velcro
Regular
I'm asking this question for a friend because his internet is down right now. He wants to know if learning zb before learning oll/plls would be good. he averages about 42 seconds right now. Anything will help, thanks
When to learn ZB method?
- Thread starter velcro
- Start date
ExoCorsair
Member
ZB is unnecessary, even for sub-10 solves.
Tim Reynolds
Premium Member
Especially if he doesn't know OLL/PLL already. If OLL/PLL doesn't work for him, ZB most certainly won't. If OLL/PLL does, it should last him at least to sub-20, and I would say at least to sub-15 should he go that far. If he was stuck at 14-16 seconds and felt like the idea of Fridrich was good and had a lot of time on his hands and felt for some reason a 2-look LL wasn't enough, then maybe he should experiment with ZB. But before learning OLL/PLL, attempting ZB would be ridiculous.
alexc
Veteran
I don't think it's necessary ever to learn ZB. People like Harris Chan and Yu Nakajima have gotten sub-11 averages with Fridrich.
Jason Baum
Veteran
Everything I'm going to say has pretty much all been said here, but I want to give my two cents because I have a lot of experience with both Fridrich and ZB.
ZB is an amazing method. I am 100% confident that it can be faster than Fridrich. Just using ZBF2L and 20% ZBLL, I have averaged sub 12 once and my average average is usually in the low 13s. My Fridrich average average is usually low to mid 12. So once I get more comfortable using the ZBLL cases I know now and once I learn more ZBLL, I know I will be faster with this method than I am with Fridrich.
That being said, it really only makes sense to start working on ZB once you have fully mastered the Fridrich method. After all, ZB is merely an extension of Fridrich, so it would be silly to try and learn ZB first.
I wouldn't call ZB unnecessary at all. Our goal as a speedcubing community is to push the limits of what we can do with the cube as much as we can. The ZB method is an area in our speedcubing world that is mostly unknown. Its boundries have never really been tested. However, I can guarantee you that two years from now I will consistently be averaging sub 11, and will be able to occassionally do a sub 10 average. That's how much faith I have in ZB. Now, that might or might not be possible with Fridrich, who knows. But I know that I have reached my limits with Fridrich and I still want to be faster.
And that's really what it's all about. In the end it's really up to you. Are you bored with Fridrich? Do you enjoy learning algorithms? Have you reached your limit with the Fridrich method? If so, then maybe it's time for you to start working on ZB. However, you must have the Fridrich method mastered before you even start thinking about it.
I could say more on the subject, but I'll stop. Basically, your friend should learn OLL/PLL and work on Fridrich until he's at least sub 15. Then if he still wants to learn ZB, more power to him.
ZB is an amazing method. I am 100% confident that it can be faster than Fridrich. Just using ZBF2L and 20% ZBLL, I have averaged sub 12 once and my average average is usually in the low 13s. My Fridrich average average is usually low to mid 12. So once I get more comfortable using the ZBLL cases I know now and once I learn more ZBLL, I know I will be faster with this method than I am with Fridrich.
That being said, it really only makes sense to start working on ZB once you have fully mastered the Fridrich method. After all, ZB is merely an extension of Fridrich, so it would be silly to try and learn ZB first.
I wouldn't call ZB unnecessary at all. Our goal as a speedcubing community is to push the limits of what we can do with the cube as much as we can. The ZB method is an area in our speedcubing world that is mostly unknown. Its boundries have never really been tested. However, I can guarantee you that two years from now I will consistently be averaging sub 11, and will be able to occassionally do a sub 10 average. That's how much faith I have in ZB. Now, that might or might not be possible with Fridrich, who knows. But I know that I have reached my limits with Fridrich and I still want to be faster.
And that's really what it's all about. In the end it's really up to you. Are you bored with Fridrich? Do you enjoy learning algorithms? Have you reached your limit with the Fridrich method? If so, then maybe it's time for you to start working on ZB. However, you must have the Fridrich method mastered before you even start thinking about it.
I could say more on the subject, but I'll stop. Basically, your friend should learn OLL/PLL and work on Fridrich until he's at least sub 15. Then if he still wants to learn ZB, more power to him.
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
That applies to pretty much every method except Fridrich.
cmhardw
Premium Member
Jason stay motivated to learn ZB. From what I remember when I was studying ZBF2L I ran into enormous opposition, and people trying desperately to convince me of how I was wasting my time.
You're not wasting your time. I stopped learning ZB because blindfolded solving became more of a passion for me than speedsolving. But I am a full 100% supporter of what you are doing. I also believe that although it will take a monumental effort to master ZB vs. mastering Fridrich, that it can be a faster method.
Keep at it man, you're a huge inspiration. Don't let the ne-sayers get you down, I got a lot of that too when I was looking into the method. I'm only surprised that you are still getting it, what with your ZB times being so fast. I think the opposition from the cubing community comes from a fear of something so different which requires so much work more than anything else. That is only my personal opinion of course.
Chris
You're not wasting your time. I stopped learning ZB because blindfolded solving became more of a passion for me than speedsolving. But I am a full 100% supporter of what you are doing. I also believe that although it will take a monumental effort to master ZB vs. mastering Fridrich, that it can be a faster method.
Keep at it man, you're a huge inspiration. Don't let the ne-sayers get you down, I got a lot of that too when I was looking into the method. I'm only surprised that you are still getting it, what with your ZB times being so fast. I think the opposition from the cubing community comes from a fear of something so different which requires so much work more than anything else. That is only my personal opinion of course.
Chris
Kenneth
Not Alot
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,693
- Location
- Kauparve, Hejde, Gotland, Sweden
- WCA ID
- 2005GUST01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
All that is even more true for the COLL approach, Fridrich is not the only or even best way to ZB.
F
FU
Guest
Man now I have this inspiration to learn ZB when (and if) I eventually get fast at Fridrich.
Harris Chan
Veteran
I feel that learning methods are driven by popularity mostly. Most people aren't willing to learn new (or rarely used/not used by many people) method/technique, unless it is claimed to be used by "the top cubers". They think, "well if top cubers only use Fridrich, why bother learning ZB/Petrus/Roux/Heise etc. ?" But that's the problem sometimes. Some brave soul like Jason has to come out and prove it to everyone that learning new things is never much of a waste, in fact it can be better.
Just like multi-slotting. A lot of people don't even know how they work. They just hear the word "multi" and they get scared away, or think of it as a fancy technique that has no use, or that it is not logical, just because not many people use it, therefore it isn't as easy to just google up tons of page about it. When it is a new method, you have to put more effort into exploring it more, not just having the solutions right in front of you. But in return you have that feeling/braging right that, " hey, I'm the only guy that can do that" type of thing. And eventually you will succeed.
Knowing more algos or techniques is like having tricks up your sleeves, making each solve the best it can be, using "special algo" for certain cases to make the next step skipped/easier. I think that's what the future of cubing is. It isn't about solving the current thing and just trying to predict the next step; it is changing the next step as you're doing the current one to make things easier or shorter. That of course, will require much more knowledge and experience than our average Fridrich solvers know. Imagine when Fridrich method first came up; don't you think people might say, "That's too complicated, trying to solve 2 layers at the same time? You're dealing with too many cases and pieces, you'll confuse yourself! It'll take you longer to find those pieces than me just solving each piece one by one anyway! And doing the last layer in 2 steps? You'd need a super brain for that!" Well, ok so it might not be exactly that kind of attitude, there's probably some optimistic that this is much more powerful than LBL, but you get the point. It's the same kind of situation right now. We have some other techniques, it's just whether people bother to learn it and make their own thoughts about it like now that we have millions of pages on Fridrich compared to a few years ago.
Okay sorry for some random stuff I wrote there, but it's just been on my mind for a while.
-Harris
Just like multi-slotting. A lot of people don't even know how they work. They just hear the word "multi" and they get scared away, or think of it as a fancy technique that has no use, or that it is not logical, just because not many people use it, therefore it isn't as easy to just google up tons of page about it. When it is a new method, you have to put more effort into exploring it more, not just having the solutions right in front of you. But in return you have that feeling/braging right that, " hey, I'm the only guy that can do that" type of thing. And eventually you will succeed.
Knowing more algos or techniques is like having tricks up your sleeves, making each solve the best it can be, using "special algo" for certain cases to make the next step skipped/easier. I think that's what the future of cubing is. It isn't about solving the current thing and just trying to predict the next step; it is changing the next step as you're doing the current one to make things easier or shorter. That of course, will require much more knowledge and experience than our average Fridrich solvers know. Imagine when Fridrich method first came up; don't you think people might say, "That's too complicated, trying to solve 2 layers at the same time? You're dealing with too many cases and pieces, you'll confuse yourself! It'll take you longer to find those pieces than me just solving each piece one by one anyway! And doing the last layer in 2 steps? You'd need a super brain for that!" Well, ok so it might not be exactly that kind of attitude, there's probably some optimistic that this is much more powerful than LBL, but you get the point. It's the same kind of situation right now. We have some other techniques, it's just whether people bother to learn it and make their own thoughts about it like now that we have millions of pages on Fridrich compared to a few years ago.
Okay sorry for some random stuff I wrote there, but it's just been on my mind for a while.
-Harris
Last edited:
masterofthebass
Premium Member
Harris,
I've been interested in learning multi-slotting, but I can't seem to figure out anything about it. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be great.
I've been interested in learning multi-slotting, but I can't seem to figure out anything about it. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be great.
AvGalen
Premium Member
Before you learn mult-slotting, you should learn keyhole (seriously!)
Just do D (R U R') D' for a simple example.
And start doing fewest moves (seriously!) because that will teach you to recognize "unmatched pairs".
Ron and Ton are constantly telling me to switch to Fridrich (and I will on 2008-01-01), but when they see me ending my F2L with an "unmatched pair" they are amazed.
Just do D (R U R') D' for a simple example.
And start doing fewest moves (seriously!) because that will teach you to recognize "unmatched pairs".
Ron and Ton are constantly telling me to switch to Fridrich (and I will on 2008-01-01), but when they see me ending my F2L with an "unmatched pair" they are amazed.
Marcell
Veteran
Isn't that called "non-matching pairs"?
I've thought multislotting was pairing up the next two pieces while inserting the current pair.
I've thought multislotting was pairing up the next two pieces while inserting the current pair.
masterofthebass
Premium Member
Arnaud, I do sometimes use keyhole for cases like that. If the corner is already in place, I'll insert the edge with keyhole. My issue with fewest moves is that my brain can't think of trying for an hour to find a good solution.
AvGalen
Premium Member
Marcell: Maybe you are right, I am not really sure. Pairing up the next two pieces while speedsolving the current pair seems almost impossible to me though. Just way to many cases.
Dan: You don't have to spend an hour. I find my best solutions within 10 minutes and perfect them during the rest of the hour. If you can stay focussed for a big-cube blindfolded, FMC shouldn't be a problem
Dan: You don't have to spend an hour. I find my best solutions within 10 minutes and perfect them during the rest of the hour. If you can stay focussed for a big-cube blindfolded, FMC shouldn't be a problem
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
Fortunately, you need to solve just one at a time.
Marcell
Veteran
A couple of them are uploaded to the yahoo speedcubing group:
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oH5dR5...FXr-lis5-KwUj4sC5OeN0PyspS3phaQ/multislot.zip
alexc
Veteran
I don't know if I'll ever give ZB a shot, but the sheer number of cases has me discouraged already. I think I heard there are almost 800 including reflections/inverses. Is it better to learn ZBF2L or ZBLL? Maybe I might tackle one of those two, but I am unsure if I will ever learn both. VH is worth learning first at least.
Lofty
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,583
- Location
- Gainesville, Florida
- WCA ID
- 2008LOFT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I'm going to learn VH first as well. I may go on to ZB, I may not. OH is what I do and for that I would probably have to find most of my own algs. I think I will learn ZBLL first, if any, tho just in the rare case I ever want to try Petrus.
Edit: I am in love with that multislot document.
Edit: I am in love with that multislot document.
Last edited:
mizzle
Regular
Man, I haven't posted here in forever.
Jason, keep at it. Harris is right. Everyone naysays because everyone's afraid of it. Someone has to break the ground, and, for the record, you're not the only one.
I'm working on a method that orients all edges at the beginning of a solve, so the F2L is completely RUL (and sometimes D), the edges are already oriented at the end of F2L, and I can use the final pair to influence corner orientation.
This lets me always obtain a U, T, L, or skip orientation, thereby knocking the number of LL cases down to 236, including the PLLs.
So far, there's only a single other person attempting this method, though Dan Dzoan was also interested in looking into it. The problem is that because there are only two people doing it, no one really believes in it, despite the fact that I've beaten my records with any other method by seconds, and only done a small bit of the work for learning it.
The point is that ZB is a great idea, and even better if you can find a way to cut a corner or two (bad pun) and make it more manageable. Don't let anyone else get you down.
Jason, keep at it. Harris is right. Everyone naysays because everyone's afraid of it. Someone has to break the ground, and, for the record, you're not the only one.
I'm working on a method that orients all edges at the beginning of a solve, so the F2L is completely RUL (and sometimes D), the edges are already oriented at the end of F2L, and I can use the final pair to influence corner orientation.
This lets me always obtain a U, T, L, or skip orientation, thereby knocking the number of LL cases down to 236, including the PLLs.
So far, there's only a single other person attempting this method, though Dan Dzoan was also interested in looking into it. The problem is that because there are only two people doing it, no one really believes in it, despite the fact that I've beaten my records with any other method by seconds, and only done a small bit of the work for learning it.
The point is that ZB is a great idea, and even better if you can find a way to cut a corner or two (bad pun) and make it more manageable. Don't let anyone else get you down.
