Idea for CFOP users learning ZBLL

[Ranzha]

You are overreacting. Learning ZBLL isn't nearly as hard as people make it sound.

So that's why there's so many people that know part of ZBLL, but almost no one that knows full ZBLL. Oh wait, that would point more towards people thinking it would be easier than it is. Is it that hard to agree that memorizing and keeping 100s of algs fresh is hard work? One can only speculate on what the best way of learning ZB would be, since no one's mastered it, and besides; different ways are probably better suited for different people.

Do remember that 4Chan (Chris Tran) knows ZBLL and the disconnected ZBF2L cases. He'd know first hand ZBLL's difficulty.

 

[4Chan]

I use the case in OP's post. (Except with what Kirjava said, and I use my thumb to do the S.)

I also use the cases in which 2 sunes to solve 2 GLLs (And some are optimal)

Petrus' alg combos are only 2-3 moves above optimal on average and all the algs are pretty easy to execute.

How many people are using all optimal ZBLL algs anyway? And how fluent is their execution?

>.>
A lot of my algorithms are in fact,optimal.

For like, a few of my sune cases, the optimal solution actually was 2 OLLs together, examples:

U2, F R U R' U' F' U' r' U' RU' R' U2 r
And
F R U R' U' F' B' U' R' U R B



Edit: Irontwig: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zb+method&aq=f

Look at the first 4 videos.:rolleyes:
They're mine.

 

[irontwig]

I use the case in OP's post. (Except with what Kirjava said, and I use my thumb to do the S.)

I also use the cases in which 2 sunes to solve 2 GLLs (And some are optimal)

Petrus' alg combos are only 2-3 moves above optimal on average and all the algs are pretty easy to execute.

How many people are using all optimal ZBLL algs anyway? And how fluent is their execution?

>.>
A lot of my algorithms are in fact,optimal.

For like, a few of my sune cases, the optimal solution actually was 2 OLLs together, examples:

U2, F R U R' U' F' U' r' U' RU' R' U2 r
And
F R U R' U' F' B' U' R' U R B

Oh, cool. Have this approach been brought up before? I've seen conjugates and COLL combinations, but not this.

Edit: Irontwig: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zb+method&aq=f

Look at the first 4 videos.:rolleyes:
They're mine.

Yes, I have already seen them, I'm not sure why you're rolling your eyes

 

[4Chan]

Because you said noone knew ZBLL, which is false.

 

[irontwig]

Because you said noone knew ZBLL, which is false.

I said "almost no one". Have you completed ZBF2L?

 

[4Chan]

No. >.>
I actually just know all the disconnected cases of ZBF2L, whenever a connected F2L case appears, I just disconnect it with R U R', and do the ZBF2L from there.

 

[Kirjava]

Wait what.

I always thought the connected cases were easy and intuitive o_o.

 

[irontwig]

Well you probably don't disconnect if it's a VHF2L case .

Edit:

Wait what.

I always thought the connected cases were easy and intuitive o_o.

Yeah, I would probably orient some edges while breaking up the pair and then finish up, but then again I've got no experience with this method.

 

[4Chan]

I've been so lazy, I'll start learning them soon. Dx

 

[nck]

hmm wouldn't it be nicer to consider coll and epll combination because recognizing 4 edge pieces would probably be easier to do than trying to recognize all 4edges and the corners?

 

[irontwig]

hmm wouldn't it be nicer to consider coll and epll combination because recognizing 4 edge pieces would probably be easier to do than trying to recognize all 4edges and the corners?

I don't think I understand what you're saying.

 

[Anonymous]

He's saying that he thinks that a COLL + EPLL one-look system would be better, because after fairly quick recognition of COLL, one would only have to look at the way the edges are arranged, which is arguably easier than any OLL + PLL or OLL + OLL combination.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Anonymous: The argument is that most of the OLLs are very easy to execute and recognize, whereas the COLL cases take more time to recognize and (I'm not sure about how true this is, it was just argued in another thread in here) the algs aren't nearly as fast to execute.

I've actually been debating on this idea since Ua, Ub, H, Z, are all wickedly fast to execute.

Another point made against this is what happens when you get an OLL skip? Then you might have a corner + edge perm, and bringing your recall down when needed might screw you in those instances.

 

[Ranzha]

For these reasons, I learn CxLL/ELL.
3x3 CLL algorithms can either be straight up CLL, COLL, CMLL (for Rouxites), or CLLEF (which, after I'm done learning COLL, I will learn).
Also, 3x3 CxLL is not quite difficult to recognise. I actually think that learning to recognise cases that aren't as easy to recognise could strengthen recognition time/look ahead for, say, OLL/PLL.
ELL is a different story. 30 cases. 30 algorithms. Easy to generate and M-slice friendly, usually. All I try doing is recognise the PLL case, and it's blatantly obvious which OLL case I have. If I had a clockwise U-perm combined with adjacent edge flip, there are 4 cases. Recognising which case it is (AA1, AA2, AA3, AA4, as I call them) is the most difficult part. After using OLL/PLL for a while now, my urge is to use M' U' M U2 M' U' M, but the case usually is a different one.

Although recognition might be different, it's not too difficult. I've tried timing recognition by saying the name of the case I have in the shortest of time.
But do what you will.

 

[Kirjava]

Lack of a true naming scheme for ELL annoys me.

 

[joey]

Just say (cycle, flips)
(F->L->R,BR)

 

[Anonymous]

I only know around half of COLL, so I don't have a lot of experience with it, but most of them seem fairly fast, although I see your point with the OLLs being faster.

The problem with learning all ZBLLs through OLL combinations, or at least what I think makes it inferior to COLL + EPLL combinations, is that all that's involved with the latter system is

-Recognize COLL case
-Look at edge permutation
-Recall appropriate edge alg
-Perform COLL followed by edge alg

Whereas with an OLL + OLL system, there's essentially an extra step involved:

-Recognize COLL case
-Recognize edge permutation
-Recall OLL alg
-Recall another OLL alg
-Execute

Maybe the difference is minimal, but I think that the easier recognition will at least make up for the small difference in execution time (if there is one).

 

[Kirjava]

-Recognize COLL case
-Look at edge permutation
-Recall appropriate edge alg
-Perform COLL followed by edge alg

This is not how COLL/EPLL works.

Whereas with an OLL + OLL system, there's essentially an extra step involved:

Does a Y Perm require two steps to execute?

 

[irontwig]

I only know around half of COLL, so I don't have a lot of experience with it, but most of them seem fairly fast, although I see your point with the OLLs being faster.

Don't think of it as an alternative system, but rather an addition to the same system. My point is that the more algs you know the better 2 alg combination you can make and if you're a CFOP user and thus know OLL, why not try to keep them for ZBLL to? To quote Lars Petrus:

"It is a one look system, that requires learning around 40 algorithms (most of which a serious cuber already knows), and averages 14-15 moves."

Obviously the average length can't increase by adding more algs (OLLs), so at least move wise the algs should be quite close to optimal (12 moves.)

Maybe the difference is minimal, but I think that the easier recognition will at least make up for the small difference in execution time (if there is one).

There's no "easier recognition" since in both cases if you're using a one look approach you should just see the ZBLL case and then perform the appropriate algorithm, regardless if the algorithm happen to be a combination of two algs or not.

 

[Anonymous]

Kirjava: I was referring to how a 1-look system utilizing COLL and EPLL would work, not to a normal solve using COLL then EPLL in two looks.
Sorry, what do you mean about the Y-perm?

Irontwig: I wasn't being clear at all, sorry. Let's compare the thought processes of two people, one using combinations of OLLs to solve the ZBLL, and another using combinations of COLLs and EPLLs.

The first person, having fully recognized the ZBLL, must now remember two algs that they are familiar with, and execute them. The second person, however, can recall the COLL faster. Think of it this way- there's a set of twelve ZBLLs for every COLL case, right? The first person using OLL combinations would have to remember each of the twelve cases as completely unrelated combinations of two random OLLs. The second person would only have to remember the appropriate EPLL for each case, because recalling the COLL is an inherent part of recognizing the ZBLL.

Is that a bit clearer? I still don't like the way I'm saying it, but maybe I got my point across.