# When to learn ZB method?



## velcro (Dec 9, 2007)

I'm asking this question for a friend because his internet is down right now. He wants to know if learning zb before learning oll/plls would be good. he averages about 42 seconds right now. Anything will help, thanks


----------



## ExoCorsair (Dec 9, 2007)

ZB is unnecessary, even for sub-10 solves.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 9, 2007)

Especially if he doesn't know OLL/PLL already. If OLL/PLL doesn't work for him, ZB most certainly won't. If OLL/PLL does, it should last him at least to sub-20, and I would say at least to sub-15 should he go that far. If he was stuck at 14-16 seconds and felt like the idea of Fridrich was good and had a lot of time on his hands and felt for some reason a 2-look LL wasn't enough, then maybe he should experiment with ZB. But before learning OLL/PLL, attempting ZB would be ridiculous.


----------



## alexc (Dec 9, 2007)

I don't think it's necessary ever to learn ZB. People like Harris Chan and Yu Nakajima have gotten sub-11 averages with Fridrich.


----------



## Jason Baum (Dec 9, 2007)

Everything I'm going to say has pretty much all been said here, but I want to give my two cents because I have a lot of experience with both Fridrich and ZB.

ZB is an amazing method. I am 100% confident that it can be faster than Fridrich. Just using ZBF2L and 20% ZBLL, I have averaged sub 12 once and my average average is usually in the low 13s. My Fridrich average average is usually low to mid 12. So once I get more comfortable using the ZBLL cases I know now and once I learn more ZBLL, I know I will be faster with this method than I am with Fridrich.

That being said, it really only makes sense to start working on ZB once you have fully mastered the Fridrich method. After all, ZB is merely an extension of Fridrich, so it would be silly to try and learn ZB first.

I wouldn't call ZB unnecessary at all. Our goal as a speedcubing community is to push the limits of what we can do with the cube as much as we can. The ZB method is an area in our speedcubing world that is mostly unknown. Its boundries have never really been tested. However, I can guarantee you that two years from now I will consistently be averaging sub 11, and will be able to occassionally do a sub 10 average. That's how much faith I have in ZB. Now, that might or might not be possible with Fridrich, who knows. But I know that I have reached my limits with Fridrich and I still want to be faster.

And that's really what it's all about. In the end it's really up to you. Are you bored with Fridrich? Do you enjoy learning algorithms? Have you reached your limit with the Fridrich method? If so, then maybe it's time for you to start working on ZB. However, you must have the Fridrich method mastered before you even start thinking about it.

I could say more on the subject, but I'll stop. Basically, your friend should learn OLL/PLL and work on Fridrich until he's at least sub 15. Then if he still wants to learn ZB, more power to him.


----------



## Johannes91 (Dec 9, 2007)

Jason Baum said:


> The ZB method is an area in our speedcubing world that is mostly unknown. Its boundries have never really been tested.


That applies to pretty much every method except Fridrich.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 9, 2007)

Jason stay motivated to learn ZB. From what I remember when I was studying ZBF2L I ran into enormous opposition, and people trying desperately to convince me of how I was wasting my time.

You're not wasting your time. I stopped learning ZB because blindfolded solving became more of a passion for me than speedsolving. But I am a full 100% supporter of what you are doing. I also believe that although it will take a monumental effort to master ZB vs. mastering Fridrich, that it can be a faster method.

Keep at it man, you're a huge inspiration. Don't let the ne-sayers get you down, I got a lot of that too when I was looking into the method. I'm only surprised that you are still getting it, what with your ZB times being so fast. I think the opposition from the cubing community comes from a fear of something so different which requires so much work more than anything else. That is only my personal opinion of course.

Chris


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 9, 2007)

Jason Baum said:


> That being said, it really only makes sense to start working on ZB once you have fully mastered the Fridrich method. After all, ZB is merely an extension of Fridrich...



All that is even more true for the COLL approach, Fridrich is not the only or even best way to ZB.


----------



## FU (Dec 10, 2007)

Jason Baum said:


> Everything I'm going to say has pretty much all been said here, but I want to give my two cents because I have a lot of experience with both Fridrich and ZB.
> 
> ZB is an amazing method. I am 100% confident that it can be faster than Fridrich. Just using ZBF2L and 20% ZBLL, I have averaged sub 12 once and my average average is usually in the low 13s. My Fridrich average average is usually low to mid 12. So once I get more comfortable using the ZBLL cases I know now and once I learn more ZBLL, I know I will be faster with this method than I am with Fridrich.
> 
> ...



Man now I have this inspiration to learn ZB when (and if) I eventually get fast at Fridrich.


----------



## Harris Chan (Dec 10, 2007)

I feel that learning methods are driven by popularity mostly. Most people aren't willing to learn new (or rarely used/not used by many people) method/technique, unless it is claimed to be used by "the top cubers". They think, "well if top cubers only use Fridrich, why bother learning ZB/Petrus/Roux/Heise etc. ?" But that's the problem sometimes. Some brave soul like Jason has to come out and prove it to everyone that learning new things is never much of a waste, in fact it can be better. 

Just like multi-slotting. A lot of people don't even know how they work. They just hear the word "multi" and they get scared away, or think of it as a fancy technique that has no use, or that it is not logical, just because not many people use it, therefore it isn't as easy to just google up tons of page about it. When it is a new method, you have to put more effort into exploring it more, not just having the solutions right in front of you. But in return you have that feeling/braging right that, " hey, I'm the only guy that can do that" type of thing. And eventually you will succeed. 

Knowing more algos or techniques is like having tricks up your sleeves, making each solve the best it can be, using "special algo" for certain cases to make the next step skipped/easier. I think that's what the future of cubing is. It isn't about solving the current thing and just trying to predict the next step; it is changing the next step as you're doing the current one to make things easier or shorter. That of course, will require much more knowledge and experience than our average Fridrich solvers know. Imagine when Fridrich method first came up; don't you think people might say, "That's too complicated, trying to solve 2 layers at the same time? You're dealing with too many cases and pieces, you'll confuse yourself! It'll take you longer to find those pieces than me just solving each piece one by one anyway! And doing the last layer in 2 steps? You'd need a super brain for that!" Well, ok so it might not be exactly that kind of attitude, there's probably some optimistic that this is much more powerful than LBL, but you get the point. It's the same kind of situation right now. We have some other techniques, it's just whether people bother to learn it and make their own thoughts about it like now that we have millions of pages on Fridrich compared to a few years ago. 

Okay sorry for some random stuff I wrote there, but it's just been on my mind for a while.

-Harris


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 10, 2007)

Harris,
I've been interested in learning multi-slotting, but I can't seem to figure out anything about it. If you could point me in the right direction, that would be great.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 10, 2007)

Before you learn mult-slotting, you should learn keyhole (seriously!)

Just do D (R U R') D' for a simple example.

And start doing fewest moves (seriously!) because that will teach you to recognize "unmatched pairs".

Ron and Ton are constantly telling me to switch to Fridrich (and I will on 2008-01-01), but when they see me ending my F2L with an "unmatched pair" they are amazed.


----------



## Marcell (Dec 10, 2007)

Isn't that called "non-matching pairs"?
I've thought multislotting was pairing up the next two pieces while inserting the current pair.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 10, 2007)

Arnaud, I do sometimes use keyhole for cases like that. If the corner is already in place, I'll insert the edge with keyhole. My issue with fewest moves is that my brain can't think of trying for an hour to find a good solution.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 10, 2007)

Marcell: Maybe you are right, I am not really sure. Pairing up the next two pieces while speedsolving the current pair seems almost impossible to me though. Just way to many cases.

Dan: You don't have to spend an hour. I find my best solutions within 10 minutes and perfect them during the rest of the hour. If you can stay focussed for a big-cube blindfolded, FMC shouldn't be a problem


----------



## Johannes91 (Dec 10, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> ... seems almost impossible to me though. Just way too many cases.


Fortunately, you need to solve just one at a time.


----------



## Marcell (Dec 10, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> Pairing up the next two pieces while speedsolving the current pair seems almost impossible to me though. Just way to many cases.



A couple of them are uploaded to the yahoo speedcubing group:
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oH5dR5...FXr-lis5-KwUj4sC5OeN0PyspS3phaQ/multislot.zip


----------



## alexc (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know if I'll ever give ZB a shot, but the sheer number of cases has me discouraged already. I think I heard there are almost 800 including reflections/inverses. Is it better to learn ZBF2L or ZBLL? Maybe I might tackle one of those two, but I am unsure if I will ever learn both. VH is worth learning first at least.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 11, 2007)

I'm going to learn VH first as well. I may go on to ZB, I may not. OH is what I do and for that I would probably have to find most of my own algs. I think I will learn ZBLL first, if any, tho just in the rare case I ever want to try Petrus.
Edit: I am in love with that multislot document.


----------



## mizzle (Dec 14, 2007)

Man, I haven't posted here in forever.

Jason, keep at it. Harris is right. Everyone naysays because everyone's afraid of it. Someone has to break the ground, and, for the record, you're not the only one.

I'm working on a method that orients all edges at the beginning of a solve, so the F2L is completely RUL (and sometimes D), the edges are already oriented at the end of F2L, and I can use the final pair to influence corner orientation.

This lets me always obtain a U, T, L, or skip orientation, thereby knocking the number of LL cases down to 236, including the PLLs.

So far, there's only a single other person attempting this method, though Dan Dzoan was also interested in looking into it. The problem is that because there are only two people doing it, no one really believes in it, despite the fact that I've beaten my records with any other method by seconds, and only done a small bit of the work for learning it.

The point is that ZB is a great idea, and even better if you can find a way to cut a corner or two (bad pun) and make it more manageable. Don't let anyone else get you down.


----------



## joey (Dec 14, 2007)

Mizzle: I think you are basically explaining ZZ.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 15, 2007)

That is very similar to ZZ which I also find very interesting. I haven't tried it for speed yet but have done a few solves with it. (not with the LL of course). 
I think Zbigniew Zborowski permutes two edges with the last pair instead of orienting corners to cut down on the cases.


----------



## Johannes91 (Dec 15, 2007)

mizzle said:


> Everyone naysays because everyone's afraid of it.


For the record, I'm not "afraid" of ZB. I just think it makes more sense to use effective methods instead of insisting on Fridrich and trying to desperately improve it (ZB, multislotting...). If solving 2 pieces at a time isn't enough for you, then maybe switching to another method would be a good idea.


----------



## mizzle (Dec 17, 2007)

First of all, I agree. I'm all for exploring new methods. I hate that no one is looking into new methods, because people are desperately clinging to Fridrich. I mean...I'm pretty sure I hold the world record for most methods used in a single competition. Five methods over five solves.  Of course, I'm still super 20 on a few of those, but I'm working on it...

The way I see it, though, this is less an extension of Fridrich than it is borrowing what's useful and dispensing with what's not. Fridrich is nice because of the simplicity, and the fact that it's been explored and done to death. But we can do more.

As for ZZ, this is the first time I've ever even heard mention of it, and I'm curious. Can anyone elaborate?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 17, 2007)

when I should learn ZB?... never. :] I plan on breaking all the records without it, lol


----------



## Lofty (Dec 17, 2007)

ZZ is pretty much the new method you described mizzle. I know there is a website for it but it is in polish and has so many applets on one page it crashes my browser most of the time.
Orient all edges and solve FD and BD then while finishing f2l make sure the front and back edges are permutated then use the ZBLL alg. I don't know all the details because i don't speak polish but if you can get the page up without your browser crashing there are loads of cool applets to play with and watch.


----------



## mizzle (Dec 17, 2007)

The difference is that this method that I'm describing does something different with the final pair, and uses a wildly different ZB subset for the LL.

Also, how long has that ZZ thing been around? I came up with this (we've been calling it M3) almost two years ago.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 18, 2007)

I found the site, it is here:
http://www.speedcubing.com.pl/nooks_zz.htm
You can try to translate if you would like to find out when Mr. Zborowski came up with it.
And yes I understand the difference...


----------



## ChromisElda (Feb 24, 2009)

Lofty said:


> I found the site, it is here:
> http://www.speedcubing.com.pl/nooks_zz.htm
> You can try to translate if you would like to find out when Mr. Zborowski came up with it.
> And yes I understand the difference...



WARNING:
Wow that is one big site. my browser didn't crash, but had a lag when scrolling, estimate about a second lag to scroll down 3 - 4 lines of the . Then again, my computer's processor isn't that great.


----------

