Full ZBLL or Basic ZBLL?

[4Chan]

Hahaha, the P word!
Yesss, I'll look more into ZZ method, and practice for a weekend and see how it goes. (x

EDIT: Wow, Cride5, I just stumbled on your website, you really put a lot of work into ZZ didn't you? 0:

 

[Johannes91]

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 agree, ZBLL with Petrus or ZZ is a very natural extension.

I was disappointed that Johannes never finished, but I could hardly blame him.

I just have more important things to do right now. If/when I have some time and motivation to start practising cubing again, I'll almost certainly finish ZBLL.

It's great to see more people interested in it.

 

[hawkmp4]

When I see someone preface an argument with something like "assuming the ZBLL user has execution time and recognition time equal to that of a Fridrich user" all I can think of is the problems in my physics class...
"A massless spring connects two identical masses through a frictionless pulley. Neglecting air resistance..."

 

[Cride5]

Hahaha, the P word!
Yesss, I'll look more into ZZ method, and practice for a weekend and see how it goes. (x

EDIT: Wow, Cride5, I just stumbled on your website, you really put a lot of work into ZZ didn't you? 0:

Lol, I guess. Just want to make sure folk have a good source of info on it. Also, for EO I'd recommend byu's video. He explains it quite well

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Definitely go for the full set. We need someone to give us dreamers hope that this can be done!

If you need any help with anything, let me know and I will gladly help out. I can't stress the gladly enough. Once I hit sub-20 or so I will go into hiding for a coupla months (or years...) so I can learn the full set.

On a somewhat related note, any chance you'll get a list of algorithms up sometime? I would love to help - images, formatting, documentizing (not a word, but I think the meaning is clear), I'd do it all.

Also, I notice you say you are at 4/42 sets of ZBF2L. Does it help if I claim you can say you know full ZBF2L with just the VH cases and 3 more (corner already inserted, mirror, and F2L paired but reversed in slot)? With those cases you can still solve with regular F2L effectiveness right up until the final insertion. By this count- VHF2L+3 : ZBF2L = intuitive F2L : algorithmic F2L. and we all know intuitive F2L still means you know F2L.

Is it a stretch? Yes. But you can learn 3 more cases and (in my book at least) claim you know full ZBF2L.

 

[4Chan]

Haha, i'm not sure if i'll go into full zbf2l now. The alternatives of petrus and ZZ are alluring. I need to experiment more before I should make a final decision.

I uploaded my U set algorithms last night, but theyre handwritten, and there are only 40/72. Because Im using basic ZBLL for now.

It's on my photobucket:
http://s211.photobucket.com/albums/bb175/ughifusdf/

 

[Cyrus C.]

Out of curiosity what rate do you learn algorithms? 1 algorithm - 30 minutes?

 

[4Chan]

Chris Tran
Haha, depends on the alg, F R U' R' U' R U2 R' U' F' only took 2 minutes, but like: U2 F U2 r2 U B' U' r2 y R' U R U2 L' took a little longer.
Yesterday at 1:32am

As quoted from facebook.

 

[Johannes91]

I don't understand the people who are saying you should go for the "full ZBLL". Dealing with inverses is arguably not worth it, but mirrors? Mirroring is very easy, and it means you save about 200 algs. If "Somebody has to do it!" is the only reason, you could as well go for full 1-LLL or real man's ZBLL with thousands of cases. You can't afford to lose the time it takes to do y or AUF, go go go!

 

[Cyrus C.]

I don't understand the people who are saying you should go for the "full ZBLL". Dealing with inverses is arguably not worth it, but mirrors? Mirroring is very easy, and it means you save about 200 algs. If "Somebody has to do it!" is the only reason, you could as well go for full 1-LLL or real man's ZBLL with thousands of cases. You can't afford to lose the time it takes to do y or AUF, go go go!

Some algorithms can be quicker when mirrored, i.e. for a right-handed person RUR'U' is Faster than L'U'LU this could be about a second or two lost. Which matters a lot when getting down to the sub-15's

 

[miniGOINGS]

I say, follow your heart. No, but actually I voted for "wat" because I think you should do whatever you feel you should do.

 

[Arendil]

Regular people try so hard and get so far, and in the end it doesn't even matter.

Cubers try so hard and get so far, and in the end, it always matters.

Make it matter.

Haha I was totally singing Linkin Park in my head when I read that. (Sorry for off-topicness)

 

[Johannes91]

Some algorithms can be quicker when mirrored, i.e. for a right-handed person RUR'U' is Faster than L'U'LU this could be about a second or two lost.

Learning to use your left hand at an acceptable speed should be much easier than learning and keeping in memory 200 algs.

Many, though not all, algs are also nice when mirrored along S instead of M, so R U R' U' becomes R' U' R U.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Some algorithms can be quicker when mirrored, i.e. for a right-handed person RUR'U' is Faster than L'U'LU this could be about a second or two lost.

Learning to use your left hand at an acceptable speed should be much easier than learning and keeping in memory 200 algs.

Many, though not all, algs are also nice when mirrored along S instead of M, so R U R' U' becomes R' U' R U.

Wow, totally didnt even think of that way of mirroring. And it is effectively the same?

 

[Waffle's Minion]

My question is, what is the advantage of ZB. True, it is one look last layer, but the equivalent to OLL is just being added into F2L. So, why is ZB faster?

 

[miniGOINGS]

Is it correct if I say that there are 13 different ways of doing the LL if the edges are oriented? ZBLL would be the last one on the list, which is the most effective in terms of recog and number of moves for the 3 algorithms list?

CO = Corner Orientation
CP = Corner Permutation
EP = Edge Permutation

3 Algorithms
-CO, CP, EP
-CO, EP, CP
-CP, EP, CO
-CP, CO, EP
-EP, CO, CP
-EP, CP, CO

2 Algorithms
-CO + CP, EP
-CO + EP, CP
-CP + EP, CO
-CO, CP + EP
-CP, EP + CO
-EP, CO + CP

1 Algorithm
-CO + CP + EP

 

[cmhardw]

Wow, totally didnt even think of that way of mirroring. And it is effectively the same?

Yep.

 

[Cyrus C.]

Jeez, I have been actually using that for some commutators & never thinking of it as mirroring.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Wow, totally didnt even think of that way of mirroring. And it is effectively the same?

Yep.

Yay Chris!!!

 

[Weston]

Chris Tran
Haha, depends on the alg, F R U' R' U' R U2 R' U' F' only took 2 minutes, but like: U2 F U2 r2 U B' U' r2 y R' U R U2 L' took a little longer.
Yesterday at 1:32am

As quoted from facebook.

Quoted from a facebook comment from me