# Feasibility of really big 3x3 algsets like 1LLL and UF5



## abunickabhi (Jan 1, 2021)

With more and more people investing time in perfecting algorithms, we always try to go for crazy stuff like ZBLL, OLLCP, full floating 3-style and so on. I think these algsets are possible to use in actual solves if a lot of work is put into it.

But there are some algsets like 1LLL and UF5 (5-style edges), which have the number of cases in the thousands, and will take a lot of effort to even properly categorise and retrieve the algorithms once they are learnt. 

So my question is, what do you think is the feasibility of such big algsets? If someone becomes a full time cuber and starts from the age of 5, will they be using such algsets.
For reference, such algsets are still smaller in size for memorisation as compared to what elite chess players memorise in their opening theory.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 1, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> With more and more people investing time in perfecting algorithms, we always try to go for crazy stuff like ZBLL, OLLCP, full floating 3-style and so on. I think these algsets are possible to use in actual solves if a lot of work is put into it.
> 
> But there are some algsets like 1LLL and UF5 (5-style edges), which have the number of cases in the thousands, and will take a lot of effort to even properly categorise and retrieve the algorithms once they are learnt.
> 
> ...


Personally I suspect that a lot of the really big alg sets aren’t going to be worth it, but a large chunk of it will be. Look at 1LLL for example. Just ZBLL, one of its subsets, is under scrutiny for which cases are faster than just normal OLL/PLL so that alone should serve as a predictor that full 1LLL is also going to have really good cases, like line, flipped line, Tripod etc, and cases where just doing OLL into PLL is going to be faster. That’s what I think is going to be the hardest part about these large alsgsets. Not genning algs or sorting , but going through every cases after good algs are found and checking if it’s even faster than the standard way of solving.


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 12, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> Personally I suspect that a lot of the really big alg sets aren’t going to be worth it, but a large chunk of it will be. Look at 1LLL for example. Just ZBLL, one of its subsets, is under scrutiny for which cases are faster than just normal OLL/PLL so that alone should serve as a predictor that full 1LLL is also going to have really good cases, like line, flipped line, Tripod etc, and cases where just doing OLL into PLL is going to be faster. That’s what I think is going to be the hardest part about these large alsgsets. Not genning algs or sorting , but going through every cases after good algs are found and checking if it’s even faster than the standard way of solving.


Yes I agree with you. Not all cases in the bigger algset, will be the fastest ones, and coming up with a subset of the big algset is not an easy task. The subset should be designed in such a way that it proves to be worth the ROI, and the time put into the new algset.

On a side note, I have posted the topic on puzzling stackexchange as well, hope to get some cool views from there as well,
https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/...big-3x3-rubiks-cube-algsets-like-1lll-and-uf5


----------



## qwr (Apr 12, 2021)

I don't think they are worth it. People have finite time to practice solving and they can practice recognition and execution of common cases or they can try the daunting task of learning hundreds or thousands of algs. I think it is more efficient timewise to focus on the former.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Apr 12, 2021)

1LLL? And me still trying to forget algs to get faster



abunickabhi said:


> Yes similar to the rise of Max Park, there is no need of learning fancy and big algsets.
> 
> Just keep the solve process simple.



source


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 14, 2021)

I am making a document on how to approach super big algsets. Its not ideal to put 1LLL and UF5 in the same boat, as 1LLL has lesser amount of cases.
But UF5 set has more symmetries and setup to other cases as compared to 1LLL, so accelerating the learning is easier there. The reason more symmetry exists is because UF5 is only for one piece type ie edges whereas 1LLL has both edges and corners.


----------



## Petro Leum (Nov 14, 2021)

It all depends on how much time you pour into cubing.

If you're competitive on an international level, practice 10+ hours per day anyway and have already exhausted most of the easy improvement through higher TPS, intuitive solutions, lookahead, then investing time in 1LLL is a no-brainer, as you will get more improvement out of it than from grinding another 10000 hours of solves.

Of course, if you only cube for like an hour a day, you won't have time to practice at all if you commit to such a huge alg set.

So, in conclusion, I'd say they are definitely feasible if not mandatory to achieve the best possible times, but they're not worth thinking about for 99.9% of today's cubers.


----------



## qwr (Nov 15, 2021)

Petro Leum said:


> If you're competitive on an international level, practice 10+ hours per day anyway and have already exhausted most of the easy improvement through higher TPS, intuitive solutions, lookahead, then investing time in 1LLL is a no-brainer, as you will get more improvement out of it than from grinding another 10000 hours of solves.


I still think instead of 1LLL, investing into efficient cross+pairs and much smaller subsets of ZBLL, COLL, OLLCP (or even the entire subsets) is much more worth it.


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 15, 2021)

I think about this topic a lot, so if I wanted to, I could, no Joke, write 15 paragraphs in this thread. But I won't as noone's gonna read this.
I find it fitting that you in particular ask this question, as the progress you make with 5-Style is amazing on it's own.
One thing is, how much the effort is going to pay out in actual solves. For example, people who know nothing about Edge control or LS tricks learn COLL and ramdom LL algorithms. They are almost never coming up, so you spend all this effort to get not even faster. Now, COLL or Cyo's LL algorithms are not big sets to learn, but agg a zero and my point stands. Learn sets that actually benefit you.
Also if one is learning a set that is bigger, I always say to decide to do this only for your main event.
As to if they are feasible, I can count quite some (Tao Yo, Jibari, Chris Chan and whatever), who know full ZBLL and have gotten fast with it.
Might write some more later.


----------

