The only practical use of ZBLL is FMC.
I don't see the necessity of testing ZB. ZBLS is downright horrible and ZBLL has a too large set of algorithms for it to be effective during speedsolves. The best alternative is OLL+PLL or CLL+ELL.
Also, I don't understand why ZB (and VH) are methods. I mean, that's like saying I've invented my own method called "Peanutbutter" and it goes like this: cross, F2L-1 corner, CLS, corner permutation, finishing with ELL, but it basically is a CFOP variation.
I don't see the necessity of testing ZB.
ZBLS is downright horrible
ZBLL has a too large set of algorithms for it to be effective during speedsolves.
The best alternative is OLL+PLL or CLL+ELL.
Also, I don't understand why ZB (and VH) are methods. I mean, that's like saying I've invented my own method called "Peanutbutter" and it goes like this: cross, F2L-1 corner, CLS, corner permutation, finishing with ELL, but it is basically a CFOP variation.
Recognising may be quickly, but how can you execute every single one of those 493 algorithms under preferably 2 seconds? That's humanly impossible..Not if you use them often enough to recognise them quickly. ZB was invented with a 1 look LL goal in mind, but the cases are too many, therefore the EO is solved at the last F2L pair. I guess it's inaccurate to call ZB a method, but it's kinda stuck within the community.
It could end up being the best method.. on paper. Also, "best" is subjective. While you for example may love OLLCP, I can't stand itWhy not? It could end up being the "best" method.
Do you have any justification for this at all?
You're talking to the guy who can use OLLCP without problems.
I would say that the better alternative hasn't been documented yet.
While I don't think ZBLL is a good method, I do think it can perform just as well as CFOP can - possibly better. However, both of these methods are somewhat of a dead end at this point.
This is a whole other can of worms. I have a full thread ready to be posted about this topic, but am still working on it.
Something being a method or not appears to be decided by general consensus. You can call that a method if you like, but no one else will do so.
Give me just one case which cannot be solved under 2 seconds. I can sub 2 every ZBLL alg I know, and I know roughly 20% of ZBLL so far. Where did you get this idea that it's impossible? I doubt you've even tried. I even think every LL case can be solved under 2 seconds. I don't know any case which can't be solved under 2 seconds.Recognising may be quickly, but how can you execute every single one of those 493 algorithms under preferably 2 seconds? That's humanly impossible..
I think if someone uses a method and they can constantly achieve better times than everyone else, then I would say it's the best method known.It could end up being the best method.. on paper. Also, "best" is subjective. While you for example may love OLLCP, I can't stand it
How is it difficult? If F2L and OLL case recognition is so easy, why wouldn't ZBLS recognition just be as easy? It's essentially a combination of the two.Recognition.. I think it is easier to reduce all cases to VHLS.
Give me just one case which cannot be solved under 2 seconds. I can sub 2 every ZBLL alg I know, and I know roughly 20% of ZBLL so far. Where did you get this idea that it's impossible? I doubt you've even tried. I even think every LL case can be solved under 2 seconds. I don't know any case which can't be solved under 2 seconds.
I think if someone uses a method and they can constantly achieve better times than everyone else, then I would say it's the best method known.
How is it difficult? If F2L and OLL case recognition is so easy, why wouldn't ZBLS recognition just be as easy? It's essentially a combination of the two.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLS
The problem is that ZBLS involves 125 algorithms (counting inverses and mirrors as the same algorithm) and has a total of 306 cases to learn.
Recognising may be quickly, but how can you execute every single one of those 493 algorithms under preferably 2 seconds? That's humanly impossible..
It could end up being the best method.. on paper. Also, "best" is subjective. While you for example may love OLLCP, I can't stand it
Recognition.. I think it is easier to reduce all cases to VHLS.
That's right, but in my opinion OLL+PLL have/has (my grammar is terrible) the easiest recognition and execution. But I'm open for new LL methods.
Of course it can, but I think it requires too much practice. I'm more of a lazy man
I could just give you a very bad algorithm to prove my point..
I could just give you a very bad algorithm to prove my point..
L' U2 L U L' U L R2 U' R2 U R2 U L2 U L2 U R2 U2 R2 U' L2 U' L2 R2
http://boca.bee.pl/case.php?l=en&cat=th&sid=289
Okay, and now I'm going to be serious.
Yes, it is possible to sub-2 every ZBLL algorithm, provided it is in your muscle memory. Memory fades without repetition, and considering a large set of algorithms, some cases will occur more than others, causing you to get slower at the cases you don't get too often.
Oh yeah, that's seriously going to happen, isn't it?That's like saying if the world record for TH 3x3 single is done blindfolded and one-handed, solving blindfolded and one-handed is better.
It's just what you prefer. ZBLS recognition may be the easier than VHLS, but what seriously turns me off about ZBLS is this:
Now consider you use CFOP+ZBLS:
306 cases
125 algorithms to solve the last slot and orient LL edges.
Add 7 algorithms for OLL.
Because you need to look for 2 things (CE-pair+edges), lookahead becomes more difficult.
CFOP+VHLS:
32 cases (? .. not too sure about this one)
32 algorithms to solve the last slot and orient LL edges.
Add 7 algorithms for OLL.
Lookahead is easier IMO, due to the fact you can easily look for the corner and edge, not for the corner, the slot edge while tracking the 4 LL edges for full ZBLS.
But that all comes down to personal preference.
That's like saying if the world record for TH 3x3 single is done blindfolded and one-handed, solving blindfolded and one-handed is better.
Yeah, but I feel many people don't appreciate which step it is you're saving. Since ZBLL is like a much more complex PLL, and ZBLS is a much more complex OLL, the only thing you're saving is one F2L slot. Given that the fast guys (like you) can do an F2L slot in what 1, 1.5 seconds, I can't see how the thousands of hours of practice in ZB can save more than if someone just spent that time on all the other parts of their solve.Well of course lookahead is easier, but with ZB, you "save" a step and perhaps moves and time as well.
You are calling something that people can already demonstrate humanly impossible. Your argument is beyond invalid.
You missed the point of what I was saying. Exploring untested methods is important as they can have untapped potential we can use to widen our knowledge or improve our overall speed.
This is just a personal issue you have.
You say best is subjective, then say OLL/PLL has the easiest recognition/execution. Riiiight.
Just because you're too lazy to learn something doesn't mean other people are. There are people who are way more dedicated than you are at this - please don't dismiss a technique because of your own faults.
Cases are not algorithms - you proved nothing.
I think that's a terrible comparison. It is more like saying because someone is becoming better than everyone, and he uses Roux D), Roux is the best method. Or like CFOP is the best because Feliks uses it.
My point on this topic is: It depends on how seriously you do cubing. Recalling ZBLL algs can be possible with enough practise, steady and long practise. Do you have the time for that? Is it worth the time? I can imagine ZBLL being in "your blood" like PLL and OLL is, or anything else that goes into the muscle memory and hardly can be lost again.
Personally, I am learning COLL. Very slowly, so it can all fit in my muscle memory. Then some VHLS, maybe. Then, maybe if I have the dedication, some diagonal-PLL-avoiding algs.
The point I want to make is: It depends on your dedication to learn ZBLL, or any other algorithm set. If you are experienced with larger amount of algorithm sets, you can surely give it a shot. But rather learn COLL and some VHLS first. Learning subsets first is always a good start. If you don't have the dedication to put a lot of time into it, then just don't instead of talking about how impractible the "method" is.
Yeah, but I feel many people don't appreciate which step it is you're saving. Since ZBLL is like a much more complex PLL, and ZBLS is a much more complex OLL, the only thing you're saving is one F2L slot. Given that the fast guys (like you) can do an F2L slot in what 1, 1.5 seconds, I can't see how the thousands of hours of practice in ZB can save more than if someone just spent that time on all the other parts of their solve.
This reminds me of Kirjava's objections to late stage colour neutrality adoption... it may be an advantage, but the shear amount of work that would be required to go into it would give you more advantages in other areas.
I should clarify; I do not think ZBLL is a good method.
However, I would love to be shown otherwise. This is why when Chris Tran was learning ZB, I was pumping him with motivation.
Why on earth would you want to learn ZBLL? ...