# Best way to do F2L+EO?



## irontwig (Dec 10, 2010)

It seems to me that the EO step for ZZ, ZB and Petrus albeit powerful and gives you 1LLL in a resonable(ish) amount of algorithms is the worst step in respective method. Generally speaking EO seems to break to flow of just solving pieces. To me Petrus' approach seems to be the best especially if you allow "overlap" with S2 and/or S4a, but being Swedish I might be biased .


----------



## Cubenovice (Dec 10, 2010)

Difficult one...

I like how in Petrus you can EO without thinking too much in simple RUR' style
EO (Line in ZZ) has the benefit of planning during inspection.

With VH stuff I mess up too often (perhaps because I have not really studied hard enough) in regular solves but I do use it sometimes in CFOP style FMC.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 10, 2010)

Once mastered, I don't see why doing EO during F2L (CFOP) cannot be quite fluent.


----------



## a small kitten (Dec 10, 2010)

Well, I use ZZ....


----------



## porkynator (Dec 10, 2010)

At the moment I'm learning COLLs (in order to learn VH and eventually ZB) and I do 3 f2l pairs, EO (using little 4-moves algs like FR'F'R, all intuitive) and then the last f2l pair only with RU moves. It's not that fast (actually is very slow), but i thought it was the right way to prepare myself for learning VHF2L (or ZBF2L).


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 10, 2010)

why would you learn ZBf2l? there's simply too many algs to recall from, attempting to compartmentalize all of that information somewhere where you can actually retrieve it in a tiny fraction of a second is likely impossible. VHf2l doesn't suffer from the same ridiculous alg count, but it fails in movecount. Having an R U R' insert then having to pair it, then use a 7 move alg just for EO is pointless. Since when was OLL really any harder than OCLL anyway? If you're going for a 1LLL I would recommend some form of ZZ, such as CLS or winter variation, though the true potential of those methods is yet to be seen. Maybe ZZLL if you really are that hardcore.


----------



## porkynator (Dec 10, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> why would you learn ZBf2l? there's simply too many algs to recall from, attempting to compartmentalize all of that information somewhere where you can actually retrieve it in a tiny fraction of a second is likely impossible. VHf2l doesn't suffer from the same ridiculous alg count, but it fails in movecount. Having an R U R' insert then having to pair it, then use a 7 move alg just for EO is pointless. Since when was OLL really any harder than OCLL anyway? If you're going for a 1LLL I would recommend some form of ZZ, such as CLS or winter variation, though the true potential of those methods is yet to be seen. Maybe ZZLL if you really are that hardcore.


 
I'm not really sure about zbf2l... but I'm 100% sure about ZBLL... I know it will be hard, long and difficult... but if I was scared by difficult things I would never have tried to solve a rubik's cube


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 11, 2010)

ZBLL consumed Chris Trans life. He couldn't get faster with it versus OLL/PLL. Recall is a *****. Solving a rubik's cube is pretty easy nowadays, nowhere near the difficulty of learning full ZBLL, and still nowhere the difficulty of actually applying full ZBLL. Spend all the time you were going to spend learning 500 algs, and instead practice cubing. It will make you faster than ZBLL can.


----------



## pi.cubed (Dec 11, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> ZBLL consumed Chris Trans life. He couldn't get faster with it versus OLL/PLL. Recall is a *****. Solving a rubik's cube is pretty easy nowadays, nowhere near the difficulty of learning full ZBLL, and still nowhere the difficulty of actually applying full ZBLL. Spend all the time you were going to spend learning 500 algs, and instead practice cubing. It will make you faster than ZBLL can.



Agreed. 
Many People are sub-10 with CFOP, learning ZB is not worth it.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 11, 2010)

Inb4muggles.


----------



## Cubenovice (Dec 11, 2010)

pi.cubed said:


> Agreed.
> Many People are sub-10 with CFOP, learning ZB is not worth it.



Why does it always have to be about speed?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 11, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> Why does it always have to be about speed?


Because it's called *speed*solving.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 11, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> Spend all the time you were going to spend learning 500 algs, and instead practice cubing.


 
If you think ZBLL is 500 algs then I agree that you shouldn't learn it.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm assuming you're saying it's not 493 algs, it's 177 (not counting mirrors/inverses) or less because you're not counting all the OLL/PLL/COLL or any other last layer algs that you know that also solve exactly 1 ZBLL case. While this is true, a versed speedsolver won't have to learn all 493 algs, they will have to learn how to recognize/recall all of them as ZB algs. I do see the advantage in the eyes of an advanced fewest moves cuber like yourself, but most would just learn some ZBLLs, especially very short ones, however learning a bunch of 4+ gen algs is pretty useless for speedsolving.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 11, 2010)

FreeFOP.

(Holy grit how is ZZ so popular?)


----------



## a small kitten (Dec 11, 2010)

Because I use it.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 11, 2010)

Cos it's clearly faster than Petrus and ZB is too large of a method for most people. But even without winning by elimination, ZZ has an elegance of its own.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 11, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> I'm assuming you're saying it's not 493 algs, it's 177



Not only that by using conjugates (setup moves) or combining two shorter algs the alg count can be further reduced while at the same time maintaining a good move count and/or speed depending on what you care about. Unfortunely using such "tricks" a firm alg count can't be pinned down.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 11, 2010)

BigSams said:


> *Cos it's clearly faster than Petrus *and ZB is too large of a method for most people. But even without winning by elimination, ZZ has an elegance of its own.


 
I'd like to see you prove that.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 12, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> I'd like to see you prove that.


 
... well, it's impossible to rigorously prove but the way I see it, EO lets you have two 1x2x3 really fast, easy blocks while the Petrus 2x2x3 block doesn't have the advantage of oriented edges so any awkward situation can come up. This would mean that there is lag while trying to figure out what to do and even when you figure it out, cube rotations and wide turns could be necessary.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 12, 2010)

BigSams said:


> ... well, it's impossible to rigorously prove but the way I see it, EO lets you have two 1x2x3 really fast, easy blocks while the Petrus 2x2x3 block doesn't have the advantage of oriented edges so any awkward situation can come up. This would mean that there is lag while trying to figure out what to do and even when you figure it out, cube rotations and wide turns could be necessary.


 
ok, so you can turn faster in ZZ... Move count in Petrus F2L is lower than the restricted R,U,L ZZF2L if you are actually doing Petrus well. Many people simply can't do Petrus well, which is why so many people think it is slow.

anyway:






from video description:
"Honestly, I'm not very happy with this average. The 13s in the middle could have been faster and I messed up pretty badly on a few solves."

He did a 13.45 avg12 on video with Petrus and wasn't even very happy with it.


----------



## a small kitten (Dec 12, 2010)

I'm not sure this video helps. What exactly are you saying? 

I don't know about 2h, but I feel ZZ definitely has greater potential for OH.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Dec 13, 2010)

I listed ZB because that's technically what I use (well, X-VH, but that's basically the same thing). I have tried ZZ and found it too restricting of an opening for my tastes. Instead, I like to finagle my EO on the last 2 slots and leave myself with a good ZB case to work with. Recall for ZBF2L is not a big deal, it's just the stupid LL that screws me up.

I feel like Petrus is the most undervalued method out there and ZB is the most over-under-hyped, meaning people go way out of their way to say there are too many algs but that, at the same time, no one truly appreciates it. Just make up your mind people!

And full ZBLL involves the recognition of exactly 501 cases, not 493 (no solved case).


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 14, 2010)

I'm using F2LminusOneSlot + EO + LastSlot when I start with a cross. - Why? - Because its so easy  and I can do Petrus EO regognition only fast, if it' with my favorite colors.

I planned to increase my skills on partial EO during 3rd Slot, and prediction/preperation of LastSlot during EO, sounds simple but I didn't advance on that.


----------

