# Which side do you so your 2 side PLL recognition on?



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

The title says it all, I am curious which side those of you who do 2 side PLL recognition do their recognizing on. 

I cannot make up my mind on which is best. It seems to me that the most physically comfortable side to do this on (assuming you use right handed algs) is the right side as the cube is often already slightly twisted that way during your OLL, however, while this may be comfortable I don't think this is the best way to do your 2 side recog because the R and U faces are almost always in motion during OLL and therefore your ability to look ahead into PLL is diminished. On the other hand, while looking on the left side will provide better lookahead in general, it is also very awkward and makes performing your OLL's harder. I am curious what other peoples' opinions on this are or if they have really thought about this at all. Thanks.

Edit: There seems to be some confusion about what I am asking here so I will explicate my idea here for everyone. But before I do, everyone who knows two side recog go grab a cube and practice trying to predict the PLL on the left and on the right for about 5 minutes (you of course use the front as well, it wouldn't be 2 side recog without it, but just look at only the left two sides or the right two sides). Now let me also say that this form of PLL prediction is NOT the only thing you will be using to predict PLL, you should totally use OLLCP and other things in the choice of your OLL/ also using R-OLL; the idea of using 2 side PLL recog will only make things easier if you know you have a U Zor H perm coming. Now, if you do this properly; only look on the right and front or the left and front, then you should see a huge difference!!! If you try to use the right side things are moving too quickly and don't really "form up" until the last two turns. If you look on the right side then you will notice that things aren't moving as much and tend to "form up" much sooner. Logically, putting the awkward part of the execution aside, which side would you want to use to start predicting PLL: A) the side that is moving really quick and makes it really hard to see what is forming in your PLL or B) the side that has much less motion and is static enough to start predicting pretty early on? 

The answer seems simple to me; the slow side so that you can better predict PLL, the only reason I am even asking this is because I wonder whether or not it being awkward is worth it/ I was also bringing up this concept to the community because I wondered if people realized that this was true. I realize that many of you don't have a system for this and think my desire to make one is silly, but think about it, isn't it better to have a fixed idea of where you are going to look for PLL while your executing OLL that way you can get used to tracking things, than to just say whatever I will just watch whatever I see? Sure the "I will just watch whatever I see" thing gets you lucky sometimes, but assuming you can do 2 side recog well, you don't need to see blocks or anything to recog, just patterns, and once they start forming you can start to eliminate certain PLLs and recog. the actual one. So overall, it would be better to just look at two sides since that is all we need and considering that especially when used in conjunction with OLLCP or R-OLL, one literally does not need to be looking at any more than two sides and should, in my opinion, try to train themselves to look at only two sides so that they can eliminate their pauses between OLL and PLL. Now considering that to be true, the next question is which two sides do I look at i.e.exactly what I made this thread for. I think most people just think that by doing OLLCP they have predicted enough and don't need to track/ try to predict their PLL, but I disagree, again, which is better: A) being able to limit your PLL to U Z or H, but not knowing which one you have before you stop turning for your OLL or B) being able to limit your PLL to U Z or H, and also knowing exactly which one you will have when you finish turning. That answer also very simply to me : B. 

If anyone else is still confused I will make a video showing what I mean, but I think I explained myself pretty well. Let me know if you have any questions or if you need further explanation.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 23, 2012)

I doubt many have thought about this much because it's not something that requires consideration. Are your next polls going to be "what angle should your wrists be bent at" and "what is the best shade of red to use"?

Do whichever you're looking at at the time. The only correct answer here is "front".


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I doubt many have thought about this much because it's not something that requires consideration. Are your next polls going to be "what angle should your wrists be bent at" and "what is the best shade of red to use"?
> 
> Do whichever you're looking at at the time. The only correct answer here is "front".


 
I completely disagree, and your comparison on this choice to that of a choice based on preference completely misses the entire reasoning for doing 2 side PLL recog. The whole point of 2 side PLL recog is to quickly recog and execute your PLL without unnecessary cube rotations or thought, and if you are going to use 2 side PLL recog then you should have a system for how, when and where you look to do your recognition in order to do this effectively. If you don't have a system for where you look then you are very likely to miss the opportunity to look ahead further and/ or flip flop on which side you look at which often turns your 2 side PLL recog into 3 side recog and wastes precious time.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I completely disagree, and your comparison on this choice to that of a choice based on preference completely misses the entire reasoning for doing 2 side PLL recog. The whole point of 2 side PLL recog is to quickly recog and execute your PLL without unnecessary cube rotations or thought,



Having a chosen side would lend itself to more cube rotations than if you used whichever side you were looking at.



jskyler91 said:


> and if you are going to use 2 side PLL recog then you should have a system for how, when and where you look to do your recognition in order to do this effectively. If you don't have a system for where you look then you are very likely to miss the opportunity to look ahead further and/ or flip flop on which side you look at which often turns your 2 side PLL recog into 3 side recog and wastes precious time.


 
You look at two sides of the last layer. 

omg it's so complicated it needs a system.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Having a chosen side would lend itself to more cube rotations than if you used whichever side you were looking at.



Not if you decided to look at that side while you were doing your OLL, then you would never need to rotate and you could do this crazy thing called looking ahead. 





Kirjava said:


> You look at two sides of the last layer.
> 
> omg it's so complicated it needs a system.



Apparently it does because you seem to need someone to explain to your how one would properly utilize it.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Not if you decided to look at that side while you were doing your OLL, then you would never need to rotate



You would never need to rotate if you just decided to look at whichever side you ended up looking at. 

Deciding during OLL just adds extra overhead.



jskyler91 said:


> and you could do this crazy thing called looking ahead.



Yeah, patronising Kirjava is a great idea.

You seem to imply that lookahead is only possible with the technique you suggest.



jskyler91 said:


> Apparently it does because you seem to need someone to explain to your how one would properly utilize it.


 
So now you're claiming that if someone is using an alternative technique, they 'aren't properly utlising 2side recog'?

You're not the authority on correct technique. Your approach is too verbose.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 23, 2012)

Sometimes R, sometimes L depending on the solve.


----------



## Godmil (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm not sure why you'd need a predefined side, it's not like you'll see anything different. Wouldn't you just see whatever 2 sides are in front of you at the end of OLL?


----------



## Robocopter87 (Mar 23, 2012)

The sides that are facing me after I do an OLL, seriously, what difference does it make?

Its two side recognition. You look at two sides to recognize. You aren't always going to use the same sides. Even if you did, it would take a half a second to get there. It makes no difference.


----------



## Escher (Mar 23, 2012)

The only way I see this line of thinking would be useful would be if you didn't use any kind of CP tracking, and while you executed OLL you were mindful of the B(&L) stickers.

Otherwise, I agree with Kirjava in that this is overbaking the concept - there are far more important things to think about than to decide a 'side' to lean towards when doing 2-sided recog, in my mind it basically defeats the purpose.


----------



## Schmidt (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Which side do you so your 2 side PLL recognition on?
> The title says it all.



/\I'm confused./\

I guess it depends on the situation: If OLL ends with R/R' or F/F' I peek at L and tilt it back to look at F & R.


----------



## MWilson (Mar 23, 2012)

The main benefit of 2 side PLL recognition is that you gain the ability to see the PLL coming during the last moves of your OLL. With that kind of look-ahead, you do your recognition for the PLL during the end of the OLL and potentially have zero pause during LL. The real question is how to best practice 2 side PLL recognition during the end of the OLL when there are so many OLLs, not which side to look at during a pause after OLL is done.


----------



## Mollerz (Mar 23, 2012)

Escher said:


> Tthere are far more important things to think about than to decide a 'side' to lean towards when doing 2-sided recog, in my mind it basically defeats the purpose.


 
Exactly, I look at whatever 2 sides I happen to be looking at.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 23, 2012)

F and R, always.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Sa967St said:


> F and R, always.


 
Do you think this is better, or is it what you have just always done? I used to look there as well, but as I am trying to present here, I think looking on the left is much better for predicting PLL.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Do you think this is better, or is it what you have just always done? I used to look there as well, but as I am trying to present here, I think looking on the left is much better for predicting PLL.


I don't know, I've never tried L/F. F/R is natural to me because of the angle I hold the cube at.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Sa967St said:


> I don't know, I've never tried L/F. F/R is natural to me because of the angle I hold the cube at.


 
That's what I thought until I really sat down and thought about it. Then I realized that the left side provides better lookahead (as mentioned above). I think this is one of those times when our natural instinct might be wrong.


----------



## Quadrescence (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> That's what I thought until I really sat down and thought about it. Then I realized that the left side provides better lookahead (as mentioned above). I think this is one of those times when our natural instinct might be wrong.


 
have u considered hyperorientations


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Quadrescence said:


> have u considered hyperorientations


 
Not sure what that means to be honest.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> That's what I thought until I really sat down and thought about it. Then I realized that the left side provides better lookahead (as mentioned above). I think this is one of those times when our natural instinct might be wrong.


Well since it's only physically possible to see 3 faces at a time, I always think of the far left one as F and the far right one as R. Whenever I do L moves I don't actually see the L face.

How much have you experimented with L/F over F/R? It seems weird to me to be able to alternate between them, but I guess it could be done.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Sa967St said:


> Well since it's only physically possible to see 3 faces at a time, I always think of the far left one as F and the far right one as R. Whenever I do L moves I don't actually see the L face.
> 
> How much have you experimented with L/F over F/R? It seems weird to me to be able to alternate between them, but I guess it could be done.


 
Ah, I define the left as the left side and the right as the right side. What I am saying is that the right side is often in motion more and therefore it is harder to see that side properly, whereas the left side is often moving less and therefore you can predict the PLL better there. If you are a lefty then this would probably be reversed.


----------



## Quadrescence (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> The title says it all, I am curious which side those of you who do 2 side PLL recognition do their recognizing on.
> 
> I cannot make up my mind on which is best. It seems to me that the most physically comfortable side to do this on (assuming you use right handed algs) is the right side as the cube is often already slightly twisted that way during your OLL, however, while this may be comfortable I don't think this is the best way to do your 2 side recog because the R and U faces are almost always in motion during OLL and therefore your ability to look ahead into PLL is diminished. On the other hand, while looking on the left side will provide better lookahead in general, it is also very awkward and makes performing your OLL's harder. I am curious what other peoples' opinions on this are or if they have really thought about this at all. Thanks.


 
neither is best because of symmetry; it is not an opinion


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Quadrescence said:


> neither is best because of symmetry; it is not an opinion


 
Sorry, but I think you missed my long post on the second page, I am talking about this interms of actual execution, not in terms of symmetry, technically both sides are the same, but since we move the left side less (if your right handed) it is actually easier to look ahead on that side.


----------



## Jostle (Mar 23, 2012)

So why wouldn't you just do it on the side you end up on? Wouldn't that be easier?


----------



## Quadrescence (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Sorry, but I think you missed my long post on the second page, I am talking about this interms of actual execution, not in terms of symmetry, technically both sides are the same, but since we move the left side less (if your right handed) it is actually easier to look ahead on that side.


 
i thought cubers were supposed to take full advantage of both hands, in order to perform optimal execution


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Quadrescence said:


> i thought cubers were supposed to take full advantage of both hands, in order to perform optimal execution


 

Maybe during F2L (although most don't), but during PLL, most people use very fixed algs which favor their hand dominance. If people use left and right hand algs all the time then my argument would be null, but in general this is not the case.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Jostle said:


> So why wouldn't you just do it on the side you end up on? Wouldn't that be easier?


 
Easier yes, but not better, the whole point here is to create a system that maximizes look ahead into PLL.


----------



## Jostle (Mar 23, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Easier yes, but not better, the whole point here is to create a system that maximizes look ahead into PLL.


 
Is there something that I'm not understanding here? How would the side that you recog on affect the cases that you can get, or even throw you off?


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 23, 2012)

Jostle said:


> Is there something that I'm not understanding here? How would the side that you recog on affect the cases that you can get, or even throw you off?


 
It wouldn't, it would simply affect how well you could predict what was coming. This is all to help eliminate the pause between OLL and PLL. Very simple idea, but most of us don't do this and I was just letting the forum know about it in case they didn't (which apparently they don't)


----------



## Godmil (Mar 24, 2012)

Oh I get it now, so you're interested in which view at the end of OLL gives the most undisturbed view of the LL sides. I'd have to conclude that it should be evaluated on a case by case bases, maybe there is a preferred side for each OLL.


----------



## JK (Apr 7, 2012)

After reading this, I think maybe looking L side to recognize PLL is better than R side.
I've dicided to practise recognizing PLLs on L side.


----------

