• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

TheCubingCuber347's POGression thread. | The peregrination to prove Fahmi wrong/sub-15 with Petrus-APB | New main!?!?

Do you think I can get sub-15 with APB?


  • Total voters
    15
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
2,036
Location
On a long train journey, Smashin' PBs one a stop
YouTube
Visit Channel
View attachment 17573
Sub-9 on skewb now. It's pretty amazing considering just under two weeks ago I averaged twelve seconds. I think I'll finally learn Sarah's intermediate now. (For real)

@cuberswoop
I was scared for a moment, then I noticed that it was skewb.
Thank god you're still only a second faster than me on 3x3.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
995
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Learned Sarah's Intermediate in about ten minutes just now.

Now I think I'll go for Last Five Centers.
1636307012932.png1636307068609.png

Edit: What the heck @cuberswoop ? This is my progression thread do you think I'm being arrogant or something?

Edit Edit: The solves in the session are from before I learned Intermediate. I haven't done any CD solves since then.
 
Last edited:

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
3,365
Location
some warm place down south
WCA
2019CHRI11
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
995
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Updates on my averages:

2x2: 4.4-4.9
3x3: 15.8-15.9
4x4: Sub-1:15
5x5: Sub-2:30
6x6: 5:10-5:45 (I don't practice enough to be consistent)
OH: Sub-30
Skewb: ?8.7? (I haven't had time to practice Skewb at all)
Square-1: Sub-35 (Hopefully I'll pick it up more after I get the MGC)

PB's singles:
2x2: 1.76
3x3: 10.07
4x4: 55.36
5x5: 2:12.42
6x6: 4:37.76
OH: 19.71
Skewb: 2.21
Sqaure-1: 21.13

Check my signature for everything else!
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
995
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
I decided to finish OLL, even when I switch methods OLL will be useful occasionally.

I learned all the Knight Move cases yesterday three out of four Line cases and I learned another alg for OLL 51 so I can now do it from three angles (3 algs). I learned the remaining Line case this morning.

OLL's: 49/57

To learn: I still have to learn all of the Awkward Shapes cases (4) and finish up and polish L Shape cases (4/6 although I only use them if I can recognize right away). I also need to optimize my Dot cases.

I hope to finish L Shapes today and everything else within the next two days.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
995
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
What method are you planning on switching to?
The Nautilus method. I think it has a ton of potential and it's also really fun.

Steps:
1. FB (same as Roux)
2. 2x2x2 block on dbr
3. LS (can be combined with step two)
4. NCLL (CO + CP)
5. L5E

I've already learned NCLL but I've been putting off L5EP so I will try to do that by the end of December (as the thread title suggests I will be switching at the end of the year no matter what). I'd also like to learn some, it not all of NCOLL and start working on easy L5E subsets. I'm also planning on learning Tripod for U and T. In total I have about:

Fifty NLS cases
Forty NCOLL's
Twenty-two Tripods
Eight OLL's
and
Four more L5EP's

to learn (124).

This might seem like a lot in just one month but the remaining L5EP's should be very easy, most of NLS is intuitive, I will already know some Tripods and I actually might not even learn T Tripod (11 cases). I will probably keep four of my Dot case algs, and several NCOLL's are just normal NCLL's and I probably won't learn the bad cases.

So in total I will probably only end up learning around fifty to sixty cases in December.
 
Last edited:

zzoomer

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
621
Location
waddling in the park
YouTube
Visit Channel
The Nautilus method. I think it has a ton of potential and it's also really fun.
Nautilus is basically just Roux but you have the extra restriction of preserving DB. IMO it is an OK method but it does not have as much potential as Roux due to this restriction. Since the two methods require very similar skill sets, I would say just go for Roux. Or you could try other methods, like Petrus and ZZ both which have plenty to offer!
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
995
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Nautilus is basically just Roux but you have the extra restriction of preserving DB. IMO it is an OK method but it does not have as much potential as Roux due to this restriction. Since the two methods require very similar skill sets, I would say just go for Roux. Or you could try other methods, like Petrus and ZZ both which have plenty to offer!

I've actually been thinking about it a lot myself the past few weeks and I just don't think it has as much potential as I originally thought, the NSB step just isn't that good and it's tough to be efficient and fluid during this step. NLS is pretty restricted compared to Roux LS and it would probably be better to make SB>LS>DB in which case you basically have Roux. The only real advantage is zero blind spots after NSB and L5E can be done with a single algorithm compared to Roux where a more advanced solver would take two steps. I'm not to confident with ZZ's potential, especially with ZB being a thing. Petrus on the other hand isn't the greatest on it's own but with APB is a fantastic improvement and I think it may be better than Nautilus.

I'm seriously considering switching to APB instead just because I think it has way more potential the Nautilus. The only thing that was holding me back from switching is that the ultimate goal is to learn ZBLL which has 493 (this may be wrong that's just what I have in my head) algorithms and it seemed formidable to me. But, due to a method I started using learning algs is really easy. The method was efficient enough that I learned seventeen OLL's in only two days but I think I could learn up to ten algs a day and the method would work great with ZBLL.

There is also a lot that can be done with APB. 223 can be planned in inspection, something that can't really be done with Nautilus's FB>NSB and it's easier to track pieces building a 2x2x2 than with a 1x2x3 (IMO). While creating your Pair you can recognize edge orientation and be ready to perform the necessary EOpair alg, and, while doing the alg it's easy to trace the pieces so you can go straight into L3P and finish with a ZBLL.

Nautilus, I now feel is better for OS. You could be method neutral between Nautilus and Roux fairly easily and get the same results if using the right method with the right scramble and with Nautilus and APB you can OS between them if you build your 223 on the back and use the Nautilus EO variant.

I haven't made my decision yet but I'm leaning more towards APB everyday.
 

zzoomer

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
621
Location
waddling in the park
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm not to confident with ZZ's potential, especially with ZB being a thing.
I would just like to point out that the majority of ZBLS is pretty trash, and influencing EO even earlier than LS is difficult to do on the fly and is not worth it. ZZ takes care of EO right off the bat, only adding ~2 HTM to the cross solution.
Petrus on the other hand isn't the greatest on it's own but with APB is a fantastic improvement and I think it may be better than Nautilus.

I'm seriously considering switching to APB instead just because I think it has way more potential the Nautilus. The only thing that was holding me back from switching is that the ultimate goal is to learn ZBLL which has 493 (this may be wrong that's just what I have in my head) algorithms and it seemed formidable to me. But, due to a method I started using learning algs is really easy. The method was efficient enough that I learned seventeen OLL's in only two days but I think I could learn up to ten algs a day and the method would work great with ZBLL.
I would suggest joining the ZMS discord server, many people there (myself included) in the process of learning ZBLL and can help with the process! ZBLL developments are actively happening there, with algs constantly being genned, and recently new recog systems have been proposed by OreKehStrah and me.
Anyway, the nice thing about ZBLL is that you don't have to learn it in its entirety to be able to use it. OCLL/PLL is a fast alternative if you do not know the ZBLL alg.
Also, besides LS>ZBLL, there are many other EOLSLL systems.
APB seems like a great method if you like EOLSLL, but prefer a blockbuilding approach.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
995
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
I would just like to point out that the majority of ZBLS is pretty trash, and influencing EO even earlier than LS is difficult to do on the fly and is not worth it. ZZ takes care of EO right off the bat, only adding ~2 HTM to the cross solution.

I would suggest joining the ZMS discord server, many people there (myself included) in the process of learning ZBLL and can help with the process! ZBLL developments are actively happening there, with algs constantly being genned, and recently new recog systems have been proposed by OreKehStrah and me.
Anyway, the nice thing about ZBLL is that you don't have to learn it in its entirety to be able to use it. OCLL/PLL is a fast alternative if you do not know the ZBLL alg.
Also, besides LS>ZBLL, there are many other EOLSLL systems.
APB seems like a great method if you like EOLSLL, but prefer a blockbuilding approach.
Sorry for the late reply I had some things to take care of.

Bruh you've asked me to join the ZMS Discord like three times already. The alternating R-to-L moves are pretty difficult to do effectively and people like Tymon have shown the CFOP F2L isn't actually bad and you can do a ton of advanced stuff that ZZ kind of shuts down due to needing to plan EO. And of course you wouldn't learn ZBLS in it's entirety, it's just not worth it, but you should be able to find a balance in between to different LL approaches. Tymon often does solves where if he gets a bad OLL he'll orientate the edges with an ACO (I don't know if you can call it anything else EOO?) alg and while doing it he's mentally choosing the right ZBLL to do next.

If you're able to plan a EOxxcross in inspection and know full ZBLL than ZZ-a is probably the best method but that's a very uncertain probably. If you're good with efficiency like Tymon then CFOP (or PCFZ) is the best method, if you have really high TPS then ZZ is the best due to no rotations, if you're good at blockbuilding and M slices than Roux will be the best by far.

In a Monkey League interview Matty was saying how he would use ZBLS occasionally but only if it flowed well. So maybe instead of saying ZB will be the main method of top solvers I should have said CFOP with LS influencing. ZB is more like CFOP with LL interference since your deliberately making LS not that great so you can have a solved cross on top and it's just not always optimal to do that as you pointed out.

Next, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying but APB isn't an EOLSLL method. You do EO during the first pair LS is (If you manage to solve DR during EOpair) just normal unless you want to do some kind of OLS trick.

CFOP vs ZZ: Vanilla CFOP and ZZ are both pretty bad but with advanced algorithms, planning, F2L, etc. they are both really good and it would really just come down to the solver for which is the best method is. Like I said if you can plan EOxxcross with the two pairs on the left being solved I think ZZ-a is the way to go (WR was technically this) but that is extremely hard to do consistently and even doing an EOxcross is challenging (but possible) to do most times. CFOP F2L is easier during the first step and I feel like you can track pieces easier and I think you're really only benefitting from EO during LS when there isn't as much freedom and there are so many ways to effect LL that it can be overwhelming. I know PapaSmurf wrote this great argument for ZZ but there is a ton of iffy things in there that aren't necessarily false but they aren't fact either.

CFOP vs Roux: These method are so drastically different that I don't think I can compare them and I'm not really experienced enough with the Roux method to really compare them but I do have positive feeling with Roux in general. The same applies with ZZ and Roux.

Big-3 vs Other methods: I believe that APB and Mehta currently have the most potential but any argument for them is really just theory since it hasn't showed results near to other methods (especially CFOP and Roux). This post isn't really about this anyway so I think I'll just leave this to.

tl;dr: I'm not allowed to have Discord so it gets a little irksome when you tell me to join some kind of server repeatedly although I guess I can't blame you for stumbling across the few posts I made stating this.
 

zzoomer

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
621
Location
waddling in the park
YouTube
Visit Channel
Bruh you've asked me to join the ZMS Discord like three times already.
My bad, I didn't remember inviting you so many times.
The alternating R-to-L moves are pretty difficult to do effectively and people like Tymon have shown the CFOP F2L isn't actually bad and you can do a ton of advanced stuff that ZZ kind of shuts down due to needing to plan EO.
I belive CFOP F2L and ZZ F2L are roughly equal. CFOP F2L is kind of like "boneless" ZZ F2L. You get more flexibility but to be able to put that to good use is difficult and in practice the movecounts are roughly equal. If you try to be efficient with CFOP F2L you cannot TPS spam. Also, I'd like to point out that ZZ gives lots of opportunities for efficiency as well. EOcross is not required: you can just as easily take advantage of blockbuilding stuff (if not more easily since the EO backbone is set) as in CFOP xcross/xxcross/etc blockbuilding.
And of course you wouldn't learn ZBLS in it's entirety, it's just not worth it, but you should be able to find a balance in between to different LL approaches. Tymon often does solves where if he gets a bad OLL he'll orientate the edges with an ACO (I don't know if you can call it anything else EOO?) alg and while doing it he's mentally choosing the right ZBLL to do next.
ZZ guarantees ZBLL every solve though, without needing to influence anything. Less thinking, 100% guaranteed good LL
If you're able to plan a EOxxcross in inspection and know full ZBLL than ZZ-a is probably the best method but that's a very uncertain probably. If you're good with efficiency like Tymon then CFOP (or PCFZ) is the best method, if you have really high TPS then ZZ is the best due to no rotations, if you're good at blockbuilding and M slices than Roux will be the best by far.
You only have to plan XEOcross to have perfect lookahead in ZZ. This is roughly equivalent in difficulty as XXcross. You do not need to plan further than XEOcross because you have perfect lookahead (meaning you have information on every single piece just by seeing 3 adjacent faces). The point of planning is to make solve execution smoother/faster...if you plan XEOcross you are already all set.
"if you have really high TPS then ZZ is the best due to no rotations". This is simply just wrong. ZZ allows for high TPS thanks to the majority of the solve being 2 gen (LU or RU). Rotations are fast. The lack of rotations being a main benefit of ZZ is a common misconception.

Next, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying but APB isn't an EOLSLL method. You do EO during the first pair LS is (If you manage to solve DR during EOpair) just normal unless you want to do some kind of OLS trick.
After EOpair you can do LSLL with EO done, i'm pretty sure.
Big-3 vs Other methods: I believe that APB and Mehta currently have the most potential but any argument for them is really just theory since it hasn't showed results near to other methods (especially CFOP and Roux). This post isn't really about this anyway so I think I'll just leave this to.
Mehta is literally just Petrus in disguise...
tl;dr: I'm not allowed to have Discord so it gets a little irksome when you tell me to join some kind of server repeatedly although I guess I can't blame you for stumbling across the few posts I made stating this.
I apologize for any annoyances I have caused. I was only trying to help.
 
Top