One-Answer 2x2x2 Question Thread

Anyone know a good way to clean off overlubed cubes without taking them apart? Specifically a 2x2 cyclone boys. I never really got too into 2x2 mostly because the only one I have is way too gummy, and I suspect overlubing (especially since the core is very glimmery). Might just have to use a wet paper towel.
 
Loiloiloi said:
Anyone know a good way to clean off overlubed cubes without taking them apart? Specifically a 2x2 cyclone boys. I never really got too into 2x2 mostly because the only one I have is way too gummy, and I suspect overlubing (especially since the core is very glimmery). Might just have to use a wet paper towel.
Click to expand...

Not that I know of... Why don't you want to take it apart?
 
I'm planning on learning cll. On most of the websites for the cll algs, white is the first layer and the top is yellow. But I am already colour neutral with Ortega, and it seems really tough to be colour neutral with cll because the difference in colour positions is what creates 42 algs for the method. How to be colour neutral?
 
Tanish said:
I'm planning on learning cll. On most of the websites for the cll algs, white is the first layer and the top is yellow. But I am already colour neutral with Ortega, and it seems really tough to be colour neutral with cll because the difference in colour positions is what creates 42 algs for the method. How to be colour neutral?
Click to expand...

Practise. You basically get rid of looking at specific colours and just look at the pattern of opp/same colours.
 
Tanish said:
I'm planning on learning cll. On most of the websites for the cll algs, white is the first layer and the top is yellow. But I am already colour neutral with Ortega, and it seems really tough to be colour neutral with cll because the difference in colour positions is what creates 42 algs for the method. How to be colour neutral?
Click to expand...

The problem is, you're not supposed to be looking at the colors at all. You have to see the relationships between colors. For example, there's 6 cases in each set except Headlights, usually those 6 consist of 2 where there's opposite colors diagonally, maybe one where there's 2 same colors, and one where there's 2 unrelated colors. From there, you can distinguish the recognition by picking 2 pieces that vary between those 2, for example: maybe in 2 algorithms the tops are identical, but on the side there's a green piece adjacent to another green piece, and in the other algorithm it's a green piece next to a blue piece. Now you should be thinking "when I run into this case I can distinguish the recognition by seeing if these 2 pieces match." Of course, once you know full EG you should be 1 looking it and will be able to recognize the case during inspection.
 
If I plan to learn EG eventually, do I need to practice building 1 layer? I haven't learned CLL yet.

I feel it's a waste of time because eventually I only care about building a face. And many EG1/2 algs are easier than CLL algs for the same case. But if I don't drill on building a layer, it'll be hard to practice CLL. Can someone recommend the optimal learning path for 2x2 if my goal is to learn full EG eventually?
 
jaredye said:
If I plan to learn EG eventually, do I need to practice building 1 layer? I haven't learned CLL yet.

I feel it's a waste of time because eventually I only care about building a face. And many EG1/2 algs are easier than CLL algs for the same case. But if I don't drill on building a layer, it'll be hard to practice CLL. Can someone recommend the optimal learning path for 2x2 if my goal is to learn full EG eventually?
Click to expand...

You could learn Ortega first and then replace some cases by the according CLL/EG algs step by step.
 
sqAree said:
You could learn Ortega first and then replace some cases by the according CLL/EG algs step by step.
Click to expand...

I already know Ortega pretty well. Do you mean in the 2nd step of Ortega I just apply CLL/EG1/EG2 if I know the case, and proceed with Ortega if I haven't learnt the case?
 
jaredye said:
I already know Ortega pretty well. Do you mean in the 2nd step of Ortega I just apply CLL/EG1/EG2 if I know the case, and proceed with Ortega if I haven't learnt the case?
Click to expand...

Exactly! This is how I'm doing it.

The advantage is that you can make use of those easy faces in inspection and be faster in lucky cases (when you know the CLL/EG alg).
 
jaredye said:
I already know Ortega pretty well. Do you mean in the 2nd step of Ortega I just apply CLL/EG1/EG2 if I know the case, and proceed with Ortega if I haven't learnt the case?
Click to expand...
A method that works for many people is to learn CLL, but use ortega if the easiest face isn't a layer. CLL is faster than ortega, but if you end up seeing a really easy face (2-3 moves), then you should be able to predict the permutation of the bottom layer and the orientation of the top layer.
 
In my opinion it's better to just go with full clL first so you know that you can solve it in one alg, unlike just doing Ortega and having to do 2 most of the time because the chance you know the alg will be low
 
What is more beneficial to train? Eg-1 or one looking?

I am currently averaging around 8 seconds with CLL and my problem is that my layers are inefficient and my CLL recognition is quite slow. I hoped that practicing a lot would fix this, but after a month of practice, I still get the same times.

Maybe one month is not long enough and I should wait for a year instead. But still: According to many other people, 8 seconds with CLL is ridiculously bad. I didn't make any progress after one month, so I expect that I also don't make huge progress if I just practice for another month. So I need to change strategies. But which would be the better one of the following:

- Learn One Looking.
- Learn EG-1

One looking
+ Probably this would have a huge effect on my times and I would be at % instead of 8 seconds.
- extremely hard to learn for me.
- This would get much easier after I aready know EG-1.
- Super hard to do for my inefficient layers.

EG-1
+ Makes One Looking easier to do.
+ Overcomes the problem that my layers are inefficient.
+ Easier to learn than one looking. (I am good at learning algs)
- Should be an advanced technique, not a technique for beginners like me who take 8 seconds.
- Eg-1 without one looking would probably not have a huge effect on my times since it would still take me 4 seconds to recognize the EG-1 case...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Lykos said:
What is more beneficial to train? Eg-1 or one looking?

I am currently averaging around 8 seconds with CLL and my problem is that my layers are inefficient and my CLL recognition is quite slow. I hoped that practicing a lot would fix this, but after a month of practice, I still get the same times.

Maybe one month is not long enough and I should wait for a year instead. But still: According to many other people, 8 seconds with CLL is ridiculously bad. I didn't make any progress after one month, so I expect that I also don't make huge progress if I just practice for another month. So I need to change strategies. But which would be the better one of the following:

- Learn One Looking.
- Learn EG-1

One looking
+ Probably this would have a huge effect on my times and I would be at % instead of 8 seconds.
- extremely hard to learn for me.
- This would get much easier after I aready know EG-1.
- Super hard to do for my inefficient layers.

EG-1
+ Makes One Looking easier to do.
+ Overcomes the problem that my layers are inefficient.
+ Easier to learn than one looking. (I am good at learning algs)
- Should be an advanced technique, not a technique for beginners like me who take 8 seconds.
- Eg-1 without one looking would probably not have a huge effect on my times since it would still take me 4 seconds to recognize the EG-1 case...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I would definitely not learn EG-1 yet, and one looking will be hard if you have inneficient layers. I would start by drilling algs with the Cll option on some timers. What is the average number of layer moves for you?
 
WACWCA said:
I would definitely not learn EG-1 yet, and one looking will be hard if you have inneficient layers. I would start by drilling algs with the Cll option on some timers. What is the average number of layer moves for you?
Click to expand...
I just counted the moves for 10 solves and got the following:
2, 7, 6, 10, 6, 5, 9, 3, 6, 10 average 5.9

But it felt like there were a lot of lucky cases here. I think normally it is worse.

I think my problem why my layers are the following:

- If I see a two adjacent corners which match on one side, I always use this as my layer color, even if the layer cannot be completed easily.
- I am a bit too much of a fan of 4 "building blocks" that I keep using. One of them is the classic opposite color layer followed by "R2 B2 R2", the other ones are 3 inserts for all 3 orientations of the the last corner if 3 corners are already inserted but one of them is placed in the wrong location.

But even though I know about these problems, I have a hard time fixing them But both of these would go away if I can do faces instead of layers...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 
Ive heard many people say that switching new plastic dayan 2x2 springs to aolong springs will make it much better, but should I still do this on an old plastic dayan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VortexCuber
Where is the original "answer me idiot" post?
Replies
1
Views
200
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
JDCubing1
Answer this form pls!
2
Replies
21
Views
1,707
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
Adm_cb
  • Poll Poll
Y'a combien de francophone dans ce forum (answer poll please )
Replies
6
Views
912
JSCodeur
J
Cuber07
Is there an answer?
Replies
2
Views
636
Cuber07
Cuber07
n0nco
  • Poll Poll
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO SOLVE CLOCK PLEASE ANSWER THIS POLL!!!
Replies
14
Views
2,163
Ayce
Ayce
Back
Top