# 2x2 Tips & Tricks: Road to Sub 3



## Anthony (Sep 6, 2010)

Hope this helps some people.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 6, 2010)

Beginning <3


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 6, 2010)

Anthony Rowland!


----------



## Weston (Sep 6, 2010)

End <3


----------



## TheMachanga (Sep 6, 2010)

Should I learn Eg-1 or CLL first?


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 6, 2010)

Bad Weston!
Learn cll before EG


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 6, 2010)

I lol'd pretty hard when you said "ok I'm just kidding" at the beginning.


----------



## Ashmnafa (Sep 6, 2010)

Anthony, you keep inspiring me to learn CLL.

Too bad I never stay motivated D:


----------



## TeddyKGB (Sep 6, 2010)

I feel like this video is helpful without actually helping, but I like it


----------



## Toad (Sep 6, 2010)

Me likey. Beginning made me lol hard.

<3


----------



## Edward (Sep 6, 2010)

Whares Petrus for 2x2? 

<3 this video. Inspiring.


----------



## joey (Sep 6, 2010)

Make the next video not mirrored please


----------



## Aksel B (Sep 6, 2010)

It would be great, if you could upload a video on how you see your whole solve under inspection  I have a lot of trouble with that


----------



## Joemamma556 (Sep 6, 2010)

I like the beginning I thought he was seriously going to make a video like that


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 6, 2010)

Ugh. Looks like it's time to start EG.


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 6, 2010)

Yay.


----------



## Baian Liu (Sep 6, 2010)

Time to relearn EG-1. Looking forward to the inspection video.


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 6, 2010)

Hoo man, what you plan to do in the second video looks great ! I'm waiting for it !

Unhappily, I didn't learn so much in the first one, but I'm pretty sure this is useful for someone new in 2x2x2 solving.


----------



## Anthony (Sep 6, 2010)

deadalnix said:


> Unhappily, i didn't learn so much in the forst one, but I'm pretty sure this is useful for someone new in 2x2x2 solving.



Yeah, I know. This video was totally geared towards people that are new to 2x2 and aren't sure what to learn. The next one (which I'll hopefully make within a couple weeks), should have some more in depth and advanced stuff.


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 6, 2010)

Anthony said:


> deadalnix said:
> 
> 
> > Unhappily, i didn't learn so much in the forst one, but I'm pretty sure this is useful for someone new in 2x2x2 solving.
> ...



Ooh, can't wait for the next one then.


----------



## Slash (Sep 6, 2010)

nice beginning
oh, and it is very helpful, I guess I should change from guimond to CLL or shouldn't I?


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 6, 2010)

Slash said:


> nice beginning
> oh, and it is very helpful, I guess I should change from guimond to CLL or shouldn't I?



Maybe you can try to evolve to something like OFOTA.


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 6, 2010)

deadalnix said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > nice beginning
> ...


Why in the world would he do that?


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 6, 2010)

Slash said:


> I guess I should change from guimond to CLL



nonononononononononono


----------



## Anthony (Sep 7, 2010)

If you're already good at Guimond you shouldn't necessarily just switch to LBL methods, but it definitely won't hurt you to know both.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 7, 2010)

Yay! Anthony says something I 100% agree with  The same goes for those thinking of switching from LBL to PBL methods.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 7, 2010)

Guimond might be enough to tide someone over until they learn full CLL though. Honestly I plan on (sometime in the future, not anytime soon) learning COLL for 3x3 and using it on 2x2. That way I reap twice the benefit from COLL. It should hopefully make my 3x3 a bit faster (I won't get the PLLs I dislike) and I'll be able to do CLL for 2x2.

After seeing DavidWoner's WCA page, with his low guimond times I just can't think of how he (or you since you might be reading this, ha) can recognize cases so fast. PBL usually takes about a second for me (do you recog PBL while doing separation case?). It's actually quite easy to see PBL from any two adjacent sides (I just have to practice it quite a bit more), but I'm still having a problem AUF/AUD fast for separation.

Lol Rowan has a sub4 ortega average 12 youtube video, it's insane.


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 7, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Lol Rowan has a sub4 ortega average 12 youtube video, it's insane.


He's done subb-3.


----------



## Escher (Sep 7, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> fatboyxpc said:
> 
> 
> > Lol Rowan has a sub4 ortega average 12 youtube video, it's insane.
> ...



I think my avg 100 PB is about 3.2 with Ortega. That said, the lines between Ortega and other random PBL methods can be blurry so I can't really say it was pure.
I can probably get a nearly sub 3 avg with Ortega on cam now, I'll give it a go soon.


----------



## freshcuber (Sep 7, 2010)

Does 2x2 require color neutrality? On a 3x3 I feel like it's a lot more work to save one move on the cross(on average). But with a 2x2 it seems like it'd be easy to learn color neutrality since there aren't any F2L pairs.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 7, 2010)

CN on 2x2 is incredibly easy. The only rough part about CN with 3x3 is learning which directions your color scheme goes when switching colors so much. You can easily CN LBL on a 3x3 (in my opinion). CN on 2x2 isn't a requirement per say, but it's pretty much required if that makes sense. In most cases guimond step 0 is already done, but you can guarantee not on yellow/white all the time. Same with Ortega or LBL, you can't always guarantee that you'll get a yellow or white bar, but in most cases you'll see a bar of red, or blue, etc.


----------



## freshcuber (Sep 7, 2010)

Yea i figured it was really easy on a 2x2. Is being color neutral on a 3x3 worth the extra effort? Learning the second color is probably the hardest but by the time you're on the sixth it's probably pretty easy. I know faz is neutral and Erik can do yellow and white but at most what does it save you? A few tenths? Maybe.


----------



## cincyaviation (Sep 7, 2010)

freshcuber said:


> Yea i figured it was really easy on a 2x2. Is being color neutral on a 3x3 worth the extra effort? Learning the second color is probably the hardest but by the time you're on the sixth it's probably pretty easy. I know faz is neutral and Erik can do yellow and white but at most what does it save you? A few tenths? Maybe.



Learning Opposite is easiest, and besides that you don't learn them one at a time, you just become color neutral.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 7, 2010)

Ask Feliks and Rowe. They're both CN and they're both obviously fast. Not sure if you knew but Feliks' 8.52 WR average was white/yellow all 5 solves, heh. If you really want to test how much it will save you just do a whole bunch of ao100's and before inspecting your normal cross look at all the other crosses. If you end up seeing that you generally have an easy cross on one of the 6 faces, is it worth it to you?

All the sub15 cubers can do a cross in 2-3 seconds no matter how easy. Now obviously when you have a really easy cross it's much better than having a mediocre cross that takes you the full 3 seconds. Seeing that first pair is also crucial. You might have a couple crosses that are similar in time to execute but one might have an obvious xcross or first pair. It will be things like that you need to look for. The further you can see from inspection, the more you can look ahead, which in turn gives you fewer pauses.


----------



## freshcuber (Sep 7, 2010)

Alright thanks that was all really helpful but pretty off topic. If I've got mroe questions I'll go to the color neutrality thread.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Sep 7, 2010)

Currently averaging sub 6 with Ortega. I don't really feel like learning CLL just yet but I should definitely learn the SS algs when the corner just needs to be oriented. Would you recommend learning any more of SS after that? I don't care about 2x2 too much I just want to be around 4 second average.


----------



## Anthony (Sep 7, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Yay! Anthony says something I 100% agree with  The same goes for those thinking of switching from LBL to PBL methods.


It's about damn time. lol.



fatboyxpc said:


> After seeing DavidWoner's WCA page, with his low guimond times I just can't think of how he (or you since you might be reading this, ha) can recognize cases so fast. PBL usually takes about a second for me (do you recog PBL while doing separation case?).


Woner's main method isn't Guimond, it's SS (Although, all PBL based methods are very similar). Also, Woner's official times should be better. 



freshcuber said:


> Does 2x2 require color neutrality?


Absolute must. Don't be an Edouard. 



JeffDelucia said:


> Currently averaging sub 6 with Ortega. I don't really feel like learning CLL just yet but I should definitely learn the SS algs when the corner just needs to be oriented. Would you recommend learning any more of SS after that? I don't care about 2x2 too much I just want to be around 4 second average.



Start with the easy ones and go from there. Even though I only know ~10 cases I use SS quite a bit because those cases (with 0-3 move setups) come up pretty frequently.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Sep 7, 2010)

I was looking at algs from http://cube.garron.us/2x2x2/SS/SS_0_1.pdf and I noticed there arent mirrors. Should I just mirror the algs or is there a list with right handed algs?


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 8, 2010)

For EG 2 (that I think is EG 0 = no pairs in FL) it is better to end the *first layer* using R2 F2 R2 and a normal CLL than using the inverse CLL + R2 F2 R2 on the last layer.

While inspecting FL you will see it will be no pairs so you solve as normally until the last R move (or whatever that turn is), that move you do in the inverse direction from what you normally do and then fill in a F2 (or B2) and then R2. That way it is only two extra turns (if the last FL move is R2 it will be only a F2 that you insert before the R2 extra).

EG in comparsion to CLL, EG is fast all the times you have a easy FL, then you can predict the EG case and basicly solve it all in one look. All other times I think CLL is a little better.

This because 4:6 times you will have EG 1 and if you do you must AUF before the alg or learn 4 algs/case and you must also cube orient so the solved FL pair is on the correct side for the alg (diffrent algs have diffrent sides) or learn to do all cases from all angles. And you will have another AUF in the end. It is to much to do in the mid part to be really fast, CLL beats that.

Problems with remebering all the algs is another backdraw for EG, if you stop practising 2x2 for a moth or so you will loose a good bunch. Those who tried EG all experienced that (as far as I know).

---------------
[wiki]VOP[/wiki], another method.


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 8, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> Problems with remebering all the algs is another backdraw for EG, if you stop practising 2x2 for a moth or so you will loose a good bunch. Those who tried EG all experienced that (as far as I know).



This is because EG is really recent. I experienced that, but I also experienced that with few solves, I can remember everything and get fast again.

Just wait and you'll see, EG cases will come back in your brain from nowhere whenever you need them like OLL do.


----------



## riffz (Sep 8, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> For EG 2 (that I think is EG 0 = no pairs in FL) it is better to end the *first layer* using R2 F2 R2 and a normal CLL than using the inverse CLL + R2 F2 R2 on the last layer.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=438913#post438913


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 9, 2010)

riffz said:


> Kenneth said:
> 
> 
> > For EG 2 (that I think is EG 0 = no pairs in FL) it is better to end the *first layer* using R2 F2 R2 and a normal CLL than using the inverse CLL + R2 F2 R2 on the last layer.
> ...



Yes, I know that, when I once was learning EG I first used trix for these cases but after I learned all the rest I also did all diagonal cases, just because of the move count. And the times you have easy solves of course, but you have to learn to recognise twice as many cases.


----------



## avgdi (Sep 17, 2010)

Awesome video!

Fridrich sucks for 2x2. lol
I'll start learning some of this tomorrow.


----------



## KboyForeverB (Sep 26, 2010)

I know full CLL, I suck ad at executing the CLL, so avg like 4.5-5


----------



## blakedacuber (Dec 6, 2010)

sorry for bumping but could someone explain ss to me i understand whats needs to be done but dont uunderstand the link in the vid description


----------



## sa11297 (Jan 2, 2011)

i dont understand how to use the SS skip sheet. how do you know which algorithm to use?


----------



## Antcuber (Jan 2, 2011)

what is SS ??? explain?


----------



## sa11297 (Jan 3, 2011)

Antcuber said:


> what is SS ??? explain?


 
are you talking about my post? by SS i meant SS tricks to skip oll (anthony recommended learning it after ortega)


----------



## Sa967St (Jan 3, 2011)

Antcuber said:


> what is SS ??? explain?


http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SS


----------



## Anthony (Jan 3, 2011)

I guess it's about time I made Part 2 (probably "2x2 Tips and Tricks: Planning Entire Solutions"). I'll do that soon after I get home from Colorado.


----------



## RCTACameron (Jan 3, 2011)

Looking forward to it.


----------



## deadalnix (Jan 3, 2011)

Anthony said:


> I guess it's about time I made Part 2 (probably "2x2 Tips and Tricks: Planning Entire Solutions"). I'll do that soon after I get home from Colorado.


 
I love you !


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 17, 2011)

new version <3


----------

