- Jul 12, 2011
Then why isn't Old Pochmann a good speedsolving method? Ergonomic algs. One/two ideas. Small alg set. Flows very well, just watch some blindsolves. I think your rating system is poor.snip
First, this is not a method; it's a variant. This is a simplification of the ZZ approach with increased leniency. Therefore, it cannot be worse than ZZ. Because the worst case for this variant is exactly the true ZZ case, in which the correct corners are placed correctly with the correct edges. Instead, this variant permits us to throw almost any corners in the F2L, after applying some brief mindless rules which will become second nature after a few solves (I have experienced this, and I have only done a few dozen solves). The ergonomics are superior. The flow is greater. The movecount is less. That's as far as the EOF2L is concerned.
The only true alteration made (that is, not a simplification of the standard ZZ approach, but actually straying from the regular ZZ method) is the change we are making on the insertion of the last F2L "pair", in that the LL edges and 1 corner must be relatively solved during the pair insertion. This is the only section of the solve where you can claim the "flow" and "idea count" suffers. Certainly however, this is a sacrifice made for a decreased "idea count" later in the solve. My blind goldfish could see that.
And as far as I'm concerned, EOLine+Block+Block+OLL+PLL, is the same quantity of "ideas" as EOLine+Easy Block+Easy but special Block+Commutator+Commutator
And because you grouped CFOP's second idea, into a factor of 4 (pair*4), I don't see why you can't group the commutator ideas of this approach in the same way.
Frankly, I just think you haven't read the method thoroughly enough. There are not "too many ideas". In fact, there are only 3 distinct steps, in the way I outlined it. Instead, there are only constraints to keep in mind, while solving the cube. Comparable constraints exist in every other method. They are just things to keep in mind, while you burn through the lucky, simple cases.
TL;DR I think counting the number of steps in a method is a poor way of concluding viability. I disagree with every judgment you made based off that.
It's not difficult at all. These are the constraints that I wrote about above. You can literally toss any corner you want into the first "pair". The only constraint on the second pair is that it must not be the twin of the "pair" you just inserted. And the third "pair" must involve the final edge and corner piece to complete the edge cycle, and the corner must be oriented in a particular way, which will feel right after a few iterations of practice.Also, just wondering, but how hard is it to ensure that you have a valid 3-cycle on the bottom during F2L? That seems rather thought intensive.
Remember that before, between, or after these three "pairs" you must also insert a correct F2L pair. Because you have 4 chances, just sit and wait for a 3 or 4 move insert.