The One-Answer Question Thread [closed]

[martydj123]

RUR'U' is just a sequence of moves which you can perform without regripping your cube, it's called a trigger. This one is probably the most famous because it is the easiest to perform and is present in many algorithms.

Here I got you a T perm for example : (R U R' U') (R' F R2 U' R' U') (R U R' F'). The parenthesis show the blocks I perform without regripping the cube. This also allows you to work on the 3 parts independently, and then later to put them together. Also you'll find that some come back a lot in different algorithm, which always makes them easier to learn, since you remember them by a sequence of 3-4 triggers, rather than specific single moves which can get confusing and tedious to learn.

About the "training" method, it was more of a warm up thing to get better at your LL algs, I do this myself with PLL algs at the moment since I learned them recently. When I know I'll be cubing and timing myself for a while I first start an ao5 and between each solve, I quickly do every PLL alg, or at least the ones that are the most problematic.

Did you start with F2L already ? If not I'd start as soon as possible. It'll probably be a little hard at first, and slow, but by the time your 4LLL gets better your F2L should start to be ok.

Oh. So a "trigger" is basically a group of moves that do something specific (e.g. pair together these two pieces). Some algs are made up of various triggers and the same trigger can appear in different algs so it's best to know these triggers by heart and know what they do and when to use them instead of trying to learn each alg as a chain of moves. Did I get that right?

The parentheses used to confuse me whenever I learned algs so I did my best to ignore them. I guess it's time to learn them. I suppose I can try to learn different triggers first and try to apply them to algs.

As for the LL, I'm actually frustrated since my 4LLL sometimes gets messed up at the end. I'm certain I did everything right, but when I permute the corners with R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2, I see I messed up because my F' doesn't restore the last layer color. I thought it was a simple error, but it's happened several times now. And I always notice it because the FU pieces are wrong.

I read the the thread here entitled "How to Get Faster using the Fridrich / CFOP Method". (Sorry, I don't know how to link threads.)
I hate that while I've basically learned all the algs in Step 1, I rarely get over 1:30. I've never even touched 1:20 yet.

I'm struggling with 4LLL, but the thread says it should get me to 40-49 seconds. I'm fairly certain I'm far away from that point.

 

[aboeglin]

You got it right about triggers yes. But don't learn triggers to learn triggers, but rather try to split the algs the way you find it easier to execute. And when learning a new alg, try to see if there are triggers that you've been using already, if so, it should make it much easier to perform and learn. Also, different cubers might split algs differently because of different fingertricks. Also, I don't know this alg, but it doesn't seem handy to perform, try to avoid B moves in algs. So for this one you could start with x' so your Bs become Us, your Rs stay Rs, and your Fs becomes Ds.

And, I hear your frustration, I still don't perform full PLL very well, but what I like in it is that I know I'll get better at it with time so I don't put too much effort on this for now, I still strongly focus on F2L, which is the real bottleneck. If I get my F2L done in less than 20sec I'm most likely to get a sub30 solve, but if I can't, it's much harder except I have an OLL or PLL skip.

If I were you I'd start with F2L if you haven't already. Just practice F2L only for a day or two, doing a few complete solves from time to time, and once you can solve F2L pairs confidently you start doing full solves again until you get sub60. Your LL will definitely get better, but you need to deal with the fact that you learned a bunch of algs in a short amount of time and it takes much more to master them.

 

[ThomasJE]

If you're struggling with 4LLL, you may want to check out my guide on my website. There's a link in my signature below.

 

[tseitsei]

I'm starting to get into 2x2 more and I was wondering one thing:
Why is it that everyone learns/says you should learn CLL and then EG-1?
I thought about this and came into conclusion that if you always choose the easiest face it's 4 times more likely to be an "EG-1 face" than a solved layer.
Isn't that right?
So then what's the reason to learn CLL before EG-1?

The reason to learn EG-1 first seems obvious: Shorter/easier first "layer" than in CLL --> shorter solutions and even bigger advantage is easier 1-looking because of shorter first step...

Please enlighten me someone?

 

[TDM]

I'm starting to get into 2x2 more and I was wondering one thing:
Why is it that everyone learns/says you should learn CLL and then EG-1?
I thought about this and came into conclusion that if you always choose the easiest face it's 4 times more likely to be an "EG-1 face" than a solved layer.
Isn't that right?
So then what's the reason to learn CLL before EG-1?

The reason to learn EG-1 first seems obvious: Shorter/easier first "layer" than in CLL --> shorter solutions and even bigger advantage is easier 1-looking because of shorter first step...

Please enlighten me someone?

CLL is a good method on its own. Also, people don't make faces and hope they're layers in CLL. They make them as layers, which isn't that bad (although it isn't as easy as making faces). When you make a face, there's a 1/3 chance that you can't use an EG-1 alg. That's quite a big chance. You could use anti-CLL to cover 5/6th of the cases, but CLL is a good method on its own. You can't use EG-1 as a method on its own, unless you purposely force the layer to be permuted incorrectly. Also, there's a chance you already know up to a quarter of CLL already. There are the same number of cases/algs, but there are less algs to learn. You won't know any of the EG-1 algs except for three PBLs.
It is really useful to learn both CLL and EG-1 though. You don't really need EG-2 to get very good times.

Sorry if my post doesn't completely make sense; I had everything then changed the order a bit because I realised I wasn't answering your question properly.

 

[tseitsei]

CLL is a good method on its own. Also, people don't make faces and hope they're layers in CLL. They make them as layers, which isn't that bad (although it isn't as easy as making faces). When you make a face, there's a 1/3 chance that you can't use an EG-1 alg.

Yes but I meant that you would ALWAYS make a face that has an adjacent swap. (2/3 of a time the easiest face anyway if your 1/3 number is correct). Just like you always make a face with "no swaps" (a layer) for CLL. (easiest face only quite rarely compared to EG-1 face)

You can't use EG-1 as a method on its own, unless you purposely force the layer to be permuted incorrectly.

And that bolded thing is exactly what I am suggesting you would do, because building an incorrectly permuted layer with adjacent swap is often the easiest face anyway and on average requires fewer moves than complete face.

Also, there's a chance you already know up to a quarter of CLL already. There are the same number of cases/algs, but there are less algs to learn. You won't know any of the EG-1 algs except for three PBLs.

Well that's true.

It is really useful to learn both CLL and EG-1 though. You don't really need EG-2 to get very good times.

Also true.

 

[TDM]

And that bolded thing is exactly what I am suggesting you would do, because building an incorrectly permuted layer with adjacent swap is often the easiest face anyway and on average requires fewer moves than complete face.

Ah. It didn't appear that was what you meant from your original post. Sorry for misunderstanding. It was the "I thought about this and came into conclusion that if you always choose the easiest face it's 4 times more likely to be an "EG-1 face" than a solved layer" bit.

Yes but I meant that you would ALWAYS make a face that has an adjacent swap. (2/3 of a time the easiest face anyway if your 1/3 number is correct). Just like you always make a face with "no swaps" (a layer) for CLL. (easiest face only quite rarely compared to EG-1 face)

Interesting idea. However, as you said to learn this before CLL, I think that many people would just be switching from Ortega, and so wouldn't be very experienced with 2x2. EG-1 requries you to know where the bar will be in inspection, and some (not all) Ortega solvers may not be good at planning this in inspection. I know I can't for some of the bad cases. I think that a layer will not only be able to understand, but also easier to see in inspection.

However, I can't really see much of a disadvantage... but then I'm not the most experienced person at 2x2. I'm thinking it could be a better idea, as you only need to make sure you haven't correctly permuted the face, and then with CLL/anti-CLL you can solve in one look from there. I'd learn this, but I'd like to see opinions from people who are better at 2x2 and know what they're talking about. There could be a huge disadvantage that I've either missed or not seen is as bad as it is.

 

[tseitsei]

Ah. It didn't appear that was what you meant from your original post. Sorry for misunderstanding. It was the "I thought about this and came into conclusion that if you always choose the easiest face it's 4 times more likely to be an "EG-1 face" than a solved layer" bit.

By this I meant that you are more likely to get an easy "EG-1 face" than an easy layer. But I understand the confusion. My wording wasn't that clear.

Interesting idea. However, as you said to learn this before CLL, I think that many people would just be switching from Ortega, and so wouldn't be very experienced with 2x2. EG-1 requries you to know where the bar will be in inspection, and some (not all) Ortega solvers may not be good at planning this in inspection. I know I can't for some of the bad cases.

I am also switching from ortega, but I'm somewhat experienced with it. I avg~4.5 and can predict the bar location 99% and even predict OLL in quite a few cases(usually resulting to sub-4 solve if I do that).

I think that a layer will not only be able to understand, but also easier to see in inspection.

I think that a layer concept might be slightly easier to understand, but I disagree with the bolded part.
Many people would be switching from ortega so they would be familiar with building faces(most of which are naturally already adjacent swaps) and also the fact that it takes less moves on average than doing a layer.
This makes me believe that 1-looking and planning the first step would be easier with EG-1 than with CLL.

However, I can't really see much of a disadvantage... but then I'm not the most experienced person at 2x2. I'm thinking it could be a better idea, as you only need to make sure you haven't correctly permuted the face, and then with CLL/anti-CLL you can solve in one look from there. I'd learn this, but I'd like to see opinions from people who are better at 2x2 and know what they're talking about. There could be a huge disadvantage that I've either missed or not seen is as bad as it is.

Yeah, I can't see the disadvantage either. Actually I only see advantages of this option over the normal CLL-first option. But I'm not that good at 2x2 either so I might be overlooking something... That's why I posted in the first place.

P.S. Thanks for the feedback TDM

 

[scottishcuber]

@tseitsei

I think that the position of the block is a pretty big restriction for EG-1, this is one of the reasons that I find two-looking with EG1 much harder than with CLL. So if you're at the stage of a beginner and can barely one-look - if at all - then I wouldn't recommend learning EG1 first.

Anyway, learning CLL is fun. the algs are faster (for me) and you don't need to worry about where the permutation of the first layer, as that's already done. I think learning CLL first will promote better 2x2 habits, although I'd be very interested in someone who learns EG1 before CLL (that could be you).

 

[tseitsei]

Yeah. I'm gonna learn either CLL or EG-1 next. Propably EG-1 because I just can't see the harm in it...
Maybe I'll regret it later...or then not

And I have solved with ortega so much that when I plan a face I kind of automatically track where the bar will be

 

[TDM]

By this I meant that you are more likely to get an easy "EG-1 face" than an easy layer.

I understand now. It was just a little unclear at first.

I am also switching from ortega, but I'm somewhat experienced with it. I avg~4.5 and can predict the bar location 99% and even predict OLL in quite a few cases(usually resulting to sub-4 solve if I do that).

I do/can too, but some (I don't know how many) people won't plan the first layer's permutation during inspection. The fact that you don't need to know the ADF (?) of the first face/layer can be helpful to some people who's recognition isn't as good.

I think that a layer concept might be slightly easier to understand, but I disagree with the bolded part.
Many people would be switching from ortega so they would be familiar with building faces(most of which are naturally already adjacent swaps) and also the fact that it takes less moves on average than doing a layer.
This makes me believe that 1-looking and planning the first step would be easier with EG-1 than with CLL.

Yeah, you're right again. I can't remember what my original point was now, but maybe it was the thing about knowing where the bar is.

And lol, what was I even thinking when I typed my first post... you can't use anti-CLL with EG-1 to be able to do 5/6 of the cases. Because you wouldn't know CLL. :fp:fp:fp.

Anyway, learning CLL is fun. the algs are faster (for me) and you don't need to worry about where the permutation of the first layer, as that's already done. I think learning CLL first will promote better 2x2 habits, although I'd be very interested in someone who learns EG1 before CLL (that could be you).

Yeah, it's difficult deciding which I should learn first. I might try EG-1 just to see what it's like... but I already know 13/42 CLLs, and I only know 3/43 EG-1s. This is just like deciding my A levels

 

[Bindedsa]

Once I'm done with CLL, is there any reason not to go straight into EG1, If I am willing to learn the algs?

 

[kcl]

Once I'm done with CLL, is there any reason not to go straight into EG1, If I am willing to learn the algs?

Yeah. Get your recognition down. You know how you have to pause and think "what alg goes with this case"? When you don't have to do that, learn EG1.


To the dude who wants to learn EG1 first: Don't. CLL's are faster, and more versatile. I mean that if you don't see a fairly easy layer, which doesn't usually happen, you can onelook an Ortega solve. Since CLLs don't effect the bottom layer, you can manipulate your PBL. In addition, you also get the ability to onelook EG2 cases with anti CLL. I know anti CLL is not as good as EG2, but it is definitely still fast.

 

[Archie]

i have a doubt. How fast can u get with CF 2look oll 2look pll

This is a question only for sub-20 speed cubers. How fast do you think i Can get With Cross F2l 2look oll and?

 

[guysensei1]

For the Dayan 2x2, what's the difference between tensioning one side and it's opposite side?
They're technically the same with the bandaging right?

 

[Michael Womack]

For the Dayan 2x2, what's the difference between tensioning one side and it's opposite side?
They're technically the same with the bandaging right?

Yes it would give all sides equal corner cutting.

 

[tseitsei]

To the dude who wants to learn EG1 first: Don't. CLL's are faster

Ok. I can't really know that since I don't know the algs for either one of them.

and more versatile. I mean that if you don't see a fairly easy layer, which doesn't usually happen, you can onelook an Ortega solve. Since CLLs don't effect the bottom layer, you can manipulate your PBL.

One looking ortega solve is propably a little easier with CLL than with EG-1, but I think it would not be that hard to just predict the bottom layer also since most algs just swap front edges.

In addition, you also get the ability to onelook EG2 cases with anti CLL.

This is true, BUT the propability for the easiest face to be an adjacent swap is still higher than the propabilities of solved layer and diagonal swap combined. So I would still get more easy faces.

It might be a bad idea but I think I'll do it anyway just to see how it goes...

But thanks for the feedback anyway. You had good points and even some that I didn't even consider before that much

 

[TiLiMayor]

Say, in an official solve, you pop a couple of pieces and put them back, but when finishing the solve you end up with a permutation parity error, and in order to fix it, you leave to adjacent corners swapped, remove the 1x1x3 block they are in, rotate it 180º (y2 z), and then fix the orientation of each piece manually.. Is this a valid maneuver? Does it inflict with 5b2? Or, on the other hand, is it 5b3c compliant?

 

[TDM]

i have a doubt. How fast can u get with CF 2look oll 2look pll

This is a question only for sub-20 speed cubers. How fast do you think i Can get With Cross F2l 2look oll and?

I'm sub-25 with the beginner's method: cross, first layer corners, second layer edges, 2-look OLL, 2-look PLL. I don't use it as my main method, but I'm not actually that much slower than with intuitive F2L, half the OLLs and full PLL. The difference is about 8 seconds. I don't know how fast I am with intuitive F2L though... but that would probably make the gap between CFOP and LBL for me even smaller.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

ZZ solvers: What is the difference between XEOline and regular EOline? I've also heard the term EO cross. Explain?