# 2x2 EG (Erik-Gunnar) Method



## hansho13 (Dec 22, 2009)

does anybody know a good site for the EG (Erik-Gunnar) Method for the 2x2 rubik's cube?


----------



## Escher (Dec 22, 2009)

http://dtwoner.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_42_EG1


----------



## CitricAcid (Dec 22, 2009)

OK, thank you for your helpful criticism. 
Removing post.


----------



## hansho13 (Dec 22, 2009)

*2x2 program?*

also i read somewhere there was a program or something called ron's something i cant quite remember the name. does anybody know what im talking about?


----------



## Escher (Dec 22, 2009)

hansho13 said:


> also i read somewhere there was a program or something called ron's something i cant quite remember the name. does anybody know what im talking about?



Here you go:
http://www.speedcubing.com/CubeSolver/MiniCubeSolver.html

You can also use Cube Explorer, just grey out the non corner cubies.

I'm pretty sure you can use this too


----------



## hansho13 (Dec 22, 2009)

do you know a program that simulates pyraminx?

Edit: OK never mind about the pyraminx. So just to make sure i know what the EG method is, you solve the white side(or any other side) randomly and have one algorithm to fully solve the white side and LL(last layer). Correct?


----------



## Vishal (Jul 20, 2010)

*Pyraminx lag generator*

I would live to know where you can generate pyraminx algs


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 20, 2010)

http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/javascript/pyraminj.htm
found by a search on this website for "pyraminx solver," which resulted in this thread...
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16670&highlight=pyraminx+solver

EDIT: Nice bump to a completely unrelated topic...


----------



## TMOY (Jul 20, 2010)

He must be tryihg to adapt EG to the pyra


----------



## Vishal (Jul 21, 2010)

I am trying to adapt eg to the pyraminx if any one 
Wants to help that would be great and the pyraminx solver is pretty much crap it doesn't give you the algs is at a bad angle and the color scheme is messed up


----------



## riffz (Jul 21, 2010)

Like solve one first layer edge and know algs for when the remaining two are switched? I can't say for sure but I'm pretty the algs would not be too nice. Polish V is probably a much more worthwhile endeavor, although I guess it couldn't hurt to know these algs.


----------



## SilentlyintheShadows (Oct 24, 2010)

*EG Algs*

I'm looking for a collection of EG 2 algs. I know why they are hard to find, but does anyone have a full set anywhere?


----------



## flan (Oct 24, 2010)

anthony does.

http://www.speedcubing101.com/eg-2.html

Hope that helps.


----------



## Kenneth (Oct 24, 2010)

There is always this : http://www.speedcubing.com/CubeSolver/MiniCubeSolver.html

Works for any 2x2x2 method


----------



## Hexi (Dec 3, 2010)

*EG Method*

Hey, I wanna learn the EG method... but i think, i don't understand it... I deduced from the tutorials, that i have to do one side (not 1 layer, only side), and then "x2" and do one of that algorithms: EG 1 , but when I do that, I can't find situation, that is on my cube. So the question is: What am I doin' wrong? Thx for answers.


----------



## Erzz (Dec 3, 2010)

Solve one face, put that face on D, then find the case. There is EG 1 and EG 2. http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/EG


----------



## Hexi (Dec 3, 2010)

What's the difference between EG 1 and EG 2?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 3, 2010)

EG1 I believe is when you have 2 adjacent corner swap in the side you complete, and then you put htat face on D and solve the entire cube from there
EG2 is when you have diagonal corner swap in the side, and you put that faceo n D and solve hte cube from there
CLL is when you have a completeed layer and you solve teh last layer in 1 alg

I *might* have switched eg1/2 up, but they are correct definitions

edit-I was right
http://www.speedcubing101.com/eg-1.html


----------



## Hexi (Dec 3, 2010)

ok, but still i can't find my situation:



Yellow
|
Green
Blue
|
Red
uhm.. what's wrong with the table?


----------



## That70sShowDude (Dec 3, 2010)

Don't look for exact colors. Look for opposite and same color patterns. It obviously won't show ever color in every situation.


----------



## Hexi (Dec 3, 2010)

xD Thank you... understand it now


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 3, 2010)

To understand EG, you first need to understand Ortega and CLL. Because EG is to ortega what CLL is to layer-by-layer or beginners method.

You have 3 possible cases for the bottom layer: solved, a bar on one side, or no bar.
If the bottom layer is solved, you just do a normal CLL case to solve the top.
If you have a bar on the bottom layer, then you have another set of algs that are very similar to CLL. In fact, the recognition for the top layer is EXACTLY THE SAME as the normal CLL algs, but this set of algs also solves the bottom layer when you have a bar there.
Then finally, you have yet another set of algs which is once again practically the same, only they are used when there is nothing on the bottom layer.

If you can recognize CLL, then you can recognize any EG case.


----------



## Hexi (Dec 3, 2010)

So u think, that its better to learn CLL first and then EGs?


----------



## Erzz (Dec 3, 2010)

what's with the alots in peoples pics now?

And yeah, CLL then EG would probably be best


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 3, 2010)

CLL is a subset of EG.


----------



## Hexi (Dec 3, 2010)

Yeah.. but u can learn only CLL and it's still faster than guimond


----------



## Shortey (Dec 3, 2010)

Hexi said:


> Yeah.. but u can learn only CLL and it's still faster than guimond


 
Says who?


----------



## ShadenSmith (Dec 3, 2010)

Hexi said:


> Yeah.. but u can learn only CLL and it's still faster than guimond


 
Oh, okay.


----------



## kar0209 (Dec 3, 2010)

Hexi said:


> Yeah.. but u can learn only CLL and it's still faster than guimond


Who said/wrote that?


----------



## Hexi (Dec 4, 2010)

that's just my opinion...


----------



## RCTACameron (Dec 4, 2010)

Learn CLL, and do R2 F2 R2 for diagonal swaps. Then, learn EG-1, and do the same thing. Then, learn EG-2. I'm pretty sure that the WR avg was with anti-CLL, which is slightly different.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 5, 2010)

Erzz said:


> what's with the alots in peoples pics now?


 
take a look at the "I will make your avatar " thread



Hexi said:


> that's just my opinion...


 
And when you didn't even know how EG worked yesterday, where do you get the idea that you know enough to make opinions of what is faster than anything else?

sorry, don't mean to be too rude to the new guy or anything, just saying, it is probably better to not make statements like "this is faster than that"


----------



## Hexi (Dec 5, 2010)

Cuz I can do guimond and it's 3-look method I think. And when CLL is only 1-2 look i think it's faster, because the "looks" take the most time.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 5, 2010)

RCTACameron said:


> I'm pretty sure that the WR avg was with anti-CLL, which is slightly different.


 
This sounds very wrong.


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 5, 2010)

Hexi said:


> Cuz I can do guimond and it's 3-look method I think. And when CLL is only 1-2 look i think it's faster, because the "looks" take the most time.


Guimond is pretty freaking 2 look. And CLL is usually 2 look, an easy layer could make it 1.


----------



## jack3256 (Jun 28, 2011)

*More efficient way to learn full EG*

Hey do younguys think it would be a good idea for me to learn all 3 algs for each 2x2 recognition at the same time? (CLL, EG-1 and EG-2). I was thinking I could just learn the algs t the same time except just apply whichever one came up, I plan to learn full EG at some point anyway so do you 2x2 guys out there think this is a good idea?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 28, 2011)

it would take a lot longer to be useful this way.

if you learned eg-1 first, you can start using a system better than ortega after 42 algs. if you learned it this way you'd have to learn the whole thing before you could really start to get to grips with doing non ortega solves all the time.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 28, 2011)

Whether its a good idea or not, there is no more or less "efficient" way to learn a set of algs. It's the same number of algs regardless. It's just a question of how long it takes for it to become useful.


----------



## jack3256 (Jun 29, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> it would take a lot longer to be useful this way.
> 
> if you learned eg-1 first, you can start using a system better than ortega after 42 algs. if you learned it this way you'd have to learn the whole thing before you could really start to get to grips with doing non ortega solves all the time.


So EG-1 pre CLL? Because normally in my Ortega solves a J perm bottom layer is fastest.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 29, 2011)

jack3256 said:


> So EG-1 pre CLL? Because normally in my Ortega solves a J perm bottom layer is fastest.


 
an adjacent swap bottom layer is also more common than a solved layer or an opposite swap, which gives EG-1 the potential to be more useful than either CLL or EG-2.


----------



## Zarxrax (Jun 29, 2011)

I would say that if you learn them like that you might be more likely to get the algs mixed up.


----------



## jack3256 (Jun 29, 2011)

Ahh immense I will begin learning EG-1 tomorrow morning when I wake up because it's like midnight right now


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 29, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> an adjacent swap bottom layer is also more common than a solved layer or an opposite swap, which gives EG-1 the potential to be more useful than either CLL or EG-2.


 
John-Michael Clay advocated this back when people started taking CLL and EG seriously (ie after Rowe learned it). There are two major drawbacks-the first being that the solved bar always needs to be in back, which leads to ugly face-building fingertricks or a mandatory rotation. Second, people who know ortega will already know a good chunk of CLL, more if they already know COLL/CMLL. Also many of the regular CLL algs can be applied to 3x3 solving. (I only know CMLL because of all the 2x2 stuff I've learned)

That being said, I wouldn't necessarily recommend against learning EG-1 first, as solves where you don't know the alg are likely to be faster compared to CLL solves where you don't know the alg.


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 29, 2011)

It better not be more efficient. I just finished EG-1. It doesn't sound like it would be any better though.


----------



## jack3256 (Jun 29, 2011)

EG-1 all the way then for me


----------



## Rubiksfreak (Feb 6, 2013)

*2x2 EG method*

What are your thoughts on this method? If you guys have learned it, what are you averages?


----------



## Isaac Paurus (Feb 6, 2013)

Rubiksfreak said:


> What are your thoughts on this method? If you guys have learned it, what are you averages?



Chris Olson (Rubiks560) uses EG and has the current WR average for 2x2. (not to mention he's a MN cuber too). i haven't learned it yet, but i remember chris saying "Only learn it if you really want/plan to get fast with it" he can average Sub 2 at home sometimes. i think he would be better to talk about this. Take it away, chris, if you get to seeing this...


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 6, 2013)

It's a ton of work, but it is objectively the fastest method. You could just learn CLL or a different method and be almost as fast with less algorithms, but if you want to be as fast as possible, EG is necessary.


----------



## Rubiksfreak (Feb 6, 2013)

Wow, i might have to send him a pm lol! Im having a hard time recognising the different cases



Noahaha said:


> It's a ton of work, but it is objectively the fastest method. You could just learn CLL or a different method and be almost as fast with less algorithms, but if you want to be as fast as possible, EG is necessary.


I was planning on just learning cll, but even that seems a bit difficult!


----------



## Rubiks560 (Feb 6, 2013)

If you just wanna average sub 3 CLL works fine. But if you want to absolutely maximize your speed, EG is 100% needed. I can probably average 2.4-2.5 at the very max with only CLL.


----------



## AustinReed (Feb 6, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> If you just wanna average sub 3 CLL works fine. But if you want to absolutely maximize your speed, EG is 100% needed. I can probably average 2.4-2.5 at the very *max* with only CLL.



You mean "minimum"?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Feb 6, 2013)

AustinReed said:


> You mean "minimum"?



I confused. I was just saying that the max speed I can achieve with CLL is about 2.4


----------



## Kian (Feb 6, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> I confused. I was just saying that the max speed I can achieve with CLL is about 2.4



Austin was referring to the fact that it is the minimum time.


----------



## Godmil (Feb 6, 2013)

Since CLL is a third of EG, you could just learn that, then later if you feel you want to add more you can.


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 6, 2013)

Godmil said:


> Since CLL is a third of EG, you could just learn that, then later if you feel you want to add more you can.



Isn't it more useful to learn EG-1?


----------



## Sebastien (Feb 6, 2013)

Technically: Sure.

CLL is more convenient to learn for beginners though, as having a full layer and no specific ADF before executing an algorithm is nicer if you have to work on CLL-recognition as well.


----------



## Rubiksfreak (Feb 6, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> If you just wanna average sub 3 CLL works fine. But if you want to absolutely maximize your speed, EG is 100% needed. I can probably average 2.4-2.5 at the very max with only CLL.


So do you have all 120 algs down already?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Feb 6, 2013)

Rubiksfreak said:


> So do you have all 120 algs down already?



Yup. Then a bunch of extras for different angles.


----------



## Rubiksfreak (Feb 6, 2013)

Rubiks560 said:


> Yup. Then a bunch of extras for different angles.



Did you find the recognition to be tricky at all?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Feb 7, 2013)

Rubiksfreak said:


> Did you find the recognition to be tricky at all?



At first, but after watching Rowe Hesslers videos on YouTube, it made complete sense.


----------

