i have a question, is it really that important learning full l4e, since intuitive l4e is the same thing and i already average around 3-4 seconds with intuitive l4e
@@skansky__ Depends how fast you want to get. Intuitive L4E is definitely not the same thing but until you start one looking or learning more advanced algorithms it basically serves the same function. But if you want to improve to be averaging low 2 or even sub 2 I'd say it is quite important to learn full L4E
AUF is the final U or U' move you might have to do after the algorithm to solve the cube. All L4E algorithms can be found here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12FH8MswpdBJxLJ_Eu_gopoxTCySPk9H_o7_yjN8_ECw/edit#gid=0
I don’t agree with this mindset at all. There are no drawbacks to learning an algset early on, only benefits. You get more time to get used to and practice the algs. While yes what you describe would make you get the most out of learning ML4E, I don’t think there should be “requirements” on learning algs, or else you run the risk of getting fast without them and become complacent in your solving style. Also not to throw shade, but at 1:58 you had an ML4E and didn’t do it. Do you just not know all of the algs and are making a video giving advice when you don’t know it yourself? Or did you not one look like you recommend doing beforehand?
The drawbacks to learning ML4E early on are that you won't actually use it in your solves, and that your time is better spent focusing on other things. I understand with what you say about not agreeing with my mindset, because if I was talking about, for example, full PLL and full OLL, obviously you should learnt it as soon as you want to, because you will start using it immediately, and you will have more time to practice the algorithms. I would still say there are some drawbacks to learning it early, but a lot less. While I wouldn't recommend someone who averages 25 on 3x3 to learn full OLL, as they could improve more effectively by focusing on other things, if they want to, I don't see too much of an issue with it. However, I do think I am right in this specific case of ML4E. I think of the 3 points, the third one (about being sub-3) is the one I'd have the most lenience about. The first 2 you should obviously be doing before learning ML4E, but with being sub-3, that is one that is more about helping my viewers improve faster, rather than a hard rule that I believe in. If you are not sub-3, learning ML4E is not an efficient way to improve. You will improve a lot faster if you focus on other things, and because I want my viewers to improve in the best way, I said that you should be sub-3. I think that everything I said in the video was correct when applied to ML4E. If you tried to apply similar logic to other algorithm sets, especially sets like full OLL and PLL, sets that combine 2 steps into 1, then it wouldn't be correct. ML4E is different from these because it is an alternative on every solve. Sometimes it's better to use ML4E, and sometimes it's better to rotate and use L4E. The L4E case can also change the angle at which it is best to make the V. You talk about getting complacent with your style if you learn an algorithm set too late. With ML4E, this is counteracted by the fact that you will learn bad habits if you learn it too early. This video isn't supposed to be about my general approach to deciding when to learn algorithms, it is just specifically about when you should learn ML4E. Also, to address to talking about my use of ML4E. I do know all of ML4E and one look the majority of my solves. However, there are many reasons why someone wouldn't use an ML4E algorithm even if they know it. Sometimes it's better to rotate and do al L4E algorithm in order to skip AUFs, sometimes people don't one look the solve so naturally rotate. I don't one look 100% of my solves, so it could have been due to that. However, looking at the solve, the reason I didn't use ML4E in this specific case was because there is not really an ML4E algorithm for it. It's a 3 move insert (ignoring both AUFs) and there is no good way to solve it from the angle I had, so the best strategy is to just rotate. I did one look that solve, and I do know full ML4E, but seeing as there is no ML4E algorithm for that case it would have been a bit difficult for me to do ML4E for it.
Nice video, I would like to ask how should I learn one looking pyraminx? Thank you
Learn l4e and learn v
i have a question, is it really that important learning full l4e, since intuitive l4e is the same thing and i already average around 3-4 seconds with intuitive l4e
@@skansky__ Depends how fast you want to get. Intuitive L4E is definitely not the same thing but until you start one looking or learning more advanced algorithms it basically serves the same function. But if you want to improve to be averaging low 2 or even sub 2 I'd say it is quite important to learn full L4E
Just a question, what is an AUF?
And, where can I find this alternative L4E cases?
AUF is the final U or U' move you might have to do after the algorithm to solve the cube. All L4E algorithms can be found here docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12FH8MswpdBJxLJ_Eu_gopoxTCySPk9H_o7_yjN8_ECw/edit#gid=0
@@tigersandcats Thanks :)
I don’t agree with this mindset at all. There are no drawbacks to learning an algset early on, only benefits. You get more time to get used to and practice the algs. While yes what you describe would make you get the most out of learning ML4E, I don’t think there should be “requirements” on learning algs, or else you run the risk of getting fast without them and become complacent in your solving style.
Also not to throw shade, but at 1:58 you had an ML4E and didn’t do it. Do you just not know all of the algs and are making a video giving advice when you don’t know it yourself? Or did you not one look like you recommend doing beforehand?
Noah Swor
The drawbacks to learning ML4E early on are that you won't actually use it in your solves, and that your time is better spent focusing on other things. I understand with what you say about not agreeing with my mindset, because if I was talking about, for example, full PLL and full OLL, obviously you should learnt it as soon as you want to, because you will start using it immediately, and you will have more time to practice the algorithms. I would still say there are some drawbacks to learning it early, but a lot less. While I wouldn't recommend someone who averages 25 on 3x3 to learn full OLL, as they could improve more effectively by focusing on other things, if they want to, I don't see too much of an issue with it.
However, I do think I am right in this specific case of ML4E. I think of the 3 points, the third one (about being sub-3) is the one I'd have the most lenience about. The first 2 you should obviously be doing before learning ML4E, but with being sub-3, that is one that is more about helping my viewers improve faster, rather than a hard rule that I believe in. If you are not sub-3, learning ML4E is not an efficient way to improve. You will improve a lot faster if you focus on other things, and because I want my viewers to improve in the best way, I said that you should be sub-3.
I think that everything I said in the video was correct when applied to ML4E. If you tried to apply similar logic to other algorithm sets, especially sets like full OLL and PLL, sets that combine 2 steps into 1, then it wouldn't be correct. ML4E is different from these because it is an alternative on every solve. Sometimes it's better to use ML4E, and sometimes it's better to rotate and use L4E. The L4E case can also change the angle at which it is best to make the V. You talk about getting complacent with your style if you learn an algorithm set too late. With ML4E, this is counteracted by the fact that you will learn bad habits if you learn it too early. This video isn't supposed to be about my general approach to deciding when to learn algorithms, it is just specifically about when you should learn ML4E.
Also, to address to talking about my use of ML4E. I do know all of ML4E and one look the majority of my solves. However, there are many reasons why someone wouldn't use an ML4E algorithm even if they know it. Sometimes it's better to rotate and do al L4E algorithm in order to skip AUFs, sometimes people don't one look the solve so naturally rotate. I don't one look 100% of my solves, so it could have been due to that. However, looking at the solve, the reason I didn't use ML4E in this specific case was because there is not really an ML4E algorithm for it. It's a 3 move insert (ignoring both AUFs) and there is no good way to solve it from the angle I had, so the best strategy is to just rotate. I did one look that solve, and I do know full ML4E, but seeing as there is no ML4E algorithm for that case it would have been a bit difficult for me to do ML4E for it.
Recently,