• 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 35,000+ people from around the world today!

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

ZZ-Edges First discussion

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.
 

StachuK1992

statue
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
3,812
Location
West Chester, PA
WCA
2008KORI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Old Pochman is a fair, but useless stab at the idea. Ok fine, overall movecount is a factor.


Due to the lack of constraints here and the seemingly sudden comm-pair, there is less overall flow.

I too have been drunk on my own methods; give it time.
I truly say this without intentional condescension. I'd love for something truly innovative and efficient to come out, more than anyone. My opinion is that this just isn't it.

The method is complicated. I've lied to myself about many methods; it takes a long time to become entirely objective about these things.

For all I know, though, this could turn out really well.
I've build up a mental construct of why methods do and don't work, and this simply falls into that schema for me.
I'll try to sleep on it and prove myself wrong though! :) I'd love to.


EDIT:
As to not hijack this thread, I'll create a thread in the coming days in order to create some sort of method-efficiency metric. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
 
Last edited:

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
I added 1 walkthrough example solve video to the OP.

Looking back, you should probably have a decent understanding of the method before watching the example. It's incorporates a bit of method explanation for visual learners, but not nearly enough for a standalone tutorial.
 
Last edited:

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
Do you think full ZBLL would be better than speed-heise slot + LL commutator? I mean certainly not in terms of alg-learning, but as in the most efficient method. It is a ZZ variant after all.
well, theoretically yes. but that isn't "Edges First"

but using ZBLL for the LL does not preclude you from solving the F2L to an unsolved state. In other words, you can solve the LL with ZBLL, then do a z2 and do a quick commutator, all the same. That would still be more efficient than standard ZZ-a.
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
880
Location
0, 0
Half-solving pieces only to fix your "mistakes" with an alg later? Few methods benefit from this. It would be nice to see a move comparison between:

X-EOLine
F2L-1
Pair + That Speed Heise thing

and

X-EOLine
Fake F2L-1
Fake Pair + That Speed Heise thing
Fix D Corners

How many fewer moves are saved with the Lazy Solving technique?
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
Half-solving pieces only to fix your "mistakes" with an alg later? Few methods benefit from this. It would be nice to see a move comparison between:

X-EOLine
F2L-1
Pair + That Speed Heise thing

and

X-EOLine
Fake F2L-1
Fake Pair + That Speed Heise thing
Fix D Corners

How many fewer moves are saved with the Lazy Solving technique?
Keep in mind that the "XEOLine" in the second option can also be some bogus block. That saves a huge number of moves.

Do a few solves for yourself. You will certainly save more moves than an 8/9-move commutator is worth.

But yes, the first option you suggested is also very fast. I average around 15 with it, and I have really poor speed-heise recognition.
 

Smiles

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
575
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yes, but you only have three corners to solve, so a commutator is the fastest way.
i kinda meant why permute the edges and solve 1 corner in the first place, instead of just finishing the slot and doing whatever LL you want.
this is just from a speed standpoint.
 
Top