Would seperated ortega be better than pure ortega?

[Zarxrax]

I was messing around with my 2x2 and discovered that it's possible to do ortega if you consider opposite layers as the same, kind of like guimond. This lets you use fewer moves for the first step and the oll step, but it introduces a new separation step.
I started reading around on the wiki, and noticed that I'm not the first to notice that you can do this. But my question is, would this be faster than normal ortega, slower, or about the same?

Here is a full rundown of the method in case you don't know what I'm talking about:

1. Make a face of opposite colors
2. Use more efficient OLLs to orient the other face (the ones marked with G here)
3. Separate the colors intuitively or with algs
4. PBL

I see some advantages in this method over pure ortega, namely:
+ First step requires fewer moves
+ It's very easy to look ahead into the OLL before you even start the solve
+ OLLs use fewer moves

But it also has the disadvantage:
- Requires an extra (but short) separation step

Thoughts?

 

[Stini]

To me that just sounds like a slower version of Guimond. Only difference to Guimond is that you orient opposite faces in two steps and with more moves.

 

[Zarxrax]

To me that just sounds like a slower version of Guimond. Only difference to Guimond is that you orient opposite faces in two steps and with more moves.

From what I see, it's the same number of steps as guimond, but does use a few more moves. It needs less algorithms though.

 

[Stini]

Most of the time the first step of Guimond is already done and if it's not then you can still do the both faces in one look.

I'm not sure if separated Ortega would be faster that pure Ortega. One thing I like to do in pure Ortega is to look during inspection what my first layer case will be and if I have a block, I look where it will be located. With separated Ortega recognition of the PBL-case is slightly slower because of this. I have used separated Ortega from time to time, if I already have the first step done.

 

[Zarxrax]

Most of the time the first step of Guimond is already done and if it's not then you can still do the both faces in one look.

I'm not sure if separated Ortega would be faster that pure Ortega. One thing I like to do in pure Ortega is to look during inspection what my first layer case will be and if I have a block, I look where it will be located. With separated Ortega recognition of the PBL-case is slightly slower because of this. I have used separated Ortega from time to time, if I already have the first step done.

You make some good points. However, I'm not able to look through an ortega solve all the way to the PBL. Heck, I usually can't even see which OLL I will get. But with this separated version, It's much easier to look into the OLL. So, maybe this is a better method for less advanced solvers who haven't developed their ability to look far into the solve?

 

[Stini]

It might actually be a good alternative method if you have a difficult case for the first face (meaning that you can't see the what the first layer will look like during inspection).

 

[iasimp1997]

I found this a long time ago.
I guess it's a good method. I sometimes find it hard to get sub10 with it though.
Standard LBL or standard Ortega is better for me.

 

[Deleted member 4527]

I would just stick with standard Ortega. Recognition is better for me since I can always see the bottom layer permutation and the OLL most of the time. I don't see how this method can get consistently sub-4.

 

[Stini]

Most of the time the first step of Guimond is already done and if it's not then you can still do the both faces in one look.

I'm not sure if separated Ortega would be faster that pure Ortega. One thing I like to do in pure Ortega is to look during inspection what my first layer case will be and if I have a block, I look where it will be located. With separated Ortega recognition of the PBL-case is slightly slower because of this. I have used separated Ortega from time to time, if I already have the first step done.

You make some good points. However, I'm not able to look through an ortega solve all the way to the PBL. Heck, I usually can't even see which OLL I will get. But with this separated version, It's much easier to look into the OLL. So, maybe this is a better method for less advanced solvers who haven't developed their ability to look far into the solve?

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, but I'd like to clarify my point anyway. I only look during inspection what the first layer will look like. I don't usually look into OLL unless the first face is really easy. I find that PBL recognition is slower for me than OLL so I like to spend my inspection time to reduce my PBL recognition time (I only have to look at the top layer to know the case). OLL is fast to recognize even if you don't see it during inspection, so the gain in look ahead in separated Ortega is fairly small in my opinion.

 

[Zarxrax]

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, but I'd like to clarify my point anyway. I only look during inspection what the first layer will look like. I don't usually look into OLL unless the first face is really easy. I find that PBL recognition is slower for me than OLL so I like to spend my inspection time to reduce my PBL recognition time (I only have to look at the top layer to know the case). OLL is fast to recognize even if you don't see it during inspection, so the gain in look ahead in separated Ortega is fairly small in my opinion.

Oh ok, gotcha. I had read that wrong.

 

[DavidWoner]

This is 2-look OFOTA. Not as good as regular OFOTA. The diagonal subset sucks.

 

[oskarasbrink]

this works just as good or better than ortega with some cases.
(ofcourse worse in some cases)
i like it

 

[deadalnix]

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, but I'd like to clarify my point anyway. I only look during inspection what the first layer will look like. I don't usually look into OLL unless the first face is really easy. I find that PBL recognition is slower for me than OLL so I like to spend my inspection time to reduce my PBL recognition time (I only have to look at the top layer to know the case). OLL is fast to recognize even if you don't see it during inspection, so the gain in look ahead in separated Ortega is fairly small in my opinion.

If you use ROLL, you needn't to recognize the last step.

 

[qqwref]

It's more steps and thus slower, similar to how Guimond is slower than SS. More steps makes a difference because if you can't lookahead to a step you have to waste 0.5 sec or so recognizing it and on the 2x2 that is a lot of time.