PapaSmurf
Member
I have. But he's an exception; he doesn't use double flicks so you shouldn't either according to that logic. Also, he still knows more algs than just OLL/PLL.Ummm, ever heard of Max Park?
I have. But he's an exception; he doesn't use double flicks so you shouldn't either according to that logic. Also, he still knows more algs than just OLL/PLL.Ummm, ever heard of Max Park?
Yeah he knows more, but he doesn't use them. He only uses oll and pll in actual speedsolves.I have. But he's an exception; he doesn't use double flicks so you shouldn't either according to that logic. Also, he still knows more algs than just OLL/PLL.
yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.World class ZZ solvers use ZBLL, and it's currently the best form of ZZ. There's no reason not to include it
yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.
This is just wrong it’s not that hard to learn zbll which is why lots of people have done it and many more people are learning right now. The algs can easily be executed quickly and there are multiple trainers to help you recognise it quicker. I guarantee Tao yu’s ll is quicker than yours.yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.
This is just wrong it’s not that hard to learn zbll which is why lots of people have done it and many more people are learning right now. The algs can easily be executed quickly and there are multiple trainers to help you recognise it quicker. I guarantee Tao yu’s ll is quicker than yours.
Max Park averaged very fast times on pure CFOP.tbh "the best method" is just a combination of a bunch of methods.
The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method, but if you add more stuff to it, like COLL, 2GLL, winter variation, OLLCP, ZBLL, 1LLL, keyhole, x-cross, multi-slotting, edge control, etc it gets a lot better.
No other method has that many variations, so maybe roux can be extended, or maybe a new, crazier methods gets invented, who knows.
Can you send a link to this pdf?I have a PDF with 170 1LLL cases that are really easy to recognize and really fast to execute
Can you send a link to this pdf?
*Actual physical pain*and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times
mkIt used to be called ZBF2L(Zborowski Bruchem F2L) but the name was changed to ZBLS(Zborowski Bruchem Last Slot) because it's an LS method, not F2L
It's not insanely difficult to learn. The recog+execution is not slower than OLL/PLL, it's around 2 seconds compared to about 2.5-3 in most cases. Also, it takes tons of practice to get fast with any method, so I don't see the problem with that. Also, have you heard of alg trainers? They completely bypass the problem of 'this only comes up once every 500 solves'. Anyway, I seem to know over 50% of them comfortably, so that's not an issue I have.yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.
Roux and Hawaiian Kociemba are better than CFOP here are my arguments for now.
for HK:
HK has EOArrow which makes F2L completely rotationless and more fun that Cross
HK is far more efficient than CFOP, averaging around -40 to 50.
HK is more intuitive than CFOP, the user can choose what to do and what not to do.
HK's last layer (or last step) is more algorithmic than CFOP, and algs are sometimes faster than thinking
HK's solve can be rotationless.
HK's LL is heavy on MU gen which makes it debatably faster
Honestly the only things bad about these arguments is that MU is not faster than RU, and that you are arguing for Roux's intuitiveness while in your argument for HK you said it was better because it is algorithmic.for Roux:
First block and second block is flexible
MU gen is debatably faster
Roux is more intuitive and the solver can do all kinds of tricks in SB and LSE.
Roux has less algorithm than CFOP making it easier to learn.
Roux's first block and second block are rotationless and so is CMLL and LSE.
the pro of HK's intuitiveness is that you can make it more efficient by what you see, for example, if you see the edges oriented, you can take advantage of it. and I didn't say that the whole HK method is algorithmic and only the last step is important to be algorithmic because there are only so few cases to solve but Roux is an exception because intuitiveness benefit Roux last step, LSE.Sorry, but these are some of the worst arguments I have ever seen. First, you say that HK is better because it is intuitive, and then you say it i better because it is algorithmic...
And then you say that HK CAN be rotationless. Same with CFOP. the only thing that matters if it is rotationless 100% of the time.
Also, MU is not faster than RU, it isn't a bad moveset, but there is no way that MU is faster.
Honestly the only things bad about these arguments is that MU is not faster than RU, and that you are arguing for Roux's intuitiveness while in your argument for HK you said it was better because it is algorithmic.
Also the fact that Roux has less algorithms just means that there aren't as many ways to improve.
Your RU turning must be atrocious.I say MU is debatable faster because my MU turning TPS is personally faster than my RU turning TPS.
MU can be as fast as RUYour RU turning must be atrocious.