# I know the T orientation!



## Jason Baum (Jan 11, 2008)

Hey everyone,

I now know the entire T orientation for ZBLL! I just wanted to post my thoughts on my ZB experience so far. I still definitely think this method can be faster than Fridrich, it will just take a lot of time. Right now I can execute all of my ZBLL algs sub 2.5, and I'd say half of them I can do sub 2. So factoring in recognition, I think that with a lot of practice you can have a sub 3 LL 100% of the time with this method. This is a little discouraging actually, because guys like Harris Chan and Yu Nakajima can do close to this with just a Fridrich 2 look LL. I don't think I'll ever be able to match that kind of speed though, so I guess ZBLL is my way of keeping up with them. 

I'm not sure if I mentioned this here or not (I know I've talked to some people about it), but I actually think that the best use of the ZB method is to compliment Fridrich. There are solves where I know for a fact that using ZBF2L and COLL/PLL is faster than just a regular Fridrich solve, however there are also solves where ZBF2L slows you down too much for it to be effective. For example, if you come to your last pair and you have to do a y2 and then the ZBF2L case is a bad one, it is dumb to force yourself to do ZBF2L in that situation. Just finish the solve Fridrich style without the y2 rotation and have a two look LL. Honestly, if your ZBF2L doesn't flow well with the rest of your F2L it's hardly worth using. But if you get to your last pair and the ZBF2L is right in front of you at the FR slot and it's a nice case (there are only 5 or 6 ZBF2L cases that I really don't like by the way, and I've been meaning to get new algs for them), then ZBF2L + ZBLL can be very, very fast.

As for ZBLL, it's really not that bad. Before I move on to the U orientation, I'm going to go through all of my algs for the T orientation and figure out some recognition tricks for the weird cases. I'm using Dan Harris' method of ZBLL recognition, and using this it's actually VERY easy to recognize about 80% of the cases. For the remaining 20% or so though it's a little more difficult, so I'm going to try and figure out some other ways of recognizing these cases. If you're curious as to what the recognition method is, ask and I'll explain it (I don't want to waste space if no one is interested). There are also two algs that I've learned so far that I really don't like that I want to learn new algs for before moving on. If anyone wants to help, the cases are (y2) L R2 U' R U R L' U2 R U R2 U' R U R2 and L U' L' R U R' U2 L U' R U2 R' U L' U (do the inverse of the algs to set up the case). The first one is my least favorite ZBLL alg so far, mainly because of the y2 at the beginning. The majority of my ZBLL algs are from one angle so that y2 really bothers me. I could just do U2 instead, but then I'd have to add on another U2 at the end. The alg isn't that good in the first place anyway. However, these two are my worst cases. Most of the ZBLLs I know are actually really nice. So for now, my practice solves will be doing ZBF2L, then converting the LL orientation to a T (if it isn't a T already), and doing ZBLL. In competition I'll probably use ZBF2L as a compliment to Fridrich and only use ZBLL if the orientation is already a T.

I'm really excited to move on to the U orientation though. The next COLL case I am going to learn has always been by far my slowest case, so I'm excited to be able to use ZBLL for that case now. For now though... one orientation case down, six to go!


----------



## Lofty (Jan 11, 2008)

Wow congratulations! It really won't be long until you have the whole thing done!
Personally tho I have always been fond of the U case. I don't know why since the first two I don't like...but the others are great.
I am inspired to not give up on ZB... tho it may take me thru grad school to finish or longer at my current rate.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 11, 2008)

Jason Baum said:


> For example, if you come to your last pair and you have to do a y2 and then the ZBF2L case is a bad one, it is dumb to force yourself to do ZBF2L in that situation. Just finish the solve Fridrich style without the y2 rotation and have a two look LL.


Have you tried doing ZBF2L from any angle?



Jason Baum said:


> L U' L' R U R' U2 L U' R U2 R' U L' U


I use L U' L2 D' R B2 R' D L2 U L'. From another angle it's really awesome: R U' R2 D' r U2 r' D R2 U R'.


----------



## Kristoffer (Jan 11, 2008)

Congratz Jason Where do you learn ZBLL from?


----------



## martian (Jan 11, 2008)

Sorry, but what is ZBLL?


----------



## Kenneth (Jan 11, 2008)

Your first case : (y2) L R2 U' R U R L' U2 R U R2 U' R U R2 : is possible to solve using a little "cheating". First do this 3-cycle corners (y', x') R U L' U' R' U L U' and then A-PLL (A-PLL can be done in many ways, maybe it's possible to cut some turns between algs too).


----------



## Kristoffer (Jan 11, 2008)

Martian, ZBLL is solving the last layer in 1 algo when all the edges in the last layer is oriented. Flipping the edges are done with ZBF2L where you orient edges while inserting the last slot in F2L


----------



## Harris Chan (Jan 11, 2008)

Woah Jason! When you're done with ZBLL you'll definitely pwn us ;-) It's good to know that you know to switch between the Fridrich and ZB, because I really think that this is the way to go for the future, being able to master a variety of techniques/method, and then switch between method if it flows better for it. It'll really be about taking the easiest path possible for each solve!

If only I have enough capacity to learn all those algos XD I'm pretty rusty at learning new algos now


----------



## Jason Baum (Jan 11, 2008)

Kristoffer- I learn most of my algs from ACube. I use some of Chris Hardwick's algs on his site, but the majority of my algs I get from ACube.

Johannes- Thanks, that alg is quite nice! I'm probably going to switch to that.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jan 12, 2008)

I think that ZBLL would complement Petrus even more, as ZBF2L is no longer necessary.

I think that you can average around 40 or less using Petrus instead of Fridrich with ZBLL.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 12, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> I think that ZBLL would complement Petrus even more, as ZBF2L is no longer necessary.


I agree, it feels much more natural.



Swordsman Kirby said:


> I think that you can average around 40 or less using Petrus


About 40 moves sounds realistic, although it depends on how long algs you use for ZBLL. I've memorized mostly optimal ones because I'm interested in solving for few moves and the algs are already generated.


----------



## martian (Jan 12, 2008)

Kristoffer said:


> Martian, ZBLL is solving the last layer in 1 algo when all the edges in the last layer is oriented. Flipping the edges are done with ZBF2L where you orient edges while inserting the last slot in F2L



Thanks!!!!! But this method seems a bit complicated..........


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 11, 2009)

Me too.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Aug 11, 2009)

I would love to hear your recognition technique Jason. I'm struggling with recognizing Sune and Anti-Sune COLL cases, let alone finding the edges, and looking at your ZBLL page, I see that there are non-EPLL possibilities (I hope that made sense). How do you do it?

Will you update your site as you learn new algorithms? I know it's a lot of work even _finding_ fast enough algorithms. But it would be much appreciated if you did, as that is the only source (that I know of) for finding speed-oriented ZB algorithms.

Keep up the extraordinary work!


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 11, 2009)

eastamazonantidote said:


> I would love to hear your recognition technique Jason. I'm struggling with recognizing Sune and Anti-Sune COLL cases, let alone finding the edges, and looking at your ZBLL page, I see that there are non-EPLL possibilities (I hope that made sense). How do you do it?
> 
> Will you update your site as you learn new algorithms? I know it's a lot of work even _finding_ fast enough algorithms. But it would be much appreciated if you did, as that is the only source (that I know of) for finding speed-oriented ZB algorithms.
> 
> Keep up the extraordinary work!



Noone says congrats to me. T_T


----------



## brunson (Aug 11, 2009)

Did you two fail to note that this thread is over a year and a half old?


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 11, 2009)

brunson said:


> Did you two fail to note that this thread is over a year and a half old?



I knew this, i bumped it because. I JUST MADE A MAJOR STEPPING STONE TO ZB.


----------



## brunson (Aug 11, 2009)

Oh, I didn't understand your post... good for you!


----------



## masterofthebass (Aug 11, 2009)

brunson said:


> Did you two fail to note that this thread is over a year and a half old?



if chris made a new thread... you would've said "why didn't you use the search function?!?!?." bumping threads is absolutely 100% supported when the post is worth something, like in this case. Chris's point was completely on topic, and fit in this thread extremely well.


----------



## brunson (Aug 11, 2009)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=221557#post221557

Like I said, I didn't understand his post...


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 12, 2009)

Congratulations Chris, that's awesome! Which orientation are you starting with next? U orientation will include some inverses of the T cases, or are you planning to do a different one?

Chris


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 12, 2009)

Thanks Chris!

Im thinking about the H set, and ive talked to Jason a bit about how to generate algs with Acube. I havent really checked it out yet, but from a guess, i think the H set would have the least algorithms so im going for that.


----------



## royzabeast (Aug 12, 2009)

Jason Baum said:


> I think that with a lot of practice you can have a sub 3 LL 100% of the time with this method. This is a little discouraging actually, because guys like Harris Chan and Yu Nakajima can do close to this with just a Fridrich 2 look LL.



Is it the ZBF2L that's holding this method back from being even more greater then original Fridrich?


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 12, 2009)

royzabeast said:


> Jason Baum said:
> 
> 
> > I think that with a lot of practice you can have a sub 3 LL 100% of the time with this method. This is a little discouraging actually, because guys like Harris Chan and Yu Nakajima can do close to this with just a Fridrich 2 look LL.
> ...



Its the sheer number of algorithms.

Trust me, my head wants to explode after one set.


----------



## Shamah02 (Aug 13, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> royzabeast said:
> 
> 
> > Jason Baum said:
> ...



Okay so this is the "method" you switched to?

Good Luck learning ZB man...


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 13, 2009)

Shamah02 said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > royzabeast said:
> ...



It's rather difficult.

Im having to generate my own algs since most lists are very incomplete.
Thats what ive been doing all day. (x


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 13, 2009)

Well hope it's worth the second or two for you


----------

