OLL or PLL

[ArbishAli]

Which to learn first after 4LLL?
OLL or PLL.

 

[WarriorCatCuber]

PLL. It's a smaller set, and it's more important

 

[ArbishAli]

PLL. It's a smaller set, and it's more important

Okay. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Nmile7300]

If you average 1:45, then don't learn either if them until around sub 30. Then learn PLL.

 

[BenChristman1]

If you average 1:45, then don't learn either if them until around sub 30. Then learn PLL.

There really is no time barrier for when to learn more algs. My brother and sister are starting to learn PLL, and they average about 1:20.

 

[ProStar]

Pretty much everyone will agree that PLL is first. However, right now it won't help you at all. Your recognition and execution of 4-look algs is likely pretty slow, so I'd work on that before piling algs on yourself

 

[Nmile7300]

There really is no time barrier for when to learn more algs. My brother and sister are starting to learn PLL, and they average about 1:20.

Yeah I'm not saying they can't learn it, I'm saying it won't help them right now.

 

[zslane]

For cubers in that 60-90s range, what is the recommended order of study once 4LLL is learned?

• Full PLL
• Full OLL
• Case/Alg F2L (as opposed to purely intuitive F2L)
• Fingertricks optimization
• Advanced F2L (X-Cross, pseudoslotting, etc.)

 

[Spacey10]

For cubers in that 60-90s range, what is the recommended order of study once 4LLL is learned?

• Full PLL
• Full OLL
• Case/Alg F2L (as opposed to purely intuitive F2L)
• Fingertricks optimization
• Advanced F2L (X-Cross, pseudoslotting, etc.)

When you say alg f2l, do you mean it for all the cases?
If soz that's a terrible idea

 

[zslane]

Well, yeah, I assume that all the really fast speedsolvers have (muscle-)memorized the algs that go with each F2L case so that all they have to do is recognize the case and execute the trigger.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Well, yeah, I assume that all the really fast speedsolvers have (muscle-)memorized the algs that go with each F2L case so that all they have to do is recognize the case and execute the trigger.

Not really. Almost no one at the top level of 3x3 speedsolving uses F2L algorithms. I haven't heard anyone that is remotely fast recommended algorithmic F2L, and that speaks volumes. The only way that algorithmic F2L would be better than intuitive is if your able to memorize huge alg sets and know exactly what they do, while also having a really bad understanding of the cube. For like 4-5 cases, algs could be decent, but in general algorithmic is not nearly as good as intuitive. The recognition for cases that are algorithmic would also take longer since you have to match that specific case with a specific alg. With intuitive, you don't need to call back to an algorithm, instead, you just set up the case in the way you think will make for an easy setup or fast execution.

 

[zslane]

So then what is the distinction between "Intuitive F2L" and "Advanced F2L"? The implication is that intuitive F2L is like "beginner's F2L" and is distinctly different from "Advanced F2L" in some way.

 

[Sub1Hour]

So then what is the distinction between "Intuitive F2L" and "Advanced F2L"? The implication is that intuitive F2L is like "beginner's F2L" and is distinctly different from "Advanced F2L" in some way.

Intuitive F2L can be Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced, it just depends on how well you know the puzzle. If you only know how to set up into a sexy move insert with very basic setups then its beginner. If you know how to do pretty much every case optimally without algs, then it's intermediate. If you can do stuff like pseudoslotting, then it's advanced. For some reason, people have to categorize things into beginner, intermediate, advanced, ETC. I have no clue why people feel the need to slap this label on things that are subjective to the cuber, but maybe it makes them feel more "advanced" after accidentally doing a double insert with keyhole. It's not the method that's "advanced", its the cuber.

 

[zslane]

I see.

So if F2L isn't intended to be alg-based, why are there "study cards" and PDFs all over the Internet showing all the F2L cases and the algs that solve them? As someone who recently began learning CFOP, this definitely led me to believe that memorizing the F2L case-alg pairs was every bit as much a part of mastering CFOP as memorizing full OLL and full PLL (which also appear in study card sets and PDFs).

 

[Spacey10]

I see.

So if F2L isn't intended to be alg-based, why are there "study cards" and PDFs all over the Internet showing all the F2L cases and the algs that solve them? As someone who recently began learning CFOP, this definitely led me to believe that memorizing the F2L case-alg pairs was every bit as much a part of mastering CFOP as memorizing full OLL and full PLL (which also appear in study card sets and PDFs).

For tricky cases, like edge in wrong slot, or edge and corner in place but edge flipped

 

[zslane]

Then why don't the study cards and PDFs only call out those tricky cases? By presenting all of the cases (and their algs), CFOP beginners get a very wrong impression about what they are supposed to be trying to do with F2L.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Then why don't the study cards and PDFs only call out those tricky cases? By presenting all of the cases (and their algs), CFOP beginners get a very wrong impression about what they are supposed to be trying to do with F2L.

Because people trick themselves into thinking that just because they know more algorithms that means they will be faster. Sure, that's definitely true for stuff like PLL, OLL, and ZBLL, but sometimes it goes a little too far. COLL is a great example of this. People that learned COLL have said that sometimes it actually makes their solves worse since instead of doing a Sune and J perm, they did a longer COLL case and a Z perm. Algs aren't everything, and 9/10 times, you should be learning something else other than an alg set. I mean, look at me. I've gotten many sub-9 squan averages while only knowing around 20-30 algs. I'm also averaging around 11-12 on 3x3 with only half of OLL.

 

[Nmile7300]

For cubers in that 60-90s range, what is the recommended order of study once 4LLL is learned?

• Full PLL
• Full OLL
• Case/Alg F2L (as opposed to purely intuitive F2L)
• Fingertricks optimization
• Advanced F2L (X-Cross, pseudoslotting, etc.)

The order I recommend is:
1. Practice and improve until you average around 45
2. Work on doing INTUITIVE F2L more efficiently. This is something you should work on continuously but this is where you should start to do it.
3. Work on finger tricks, but don't learn anything too crazy. At this point I would recommend getting down to about 30 seconds before the next step.
4. Learn full PLL and get down to around 15 to 20 seconds
5. Learn full OLL and get to around 10-15 seconds, while still working on finger tricks, efficiency, lookahead etc.
6. Learn more advanced things like X cross and work on lookahead and other fundamentals.

This is a very rough guide, you don't have to follow it exactly. The point is, don't try to learn a bunch of algs just because you aren't improving.

 

[zslane]

As someone who is sorta bad at memorizing--that is to say, rote memorization takes me a long time--that is encouraging. So what would you recommend a 60-90s solver focus on after learning 4LLL? (Sorry, I posted this before Nmile's post showed up.)

One of the things I've been trying to do is perform F2L without rotating the cube; solving pairs into back slots, including back slot sledgehammers (I'm a big, big fan of sledgehammer, BTW). This slows me down since it is quite awkward for me, but I've seen online tutorials that highly recommend this approach to F2L.

 

[ProStar]

As someone who is sorta bad at memorizing--that is to say, rote memorization takes me a long time--that is encouraging. So what would you recommend a 60-90s solver focus on after learning 4LLL? (Sorry, I posted this before Nmile's post showed up.)

Just practice and do slow solves to improve F2L efficiency