[Help Thread] Square-1 Discussion

[Thom S.]

Misalign the bottom L by a -2

Is this image from Ruwix

 

[picklewizard21]

yah it is. Thanks for the help

 

[UnknownCuber]

As someone who just got into squan recently (avg sub 1), I would like to ask a few questions:
1.Is inconstancy due to recog time and cs?
2. How I improve cs? (maining the star first method)
3. Should I go for cp/ep or double parity?(edit: it's double pll)

 

[Thom S.]

1. Inconsistency is mostly CS, EP and Parity(Parity isn't as much of a problem when starting out but but it becomes increasingly annoying). If you use Lin or R'nS it's F2B instead of EP.

2. If you want to keep using this method, learn all the other Star cases. Otherwise, go for Scallop-Kite. The tutorial I used was the video from Brandon Lin. Follow how to do the easier cases and carefully study the Scallop-Kite method as you will be using this method for most cases before CSP

3. Explain what you mean. Double Parity means no Parity.

 

[AegisSharp]

What are the pros and cons of lin vs vandenburg for square-1? I learned how to solve a square-1 following DGCubes' tutorial and now want to get faster. I was intending to learn vandenburg, which seems to mainly be learn more algs, but I then saw one of Helmer Ewert's videos where he uses lin (with pll+1), and while I tried to search for a comparison between lin and vandenburg, I had trouble finding much.

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

What are the pros and cons of lin vs vandenburg for square-1? I learned how to solve a square-1 following DGCubes' tutorial and now want to get faster. I was intending to learn vandenburg, which seems to mainly be learn more algs, but I then saw one of Helmer Ewert's videos where he uses lin (with pll+1), and while I tried to search for a comparison between lin and vandenburg, I had trouble finding much.

There isn’t much out there to find on this specific topic, unfortunately, but I still have a bit to say. For clarification, Lin gets cubeshape, solves a corner-edge-corner block, puts it on the bottom left, and then solves another one on the bottom right. Lin then puts one edge in and solves the last bottom edge and the CO of the last layer simultaneously, and then just epll. You probably already knew this, but I wanted to make it clear for anyone else who stumbled upon this thread here. Helmer Ewert uses an advanced form of Lin where he solves the last bottom edge simultaneously with the entire last layer, thus pll+1.

Now onto the comparison. Lin is definitely more intuitive. Solving the blocks takes time to get used to but eventually can be done relatively fast. There are only 72 pll+1 algs, which makes learning them all relatively easy. The other main thing is that since the blocks on the bottom are completely solved, it’s a bit like lookahead on 3x3 because it’s relatively easy. Vandenbergh requires you to know the permutation of pieces on the bottom layer, and while you can use tricks to figure out what’s down there, it can take a lot of practice to get there, and it’s still not perfect. Lin is very convenient, especially if you do use pll+1.

In sum:

Vandenbergh:

Pros:
Commonly used, very explored
Recog for algs is decent
Very straightforward, because it’s literally just algs it’s easy to understand

Cons:
Lookahead isn’t great
Tons of algs to memorize to become world class

Lin

Pros:
Intuitive
Not a lot of algs
Good lookahead

Cons:
Not widely used/explored
Not quite as straightforward to get faster

In sum, it really depends on what you value more in a solving method: intuitive solving or more brute force alg application with various tricks to predict certain parts of your solve. You will use these tricks in Lin as well, but maybe not quite as much.

Also, and experienced squaner can and should correct me on anything I said here, I am not at all experienced with square-1.

I hope this helped!

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

What are the pros and cons of lin vs vandenburg for square-1? I learned how to solve a square-1 following DGCubes' tutorial and now want to get faster. I was intending to learn vandenburg, which seems to mainly be learn more algs, but I then saw one of Helmer Ewert's videos where he uses lin (with pll+1), and while I tried to search for a comparison between lin and vandenburg, I had trouble finding much.

Also, basic Lin can get you reasonably fast, and excluding parity it’s only something like 15 algs!

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

What are the pros and cons of lin vs vandenburg for square-1? I learned how to solve a square-1 following DGCubes' tutorial and now want to get faster. I was intending to learn vandenburg, which seems to mainly be learn more algs, but I then saw one of Helmer Ewert's videos where he uses lin (with pll+1), and while I tried to search for a comparison between lin and vandenburg, I had trouble finding much.

Lol sorry forgot to reply. I hope you see this!

 

[AegisSharp]

Lol sorry forgot to reply. I hope you see this!

Thanks a lot, this was very helpful and I have decided to learn lin now as I don't feel like learning a ton of algs for vandenburg.

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

Thanks a lot, this was very helpful and I have decided to learn lin now as I don't feel like learning a ton of algs for vandenburg.

I’m glad it was helpful

 

[PokeCubes]

Lookahead isn’t great

Good lookahead

You're mixed up. Vandenbergh has much easier and straightforward lookahead compared to Lin.

Tons of algs to memorize to become world class

not really, full EO, CP and non-parity EP is 64 algs, even less than full PLL+1 for Lin.

 

[Thom S.]

Vandenbergh has much easier and straightforward lookahead compared to Lin.

As a sub 16 Vandenbergh solver who used Lin for fun for some time, that statement is not true. Tracing 4 Corners or 3 Pieces through CS is about the same. However, that FB case will might not be good. What Vandenbergh wins for good and fast CO, EO cases, it loses with recognition time(I personally recognise EO and CP in one look to counter that)

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

You're mixed up. Vandenbergh has much easier and straightforward lookahead compared to Lin.



not really, full EO, CP and non-parity EP is 64 algs, even less than full PLL+1 for Lin.

Most people will learn some PBL when they get good at squan w/ Vandenbergh, and that will jack up the amount of algs. The important part is, to get started (and you can be quite fast with this) there are only around 15 algs and you don’t really have to learn more like you do with Vandenbergh.

 

[PokeCubes]

it loses with recognition time

Recognition time? CO and EO recognition combined should take less than a second and CP and EP can be looked ahead to.

Most people will learn some PBL when they get good at squan w/ Vandenbergh

They’re not necessary though, I average 9.5 with none.

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

Recognition time? CO and EO recognition combined should take less than a second and CP and EP can be looked ahead to.

They’re not necessary though, I average 9.5 with none.

I’m not saying you know PBL and I’m also not saying that you have to know PBL to be good. All I’m saying is that Lin needs very few algs to get good at. And while CO and EO recog take less than 1 second, Lin algs can be nearly instantaneous because you don’t have to look at the bottom. And of course EPLL is also quite easy.

 

[PokeCubes]

I'm not comparing CO+EO to CP+DF and EPLL. I'm trying to compare CO+EO to FB which imo are about the same speed depending on the scramble (and you do have to look at the bottom for both.) From there I don't think SB and PLL+1 can be faster than doing PBL or CP+EP (you pretty much have to use PLL+1 for Lin to have a chance at competing with vandenbergh).

 

[CraZZ CFOP]

I’m not saying you know PBL and I’m also not saying that you have to know PBL to be good. All I’m saying is that Lin needs very few algs to get good at. And while CO and EO recog take less than 1 second, Lin algs can be nearly instantaneous because you don’t have to look at the bottom. And of course EPLL is also quite easy.

Remember that CSP makes the alg count go up to about 200 to about 400 no matter what you use. Not that this changes this argument, but if you don't want parity, you would have to learn a lot of algs anyway.

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

Remember that CSP makes the alg count go up to about 200 to about 400 no matter what you use. Not that this changes this argument, but if you don't want parity, you would have to learn a lot of algs anyway.

I know.

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

I'm not comparing CO+EO to CP+DF and EPLL. I'm trying to compare CO+EO to FB which imo are about the same speed depending on the scramble (and you do have to look at the bottom for both.) From there I don't think SB and PLL+1 can be faster than doing PBL or CP+EP (you pretty much have to use PLL+1 for Lin to have a chance at competing with vandenbergh).

I guess it certainly could be. But I prefer the more intuitive type of solving. For some, Vandenbergh is going to be better. For some, Lin is going to be better. Just remember that Helmer Ewert uses Lin and has the former WR.

Also, Lin is better for lucky singles. I have a friend that averages 24-25 with Lin and has an 11 second PB single, just for a personal example.

 

[PokeCubes]

I have a friend that averages 24-25 with Lin and has an 11 second PB single

Single means nothing and to be fair, Andrea had the former WR single of 7.41 in a 28 official average with Vandenbergh.