volunteer to do 2-3 algs each, we could get nice algs really easily. I started a few of these in the other thread about HD here. For example,
(U') x' R' F' R U2 R' U R U2
y (U') R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2
y' (U') R U' R' U2 R U R' D R2
all work for that case.

I'm just using cube explorer, but only using the corners. I asked and was told that K-solve for 2x2 would probably work better, but I looked at that, and decided that it would be more work to learn how to use it.

Okay, Here goes. I think this method has a little bit of potential against Full EG. Just because of regonition and low alg count. However it says in the doc, it is hard to one look. A lot of people one look CLL, 2 steps, 1 look, Fast times. Or 3 steps, cant one look, slower times. The algs well, are pretty bad(and non fingertricky algs are harder to learn). I'm willing to help do whatever I can to get better algs for this(I know nothing, but Ill learn). I don't want to lose a great method. When I was doing solves with Neuro (in PM) He was doing V+CO in 1 step and was beating me in movecount [by 3ish moves(with CLL)] I think that has way more potential. Hopefully I am understanding everything correctly.

I have begun making a guide for HD, and have been redoing some algs. I also introduced a new algset similar to LEG where you can do your NLL with the D layer in any position. you can see it here.

After seeing @WoowyBaby ‘s newly generated NLL algs I decided I’m going to learn HD I already know lols and I’m wondering if I should go straight into NLL first or if I should work on learning how to do V+CO (HD-G) first?

I would go ahead and just learn V+CO. I would recommend learning the 12 or so short algs from Guimond that are at the bottom of @WoowyBaby's algsheet and doing a bunch of practice, and it should get to be pretty easy and intuitive.

I made my own alg sheet its not good though. A lot of the algs are sub-par and hard to finger trick. I have found ways to do most of the algs without regrips. Unlike @WoowyBaby ‘ s algsheet I intend to make them move optimal. This is because I have slow tps. Later I might make videos of my performing the algs. Its still a work in progress, as two of the sets i'm still working on. The recog is the same as the first alg sheet( not woowybaby's) I believe in move count cause if one alg is like 12 moves long you could probably solve the whole cube with full eg in that amount of moves. Also I think that if you exclude Auf thingys from your alg from recog you will miss out on some good nll solutions that you could do be just aufing. You would probably have to Auf after orientation anyway.

I think on thing commonly overlooked with HD-G is that it is not guaranteed to make a V when you orientate. You can do like 2 moves to make one but that would waist moves and make it harder to look ahead. This is important because one of the only reason this method is viable is being able to one look (like comparing it to EG or CLL+). A temporary solution to this is for some of G orientation when it ends on like an R' you can change it to a R and force the V. ( not guaranteed to work)

I disagree with the people who say that Nlls are easier to recognize than Cll/Eg cases Those have multi angle recog which is extremely difficult with Nlls. Also transitions from G orientation to Nlls sometimes require rotations or having to do an awkward Guimond orientation to compensate.

I don't believe in the HD-G movecound of around 12 because Nlls are like 9 moves on average and it is lucky to get a 3 move orientation. That is not even including AUFs which are almost in every solve. There are 3 places where it is possible to have an AUF son i would say a more realistic movecount would be around 14-15.

To get better I think that we should learn the easy SOAP cases( if better than guimond)

If you are having trouble I have some example solves

Proof for unbiased scrambles is I got them from a video from Cameron named " 2x2 example solves with Chris Olson and Jay McNeil"
Some V+OA done from different angles to prevent rotations

Scramble: R F R' U R2 U R2 F' U' R' U'

V+CO: Z Y F2 U’ F’
NLL: U’ x R’ F’ R U2 R’ U R B2 U2 B2

2. Scramble: U' R' U2 F2 U' F U2 R' U' R' U'
V+CO: x2 y2U2 RU’R’
PBL: U R U R’ F2 R F’ R

3. Scramble: R2 F U' R' F U F2 R' U2 R2 U'
V+co: z y2 U R2 U’ R’
Nll: U B2 R2 U' R2 U R2 U

4. Scramble:R' F U2 F2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R' U
V+co: y’ x’U2 L’ U2 L
NLL: U2 F2 R2 U R2 U’ F2 R2 U

5. Scramble:U F U2 F2 R U' R2 F U2 R' U'
V+co: x’ y2 B R’ U’ R
Nll: R’ U R’ F2 R F’ R’ U’ R2

6. Scramble:R U2 F2 U' F R2 U' R' U' F' U'
V+co: x’ y’ U F U’ F
Nll: R’ U R’ F2 R F’ R’ U’ R2 U

7. Scramble:F' U' R' F U2 R2 F' U2 F R U'
V+CO:z y B’ R’ U’ R’
Nll: U R’ U R’ F2 R F’ R’ U’ R2

8. Scramble:U F R' F U2 R2 F2 R' U' R2 U'
V+CO:x’ y2 R2 U’ R’
Nll: F R’ F R2 F’ U F U F2

9. Scramble:F U2 F' R U2 R' U R' U R' U'

V+OA:z’y’ R’ U2 B U’B’
Nll: U R U' R2 F R U' R U2 R' F2 U’

10. Scramble:F2 U' F' R2 F' R U' R' U2 R2 U'
V+OA: z’ y2 U2 B R’U’ R
Nll: U2 R2 U' R2 U F2 U' R2 U2

11. Scramble:U' F R2 U2 R' F R U' F R' U'
V+Oa: x2 U’ R U’ R
Nll:U2 R U' R F2 R2 U2 R U R' U

12 Scramble:F' R F2 R' F U2 F2 R2 F' R' U'
V+OA:y2 x’ R U’ R U’ R
Nll: Y R2’ D R2 U' R2 U R2 U B2 U2