Weston
Premium Member
It has the capability to be faster than Fridrich in my opinion.
Full ZBLL or Basic ZBLL?
- Thread starter 4Chan
- Start date
It has the capability to be faster than Fridrich in my opinion.
Tim Major
Platinum Member
In my opinion, only very slightly faster. If (when someone perfects full ZB) Fridrich users average around 9.75 at that point. I believe the person who perfected ZB may be capable on averaging 9.5.
Actually. Ithink they would be the same, or maybe Fridrich faster)
Weston
Premium Member
No method can ever be perfected. ZB has a 1 look LL, which give you the advantage of less moves, and and no intermediate pauses between OLL and PLL.
The recognition actually isnt that bad.
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
So you're saying that a method which has a substep less, uses 10-15 moves less, cannot be much faster than Fridrich? Arguments?
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Are you sure? I doubt this figure.
ZB's site says that "in speedcubing you use about 47 moves" whereas ZB is about 40. I think we can all agree that in practice this is quite a bit on the low side, especially since we do not use htm-optimal solutions for all cases. Fridrich's site gave a figure of 56 moves for speedsolving which is IMO much more reasonable. I don't know what a reasonable in-practice ZB movecount would be.
I guess if you want to just compare Fridrich and ZB the best idea would be to compare last slot + last layer only. ZB's site says ZB is 7.45 + 12.08 (+ 1.5 for two AUFs) ~= 21 moves; for Fridrich it is something like 6.5 + 9 + 12 = 27.5 moves. So I would say the difference is closer to 6-7 moves than 10-15. (And while that is still significant, how fast are you at your regular PLL algs? Try to get that fast at 400 different ones
)Tim Major
Platinum Member
You guys seem to be forgetting ZBf2l. This takes a few extra moves, and once again, will slow down quite a bit from normal f2l. Recog will be bad will ZBf2l and so will recog in ZBLL.
Plus, as the cases are very specific, there arw few algorithms that are actually performable fast. Many of these algs will be very slow, and the recog won't be great either. In a 9.5-10 second time. These all add up. 10 moves about 1.8 seconds? 1.5? 1 if they already know which moves to perform? Then take into account difficulty in some algorithms, longer algs, and ZBf2l algs only executable from one angle. I feel Fridrich will remain faster, unless some intuitive zbf2l is made that is still fast.
I need no further points, as my case should already be proven..
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
Initially, you were talking about somebody who has perfected ZB. From that I concluded that at that time somebody will be able to recognize ZB cases just as fast as someone else recognizes Fridrich cases, and the algorithms will be executed with the same speed and smoothness. Of course, I know that with almost 500 cases this is nealy impossible, but in the hypothetical case of ZB being "perfected" ZB would be a lot faster than Fridrich.
4Chan
Premium Member
You guys, with practice and the right recognition system, ZBLL recognition is fast. srsly.
It's one thing to doubt something, and something else to try to figure it out ourselves.
I'm doing this for speed and also to explore new horizons.
EDIT: How many of you are speaking from experience?
It's one thing to doubt something, and something else to try to figure it out ourselves.
I'm doing this for speed and also to explore new horizons.
EDIT: How many of you are speaking from experience?
Last edited:
trying-to-speedcube...
Veteran
Ooh, Ooh, pick me, pick me!!!
I know how good ZBLL recognition is (and ZBF2L, which is even better). I know 1 subset, and I know it's really fast to recognize, especially with practise. But still, I really think OLL and PLL recognition still overall is faster.
In my opinion, OLL : PLL as ZBF2L : ZBLL as far as recognition is concerned.
I know how good ZBLL recognition is (and ZBF2L, which is even better
). I know 1 subset, and I know it's really fast to recognize, especially with practise. But still, I really think OLL and PLL recognition still overall is faster.In my opinion, OLL : PLL as ZBF2L : ZBLL as far as recognition is concerned.
Dirk BerGuRK
Regular
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 92
If you want to explore new horizons, you should experiment with Petrus and ZBLL. I have always felt this combination is much better than full ZB. I was disappointed that Johannes never finished, but I could hardly blame him.
Edward
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,497
- Location
- Your default internet browser
- WCA ID
- 2011KING01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Petrus 2x2x3, 1 F2L pair, ZBF2L pair, and ZBLL....... Those would make some epic solves.
Escher
Babby
lolfail
Edward
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,497
- Location
- Your default internet browser
- WCA ID
- 2011KING01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
:confused::confused: Did i say something wrong. I know I purposefully left out good/bad edges.
4Chan
Premium Member
Missing an edge I think?
After the 2x2x3, if you just do an F2L pair, then you might have a misplaced edge in D layer if you didnt do a cross?
Otherwise, yuss, Epic solve.
After the 2x2x3, if you just do an F2L pair, then you might have a misplaced edge in D layer if you didnt do a cross?
Otherwise, yuss, Epic solve.
Edward
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,497
- Location
- Your default internet browser
- WCA ID
- 2011KING01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Well I would think that would be obvious:rolleyes::rolleyes:
4Chan
Premium Member
Yes yes yes, haha.
I came to the same conclusion!
I posted about it a while ago (in the "I will change" thread), and I'm working on it.
It takes time though. >.<
Also, Lol, maarten uses a better recognition system than I do, if some people were wondering. (x
Escher
Babby
A petrus 2x2x3 followed by a cross edge, a normal f2l pair, and then a zbf2l pair would be pretty stupid, compared to either just using cross->f2l or using Petrus f2l completely. It has the advantages of neither and the disadvantages of both.
Cride5
Premium Member
On the subject of which F2L to use, I think if you're aiming for the basic form of ZBLL (ie applying mirrors with the left hand), then ZZ would suit it quite well. During ZZ F2L my left hand is doing almost as much work as my right. Initially it was quite a problem, because I only really used fingertricks on my right. I've been slowly training the exact same movements into my left and I've seen quite an speed improvement as a result.
Practising ZZ F2L a lot should certainly improve execution of those mirrors IMHO
4Chan
Premium Member
Ahh, Rowan once mentioned ZZ on facebook.
I definitely see the benefit in using ZZ though.
I want to do it, but I'm just no good at orientation. ):
So many methods are good, and I can't choose. >.<
I definitely see the benefit in using ZZ though.
I want to do it, but I'm just no good at orientation. ):
So many methods are good, and I can't choose. >.<
Cride5
Premium Member
Surely you don't need me to mention the 'P' word!
