• 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

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
751
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.
Personally I really, really hate the argument against ZZ F2L being RUL and bad. The first reason is that most of the time, it’s actually RU pair building and then just the basic L* U* L* insert, not the RUL thing most people think of due to people perpetuating that idea vs researching what people do in modern speedsolves. It makes zero sense to compare OLD ZZ to modern CFOPers. The second reason is that EVERY possible ZZ F2L case is a subset of what happens in CFOP F2L. You can look through a ton of CFOP solves that use the same idea of solving a left pair with RUFD gen ( righty turning basically) and then just doing a lefty insert just like what modern ZZ does.
Hopefully thing doesn’t start the cubing method war saga 7, but I wanted to cover this point because I find people constantly badger ZZ based on perpetuated ideas compared to modern CFOP.
 

Swagrid

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
251
Location
Downtown Swagistan
YouTube
Visit Channel
Alright here we go time to nitpick short sentences from a wall of text poggers

The alternating R-to-L moves are pretty difficult to do effectively
R/L switches are honestly not that bad with time and practice. Seriously. It's not something that's usually used all too often as most won't encounter a scenario where they need to, and in algs people would rather translate L to r. But if you do ZZ for a while, your R/L switching comes along.
Edit: forgot to mention, as OreKehStrah said, RUL is hardly every the case. Most of the time each pair is either RU, RUD, LUD, or RU with one LU insert.
you can do a ton of advanced stuff that ZZ kind of shuts down due to needing to plan EO
As for stuff planned in inspection - sort of. More on that later. Not the exact same argument but I'll put it here because it's similar and I want to rant about it. People often say that ZZ can't do nearly as much as CFOP in F2L, due to preserving EO. The thing is, ZZ may have less tricks, but they show up more frequently and are far more often. Keyhole and pseudoslotting are braindead techniques in ZZ, and they're almost standard.

CFOP vs ZZ: Vanilla CFOP and ZZ are both pretty bad
I don't know much about the base potential of CFOP, but vanilla ZZ is still good. Eocross, F2L, ocll, pll is still a very strong solve. ZBLL saves a fairly small amount of time - approximately 0.5 seconds in theory. So, in practice, vanilla ZZ can achieve very good results. And it has.

Now about earlier, people often say that planning further into a solve is harder in ZZ due to EO. The truth is that after EO, everything is much easier to plan. It's harder to plan eocross vs cross, but adding one pair on top of that is easier for ZZ because the mental load required to solve one pair is far less (not to say that eocross+1 is easier than cross+1, just that the jump from eocross to eocross+1 is easier than the jump from cross to cross+1). Now, this will be more and more prevalent with every pair. As we go further, each pair is easier to add for the ZZer. EO is a hurdle more than a step.
see attached graphs + overlayed image

Yeah so this was me nitpicking sentences out of a larger message so I can pointlessly ramble about small sentiments. Swagrid out.
 

Attachments

  • 1638465411168.png
    1638465411168.png
    128 KB · Views: 14
  • PicsArt_12-02-05.17.53~2.jpg
    PicsArt_12-02-05.17.53~2.jpg
    55.2 KB · Views: 14

voidrx

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
154
something that can't really be done with Nautilus's FB>NSB
At what level? Advanced? It's the same for planning 223, that's an advanced thing, an advanced Mehta solver should be able to plan FB + 3QB, why shouldn't an advanced Nautilus solver be able to plan Shell? Planning FB + SS is getting more and more likely these days, Shell is just another edge added.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
980
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Oh boy the ZZ gang is here. And Uno too.

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.

I think I agree with this statement for the most part. But I don't see what you mean by not being able to TPS spam with CFOP F2L. There is no truth in that.

ZZ guarantees ZBLL every solve though, without needing to influence anything. Less thinking, 100% guaranteed good LL
I guess you could say you always get a good LL especially with ZBLL but I get around the same times with CFOP LL and ZZLL

"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.

I don't really see what's so wrong with RUF F2L. I did two Ao50's with an xcross already solved. One for ZZF2L and one for CFOP F2L. It was around the same for each although CFOP F2L was a bit faster. You could say it's because I'm used to CFOP F2L but that doesn't make any sense at all because ZZF2L is easier than CFOP F2L. F moves can be very fast if they flow nicely.

Mehta is literally just Petrus in disguise...
Oh how I hate this... While it's fair to compare Mehta-TDR to Petrus Mehta-OS is at least an original idea. Just because the both begin with a 223 doesn't mean it's Petrus. Why don't we call ZZ with cross a CFOP variation (Before you attack me on that I think that comparison is even worse then what you just made) Or Nautilus a Roux variation or maybe APB literally just EONautilus.

While the differences aren't massive they are difference that make them unique enough to be different methods and I think it's unfair to call someone's (and later the communities) brain child that they spent a lot of time inventing just to have it called a Pseudo Petrus. It's not like V Achyuthans methods where he doesn't spend more than a day on it and the method dies right away.

I don't know much about the base potential of CFOP, but vanilla ZZ is still good. Eocross, F2L, ocll, pll is still a very strong solve. ZBLL saves a fairly small amount of time - approximately 0.5 seconds in theory. So, in practice, vanilla ZZ can achieve very good results. And it has.

Vanilla ZZ has EOline. EOcross is good but for a six second solve it's pretty hard to get that result consistently with Vanilla (Line).

ZZ bad, I'm faster with ZZ than any of this guys /s
I feel like Roux uses hate ZZ more than anyone. But at the same time it is somewhat viable to say that. You've proven the Roux is extremely and have gotten at least two sub-3's, something only two other people have done before (Max Park and Ben Barron) including the WB single. ZZ on the other hands hasn't shown these results. I like the counter argument that there aren't as many users so there is less of a chance of some god-level cuber using it but it also means that the potential of the method is still just theory and we have yet to see the results.

Here waiting for the 'eo is 6 moves, cross is 6 moves so eocross is 12 moves' card
That's what Jperm said!! Do you watch him too? ( I luv Jperm sew mujh!)

At what level? Advanced? It's the same for planning 223, that's an advanced thing, an advanced Mehta solver should be able to plan FB + 3QB, why shouldn't an advanced Nautilus solver be able to plan Shell? Planning FB + SS is getting more and more likely these days, Shell is just another edge added.
Sure, I guess it's possible. I've planned an xxxcross in inspection before and so have other cubers but that doesn't mean we can do it consistently. Again, it's all just theory. If you want to go and switch back to Nautilus and prove that it's possible go ahead! 223 Is easier than FB+NSB though so I don't know why you're comparing those. FB+NSB is like a 223+ a slot. It's even harder than FB+3QB.
 

voidrx

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
154
RUFy* F2L.
but that doesn't mean we can do it consistently.
It gets harder and harder to plan xxxcross as you add a pair, because it is so inefficient compared to other methods, sure you can blockbuild xxxcross but then is it CFOP?
but I get around the same times with CFOP LL and ZZLL
ZZLL is kinda bad... of course you would get similar times with CFOP LL.
 

Swagrid

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
251
Location
Downtown Swagistan
YouTube
Visit Channel
Vanilla ZZ has EOline
Well, this is a different debate in itself. You can argue that Eoline is vanilla because it was what was originally proposed by Zbigniew Zborowski in 2006,but then Ryan Heise proposed eocross in 2003 (see attached). But then, something being how it was initially proposed doesn't define the vanilla. It can change over time. Eocross has been the standard for years. Look at CFOP - when first widely publicised on Jessica Fridrich's website, it was proposed with cross and F2L on top. Now, beginners will do cross on top as a bad habit, but the community would never accept cross and F2L on top as vanilla cfop. Cross on bottom, and F2L on bottom, is the vanilla.

"vanilla" is just a standard and standards change with time. That's why I call eocross vanilla.
 

Attachments

  • Ryan_Heises_ZZ_Proposal-1.png
    Ryan_Heises_ZZ_Proposal-1.png
    388.8 KB · Views: 8

zzoomer

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
608
Location
waddling in the park
YouTube
Visit Channel
Oh how I hate this... While it's fair to compare Mehta-TDR to Petrus Mehta-OS is at least an original idea. Just because the both begin with a 223 doesn't mean it's Petrus. Why don't we call ZZ with cross a CFOP variation (Before you attack me on that I think that comparison is even worse then what you just made) Or Nautilus a Roux variation or maybe APB literally just EONautilus.
First of all, ZZ is a subset of CFOP. All of the stuff you do in ZZ can be done in CFOP, but not vice versa. On the other hand, Mehta and Petrus are pretty much identical. All the funny variants of Mehta can be applied in Petrus, or any EO223 method in general.
 

UNO_FASY

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2021
Messages
29
I feel like Roux uses hate ZZ more than anyone.
this is not entirely true and kinda generalized roux users as a whole. I don't hate ZZ, I just hate that some users talk so loud about their method with barely efforts to try to improve it. Like they have big talks like ZBLL, high tps, etc. Like they feels so out of touch of cubing sometimes. Other than that I love this guys
 

Sevilzww

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
5
Location
Indonesia
I feel like Roux uses hate ZZ more than anyone. But at the same time it is somewhat viable to say that. You've proven the Roux is extremely and have gotten at least two sub-3's, something only two other people have done before (Max Park and Ben Barron) including the WB single. ZZ on the other hands hasn't shown these results. I like the counter argument that there aren't as many users so there is less of a chance of some god-level cuber using it but it also means that the potential of the method is still just theory and we have yet to see the results.
Roux users are too busy not cubing and for the active roux users, they don't theorycraft on methods like every jperm viewer does
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
980
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
First of all, ZZ is a subset of CFOP. All of the stuff you do in ZZ can be done in CFOP, but not vice versa.

Hmm, so I guess Mehta-TDR, Petrus, CFOP, ZZ, Nautilus ZBLL, ZB, APB, and other similar methods are all just subsets of FreeFOP.

On the other hand, Mehta and Petrus are pretty much identical. All the funny variants of Mehta can be applied in Petrus, or any EO223 method in general.

So are all ZBLL and L5E methods the same? They share similar characteristics and you can apply the same algorithms with them. But hey, all methods solve the cube eventually so what really differs them?
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
980
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
I've decided to switch to APB instead of Nautilus. I don't really see any benefits with Nautilus over APB although I'm sure in the right hands they could be equals. I just think that NSB is inefficient and the FB approach isn't my personal favorite, it's still a solid step, I just don't like it. I'll try to learn EOpair this month and I think I'll do 223 on the left. I'll be going with the main (LL) variant and do plan on learning ZBLL.
 

zzoomer

Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
608
Location
waddling in the park
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hmm, so I guess Mehta-TDR, Petrus, CFOP, ZZ, Nautilus ZBLL, ZB, APB, and other similar methods are all just subsets of FreeFOP.
This is true.
So are all ZBLL and L5E methods the same? They share similar characteristics and you can apply the same algorithms with them. But hey, all methods solve the cube eventually so what really differs them?
I do not understand your argument here. ZBLL requires EO + F2L to be done; L5E requires F2L - DF edge, and LL corners solved.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
980
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
Just realized I was saying ZZLL not knowing that was a subset of ZBLL.

I learned EOpair (11 cases) last night for the cases where the pair is inserted so I can now do beginners APB. I also optimized some F2L algs for 2Gen cases to preserve EO.

I managed to learn TUL COLL today although half of L is NCLL and the other half I figured out intuitively so I can't really count that. I'm planning on learning H and Pi tomorrow and I probably won't learn COLL for S and aS due to the algs being so fast that the recognition time wouldn't be worth it.

Edit: Forgot to mention, I switched to Yau and am currently averaging around 1:20 but with a little more practice I can easily get my old times.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
2,022
Location
On a long train journey, Smashin' PBs one a stop
YouTube
Visit Channel
I probably won't learn COLL for S and aS due to the algs being so fast that the recognition time wouldn't be worth it.
You would want to learn the recog though. It will help you later when you learn S/AS ZBLL(which imo are worth learning since the algs are kinda shorter compared to the average TUL afaik).
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
980
Location
In the park feeding Ducks
You would want to learn the recog though. It will help you later when you learn S/AS ZBLL(which imo are worth learning since the algs are kinda shorter compared to the average TUL afaik).
That is true and the algs are pretty good for S/aS but I will definitely be putting them off for last. It would be worth learning the extra COLL algs for two other reason too, more alg knowledge, and more bragging rights.
 
Top