Random Cubing Discussion

[Deleted member 51471]

ZZ-b. It's better for solving anyway.

 

[PapaSmurf]

ZZ-CT looks cool to solve with, but ZZ-A is by far the best ZZ variant.

 

[Hazel]

I think CT looks cooler because TTLL is a neat and unique concept, but ZZ-b is more impressive due to the 1LLL-style. ZZ-a is even more impressive though, as ZBLL is twice as impressive as ZZLL.

 

[Ghaleon]

I live in San Francisco and I like to solve the Rubik's Cube while I ride the subway or the bus. I have met friends of speed cubers several times, although three days ago or so was the first time I actually met a fellow cuber. He was with his friends. Se saw me solving the cube and asked me to borrow it. I did. He tried to solve it, and I noticed he was using finger tricks and he was fast. He got stuck on what I call the second part of the two-look OLL based upon how to upper layer of the cube looked like (what comes after the dot, the elbow, and the line, if you understand what I mean). He forgot the algorithm for that. I understand because I'm learning these algorithms myself.

I continued to solve it after he gave me back the cube. He noticed I was looking at the algorithms on my phone. He didn't say I was cheating, like noncubers tend to say. He said he had a guide like that and that after a while it becomes muscle memory and you don't need the guide. His best time was 36 seconds. He said I have a good cube and that he should start carrying his cube so he can solve it on the bus.

When I solved it, he and his friends clapped. The entire interaction was a good experience, not just the clapping.

 

[Etotheipi]

Once we were having some guests over that we had never met, and before they came, I was thinking about the probability that one was a cuber. Then when they came I found out that one of them was a sub-25 ish solver. I was very surprised.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

zz-ct looks painful for me.
AUF is bad, then there is ADF
eww

 

[Pyjam]

Isn't Roux the *coolest* method to look at?

 

[PetrusQuber]

Isn't Roux the *coolest* method to look at?

I fix up Petrus not having M slices by using MU EPLLS . This applies to other methods too. (I think L6E is the coolest bit)

 

[Deleted member 36445]

if this isn't cool idk what it is

 

[brododragon]

I know @Iwannaganx has already made a thread like this, but that thread is kinda old and a bit different than this one. Only post thoughts here that make you think (basically r/showerthoughts for Cubers). The next person should comment/react to the last person's post.

I'll start off:
For Petrus/ZZ these two LL methods probably have the same move-count:

• EO, 2-Gen F2L, ZBLL
• No EO, 3-Gen F2L, OLL, and PLL

 

[ProStar]

I don't think V-Perms suck that much, I like mine(relatively)

 

[kubesolver]

I don't think V-Perms suck that much, I like mine(relatively)

I think they really suck.


My thought:
If somebody's goal is to beat single 3x3 WR he/she should only learn those OLLs that are sub 0.5able, same with PLLs, constantly practice on easy-cross scrambles with all edges oriented or maybe even practice with a fake scramble generator that creates 4 move xcross into free pair, into free pair, into free pair and either OLL skip into Jb or Sune into PLL skip.

 

[ProStar]

If somebody's goal is to beat single 3x3 WR he/she should only learn those OLLs that are sub 0.5able, same with PLLs, constantly practice on easy-cross scrambles with all edges oriented or maybe even practice with a fake scramble generator that creates 4 move xcross into free pair, into free pair, into free pair and either OLL skip into Jb or Sune into PLL skip.

I think single-driven people should focus on learning bigger alg sets that aren't useful super often but are amazing when they do show up(i.e VLS allows you to get an LL skip kind of).

 

[brododragon]

I think they really suck.


My thought:
If somebody's goal is to beat single 3x3 WR he/she should only learn those OLLs that are sub 0.5able, same with PLLs, constantly practice on easy-cross scrambles with all edges oriented or maybe even practice with a fake scramble generator that creates 4 move xcross into free pair, into free pair, into free pair and either OLL skip into Jb or Sune into PLL skip.

And go to any comp they can. That is really weird to think about, though.

 

[kubesolver]

I think single-driven people should focus on learning bigger alg sets that aren't useful super often but are amazing when they do show up(i.e VLS allows you to get an LL skip kind of).

I really think the opposite is true. When I look at single WR videos and failed wr videos I see PLL skip all over and not zblls
Failed attempts include people who got surprised by the skip and failed at auf.
I would practice predicting at least one piece for all simple OLL and be prepared to auf it assuming the PLL skip.

 

[ProStar]

I really think the opposite is true. When I look at single WR videos and failed wr videos I see PLL skip all over and not zblls
Failed attempts include people who got surprised by the skip and failed at auf.
I would practice predicting at least one piece for all simple OLL and be prepared to auf it assuming the PLL skip.

But it's easier to get lucky if you know ZBLL

 

[ProStar]

Once we were having some guests over that we had never met, and before they came, I was thinking about the probability that one was a cuber. Then when they came I found out that one of them was a sub-25 ish solver. I was very surprised.

Did he beat you in a race?

 

[xyzzy]

Saw this headline while scrolling through HN and did a double take…

 

[brododragon]

ZBLL isn't 1LLL. EO is an extra look (or two).

 

[ProStar]

ZBLL isn't 1LLL. EO is an extra look (or two).

ZBLL is a type of 1lll. With ZB, when you get to the LL it takes one look to solve it