# 1 look 2 algs (Compound OLL) vs. 2 look 2 algs (2LOLL)



## jms_gears1 (Oct 6, 2010)

If one orients edges of the last layer and dont need another look at the CO is it still considered 2 look OLL or 1 Look 2 alg.

LaChance is saying that because its still two distinct steps its 2LOLL

I am saying that because you only have one look its 1 look 2 alg, or what Lucas refers to as Compound OLL.

Where do you sit on this issue?

EDIT:
Another question, if one were to memorize every possible combination of OLL cases, such that you did one of the sexy orientations, and knew what the CO was going to be afterwards and as such did not need another look to determine CO. Would that be one look or two look?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 6, 2010)

I think a better way to ask this:

Is 2 Look OLL defined as performing Edge Orientation followed by Corner Orientation; or is it define by looking once to perform any given algorithm, then looking again to perform another algorithm?

I do mean physically looking at (and recognizing) the case that you have.


----------



## incessantcheese (Oct 6, 2010)

i would go so far as to say i consider this to be 1 look 1 alg. this is most clear in some cases where a good OLL alg to use consists of two other OLL algs blended together, such as with T alg, U, T alg or even double-sune algs. if there is no delay or lookahead between performing the two algorithms, it's just one long "algorithm" in my mind. 

(sort of) similarly, if you do intuitive f2l, almost all your "algs" consist of breaking a more complex situation into one of two blocks that takes 3 moves to insert. this is very clearly still 1 alg, there's absolutely no delay in the middle of the algorithm once you're used to doing it.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 6, 2010)

2-look is defined by having to look twice - you do an alg, look at the position that you get, and then do another. If you only have to look once, but you do two algs each time, you're actually using 1-look OLL (just with inefficient algs). You can call it compound OLL if you want, to distinguish it from a system where you know a completely different alg for each case, but it is definitely a 1-look system.


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Oct 6, 2010)

1 pll algo + 1 oll algo = 1LL algo... 
and 2 pll + 1 oll = still 1LL algo
so 2pll = 1pll?
hmm.. i dont know.. 
i'm confused!


----------



## maggot (Oct 6, 2010)

before i learn a specific OLL, i usually know what 2 alg i compound to make the OLL. for example. the H OLL. i know how to do it now, but before i knew it was EO U' headlights. i didnt even have to look. many many OLL i know what is the CO after the EO. i would consider this 2LOLL because there still use of EO and a 2LOLL case. the full OLL alg for many OLL does not break between the EO and CO, it typically finds an efficient way not breaking these 2 steps (for most OLL alg, some of them are still EO+CO but those are efficient)


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 6, 2010)

Bloody Talon, that's exactly where I was going with that. Some cubers can predict PLL off their OLL case, does that mean they don't do separate steps, but just do one LL alg instead?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Oct 6, 2010)

maggot said:


> before i learn a specific OLL, i usually know what 2 alg i compound to make the OLL. for example. the H OLL. i know how to do it now, but before i knew it was EO U' headlights. i didnt even have to look. many many OLL i know what is the CO after the EO. i would consider this 2LOLL because there still use of EO and a 2LOLL case. the full OLL alg for many OLL does not break between the EO and CO, it typically finds an efficient way not breaking these 2 steps (for most OLL alg, some of them are still EO+CO but those are efficient)


If you are talking about a '2LOLL' case as making it 2 look then would PLL with edges preoriented be 1Look or 2Look. Im not sure i follow this logic.



The Bloody Talon said:


> 1 pll algo + 1 oll algo = 1LL algo...
> and 2 pll + 1 oll = still 1LL algo
> so 2pll = 1pll?
> hmm.. i dont know..
> i'm confused!


PLL + OLL is a two look LL
2PLL/2OLL + OLL/PLL is a three look LL

however we are only talking about 2 look/ 1 look 2 alg OLL.

What i was asking was, do you consider it to be 2Look because you have two separate steps, or two separate recognizing steps.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 6, 2010)

There are a few OLL cases that I know where I can do the 2LOLL algs with only 1 look. So I'm assuming that is one of your COLL cases. Technically it's not 2 LOOK OLL but I am still using the algorithms for it since I don't know full OLL.


----------



## oprah62 (Oct 6, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWhOp4DdbSw


----------



## The Bloody Talon (Oct 7, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> .
> 
> What i was asking was, do you consider it to be 2Look because you have two separate steps, or two separate recognizing steps.


An algorithm, according to The Random House Dictionary, is "A set of rules for solving a problem in *a finite number of steps*, as for finding the greatest common divisor."

i think, if you combined two algorithms to create a certain purpose, you create one algorithm..
so there is no such thing as 2look/ 1 look 2algorithm OLL
although i know what do u mean by "2look / 1 look"


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 7, 2010)

The Bloody Talon said:


> An algorithm, according to The Random House Dictionary, is "A set of rules for solving a problem in *a finite number of steps*, as for finding the greatest common divisor."
> 
> i think, if you combined two algorithms to create a certain purpose, you create one algorithm..
> so there is no such thing as 2look/ 1 look 2algorithm OLL
> although i know what do u mean by "2look / 1 look"


But that's the generic definition. In cubing, "algorithm" means "move sequence," and "method" roughly stands for "algorithm."

According to your stance, every last layer solved using OLL+PLL is solved using one algorithm. In fact, each full solve uses only one algorithm.
In cubing, this is an incorrect use of the word "algorithm."

I think I understand your purpose, but it doesn't really help to muddle the meanings.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 7, 2010)

Lucas: Using that logic, doesn't it seem more apparent that if you EO/CO then you used 2Look, regardless if you physically looked at the cube once or twice? Going back to the point he made earlier (that I agreed upon): If I only look at OLL once and I know the OLL and PLL case, I'm no longer doing OLLL + PLL, now I'm flat out doing LL.

I think my point is that when people refer to 2LOLL they are strictly referring to the F/f SM F/f and the OCLL algorithm sets. I think that most people already know what OCLL they will end up with before they do the EO algorithm. I know I was able to predict it, anyway, and I'm not that great at cubing by any means.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 7, 2010)

You're using 2 algorithms, yes, but I stand by my previous view: "2 look" means you have to look at the cube twice, so if you are only looking once, you're using a one-look system.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 7, 2010)

So then those that predict PLL from OLL are using a 1 look last layer?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Oct 7, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> So then those that predict PLL from OLL are using a 1 look last layer?


 
I would believe so. At that point, I think that 1LL is simply an ill-coined phrase. Or as earlier mentioned in the thread, perhaps it isn't ill-coined and they are performing the general use of 1LL, just with rather inefficient algorithms.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 7, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> then you used 2Look, regardless if you physically looked at the cube once or twice?


 
Go back to preschool, or wherever kids are supposed to learn what the word "look" means.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 7, 2010)

I love how you insult people Stefan. Of all things to insult me about, you'd like to pick that? I've clearly described why I asked the question. I'm hoping you can understand that I'm asking due to the fact of how terms are perceived.

I'll go ahead and repeat my logic (though I expected you'd be able to read all of this). If we refer to recognizing which two algorithms to use for OLL so we don't have to physically look at the cube to know the corner orientation case, why is it we still call it OLL/PLL for those that know PLL from their OLL case?

More importantly, if you are told somebody is using 2LOLL, what exactly do you perceive that as? Edge Orientation followed by Corner Orientation, or something different? If that same person is able to predict their corner orientation, would you correct them that they are only doing one look?

Since you're such a stickler on the rules of the forum, can you tell me how your post contributed to this thread?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Oct 7, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I'll go ahead and repeat my logic (though I expected you'd be able to read all of this). If we refer to recognizing which two algorithms to use for OLL so we don't have to physically look at the cube to know the corner orientation case, why is it we still call it OLL/PLL for those that know PLL from their OLL case?


OLL and PLL are two distinct steps just as OLL can be done in two distinct steps. However just because its done in two steps doesn't mean you looked at the cube twice. 2Look means that you look at the cube twice not that you are doing two separate steps.



> More importantly, if you are told somebody is using 2LOLL, what exactly do you perceive that as? Edge Orientation followed by Corner Orientation, or something different? If that same person is able to predict their corner orientation, would you correct them that they are only doing one look?


yes. Because they didnt need to look for CO.



> Since you're such a stickler on the rules of the forum, can you tell me how your post contributed to this thread?


His post was directly related to the topic of this thread.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 7, 2010)

OLL and PLL are two distinct steps, yet it can be done in only one look. I fail to see the difference here.

I was asking Stefan specifically about the predicting the corner orientation. I didn't feel like sifting through the comments on badmephisto's youtube, but did anybody correct him in saying that it's named 2LOLL because you physically look twice, instead of performing two steps? It can be interpreted on the wiki (as well as from badmephisto's video) as it being two steps, not because you physically have to look twice. Just like 2LPLL can very easily be one look, I did that all the time when I used 2LPLL (since corners were permuted first, seeing the edge cycle was quite easy long before performing the CPLL).

Regarding the rules: I'm pretty sure his post falls under "No Worthless Replying."


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 7, 2010)

I have a couple more questions, but fair enough, I can drop it  My point is that you can get technical about the words containing the name of the step, but if you get just as technical with any more of it then you can see how it's not quite consistent.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Oct 7, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> OLL and PLL are two distinct steps, yet it can be done in only one look. I fail to see the difference here.


No one is saying that Compound OLL is not 2 steps, just not 2 look.
You are saying that because its only one look its also one step. I dont see your logic at all.



> Regarding the rules: I'm pretty sure his post falls under "No Worthless Replying."


How was it worthless?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 7, 2010)

What makes 2LOLL easier is not that you have to look twice, but you break it down into two steps. You only have to look twice because the common algorithms used to orient edges affects corner orientation. If somebody were to use OLL 20, 28, and 57 instead of F/f SM F'/f' and then the other 7 OCLLs with all edges oriented, it would still be referred to as 2LOLL (and this would go uncorrected by probably the whole group unless somebody caught it, in which case would bring about a much larger discussion rather than somebody trying to prove points and throw the word "preschool" around). People refer to 2LOLL as being defined by steps, not by looking twice, they do the same for 2LPLL. I've seen threads in the past that mentions the PLLs used and to look at the edges so before you even do your CPLL you know your EPLL case. I didn't see anybody telling them it was only single look PLL with a much longer and inefficient algorithm.

I'll try using Stefan's approach, maybe you'll understand that way: Go back to preschool, or wherever it is you learn what "worthless" means.


----------



## Cubenovice (Oct 7, 2010)

OK, from now on I am using 3 *step* LL...
Occasionally using some *compound* algs from the 3 *step* LL *subgroup* named 2-*look* OLL

I feel much better now.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 8, 2010)

Let me try again:

Whoever coined the term "N look" probably just didn't anticipate people doing stuff like 1 look, 2 step methods. Thinking looks and steps are equivalent because people always look between steps. And I'm convinced that for most people and their methods, that really is true. So there the term "N look" isn't wrong, just suboptimal ("2 step" being clearer). A problem only arises if people abuse the term, for example calling a 1 look, 2 step method "2 look". They're the ones who are wrong, that's the name for a different class of methods so they shouldn't call their method that. Well, this thread is about what it should be called, "1 look" or "2 look". And in my opinion, this is crystal clear and there's no room for debate: if you look once, it's "1 look", and if you look twice, it's "2 look". That's how it should be. I'm absolutely puzzled how anyone can think it should be any other way.

Btw, why is this in "Off-Topic"?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 8, 2010)

Wouldn't calling it 2LOLL after you've already got the EO + AUF + CO into muscle memory be abuse as well? There are also a few OLLs that use EO + AUF + EO/CO (EO that also affects CO to finish out the OLL), and I thought you posted something about how EO + adjust + CO would mean it's 2LOLL (although I think you also stated a clause at how you had to look at both EO and CO making it two "looks").

I completely agree, I don't think they did anticipate that. I'm also betting that the thought "Two Step OLL" went through the creator's head, but realized "Two Look" sounds better than 
"Two Step". Yes, most people look between steps, I agree again.

I understand what a "look" is, I thought I already made that clear. I honestly do feel though that when people hear the term "2LOLL" they think about the EO + CO, not the fact you actually have to look at it again. Most speedcubers who are trying to gain eveyr advantage look at how their algorithms affect the rest of the cube, and would know how easy it is to predict CO off the simple EO algs. Had I made the thread, I would have presented the question without including Lucas's compOLL idea, as it brings up a different view. I guess the way to to describe my point is that the term "look" here could be implied with a different meaning other than literal.

Did you delete one of your previous posts?


----------



## Stefan (Oct 8, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Wouldn't calling it 2LOLL after you've already got the EO + AUF + CO into muscle memory be abuse as well?



If you use 1 look and say you use 2, then yeah, I'd say that's wrong.

I have a feeling some people think the method is just how you turn. In my opinion, recognition is part of the method as well. And a "1 look 2 step" method simply is not a "2 look 2 step" method or a "2 look" method. When I see "2 look", I take that as using two looks, and that's it. Might be 2 step EO+CO, might be 2 step SuneOLL, might be 4 step somehow. But it ought to have 2 looks, otherwise saying it has 2 looks is just wrong.



fatboyxpc said:


> I honestly do feel though that when people hear the term "2LOLL" they think about the EO + CO, not the fact you actually have to look at it again.



You might be right, but again, I find that understandable. In most cases, that's the correct assumption. In most cases, 2 look EO+CO is indeed what was meant. And you don't actually solve by looking, you solve by doing moves, so I find it natural if people think of EO+CO rather than about the looks.



fatboyxpc said:


> Did you delete one of your previous posts?



Yes. I decided to stay out and not waste more time on this. I failed :fp


----------



## qqwref (Oct 8, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> why is it we still call it OLL/PLL for those that know PLL from their OLL case?


Because you're performing OLL, then performing PLL. Nobody is performing OLL/PLL in one step with one optimized alg every time, so nobody can talk about it as a single step, although in theory you could do it in one look.



fatboyxpc said:


> Wouldn't calling it 2LOLL after you've already got the EO + AUF + CO into muscle memory be abuse as well?


Well, yeah, that's wrong. I'm wondering, are there people who actually do have EO+AUF+CO in their muscle memory for each possible OLL? I never got anywhere near this point because pretty much as soon as I decided to get really serious about speed I learned all the algs for pure Fridrich.



fatboyxpc said:


> I honestly do feel though that when people hear the term "2LOLL" they think about the EO + CO, not the fact you actually have to look at it again.


Right, but only because "2-look OLL" is used in practice to mean a very specific method - solving OLL by orienting edges in one alg and then orienting corners in one alg, with a look in between. The difference between that and a system where you do everything in one step (which is composed of an EO alg and a CO alg) is subtle, but important.


----------



## maggot (Oct 8, 2010)

i think gears didnt understand what i meant, so i will reply now that the thread is back on the main page. 

i know a LOT of EO+CO cases. by CO cases i mean, sune, antisune, bowtie, pi, etc. where the OLL case has EO finished. so, to explain, i have created many unefficient algs in which i can use a EO alg FURU'R'F' or the other and then adding one of the 8? edges oriented OLL. i consider this 2LOLL. it is advanced 2LOLL. im not LOOKING 2 times, however, the point is, this is not close to its more efficient OLL counterpart. although i have the CO case memorized from the EO, most of the time they are very inefficient. i could give a good example, but im sure you can find this yourself (or already know what i mean). 

edges already oriented or corners already oriented PLL does not concern me. however, i will point out that a 2LPLL case i.e. g-perms being 2 look or one compound look, it doesnt matter. its still 2 look, because your compounded alg made from the 2L counterparts. the actual G perm is much more efficient and if you were to show me your awesome G perm alg is acually a compounded 2L(or if you claimed to know full PLL from making compounded 2LPLL cases), i would take my rubber stamper that says 'MORON' and pop you in the forehead.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 8, 2010)

Maggot has shown that at least one person does exactly as I mentioned (and still refers to it as 2LOLL!). 

Stefan: I agree that a method is thought of in which you turn, and I admittedly am one of those that don't really consider recognition in the method. I guess the reason I don't is because you'll always have to use recognition no matter what method you are using (legal WCA methods anyway). When I was still on 2LOLL, I had at least half the cases in muscle memory where I could have done OLL completely blind, but I still considered this 2LOLL because of the way in which I solved OLL (yes, this could be a mistake on my part, but I see this mistake repeated quite often). In regards to your "wasting time," this could actually be quite a beneficial discussion and end up better defining some terminology.

qqwref: With the way you define OLL/PLL (solving them in a non-optimized algorithm), does that not go along with what I've been saying about 2LOLL? There are some cubers who can predict PLL from OLL which would make solving it one step if they knew both algorithms to solve (according to the other definition about physically looking).


----------



## incessantcheese (Oct 8, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> No one is saying that Compound OLL is not 2 steps, just not 2 look.
> You are saying that because its only one look its also one step. I dont see your logic at all.
> 
> 
> How was it worthless?


 
wait - i said i think it's not 2 steps.
i think when you can predict pll without looking ahead during oll you're really blending the lines between 1 step and 2 steps.

similarly, during f2l, if you look ahead and see the next pair before you even do the first pair, the execution can have absolutely no pause in between and you can look ahead for the third pair while doing two pairs. at this point, i believe that this specific situation has been practiced enough that you can call it one "alg" even if it was originally two. 

also similarly, in BLD with 3-cycle commutators, i think you can consider each commutation to be two sets of moves/algs - one is the setup, one is the commutator itself. however, if you've practiced BLD enough, i think the setup is wrapped into the commutator in a way that the cuber doesn't have to think about doing the setup. i think this is also a situation where the whole set of moves can be considered one single algorithm.

feel free to disagree, of course, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Edward (Oct 8, 2010)

If you're only looking at the cube once, why wouldn't it be called 1 look? I don't see what the problem is D:


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Oct 8, 2010)

Lol Edward, you are hilarious!


----------

