Which advanced technique is most beneficial?

[rubiknewbie]

*ahem*

ZBLL will make you want to shoot your brains out and smash them with a hammer.
It's a VERY frustrating thing.


VHF2L+COLL isnt good for speedsolving, because the 1/12 pll skip simply isnt worth the turns added. I know this from experience, because im still using it.

Yes now I am thinking it may not be worth it because the probability of PLL skip is low and even if there is skip it is offset by the greater number of moves to achieve it.

Maybe try ZBLL?!

 

[rubiknewbie]

*ahem*

ZBLL will make you want to shoot your brains out and smash them with a hammer.
It's a VERY frustrating thing.


VHF2L+COLL isnt good for speedsolving, because the 1/12 pll skip simply isnt worth the turns added. I know this from experience, because im still using it.

Kind of off topic butare you really going to learn all the ZBLL cases?

Its completely possible, trust me.
I think within the next month, ill upload a ZBLL avg of 5, once i get 5 solves in a row.

Im hoping to finish learning by around February. At the moment, im refreshing my memory of the first 4 sets, and then ill generate and do the Pi set.

Then, i'll do the U set, and all thats left is the slightly trickier L set.

Sune/anti-sune set made me want to punch babies, because of the 12 alg subsets. >=/
(With the T set, and the H set, you can mirror them, and you only have to memorize 6-8 alg subsets)

So if we exclude all the mirror cases, how many total cases are there for ZBLL? Is ZBLL beneficial by itself i.e. does it need you to get into certain cases (like COLL require edge-oriented cases)?

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

I think there's 177 cases excluding mirrors and inverses.

 

[rubiknewbie]

Sounds manageable lol. But will probably be too much if adding ZBF2L. Can I learn ZBLL without ZBF2L?

 

[4Chan]

I think there's 177 cases excluding mirrors and inverses.

Yes, he is exactly correct.
Dont be fooled, It's much harder than it sounds.

Also, yes, but you should invest some time in learning the easy ZBF2L cases, at least 6 subsets.

EDIT: I know 4 out of 7 sets (22 subsets) of ZBLL, and I can help you if you're interested. I have the algs for the H case, the Sune, and the Antisune case. You can find algs for the T case online, and I'm generating the Pi case soon.

On my youtube profile, I have a ZB "overview" for those unfamiliar with the method, and also a sub 20 ZB solve. If you watch it though, youll see that it took me 2-3 seconds just for recognition and recall.
ZB takes constant everyday practice, or youll forget subsets. Trust me, I've had to relearn the sune sets more than I've wanted to.

 

[Cride5]

Sounds manageable lol. But will probably be too much if adding ZBF2L. Can I learn ZBLL without ZBF2L?

Yes, ZBLL can be used with any method that leaves the LL edges oriented, such as Petrus, ZZ, VHF2L etc..

 

[AvGalen]

I think there's 177 cases excluding mirrors and inverses.

Yes, he is exactly correct.
Dont be fooled, It's much harder than it sounds.

Also, yes, but you should invest some time in learning the easy ZBF2L cases, at least 6 subsets.

EDIT: I know 4 out of 7 sets (22 subsets) of ZBLL, and I can help you if you're interested. I have the algs for the H case, the Sune, and the Antisune case. You can find algs for the T case online, and I'm generating the Pi case soon.

On my youtube profile, I have a ZB "overview" for those unfamiliar with the method, and also a sub 20 ZB solve. If you watch it though, youll see that it took me 2-3 seconds just for recognition and recall.
ZB takes constant everyday practice, or youll forget subsets. Trust me, I've had to relearn the sune sets more than I've wanted to.

That is the whole point. There are just too many cases to memorise AND practise. PLL is only fast because people are finding algs that suit them and practice them untill they reach perfection. Now try imagining doing a ZBLL-attack.

The advantages of ZBLL would be bigger for events were less moves is more important than fast moves, like OH, Feet, BigCubes and obviously FMC

 

[cmhardw]

That is the whole point. There are just too many cases to memorise AND practise. PLL is only fast because people are finding algs that suit them and practice them untill they reach perfection. Now try imagining doing a ZBLL-attack.

The advantages of ZBLL would be bigger for events were less moves is more important than fast moves, like OH, Feet, BigCubes and obviously FMC

[talking about blitz chess here]

That is the whole point. There are just too many chess openings to memorise AND practise. Intuitive opening strategy is only good because people are using their knowledge to figure out the best continuation after each move of their opponent, practicing this to perfection. Now try imagining rehearsing every chess opening you know.

The advantages of chess openings would be bigger for events where deeper strategy is more important than fast moves, like championship title matches, 10 minute time limit, 1 hour time limit, etc.

[/talking about blitz chess]

Arnaud, I'm not trying to make fun of you or to be annoying here. However, imagine the first reactions to those who decided to study chess openings for use in blitz chess. People must have made similar arguments.

"Recall time to remember the continuation for the current opening will be just WAY too long for blitz chess. The opponent, using intuitive opening strategy, will always win out on time."

"Studying openings is only useful for untimed, or lengthy time limit, matches. I mean there are just so many openings to learn, and you must practice them constantly in order to not forget them."

"Intuitive Opening Strategy is the current accepted best, and learning chess openings to the level of mastery required by blitz chess will be just too much work to be worthwhile."

----------------

Chris is just trying to take cubing to the next level of dedication. I'm not trying to imply that learning ZB will be easy, rather the opposite it will take a whole other level of dedication to become fast with it. But, just because it is a lot of work to learn, and we don't know whether or not it will pay off, means that nobody should ever learn it to be used as a speedcubing method? Does this also mean we should discourage those who are learning it from using it for the purpose they intend?

Again, not trying to come across as grating or annoying, but why not cheer Chris on and let him tell us of the usefulness/uselessness of ZB as a speedcubing method. How can we, non-ZB method users, tell him of the effectiveness of the method when we ourselves don't know? Do any of us non-ZB method users really know how long the recall time will be as you improve your muscle memory for each alg?

Speedcubing would be incredibly boring if everybody stuck to current methods, and nobody ever decided to take on the challenge of testing the worth of a (mostly) untested idea. Again, I am referring specifically to using ZB as a speedcubing method, not for the other purposes you mentioned. I do agree that ZB is useful for those other categories, but I am talking mostly about using ZB for speedcubing.

Chris

 

[AvGalen]

I like your analogy Chris and it got me thinking, but...
You didn't quote the part where it said "ZB takes constant everyday practice, or youll forget subsets". I can certainly see someone that has mastered OLL+PLL getting a speed increase from ZBLL for speedsolving, but it will require a massive amount of extra training and continuous dedication. On Blitz Chess a 1 second delay is acceptable, on speedsolving it isn't. And remember, we are not just talking about memoring here. It is very doable to memorise all PLL's in 1 day, but recognising + executing them in sub 2 seconds takes a lot of training.

We have had some people that tried learning ZBLL (you, Jason Baum, Johannes Lair, Zbigniew Zborowski, Ron van Bruchem and problably others) but none have been succesful yet. It just requires too much and gains too little. Specialising on OLL+PLL has proven to be a better investment of time.

I would love to be proven wrong on this though.