Asheboy
Regular
I was just wondering what do you think is a better method (better meaning quicker I guess). Either ZBF2L + COLL or full Fridrich? Or anything you have to say about them would be useful
.
.
Last edited:
ZBF2L + COLL
- Thread starter Asheboy
- Start date
Lofty
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,583
- Location
- Gainesville, Florida
- WCA ID
- 2008LOFT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Do you know how many algs ZBF2L is?
I think full fridrich is faster then your proposed ZBF2L+COLL but if somehow you were able to learn full ZB eventually that would faster if you could ever learn all the algs and practice recognition.
I think full fridrich is faster then your proposed ZBF2L+COLL but if somehow you were able to learn full ZB eventually that would faster if you could ever learn all the algs and practice recognition.
Asheboy
Regular
For the moment I saw just going to stick to creating the pair and then using ZBF2L to put it in. So I guess that would be slower, should I go back to OLL/PLL?
Kenneth
Not Alot
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,693
- Location
- Kauparve, Hejde, Gotland, Sweden
- WCA ID
- 2005GUST01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
There are many cases but being F2L it is not as hard as a LL method having the same number. First thing is the lenght of the algs and second is that many algs are of the type that you add turns on a shorter alg to do another case.
R U' R'
R U R' U .. R U' R'
As an easy example.
This makes it intuitive to some degree and much easier to learn all cases than it looks "on paper". Doing all from "muscle memory" is something diffrent, it takes years of practice.
ZBF2L + COLL is notably faster than OLL/PLL... if you have the needed practice and experience.
R U' R'
R U R' U .. R U' R'
As an easy example.
This makes it intuitive to some degree and much easier to learn all cases than it looks "on paper". Doing all from "muscle memory" is something diffrent, it takes years of practice.
ZBF2L + COLL is notably faster than OLL/PLL... if you have the needed practice and experience.
Last edited:
Escher
Babby
if you are going to stick with fridrich, at least get to full fridrich (OLL and PLL) first.
i personally would suggest that you should learn ZZ after fridrich. EOLine is a genius concept.
soo...
finish fridrich, learn ZZ, learn COLL for the slower OLL cases (ie not sune/antisune, double sune or pi).
i personally would suggest that you should learn ZZ after fridrich. EOLine is a genius concept.
soo...
finish fridrich, learn ZZ, learn COLL for the slower OLL cases (ie not sune/antisune, double sune or pi).
Asheboy
Regular
After a bit of googleing I can't really find much (how to actually go about it wise) on ZZ and EOLine, any links would be very helpful.
Escher
Babby
just googled ZZ method. the second hit was a link to this forum... and the first post had a link to the webpage
http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZ speedcubing system.html
i think you need to work on your googling before you learn ZZ
hehe, im only joking.
btw, EOLine takes a LOT of practice for fridrich users to get used to. i would imagine petrus users have 'a bit' of an advantage because of the stages after the 2x2x3 block.
http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZ speedcubing system.html
i think you need to work on your googling before you learn ZZ
hehe, im only joking.
btw, EOLine takes a LOT of practice for fridrich users to get used to. i would imagine petrus users have 'a bit' of an advantage because of the stages after the 2x2x3 block.
Isn't that just VH?
After a bit of googleing I can't really find much (how to actually go about it wise) on ZZ and EOLine, any links would be very helpful.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5180
Try this. Also, I'm one of the rather few people who use ZZ as their main method, so feel free to ask me.
Isn't that just VH?
After a bit of googleing I can't really find much (how to actually go about it wise) on ZZ and EOLine, any links would be very helpful.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5180
Try this. Also, I'm one of the rather few people who use ZZ as their main method, so feel free to ask me.
Yeah, me too. I switched when I saw that thread.
AvGalen
Premium Member
ZBF2L + COLL doesn't solve the cube in 11 out of 12 cases
OLL+PLL does solve the cube (assuming you did F2L before OLL)
So I would say OLL+PLL takes longer, but is better
OLL+PLL does solve the cube (assuming you did F2L before OLL
)So I would say OLL+PLL takes longer, but is better
brunson
Veteran
I've been studying a lot of the cases of ZBF2L (A call it ZBLS since only covers last slot) for several months, I just like having more control and more options for doing insertions and handling odd cases, but I'm a student of the cube and not purely out for speed.
The thing is, you need OLL and PLL to cover all cases of ZBF2L. There are times when you insert your third corner pair in Frdrich F2L and "accidentally" solve the fourth. What do you do now? You're faced with OLL and then PLL. ZBLS simply gives you an option to solve edges *if* your last slot isn't already solved. If you've neglected your edges unsolved OLLs, then you're back to a three look.
You really can't skip the basics by leapfrogging over them to a more advanced method. Most advanced LBL methods simply augment less advanced. Like Keyhole is an improvement over straight beginners LBL but requires all LBL techniques for the filling in the keyhole on your last insertion. Fridrich F2L is an enhancement of LBL combining the steps of corners and edges, but can use algs from keyhole for certain cases. ZBLS and MGLS are methods of combining your last F2L insertion with OLL, but require all cases of OLL in the instances when you don't have a last slot to work with.
COLL only works if your edges are oriented, there will always be times when they won't be. Besides, both Leyan Lo and Bob Burton agree that using Sune and PLL works faster for Sune cases of COLL. Even in Michal Hordecki's paper on ZB he states "Of course, there's a need for full PLL knowledge just in case of OLL skip."
Don't look at OLL and PLL as being wasted, they are the building blocks of more advanced methods, not something that you learn just to forget.
The thing is, you need OLL and PLL to cover all cases of ZBF2L. There are times when you insert your third corner pair in Frdrich F2L and "accidentally" solve the fourth. What do you do now? You're faced with OLL and then PLL. ZBLS simply gives you an option to solve edges *if* your last slot isn't already solved. If you've neglected your edges unsolved OLLs, then you're back to a three look.
You really can't skip the basics by leapfrogging over them to a more advanced method. Most advanced LBL methods simply augment less advanced. Like Keyhole is an improvement over straight beginners LBL but requires all LBL techniques for the filling in the keyhole on your last insertion. Fridrich F2L is an enhancement of LBL combining the steps of corners and edges, but can use algs from keyhole for certain cases. ZBLS and MGLS are methods of combining your last F2L insertion with OLL, but require all cases of OLL in the instances when you don't have a last slot to work with.
COLL only works if your edges are oriented, there will always be times when they won't be. Besides, both Leyan Lo and Bob Burton agree that using Sune and PLL works faster for Sune cases of COLL. Even in Michal Hordecki's paper on ZB he states "Of course, there's a need for full PLL knowledge just in case of OLL skip."
Don't look at OLL and PLL as being wasted, they are the building blocks of more advanced methods, not something that you learn just to forget.
Last edited:
Kenneth
Not Alot
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,693
- Location
- Kauparve, Hejde, Gotland, Sweden
- WCA ID
- 2005GUST01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I don't agree, they just didn't practice, practice, practice enough.
