Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Speed cubing group] future of the ZB method

Expand Messages
  • Bob Burton
    ... 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. Since
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 1, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, cmhardw <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:

      > I agree that maybe with a lot of practice, that ZB could potentially
      > 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.

      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. 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 +
      PLL. :-)

      Whaddya think?

      ~ Bob
    • Wayne
      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 t
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 1, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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'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.

        Wayne



        --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Ron van Bruchem"
        <ron@s...> wrote:
        > Hi Lars,
        >
        > 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
        do that within 2.5 years: family, busy job, other hobbies, website,
        competitions...
        > And if you finally master every little algorithm, you have to work
        hard each day to not forget anything and be able to execute them very
        fast.
        > 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
        ZB.
        > Especially corners first systems look promising, because of the
        fewer moves.
        > At the moment I am investigating CF approaches and I found some
        promising ones. CF systems where you solve several edges at once.
        > After WC2005 I will give up CFOP for a while and see what these
        systems can bring.
        > It would be great to not do this alone.
        >
        > Have fun,
        >
        > Ron
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Lars Petrus
        > To: speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.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
        ZB MUST
        > > be faster than basic CFOP. Fewer steps, fewer moves.
        >
        > The case against that MUST is that for a given amount of practice
        time
        > Fridrich will always allow for X times more training per alg than
        ZB,
        > where X is the ratio of algs in ZB vs Fridrich, which I think is
        around
        > 10 or 20 (?). So each alg you encounter you will have X times
        more
        > 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 as
        weighing
        > different factors.
        >
        > Inherent in a method with fewer algs is that you'll always be
        better
        > practiced on those algs than one with more.
        >
        > Another possibility it is that you need a certain amount of
        practice to
        > reach your top speed, and once you're there it can't really be
        > improved. In that case, you only need to spend X times as much
        time to
        > reach your top speed with ZB, and then your MUST will be true by
        > logical necessity. That disregarding the need to maintain your
        skills,
        > which may be ignorable.
        >
        > Anyway. My point is that for a fair comparison between methods,
        you
        > need to compare them with a similar amount of practice put in. I
        > suspect that while it's probably *possible* to become faster with
        ZB
        > than any other method using that measure, it would require
        *enormous*
        > amounts of practice to reach the breakeven point.
        >
        > - - - - - - - - - - - -
        > "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
        game
        > Online puzzle games Jigsaw puzzle game Free puzzle inlay
        games
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        ----------
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > a.. Visit your group "speedsolvingrubikscube" on the web.
        >
        > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > speedsolvingrubikscube-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
        of Service.
        >
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
        ----------
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.