• 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!

Is 1LLL possible?

Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
18
Likes
1
#43
Recall is just a matter of practice, you had trouble recalling OLLs after you first learnt them. ZBLL did take a long time to get used to and as I am still changing algs around, recall is still an issue sometimes, but there is no metric where OCLL or COLL is faster. Even without EO skips, ZBLL makes up a disproportionate amount of my above average solves. All of my fullstep sub 6s have been 1LLL.

By the same logic, Recognizing OLL is harder than OCLL. You don't think damn, I didn't get solved EO this is going to be hard to recognize. It's possible that these cases are harder to recognize, but you wouldn't say don't learn OLL, he recog is terrible.

Your opinion is your opinion and I can see the argument that it's not "worth" learning, because that is dependent on how much you dislike learning algs. As someone who uses 1LLL on close to a fourth of my solves, I'm telling you it is faster.
A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,861
Likes
783
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Shadowslice
#44
A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.
This is the guy who already knows 1000s of the 1LLL algs so I would say he's a pretty good authority on the subject.
 
D

Daniel Lin

Guest
#45
A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.
OCLL recognition + EOLL recognition is worse than OLL recognition. Recognizing everything all at once is more efficient.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,079
Likes
635
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
#46
A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.
Is important to note that he said recall is a matter of practice, not recognition. Recognition for 1LLL is a matter of seeing the OLL case then recognising the edge and corner permutation. That's obviously slower than recognising the OLL, but as @Daniel Lin points out above, it's still faster than recognising OLL and PLL separately. Recall is quite different. Recall happens after you recognise the case and involves remembering which algorithm solves that case. I believe @Bindedsa when he says its just a matter of practice because it matches my own experience with learning ZBLL so far (although I am only getting started).
 

vm70

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
61
Likes
27
Location
Either coast of the US
#47
Lars Petrus made a whole program designed to show every single algorithm for 1LLL that's less than 14 moves some time ago. This doesn't prove that memorizing 4608 different cases would be a good idea, though. If you memorize 3 algorithms per day, it would take you 1536 days or about 4.2 years to learn 1LLL; that doesn't mean that your recognition from looking at lots of similar cases would be good, though.
http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=____

Just to demonstrate, here's case Eo8G:
http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=Eo8G

"Showing my work": https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4608/3+days

EDIT: Oh and also, don't get me started on even cube parity algorithms for last layer. The number of 1LLL cases on 4x4, 6x6, etc. would be even more of a nightmarish trek through algorithms than 4608.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
446
Likes
353
#48
I'm curious as to the 1LLL worst cases. What is:
- Longest move count for Bindedsa's 1LLL alg set?
- Slowest algorithm for the 1LLL set? (not the same as longest move count...)
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
83
Likes
0
Location
surrey,UK
#49
Can be done but I think it will not be any faster than oll/pll because recognition and alg recall will obviously be much harder and slower...
no, i recon with practice it would not be that much slower at my first look learning full OLL looks like the case recognition will be hard but i am pretty certain that it wont be seeing as pretty much every good speedcuber knows OLL so actually with practice it might be learnable
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,422
Likes
697
Location
Illinois, U.S.A.
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
channel/UCXxvOAAJVVoR7UfjeAv_bjA
#50
no, i recon with practice it would not be that much slower at my first look learning full OLL looks like the case recognition will be hard but i am pretty certain that it wont be seeing as pretty much every good speedcuber knows OLL so actually with practice it might be learnable
...

He said that over a year ago. Did you even read the thread? I think that point has already been discussed, and done with better punctuation.
 
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
790
Likes
48
Location
Germany
WCA
2012KALH01
#55
Could you get 1LLL to the point where you can stop practicing recog/drilling, and be able to instantly (or, within 0.5) recall an alg for a case that hasn't come up in over 20,000 solves?


http://algdb.net/ is good

Edit: Oh, you probably meant for 1LLL. There are still a lot of alg sets there though.

I want to say yes, but only if you've been using it for multiple years (maybe less?) every day. i mean, think of it as a language; there are lots of words that you use extremely rarely yet you can recall and even use them extremely quickly. If however you learn it all in a bulk and start using it, at first you have to keep drilling the algs and practicing the recognition to keep it up. i notice this already when trying to remember the 170 Names for the ZZLLs we use in Team BLD, i also have to recognise them and call out the name really quickly, and for the first weeks i had to repeat all of them every day, but now, around 2 months later, i have them all down and dont need to practice anymore (unless i were to stop doing TeamBLD for a couple of weeks)

As a conclusion, I also think that 1LLL must be better than OLL+PLL. I don't see how it could be otherwise; 1LLL always has less moves than OLL+PLL, it only has one recognition stop for the brain to process, and this recognition should never be longer than OLL reco + PLL reco, and then getting the alg execution as fast as OLL/PLL is just a matter of time and commitment. People just say OLL+PLL is better because at the beginning it obviously is, but seem to forget that 1LLL is an investion for the long haul. Of course if you only wanna spend one month learning and drilling algs, youre not gonna get far with 1LLL.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
938
Likes
572
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#56
I for one thing that 1LLL is completely possible and fast but it is just very time consuming. Look at a smaller set such as ZBLL. As a beginner cuber those 500 algs look almost impossible to learn but now multiple people know many ZBLL cases and some like Jabari even know the full set. 1LLL is basically just ZBLL on steroids so it is almost the exact same (except eo recognition) so it shouldn't be that hard to learn but there are just so many algs that it is hard to learn all of it. Also people keep saying it's not feasible but just remember people used to say the same thing about ZBLL and now look at where it's at.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,471
Likes
351
Location
location is not displayed due to character limit
WCA
2016EVAN06
#58
Yes, ZBLL already exists, it requires memorizing 493 algorithms, but it solves the last layer in one algorithm. People have memorized this, and used it effectively, but very few can. For all the ZBLL algorithms, go here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2g-oMdOeacZSl80M01iZVBfOWs/view
the previous link explains ZBLL theory and all of the 493 algorithms, and it is a PDF.
But isn't zbll solving the cube after a cross has already been solved, meaning that you have to force skip one step of two look oll
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
1,692
Likes
1,225
Location
Over there
WCA
2013GOOD01
YouTube
DGCubes
#59
But isn't zbll solving the cube after a cross has already been solved, meaning that you have to force skip one step of two look oll
Yes, but that is not difficult to do. With a method such as ZZ, this is done automatically; otherwise, (often intuitive) edge control during F2L easily allows this to be accomplished.
 
Top