# 1 Look LL?



## 4. (Nov 8, 2010)

Has anyone considered learning 1 look LL? or do you think the recognition time would be longer than actually orienting the last layer? How many cases would you have to learn?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 8, 2010)

57x21 algs. 1197.
I don't think anyone will ever bother to learn them all.


----------



## That70sShowDude (Nov 8, 2010)

cube-o-holic said:


> 57x21 algs. 1197.
> I don't think anyone will ever bother to learn them all.



Don't think it works like that


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 8, 2010)

How does it work then?
Do you have to add in a multiple of 4?


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Nov 8, 2010)

~800 algs with edges oriented. also ZB


----------



## irontwig (Nov 8, 2010)

1211 algs without counting inversions or mirrors. Recog is easy (OLLCP-case and look at two edges), recall is the hard part.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 8, 2010)

Watch this video if you want to see how, despite being awesome, knowing 500+ algs for one stage can be really difficult to put into practice.


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm considering it. Trying to figure out which zz variant to use. I may make another thread about it later. There are a few people already with a 1 look LL but those kinds of people are rare.


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 8, 2010)

1-look 2 algs I can do already using CLL-ELL, if it is a CLL that is a commutator that does not change edges (you can solve most of them that way).


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 8, 2010)

Zee Bee Ell Ell.


----------



## joey (Nov 8, 2010)

cube-o-holic said:


> 57x21 algs. 1197.
> I don't think anyone will ever bother to learn them all.


 Actually, not including mirrors:
41x14 = 574

Brings it way down.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 8, 2010)

loljoey


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm currently developing what I've decided to call BSLL; it can work with any decent LL-influencing technique and will always be one-look.


a small kitten on facespace said:


> BSLL is very, very tempting. It's far more flexible than 2gll.



I'm not quite ready to release info on it yet.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 8, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> 1-look 2 algs I can do already using CLL-ELL, if it is a CLL that is a commutator that does not change edges (you can solve most of them that way).


 
Babe, that's nothing - I can do the entire cube in 1 look!


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Nov 8, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> I'm currently developing what I've decided to call BSLL; it can work with any decent LL-influencing technique and will always be one-look.
> 
> 
> I'm not quite ready to release info on it yet.


 
we want info already! D:



Spoiler



Bull **** Last Layer, because once you use it people go all like "that's bull ****."?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 8, 2010)

The BSLL method is very complicated and has taken me many hours perfecting.
Combined with openF2L, my solving will be quite the BSF2LLL challenge.


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 8, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Babe, that's nothing - I can do the entire cube in 1 look!


 
Mabye, but that is not useful. I explaine you can do this, you read "I'm a hotshot who can do this" (that I did not mean to say) and then you make a flamming, non contributing post, like many of your posts are...


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 8, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> Mabye, but that is not useful.



Are you sure? It comes in pretty handy when I wanna do bld. XD



Kenneth said:


> I explaine you can do this, you read "I'm a hotshot who can do this" (that I did not mean to say)



I don't care about your ego, I just thought it was an irrelevant thing to bring up. (Which it is, he was obviously talking about solving with a single alg)



Kenneth said:


> then you make a flamming, non contributing post, like many of your posts are...


 
So why don't you ban me?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 8, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> non contributing post, like many of your posts are...


 
I'm sure more are useful posts contributing to the topic. Thom may post some senseless things, but I believe he provides enough on-topic material for it to be allowed. Of course, I'm no mod, so whatever the final verdict may be is your decision.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 8, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Thom may post some senseless things


 
I disagree, I think all of my posts make some kind of sense.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 8, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I disagree, I think all of my posts make some kind of sense.


 
I guess that's not the best word to use. Maybe unnecessary or useless.


----------



## Bryan (Nov 8, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Babe, that's nothing - I can do the entire cube in 1 look!


 
Yup. BLD is one-look, it's just recognition and execution takes time...


----------



## Kynit (Nov 8, 2010)

Bryan said:


> Yup. BLD is one-look, it's just recognition and execution takes time...


 
Psh, 43 quintillion cases? That's nothing...


----------



## BigSams (Nov 9, 2010)

4. said:


> Has anyone considered learning 1 look LL? or do you think the recognition time would be longer than actually orienting the last layer? How many cases would you have to learn?


 
New method and its corresponding website coming up February or March 2011. It's been in the works for years, but I have been developing it seriously recently. I like to think of it as a new idea but when I release the concept there will probably be people claiming they thought of it first. If anyone is planning on learning a large method, you might want to wait for this.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 10, 2010)

Bryan said:


> Yup. BLD is one-look, it's just recognition and execution takes time...



Most of my non-bld solves are one look as well


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 10, 2010)

> New method and its corresponding website coming up February or March 2011. It's been in the works for years, but I have been developing it seriously recently. I like to think of it as a new idea but when I release the concept there will probably be people claiming they thought of it first. If anyone is planning on learning a large method, you might want to wait for this.



What's the general idea?


----------



## BigSams (Nov 10, 2010)

a small kitten said:


> What's the general idea?


 
As much as I'd like to discuss it, it's best that I generate a good amount of the algorithms and graphics before talking. Otherwise people might swoop in and... yeah. Christmas time sounds about right for when I'll have done enough work to open up a thread.


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 10, 2010)

People usually don't swoop in and take credit. I've never seen it happen here. 

Even if you had algs, what would stop people from swooping in? They could still easily say they had the same idea.


----------



## BigSams (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, some define the invention of a method as thinking of the idea. But to me, if someone wants credit he/she either has to have had thought of it AND developed some algs/resources, or in cases like MGLS, developed nearly all of it. To just dream up a bunch of combinations and then harass someone who put effort into development is just wrong. That is why I want to significantly develop this method before releasing the concept. If at that point someone claims he/she had the idea first, proof of effort will have to be presented. Otherwise we could all open up websites, list all our random brainstorming results and expect credit.

EDIT: oh gosh did I just hijack this thread. Sorry!


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Nov 10, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Well, some define the invention of a method as thinking of the idea. But to me, if someone wants credit he/she either has to have had thought of it AND developed some algs/resources, or in cases like MGLS, developed nearly all of it. To just dream up a bunch of combinations and then harass someone who put effort into development is just wrong. That is why I want to significantly develop this method before releasing the concept. If at that point someone claims he/she had the idea first, proof of effort will have to be presented. Otherwise we could all open up websites, list all our random brainstorming results and expect credit.
> 
> EDIT: oh gosh did I just hijack this thread. Sorry!


 
If your method relates to OPs question, that I might have a similar plan as yours. I have no idea what yours is, but I have thought of something that relates to OP, but just never even tried develop anything for it, nor think about it for more than 5 minutes.

So, if what you are doing ends up being what I started thinking about, I really hope you release it. Save me the trouble of having to go through the work of developing everything. I just want to see the method written out and explained. So, i'll just wait patiently till next year.

And if your method has nothing to do with what I'm thinking about, then I'll just live with it, lol.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 12, 2010)

If you used edge control (especially using Petrus for the F2L) to make sure the edges were solved with the F2L, that would leave you with 42 configurations (plus mirrors and inverses) to solve the corners. Would that be a reasonable option for solving the last layer using one look? I think the recognition could be a lot better than using ZBLL. Also, if you wanted to generate algorithms for the last slot of the F2L, the recognition wouldn't be too hard, would it?

I'm sure at least some people would agree that if you wanted to do a 1LLL, then it would make sense to either use a 1 look/2 algorithm system, or to influence the last layer to decrease the number of cases, and decrease recognition time.


----------



## Cube-Fu (Nov 12, 2010)

Where's bobthegiraffemonkey ... he's learnt nearly all of them?


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 12, 2010)

somerandomkidmike said:


> If you used edge control (especially using Petrus for the F2L) to make sure the edges were solved with the F2L, that would leave you with 42 configurations (plus mirrors and inverses) to solve the corners. Would that be a reasonable option for solving the last layer using one look? I think the recognition could be a lot better than using ZBLL. Also, if you wanted to generate algorithms for the last slot of the F2L, the recognition wouldn't be too hard, would it?
> 
> I'm sure at least some people would agree that if you wanted to do a 1LLL, then it would make sense to either use a 1 look/2 algorithm system, or to influence the last layer to decrease the number of cases, and decrease recognition time.


 

uhh petrus edge control does EO, not EP, so you'd still have EP after COLL, like you're describing. So you'd have 2-look, its the last layer in [wiki]VH[/wiki] method.
The reason it's easier than ZBLL is because ZBLL does everything you described + permute the LL edges, so of course it's harder to learn/reco.


----------



## Akuma (Nov 12, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> Mabye, but that is not useful. I explaine you can do this, you read "I'm a hotshot who can do this" (that I did not mean to say) and then you make a flamming, non contributing post, like many of your posts are...



but... it's Kirjava!
Being an elitist prick is what he does best.


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 13, 2010)

> but... it's Kirjava!
> Being an elitist prick is what he does best.



Telling other people they are elitest pricks isn't particularly productive either.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 13, 2010)

a small kitten said:


> Telling other people they are elitest pricks isn't particularly productive either.


 
you're so right. same thing happened to me with some other pants


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 13, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> uhh petrus edge control does EO, not EP, so you'd still have EP after COLL, like you're describing. So you'd have 2-look, its the last layer in [wiki]VH[/wiki] method.
> The reason it's easier than ZBLL is because ZBLL does everything you described + permute the LL edges, so of course it's harder to learn/reco.


 
did you actually think about his post before posting? He said "If you used edge control to make sure the edges were solved..."
In other words he meant come up with an edge control system that would completely solve the edges, not just their orientation.


----------



## cincyaviation (Nov 13, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> did you actually think about his post before posting? He said "If you used edge control to make sure the edges were solved..."
> In other words he meant come up with an edge control system that would completely solve the edges, not just their orientation.


Which would take a too many moves and be hard to recog, and usually edge control is done in very few algs. Also, look at the other BS in that post, and tell me he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 13, 2010)

Yeah, solving the edges before you get to the last layer sounds tricky, then Last 4 Corners isn't easy either. I think I'd rather just stick with basic f2l, OLL, PLL :/


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 13, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Which would take a too many moves and be hard to recog, and usually edge control is done in very few algs. Also, look at the other BS in that post, and tell me he knows what he's talking about.


 
never said I agreed with him or that he knows what he is talking about, I was just correcting the person that failed to read correctly before posting.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 13, 2010)

ubercuber, stfu. it's the internet. 

<3 Cincy


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 13, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> ubercuber, stfu. it's the internet.
> 
> <3 Cincy


 
So, it's the internet..what does that have to do with you misreading what he wrote? I do not believe it is any more difficult to read on the internet than anywhere else.


----------



## y3k9 (Nov 13, 2010)

cube-o-holic said:


> 57x21 algs. 1197.
> I don't think anyone will ever bother to learn them all.


 


joey said:


> Actually, not including mirrors:
> 41x14 = 574
> 
> Brings it way down.


Sigh, you guys should really pay atttention in math. Multiplying the number of oll algs by the number of pll algs will result in the amount of cases you can apply 1 look ll. However, you guys want the number of algs you need to learn, and to get to such it's: The number of oll algs plus the number of pll algs which will equal the number of total algs you need to learn. I really don't get why you'd multiply.


----------



## Cubezz (Nov 13, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Most of my non-bld solves are one look as well


 
Frank Morris can solve the cube in -1 looks.
Edit:


y3k9 said:


> Sigh, you guys should really pay atttention in math. Multiplying the number of oll algs by the number of pll algs will result in the amount of cases you can apply 1 look ll. However, you guys want the number of algs you need to learn, and to get to such it's: The number of oll algs plus the number of pll algs which will equal the number of total algs you need to learn. I really don't get why you'd multiply.


What? You WOULD have to multiply. You ADD for 2LLL. MULTIPLY for 1LLL.
But guys...I'm not sure if I am right on this, but wouldn't there be alot more than ~1100 cases? Because if you need to do something like this:
Sune OLL, U2, T Perm to solve a 2LLL case,
Sune OLL, T Perm would not work for a 1LLL case, because you miss the U2 inbetween, ending up not solving the cube.
So this means for 1 OLL and 1 PLL, you would need to learn 4 algs.
For example, 
1. Sune OLL+T Perm
2. Sune OLL+U+T Perm
3. Sune OLL+U2+T Perm
4. Sune OLL+U'+T Perm
This would quadrouple the amount of algs needed to learn, making it ~4400 algs.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Edit 2:
I just remembered some PLLs like H Perm can be solved without AUFing, because the alg still works (E Perm also can solve 2/4 states, and other PLLs I'm too lazy to think of).
So, there would not be 4400 algs, but there would still be alot more than 1100 algs.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 13, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Which would take a too many moves and be hard to recog, and usually edge control is done in very few algs.


 
ZBF2L uses 125 algorithms. Also, I'm not going to claim I know what I'm talking about. I don't use LBL methods at all. You're probably right that recognition would be terrible, but at least this way you would only have to look at the OC and PC.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 13, 2010)

Akuma said:


> but... it's Kirjava!
> Being an elitist prick is what he does best.


 
You're just annoyed that people laughed at you because you made a topic where you didn't understand how to solve corners on a 4x4x4.


----------



## cincyaviation (Nov 13, 2010)

somerandomkidmike said:


> ZBF2L uses 125 algorithms. Also, I'm not going to claim I know what I'm talking about. I don't use LBL methods at all. You're probably right that recognition would be terrible, but at least this way you would only have to look at the OC and PC.


It definitely could be done, but it would take a lot of work to make it decent, and it would probably take longer than just OLL/PLL. And also, i believe it would be less than 42 corner algs because not all of the COLL cases are possible with edges solved.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 13, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> It definitely could be done, but it would take a lot of work to make it decent, and it would probably take longer than just OLL/PLL. And also, i believe it would be less than 42 corner algs because not all of the COLL cases are possible with edges solved.


 
Well I was asking if that would be a reasonable option, not stating that it was. However, I've found the 42 cases: http://www.ai.univ-paris8.fr/~bh/cube/solutions_c2.html 

Also, ZB takes longer than just OLL/PLL, so I'm not surprised that this would.


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You're just annoyed that people laughed at you because you made a topic where you didn't understand how to solve corners on a 4x4x4.


 
JESUS CHRIST USE SOME GOD DAMN SUNES


----------



## cubefan4848 (Nov 14, 2010)

somerandomkidmike said:


> Well I was asking if that would be a reasonable option, not stating that it was. However, I've found the 42 cases: http://www.ai.univ-paris8.fr/~bh/cube/solutions_c2.html
> 
> Also, ZB takes longer than just OLL/PLL, so I'm not surprised that this would.


 
Feliks used ZBLL in a 7.09 solve he did. So it can be faster at some times but definitely not all the time


----------



## irontwig (Nov 14, 2010)

cubefan4848 said:


> Feliks used ZBLL in a 7.09 solve he did. So it can be faster at some times but definitely not all the time


 
Sure it wasn't just a COLL and the EPLL skip?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 14, 2010)

Isn't ZBLL just a possible extension of COLL?


----------



## irontwig (Nov 14, 2010)

Never mind, saw it now, it's a 9 move Y-perm, bïtches.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 15, 2010)

cubefan4848 said:


> Feliks used ZBLL in a 7.09 solve he did. So it can be faster at some times but definitely not all the time


 
Of course there are cases that could be faster. Recognition generally isn't great though. Also every case in the LL layer approach I've posted appears in ZBLL.


----------



## cubernya (Jun 13, 2011)

You do realise not a single person in the world has memorized every case for 1L-LL


----------



## emolover (Jun 13, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> You do realise not a single person in the world has memorized every case for 1L-LL


 
How do you know that? There very well could have been someone who has memorized full LL. If like 5 have memorized full 493? ZBLL algorithms than I am sure at least one person has had balls to memorized all 1293? LL algorithms.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 13, 2011)

emolover said:


> 1293? LL algorithms


 
I am curious how the number could be this low. There are 42 CLL cases. Giving the CLL case a fixed orientation, there are 8 cases for edge orientation, and 12 cases for edge permutation. 42 * 8 * 12 is a lot more than 1293. Obviously mirrors reduce the number quite a bit, but I still don't see how the number could be as low as 1300.

EDIT: Oh, unless inverses are counted as the same alg as well? Then I guess that number actually sounds reasonable


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 13, 2011)

IIRC at nationals last year, some guy was up at like 800 or so algs. Learning move optimal purely for FMC (I'd assume FMC)


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 13, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> IIRC at nationals last year, some guy was up at like 800 or so algs. Learning move optimal purely for FMC (I'd assume FMC)


And was he any good at FMC?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Jun 13, 2011)

Was it Chris Tran? I don't think so.. I know Morley Davidson knew (knows probably) full ZBLL.


----------



## 4Chan (Jun 13, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> And was he any good at FMC?


 
EDIT: He was pretty good.
Yeah, it was Morley Davidson.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 13, 2011)

4Chan said:


> EDIT: He was pretty good.
> Yeah, it was Morley Davidson.


Cool that he's putting in a lot of effort for it, but I'm pretty sure the time could be spent better on other FMC things. Possible backup for that is his official results of DNF DNF DNS 36. Not that great.


----------



## EricReese (Jun 13, 2011)

I love how no one flamed for the bump

No really, it was getting annoying 

If one were to learn 2GLL and ZZLL, is that a big chunk of zbll gone? or do some of the algs from those 2 sets cross over (if that makes sense


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 13, 2011)

Yes 2gll and ZZLL are subsets of ZBLL, so you would be knocking out a good chunk of ZBLL with that.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 13, 2011)

WV + KLL is better than ZBF2L + ZBLL :tu way less algs

Lol wonder how many people are gonna look up wtf KLL is now :3


----------



## emolover (Jun 13, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> WV + KLL is better than ZBF2L + ZBLL :tu way less algs
> 
> Lol wonder how many people are gonna look up wtf KLL is now :3


 
Ok, I least I know that WV is winter variation. But what on earth is KLL!?!?!?!


----------



## Godmil (Jun 13, 2011)

not heard of KLL but if WV only orientates the corners, then KLL would need to permute the corners, orientate and permute the edges... sounds like a lot of algs.


----------



## irontwig (Jun 13, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Cool that he's putting in a lot of effort for it, but I'm pretty sure the time could be spent better on other FMC things. Possible backup for that is his official results of DNF DNF DNS 36. Not that great.


 
Not to mention that it's not too uncommon that leaving three corners with a short alg and then doing an insertion results in a shorter solution than just doing the optimal LL.


----------



## OMGitsSolved (Jun 13, 2011)

I have a question. If ZZLL is just COLL but preserving the orientation and permutation of the edges how come there isn't just 42 cases?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2011)

R Perm, J Perm etc.


----------



## OMGitsSolved (Jun 13, 2011)

Oh, That makes so much more since. Can't people just phase the edges and use L4C?


----------



## irontwig (Jun 13, 2011)

ZZLL is L4C and opp swap (e.g. T-perm).


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> KLL would need to permute the corners, orientate and permute the edges... sounds like a lot of algs.


 
It is not _nearly_ as many algs as ZBLL. Think about it. There are 22 PLL cases (counting solved). For a non-symmetrical PLL, there are 8 edge orientation cases (solved, UF/UB, UL/UR, UF/UL, UL/UB, UB/UR, UR/UF, UF/UR/UB/UL). 22*8 = 176 (and one of these is the solved case). Symmetry (H perm, Z perm, solved case, E perm, N perms...) makes the number less than this. ZBLL is more than 176 (its actually 177 iirc ) even with both _mirrors and inverses_ counted as the same alg.

EDIT: Just looked up. 177 is the correct number for ZBLL with counting mirrors and inverses as the same alg. For KLL, that number is 84, including the 21 PLLs.


----------

