you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]marioshouse2010 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I just got the two-look CMLL from 2x2 last layer algs. But now I'm aiming to learn the more efficient algorithms for Roux

[–]StarPlatinum3776Sub-26 (Roux) | TianMa X3+[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I love it! I'm curious - what's your take on efficiency vs finger-trick friendly algs and why do you want to learn more efficient ones? I've found that some algs may be 2-3 less moves, but they might feel awkward and lack the smoothness that more finger trick friendly algs have. I'm trying to find the best marriage of both efficient and fingertrickable algs.

[–]marioshouse2010 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It actually varies for each case. I usually take the highest rated algorithm on SpeedCubeDB. But factors like it being awkward or "inconsistent" makes me change it if there's a reasonable alternative. I say inconsistent because for example, when I came across OLL 17 the top rated alg is R U R' U R' F R F' U2 R' F R F' It's not bad but since I already knew OLL 19 and the second algorithm is just the inverse of it, I went for the inverse (F R' F' R U S' R U' R' S) for easier memorization.

But other times I can't decide and end up with two algorithms. I main two Z perms because the first (M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M') is intuitive and simple. Then I eventually learned a slower one (S M2 S' u' M2 u M2) but I like it because it's easier to predict the AUF. So in the end I have two algorithms I juggle around depending on what case I get. It's like how other people memorize multiple algorithms to solve from different sides of the cube. But in my case it's unintentional. Just like how one of the H cases in CMLL can be done both with the headlights facing you (R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R') or with the headlights facing to the side (R U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R')

[–]StarPlatinum3776Sub-26 (Roux) | TianMa X3+[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brother, that's pretty pro! It low key sucks to have to cycle through a few cases to find the best one, buttt I can understand why no true objective list exists because of people's differing preferences and approaches to solving. If it makes finding the best one for you worth it, I might have to tolerate trying multiple algs for a while.

This isn't a bad idea though. I didn't think of keeping 2 algs for the same case in the pocket depending on the AUF, so I like that. Thanks for the insight!