Best way to do F2L+EO?

[irontwig]

It seems to me that the EO step for ZZ, ZB and Petrus albeit powerful and gives you 1LLL in a resonable(ish) amount of algorithms is the worst step in respective method. Generally speaking EO seems to break to flow of just solving pieces. To me Petrus' approach seems to be the best especially if you allow "overlap" with S2 and/or S4a, but being Swedish I might be biased .

 

[Cubenovice]

Difficult one...

I like how in Petrus you can EO without thinking too much in simple RUR' style
EO (Line in ZZ) has the benefit of planning during inspection.

With VH stuff I mess up too often (perhaps because I have not really studied hard enough) in regular solves but I do use it sometimes in CFOP style FMC.

 

[StachuK1992]

Once mastered, I don't see why doing EO during F2L (CFOP) cannot be quite fluent.

 

[a small kitten]

Well, I use ZZ....

 

[porkynator]

At the moment I'm learning COLLs (in order to learn VH and eventually ZB) and I do 3 f2l pairs, EO (using little 4-moves algs like FR'F'R, all intuitive) and then the last f2l pair only with RU moves. It's not that fast (actually is very slow), but i thought it was the right way to prepare myself for learning VHF2L (or ZBF2L).

 

[Rpotts]

why would you learn ZBf2l? there's simply too many algs to recall from, attempting to compartmentalize all of that information somewhere where you can actually retrieve it in a tiny fraction of a second is likely impossible. VHf2l doesn't suffer from the same ridiculous alg count, but it fails in movecount. Having an R U R' insert then having to pair it, then use a 7 move alg just for EO is pointless. Since when was OLL really any harder than OCLL anyway? If you're going for a 1LLL I would recommend some form of ZZ, such as CLS or winter variation, though the true potential of those methods is yet to be seen. Maybe ZZLL if you really are that hardcore.

 

[porkynator]

why would you learn ZBf2l? there's simply too many algs to recall from, attempting to compartmentalize all of that information somewhere where you can actually retrieve it in a tiny fraction of a second is likely impossible. VHf2l doesn't suffer from the same ridiculous alg count, but it fails in movecount. Having an R U R' insert then having to pair it, then use a 7 move alg just for EO is pointless. Since when was OLL really any harder than OCLL anyway? If you're going for a 1LLL I would recommend some form of ZZ, such as CLS or winter variation, though the true potential of those methods is yet to be seen. Maybe ZZLL if you really are that hardcore.

I'm not really sure about zbf2l... but I'm 100% sure about ZBLL... I know it will be hard, long and difficult... but if I was scared by difficult things I would never have tried to solve a rubik's cube

 

[Rpotts]

ZBLL consumed Chris Trans life. He couldn't get faster with it versus OLL/PLL. Recall is a *****. Solving a rubik's cube is pretty easy nowadays, nowhere near the difficulty of learning full ZBLL, and still nowhere the difficulty of actually applying full ZBLL. Spend all the time you were going to spend learning 500 algs, and instead practice cubing. It will make you faster than ZBLL can.

 

[pi.cubed]

ZBLL consumed Chris Trans life. He couldn't get faster with it versus OLL/PLL. Recall is a *****. Solving a rubik's cube is pretty easy nowadays, nowhere near the difficulty of learning full ZBLL, and still nowhere the difficulty of actually applying full ZBLL. Spend all the time you were going to spend learning 500 algs, and instead practice cubing. It will make you faster than ZBLL can.

Agreed.
Many People are sub-10 with CFOP, learning ZB is not worth it.

 

[Ranzha]

Inb4muggles.

 

[Cubenovice]

Agreed.
Many People are sub-10 with CFOP, learning ZB is not worth it.

Why does it always have to be about speed?

 

[Lucas Garron]

Why does it always have to be about speed?

Because it's called speedsolving.

 

[irontwig]

Spend all the time you were going to spend learning 500 algs, and instead practice cubing.

If you think ZBLL is 500 algs then I agree that you shouldn't learn it.

 

[Rpotts]

I'm assuming you're saying it's not 493 algs, it's 177 (not counting mirrors/inverses) or less because you're not counting all the OLL/PLL/COLL or any other last layer algs that you know that also solve exactly 1 ZBLL case. While this is true, a versed speedsolver won't have to learn all 493 algs, they will have to learn how to recognize/recall all of them as ZB algs. I do see the advantage in the eyes of an advanced fewest moves cuber like yourself, but most would just learn some ZBLLs, especially very short ones, however learning a bunch of 4+ gen algs is pretty useless for speedsolving.

 

[Kirjava]

FreeFOP.

(Holy grit how is ZZ so popular?)

 

[a small kitten]

Because I use it.

 

[BigSams]

Cos it's clearly faster than Petrus and ZB is too large of a method for most people. But even without winning by elimination, ZZ has an elegance of its own.

 

[irontwig]

I'm assuming you're saying it's not 493 algs, it's 177

Not only that by using conjugates (setup moves) or combining two shorter algs the alg count can be further reduced while at the same time maintaining a good move count and/or speed depending on what you care about. Unfortunely using such "tricks" a firm alg count can't be pinned down.

 

[uberCuber]

Cos it's clearly faster than Petrus and ZB is too large of a method for most people. But even without winning by elimination, ZZ has an elegance of its own.

I'd like to see you prove that.

 

[BigSams]

I'd like to see you prove that.

... well, it's impossible to rigorously prove but the way I see it, EO lets you have two 1x2x3 really fast, easy blocks while the Petrus 2x2x3 block doesn't have the advantage of oriented edges so any awkward situation can come up. This would mean that there is lag while trying to figure out what to do and even when you figure it out, cube rotations and wide turns could be necessary.