# ZB method



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

ive decided to start learning it. Why? because i have no life . lol no im just bored with fridrich and i feel that i have reached my limit. Any thoughts? should i not do it? im undecided


----------



## CubeWoRm (Dec 2, 2009)

I've not heard of the ZB method, what is it?


----------



## Edward (Dec 2, 2009)

CubeWoRm said:


> I've not heard of the ZB method, what is it?



*This is the ZB method*

"But ish liek a billion algs!"


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

I would love for you to learn it and take it to it's fullest potential.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

Edward said:


> CubeWoRm said:
> 
> 
> > I've not heard of the ZB method, what is it?
> ...


your an idiot.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> I would love for you to learn it and take it to it's fullest potential.



thanks i think it may be hard doing the LL being color neutral, what do you think?


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 2, 2009)

Will you still practise Fridrich in the mean time. Owait, YOU LIE! Come on, learn 400+ algs (unless using cheat codes like Cubes=lifeJOKES!) To take 1 second off your time? Maybe recog won't be too bad. You use similar for 2x2 right? Meh, don't learn it. If you do, learn ZBf2l first, so if you decide to ditch it halfway, the algs won't be useless.

^^^My opinion. I don't like ZB, but learn it if you want.


----------



## Edward (Dec 2, 2009)

rowehessler said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > CubeWoRm said:
> ...



How am I an idiot? I'm quoting people who totally exaggerate how many algs ZB has.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

Hmm, I am not color neutral, so I'm not qualified to really say. 

But I'd imagine, it would be somewhat harder.
With your speed though... consistent sub-10 average, if you became fluent enough.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> Hmm, I am not color neutral, so I'm not qualified to really say.
> 
> But I'd imagine, it would be somewhat harder.
> With your speed though... consistent sub-10 average, if you became fluent enough.



yeah thats what im hoping for. im also excited about it for OH.


----------



## Faz (Dec 2, 2009)

Omg yes it would be good for OH.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> Will you still practise Fridrich in the mean time. Owait, *YOU LIE*! Come on, learn 400+ algs (unless using cheat codes like Cubes=lifeJOKES!) To take 1 second off your time? Maybe recog won't be too bad. You use similar for 2x2 right? Meh, don't learn it. If you do, learn ZBf2l first, so if you decide to ditch it halfway, the algs won't be useless.
> 
> ^^^My opinion. I don't like ZB, but learn it if you want.


excuse me?


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

16% of ZBLL is purely 2Gen. 

The rest can also be fast, im sure.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 2, 2009)

rowehessler said:


> ZB_FTW!!! said:
> 
> 
> > Will you still practise Fridrich in the mean time. Owait, *YOU LIE*! Come on, learn 400+ algs (unless using cheat codes like Cubes=lifeJOKES!) To take 1 second off your time? Maybe recog won't be too bad. You use similar for 2x2 right? Meh, don't learn it. If you do, learn ZBf2l first, so if you decide to ditch it halfway, the algs won't be useless.
> ...



Sorry, I really thought you were joking


----------



## Faz (Dec 2, 2009)

Hmm, I think I will learn the T set, seeing as rowe will be learning this. Might help me to keep up. Also, I will know I can solve any T Case on the Last layer.

I may learn more ZBll's if I feel like it.

But first, CLL.

Also ZB - 1 second is alot.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> rowehessler said:
> 
> 
> > ZB_FTW!!! said:
> ...


lol no im 100% serious. im just not sure if its really worth the risk. but im bored so i might as well. and of course ill be doing fridrich in the mean time. ZB is basically just fridrich with more algs lol. and for 2x2 yeah but only for corners with ZB its the edge recognition as well....


----------



## andrewunz1 (Dec 2, 2009)

if rowe learns zb, will faz still be better than rowe?


----------



## Davepencilguin (Dec 2, 2009)

rowehessler said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > CubeWoRm said:
> ...



fixed.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

andrewunz1 said:


> if rowe learns zb, will faz still be better than rowe?



thanks...


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 2, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> Also ZB - 1 second is alot.



I know, but still. I'm sure if he just practised more, got the cube that perfectly fitted him, learnt any advanced techniques he hasn't learnt yet (such as multi-slotting and WV, though I'm not sure if he hasn't already), practised X-crosses, he would manage to drop a second with fridrich. Still, have a go


----------



## Faz (Dec 2, 2009)

No, he wouldn't.

Also, ZB would help alot with OH, and big cubes.


I already learnt half of this case a while ago, just to experiment.
http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbllpages/tcase3.htm


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

ZB kinda fails on even number cubes. ):


----------



## Faz (Dec 2, 2009)

Yeah, but it would get you a good pll case, or just parity for pll.


----------



## Anthony (Dec 2, 2009)

andrewunz1 said:


> if rowe learns zb, will faz still be better than rowe?



If you learn ZB, will people like you? No.


----------



## blah (Dec 2, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> Yeah, but it would get you a good pll case, or just parity for pll.



COLL is sufficient.


----------



## Weston (Dec 2, 2009)

I will learn ZB eventually. As soon as I get my F2L around 6 ish.
I'm going to be learning the H Set pretty soon though.

But Rowe, I say go for it.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

This may sound terribly arrogant, but I feel as if i may have started (or revived) a trend.


----------



## Weston (Dec 2, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> This may sound terribly arrogant, but I feel as if i may have started (or revived) a trend.



I was just thinking about that and I totally agree.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 2, 2009)

Is cubing going to get to a stage where, if you want to be the best, you'll _need_ to know something advanced like ZB?


----------



## Edward (Dec 2, 2009)

aronpm said:


> Is cubing going to get to a stage where, if you want to be the best, you'll _need_ to know something advanced like ZB?



No not really. You do remember that the fastest people are still using Fridrich, Petrus, Roux, ect.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

yeah fridrich can still improve. im just bored of it


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Dec 2, 2009)

rowehessler said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > I would love for you to learn it and take it to it's fullest potential.
> ...



If you use Baum-Harris recognition, it's really fast, also if you're color neutral. Mats and me have also found a way to use Baum-Harris recognition on the sune, antisune, double-sune and pi cases; although it's a bit slower, I think it's still better than simple cycle recognition.

Btw, will you also learn ZBF2L?


----------



## Faz (Dec 2, 2009)

I give up.


----------



## rowehessler (Dec 2, 2009)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> rowehessler said:
> 
> 
> > Cubes=Life said:
> ...



yeah ZBf2l is all im focusing on for now. i wont even look at ZBLL until im done. Ill just do COLL ELL till then


----------



## Sin-H (Dec 2, 2009)

It's gonna be hard. But if any cuber can master it, it's you, Rowe.

I'd personally start with ZBLL first because orienting edges is not that hard and can also be done differently at first (VH, intuitive, phasing (?),...)

If you really are bored, then go for it. I could never recognize stuff like that (I already fail at COLL), but you can ^^


----------



## LewisJ (Dec 2, 2009)

Edward said:


> No not really. You do remember that the fastest people are still using Fridrich, Fridrich, Fridrich, e*tc*.



fix'd


----------



## Sin-H (Dec 2, 2009)

Edward said:


> aronpm said:
> 
> 
> > Is cubing going to get to a stage where, if you want to be the best, you'll _need_ to know something advanced like ZB?
> ...


don't forget that our sport is only 7 years old. We'll see what the future brings...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2009)

Guys like Edward and ZBFTW, could you please be quiet? Obviously, you haven't taken the time to actually check on ZB, nor have you taken the time to form a proper argument. Just because a new thread comes up, it doesn't mean you have to post.

On a related note, I think that it would be more difficult for Rowe, being a CN cuber, rather than Chris, but I think with practice, you could do it. I think start with whatever, really. As long as you are bending your mind and learning new things, it really should help you in the long run, even for that 'once in a while' easy ZBLL or ZBF2L case that you'll get while doing normal solves. I think that this could easily push you to sub10, and possibly sub15 OH, with enough practice and training, especially with recall and recognition. The thing that I'd personally be afraid of would be the algs, but if you're bored, you're bored.


----------



## Edward (Dec 2, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Guys like *Edward* and ZBFTW, could you please be quiet? Obviously, you haven't taken the time to actually check on ZB, nor have you taken the time to form a proper argument. Just because a new thread comes up, it doesn't mean you have to post.



What did I do wrong exactly. First I referred someone to a link that explains ZBFTW. Then Rowe called me stupid for quoting "ish liek a billion algs" (I think he thought i was telling _him_ that it was alot, not the one I was giving the link to). Next I asked him how was i stupid for doing that. Lastly I told someone that speed solving isn't really getting to a point where you _have_ to learn some advanced method to be fast. 

I don't see how I should be quiet when I haven't said anything particularly wrong. Im not sure about ZB. Let him state his case.

Rowehess, good luck on your ZB endeavors.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 2, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> On a related note, I think that it would be more difficult for Rowe, being a CN cuber, rather than Chris, but I think with practice, you could do it. I think start with whatever, really. As long as you are bending your mind and learning new things, it really should help you in the long run, even for that 'once in a while' easy ZBLL or ZBF2L case that you'll get while doing normal solves. I think that this could easily push you to sub10, and possibly sub15 OH, with enough practice and training, especially with recall and recognition. The thing that I'd personally be afraid of would be the algs, but if you're bored, you're bored.



I doubt that color neutrality will make it any more difficult. With Dan Harris' recognition scheme, you just see if certain stickers are opposite or adjacent--if you're already used to being color neutral, that shouldn't be any more difficult.

I'm not crazy about that recognition method, though. In particular, it makes it harder to correlate algs with cases. In some cases S/A is the mirror of A/S, in others of O/S, in others something completely different. With block recognition, a block on the right is the mirror of a block on the left. But block recognition wouldn't do that well for anything other than U and T or maybe L, I don't think.


----------



## Shortey (Dec 2, 2009)

Do it Rowe! You're going to rock even more! =D

If anyone has a complete H-Set, mind sharing it? =)


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

Ahhh, yeahhhh.
Mirrors are weirdddd.
It took me a while before I could understand the trend behind the mirroring tendencies.

Example: In some cases, a double edge swap between UR and UF mirrors to UL and UF. However, in other cases, the mirror of UR and UF is a 4-cycle of edges from UB to UF to UR to UL back to UB. Tricky tricky. d:

I put my H set on the wiki, it's enough algs to solve any case with mirrors... but I guess some wouldn't call it "complete" complete.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 2, 2009)

being color neutral would not hinder ZBLL recognition at all. COLL is obviously not restricted to color neutrality, and edge cycles are pretty easy to see. Chris's method is easy, but too slow. I've looked into the edge matching cases, and like Tim said, they are really similar. There has to be a better way to recognize. I wonder if something like hyperorientations could work for ZB recognition as well.

-edit-
after thinking it through for a minute, using a hyperorientation style recognition system would work just fine. Locating the position of opposite stickers for edges could work. I'll generate some images to prove my point.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 2, 2009)

here are the images for a T orientation.


----------



## LewisJ (Dec 2, 2009)

Edward said:


> I don't see how I should be quiet when I haven't said anything particularly wrong.



The problem isn't that you haven't said anything particularly wrong (even though you have) as much as it is that you haven't said anything particularly helpful or anything contributing to the discussion aside from a link that someone could've googled.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 2, 2009)

me likes dan's idea.

rowe gogogogogogogogogogo


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

!!!

Wow, that's a great application!
I'm slowly trying to change my recognition system, but it's really tough to break such an ingrained habit.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 2, 2009)

I find block recognition for T, U and even H to be pretty fast.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 2, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> !!!
> 
> Wow, that's a great application!
> I'm slowly trying to change my recognition system, but it's really tough to break such an ingrained habit.



What recognition system are you changing to?


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 2, 2009)

Ah, the DanHarris/JasonBaum one


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 2, 2009)

Please do this. I also can't imagine CN being a problem, and it will almost assuredly lower your times, both OH and two hand. As long as you have the time, I don't see why not. The argument that it's a lot of algorithms for a small decrease in times is moot, once you put in the effort and get the results, it will be worth it, and it will probably be fun. I'm excited for this.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 2, 2009)

Edward said:


> rowehessler said:
> 
> 
> > your an idiot.
> ...



remember this? 


Edward said:


> I might learn zbll. It seems really good, and will be easier than 57 OLLs I presume.





ontopic: go for it!


----------



## Edmund (Dec 2, 2009)

If you learn ZB I will deem you even more B.A. then you already are!

Go for it and stay CN! Good Luck


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Dec 3, 2009)

Go for it!! I'm having issues staying motivated while GENERATING algs, so I hope you have more willpower than I.

Color neutrality is no biggy if that's what you do anyway.

I recommend changing Sune and Anti-Sune so that the orientation is a U2 from Jason's site. It makes 5 stickers easily visible and allows COLL recognition by sticker pairs alone, which is the easy way to do it.

For H, Pi, and Anti-Sune, you'll have to find a way to work around the unoriented corners if you use the Harris/Baum system. I compare the two touching stickers and the UFR sticker to the other edge. I find it very fast but have to look up the algs after finding the case


----------

