... It almost seems unfair to compare ZB to Fridrich via Sebastien and Jean. If you look at the SCC UWR list, their average times for F2L are sub-9. SinceMessage 1 of 6 , Aug 1, 2005View Source--- In email@example.com, cmhardw <no_reply@y...>
> I agree that maybe with a lot of practice, that ZB could potentiallyIt almost seems unfair to compare ZB to Fridrich via Sebastien and
> be faster than CFOP (it doesn't seem impossible). However, after
> seeing Sebastien and Jean on the 3x3 this seems like it would take a
> lot of practice indeed (at the very least 3 years or so). Maybe then
> this strategy of using it as a "first two rounds" method is a way to
> use it when you are in the intermediate stages of learning it? I
> think I will write something about that in my next entry.
Jean. If you look at the SCC UWR list, their average times for F2L
are sub-9. Since Fridrich and ZB "share" the first few steps--cross,
and first three pairs--I would think you could only compare the
remainder of their solves, instead of comparing entire times. For
example, I remember seeing that you would like to be within one second
of the 1st place on the F2L fastest average list. Therefore, would
you feel a bit more confident in ZB if your ZBF2L was sub-10 seconds?
Even with a 6-second ZBLL, that would give you a sub-16 average.
I think that since there is an overlap between the two methods, it
would give you a better idea of comparison by comparing your speed for
the ZBF2L alg + ZBLL alg to the speed of a Fridrich 4th pair + OLL +
Ron, It would be great to have another corners guy on here. I currently use an incomplete Waterman system and avg 21-23sec. I say incomplete because I don tMessage 1 of 6 , Aug 1, 2005View SourceRon,
It would be great to have another corners guy on here. I currently
use an incomplete Waterman system and avg 21-23sec. I say incomplete
because I don't position two edges while orienting the middle edges.
Too many algs ! Also, I solve with the middle slice being "E"
instead of "M" becuase I can execute the algs faster. I wish I knew
some details of the method that Dave Allen used.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ron van Bruchem"
> Hi Lars,do that within 2.5 years: family, busy job, other hobbies, website,
> Yes, you are right.
> I think ZB is crazy and even a bit intimidating. :-)
> There will be guys learning this system. For me it is impossible to
> And if you finally master every little algorithm, you have to workhard each day to not forget anything and be able to execute them very
> Actually, I think that if there would be someone fully mastering ZB(and most importantly: be exceptional on F2L!!!!!!), then it would
force a few other cubers to use it too. And that makes me feel sad...
I don't want to work that hard. :-)
> There must be easier ways to achieve the times you could reach with
> Especially corners first systems look promising, because of thefewer moves.
> At the moment I am investigating CF approaches and I found somepromising ones. CF systems where you solve several edges at once.
> After WC2005 I will give up CFOP for a while and see what thesesystems can bring.
> It would be great to not do this alone.ZB MUST
> Have fun,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lars Petrus
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 5:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Speed cubing group] future of the ZB method
> On Jul 31, 2005, at 12:58, Ron van Bruchem wrote:
> > What I am trying to say is that after looooooooots of practice
> > be faster than basic CFOP. Fewer steps, fewer moves.time
> The case against that MUST is that for a given amount of practice
> Fridrich will always allow for X times more training per alg thanZB,
> where X is the ratio of algs in ZB vs Fridrich, which I think isaround
> 10 or 20 (?). So each alg you encounter you will have X timesmore
> practice with. If it's true that the more you practice an alg,the
> faster you get, we're not talking about a MUST here as much asweighing
> different factors.better
> Inherent in a method with fewer algs is that you'll always be
> practiced on those algs than one with more.practice to
> Another possibility it is that you need a certain amount of
> reach your top speed, and once you're there it can't really betime to
> improved. In that case, you only need to spend X times as much
> reach your top speed with ZB, and then your MUST will be true byskills,
> logical necessity. That disregarding the need to maintain your
> which may be ignorable.you
> Anyway. My point is that for a fair comparison between methods,
> need to compare them with a similar amount of practice put in. IZB
> suspect that while it's probably *possible* to become faster with
> than any other method using that measure, it would require*enormous*
> amounts of practice to reach the breakeven point.game
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense."
> --- John McCarthy
> Lars Petrus - lars@l... http://lar5.com
> SPONSORED LINKS Free puzzle games Puzzle games Computer puzzle
> Online puzzle games Jigsaw puzzle game Free puzzle inlaygames
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSof Service.
> a.. Visit your group "speedsolvingrubikscube" on the web.
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]