Different Methods

[HelloiamChow]

What is the difference between MGLS, VH, and ZB?

 

[ExoCorsair]

MGLS finishes OLL with the last pair insert, leaving you with PLL.
VH orients the LL edges and then you do COLL and PLL.
ZB orients LL edges and then finishes LL in one algorithm.

I think with VH you have to make the pair before the insert, and in ZBF2L, you just finish the F2L and LL edge orientation in one step.

 

[h3ndrik]

well, actually VH doesn't require a 'made pair'. you have to have a connected or separated pair in the top layer. then with the 40 coll's your left with 4 pll (only edges) algorithms, or a 1/12 chance of a pll skip
heres the link to dan's old page
LINK
37 f2l + 32 extra cases + 40 coll + 4 pll = 113 algorithms.
41 f2l + 57 oll + 21 pll = 119 algorithms.
i'm confused which one to learn, if i reach the limit with roux.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Which will get lower move counts, MGLS or VH?

 

[Johannes91]

MGLS should get lower move counts. VH is not very useful unless you are going to learn ZB later.

 

[h3ndrik]

VH is not very useful unless you are going to learn ZB later.

could you explain why VH isn't useful unless you are going to learn ZB?
at the moment I'm using roux, but I think about switching methods in the near future. so why should i prefer fridrich over VH?

 

[DanHarris]

Yeah, please explain.

VH is very useful, even if you do not learn ZB. However, it was originally intended to be a stepping stone between Fridrich and ZB.

Cheers,
Dan

 

[Johannes91]

VH is very useful, even if you do not learn ZB.

Explain that first, because I can't see how it's very useful.

 

[DanHarris]

We asked first, but anyway...

VH is useful because it teaches you about edge control, it causes you to learn another set of great algorithms (the COLL), most of which are just as fast to execute as OLL and it greatly increases your chance of a PLL skip or else it gives you a vastly improved PLL (no more nasty N's or E's, only edge cycles!)

 

[fleeting_penguin]

I don't think that significantly improves time over Fridrich though.

But that does raise a question, namely should a person who has a 3-look LL down well learn the other 50-some OLLs or do VH or MGLS or some other Fridrich variation, or if the times will not be improved by learning these variations.

 

[Johannes91]

It's more about F2L and how good the cuber in question is, 3-look is enough until you are very fast.

VH makes solving the last F2L-pair considerably slower compared to Fridrich, and slightly easier LL doesn't compensate enough for that IMO. As a speedcubing method I can't see how it could be even as good as Fridrich (and yes, I have experimented with both).

Fridrich cubers don't need to understand edge control, and if somebody wants to learn it then Petrus or ZZ would be the way to go. VH does require a bunch of algorithms but I don't understand why that's a good thing.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Johannes, is MGLS significantly better than Fridrich?

 

[joey]

To me, (maybe apart from LBL), no method is significantly better than any other method.

 

[h3ndrik]

another possibility would be only learning the 7 COLL where the edges are already oriented. it would leave you with a PLL.
you could have a 2 look last layer with 39 (32 VHF2L + 7 COLL) 'OLL' algorithms instead of 57 Fridrich OLL algorithms.
so it could be easier for beginners due to less algorithms.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Well, I guess the question I have is, is there a method (variation on Fridrich) that requires less algs than ZB but will still get better times than Fridrich? It seems neither MGLS or VH does this, and that Fridrich (with some extras such as basic COLL and Xcross) is indeed the best layer by layer method for the majority of cubers (the ones who don't want to learn a thousand algorithms)

That's kind of a profound thing to say.

 

[Pedro]

Dan, are you using VH?

 

[fleeting_penguin]

How is ZZ? His page promises a 40 move average, versus Fridrich's 56. 300 algorithms seems achievable to memorize. Could this be a good step after Fridrich?

Source: http://www.zborowski.republika.pl/expert3x3x3method.html

 

[ExoCorsair]

ZZ looks identical to ZB from a quick overview of the steps.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

But then how can it require only 300 algs?

 

[Jack]

That is without mirrors and inverses.