LBL -> Int F2L -> 1LookOLL = Wishful Thinking?

[Ellis]

Only reason why I brought this subject up in the first place was because going from LBL to F2L basically involved 'relearning' algs (something I really don't like having to do).

Which algs did you have to relearn exactly? I use pretty much everything I learned in LBL (er, well keyhole, but LBL too), in F2L. There shouldn't be anything from LBL that you need to throw out. F2L is just adding on to what you've learned. The only way you'd have to relearn anything is if you completely switched methods. But yea, all the 2-look OLL/PLL cases will come up when doing 1-look. There's always the chance that you get all edges oriented after F2L, or all edges or corners correctly permuted after orientation.

People don't switch to Roux because it has fewer algs.

What you really mean is not everyone. I've heard people on this forum say just that - Oh I don't have to learn OLL/PLL now because I switched to Roux - YAY. There are people like that, and those people don't deserve to get good times.

 

[Cride5]

In other words, it's not the size of the mountain that's been putting me off tackling it, but rather the prospect of climbing the wrong mountain to begin with

Like the mountain analogy

If you're not daunted by the size of the mountain, then ZZ with ZBLL probably has the greatest potential. It has an amazing move-count, really good move ergonomics, good lookahead, excellent use of inspection, plus: Knowing ZBLL will make you quite a good FMC cuber

 

[Cuber1974]

Well I have to admit I really like the Fridrich method of cubing. It's proven itself as one of the leading methods to solve and I'm personally not put off by the prospect of having to learn so many algs to do it.

I'm going to try and just learn the 57 Algs for 1 look and see how I go.

I'm in a fortunate position where I work a desk job and have a lot of spare time to cube during the day so I can give it a decent go and just see where I end up.

If I find it too difficult I can always revert to 2LLL or 4LLL and take it more slowly, but I like to challenge myself and I think this could be something I can really sink my teeth into.

Besides, I've got nothing to lose by giving it a go and see where I end up.

I was just curious as to whether anyone else out there has tried this and been successful (straight from F2L / LBL last layer to 1Look OLL) to see whether this idea was simply wishful thinking, or just plain difficult (but still achieveable).

Cheers

 

[blgentry]

First, it seems like maybe your terminology is a little confused.

2LLL == 2 Look Last Layer == 1 Look OLL + 1 Look PLL
4LLL == 4 Look Last Layer == 2 Look OLL + 2 Look PLL

Second, what appeals to you about learning 1 Look OLL first? It won't give you a one look last layer (which you sort of seem to be implying with your comparisons, but I could be wrong). The conventional wisdom is that a 1 Look OLL is about 2 to 3 seconds faster than a 2 Look OLL. So when you go from 10 OLLs (2 Look) to 57, you save about 2.5 seconds. 47 algs for 2.5 seconds of savings. I'm too slow to care about that small improvement just yet.

Which beginner's last layer are you using? Some of them are just fine for a while, and can have algs added on to speed them up. Your F2L is going to make a bigger difference right now, but I know how alluring the last layer is. I took a stepping stone approach on my last layer, switching from my beginner's last layer to what I call an 8 Look Last Layer, and then gradually adding on algs until I arrived at a 3 Look Last Layer.

Brian.

 

[Ellis]

The conventional wisdom is that a 1 Look OLL is about 2 to 3 seconds faster than a 2 Look OLL. So when you go from 10 OLLs (2 Look) to 57, you save about 2.5 seconds. 47 algs for 2.5 seconds of savings.

I think it's less for me, it's probably closer to 1 second.

 

[Cuber1974]

First, it seems like maybe your terminology is a little confused.

2LLL == 2 Look Last Layer == 1 Look OLL + 1 Look PLL
4LLL == 4 Look Last Layer == 2 Look OLL + 2 Look PLL

Second, what appeals to you about learning 1 Look OLL first? It won't give you a one look last layer (which you sort of seem to be implying with your comparisons, but I could be wrong). The conventional wisdom is that a 1 Look OLL is about 2 to 3 seconds faster than a 2 Look OLL. So when you go from 10 OLLs (2 Look) to 57, you save about 2.5 seconds. 47 algs for 2.5 seconds of savings. I'm too slow to care about that small improvement just yet.

Which beginner's last layer are you using? Some of them are just fine for a while, and can have algs added on to speed them up. Your F2L is going to make a bigger difference right now, but I know how alluring the last layer is. I took a stepping stone approach on my last layer, switching from my beginner's last layer to what I call an 8 Look Last Layer, and then gradually adding on algs until I arrived at a 3 Look Last Layer.

Brian.

Oh really?

I didn't realise the savings in time were so minimal!

Well in THAT case, I may as well go 2 look OLL until I get my times down to a minimum (ie under 30) and then flick over to 1 Look?


So what's the best method then because I'm quite frankly confused!

2 Look OLL (9 Algs) + 2 Look PLL (6 Algs) - Both from Badmephisto

15 Algs for 2 Look OLL/PLL and for this I only have to sacrifice a few seconds of time?

 

[Ellis]

Don't waste your time with 2-look PLL. Suck it up and go for all of them. It's worth it. Using full PLL over 2-look PLL will save you more time than full OLL over 2-look OLL. But there are far less algs.

 

[Poke]

I'd stick with 2 look OLL for now definitely... OLL seems like it could be faster because of recognition.

 

[Cuber1974]

So go 2 Look OLL and 1 Look PLL???

 

[ThatGuy]

If you're going Friedrich route, yeah. Leeho on this forum can average sub 15 with 2LOLL.

 

[Cuber1974]

If you're going Friedrich route, yeah. Leeho on this forum can average sub 15 with 2LOLL.

Wow... that's fast.

I assume that's with Intuitive F2L, 2LOLL and 1LPLL?

Sub 15 avg would be awesome...

 

[brunson]

I know full OLL and PLL (2LLL) and I'm barely sub-30 because my lookahead on f2l sucks. Practice F2L, learn your PLLs, practice F2L and cross to F2L transition, slowly learn your OLLs while practicing F2L, then practice your F2L some more.

 

[Cuber1974]

I know full OLL and PLL (2LLL) and I'm barely sub-30 because my lookahead on f2l sucks. Practice F2L, learn your PLLs, practice F2L and cross to F2L transition, slowly learn your OLLs while practicing F2L, then practice your F2L some more.

Yeah mate, I'm rapidly discovering that F2L is the key to the quick solves - well that and lookahead.

I'm only getting to grips with Int f2L recently (only been practising now for about 3 weeks). It's the step that's both the hardest and also the most fun for my mind as you rapidly try and solve the puzzle, rather than recognise patterns and repeat algs. I like it.

 

[Poke]

I know full OLL and PLL (2LLL) and I'm barely sub-30 because my lookahead on f2l sucks. Practice F2L, learn your PLLs, practice F2L and cross to F2L transition, slowly learn your OLLs while practicing F2L, then practice your F2L some more.

Yeah mate, I'm rapidly discovering that F2L is the key to the quick solves - well that and lookahead.

I'm only getting to grips with Int f2L recently (only been practising now for about 3 weeks). It's the step that's both the hardest and also the most fun for my mind as you rapidly try and solve the puzzle, rather than recognise patterns and repeat algs. I like it.

I love F2L, too... it is the best.