When to learn Full OLL?

[FatBoyXPC]

Man the arguments here. Great valid points, yet such hostility. I think part of the problem is that some of the sites that I would check (right now primarily the wiki) aren't quite as inclusive as one would expect. For example, the MGLS page on the wiki doesn't have Lucas' write up on the page, just a link to his page as a resource. I honestly would think had I not checked the page that on his page he just typed something similar to what is on the wiki entry for that.

I think a big help would be a nice organized document (thread, wiki page, etc) about getting started on the 3x3, listing the main methods, alternatives, links to write ups (stating clearly that it's a link to a write up, not a resource), alternative methods, then methods with other cubes (and non-cube shape puzzles). I know we've got a few of them out there but it's not kept updated so it's not quite as inclusive as I would want it to be if I just learned how to solve a storebought cube from the little paper inside it, and I wanted to learn how to get faster. Sure most of the "noob guides" you find (especially badmethpisto's) are great, and will help you get faster real quick, but it's not near as inclusive as what I described would be.

Edit: I forgot to talk about the part that this would take time, and certainly anybody could pose the question "Do you want to spend your time doing that?" And of course some of us (including me) don't have a lot of time. There are certainly a good handful of people here though that obviously spend a lot of time doing that already

 

[Ranzha]

Learning full OLL, imho, depends upon your cubing style. At your stance, 17-19 is a great time to learn full OLL. You can learn the algorithms and use them for practise, but you are the one that will decide to use them during speedsolving.

I average 20-21 now, and I know roughly 35 of the OLLs. I started learning them a few weeks ago, and I like how most of the algorithms turned out--really finger tricky, some mirrors, and you get a wide variety of cses so that solving them will never become monotonous. However, this summer I'll try learning something where not many of us have tried to go before--CLL/ELL. Apparently it has a fewer movecount, and I saqw some of the algs and they looked sexy.

I think OLL really opens the solver's mind into thinking abstractly, as where the pair goes for the alg (R U R' U) (R U' R' U') (R' F R F').

The order in which I think you should start learning the algs is as such:

OCLL--you already know this.
All corners oriented -- 3 algs.
"T" shapes -- 2 algs.
"C", "W", and squares -- a total of 6 algorithms. These are easy to distinguish and easy to apply.
Fish -- 4 algs.

That'll start you up for the rest of them. These are easy and fun cases to learn, imho.

Hope this helps!

--Ranzha

 

[Akuma]

There is someone who averages 12 with 2 look OLL.
*...searches...*

While I do agree that it is entirely possible to get a sub-12 average with the 2-look OLL y ou do realize that it is very unlikely - if not - virtually impossible to do so. You would need to finish the F2L in less than 8 seconds to finish off the last layer withing reasonable time to even get to that average. Finishing the F2L in less than 8 second is a feat that of the World Record Holder. You would need to be a GOD to be that quick.

And to further strenghten my point - The World Record Holder (Erik.A) has made a video of solving the cube with 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL on a sub-20 average.

Sure you could find a needle in a haystack, but it is firggin' hard, next to impossible.

 

[nitrocan]

There is someone who averages 12 with 2 look OLL.
*...searches...*

While I do agree that it is entirely possible to get a sub-12 average with the 2-look OLL y ou do realize that it is very unlikely - if not - virtually impossible to do so. You would need to finish the F2L in less than 8 seconds to finish off the last layer withing reasonable time to even get to that average. Finishing the F2L in less than 8 second is a feat that of the World Record Holder. You would need to be a GOD to be that quick.

And to further strenghten my point - The World Record Holder (Erik.A) has made a video of solving the cube with 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL on a sub-20 average.

Sure you could find a needle in a haystack, but it is firggin' hard, next to impossible.

That one extra algorithm adds about one second to your solve.
So to have a 12 second average with 2LOLL, you need to have a regular 11 second average. Not that impossible I think.

 

[Akuma]

That one extra algorithm adds about one second to your solve.
So to have a 12 second average with 2LOLL, you need to have a regular 11 second average. Not that impossible I think.

An algorithm for OLL is usually 8-10 turns.
You telling me that 8-10 tps is normal?
I highly doubt that. 99% of most speedcubers wouldn't even dare dreaming of doing F2L in less than 8 seconds, much less an entire OLL algorithm in less than a second. You need to be amongst the top-tier 20 worlds best cubers to get a sub-11 average with 2-look OLL - like I said - a feat fit for a world record holder.
For the rest of us, suggesting that it is completely feasable is completely and utterly ridiculous.

 

[nitrocan]

That one extra algorithm adds about one second to your solve.
So to have a 12 second average with 2LOLL, you need to have a regular 11 second average. Not that impossible I think.

An algorithm for OLL is usually 8-10 turns.
You telling me that 8-10 tps is normal?
I highly doubt that. 99% of most speedcubers wouldn't even dare dreaming of doing F2L in less than 8 seconds, much less an entire OLL algorithm in less than a second. You need to be amongst the top-tier 20 worlds best cubers to get a sub-11 average with 2-look OLL - like I said - a feat fit for a world record holder.
For the rest of us, suggesting that it is completely feasable is completely and utterly ridiculous.

12 second = sub-13

Anyway, you're right when you say you need to be top-tier 20 in 3x3x3. Those are the people I was talking about.

EDIT: When you use 2LOLL, then first algorithm is usually a F (R U R' U') F', etc. and the next one is either a very fast (R,U) algorithm or something still very short. 1 second loss is reasonable.

 

[Rpotts]

An algorithm for OLL is usually 8-10 turns.
You telling me that 8-10 tps is normal?
I highly doubt that. 99% of most speedcubers wouldn't even dare dreaming of doing F2L in less than 8 seconds, much less an entire OLL algorithm in less than a second. You need to be amongst the top-tier 20 worlds best cubers to get a sub-11 average with 2-look OLL - like I said - a feat fit for a world record holder.
For the rest of us, suggesting that it is completely feasable is completely and utterly ridiculous.

not hard for many of the olls, especially Ts/Ps/Sune/Pi/Double Sune/Small Lightning.

2-look OLLs are very fast and easy, you still only need around 13-17 turns for 2-look OLL, very possible to do in roughly 2-3 seconds.

 

[waffle=ijm]

wow you guys are so cool.

I know full OLL/PLL. it's not freaking hard to know all of them. It's just how fast you are with it. Despite knowing full OLL/PLL, I'm not using CFOP anytime soon.

Just get it over with and out of the way.

 

[joey]

Finishing the F2L in less than 8 second is a feat that of the World Record Holder. You would need to be a GOD to be that quick.

Are you joking? I can't tell.

 

[a small kitten]

Finishing the F2L in less than 8 second is a feat that of the World Record Holder. You would need to be a GOD to be that quick.

I guess this religion is polytheistic then.

 

[Chapuunka]

I say you learn it whenever you have the motivation to. I should probably learn full OLL now, but I have 0 motivation so it's not going to happen.

 

[rubiknewbie]

Learn it now. OLL and PLL are core skills worth learning before you decide to move on to VHF2L, COLL, CLLEF, ZB etc.

Unless you decide to choose alternative path to last layer like CLL + ELL, or MGLS + PLL, the skills in OLL will not be wasted and can be reused in some advanced techniques.