• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 30,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[Help Thread] ZBLL discussion

Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
34
Likes
0
Location
In a Cube
Thread starter #1
I'm trying to lear ZBLL but the recog is just terrible... and I'm not sure if the alg database is really a good place for learning ZBLL algs.

Sugestions?
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
575
Likes
76
YouTube
JPerm
#2
i haven't learned it, but have you learned COLL? there's also a variation of that that permutes edges instead of corners, i forgot the name.
basically COLL will help you get used to or learn some corner recognization techniques, since it ignores the edges. and vice versa for that other thing that permutes edges, although it'd be better to just learn COLL imo.

plus, COLL is 40 algs (counting mirrors and inverses) so that's a good start.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
421
Likes
3
#6
Why on earth would you want to learn ZBLL? The recognition may be horrible, but so is the idea of a 1LLL method. OLL and PLL have better recognition and most importantly, less algorithms. Less algorithms makes you can get faster at each of them and thus you will beat. The only practical use of ZBLL is FMC.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
421
Likes
3
#8
I don't see the necessity of testing ZB. ZBLS is downright horrible and ZBLL has a too large set of algorithms for it to be effective during speedsolves. The best alternative is OLL+PLL or CLL+ELL.

Also, I don't understand why ZB (and VH) are methods. I mean, that's like saying I've invented my own method called "Peanutbutter" and it goes like this: cross, F2L-1 corner, CLS, corner permutation, finishing with ELL, but it basically is a CFOP variation.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
1,470
Likes
0
WCA
2010CHOO02
#9
I don't see the necessity of testing ZB. ZBLS is downright horrible and ZBLL has a too large set of algorithms for it to be effective during speedsolves. The best alternative is OLL+PLL or CLL+ELL.

Also, I don't understand why ZB (and VH) are methods. I mean, that's like saying I've invented my own method called "Peanutbutter" and it goes like this: cross, F2L-1 corner, CLS, corner permutation, finishing with ELL, but it basically is a CFOP variation.
Not if you use them often enough to recognise them quickly. ZB was invented with a 1 look LL goal in mind, but the cases are too many, therefore the EO is solved at the last F2L pair. I guess it's inaccurate to call ZB a method, but it's kinda stuck within the community.
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
Likes
38
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
#10
I don't see the necessity of testing ZB.
Why not? It could end up being the "best" method.

ZBLS is downright horrible
Do you have any justification for this at all?

ZBLL has a too large set of algorithms for it to be effective during speedsolves.
You're talking to the guy who can use OLLCP without problems.

The best alternative is OLL+PLL or CLL+ELL.
I would say that the better alternative hasn't been documented yet.


While I don't think ZBLL is a good method, I do think it can perform just as well as CFOP can - possibly better. However, both of these methods are somewhat of a dead end at this point.

Also, I don't understand why ZB (and VH) are methods. I mean, that's like saying I've invented my own method called "Peanutbutter" and it goes like this: cross, F2L-1 corner, CLS, corner permutation, finishing with ELL, but it is basically a CFOP variation.
This is a whole other can of worms. I have a full thread ready to be posted about this topic, but am still working on it.

Something being a method or not appears to be decided by general consensus. You can call that a method if you like, but no one else will do so.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
421
Likes
3
#11
Not if you use them often enough to recognise them quickly. ZB was invented with a 1 look LL goal in mind, but the cases are too many, therefore the EO is solved at the last F2L pair. I guess it's inaccurate to call ZB a method, but it's kinda stuck within the community.
Recognising may be quickly, but how can you execute every single one of those 493 algorithms under preferably 2 seconds? That's humanly impossible..

Why not? It could end up being the "best" method.
It could end up being the best method.. on paper. Also, "best" is subjective. While you for example may love OLLCP, I can't stand it

Do you have any justification for this at all?
Recognition.. I think it is easier to reduce all cases to VHLS.

You're talking to the guy who can use OLLCP without problems.
no comment. I'm jealous

I would say that the better alternative hasn't been documented yet.
That's right, but in my opinion OLL+PLL have/has (my grammar is terrible) the easiest recognition and execution. But I'm open for new LL methods.

While I don't think ZBLL is a good method, I do think it can perform just as well as CFOP can - possibly better. However, both of these methods are somewhat of a dead end at this point.
Of course it can, but I think it requires too much practice. I'm more of a lazy man :p

This is a whole other can of worms. I have a full thread ready to be posted about this topic, but am still working on it.

Something being a method or not appears to be decided by general consensus. You can call that a method if you like, but no one else will do so.
You've got me interested.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,287
Likes
73
Location
England
WCA
2009YAUR01
YouTube
Robert271291
#12
Recognising may be quickly, but how can you execute every single one of those 493 algorithms under preferably 2 seconds? That's humanly impossible..
Give me just one case which cannot be solved under 2 seconds. I can sub 2 every ZBLL alg I know, and I know roughly 20% of ZBLL so far. Where did you get this idea that it's impossible? I doubt you've even tried. I even think every LL case can be solved under 2 seconds. I don't know any case which can't be solved under 2 seconds.

It could end up being the best method.. on paper. Also, "best" is subjective. While you for example may love OLLCP, I can't stand it
I think if someone uses a method and they can constantly achieve better times than everyone else, then I would say it's the best method known.

Recognition.. I think it is easier to reduce all cases to VHLS.
How is it difficult? If F2L and OLL case recognition is so easy, why wouldn't ZBLS recognition just be as easy? It's essentially a combination of the two.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
421
Likes
3
#13
Give me just one case which cannot be solved under 2 seconds. I can sub 2 every ZBLL alg I know, and I know roughly 20% of ZBLL so far. Where did you get this idea that it's impossible? I doubt you've even tried. I even think every LL case can be solved under 2 seconds. I don't know any case which can't be solved under 2 seconds.
I could just give you a very bad algorithm to prove my point..

L' U2 L U L' U L R2 U' R2 U R2 U L2 U L2 U R2 U2 R2 U' L2 U' L2 R2
http://boca.bee.pl/case.php?l=en&cat=th&sid=289

Okay, and now I'm going to be serious.

Yes, it is possible to sub-2 every ZBLL algorithm, provided it is in your muscle memory. Memory fades without repetition, and considering a large set of algorithms, some cases will occur more than others, causing you to get slower at the cases you don't get too often.

I think if someone uses a method and they can constantly achieve better times than everyone else, then I would say it's the best method known.
That's like saying if the world record for TH 3x3 single is done blindfolded and one-handed, solving blindfolded and one-handed is better.

How is it difficult? If F2L and OLL case recognition is so easy, why wouldn't ZBLS recognition just be as easy? It's essentially a combination of the two.
It's just what you prefer. ZBLS recognition may be the easier than VHLS, but what seriously turns me off about ZBLS is this:

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLS
The problem is that ZBLS involves 125 algorithms (counting inverses and mirrors as the same algorithm) and has a total of 306 cases to learn.
Now consider you use CFOP+ZBLS:
306 cases
125 algorithms to solve the last slot and orient LL edges.
Add 7 algorithms for OLL.

Because you need to look for 2 things (CE-pair+edges), lookahead becomes more difficult.

CFOP+VHLS:
32 cases (? .. not too sure about this one)
32 algorithms to solve the last slot and orient LL edges.
Add 7 algorithms for OLL.

Lookahead is easier IMO, due to the fact you can easily look for the corner and edge, not for the corner, the slot edge while tracking the 4 LL edges for full ZBLS.

But that all comes down to personal preference.
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
Likes
38
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
#14
Recognising may be quickly, but how can you execute every single one of those 493 algorithms under preferably 2 seconds? That's humanly impossible..
You are calling something that people can already demonstrate humanly impossible. Your argument is beyond invalid.

It could end up being the best method.. on paper. Also, "best" is subjective. While you for example may love OLLCP, I can't stand it
You missed the point of what I was saying. Exploring untested methods is important as they can have untapped potential we can use to widen our knowledge or improve our overall speed.

Recognition.. I think it is easier to reduce all cases to VHLS.
This is just a personal issue you have.

That's right, but in my opinion OLL+PLL have/has (my grammar is terrible) the easiest recognition and execution. But I'm open for new LL methods.
You say best is subjective, then say OLL/PLL has the easiest recognition/execution. Riiiight.

Of course it can, but I think it requires too much practice. I'm more of a lazy man :p
Just because you're too lazy to learn something doesn't mean other people are. There are people who are way more dedicated than you are at this - please don't dismiss a technique because of your own faults.

I could just give you a very bad algorithm to prove my point..
Cases are not algorithms - you proved nothing.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,287
Likes
73
Location
England
WCA
2009YAUR01
YouTube
Robert271291
#15
I could just give you a very bad algorithm to prove my point..

L' U2 L U L' U L R2 U' R2 U R2 U L2 U L2 U R2 U2 R2 U' L2 U' L2 R2
http://boca.bee.pl/case.php?l=en&cat=th&sid=289

Okay, and now I'm going to be serious.

Yes, it is possible to sub-2 every ZBLL algorithm, provided it is in your muscle memory. Memory fades without repetition, and considering a large set of algorithms, some cases will occur more than others, causing you to get slower at the cases you don't get too often.
What point were you trying to prove? How would giving me a bad algorithm prove that particular point of yours? What moron would learn such an alg? Why not use L' U2 L U2 R U' L' U L R' instead? Also of course memory fades without repetition, that's the reason why we all keep practising.

That's like saying if the world record for TH 3x3 single is done blindfolded and one-handed, solving blindfolded and one-handed is better.
Oh yeah, that's seriously going to happen, isn't it?


It's just what you prefer. ZBLS recognition may be the easier than VHLS, but what seriously turns me off about ZBLS is this:

Now consider you use CFOP+ZBLS:
306 cases
125 algorithms to solve the last slot and orient LL edges.
Add 7 algorithms for OLL.

Because you need to look for 2 things (CE-pair+edges), lookahead becomes more difficult.

CFOP+VHLS:
32 cases (? .. not too sure about this one)
32 algorithms to solve the last slot and orient LL edges.
Add 7 algorithms for OLL.

Lookahead is easier IMO, due to the fact you can easily look for the corner and edge, not for the corner, the slot edge while tracking the 4 LL edges for full ZBLS.

But that all comes down to personal preference.
Well of course lookahead is easier, but with ZB, you "save" a step and perhaps moves and time as well.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
342
Likes
2
Location
Germany
#16
That's like saying if the world record for TH 3x3 single is done blindfolded and one-handed, solving blindfolded and one-handed is better.
I think that's a terrible comparison. It is more like saying because someone is becoming better than everyone, and he uses Roux :)D), Roux is the best method. Or like CFOP is the best because Feliks uses it.

My point on this topic is: It depends on how seriously you do cubing. Recalling ZBLL algs can be possible with enough practise, steady and long practise. Do you have the time for that? Is it worth the time? I can imagine ZBLL being in "your blood" like PLL and OLL is, or anything else that goes into the muscle memory and hardly can be lost again.

Personally, I am learning COLL. Very slowly, so it can all fit in my muscle memory. Then some VHLS, maybe. Then, maybe if I have the dedication, some diagonal-PLL-avoiding algs.
The point I want to make is: It depends on your dedication to learn ZBLL, or any other algorithm set. If you are experienced with larger amount of algorithm sets, you can surely give it a shot. But rather learn COLL and some VHLS first. Learning subsets first is always a good start. If you don't have the dedication to put a lot of time into it, then just don't instead of talking about how impractible the "method" is.

Edit: And to answer OP's question: You have to put a large amount of practise into it. Learn it slowly and steadily. And BOCA is a good algorithm database, you should look there
 
Last edited:

Godmil

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,196
Likes
5
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
YouTube
Godmil
#17
Well of course lookahead is easier, but with ZB, you "save" a step and perhaps moves and time as well.
Yeah, but I feel many people don't appreciate which step it is you're saving. Since ZBLL is like a much more complex PLL, and ZBLS is a much more complex OLL, the only thing you're saving is one F2L slot. Given that the fast guys (like you) can do an F2L slot in what 1, 1.5 seconds, I can't see how the thousands of hours of practice in ZB can save more than if someone just spent that time on all the other parts of their solve.

This reminds me of Kirjava's objections to late stage colour neutrality adoption... it may be an advantage, but the shear amount of work that would be required to go into it would give you more advantages in other areas.
 
Last edited:

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
Likes
38
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
#18
I should clarify; I do not think ZBLL is a good method.

However, I would love to be shown otherwise. This is why when Chris Tran was learning ZB, I was pumping him with motivation.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
421
Likes
3
#19
tl;dr:
Replying to everybody, if you're not involved in this discussion, don't bother to read lol

You are calling something that people can already demonstrate humanly impossible. Your argument is beyond invalid.
I was exaggerating, my bad.

You missed the point of what I was saying. Exploring untested methods is important as they can have untapped potential we can use to widen our knowledge or improve our overall speed.
My apologies. I agree with you. It is important to explore untested methods. I'm my spare time when I'm not speedsolving, I try to think of new ways to solve. I haven't had any great things yet. I greatly encourage anyone to do this, as long as they don't try to take a method, say Roux for example, and put CFOP elements in them to make it "better". That's just wasting everybody's time.

This is just a personal issue you have.
I was already aware of that.

You say best is subjective, then say OLL/PLL has the easiest recognition/execution. Riiiight.
Just because "best" is subjective, it doesn't mean it is only limited to "best". My posts have my opinions mixed in them, and I find OLL and PLL easier. Does that it is everyone finds it easier? No.

Just because you're too lazy to learn something doesn't mean other people are. There are people who are way more dedicated than you are at this - please don't dismiss a technique because of your own faults.
If they want to be dedicated in research on this method, good. Everyone should appreciate anyone's efforts for any method. But does that mean I have to like this method? No.

Cases are not algorithms - you proved nothing.
Cases are not algorithms.. obviously. Algorithms solve cases. I provided a random algorithm to solve a case and the source of the algorithm was attached. The intention of that wasn't even serious, nor to prove anything. Please don't quote something and remove it out of its context.

I think that's a terrible comparison. It is more like saying because someone is becoming better than everyone, and he uses Roux :)D), Roux is the best method. Or like CFOP is the best because Feliks uses it.
I remember someone stating something in the lines of CFOP being an extension of LBL and Roux is like leaving cubing and learning gymnastics instead. I don't like people who easily have their opinion influenced. If one finds CFOP to be the best method of all time because Feliks does it, than that person needs to learn to think. It may help that person in cross building and F2L.

My point on this topic is: It depends on how seriously you do cubing. Recalling ZBLL algs can be possible with enough practise, steady and long practise. Do you have the time for that? Is it worth the time? I can imagine ZBLL being in "your blood" like PLL and OLL is, or anything else that goes into the muscle memory and hardly can be lost again.
Cubing can be done very seriously with LBL. In the World Championships of 1982 it was I believe, some people were even competing using vanilla LBL. You can't say he's not too serious, lol. :p

Personally, I am learning COLL. Very slowly, so it can all fit in my muscle memory. Then some VHLS, maybe. Then, maybe if I have the dedication, some diagonal-PLL-avoiding algs.
The point I want to make is: It depends on your dedication to learn ZBLL, or any other algorithm set. If you are experienced with larger amount of algorithm sets, you can surely give it a shot. But rather learn COLL and some VHLS first. Learning subsets first is always a good start. If you don't have the dedication to put a lot of time into it, then just don't instead of talking about how impractible the "method" is.
COLL is pretty powerful with ZZ and Petrus because they orient the LL edges (and even more). With CFOP, I think it is a very good idea to use an LS-system for COLL.

Yeah, but I feel many people don't appreciate which step it is you're saving. Since ZBLL is like a much more complex PLL, and ZBLS is a much more complex OLL, the only thing you're saving is one F2L slot. Given that the fast guys (like you) can do an F2L slot in what 1, 1.5 seconds, I can't see how the thousands of hours of practice in ZB can save more than if someone just spent that time on all the other parts of their solve.
Are you a wordsmith? This is practically the point I was trying to make, guess I messed up, lol.

This reminds me of Kirjava's objections to late stage colour neutrality adoption... it may be an advantage, but the shear amount of work that would be required to go into it would give you more advantages in other areas.
Colour neutrality is only worth the effort when you start cubing.

I should clarify; I do not think ZBLL is a good method.
So do I

However, I would love to be shown otherwise. This is why when Chris Tran was learning ZB, I was pumping him with motivation.
Cubing is a hobby which can be expressed in many ways, many ways which aren't even found yet. Volunteers who help exploring are more than welcome.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
53
Likes
1
Location
Bristol, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
WCA
2011OCON01
YouTube
ZincKNOVA
#20
Why on earth would you want to learn ZBLL? ...
OP was asking how they could learn it, not whether they should. I would guess that OP has already made up their mind that they would like to at least try ZBLL so why try to persuade them otherwise using what appears to be simply your opinion? This is not the place to debate whether ZBLL is feasible or useful, this is the place to provide useful information for learning ZBLL. If you disagree with learning ZBLL, why not find/create a thread in order to discuss the pros and cons of the step rather than dragging this one somewhat off-topic?
 
Top