PetrusQuber
Member
I should probably get on with ZBLL.
I think it is the most important alg set BESIDES oll/pll
I'm gonna reboot my dead account to chime in. This isn't a direct comment on OP's statement on ZBLL, but I want to get it out there: learning this method may break you.
Is ZBLL important? Maybe. It's not nearly as important as people thought it was in pre-speed algorithms 2009, and for speed-oriented algorithms the move saving promises that got the method started in the first place are also lost. My experiences have taught me that the last layer is the least important layer to put effort into, mostly because you'll time yourself on PLLs and OLLs constantly anyway (who doesn't want a sub-second step?).
IMO you should learn it, because then when you get faster, the algs are good in your muscle memory.tl;dr
I understand that ZBLL won't be cake. I'm planning on learning around 350 of the algs, and it will likely take me over a year. Honestly I just like learning algs, and if I ever get tired of learning ZBLL then I can always take a break.
There's no reason you can't work on both at the same time. There are lots of ZBLLs that you can learn and implement in like 2 minutes. For example, T-32. It's just F perm with the 2 corners that swapped flipped, so there are two sides that are solid colors. Super easy to recognize, and learn the alg for. There's no downside to learning these kinds of cases at any speed.Personally I am trying to get sub 10 at least before I learn any subsets I'm just trying to increase tps and work on lookahead. I don't think you should learn ZBLl yet because the fundamentals of a good f2l is so much more important than subsets and you should only learn them once you feel as though every other part of your solve is as good as it will be. Take Max Park World champ with no real subsets whereas Anthony Brooks full ZB and not that fast this just shows how much more important 2lll and f2l is than ZB.
Sounds fun, but I'd prefer to go at a slow and steady pace. Also I'm busy learning other alg sets like CSP for square-1Hey @hexacuber you wanna race to see who can get to full ZBLL first? I am at 84 and you at 41 so this should be a close race judging by our learning paces.
yeah ok i am currently learning some E2L algs for LMCF so yeah same here.Sounds fun, but I'd prefer to go at a slow and steady pace. Also I'm busy learning other alg sets like CSP for square-1
Take Max Park World champ with no real subsets whereas Anthony Brooks full ZB and not that fast this just shows how much more important 2lll and f2l is than ZB.
Are there any video resources for learning ZBLL (on YT). Just asking cuz learning recog through Algsheets can be a pain imo. (Please prove me wrong, @Tao Yu , @Anthony )I've worked on ZB for 5 years. The first 3 years were primarily development of the method (thousands of hours spent revamping the algorithms through play with the cube and relentless CubeExplorer searching). During this time I constantly relearnt algs as I discovered faster ones. As I became more fluent with ZB (ZBLL + ZBLS), I expanded the system to work out inefficiencies never before highlighted as I ventured into uncharted waters in the world of speedcubing.
The last two years have been working towards mastery of the method based on the foundation I created myself. Considering I've maintained a top100 average in 3x3 during this time, I do believe I am "fast." Max indeed *was* the world champion in 3x3 (he is currently not), and he is indeed faster at solving the cube than I am. However, this does not justify your argument.
At the end of the day, my speedcubing resume speaks for itself. From a competitive standpoint alone, I've been top 100 for nearly a decade, only Feliks and Mats can claim the same.
@eastamazonantidote: what's up man, if kids these days only knew what we've been through...
I've worked on ZB for 5 years. The first 3 years were primarily development of the method (thousands of hours spent revamping the algorithms through play with the cube and relentless CubeExplorer searching). During this time I constantly relearnt algs as I discovered faster ones. As I became more fluent with ZB (ZBLL + ZBLS), I expanded the system to work out inefficiencies never before highlighted as I ventured into uncharted waters in the world of speedcubing.
The last two years have been working towards mastery of the method based on the foundation I created myself. Considering I've maintained a top100 average in 3x3 during this time, I do believe I am "fast." Max indeed *was* the world champion in 3x3 (he is currently not), and he is indeed faster at solving the cube than I am. However, this does not justify your argument.
At the end of the day, my speedcubing resume speaks for itself. From a competitive standpoint alone, I've been top 100 for nearly a decade, only Feliks and Mats can claim the same.
@eastamazonantidote: what's up man, if kids these days only knew what we've been through...
Edit: actually now that I check, I’ve been top 100 for *over* a decade.
Uhh... Another thing:
How do you set up cases on CE ?Inversing algs is HARD