# Is 1LLL possible?



## Aurichalcite (Oct 25, 2015)

I know it's getting harder and harder to improve from our current 3x3 world record. Feliks is probably one lucky solve away from a record that will stand for years. But what if you can shave off more time by 1LLL? It is possible, or too far-fetched?


----------



## SenorJuan (Oct 25, 2015)

Approx. 3600 algorithms? Recognition time might be a bit long, I reckon.


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 25, 2015)

I have no doubt it is possible and at the current rate I'm going it's going to take like 2 years. Even if I don't do it, someone will.


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 25, 2015)

Aurichalcite said:


> Is 1LLL possible?



"Yes"
-Jabari probably

Edit: sniped by the man himself


----------



## TorbinRoux (Oct 25, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> I have no doubt it is possible and at the current rate I'm going it's going to take like 2 years. Even if I don't do it, someone will.



I have no doubts that you can do it at the current state that you're at. You should go for it


----------



## WACWCA (Oct 25, 2015)

Its definately possible, using vls or some edge control you can get cross everytime, which shortens the algorithm count for 1lll by a ton. peole are already learning 1LLL


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 25, 2015)

WACWCA said:


> Its definately possible, using vls or some edge control you can get cross everytime, which shortens the algorithm count for 1lll by a ton. peole are already learning 1LLL



Your talking about ZBLL. Multiple people know and use full ZBLL.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Oct 25, 2015)

WACWCA said:


> Its definately possible, using vls or some edge control you can get cross everytime, which shortens the algorithm count for 1lll by a ton. peole are already learning 1LLL



yeah, that doesn't count as 1LLL because you don't actually know all of the cases, you just force it to a case that you do know.


----------



## tseitsei (Oct 25, 2015)

Can be done but I think it will not be any faster than oll/pll because recognition and alg recall will obviously be much harder and slower...


----------



## qwertycuber (Oct 25, 2015)

If it is possible, how fast would Feliks be if he knew 1lll?


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 25, 2015)

qwertycuber said:


> If it is possible, how fast would Feliks be if he knew 1lll?



In his 5.77 he used a zbll, he probably doesn't know all the cases but he knows quite a few


----------



## Jbacboy (Oct 25, 2015)

Spoiler











This should answer a few questions


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 25, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Can be done but I think it will not be any faster than oll/pll because recognition and alg recall will obviously be much harder and slower...



You're just wrong here. 1LLL recog is not that harder and not that much slower than the combined OLL + PLL recog and the algs are far faster. ZBLL is clearly faster than OCLL PLL, why would the same not be true for 1LLL?


----------



## tseitsei (Oct 25, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> why would the same not be true for 1LLL?



Because alg/case recall gets harder and harder as the size of the set increases. And recognition is also obviously harder because you have more things to look at (in pll you need to know permutation of edges and corners. In zbll you need to know that as well as orientation of corners. And in 1lll you need to worry about eo as well...)

But yeah. That was just what I think. There really is no way of knowing if that's true or not until people actually learn 1lll


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 25, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Because alg/case recall gets harder and harder as the size of the set increases. And recognition is also obviously harder because you have more things to look at (in pll you need to know permutation of edges and corners. In zbll you need to know that as well as orientation of corners. And in 1lll you need to worry about eo as well...)
> 
> But yeah. That was just what I think. There really is no way of knowing if that's true or not until people actually learn 1lll



Recall is just a matter of practice, you had trouble recalling OLLs after you first learnt them. ZBLL did take a long time to get used to and as I am still changing algs around, recall is still an issue sometimes, but there is no metric where OCLL or COLL is faster. Even without EO skips, ZBLL makes up a disproportionate amount of my above average solves. All of my fullstep sub 6s have been 1LLL.

By the same logic, Recognizing OLL is harder than OCLL. You don't think damn, I didn't get solved EO this is going to be hard to recognize. It's possible that these cases are harder to recognize, but you wouldn't say don't learn OLL, he recog is terrible.

Your opinion is your opinion and I can see the argument that it's not "worth" learning, because that is dependent on how much you dislike learning algs. As someone who uses 1LLL on close to a fourth of my solves, I'm telling you it is faster.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Oct 25, 2015)

I'm surprised that no BLD solvers posted that they solve the entire cube with "1-look".

So besides that "trivial" answer...

If you define 1LLL as executing a single algorithm on a cube in which its first two layers are solved but its last layer is scrambled to:
A) mess up the first 2 layers
B) restore the first 2 layers and solve the last layer (without first making the last layer more solved for which then you would need to apply one or more algorithms to repeat the process until the last layer is completely solved), then it is possible in two ways:

_Assuming you do not solve the first two layers in any special fashion:_
1) You memorize 1211 algorithms and what specific case they apply to.
2) You use my (unpublished) mathematical human method. (Technically, my method is 1-look entire nxnxn cube/minx^n).

However, as others have said about option #1, it's probably not going to be that much faster (if at all) than doing speed optimized OLL and PLL.

I'm still trying to find a "smart" way to make option 2 a reality, but the disadvantage of using it is that it's pretty slow (not speedsolving material).

In short, we've pretty got the best speedsolving last layer breakdown right now.


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 25, 2015)

Christopher Mowla said:


> I'm surprised that no BLD solvers posted that they solve the entire cube with "1-look".
> 
> So besides that "trivial" answer...
> 
> ...



What can I do short of learning learning full 1LLL, which I plan to, to prove to you that it is faster than OLL PLL?


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Oct 25, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> What can I do short of learning learning full 1LLL, which I plan to, to prove to you that it is faster than OLL PLL?



Why did you ask?


Christopher Mowla said:


> it's probably not going to be *that much faster* (if at all) than doing speed optimized OLL and PLL.


I didn't rule out the possibility because I know that it's reasonable to assume that 1LLL will be faster for a subset of cases, whereas OLL+PLL will be faster for (for probably most) others. In real life, it's never _all or nothing_. There are always exceptions and patterns do not always exist/or are clear.


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 25, 2015)

Christopher Mowla said:


> Why did you ask?
> I didn't rule out the possibility because I know that it's reasonable to assume that 1LLL will be faster for a subset of cases, whereas OLL+PLL will be faster for (for probably most) others. In real life, it's never _all or nothing_. There are always exceptions and patterns do not always exist/or are clear.



OLL + PLL being better han 1LLL is extremely rare, in over a thousand cases that I use in solves, Ive preferred OLL PLL maybe 2 dozens times and it's more likely that I just need to search more to find something worth using. 

I just don't get why people are in anyway confident 1LLL won't work. I've learn maybe 1.5k algs in the two years, I think that is enough to prove that 1LLL can be memorized in a reasonable amount of time when you consider how long most of the high level cubers have been at it. The set that I have finished, ZBLL and have yet to finish refining already clearly proven to be faster than the OLL PLL alternative, with VHLS as a LS method it is already extremely close to full OLL PLL



Christopher Mowla said:


> In short, we've pretty got the best speedsolving last layer breakdown right now.



Of course I can't prove it without a doubt, but what would it take to at least start to show you the potential of 1LLL?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 25, 2015)

Possible? Yes, in theory.
</thread>


----------



## willi pilz (Oct 25, 2015)

dude, 1,5k algs, you're awesome. just don't burn out, you got this.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 25, 2015)

Imo the only reason why 1LLL is not used as often is because of the large number of alg cases (which is one of the reasons why I try to look into other 1LLL styles such as M-CELL)

I believe it would definitely be faster than OLL/PLL as the recognition would not be as bad as many people think especially as you could recognise the misoriented edges easily. (in fact some could be easier to recognise than ZBLL as you can see the edge pattern more easily- although the movecount likely be worse and less ergonomic).


----------



## Aurichalcite (Oct 25, 2015)

Is there an algorithm website? I think it would be useful for the easy-to-recognize OLLs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 25, 2015)

Aurichalcite said:


> Is there an algorithm website? I think it would be useful for the easy-to-recognize OLLs.



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/member.php?21928-Bindedsa

Closest thing you'll get


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 25, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/member.php?21928-Bindedsa
> 
> Closest thing you'll get



you mean this?


----------



## sqAree (Oct 25, 2015)

What about this?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Oct 25, 2015)

Could you get 1LLL to the point where you can stop practicing recog/drilling, and be able to instantly (or, within 0.5) recall an alg for a case that hasn't come up in over 20,000 solves?



Aurichalcite said:


> Is there an algorithm website? I think it would be useful for the easy-to-recognize OLLs.


http://algdb.net/ is good

Edit: Oh, you probably meant for 1LLL. There are still a lot of alg sets there though.


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 25, 2015)

Bindedsa- perhaps a video compilation of you with only 1LLL solves would convince the non-believers. I know I would find it cool to watch


----------



## Praetorian (Oct 26, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Bindedsa- perhaps a video compilation of you with only 1LLL solves would convince the non-believers. I know I would find it cool to watch



oh man I would love to see that


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 26, 2015)

Praetorian said:


> oh man I would love to see that


me too


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 26, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Bindedsa- perhaps a video compilation of you with only 1LLL solves would convince the non-believers. I know I would find it cool to watch



I'll try to do it this week, but it's gonna be tough. If I haven't by next week someone remind me.


----------



## obelisk477 (Oct 26, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> I'll try to do it this week, but it's gonna be tough. If I haven't by next week someone remind me.



But no ZBLL, that's kinda understandable. The crazy stuff to me is the random 2 edge flip cases


----------



## nalralz (Oct 26, 2015)

That is what ZBLL and COLL is.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Oct 26, 2015)

Didn't Chris Tran do this a while ago? And iirc he had pretty decent times with it. Especially taking into consideration the speed at the time he did it.


----------



## AlexMaass (Oct 26, 2015)

jms_gears1 said:


> Didn't Chris Tran do this a while ago? And iirc he had pretty decent times with it. Especially taking into consideration the speed at the time he did it.



no that was just zbll silly


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 26, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> no that was just zbll silly


I like the way you said 'Just ZBLL' lol


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Oct 28, 2015)

I have nothing to add to this discussion other than just saying how impressive I find it. It's basically Jabari against the entire cubing community's conventional wisdom. And the entire cubing community is losing.

In many areas of cubing, one person is far beyond anyone else. Maskow has 41 MBLD points; nobody else has over 26. For a while, Alex had a 6.xx AO100 with Roux, and nobody else was even below 9 globally. Roman has been unbelievable with bigBLD; he's also done things that nobody thought was possible. Feliks has been an incredible cubing pioneer in his own right; nobody has remained at the top of the world in so many events for so long. You belong in the same discussion as all of these people, Jabari. They're all undisputed kings of their cubing domains: MBLD, Roux, hugeBLD, and overall dominance of cubing, respectively. Alg knowledge is just as important a cubing domain as all of those, and the undisputed king is you. You're the living refutation of the ideas that 3x3 is getting close to its speed limit, and that method development can't make you faster anymore. That's incredible. I hope you realize that. I might've gushed too much, but yeah. You're got my respect, dude.

(as a sidenote, I think that if you learn 1LLL, you earn the right to give the "CFOP with 1LLL" method its own name. CFL, CFLL, or even something non-cubing related. Whatever you want.)


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 28, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I have nothing to add to this discussion other than just saying how impressive I find it. It's basically Jabari against the entire cubing community's conventional wisdom. And the entire cubing community is losing.
> 
> In many areas of cubing, one person is far beyond anyone else. Maskow has 41 MBLD points; nobody else has over 26. For a while, Alex had a 6.xx AO100 with Roux, and nobody else was even below 9 globally. Roman has been unbelievable with bigBLD; he's also done things that nobody thought was possible. Feliks has been an incredible cubing pioneer in his own right; nobody has remained at the top of the world in so many events for so long. You belong in the same discussion as all of these people, Jabari. They're all undisputed kings of their cubing domains: MBLD, Roux, hugeBLD, and overall dominance of cubing, respectively. Alg knowledge is just as important a cubing domain as all of those, and the undisputed king is you. You're the living refutation of the ideas that 3x3 is getting close to its speed limit, and that method development can't make you faster anymore. That's incredible. I hope you realize that. I might've gushed too much, but yeah. You're got my respect, dude.
> 
> (as a sidenote, I think that if you learn 1LLL, you earn the right to give the "CFOP with 1LLL" method its own name. CFL, CFLL, or even something non-cubing related. Whatever you want.)



Basically my thoughts too


----------



## DELToS (Oct 28, 2015)

I find it easy to recognize 1LLL and ZBLL, I just recognize the corners like I would in COLL (the same way cyotheking recognizes CLL, watch his videos on it), and for the edges I just do Dw until the edge on the right is correctly permuted and then I see which of the other 3 edges have to switch (for example, a U perm, or UB and UL switch, etc.).


----------



## Blueberry (Nov 3, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> I'll try to do it this week, but it's gonna be tough. If I haven't by next week someone remind me.



Bump

Hyped for this, currently learning 1LLLs from your sets and want to see how effective they can be. Learnt 24 of them over the past week and a half.


----------



## Bindedsa (Nov 3, 2015)

Blueberry said:


> Bump
> 
> Hyped for this, currently learning 1LLLs from your sets and want to see how effective they can be. Learnt 24 of them over the past week and a half.


It's on my mind, just busy with school. I'll get to it. 

Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk


----------



## Blueberry (Nov 3, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> It's on my mind, just busy with school. I'll get to it.
> 
> Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk



Ok, cheers


----------



## gewinnste (Nov 1, 2016)

Bindedsa said:


> Recall is just a matter of practice, you had trouble recalling OLLs after you first learnt them. ZBLL did take a long time to get used to and as I am still changing algs around, recall is still an issue sometimes, but there is no metric where OCLL or COLL is faster. Even without EO skips, ZBLL makes up a disproportionate amount of my above average solves. All of my fullstep sub 6s have been 1LLL.
> 
> By the same logic, Recognizing OLL is harder than OCLL. You don't think damn, I didn't get solved EO this is going to be hard to recognize. It's possible that these cases are harder to recognize, but you wouldn't say don't learn OLL, he recog is terrible.
> 
> Your opinion is your opinion and I can see the argument that it's not "worth" learning, because that is dependent on how much you dislike learning algs. As someone who uses 1LLL on close to a fourth of my solves, I'm telling you it is faster.



A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 1, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.


This is the guy who already knows 1000s of the 1LLL algs so I would say he's a pretty good authority on the subject.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.


OCLL recognition + EOLL recognition is worse than OLL recognition. Recognizing everything all at once is more efficient.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 2, 2016)

gewinnste said:


> A matter of practice? It will always take more time to distinguish between ~4000 cases than between 7 or 21 or 59. It already takes more time to recognize PLL than it takes for OCLL and more time for OLL than OCLL, so 1LLL will take much longer, no matter the practice. I know full ZZLL (173 cases) and use it every day since 1.5 years and it does take longer to recognize than OLL or PLL.


Is important to note that he said recall is a matter of practice, not recognition. Recognition for 1LLL is a matter of seeing the OLL case then recognising the edge and corner permutation. That's obviously slower than recognising the OLL, but as @Daniel Lin points out above, it's still faster than recognising OLL and PLL separately. Recall is quite different. Recall happens after you recognise the case and involves remembering which algorithm solves that case. I believe @Bindedsa when he says its just a matter of practice because it matches my own experience with learning ZBLL so far (although I am only getting started).


----------



## vm70 (Dec 7, 2016)

Lars Petrus made a whole program designed to show every single algorithm for 1LLL that's less than 14 moves some time ago. This doesn't prove that memorizing 4608 different cases would be a good idea, though. If you memorize 3 algorithms per day, it would take you 1536 days or about 4.2 years to learn 1LLL; that doesn't mean that your recognition from looking at lots of similar cases would be good, though.
http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=____

Just to demonstrate, here's case Eo8G:
http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=Eo8G

"Showing my work": https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4608/3+days

EDIT: Oh and also, don't get me started on even cube parity algorithms for last layer. The number of 1LLL cases on 4x4, 6x6, etc. would be even more of a nightmarish trek through algorithms than 4608.


----------



## efattah (Dec 8, 2016)

I'm curious as to the 1LLL worst cases. What is:
- Longest move count for Bindedsa's 1LLL alg set?
- Slowest algorithm for the 1LLL set? (not the same as longest move count...)


----------



## dannah (Dec 21, 2016)

tseitsei said:


> Can be done but I think it will not be any faster than oll/pll because recognition and alg recall will obviously be much harder and slower...


no, i recon with practice it would not be that much slower at my first look learning full OLL looks like the case recognition will be hard but i am pretty certain that it wont be seeing as pretty much every good speedcuber knows OLL so actually with practice it might be learnable


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 22, 2016)

dannah said:


> no, i recon with practice it would not be that much slower at my first look learning full OLL looks like the case recognition will be hard but i am pretty certain that it wont be seeing as pretty much every good speedcuber knows OLL so actually with practice it might be learnable


...

He said that over a year ago. Did you even read the thread? I think that point has already been discussed, and done with better punctuation.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 22, 2016)

Well you will know about all of 1LLL if you learn ZB anti-ZB OLLCP PLL VLS MGLS and other stuff. 


Or you could just use ZZ.


----------



## Cordyceps1111 (Jan 5, 2017)

Does anyone know how to calculate how many cases there are for an EG-like 3x3 method? So you solve a face and then the rest with one algorithm... i wonder if that's even humanly possible


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 5, 2017)

Cordyceps1111 said:


> Does anyone know how to calculate how many cases there are for an EG-like 3x3 method? So you solve a face and then the rest with one algorithm... i wonder if that's even humanly possible


(4!*4!*(3^3)*4!*8!*(2^7))/(4*2)=240789749760 so no probably not.


----------



## gateway cuber (Jan 5, 2017)

so hows 1LLL coming along Jabari? LAst I heard he was at like 1500 algs or so...


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 13, 2017)

CyanSandwich said:


> Could you get 1LLL to the point where you can stop practicing recog/drilling, and be able to instantly (or, within 0.5) recall an alg for a case that hasn't come up in over 20,000 solves?
> 
> 
> http://algdb.net/ is good
> ...




I want to say yes, but only if you've been using it for multiple years (maybe less?) every day. i mean, think of it as a language; there are lots of words that you use extremely rarely yet you can recall and even use them extremely quickly. If however you learn it all in a bulk and start using it, at first you have to keep drilling the algs and practicing the recognition to keep it up. i notice this already when trying to remember the 170 Names for the ZZLLs we use in Team BLD, i also have to recognise them and call out the name really quickly, and for the first weeks i had to repeat all of them every day, but now, around 2 months later, i have them all down and dont need to practice anymore (unless i were to stop doing TeamBLD for a couple of weeks)

As a conclusion, I also think that 1LLL must be better than OLL+PLL. I don't see how it could be otherwise; 1LLL always has less moves than OLL+PLL, it only has one recognition stop for the brain to process, and this recognition should never be longer than OLL reco + PLL reco, and then getting the alg execution as fast as OLL/PLL is just a matter of time and commitment. People just say OLL+PLL is better because at the beginning it obviously is, but seem to forget that 1LLL is an investion for the long haul. Of course if you only wanna spend one month learning and drilling algs, youre not gonna get far with 1LLL.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Mar 8, 2017)

I for one thing that 1LLL is completely possible and fast but it is just very time consuming. Look at a smaller set such as ZBLL. As a beginner cuber those 500 algs look almost impossible to learn but now multiple people know many ZBLL cases and some like Jabari even know the full set. 1LLL is basically just ZBLL on steroids so it is almost the exact same (except eo recognition) so it shouldn't be that hard to learn but there are just so many algs that it is hard to learn all of it. Also people keep saying it's not feasible but just remember people used to say the same thing about ZBLL and now look at where it's at.


----------



## Luke8 (Mar 10, 2017)

Yes, ZBLL already exists, it requires memorizing 493 algorithms, but it solves the last layer in one algorithm. People have memorized this, and used it effectively, but very few can. For all the ZBLL algorithms, go here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2g-oMdOeacZSl80M01iZVBfOWs/view
the previous link explains ZBLL theory and all of the 493 algorithms, and it is a PDF.


----------



## cuber314159 (Mar 10, 2017)

Luke8 said:


> Yes, ZBLL already exists, it requires memorizing 493 algorithms, but it solves the last layer in one algorithm. People have memorized this, and used it effectively, but very few can. For all the ZBLL algorithms, go here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2g-oMdOeacZSl80M01iZVBfOWs/view
> the previous link explains ZBLL theory and all of the 493 algorithms, and it is a PDF.


But isn't zbll solving the cube after a cross has already been solved, meaning that you have to force skip one step of two look oll


----------



## DGCubes (Mar 11, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> But isn't zbll solving the cube after a cross has already been solved, meaning that you have to force skip one step of two look oll



Yes, but that is not difficult to do. With a method such as ZZ, this is done automatically; otherwise, (often intuitive) edge control during F2L easily allows this to be accomplished.


----------



## CeBeMind (Mar 16, 2017)

Yes.


----------



## TreacherousToast (Mar 22, 2017)

To create the database you would have to have cube explorer automatically running through all the cases 24/7


----------



## Metallic Silver (Mar 22, 2017)

1LLL must be possible.
If a person can know full ZBLL, RLS, ZZCT, and OLLCP, then it's possible for a person to learn 1LLL.


----------



## DGCubes (Mar 22, 2017)

TreacherousToast said:


> To create the database you would have to have cube explorer automatically running through all the cases 24/7



Well, there's this.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 23, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Well, there's this.



There's also this and this (although these algs are not optimised for fingertricks at all).


----------



## obelisk477 (Mar 23, 2017)

TreacherousToast said:


> To create the database you would have to have cube explorer automatically running through all the cases 24/7



Lars Petrus' database contains all algs for all last layer cases that are 17 moves are less. Which I'm pretty sure that no LL case requires 18+ moves


----------



## cuBerBruce (Mar 23, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> Lars Petrus' database contains all algs for all last layer cases that are 17 moves are less. Which I'm pretty sure that no LL case requires 18+ moves


In fact, all last layer positions can be solved in 16 moves (FTM) or less, *including AUF*. I gave the distribution here.


----------



## Martin Orav (May 8, 2017)

Is it possible (in theory) to recognise 1LLL by looking at the top layer and two adjacent sides?


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 8, 2017)

Martin Orav said:


> Is it possible (in theory) to recognise 1LLL by looking at the top layer and two adjacent sides?


Yes. OLL can always be recognised from the top and two sides, you have enough info to work out CP, and just two edges is enough to work out EP if CP is known.


----------



## Gold Cuber (May 8, 2017)

What is 1LLL?


----------



## cuber314159 (May 8, 2017)

Gold Cuber said:


> What is 1LLL?


1 look last layer


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2017)

Possible? Sure.

The problem is the relationship between case set size, algorithm uniqueness, and recognition factors. PLL reduces via AUF to a small number of cases (from technically speaking, 72), case solutions may use a decent number of mirrors/inverses, and can be recognised using knowledge of only 6 sticker values relationships from any AUF. The algorithms themselves tend to be quite distinct - or if not distinct, intuitively relatable.

Recognition time involves the comprehension of the case, pulling a distinct 'macro exec case' for the algorithm from a kind of memory, and execution relies on another kind - procedural memory.

At the basic level, maintenance of the procedural memory gets more and more time demanding as the number of unique algorithms rises. Attaching this procedural memory firmly to the correct cases has another (but related) time demand. A confounding factor is solution similarity - the larger the solution set, the more demanding it is to maintain the relationship of x case 'macro memory' to x case procedural memory when x and y case are near-identical.

One level higher, the complexity of sticker relationships to case identification increases the more powerful a system becomes, and so maintenance demand increases. Some minimum n of stickers to establish case uniqueness must be increased. Now maintenance of the connection between macro and procedural must be balanced alongside maintaining the relationship between recog state and macro memory. Managing this trade-off between the two factors is by itself another demand.

All of these demands create trade-offs for you, the human. When comparing two systems, we list the presupposed qualities, and this stage is where most cubers theories or systems live and die. The more important (and harder to measure) factor is that they must show a distinct advantage in the real world, in general. Otherwise speed advantages can be attributed to individual qualities, rather than the system itself having a quantifiable, proven advantage.

The currently-conceived 1LLL systems are still in this latter stage of theory-testing. I'm not sure if they will pass the empirical demands. One option that was explored a few years ago by Kirjava was the idea of generating solutions for all LL cases from two short-length OLL algorithms, plus one setup move in the chain. This solved some elements of the macro-memory problem rather succinctly. The next problem was to figure out how to establish recognition in a maintenance-efficient manner. Unfortunately no simple solutions were apparent - grouping cases by initial OLL didn't reveal higher-order patterns (except for the obvious fact that each OLL applies a fixed transformation). Nor did deep intuitive or mechanical analysis. 1LLL, outside of pre-processing for certain cases in the F2L stage - as ZBLL does - is simply massive.

Because of these research problems - both for figuring out the maintenance problem, and the uncertainty of real-world advantages - there are significant issues with pure 1LLL.

My personal view on the topic is that we take a less pure approach towards systems. Measurement of single solves is an impure test of 'speed', and the paradigm of avg5 selects for certain ways of thinking which may not be ultimately beneficial. Ideally we should seek to increase the *incidences* of 1LLLs, not tyrannically enforce them. We should also look to reduce redundant sticker recognition, as well as the number and relationship of stickers to apprehend at any one instance.

The pragmatic approach is already evidenced as successful with a close reading of the very, very fastest CF(OP) cubers. Generally speaking PLL has already been recognised during the OLL execution so that the entire LL is executed in (apparently) one 'instance'. Recognition has been integrated with execution at this level. Also, typically some pre-processing for better LL cases has been done during F2L. The move cost for doing so can be very low (or even free) if one is already at a certain speed and sophistication of lookahead.

The desire for methodological purity is a seductive one. Instead, I feel like formalising the construction of a general approach may be the next level of advancement in solving the 1LLL problem. There are many options for hybridising existing systems and we currently lack a rationalised guidebook for the better options.

My loose conception of what this looks like; heuristics for pre-processing in the F2L stage (efficiently preserving and increasing late-stage partial solutions as they appear in earlier stages); increasing the number of available opportunities to smoothly include full orientation with the end of the F2l; exploiting un-used macro storage for higher-level cases; training PLL recognition mid-OLL; and improving intuition for avoiding worst-boundary cases efficiently (such as diagonal corner PLLs).

Of course, this is not to say that theoretical research and exploration is a bad thing, necessarily. Simply there is a lot of low-hanging fruit, providing we choose the right perspective. Focusing efforts on a particular branch for it's 'pure qualities' isn't ipso facto the right method for increasing the harvest.


----------



## cuber314159 (May 10, 2017)

while I think that it is possible and viable to do 1lll it may be better for speed solving to be able to recognise OLL and then execute the OLL but while executing the OLL recognise the CP + EP of the OLL case and then recall what PLL to do straight away, this is what caused feliks to get his 4.73 single, by knowing the PLL before doing it and if this could be done every solve then sub-6 averages could be possible within the next year or two.


----------



## Rcuber123 (May 10, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> while I think that it is possible and viable to do 1lll it may be better for speed solving to be able to recognise OLL and then execute the OLL but while executing the OLL recognise the CP + EP of the OLL case and then recall what PLL to do straight away, this is what caused feliks to get his 4.73 single, by knowing the PLL before doing it and if this could be done every solve then sub-6 averages could be possible within the next year or two.


I'm pretty sure feliks does this at least half the time.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 11, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> while I think that it is possible and viable to do 1lll it may be better for speed solving to be able to recognise OLL and then execute the OLL but while executing the OLL recognise the CP + EP of the OLL case and then recall what PLL to do straight away, this is what caused feliks to get his 4.73 single, by knowing the PLL before doing it and if this could be done every solve then sub-6 averages could be possible within the next year or two.


This is ROLL and I'm pretty sure quite a few top solvers do it in many of their solves already. 1LLL is still faster though.


----------



## One Wheel (May 11, 2017)

I need to stop reading threads like this. It makes me want to learn 1LLL, and maybe megaminx 1LLL someday, but I still have about 40 OLLs and 7 OCLLs plus mirrors for megaminx left to learn.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 26, 2017)

i have found a way to reduce 1lll alg count to 1289

you preform an M2 S2 , then you auf and adf, preform 1/1289 algs, auf and adf, then preform M2 S2


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 26, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i have found a way to reduce 1lll alg count to 1289
> 
> you preform an M2 S2 , then you auf and adf, preform 1/1289 algs, auf and adf, then preform M2 S2


But reforming M2 S2 will really slow down the solve.


----------



## ComputerGuy365 (Jun 28, 2017)

It's called ZBLL, isn't it?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jun 28, 2017)

ComputerGuy365 said:


> It's called ZBLL, isn't it?


*facepalm 
Please just do everyone here a favor and educate yourself here:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLL


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jun 28, 2017)

ComputerGuy365 said:


> It's called ZBLL, isn't it?


ZBLL needs all edges to be oriented. Full 1LLL is about 8 times larger.


----------



## ExultantCarn (Jul 27, 2017)

What if instead of just solving your last pair, you use phasing when solving it? I haven't worked out how many algs that would be, but that should greatly reduce the alg count while only adding 3-4 extra moves


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 27, 2017)

ExultantCarn said:


> What if instead of just solving your last pair, you use phasing when solving it? I haven't worked out how many algs that would be, but that should greatly reduce the alg count while only adding 3-4 extra moves



Doing LS differently to reduce the number of LL cases is _not_ what this thread is about. Yes, phasing would reduce alg count (by a factor of 3), but it's not even as large a reduction as EO (factor of 8) and people don't consider these subsets to be "_full_ 1LLL".


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 29, 2017)

What about 1LHC (1 look whole cube)


----------



## One Wheel (Dec 29, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> What about 1LHC (1 look whole cube)


That's called blindsolving.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Dec 29, 2017)

Its could be called Speed blind.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 29, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> That's called blindsolving.


I mean 1 alg whole cube.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Dec 29, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> I mean 1 alg whole cube.


No that isn’t humanly possible without somehow extending your life. I did some pretty rough math and assuming you learned 100 algs per day it would take 1.177 x 10^15 YEARS. Let’s not even talk about recognition.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 29, 2017)

Recognition is done on inspection.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Dec 29, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> Recognition is done on inspection.


Obviously. The part that makes it impossible is the fact that you have to recall what each of your 43 quintillion algs are for which of those 43 quintillion cases your see during inspection.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 29, 2017)

But if you can you are sure to set a world record.I'll leave it here


----------



## cuber314159 (Dec 29, 2017)

Is 1 look 2x2 theoretically possible though?
A 2x2 has 3674160 combinations 
So if we assume it's inventor started learning 200 algs a day in 1970 then hed be finishing soon 
But then again why would anyone do that?


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 29, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Is 1 look 2x2 theoretically possible though?
> A 2x2 has 3674160 combinations
> So if we assume it's inventor started learning 200 algs a day in 1970 then hed be finishing soon
> But then again why would anyone do that?



Well, there are only 120 States that can be solved in four Moves and 534 in five so that's deffenitely possible



1001010101001 said:


> What about 1LHC (1 look whole cube)



Ask Frank Morris, he probably does that already


----------



## cuber314159 (Dec 29, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Ask Frank Morris, he probably does that already


I think we should bring back some of Lucas Garrons' stuff, it was funny and can easily be done here, just not sure whether people will cooperate, especially when most people who regularly use off topic are newer cubers who wouldn't know about it.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Dec 29, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> What about 1LHC (1 look whole cube)


Also that should be 1LWC


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 29, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> Also that should be 1LWC


I believe the accepted term is F3L.


----------



## efattah (Dec 30, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Is 1 look 2x2 theoretically possible though?
> A 2x2 has 3674160 combinations
> So if we assume it's inventor started learning 200 algs a day in 1970 then hed be finishing soon
> But then again why would anyone do that?



If you allow for 1 set up move (R, R', R2, F', F, F2, L, L', L2, U, U', U2, D, D', D2, B', B, B2) then you can use a large amount of symmetry to reduce cases. Furthermore I am not certain if the number of combinations (3674160) includes cases which are symmetric to a rotation and solved by the same algorithm. If not, the allowing (A) one rotation, and (B) one setup move, could reduce the number of cases by a factor of 80 (45,927 cases). Correct my math if I'm wrong.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 30, 2017)

efattah said:


> If you allow for 1 set up move (R, R', R2, F', F, F2, L, L', L2, U, U', U2, D, D', D2, B', B, B2) then you can use a large amount of symmetry to reduce cases. Furthermore I am not certain if the number of combinations (3674160) includes cases which are symmetric to a rotation and solved by the same algorithm. If not, the allowing (A) one rotation, and (B) one setup move, could reduce the number of cases by a factor of 80 (45,927 cases). Correct my math if I'm wrong.


 I don't know how right that math is, but 3.6 million is with a fixed corner. Also, you could ignore all of the positions taking 5 moves or less to knock off 9992 algs.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 2, 2018)

ZBLL?
Zeroing?


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 2, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> ZBLL?
> Zeroing?



ZBLL stands for Zborowski-Bruchem Last Layer and is the subset of 1LLL in which all of the Edges are Oriented. There are 593 Cases and multiple people have learnt it.

Zeroing is basically the best Method that exists and people say, we have to stop telling new cubers it's a thing, because it doesn't exist and is just made up.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 2, 2018)

I saw a couple youtube videos of people that finish the LL while inserting the last pair for F2L. I'm guessing that their fake.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 2, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> I saw a couple youtube videos of people that finish the LL while inserting the last pair for F2L. I'm guessing that their fake.


That’s usually a last layer skip or they did something like VLS or WV which orients the top layer while solving the last f2l pair and then they got a pll skip.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 2, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> That’s usually a last layer skip or they did something like VLS or WV which orients the top layer while solving the last f2l pair and then they got a pll skip.


Pure luck solve.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jan 2, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> That’s usually a last layer skip





Cubed Cuber said:


> Pure luck solve.



Yes. But not fake and it's actually pretty neat because those don't happen often.



Underwatercuber said:


> or they did something like VLS or WV





Cubed Cuber said:


> Pure luck solve.



No.



Cubed Cuber said:


> I saw a couple youtube videos of people that finish the LL while inserting the last pair for F2L. I'm guessing that they're fake.



No sir that's zeroing.


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 2, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> I saw a couple youtube videos of people that finish the LL while inserting the last pair for F2L. I'm guessing that their fake.



wha... what? A last layer skip! No Way! I gotta rewatch that.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 3, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> Zeroing is basically the best Method that exists and people say, we have to stop telling new cubers it's a thing, because it doesn't exist and is just made up.





joshsailscga said:


> No sir that's zeroing.


So, is zeroing real or not?


----------



## joshsailscga (Jan 3, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> wha... what? A last layer skip! No Way! I gotta rewatch that.



Classic


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 3, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> So, is zeroing real or not?


No.


Spoiler: Or is it? 



No.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 3, 2018)

So all the tutorials of zeroing is basically fake and were just made up. right?


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 3, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> So all the tutorials of zeroing is basically fake and were just made up. right?


Yes, and also this is extremely off topic.


----------



## skewbydoobydoo (Jan 17, 2018)

we could train recognition for years


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jan 22, 2018)

My opinion is possible- Yes

Worthwhile-No No No


----------

