# My Full ZBLL List



## Bindedsa (Oct 18, 2014)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ULKosTvrQPq17gUOAyT7EAIlPfofR7dlUTKOmfEhubc/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## ryanj92 (Oct 18, 2014)

Wow, cool! I'll be sure to check it out sometime


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 18, 2014)

so you know and use all of ZBLL? thats impressive.

im still updating my ZZLL list while i learn them, ill look over your algs, im sure ill find some that suit me


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 18, 2014)

Petro Leum said:


> so you know and use all of ZBLL? thats impressive.
> 
> im still updating my ZZLL list while i learn them, ill look over your algs, im sure ill find some that suit me



Yeah, I'd love to see your list. I'm sure there are plenty of cases tou have better algs for.


----------



## Petro Leum (Oct 18, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> Yeah, I'd love to see your list. I'm sure there are plenty of cases tou have better algs for.



it's handwritten at the moment, ill rework and oublish it when im finished (which is when im finished learning)


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 18, 2014)

Sick! How much has learning full ZBLL improved your FMC?


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 18, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Sick! How much has learning full ZBLL improved your FMC?



Not much. I find the best way to get good solves is to find a solution that leads to a short LL and I've know pretty much all of the short ZBLLs for a long time now.


----------



## Chree (Oct 19, 2014)

Just today I was thinking of asking if you'd publish you're ZBLL set. Thanks man! This is really cool.


----------



## rowehessler (Oct 19, 2014)

this is awesome. I just started learning more ZBLLs, just for fun really. This is perfect timing seeing as the algs on the wiki are down. Thanks!


----------



## Millet (Oct 19, 2014)

Very well done. This will surely come in handy for my progress as well. I hope my alg set came in handy for you, gat least to some degree. 

The U case in C25 may I suggest a really fast (but slightly longer) algorithm: y' [r U R' U' r'] R U R U' R' [F R U R' U' F']. It's basically standard T-oll with different pair insert -> T oll (the other one).


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 19, 2014)

I've noticed that some of these algs are pretty long. Which is the longest (optimal) ZBLL?


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 19, 2014)

Millet said:


> Very well done. This will surely come in handy for my progress as well. I hope my alg set came in handy for you, gat least to some degree.
> 
> The U case in C25 may I suggest a really fast (but slightly longer) algorithm: [r U R' U' r'] R U R U' R' [F R U R' U' F']. It's basically standard T-oll with different pair insert -> T oll (the other one).


It did thanks.

I think I will use that for TH, I'll update the list.



guysensei1 said:


> I've noticed that some of these algs are pretty long. Which is the longest (optimal) ZBLL?



Most of these are not optimal, some are nowhere near it.

I've also been playing around with R U R' y' R' U' R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R' And the FB mirror. I'll probably switch to it and instead of removing the one I have I'll just mark it OH, so I guess I will have OH alts.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 19, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> R U R' y R' U' R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R'



A G perm derivative I presume?


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> A G perm derivative I presume?


I found that OLS by hand a few weeks ago and I just setup the correct EO for it to orient the edges and this is what I got.

Edit: also, on Millets alg I prefer the inverse F U R U' R' F' R U R' U' M' U R U' r'.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 19, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> I found that OLS by hand a few weeks ago and I just setup the correct EO for it to orient the edges and this is what I got.


Did you make a mistake? I can't get the alg to work


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Did you make a mistake? I can't get the alg to work



R U R' y' R' U' R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R', fixed. should have been a y'


----------



## Millet (Oct 19, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> R U R' y' R' U' R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R', fixed. should have been a y'



Oh, I'm totally loving that one. I'm definitely noting it for future learning.


----------



## Bindedsa (Nov 29, 2015)

Apparently, people still use this. OP is updated with my new list.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Nov 30, 2015)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeet.


----------



## Berd (Nov 30, 2015)

This is awesome! Thank you.


----------



## DELToS (Nov 30, 2015)

on that list, how did you make the cube images for the case?


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 30, 2015)

DELToS said:


> on that list, how did you make the cube images for the case?



Visual Cube


----------



## ThatCubeDude11 (Nov 30, 2015)

Would i be correct in thinking that the permutation of the pieces will always be arranged as a PLL case during OLL. So the Sune ZBLL set (for example) will have 21 ZBLL algs?


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 30, 2015)

ThatCubeDude11 said:


> Would i be correct in thinking that the permutation of the pieces will always be arranged as a PLL case during OLL. So the Sune ZBLL set (for example) will have 21 ZBLL algs?



72, You have to account for the PLLs being at different angles.


----------



## ThatCubeDude11 (Nov 30, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> 72, You have to account for the PLLs being at different angles.



Couldn't you just AUF before executing so the cases don't need to be learned from different angles?


----------



## gyroninja (Nov 30, 2015)

ThatCubeDude11 said:


> Couldn't you just AUF before executing so the cases don't need to be learned from different angles?



AUFing would change the corner orientation.


----------



## JanW (Nov 30, 2015)

ThatCubeDude11 said:


> Couldn't you just AUF before executing so the cases don't need to be learned from different angles?


He meant that the OLL case can be at different angles in relation to the PLL case.


----------



## ThatCubeDude11 (Nov 30, 2015)

gyroninja said:


> AUFing would change the corner orientation.



Oh, that saddens me deeply. 

Would it be worth it to start learning these algs? Because even if I learn all the cases, that's only for having a top cross which I feel is kind of a waste since all the edges need to be oriented and there's still 50 other cases that would require 2-look LL.


----------



## Bindedsa (Nov 30, 2015)

ThatCubeDude11 said:


> Oh, that saddens me deeply.
> 
> Would it be worth it to start learning these algs? Because even if I learn all the cases, that's only for having a top cross which I feel is kind of a waste since all the edges need to be oriented and there's still 50 other cases that would require 2-look LL.



I'm not sure how new you are to cubing, but worth is subjective. Whether ZBLL is worth learning, is constantly at debate. As a general rule, I'd say you have to be willing to learn ZBLL because you like the idea, rather than expecting significant improvement. 472 algs is a long way to go for the half a second it saves every few solves.


----------



## ThatCubeDude11 (Nov 30, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> I'm not sure how new you are to cubing, but worth is subjective. Whether ZBLL is worth learning, is constantly at debate. As a general rule, I'd say you have to be willing to learn ZBLL because you like the idea, rather than expecting significant improvement. 472 algs is a long way to go for the half a second it saves every few solves.



Well, I average around 16 seconds and I've been cubing for nearly 2 years. I was thinking about maybe starting to learn it, at least the more recognizable cases, but when you put it in perspective of saving very little time every few solves. It seems to not be worth it. For me, now, the only way it seems reasonable to learn ZBLL would be to learn full ZBLL to 1-look with all OLL cases, not the 7 subsets, however, that is thousands of algs that I'm not sure anyone would learn. Unless you filter out all of the cases that almost never show up, and cases with no oriented edges which can be controlled during F2L.


----------



## Berd (Nov 30, 2015)

ThatCubeDude11 said:


> Well, I average around 16 seconds and I've been cubing for nearly 2 years. I was thinking about maybe starting to learn it, at least the more recognizable cases, but when you put it in perspective of saving very little time every few solves. It seems to not be worth it. For me, now, the only way it seems reasonable to learn ZBLL would be to learn full ZBLL to 1-look with all OLL cases, not the 7 subsets, however, that is thousands of algs that I'm not sure anyone would learn. Unless you filter out all of the cases that almost never show up, and cases with no oriented edges which can be controlled during F2L.


You could always learn zz...


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 30, 2015)

ThatCubeDude11 said:


> Well, I average around 16 seconds and I've been cubing for nearly 2 years. I was thinking about maybe starting to learn it, at least the more recognizable cases, but when you put it in perspective of saving very little time every few solves. It seems to not be worth it. For me, now, the only way it seems reasonable to learn ZBLL would be to learn full ZBLL to 1-look with all OLL cases, not the 7 subsets, however, that is thousands of algs that I'm not sure anyone would learn. Unless you filter out all of the cases that almost never show up, and cases with no oriented edges which can be controlled during F2L.



VHLS can be done intuitively and isn't too hard. You could also do ZZ and have a really fun F2L.

Also, I wouldn't say that 1LLL is impossible. Especially as BindeDSA is learning it right now. There are ~4500 cases i believe.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 26, 2016)

I really want to learn ZBLL. I can learn pretty fast (6 Algs a day) if I focus. I cannot focus for my life. I'm probably doing something wrong. My recognition is ok (I've only learned a few algorithms though). How did you learn, in as much detail as possible? I seriously need some help. Thanks!


----------



## Bindedsa (Mar 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I really want to learn ZBLL. I can learn pretty fast (6 Algs a day) if I focus. I cannot focus for my life. I'm probably doing something wrong. My recognition is ok (I've only learned a few algorithms though). How did you learn, in as much detail as possible? I seriously need some help. Thanks!


I did it the same way I did OLL, I learned random cases, when ever I felt like it. I averaged about 1.5 algs a day, my biggest tip is to slow down and drill algs rather than just learning more and more algs. Something like that works with OLL, because it's not a pretty small set, so you can finish the set then worry about recalling algs. ZBLL is way too big for that, try to break it up into sections, set goals, but then practice all of the algs you have learned rather than just moving on.


----------



## FJT97 (Oct 26, 2016)

Hi!
Nice list Jabari!

I used to be able to change algs in a duplicated list, but i cant do that anymore. Can you explain why? Would be nice if i have that Feature again as i really like tat list design overall, especially that the Image is created as you type an alg. I'm in the proccess of learning zbll and i Forget algs from time to time, so it would be nice to have my algs saved there.
thanks


----------



## efattah (Oct 27, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Also, I wouldn't say that 1LLL is impossible. Especially as BindeDSA is learning it right now. There are ~4500 cases i believe.



Well, to keep the 4500 algorithms 'fresh', one would have to run a utility that queried the solver with all 4500 algorithms in a random sequence, with one show per algorithm. Assuming 3 seconds to 'memory fetch' and execute each algorithm (which allows for the longer memory 'fetch' time for such a large sequence), then 'refreshing' the full set in a single sitting would take 4500 x 3 seconds = 3 hours 45 minutes. That's not an unrealistic amount of time except your hands (and brain) would get very tired without breaks. Adding in a few short breaks and it would take 4 hours to refresh the set. I'd say the person would need to refresh the set at least 2-3 times per week to avoid forgetting cases. So, still possible for someone with strong motivation. I guess the next question is how much time do they save by not having to do edge orientation during F2L? I.e. time gain of 1LLL vs. ZBLL.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 27, 2016)

efattah said:


> Well, to keep the 4500 algorithms 'fresh', one would have to run a utility that queried the solver with all 4500 algorithms in a random sequence, with one show per algorithm. Assuming 3 seconds to 'memory fetch' and execute each algorithm (which allows for the longer memory 'fetch' time for such a large sequence), then 'refreshing' the full set in a single sitting would take 4500 x 3 seconds = 3 hours 45 minutes. That's not an unrealistic amount of time except your hands (and brain) would get very tired without breaks. Adding in a few short breaks and it would take 4 hours to refresh the set. I'd say the person would need to refresh the set at least 2-3 times per week to avoid forgetting cases. So, still possible for someone with strong motivation. I guess the next question is how much time do they save by not having to do edge orientation during F2L? I.e. time gain of 1LLL vs. ZBLL.
> 
> 
> Eric Fattah
> BC, Canada


Good post. What about only avoiding dot cases? i.e. how long to refresh the set with only partial edge control?


----------



## sqAree (Nov 4, 2016)

So the OH section are just a collection of algs for every case and the OH (Jabari) section are the specific algs you use?
Also, is it still the latest version?


----------

