# 2x2 Guimond + LBL



## mazei (Nov 25, 2008)

Guys, I have a question. The method I'm currently using for 2x2 is sort of like semi-guimond. Basically, I start of by orienting the bottom layer to its respective colors(white/yellow, red/orange etc.) much like guimond but the last corner is also orientated. Then I continue to orient the top layer and then permutate both layers. I know this might not be as good as the full guimond but I am really lazy to learn the orientation algs.

My real question is "Is this method a method I should consider sticking to?".

Right now I average around 8-9 seconds. Just started the method today. Before this I used full LBL and averaged around 6 seconds.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 25, 2008)

that's...called ortega 
well I had a sub 5 average of 12, and i believe many have sub 4 with this method. I'm totally out of practise so i'm like 6s average now >.<

or if you used full LBL, u can learn CLL algs 

EDIT: OOOPS i read everything in a rush thus wrongly  ignore me


----------



## TMOY (Nov 25, 2008)

No it's not Ortega. If I understand correctly, the steps of the "Guimond-LBL" methods are:
- OBL (orientation of bottom layer);
- OLL;
- swapping pieces between layers;
- xLL.
That's 4 steps instead of 3 for either Guimond or Ortega.


----------



## mazei (Nov 25, 2008)

What TMOY said. So really, should I stick with it? I'm not so serious about 2x2 but I do want a decent average.


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 25, 2008)

OFL = orient first layer, I don't think "bottom" is ever used, it's FL pieces not BL pieces =)

The method is good if you learn to predict separation, if you don't I think it is better to use Ortega, it makes a harder first layer but you save a look after OLL.

Somewhere I posted OLL's for this method, some are really short, like the H case: R2 U2 R (or R' if that makes a better separation). But I can't remember where.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Nov 25, 2008)

R2 U2 R
R2 U' R U' R
F R U2 R' F'

If I'm not mistaken, the rest of the algorithms are bad.


----------



## mazei (Nov 25, 2008)

Thank you so much for those algs. I've been using algs I normally use for 3x3 and never bothered to find better algs. In anycase, thanks.


----------



## Escher (Nov 25, 2008)

i like to call the method guitega, if thats (orient opposite colours + two layers, seperate, solve) what you mean 

however, i only use it if you get a 'guitega skip', as in, orient opposite colours first layer, cos the seperating colours bit can be a little slow (if you are crap like me and cant cope when you have a diagonal opposite a line...). even then, when its a decent case, sometimes its just faster to use ortega...

and i <3 2x2 OLLs


----------



## MistArts (Nov 25, 2008)

Isn't this 2-look OFOTA?


----------



## philkt731 (Nov 25, 2008)

yeah pretty much


----------



## mazei (Nov 26, 2008)

Oh yeah, OFOTA. Totally forgot about that method. Yeah you can call it a 2-Look OFOTA. Thanks.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 26, 2008)

I agree with Kenneth on this one, unless you can learn to predict separation then there is no point in continuing with this. The thing that makes OFOTA worthwhile is that it is 1 move(sometimes zero) + 1 look to get to PBL, all of which can easily be predicted during inspection. Either learn full Guimond or just use Ortega if you are lazy.


----------



## mazei (Nov 26, 2008)

Well to me as long as my average is 5 or 4 seconds then I'm happy.

I'll post a video on it soon enough on me solving with the method.

EDIT

I suddenly thought, "Why should I waste my time trying to look ahead later in the solve to put the corners into their respective layers when I can just start off with the layers with orientated with the right colours in the layers right away?"

So yeah, after doing that my average is from 9 to 7 secs. Sometimes if the layers are already orientated to colours of both layers then i would just put the colours into their respective layers later.

So yeah, its kinda like Ortega.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 26, 2008)

I'd say just switch to Ortega. The real difference there is that you make one layer of a specific color (not opposite colors), then orient the opposite layer, and there's no separation step. You're pretty much using 3x3 algs (although a few of the bad cases are a bit faster than 3x3, like R2U2RU2R2 and FRUR'U'F'), and this method can be very fast if you do it right.

The reason I think you can do better is because you are halfway between Ortega and Guimond, which means that you are doing both an OLL step and a separation step. Guimond has no OLL (since you orient both layers more or less at once) and Ortega has no separation, so I'd say that either one would be a little faster than what you are currently doing. Besides, for 2x2 fewer steps is better, and both Ortega and Guimond are three steps (compared to what you're doing which is 4). In fact you could get very good times if you stick with LBL (with full CLL of course), since that is only two steps so there is an absolute minimum of time spent looking for pieces during the solve itself. Lukasz Cialon uses two-step LBL and look how fast he is


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 26, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Lukasz Cialon uses two-step LBL and look how fast he is



And so does Rowe Hessler, Eduard Chambon... and me


----------



## qqwref (Nov 26, 2008)

I didn't know you were sub-4 Kenneth, perhaps you should go to more competitions to prove yourself ;-)


----------

