Random Cubing Discussion

[brododragon]

ZBLL is a type of 1lll. With ZB, when you get to the LL it takes one look to solve it

That's like saying PLL is 1LLL because by the time you get to it it's 1 Look.

 

[ProStar]

That's like saying PLL is 1LLL because by the time you get to it it's 1 Look.

No, because you use OLL after all that's left is LL. With ZB, by the time F2L is done all you need to do is ZBLL. If you were to use full OLS+PLL, then I'd say that you used 1lll.

 

[brododragon]

No, because you use OLL after all that's left is LL. With ZB, by the time F2L is done all you need to do is ZBLL. If you were to use full OLS+PLL, then I'd say that you used 1lll.

I guess I'm saying the total number of looks is the same, with a similar move-count, since F2L requires an extra look.

 

[Brest]

I guess I'm saying the total number of looks is the same, with a similar move-count, since F2L requires an extra look.

Solving the 4th slot while solving EO is only 1 look

 

[ProStar]

I see what you're saying, but the EO step

For ZBLS, the LS is solved while doing EO. So for CFOP it's:

Cross
1st Pair
2nd Pair
3rd Pair
4th Pair
OLL PLL

And for ZB:

Cross
1st Pair
2nd Pair
3rd Pair
ZBLS
ZBLL

 

[dudefaceguy]

For ZBLS, the LS is solved while doing EO. So for CFOP it's:

Cross
1st Pair
2nd Pair
3rd Pair
4th Pair
OLL PLL

And for ZB:

Cross
1st Pair
2nd Pair
3rd Pair
ZBLS
ZBLL

I hit Reply by accident in the middle of a sentence, haha.

 

[ProStar]

I see what you're saying, but the fact that the EO step is first gives other benefits throughout the solve. It's also planned in inspection, so the "look" isn't counted towards solving time. All methods have planning in inspection, but EO/line is designed to use all of the inspection time, thereby saving time elsewhere in the solve (such as the last layer).

You are right that you pay for the single look last layer, but the idea is that it's not supposed to cost as much as a whole second look in the middle of a solve. More experienced cubers than I have opined at length about whether ZZ actually achieves this goal or not.

I think you lost coherency halfway through the post, I'll dissect is as well as I can.

I see what you're saying, but the fact that the EO step is first gives other benefits throughout the solve. It's also planned in inspection, so the "look" isn't counted towards solving time.

Wait, did this suddenly become a campaign for ZZ? I don't recall that discussion...

All methods have planning in inspection, but EO/line is designed to use all of the inspection time, thereby saving time elsewhere in the solve

EO/Line can be planned in a couple seconds by semi-advanced ZZ solvers, it doesn't take the entire inspection time

You are right that you pay for the single look last layer, but the idea is that it's not supposed to cost as much as a whole second look in the middle of a solve

When did brododragon say anything about paying for 1lll? He simply said that F2L takes longer when using ZBLS(which it really doesn't). And for the last time, ZBLS doesn't require any more looks than normal F2L and recognizing the case doesn't take very long.


(I don't have a bunch of personal experience with ZB, so @Tao Yu, if I said anything you think is wrong then please feel free to correct me)

 

[Tao Yu]

ZBLS is slower than F2L. Just look at any ZBLS alg spreadsheet, a lot of the time you need to use algs that are longer or slower in order to orient the edges.

I think if you want to compare methods, you should not care too much about the exact number of looks and instead take a more holistic approach. As people have argued in this thread, there are things far more important than looks.

 

[brododragon]

ZBLS is slower than F2L. Just look at any ZBLS alg spreadsheet, a lot of the time you need to use algs that are longer or slower in order to orient the edges.

This is where I stand. Also, since F2L becomes do natural, you almost don't have to do a look, while algs can't take a decent chunk of time to recognize.

 

[dudefaceguy]

I think you lost coherency halfway through the post, I'll dissect is as well as I can.



Wait, did this suddenly become a campaign for ZZ? I don't recall that discussion...



EO/Line can be planned in a couple seconds by semi-advanced ZZ solvers, it doesn't take the entire inspection time



When did brododragon say anything about paying for 1lll? He simply said that F2L takes longer when using ZBLS(which it really doesn't). And for the last time, ZBLS doesn't require any more looks than normal F2L and recognizing the case doesn't take very long.


(I don't have a bunch of personal experience with ZB, so @Tao Yu, if I said anything you think is wrong then please feel free to correct me)

Alright never mind about that then.

 

[Tao Yu]

I'm just saying that if the whole point you wanted to make was that it generally takes extra effort to force ZBLL in solves, then you could have just said it that way, and few people would disagree with you. Looks aren't really relevant in this conversation imo.

 

[PetrusQuber]

Illuminati confirmed... Could this be an omen???

 

[PetrusQuber]

And at the same time, 743 reactions, 347 backwardso_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_O

 

[brododragon]

Illuminati
Itanimulli

 

[RiceMan_]

what is your pb

 

[brododragon]

what is your pb

Who's PB?

 

[RiceMan_]

Who's PB?

anyone's pb

 

[brododragon]

41.390 w/ petrus. F2L-1 already solved and PLL skip.

 

[ProStar]

3x3: 12.22 w/ CFOP
2x2: .50 w/ LBL

 

[brododragon]

Pyra PB is 5.45 with keyhole