# Journey to ZBLL + Why ZBLL is so important



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 15, 2020)

Hello fellow cubers!

I average around 12s on 3x3 and I know 2LLL. I've pretty much fully optimized my OLL's and PLL's, and I think I'm ready to learn another alg set. I know a lot of you will try to discourage me from going straight from OLL/PLL to learning ZBLL, but I honestly I think ZBLL something that I should learn early, so that when I'm averaging sub 9 or sub 8 (hopefully) I will have a firm grasp on ZBLL.

There several other alg sets, but I don't think it's worth learning any of them in their entirety. Of course it's important to know some of the easy cases of these alg sets, but learning more than just the easy cases is pointless imo.

- WV is not very useful if you know ZBLL bc you can just insert the pair normally then do ZBLL
- COLL is pointless if you know ZBLL
- OLLCP is not that great. Except for the easy cases, doing OLLCP+EPLL is about the same speed as OLL+PLL
- Most of the VLS algs aren't that much faster than inserting the pair then doing OLL
- BLE and CLS cases don't show up very often

Here are some pros/cons for ZBLL.

*Pros*
1. Only needs 1 look
2. Can be much more efficient than OLL/PLL
3. CP recognition actually is really easy if you use some sort of CXLL (for example CLL on 2x2)
4. EO control can increase your chances of getting a ZBLL case

*Cons*
1. EP recognition
2. ZBLL cases don't always pop up. And using EO control to increase the chances requires more brainpower
3. omg which of the 493 algs is this one. omg i did the wrong alg. omg why am i learning this alg set


I'm going to be starting by learning the T set, probably will take me around three months.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 15, 2020)

I totally agree that ZBLL is REALLY important. I know somewhere around the high-70s in terms of how many ZBLL algs I know and look to turn that into 90 by thanksgiving.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I totally agree that ZBLL is REALLY important. I know somewhere around the high-70s in terms of how many ZBLL algs I know and look to turn that into 90 by thanksgiving.


its important if you want to get efficient and faster. Top solvers like max park and feliks zemdegs know zbll already, i think feliks knows half of zbll, and max is learning zbll still.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 15, 2020)

Max uses 2LLL, I don't think he's started to learn ZBLL yet


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> Max uses 2LLL, I don't think he's started to learn ZBLL yet


i think he started like a few weeks ago.


----------



## Silky (Nov 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I totally agree that ZBLL is REALLY important.


I don't think that it's really that important. 


Nir1213 said:


> Top solvers like max park and feliks zemdegs know zbll already


You have to understand that Feliks and Max were already ridiculously fast before learning ZBLL stuff. ZBLL isn't what makes them fast is just makes them faster, if that makes sense. And it only makes them fast for singles not really for averages.


hexacuber said:


> *Pros*
> 1. Only needs 1 look
> 2. Can be much more efficient than OLL/PLL
> 3. CP recognition actually is really easy if you use some sort of CXLL (for example CLL on 2x2)
> ...



I think that there are a lot more cons than this, at least when used with CFOP. 

The problem with ZBLL with CFOP is that you utilize ZBLL far less often than with ZZ/Petrus. The probability of getting four oriented LL edges is 26/216 which is roughly a 12% chance to use just one ZBLL that you may know (obviously if you know all of them this is less of a problem but you still are only using it 12% of the time after learning almost 500 algs). This makes both recognition and execution much harder since you aren't regularly getting cases. In edition to this you're not executing it very often which means the efficiency is offset by a lower TPS and recognition. This is not to say it isn't useful but it seems much more like a crutch than anything. It would be better to focus on predicting OLL, faster recognition and execution, smoother solving, etc. Generally it would just be better to focus on your weak points than relying on learning tons of algs.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

Silky said:


> I don't think that it's really that important.
> 
> You have to understand that Feliks and Max were already ridiculously fast before learning ZBLL stuff. ZBLL isn't what makes them fast is just makes them faster, if that makes sense. And it only makes them fast for singles not really for averages.
> 
> ...


ok, i will start from top to bottom.

(1) its IMPORTANT for speed, like what you suggested, as in singles.

(2) yea it makes them faster thats what im talking about
only for singles, but faster nontheless.

(3) 12% is not too bad tbh, taking the fact that speedcubers do hundreds of solves everyday, which means around 50 solves that are ZBLL. So if you did this for a week, it would be around 400 solves with zbll.
for the fact that you arent practicing much zbll since cases dont really pop up, there are zbll trainers out there, which you can practice everyday.
you can do other stuff as well, while maintaining ZBLL algs in your big brain lol.

Feliks does around hours doing solves, which vary to 3 - 6 seconds. At an average, it is 4 - 6 seconds, so he does maybe around 500 - 1000 solves a day.
so that means around a 100 solves with ZBLL, not too shabby.


----------



## Silky (Nov 15, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> ok, i will start from top to bottom.
> 
> (1) its IMPORTANT for speed, like what you suggested, as in singles.
> 
> ...


(1) Singles don't make you fast, averages do. 
(2) See (1)
(3) 12% only after learning ALL of ZBLL. If you were to learn all of the T cases you're only getting it 1% of the time. Sure you can use a trainer but recognition in a solve is very different than recognition in a vacuum. The point I'm trying to make is that ZBLL is a huge time investment for marginally better times versus investing in reducing your weaknesses. It's the issue of diminishing returns. Like spending 5 hours spamming PLLs to get like .3 seconds faster is less worth it than spending 5 hours practicing slow solves to save 2-3 seconds during F2L.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 15, 2020)

Thanks for your feedback!



> You have to understand that Feliks and Max were already ridiculously fast before learning ZBLL stuff. ZBLL isn't what makes them fast is just makes them faster, if that makes sense. And it only makes them fast for singles not really for averages.



I understand that you don't need ZBLL to be very fast. However ZBLL does improve your average times slightly, and also helps you get very good singles. Imagine you're about to break the WR but you don't know the ZBLL alg and you just do OLL/PLL which makes your solve slightly slower, which results in a WR fail. Personally I care about singles almost as much as average.



> I think that there are a lot more cons than this, at least when used with CFOP.
> 
> The problem with ZBLL with CFOP is that you utilize ZBLL far less often than with ZZ/Petrus. The probability of getting four oriented LL edges is 26/216 which is roughly a 12% chance to use just one ZBLL that you may know (obviously if you know all of them this is less of a problem but you still are only using it 12% of the time after learning almost 500 algs). This makes both recognition and execution much harder since you aren't regularly getting cases. In edition to this you're not executing it very often which means the efficiency is offset by a lower TPS and recognition. This is not to say it isn't useful but it seems much more like a crutch than anything. It would be better to focus on predicting OLL, faster recognition and execution, smoother solving, etc. Generally it would just be better to focus on your weak points than relying on learning tons of algs.



First of all, you can often control EO during F2L which increases the chances to more like 25%. I probably will only learn around 300 ZBLL algorithms, also. All of TUL, and some of the cases from sune/antisune and pi/h. I'm not planning on learning all of sune/antisune because the standard alg (R U R' U R U2 R' and its inverse) are already quite fast. As for pi/h, their COLL's are pretty fast already and I probably will only learn the ZBLL algs for the cases where doing the COLL ends up in a z perm. Finally, recognition and execution both will come with practice. There is a reason why I'm learning ZBLL early on.


----------



## Spacey10 (Nov 15, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> Max uses 2LLL, I don't think he's started to learn ZBLL yet


He started ZBLL a while ago and he has a good chunk learned


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 15, 2020)

ZBLL will make you faster, but some might find that the amount of work might not be worth it.
I think a good general advice is to learn ZBLL only if you like learning algorithms (like me).
Otherwise it might be better to work on other things.

I said that ZBLL is important in the title because I think it is the most important alg set BESIDES oll/pll


----------



## Silky (Nov 15, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> I understand that you don't need ZBLL to be very fast. However ZBLL does improve your average times slightly, and also helps you get very good singles. Imagine you're about to break the WR but you don't know the ZBLL alg and you just do OLL/PLL which makes your solve slightly slower, which results in a WR fail. Personally I care about singles almost as much as average.



I mean it's subjective after all. Generally I think having a fast average is much more impressive that having a fast single. Fast singles are far more about luck than skill. The WR single is really lucky outside of just having a ZBLL.

An example is Jakub Kipa who has the 8th fastest single but isn't even top 100 in average.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 15, 2020)

This is going to be highly controversial, but I would say go through and learn all the ZBs with easy recognition first. If you PM me I can send you a list later. That’s what I’ve been doing since it’s probably the better approach to practically implementing ZBs into solves over time.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 15, 2020)

That's an interesting suggestion. I might actually try learning that way.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 15, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> That's an interesting suggestion. I might actually try learning that way.


Do it. If you go through each set, you’ll notice there are cases with super easy recognition, such as T32, Which was the first ZB I learned because I kept seeing it in solves and got tired of not knowing an alg for a case I recognize instantly.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 15, 2020)

ok!


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 15, 2020)

Whoever thinks ZBLL sucks, you are wrong. I still use CFOP right now but sometimes I could pull a ZB solve up and ZB will be my main method once i finish ZBLL


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

Silky said:


> (1) Singles don't make you fast, averages do.
> (2) See (1)
> (3) 12% only after learning ALL of ZBLL. If you were to learn all of the T cases you're only getting it 1% of the time. Sure you can use a trainer but recognition in a solve is very different than recognition in a vacuum. The point I'm trying to make is that ZBLL is a huge time investment for marginally better times versus investing in reducing your weaknesses. It's the issue of diminishing returns. Like spending 5 hours spamming PLLs to get like .3 seconds faster is less worth it than spending 5 hours practicing slow solves to save 2-3 seconds during F2L.


(1) once in a while you get lucky solves in a row, that can lead to fast averages if ZBLL is included

(2) see "(1)

(3)


hexacuber said:


> First of all, you can often control EO during F2L which increases the chances to more like 25%. I probably will only learn around 300 ZBLL algorithms, also. All of TUL, and some of the cases from sune/antisune and pi/h. I'm not planning on learning all of sune/antisune because the standard alg (R U R' U R U2 R' and its inverse) are already quite fast. As for pi/h, their COLL's are pretty fast already and I probably will only learn the ZBLL algs for the cases where doing the COLL ends up in a z perm. Finally, recognition and execution both will come with practice. There is a reason why I'm learning ZBLL early on.



anyway even if you dont learn all of ZBLL, maybe the ones that appear the most will help. And the ones that are actually good.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Whoever thinks ZBLL sucks, you are wrong. I still use CFOP right now but sometimes I could pull a ZB solve up and ZB will be my main method once i finish ZBLL


zb is basically CFOP but the last layer has like 700 algs.
You have to learn ZBLS, or the just the easy version, VHLS, and then ZBLL.

yes the method is better than CFOP but it will take a long time to learn all 700 algs, let alone keep them in your head.
Jabari Naruddin though, has learned around 5,000 algs, He knows i think full zbls, zbll, and alot others.






Jabari Nuruddin - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 15, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> zb is basically CFOP but the last layer has like 700 algs.
> You have to learn ZBLS, or the just the easy version, VHLS, and then ZBLL.
> 
> yes the method is better than CFOP but it will take a long time to learn all 700 algs, let alone keep them in your head.
> ...


CIt is CFOP but once you get to the last slot, you solve the last pair while orienting edges (ZBLS). Then you do ZBLL (493 algs).


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 15, 2020)

I should probably get on with ZBLL.


----------



## Tao Yu (Nov 15, 2020)

I don't think the statement that ZBLL is important makes any sense unless you're saying what it's for. So many of the arguments at the start of this thread don't make any sense to me. Clearly there are things that ZBLL is good for, and things which ZBLL is overkill for. If you're just aiming for a 8-9 average
ZBLL is very clearly just a lot of unnecessary effort and you'd be better off spending your time on F2L. On the other hand, top cubers learn large portions of ZBLL because it does give them an advantage, and it makes sense to start earlier if you do want to know a large part of it.



hexacuber said:


> I think it is the most important alg set BESIDES oll/pll



I agree with this however.


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 16, 2020)

ZBLL algset is very important for sure. Good luck to all the people currently learning it.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Nov 17, 2020)

I'm gonna reboot my dead account to chime in. This isn't a direct comment on OP's statement on ZBLL, but I want to get it out there: learning this method may break you.

When I last participated in the cubing community, ZBLL was the next best thing. My semester abroad in high school was just spent crunching algorithms trying to find any that were remotely speedy. Everyone's goal was to be the first to learn all the cases, or to at least be there to witness it. January 1st of 2010 (iirc), I came out with the first publicly available set of speed-oriented ZBLL algorithms. The path was finally open to people learning the method. And then nothing.

I tried to learn the cases and made many edits to my algorithms over time as I made adjustments for situations where COLL+EPLL were faster. But the hype in the community was gone, and I was really struggling to maintain recall on all the last layer cases. My times weren't improving because all my effort was going into learning this new thing, and as I had just started college time was becoming scarce. I remember my last update to my algorithms: an angry upload to google docs after back to back all nighters writing essays. That was the last time I picked up a cube to do anything serious.

Back in 2017 or 2018 I got an email! Someone wanted to learn ZBLL and wanted permission to use my algorithms for something. I got excited. Maybe there weren't any other methods to speed. Maybe the competition was pushing people into the tightest corners looking for edges. Maybe I was just ahead of my time. I looked at my cube when I got home from work that night and then remembered all the pain. Nope.

In late 2019 I got an email from another person! They wanted to know if I'd ever finished learning. Made me feel sad, but I saw something growing. Looked at the cube again. Felt those all nighters deep in my soul. No thanks.

Recently I got another email, this time from someone who wasn't at the top of the game. I wrote out some of my pain and encouraged this person to grow their skills in other methods until it seemed like nothing was improving. I looked at my cube again. Solved it once. Put it back.

----

This thread popped up in my speed solving summary email that I get. It's still fun to look, but now the first post is about learning ZBLL. I felt the pain again. After updating my password (it was had the security of a 2010 password uggggh), I just did a search for ZBLL. Holy moly! People have been doing things! And they've stayed in the community! There are threads where people are talking to each other about their progress and encouraging each other. I didn't shed a tear but I did get a little glassy eyed.

Maybe if I had started today I would have been encouraged to keep going. Maybe I could have known someone in person who I could theory craft algorithms with. Maybe I could have done it. After all, I only had H and the Sunes left to learn when I gave up, and that was entirely on my own, alone in my dorm room. I have a significant amount of pride associated with being the first to slog through all the cases and write them up for everyone else, but I also have a lot of shame and pain associated with failing to achieve what I had really wanted.

----

My goal from 30 second on was always ZBLL, so I learned COLL and VHF2L. I dabbled with ZZ, Petrus, even some perverted version of Roux to figure out ways to get to a ZB-style finish. When I started learning ZBLL earnestly I was averaging around 16 seconds. At most 3 of those seconds were spent on the last layer because I spent so much time mastering it. Instead, I could have worked on my lookahead, block building, being color agnostic, or even some snazzier F2L to get better edge orientation more easily. Instead I focused on the algorithm-heavy method and burned out.

Is ZBLL important? Maybe. It's not nearly as important as people thought it was in pre-speed algorithms 2009, and for speed-oriented algorithms the move saving promises that got the method started in the first place are also lost. My experiences have taught me that the last layer is the least important layer to put effort into, mostly because you'll time yourself on PLLs and OLLs constantly anyway (who doesn't want a sub-second step?).

This was far too long of a comment. I'm not rebooting my account, and I'm not picking up a cube again. But I do want to make sure that those of you who are active now still have the energy to be active in the community in a few years.


----------



## Tao Yu (Nov 17, 2020)

eastamazonantidote said:


> I'm gonna reboot my dead account to chime in. This isn't a direct comment on OP's statement on ZBLL, but I want to get it out there: learning this method may break you.



Wow, it's great to see you on here once again. I never realized how much work you had put into finding the algs.

I couldn't tell from your post, but are you aware that there are about 20 or so people (myself as an example) who know full ZBLL by now? I think we would all agree that your work laid the foundation for us and that your sheet marks an important historical landmark in the development of the algset.



eastamazonantidote said:


> Is ZBLL important? Maybe. It's not nearly as important as people thought it was in pre-speed algorithms 2009, and for speed-oriented algorithms the move saving promises that got the method started in the first place are also lost. My experiences have taught me that the last layer is the least important layer to put effort into, mostly because you'll time yourself on PLLs and OLLs constantly anyway (who doesn't want a sub-second step?).



It's possible that the hype around ZBLL isn't as big as it was back then, but it is still believed to be faster, and it is generally considered worth learning at least a large portion of it. We've also improved many things since 2009. Better algs have been found, we don't use Baum-Harris anymore, and there are alg trainers which can help you to learn the algs quickly and also help develop perfect recall and execution. We have a very different impression of how difficult ZBLL is now - many problems simply turned out not to be problems. People seemed to think back then that you'd constantly need to review your algs in order not to forget. In reality, I think most serious ZBLL users could go on a several months break and not forget a single alg.

It is true that working on other things usually brings more improvement, but even so, it's very feasible nowadays to learn full ZBLL in 2-3 months. It may not be the thing that brings you the most improvement for 3 months of work, but so what? It's only three months - many cubers take breaks longer than that. Just do it and get it over with. In practice, you'll see a decent number of top cubers knowing at least 200-300 ZBLLs, with the fastest person knowing full ZBLL probably being Daniel Rose-Levine (6.78 official average).


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 17, 2020)

tl;dr

I understand that ZBLL won't be cake. I'm planning on learning around 350 of the algs, and it will likely take me over a year. Honestly I just like learning algs, and if I ever get tired of learning ZBLL then I can always take a break.


----------



## Jam88 (Nov 17, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> tl;dr
> 
> I understand that ZBLL won't be cake. I'm planning on learning around 350 of the algs, and it will likely take me over a year. Honestly I just like learning algs, and if I ever get tired of learning ZBLL then I can always take a break.


IMO you should learn it, because then when you get faster, the algs are good in your muscle memory.


----------



## ketchupcuber (Nov 17, 2020)

Personally I am trying to get sub 10 at least before I learn any subsets I'm just trying to increase tps and work on lookahead. I don't think you should learn ZBLl yet because the fundamentals of a good f2l is so much more important than subsets and you should only learn them once you feel as though every other part of your solve is as good as it will be. Take Max Park World champ with no real subsets whereas Anthony Brooks full ZB and not that fast this just shows how much more important 2lll and f2l is than ZB.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 17, 2020)

As I have said earlier, ZBLL is not required to average sub 7. However, knowing ZBLL is definitely beneficial in the long run. And as Jam88 said, knowing ZBLL early on is good because when you are faster the algs would be in your muscle memory.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 17, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> Personally I am trying to get sub 10 at least before I learn any subsets I'm just trying to increase tps and work on lookahead. I don't think you should learn ZBLl yet because the fundamentals of a good f2l is so much more important than subsets and you should only learn them once you feel as though every other part of your solve is as good as it will be. Take Max Park World champ with no real subsets whereas Anthony Brooks full ZB and not that fast this just shows how much more important 2lll and f2l is than ZB.


There's no reason you can't work on both at the same time. There are lots of ZBLLs that you can learn and implement in like 2 minutes. For example, T-32. It's just F perm with the 2 corners that swapped flipped, so there are two sides that are solid colors. Super easy to recognize, and learn the alg for. There's no downside to learning these kinds of cases at any speed.

Also as a side note, IIRC, Max Park said on a reddit AMA a while back he was learning some ZB and TTLLs.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 18, 2020)

How many ZBLL do you know @hexacuber i know 81/493 hopefully to be 90 by thanksgiving

Edit: 82 now


----------



## FakeMMAP (Nov 18, 2020)

Why does the poll not have the option "I've already learnt it"?


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 18, 2020)

I learnt the 21 double sune 2glls and when I got 2 of them in 100 solves, I got sub 15s on both.
I avg 21-22. My ZBLL count is 42/494. (Including PLL).
Not flexing. Just stating how important ZBLL is


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 18, 2020)

small update guys I currently know 20 zblls now
(not including PLL)


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 18, 2020)

Hey @hexacuber you wanna race to see who can get to full ZBLL first? I am at 84 and you at 41 so this should be a close race judging by our learning paces.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 18, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Hey @hexacuber you wanna race to see who can get to full ZBLL first? I am at 84 and you at 41 so this should be a close race judging by our learning paces.


Sounds fun, but I'd prefer to go at a slow and steady pace. Also I'm busy learning other alg sets like CSP for square-1


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 18, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> Sounds fun, but I'd prefer to go at a slow and steady pace. Also I'm busy learning other alg sets like CSP for square-1


yeah ok i am currently learning some E2L algs for LMCF so yeah same here.


----------



## Anthony (Nov 19, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> Take Max Park World champ with no real subsets whereas Anthony Brooks full ZB and not that fast this just shows how much more important 2lll and f2l is than ZB.



I've worked on ZB for 5 years. The first 3 years were primarily development of the method (thousands of hours spent revamping the algorithms through play with the cube and relentless CubeExplorer searching). During this time I constantly relearnt algs as I discovered faster ones. As I became more fluent with ZB (ZBLL + ZBLS), I expanded the system to work out inefficiencies never before highlighted as I ventured into uncharted waters in the world of speedcubing.

The last two years have been working towards mastery of the method based on the foundation I created myself. Considering I've maintained a top100 average in 3x3 during this time, I do believe I am "fast." Max indeed *was* the world champion in 3x3 (he is currently not), and he is indeed faster at solving the cube than I am. However, this does not justify your argument.

At the end of the day, my speedcubing resume speaks for itself. From a competitive standpoint alone, I've been top 100 for nearly a decade, only Feliks and Mats can claim the same.

@eastamazonantidote: what's up man, if kids these days only knew what we've been through...

Edit: actually now that I check, I’ve been top 100 for *over* a decade.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 19, 2020)

Anthony said:


> I've worked on ZB for 5 years. The first 3 years were primarily development of the method (thousands of hours spent revamping the algorithms through play with the cube and relentless CubeExplorer searching). During this time I constantly relearnt algs as I discovered faster ones. As I became more fluent with ZB (ZBLL + ZBLS), I expanded the system to work out inefficiencies never before highlighted as I ventured into uncharted waters in the world of speedcubing.
> 
> The last two years have been working towards mastery of the method based on the foundation I created myself. Considering I've maintained a top100 average in 3x3 during this time, I do believe I am "fast." Max indeed *was* the world champion in 3x3 (he is currently not), and he is indeed faster at solving the cube than I am. However, this does not justify your argument.
> 
> ...


Are there any video resources for learning ZBLL (on YT). Just asking cuz learning recog through Algsheets can be a pain imo. (Please prove me wrong, @Tao Yu , @Anthony )

Uhh... Another thing: 
How do you set up cases on CE ?Inversing algs is HARD


----------



## Tao Yu (Nov 19, 2020)

Anthony said:


> I've worked on ZB for 5 years. The first 3 years were primarily development of the method (thousands of hours spent revamping the algorithms through play with the cube and relentless CubeExplorer searching). During this time I constantly relearnt algs as I discovered faster ones. As I became more fluent with ZB (ZBLL + ZBLS), I expanded the system to work out inefficiencies never before highlighted as I ventured into uncharted waters in the world of speedcubing.
> 
> The last two years have been working towards mastery of the method based on the foundation I created myself. Considering I've maintained a top100 average in 3x3 during this time, I do believe I am "fast." Max indeed *was* the world champion in 3x3 (he is currently not), and he is indeed faster at solving the cube than I am. However, this does not justify your argument.
> 
> ...



You really make some important points here in a more eloquent way than I was able. Even when you have to find many algs by yourself, there's enough time to work on ZBLL and stay a top cuber. One can't only spend ones time on the things that objectively bring the most improvement for the least amount of work. Sometimes you need to work on those things that require a lot of work, exactly because they bring a tiny amount of improvement.



Cubing Forever said:


> Are there any video resources for learning ZBLL (on YT). Just asking cuz learning recog through Algsheets can be a pain imo. (Please prove me wrong, @Tao Yu , @Anthony )



I haven't seen many video resources, and disagree with the ones I've seen.

My recognition method is based around the following doc. At the start I just learn from one angle, and I find with a lot of training I pick up on more angles. I'm not sure everybody will agree with this (I'd be curious what Anthony thinks), but I think Daniel Rose-Levine uses something in the same spirit as this.

I think it's difficult to learn recognition for cases in isolation. I always learn a set of 12 or 8 algs at once because it allows me to get used to seeing the differences and similarities between cases. I also start off by testing myself randomly on the algs (before I even know them) so that I am practising my ability to recognize the algs in the conditions of a real solve from the very start.



Cubing Forever said:


> Uhh... Another thing:
> How do you set up cases on CE ?Inversing algs is HARD



Press "Add and Generate" instead of "Add and Solve". I'd recommend watching Daniel Sheppard's CE tutorial if you haven't already. I'd also recommend learning algexplorer if you can (it's a bit finicky to set up)


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 20, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> I don't think the statement that ZBLL is important makes any sense unless you're saying what it's for. So many of the arguments at the start of this thread don't make any sense to me. Clearly there are things that ZBLL is good for, and things which ZBLL is overkill for. If you're just aiming for a 8-9 average
> ZBLL is very clearly just a lot of unnecessary effort and you'd be better off spending your time on F2L. On the other hand, top cubers learn large portions of ZBLL because it does give them an advantage, and it makes sense to start earlier if you do want to know a large part of it.
> 
> 
> ...


yep you have a point. I tell people to at least start at sub 8, but that might not be even enough. You have to be really good at f2l and cross, and then you might think of 1LLL.



Jam88 said:


> IMO you should learn it, because then when you get faster, the algs are good in your muscle memory.


it may be a burden for him.


----------



## Jam88 (Nov 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> it may be a burden for him.


But I thought he wanted to learn them


----------



## Tao Yu (Nov 20, 2020)

A lot of people really seemed to be tied to this idea that you have to justify learning ZBLL somehow, and that you should only do it if it's "worth it". Even when people state that they are learning the algs for fun, people really don't seem to be able to let go of the idea. 

There are quite a few examples of people who actually did learn ZBLL just for fun, and without any intention to make it "worth it". To give some examples (only including people I've personally talked to), there is me, Callum Hales-Jepp and Micki Kanaiya Harning. As far as I know, none of us are sub 8 and definitely didn't need full ZBLL to achieve our global averages. I don't think any of us regret learning it. 

If you really want encourage people not to learn ZBLL (for some reason) you should probably instead cast doubt on whether they really find it fun to learn algs. From my experience, it is actually quite rare to enjoy learning big algsets, and sometimes it's a thing you think you'd enjoy until you actually try to do it. I've seen quite a few people initially claim they like learning algs, but quickly get bored when they try to tackle something like ZBLL.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 20, 2020)

Jam88 said:


> But I thought he wanted to learn them


later on he might just stop.


Tao Yu said:


> I've seen quite a few people initially claim they like learning algs, but quickly get bored when they try to tackle something like ZBLL.


Just saying, make sure you know what your dealing with before you go on to learning big algsets.


----------

