SZ method for 3x3 speed cubing , reducing zbll from 493 to 93

[I-am-nishan]

This is a nearly identical method to one posted a few days ago. The only difference is instead of inserting the cross edge during EO and simply being left with ZBLL, you do EO first, then SZBLL, then a subset of ZBLL. The problem is, as I said in that other thread, solving something incorrectly and then fixing it later is usually less efficient than just solving it correctly in the first place. In this case, solving EO, then doing SZBLL followed by the ZBLL subset, is just going to be slower than solving EO and DF at the same time, followed by full ZBLL. There may be fewer algorithms to learn with your idea, but you would want to transition to full ZBLL in the long run anyway.

The bigger problem, unfortunately, is that simply solving the DF edge alongside the rest of the cross is just going to be faster than solving it in a different way later, but then you're just left with regular CFOP.

As I said in that other thread, though, this doesn't mean you should give up on method creation. We all start somewhere, and it's a really cool and worthwhile art. But it does pay to think critically about your method before posting, making sure it's not only unique, but it holds some kind of advantage over existing methods. When you come up with something else, feel free to post it in the existing method ideas thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/

Like I said on the spreadsheet there is a pretty good chance your edge gets solved after eofll as eofll is not about colors its about orientation, and I know there was a similar method before called Hawaiian (something), (but didnt see that other one you linked to)but it didn't have szbll, can't argue with your other points honestly they all make sense
But I don't think 493 algorithms are practical to be honest. and even after that you would more algorithms for zbls , and you can still use szbll if the white edge was solved with eofll or while f2l

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

If i’m understanding this method correctly:
Step 1: solve the DR, DB, and DL edges
Step 2: Solve F2L
Step 3: Solve EO
Step 4: Solve DF edge and force T ZBLL
Step 5: solve ZBLL

Honestly you might as well just do ZB. Let’s compare the steps:
Step 1: Cross (ZB)
Step 1: DRDBDL (SZ)
That’s only only more piece to solve to turn it into a cross (in SZ)

Step 3: ZBLS (ZB)
Step 3: EOFLL (SZ)
This is where SZ starts losing it’s edge, because now instead of solving F2L, you have to do EO. This delays finishing F2L, unlike ZB, where it’s solving EO+FR pair in one step.

Step 4: ZBLL
Step 4: DF edge + force T ZB, aka SZBLL (SZ)
SZ loses it’s edge completely now because if you think about it, SZBLL is essentially the SZ method’s version of ZBLS, so SZ is one step behind ZB because while SZ is at “ZBLS”, ZB is already at it’s last step while SZ is not. I don’t think all of these extra steps sre worth it for forcing T ZBLL. Sure, it reduces the ZB algs needed to learn from 493 to 93 algs, but the tradeoff between alg count and extra steps doesn’t seem worth it.

 

[I-am-nishan]

If i’m understanding this method correctly:
Step 1: solve the DR, DB, and DL edges
Step 2: Solve F2L
Step 3: Solve EO
Step 4: Solve DF edge and force T ZBLL
Step 5: solve ZBLL

Honestly you might as well just do ZB. Let’s compare the steps:
Step 1: Cross (ZB)
Step 1: DRDBDL (SZ)
That’s only only more piece to solve to turn it into a cross (in SZ)

Step 3: ZBLS (ZB)
Step 3: EOFLL (SZ)
This is where SZ starts losing it’s edge, because now instead of solving F2L, you have to do EO. This delays finishing F2L, unlike ZB, where it’s solving EO+FR pair in one step.

Step 4: ZBLL
Step 4: DF edge + force T ZB, aka SZBLL (SZ)
SZ loses it’s edge completely now because if you think about it, SZBLL is essentially the SZ method’s version of ZBLS, so SZ is one step behind ZB because while SZ is at “ZBLS”, ZB is already at it’s last step while SZ is not. I don’t think all of these extra steps sre worth it for forcing T ZBLL. Sure, it reduces the ZB algs needed to learn from 493 to 93 algs, but the tradeoff between alg count and extra steps doesn’t seem worth it.

yeah zb is more integrated step by step no argument there but the thing is who actually learning 493 zblls and even more zbls?? sz is for people who want one look ll without selling their time to alg aheets and the steps are really small algorithm sheet and zbls vs szbll fair but zbls into zbll you still recognizing 493 cases szbll into t zbll is 72 + pll way easier on the brain and recognising is hard when you have more than 400 algs , zb is better if you learning 493+ algs sz is better if you not im not saying sz beats zb for everyone im saying its the best reduction for people who want one look ll without the full commitment

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

even more zbls??

ZBLS can be done intuitively btw

 

[acrystal]

ZBLS can be done intuitively btw

HOW?! i wanna know

 

[I-am-nishan]

ZBLS can be done intuitively btw

I know but isn't that pretty slow? Compared to algs and even if it is reliable you still have to learn 493 algs for zbll

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

HOW?! i wanna know

I know but isn't that pretty slow? Compared to algs and even if it is reliable you still have to learn 493 algs for zbll

let’s take a look at what ZBLS actually does:
It basically orients all the LL edges and solves the FR pair. So in it’s barest form, it’s essentially just EO->FR pair combined in one step. So you can just solve EO first then solve the FR pair. Also, some EO algs set up your last pair into easy inserts as well, which is what ZBLS does. I actually already discovered ZBLS algs just by doing that. In some solves I did intuitive ZBLS and got a 6 because I somehow knew the ZB. Sometimes the F moves are kinda meh but you can always optimize it with untimed solves. Also, most F2L cases end in free pairs anyway so all you need to do it track EO and your last pair (which you can know from looking ahead from your third pair).

So no, Intuitive ZBLS isn’t that slow, but you might not always get the most efficient solution everytime

 

[I-am-nishan]

let’s take a look at what ZBLS actually does:
It basically orients all the LL edges and solves the FR pair. So in it’s barest form, it’s essentially just EO->FR pair combined in one step. So you can just solve EO first then solve the FR pair. Also, some EO algs set up your last pair into easy inserts as well, which is what ZBLS does. I actually already discovered ZBLS algs just by doing that. In some solves I did intuitive ZBLS and got a 6 because I somehow knew the ZB. Sometimes the F moves are kinda meh but you can always optimize it with untimed solves. Also, most F2L cases end in free pairs anyway so all you need to do it track EO and your last pair (which you can know from looking ahead from your third pair).

So no, Intuitive ZBLS isn’t that slow, but you might not always get the most efficient solution everytime

Interesting but then why not just insert the pair and do eofll then?

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

Interesting but then why not just insert the pair and do eofll then?

that delays LSLL even more, because EOFLL is basically EO, so if you were to insert the pair then do EOFLL, you’d still have SZBLL to do, when with intuitive ZBLS, you can just do EO, FR pair, then ZBLL. Basically inserting the pair the doing EOFLL is just delaying last layer to force a T ZBLL, which in most speedsolving cases, isn’t worth it.

 

[I-am-nishan]

that delays LSLL even more, because EOFLL is basically EO, so if you were to insert the pair then do EOFLL, you’d still have SZBLL to do, when with intuitive ZBLS, you can just do EO, FR pair, then ZBLL. Basically inserting the pair the doing EOFLL is just delaying last layer to force a T ZBLL, which in most speedsolving cases, isn’t worth it.

But it will reduce zbll from 493 to 93 and like I said again 493 is not very practical and also szbll is really short, is it more steps than zb?, yes is it reducing more ZBLL, yes, is it easier to recognise compared to zb, also yes. And also then technically we all should like learn 1LLL because zbll delays LSLL more than 1LLL, its of course possible for anyone to develop recognition skills with full zbll but that will take a lot of time compared to sz

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

But it will reduce zbll from 493 to 93 and like I said again 493 is not very practical and also szbll is really short, is it more steps than zb?, yes is it reducing more ZBLL, yes, is it easier to recognise compared to zb, also yes. And also then technically we all should like learn 1LLL because zbll delays LSLL more than 1LLL, its of course possible for anyone to develop recognition skills with full zbll but that will take a lot of time compared to sz

So you think it’s worth it to delay LSLL by THREE steps just so that you can reduce ZBLL to 93 algs? You might as well just insert the last pair and start doing OLL PLL then. Also comparing ZBLL to 1LLL is just not fair. 1LLL has THOUSANDS of algs, and ZBLL has 493. Which one looks better now? Also ZBLL DOES NOT delay LSLL. ZBLS IS LSLL. Idk what you were trying to say by “ZBLL delays LSLL more than 1LLL”. ZBLS is doing last pair AND EO at the same time. Compared to EOFLL and SZBLL, you separate EO and the DF edge into two steps, just so that you can force T ZBLL.

Interesting but then why not just insert the pair and do eofll then?

Also this wouldn’t even work assuming DF edge is already solved. If you were to insert the pair then you would already be at ZBLL, so instead of doing EOFLL and SZBLL you can just do OLL and PLL, which is objectively better since you’re already starting LL with OLL and PLL while EOFLL and SZBLL are still setting up for LL.

 

[I-am-nishan]

So you think it’s worth it to delay LSLL by THREE steps just so that you can reduce ZBLL to 93 algs? You might as well just insert the last pair and start doing OLL PLL then. Also comparing ZBLL to 1LLL is just not fair. 1LLL has THOUSANDS of algs, and ZBLL has 493. Which one looks better now? Also ZBLL DOES NOT delay LSLL. ZBLS IS LSLL. Idk what you were trying to say by “ZBLL delays LSLL more than 1LLL”. ZBLS is doing last pair AND EO at the same time. Compared to EOFLL and SZBLL, you separate EO and the DF edge into two steps, just so that you can force T ZBLL.


Also this wouldn’t even work assuming DF edge is already solved. If you were to insert the pair then you would already be at ZBLL, so instead of doing EOFLL and SZBLL you can just do OLL and PLL, which is objectively better since you’re already starting LL with OLL and PLL while EOFLL and SZBLL are still setting up for LL.

Just think,ZBLL is the cross cases of 1LLL and zbls reduced that 1LLL to only cross cases (ie zbll) and you have to look twice, see solves of tymon or something , you look once for zbls, does it and you look again for zbll and you execute the alg, compare that with sz
You do eofll (5 algs) instantly jump to szbll because first of all, szbll recogniton is very easy ,once it goes to muscle memory you could predict szbll on eofll itself while predicting zbll on zbls very hard because first 493 cases to recognise, second recognising which cases?, which subset?, 2gll?, diagonal? Etc is genuinely hard on zbls, and eofll works even if the df edge is solved, like I said eofll doesnt care about color, it cares about orientation
So on advanced sz you look twice for last layer, like zb , but you get 93 cases instead of 493

 

[abunickabhi]

What does SZ stand for?

 

[I-am-nishan]

What does SZ stand for?

Idk named it for fun maybe szbll

 

[abunickabhi]

Maybe it can be coinage for Sized-down ZBLL ig

 

[I-am-nishan]

Maybe it can be coinage for Sized-down ZBLL ig

thats a really good idea ngl

 

[abunickabhi]

thats a really good idea ngl

Hehe thanks

 

[I-am-nishan]

Hehe thanks

Sized-down zbll is so goated I decided to make it the official full form of SZ

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

ZBLL is the cross cases of 1LLL and zbls reduced that 1LLL to only cross cases (ie zbll) and you have to look twice

uhh ok? OLL and PLL can also be called 1LLL then, together with VLS+PLL, WV+PLL, etc.

predicting zbll on zbls very hard because first 493 cases to recognise, second recognising which cases?, which subset?, 2gll?, diagonal? Etc is genuinely hard on zbls

I don’t think you’re exactly a ZB user though…
The actual recognition flow of ZBLS->ZBLL is:
Recog for ZBLS: Recognize EO and F2L pair (this is VERY easy to do).
Recog for ZBLL: You do NOT have to go through that entire process of recognition. It’s essentially just this:
Recognize your OCLL case-> Recognize CP -> Recognize the BH pattern. That’s it. I can recog U 2GLLs as fast as I can recog PLL because of that system. I don’t understand why you genuinely think ZBLS and ZBLL recog is so hard. The reason why people can’t do it instantly is because of alg count, but that DOES NOT mean it’s “difficult”.

eofll works even if the df edge is solved

ok, so why shouldn’t I just do OLL and PLL if the DF edge is solved?

eofll doesnt care about color, it cares about orientation

never said anything about that either

szbll recogniton is very easy

and you won’t even bother to explain how to recog

 

[I-am-nishan]

uhh ok? OLL and PLL can also be called 1LLL then, together with VLS+PLL, WV+PLL, etc.


I don’t think you’re exactly a ZB user though…
The actual recognition flow of ZBLS->ZBLL is:
Recog for ZBLS: Recognize EO and F2L pair (this is VERY easy to do).
Recog for ZBLL: You do NOT have to go through that entire process of recognition. It’s essentially just this:
Recognize your OCLL case-> Recognize CP -> Recognize the BH pattern. That’s it. I can recog U 2GLLs as fast as I can recog PLL because of that system. I don’t understand why you genuinely think ZBLS and ZBLL recog is so hard. The reason why people can’t do it instantly is because of alg count, but that DOES NOT mean it’s “difficult”.



ok, so why shouldn’t I just do OLL and PLL if the DF edge is solved?



never said anything about that either

and you won’t even bother to explain how to recog

Yes I am not a full zb user lol never found the time to learn more then 400 algs, and you have to pause twice , one for zbll and another for zbls like I said because you have to recognise 400+ algs, you almost certainly pause for recognising unless its an easy case andsz reduces zbll to only t so it makes zbll recognition easier, and szbll recognition is on the spreadsheet didn't see?, just hold the cube on that state, more simply the corners
And on sz that 493 because 93 and also just asking did I ever say sz is better than zb tho?, probably if zb didn't exist and no one made zbll sz probably won't exist, sz reduces zbll and i think that's exactly what I needed it to be zb is better than sz if you are willing to learn the algs, sz is better for zbll but with not selling your time to alg sheets, like I said once

yeah zb is more integrated step by step no argument there but the thing is who actually learning 493 zblls and even more zbls?? sz is for people who want one look ll without selling their time to alg aheets and the steps are really small algorithm sheet and zbls vs szbll fair but zbls into zbll you still recognizing 493 cases szbll into t zbll is 72 + pll way easier on the brain and recognising is hard when you have more than 400 algs , zb is better if you learning 493+ algs sz is better if you not im not saying sz beats zb for everyone im saying its the best reduction for people who want one look ll without the full commitment