CFOP vs.

[dChan]

Hi fellow cubers,

Undoubtedly most of you have heard of the behemoth that isthe Zbignew-Bruchem System. I began research of it only yesterday to figure out how it works. Of course, I am always looking for a way to make it easy for a beginner to start dropping to sub-20 quickly and so I started playing arond with numbers. I found the average number of moves for ZBLL and ZBF2L, and tried mixing and matching it with other systms such as Petrus and Fridrich. While I was in the car going somewhere I was trying to figure out an easy way to learn ZB. I started with the ZBF2L algortihms and thats when I came across something. I found that by using the Keyhole method to insert 3 corners and 4 edges I could then use ZBF2L to fix the last corner and orient the LL Edges. This means that I would only need 24 of the 96 algorithms provided for ZBF2L. Then the next step would be COLL which requires only 7 algroithms(1 out of 7 possible cases each time). Then I finish with the usual PLL. Look at this:

Cross 7 moves
Keyhole-ZBF2L: 24 algorithms 29 moves
COLL: 7 algorithms 8 moves
PLL: 21 algorithms 12 moves
Total: 52 algorithms versus Fridrichs 119 algorithms

It requires 56 moves and 17 seconds to solve the cube using this method. EXACTLY the same as using a pure Fridrich system. However, only 52 algorithms are required! You can achieve Fridrich's estimated time using less algorithms than Fridrich's method.

I have yet to put it into practice, but the numbers are right. I hope to begin learning ZBF2L algorithms today and will bring it into competition at Caltech's Spring Competition this May.

 

[KJiptner]

This is definitly an interesting aproach. But on the 3x3x3 all in all it's about getting the F2L quick (if you solve Layer-Style of course). Your method won't have a too fast F2L. (extra recognition on the last pair/corner will considerably slow you down I think)

Don't think an effective method will immediately take you sub-20. It is really a matter of practice! Even when Macky learned full Fridrich he did still Avg 40 seconds (so did I) it took him months of practice to get down to sub-20.

My advice would be to learn F2L (don't be scared of it, it's really not too complex when you get the hang of it) and train it until the sequences are obvious. This is simply the most effective way of solving those two layers, and really not as hard as it looks.

Really Fridrich feels like having 78 LL algorithms memorized for me. The F2L-part gets logical and obvious when you have practiced it for a while. (OLL is not too important.. if you do "edges-then-corners OLL" you'll be fine, trust me!)

I do not mean to demotivate you, your method really sounds interessting. I just felt like telling that practice is MUCH more important than the method.

BTW "COLL" normally means an approach which orients and permutes corners after the edges are orientated correctly (leaving you with "Edges-Only"-PLLs).
You mean only orienting the corners after the edges. something diffrent.
(the abbrieviations are sometimes confusing)

 

[dChan]

lol, I forgot about that, I getall my abbreviated crap mixed up.

Thanks for your insight man! Don't worry, I havn't changed my method for a while, I'm practicing on getting it down to 30 seconds, but currently my F2L and PLL times are slow so I'm trying to find a way speed something up.

But otherwise, is this a good approach? What do you think would improve it? I always try to reduce as many cases as possible when I look for a new way of doing things which is why I like the Keyhole- but a Fridrich F2L would be great. I'm just looking for something with very little algs.

 

[TheRealAdaam]

dChan I would recommend that you get to know your F2L. Sometime practice your Cross and F2L only. And I would advise you to try an intuitive F2L, once you understand how it works, your time will improve a lot. Mine did. I went from a 1:30 best to a 56 avg because I took the time to understand the F2L.

Anyhow, good luck with your speed cubing!!

 

[dChan]

Currently I do use an intuitive F2L(and I switch between an advanced keyhole method that requires 5 extra algs). I understand how each of the algorithms I perform works before learning a new one. I can reverse/reflect algorithms on the fly as well.

What I am trying to say here is that there is another way to get faster without learning so many algs. I'm not trying to give the run-around on learning F2L. I'm trying to give something that is a good alternative to main systems such as Fridrich. I'm very interested in cubing which is why I try to find new and smart ways to cube. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to find a way out, just a smart way to make it easier to cube.

 

[KJiptner]

Originally posted by dChan@Mar 14 2007, 12:23 AM
Currently I do use an intuitive F2L(and I switch between an advanced keyhole method that requires 5 extra algs). I understand how each of the algorithms I perform works before learning a new one. I can reverse/reflect algorithms on the fly as well.

This is very good! You are on the right track! Keep it up.
I learned the F2L by simply memorizing algs. After a while of practise I was able to understand the principle and did it my way. The algs I've memorized are forgotten...
It's MUCH better to try to understand whats going on from the beginning.

I currently solve the F2L without any "black-box"/short-cut sequences. I only do things I fully understand (some shortcuts also make the "look ahead" harder)...

Maybe I didn't got your intention right, all in all your approach is interessting. But I really can't comment on it's speed since I don't have any experience with "LL-Controlling-F2L". The LL should be very quick.. the F2L I'm not sure

 

[dChan]

Yeah, I memorize algorithms visually, so I have to watch where all the pieces go which in turn leads to realizing how the algorithm works. So I hit two birds in one stone. Reflecting comes naturally for me while reversing is a little bit harder but still I can do it quite quickly.

You are probably right about the F2L being slower with this method, but with my experience so far, I have been able to do the Keyhole method in under 12 seconds(on average) but the ZB part of the F2L might be harder and take longer because of case recognition.

Thanks for your comments, it really helps.

 

[pjk]

Sounds interesting.... keep us updated on your progress with this approach.

 

[Harris Chan]

I used to do the Keyhole method too, but when I started learning F2L, I read Dan Harris' guide (which is gone now...) which allowed me to "predict" the F2L algo. But anyway, I recommend you look at Jason Thong's guide, a step by step guide...making the sense of the algorithms.

Jason Thong's Intro F2L

 

[tenderchkn]

I don't think that will work. It's a pretty long F2L as you have to put the 4th edge in, and then you have to recognize, and then a relatively long execution. I would think inserting the pair outright, and then flip the edges would be faster and lot less headache.

 

[KJiptner]

Originally posted by tenderchkn@Mar 15 2007, 05:02 AM
I would think inserting the pair outright, and then flip the edges would be faster and lot less headache.

I agree! It doesn't take much time to flip the edges after F2L and the recognition of it is FAST since there are only 3 possibilities. That's why doing 2-step OLL then PLL is already a very effective LL approach. If the F2L is fast enough you'll be alright!

 

[dChan]

But here is my view of it: The OLL and PLL are based on memorizing problems and applying the solution. So is Fridrich's F2L. So unless you can perform these patterns at a fast speed there is no way for you to get super faster. So it is the same for this system except it eliminates the large amount of patterns you have to remember. I would think that since there are less problems in a solve using this system it would be faster to execute. ZBF2L requires quick case recognition just like Fridrich's F2L. So I see no difference in speed since ZBF2L algs are just as long of Fridrich's F2L algs and both require case recognition.

It is possible to perform the keyhole quickl;y if you are used to the system. And since only 7 OLL algs are needed for orientation- that should make up for whatever speed you lost(if any) during F2L since you are that much quicker to recognize the pattern.

 

[tenderchkn]

Here is the reality: If you can average near sub-20 times with a working corner or whatever F2L, you have no business using it because a Fridrich F2L will cut at least 3 seconds off the F2L time. While I mostly agree that it is the cuber and not the system that determines speed, it is different when the system in question is fundamentally inefficient. Among other things: there are far more rotations than necessary (in a working corner method) and the recognition for the last pair is way too long.

Here is my point - for someone that good, there is no reason a Fridrich F2L is too hard or too algorithm-based. The F2L is where it is all at. Brittany Dzoan, the fastest female in the world, has an official average of somewhere in the high 15.xx's using a 3-look LL. There is not one fast solver who is not blazingly fast solving F2L, no matter if they are Fridrich solvers or Petrus solvers.

So F2L is where it's at, and the system you proposed is flawed both in that it does not provide a good transition to a full F2L, and it blends advanced methods that an intermediate solver would not be able to put together to fluently and smoothly solve the F2L. Don't get me wrong - it is a good idea, and it is good that you're trying to come up with ways for a better intermediate method, but as you will realize as you get faster - it is not only about total turns, but how fast you can string algorithms together without having to pause.

 

[dChan]

Tha is a good point, but the arguement of stringing algorithms together fast doesn't seem to hold well with me. I am still wondering why case recognition would be a problem. All you are looking at is where the edges are, and that can be done by simply looking at the U layer. You can tel if an edge is on the U layer or if it is flipped wrong- basically you are just looking for a pattern like in Fridrich's F2L except you are looking at the U edges. So I don't see why, with practice, one could not get good at recognizing the cases quickly like with Fridrich.

 

[TheRealAdaam]

You are both right. While it is easier for one to just "see" the edges while they are placing the 4th pair, both work well. And yeah, less moves is good, but look at Heise method? He is using a system that uses fewer moves, but his fastest time is around 19 seconds.
And recognition of the ZB F2L is a bit more difficult than normal, you have to find what orientation of which edges, and the pair. So I would have a beginner stick with an easier F2L, and then just go with EOLL.

My ?2

 

[dChan]

This spart is not an arguement, but I jus twanted to remind you that in the method I present here you only have 3 cases(3 different corner orientations) with 8 variations(8 different orientations of the edges). So all you would need to see is which direction the bottom color of the corner is facing and where the edges are. So it would not be a full ZBF2L, it merely borrows some algorithms for ZBF2L.