Yuohno
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1
I've been cubing for three years now. I know full PLL, OLL and almost half of COLL. I average around 12 seconds and I'm seriously considering learning full ZBLL. But is it worth it?
As someone who knows a bit over half of ZBLL and a bit under half of OLLCP (I think; it's been a while since I last counted), ZBLL is way more useful imo. EPLL is slightly faster than PLL on average (this is taking skips into account), but OLLCP is also slightly slower than OLL on average, so overall OLLCP+EPLL doesn't have a huge benefit over OLL+PLL, if any at all.My personal opinion is that there are other (possibly better) options. For instance, I am currently working on learning as much OLLCP as possible. OLLCP covers every OLL whereas ZBLL only covers seven. In addition ZBLL has 494 algorithms and OLLCP only has 331. I'm not the most experienced cuber in the world and you've had a fair amount of good advice so far, but I would consider all your options and not just ZBLL(i.e. OLLCP, VLS, etc.).
As someone who knows a bit over half of ZBLL and a bit under half of OLLCP (I think; it's been a while since I last counted), ZBLL is way more useful imo. EPLL is slightly faster than PLL on average (this is taking skips into account), but OLLCP is also slightly slower than OLL on average, so overall OLLCP+EPLL doesn't have a huge benefit over OLL+PLL, if any at all.
On the other hand, ZBLL is always at least as fast as OLL+PLL or COLL+EPLL (except for recognition time, but that's also a problem with OLLCP anyway). It's simply not possible for a two-look system to beat ZBLL—otherwise the ZBLL alg would just be the two algs chained together, and then ZBLL would at worst be on equal footing.
(This is specific to 2H; the considerations change for OH and for big cubes. EPLL wins significantly over other PLL cases for OH, and for even-order big cubes, OLLCP makes PLL parity really easy.)
Zperm is worse than a lot of plls. Also you never get good plls like Tperm, Jperm etcHowever you will never get any of the bad PLL's ( i.e. N-Perm, F-Perm, V-Perm, etc.).
If you use the M-U EPLL's and count an M move as one move, you will have three 7-move algorithms and one 9 move algorithm (the Z-Perm). The T-Perm is 14 moves and the J-perm is 13 moves, the only PLL that overlaps as far as move count is the A-Perm(9 Moves). Obviously you will never have as high TPS with a M-U algorithm as with a R-U-F algorithm, but if you drill your EPLL's you should be able to perform them just as fast, if not faster, than your good PLL's. I do agree that at first the Z-Perm is worse than a lot of PLL's, but if you drill it I think it's one of the better ones.Zperm is worse than a lot of plls. Also you never get good plls like Tperm, Jperm etc
No one cares about the number of moves. It's about the time spent solving and OLLCP is only useful if your alternate alg is close to as fast as your main alg.If you use the M-U EPLL's and count an M move as one move, you will have three 7-move algorithms and one 9 move algorithm (the Z-Perm). The T-Perm is 14 moves and the J-perm is 13 moves, the only PLL that overlaps as far as move count is the A-Perm(9 Moves). Obviously you will never have as high TPS with a M-U algorithm as with a R-U-F algorithm, but if you drill your EPLL's you should be able to perform them just as fast, if not faster, than your good PLL's. I do agree that at first the Z-Perm is worse than a lot of PLL's, but if you drill it I think it's one of the better ones.
Again, just trying to present another opinion.
What I said
I completely forgot about that haha.Are you planning on using some sort of edge control?
If you count M moves as one move (and you use the M-U U-Perms)
You can just say STMcount an M move as one move,
Yeah... most peoples' U-perms are their fastest PLLs, right in front of J-perm.If you use the M-U EPLL's and count an M move as one move, you will have three 7-move algorithms and one 9 move algorithm (the Z-Perm). The T-Perm is 14 moves and the J-perm is 13 moves, the only PLL that overlaps as far as move count is the A-Perm(9 Moves). Obviously you will never have as high TPS with a M-U algorithm as with a R-U-F algorithm, but if you drill your EPLL's you should be able to perform them just as fast, if not faster, than your good PLL's.
What no. Z-perm isn't good. If you drill any of your PLLs they'll eventually be one of your faster ones, but only if you don't drill the other ones.I do agree that at first the Z-Perm is worse than a lot of PLL's, but if you drill it I think it's one of the better ones.
So it's nice that you're prefacing a lot of your posts with disclaimers and notes on playing devil's advocate. But I wouldn't consider your position controversial, just inexperienced.Very valid arguments all of you. I realize I am putting forth a controversial opinion and(again) I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm definitely not the most experienced cuber on this thread.
Right. This was part of the reason that bothered to start learning ZBLL. It's actually useful for me though, as I use ZZ (and my TPS is abysmal, so movecount counts), but It's also pretty cool.it's cool, OLLCP is cool, VLS is cool, and I think we will find that is the reason we do most of the things we do. So, yes, learn ZBLL, not because it's worth it, but because it's cool.
I wouldn't say that. Maybe if you were seriously proposing that the WCA remove 7x7, 6x6, 5BLD, and 4BLD, but even then no one would really care.Maybe my name should be controversial cuber lol.