Is 1LLL possible?

Bindedsa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gewinnste said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
gewinnste said:
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.
Click to expand...
OCLL recognition + EOLL recognition is worse than OLL recognition. Recognizing everything all at once is more efficient.
 
gewinnste said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
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...)
 
tseitsei said:
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...
Click to expand...
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
 
dannah said:
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
Click to expand...
...

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.
 
CyanSandwich said:
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.
Click to expand...


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:
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.
 
Luke8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
cuber314159 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Is 1LLL the future if speedcubing?
Replies
2
Views
348
ProStar
ProStar
abunickabhi
Using 3s to do 1LLL
Replies
6
Views
803
LBr
LBr
NukesAway
Funny question: why are some LL algs short? (ie ZBLL algs with <12 HTM)
Replies
7
Views
1,249
NukesAway
NukesAway
OtaMota
[Official] Edmarter 9.93 Average (First full 1LLL average officially)
Replies
7
Views
1,180
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
OtaMota
[Unofficial] Edmarter 7.13 Ao5 with 1LLL
Replies
12
Views
1,215
Caleb Valenzuela
Caleb Valenzuela
Back
Top