• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

X-Cross, Multislotting, Full OLL/PLL, cubemodding neccesary to get sub-20?

Akuma

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
305
WCA
2010COST01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I am not the one to judge people here, but a lot of people here seem to put great emphesis on using techniques that are in my opinion completely unneccesary.

Take me for instance, I've been cubing for a little bit more than half a year. I am still using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL, my F2L is amaturish at best and yet I am slowly getting closer to sub-30.
I know very few F2L cases, 20/41 at best.

I use no extended cross, no multislotting, no full OLL/PLL and the cube I use is a basic Rubiks Original that cannot cut any corners at all yet I am getting closer and closer to sub-20. I'm getting better and better at F2l each day and now that I started to stop doing cube rotations during F2L I am noticing significant time gaining.

I have little understanding for people who unsubstantiated claim that these extended methods are a requirement for getting fast solving speeds yet I've seen threads where people say that they can easily get sub-20 with a good lookahead AND using 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL.

Are X-cross, multislotting and full OLL/PLL really that significant for getting good times?
 

Akuma

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
305
WCA
2010COST01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I agree completely that a good lookahead is indeed neccesary to get sub-20, heck you need it to even get sub-30.

I recently started to use look-ahead once I knew most F2L cases an started doing them from most angles. I am surprised how many people insist on learning the 41 F2L cases without applying them efficiently

Also, why do you think full PLL is neccesary? I am curious about your answer.
Cheers.
 

ChrisBird

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
867
Location
San Jose
WCA
2009BIRD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
These following statements are completely my own opinion.

X-Cross is not necessary, it is very useful when you want to be sub-15, but not necessary for sub-20.

Multislotting: This is an even more extreme case, moreso then X-cross, meaning, if you want sub-15, this will be very helpful, but again, not necessary for sub-20.

Full PLL: Yes, I believe this is necessary for most people in order to be sub-20, some people have incredible F2L look ahead so they have the time for 4LLL, but I think learning 1-Look PLL is defiantly necessary.

For me, 4LLL takes me about 8 seconds while 3LLL (1-Look PLL) takes about 4-6 depending on the case. That's a good 3 second drop.

1-Look OLL: Certainly not a requirement, I don't use it and am averaging literally 20.0x.

Over all, most of these advanced techniques aren't necessary for sub-20, but are very helpful for sub-15 or below.

~Chris
 

blah

brah
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
2,139
Location
.
No one ever knows what they're talking about when they use the word "multislotting."

Multislotting: This is an even more extreme case, moreso then X-cross, meaning, if you want sub-15, this will be very helpful, but again, not necessary for sub-20.
Chris, you appear to be pretty knowledgeable. Name me three people who actively use multislotting.
 

josmil1

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
102
I think turning speed and look ahead is what determines sub 20. With full pll and 2 look oll i can only get 30-35 second averages. I am currently learning full oll, only 5 left :D.

My fastest PLL's are the U perms and i can only do it as fast as 3 seconds while the other plls range from 4-7 seconds. While a lot of people can do sub 2 on almost all of their PLLs ?!?!?!

What is considered decent F2L time apart from cross, OLL, PLL??
 

ChrisBird

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
867
Location
San Jose
WCA
2009BIRD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
No one ever knows what they're talking about when they use the word "multislotting."

Multislotting: This is an even more extreme case, moreso then X-cross, meaning, if you want sub-15, this will be very helpful, but again, not necessary for sub-20.
Chris, you appear to be pretty knowledgeable. Name me three people who actively use multislotting.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I stand by my opinion that multislotting will help being sub-15. Is it necessary for sub-15? Of course not, but it will help.

Why would you need me to name 3 people who use it?
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,936
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
No one ever knows what they're talking about when they use the word "multislotting."

Multislotting: This is an even more extreme case, moreso then X-cross, meaning, if you want sub-15, this will be very helpful, but again, not necessary for sub-20.
Chris, you appear to be pretty knowledgeable. Name me three people who actively use multislotting.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I stand by my opinion that multislotting will help being sub-15. Is it necessary for sub-15? Of course not, but it will help.

Why would you need me to name 3 people who use it?

Because there AREN'T 3 people who use it. Knowing 1 or 2 cases and using them one out of every 20 solves doesn't count as using multislotting. Most of the time, any "multislotting" people use is just regular f2l with obvious cancellations.
 

ChrisBird

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
867
Location
San Jose
WCA
2009BIRD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
No one ever knows what they're talking about when they use the word "multislotting."

Multislotting: This is an even more extreme case, moreso then X-cross, meaning, if you want sub-15, this will be very helpful, but again, not necessary for sub-20.
Chris, you appear to be pretty knowledgeable. Name me three people who actively use multislotting.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I stand by my opinion that multislotting will help being sub-15. Is it necessary for sub-15? Of course not, but it will help.

Why would you need me to name 3 people who use it?

Because there AREN'T 3 people who use it. Knowing 1 or 2 cases and using them one out of every 20 solves doesn't count as using multislotting. Most of the time, any "multislotting" people use is just regular f2l with obvious cancellations.

I don't recall claiming that many people use it (or anyone for that matter).

All I remember claiming is that if you have a understand of what it is, how it works, and know how to use it, or techniques similar to it (I don't of course), it will help you be sub-15.
Once again, I do not believe it necessary, nor do I believe a lot of people use it.
 

cincyaviation

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
1,944
Location
Lawrenceburg, IN
WCA
2010HOVL02
i hate it when the uber-noobs get into their arguements,
ON topic, i believe full PLL is probably necessary to be sub 20, at least in an avg of 100, because your times would be 2-3 seconds worse on all the cases you don't know, and why not learn all the stuff now? because you will probably do it eventually anyway
 

blah

brah
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
2,139
Location
.
I don't recall claiming that many people use it (or anyone for that matter).

All I remember claiming is that if you have a understand of what it is, how it works, and know how to use it, or techniques similar to it (I don't of course), it will help you be sub-15.
Once again, I do not believe it necessary, nor do I believe a lot of people use it.
R U' R2 U R2 U' R' is multislotting. True or false? Why or why not?

Simple question. Answer it, then you can ask why I asked.
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
i hate it when the uber-noobs get into their arguements,

>>uber-noobs

1257585014963.jpg
 

Cride5

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
1,228
Location
Scotland
WCA
2009RIDE01
I don't see how any of those techniques are absolutely needed to be sub-20. Sub-20 is possible with LBL.

Each technique simply contributes to reducing your time by some proportion. How large a proportion of your time that is depends on the technique and how good you are at it. It can often be the case that learning a technique (such as 1L-OLL) will contribute to slowing you down in the short term. This is no reason avoid adopting advanced techniques unless you believe they will never be faster than what you're currently using. I like to consider new things/algorithms as an investment. It costs now, but will save you (seconds) in the future ;)
 
Last edited:

JTW2007

BattsMan
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,591
Location
WCA
2008WARL01
I think full PLL is good to learn (if you're using Fridrich, that is), but lookahead is really all I care about or use. I have only had a few sub-14 averages (of 5), but I don't use multislotting, x-cross, or anywhere near full OLL, and I'm sure that there's someone faster than me who uses the same system.
 
Top