One-Answer 3x3x3 Question Thread

[Space Cat]

Would it be easier for me to teach COLL and not OLL? It's something I've been considering for a while, thinking I could skip PLLs like the G and N perms.

 

[xyzzy]

Would it be easier for me to teach COLL and not OLL? It's something I've been considering for a while, thinking I could skip PLLs like the G and N perms.

Did you mean "teach" or "learn"? And do you already use full OLL?

I'm a bit biased towards COLL because I actually learnt full COLL before OLL (and I still haven't learnt full OLL), but unless you're really good at F2L edge control, you use ZZ, or you use some kind of EOLS, full OLL will have a larger immediate benefit than full COLL, as you won't be able to use COLL in every solve.

 

[Hazel]

Did you mean "teach" or "learn"? And do you already use full OLL?

I'm a bit biased towards COLL because I actually learnt full COLL before OLL (and I still haven't learnt full OLL), but unless you're really good at F2L edge control, you use ZZ, or you use some kind of EOLS, full OLL will have a larger immediate benefit than full COLL, as you won't be able to use COLL in every solve.

Also, if you use whatever method to always get a cross case for OLL, what if you get an OLL skip? You'll still need to learn all 21 PLLs then.

 

[shadowslice e]

Also, if you use whatever method to always get a cross case for OLL, what if you get an OLL skip? You'll still need to learn all 21 PLLs then.

Or you could learn 2 PLLS then EPLL...

 

[Joel2274]

If I already know full OLL, should I learn WV or COLL next

 

[DGCubes]

If I already know full OLL, should I learn WV or COLL next

I'd go with COLL personally, especially if you like EPLLs. If you don't really care what PLL case you get, I guess WV would be better.

I don't know any WV but I know ~75% of COLL, so I'm probably a little biased.

 

[Mastermind2368]

If I already know full OLL, should I learn WV or COLL next

I also happen to know about 30 COLL algs and I say learn the 3CO case and the 2CO case then COLL.

 

[TDM]

If I already know full OLL, should I learn WV or COLL next

COLL is far more useful, both in different methods and for different puzzles, and also comes up far more frequently than WV. You'll very rarely use WV.

 

[Gamadan]

Hi! If I may ask, how did you practice look ahead in 3x3 from cross to F2l, F2l to F2l, F2l to OLL and OLL to PLL?

 

[DGraciaRubik]

Hi! If I may ask, how did you practice look ahead in 3x3 from cross to F2l, F2l to F2l, F2l to OLL and OLL to PLL?

From Cross to F2L, solve crosses blindfolded, once you are confident enough to do so just do them blindfolded while checking for F2L pieces.
F2L to F2L pair, it's just pure practice.
F2L to OLL, just knowing some basic edge control and practice visualizing.
OLL to PLL it's just knowing what you OLL does in terms of preserving blocks or corner permutation.

 

[Gamadan]

From Cross to F2L, solve crosses blindfolded, once you are confident enough to do so just do them blindfolded while checking for F2L pieces.
F2L to F2L pair, it's just pure practice.
F2L to OLL, just knowing some basic edge control and practice visualizing.
OLL to PLL it's just knowing what you OLL does in terms of preserving blocks or corner permutation.

Thank you for replying In F2l to F2L, may I ask your ideas on how I should practice slow solving with it?

 

[Tom Joad]

If am watching jperm's youtube video on predicting the final position of an f2l pair whilst building the cross.

He says that if you predict where the white face of the corner piece will be (plus position of corner and edge piece) then you will know what case you have.

But it could still be one of two cases, right? Just knowing the position of the corner and edge pieces plus the white face is not enough information, is it?

So even though I know where the pieces are and where the white face is, I still have to then pause after cross, verify which of the two cases it is, then solve f2l pair.

Or am I missing something?

Thanks y'all

 

[Hazel]

Where's the best place/video to learn 2-sided PLL recognition? I average ~14 seconds and I'm trying to improve my LL because I don't think it's that good.
Also, what time splits (CFOP) should I be going for?

 

[Tom Joad]

Hi Aerma.

I average 21 seconds (my f2l and look ahead are weak) so take this with a pinch of salt...

I started focusing on two sided pll recognition five months ago. I've improved vastly but still have a lot to learn.

I made my own sheet of paper with the 21 cases listed down the left hand side and four columns. I named the columns Go!, U, U' and U2.

So I had my 84 plls to recognise, 21 each from 4 angles. "Go!" Was when it was ready for the algorithm I had learnt for the pll.

Now... I started my slow solving... when I got to the pll, if it was a case from an angle I recognised, then I put a tick in the corresponding box in my table. If I didn't recognise it, I looked around the cube to see which pll it was and how many U turns I needed to do to make it the right angle for my algorithm. I then wrote my own description of the case in the corresponding box in my 84-box table.

I think this is key: Writing your own description. You have to describe the case by its redeeming features which are specific to that case and no other. And it has to be what you recognise. Different people notice different features.

This is when I realised how little I knew and how much I had to learn!

Eventually I had a table with about 34 ticks in it and 50 descriptions. The descriptions were along the lines of:

Three checker in three bar (shifted right), opposite edition.
Three checker in three checker (shifted left), adjacent edition.

These are the harder cases with less succinct descriptions which still remain in my table, which I have redrawn four or five times. Now it has about 74 ticks in it and about 10 descriptions left.

So, once your table is complete...

It is key as you progress to never peak at a third side in your slow solves. Stare at the two sides and try to work it out. If you don't know it, check your table and look back at the cube until you think "I'll remember that next time and I won't have to look at the table"

This method has a nice "compounding reward" associated with it because every time you learn a case, you are also learning all the other cases (because there's one fewer they can be - the one you just learnt!)

By definition, the ten or so descriptions which remain in my table are for the cases which are most similar to each other.

You will change your descriptions as you roll along, making you descriptions of tricky cases more succinct as you describe only the differences which mark them out as unique.

The two example descriptions above are typical in that they pair with one other case (so you should start to notice similar pairs of descriptions across your table)

First you just notice enough information to know "it's either x or y" because you see "three checker in three bar" (for example) Then you notice the extra information (adjacent or opposite) and you know whether it is x or y. Again this is double-rewarding because once you start to learn which one is x, then ipso facto you start to learn which one is y (because it's not x).

Por supuesto, as time passes by, your brain doesn't see "five checker on left" (or whatever), it just recognises the case. This is what your ticks are for in your table. Again this is key. There is no point writing down descriptions of cases you recognise and secondly, each tick is minimising the possibilities for all the cases you don't know!

A couple of final points:

1. You never fully know two sided pll recognition. Like look ahead, it just improves indefinitely i.e. the pause time between oll and pll decreases. But watch the fastest cubers: there is still a pause there. The key is to start off on the road to minimising this pause and the first step is to stop peaking at a third side for further information (so when I say I have 74 ticks in my table, sometimes I still stare at the case for five seconds in a slow solve before my brain recognises it but eventually I think "T perm Go!" and the next time it will be quicker etc)

2. Many cubers, most faster than myself, fundamentally misunderstand this and you will read dreadful advice across this forum like "I find it quicker to just peak at a third side" which is even more flawed than the immortal "you can be sub whatever without full oll so there is no point in learning it"

3. Soon after starting this method, I realised that I was learning more than I set out to. Now I am recognising a case by both perm AND angle and thinking "this is Ja perm from the U2 angle" (for example). To compound this learning during slow solves, close your eyes after you recognise the case and complete both the U turns and perm all at once.

4. Extrapolating this idea, the next step would obviously be to also recognise the auf that will be required at the end so that eventually you can see any pll from any angle and close your eyes and complete the three steps in one go: auf - pll - auf (this is something I look forward to teaching myself once my table has 84 ticks in it )

Happy cubing

 

[Malkom]

If am watching jperm's youtube video on predicting the final position of an f2l pair whilst building the cross.

He says that if you predict where the white face of the corner piece will be (plus position of corner and edge piece) then you will know what case you have.

But it could still be one of two cases, right? Just knowing the position of the corner and edge pieces plus the white face is not enough information, is it?

So even though I know where the pieces are and where the white face is, I still have to then pause after cross, verify which of the two cases it is, then solve f2l pair.

Or am I missing something?

Thanks y'all

If you only know where the white face of corner and edge is there's two cases. If you know the orientation of the edge there's only one case.

 

[Tom Joad]

Thanks Malkom.

Regarding my slow solving practice:

As a 21 second solver, with weak cross to f2l transition, would you recommend I just practice tracking pieces as I solve my cross (I can solve all but the trickiest crosses blind) or that I actually take longer inspection to predict the positions of my first f2l pair before starting.

These are clearly two different methods of practice and I have read a lot of conflicting advice regarding the best way to improve this.

 

[S_EEk_ER]

Hi all,

My first post - cool forum you have here!

I have an old Rubik's Cube which I can solve without problem using the 'beginner' algorithms. I decided to purchase the cube below because it's faster/smoother to use.


Black 3x3x3 MoYu AoLong V2 Puzzle by MoYu

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00O2TU3JS/ref=pe_3034960_236394800_TE_3p_dp_1


The cube was brand new, sealed and fully solved. Since I've scrambled it, I have only been able to solve it once and I believe it was by accident.

The problem is the algorithm below will not solve the final corners of the cube.

I perform the

R’ D’ R D​

algorithm 2 or 4 times, then

U'​

to proceed with the next corner.

I have also attached a picture: top-left, my old solved cube and bottom-right, the MoYu AoLong cube in the orientation I cannot solve.

Also, I have NEVER taken this cube apart so it should be solvable.

Can someone please help? I've watched numerous YouTube videos and everyone seems to do the same algorithm for beginners, but for me, it never works.

 

[Brest]

Can someone please help? I've watched numerous YouTube videos and everyone seems to do the same algorithm for beginners, but for me, it never works.

You have a twisted corner. This can happen while solving. It should be easy to twist it back.

 

[S_EEk_ER]

Hi Brest,

Can you elaborate on me having a twisted corner? I've scrambled the cube at least 100 times and I always end up with the same issue when trying to solve the final corners, with the 'twisted corner' as you put it.

My problem is I don't know cube theory other than the basic 'beginner' algorithms, so it's actually very difficult for me to figure out how to solve this.

 

[JustAnotherGenericCuber]

If 3 corners need to be rotated, all 3 will need to be rotated in the same direction (all 3 clockwise or all 3 counterclockwise)
If 2 corners need to be rotated, then one will need to be rotated clockwise and one will need to be rotated counterclockwise.
If 4 corners need to be rotated, then 2 will need to be rotated clockwise and 2 will need to be rotated counterclockwise.
Edit: if you get a case other than those above, physically twist one of the corners to match one of the cases.