Jokerman5656
Catch Me If You Can
Nice to see this thread has almost made it 6 years, I'm gonna have to put it in school or something soon
I am doing the alg carefullyYour probably just messing up the alg. sq 1 algs are easy to mess up
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.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!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!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.
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.Lol sorry forgot to reply. I hope you see this!
I’m glad it was helpfulThanks 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.
Lookahead isn’t great
Good lookahead
not really, full EO, CP and non-parity EP is 64 algs, even less than full PLL+1 for Lin.Tons of algs to memorize to become world class
Vandenbergh has much easier and straightforward lookahead compared to 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.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.
Recognition time? CO and EO recognition combined should take less than a second and CP and EP can be looked ahead to.it loses with recognition time
They’re not necessary though, I average 9.5 with none.Most people will learn some PBL when they get good at squan w/ Vandenbergh
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.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.