# ZERO Method...



## Jukuren (Oct 18, 2010)

So i was never really happy with CFOP and started a journey to find a method that suited me best and i pretty much learned the basics to most of them. and i got it down to two i liked but couldnt make up my mind for the longest time... ZZ vs Roux. The problem was im still a damn noob lol. and EOLine is freakin hard, i can only do it about 60% of the time (i forget what to do mid solve) and even then my inspection is SUPER long... and LL well... i just wanna be like big green hahaha... but there is also that problem with Roux 1x2x3 blocks... thats freakin hard to do too... really hard, i can do it but not effectively at all... i can solve it ZZ before i can do my first 1x2x3. obviously if i just practiced more im sure i would get better... but the last 6 edges is freakin awsome!!! its so fun to do even if i cant do it fast... so i just said... why i dont i take the things i like about both methods and put them together lol... and so i give you ZERO (get it rofl yah im lame)

Step one: EO... thats right no line... no crazy long inspection... its not to much to keep track of while i search for my first pair. i can do this pretty quickly... and you reduce the number of cases for pretty much everything the rest of the cube... 

Step two: 1x2x3 blocks on both sides... while not as good as roux because of the limitations due to the EO but i find the reduced cases easier to work with cutting my recognition time way down... well worth givin up F and B turns. But because i gave up the line i can mess around with M2 moves. 

Step three: COLL... one look for corners (orient/permute in one move), quite a few algs. Im still a little slow but i just started learning these. For beginners you can just do in two steps

Step four: last six edges (be like big green) only no orientation 

now i dont know if this is capable of ever being sub 10. i was hoping someone would explain to me the reason why this could be good or bad before i put too much time into it. Im just a construction worker i aint that smart lol. i dont think its better then roux by any means... but i do think its better then straight ZZ. but thats just what i think... if nothing else its a fun way to solve the cube lol


Christian Nansel


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 18, 2010)

This is basically ZZ Roux.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11536-Stachu-Korick-s-New-Method-)
Slightly different than yours...but not really.

Don't worry, I thought it was new when I 'made' it, too. 

-statue


----------



## Jukuren (Oct 18, 2010)

hahaha damn you google... i tried to make sure there wasnt anything else out there like it before i posted, guess i didnt look hard enough lol... ah. have you gotten any good with it? or givin up lol


----------



## Jukuren (Oct 18, 2010)

i tried learning WV when i was set on being a ZZ solver but i didnt like it too much...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 18, 2010)

I gave up a long time ago on it.
I'm just pure ZZ now, except for the occasional "ooh this looks good with this method!" solve.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 18, 2010)

muh


----------



## Godmil (Oct 18, 2010)

Yep, any method you can think of you can pretty much bet Kirjava has already done a solve with it.


----------



## Jukuren (Oct 19, 2010)

Godmil said:


> Yep, any method you can think of you can pretty much bet Kirjava has already done a solve with it.


 
how about the fail method before zz roux i came up with... 
EO/1st layer corners/COLL/all edges using a kind of short hand sighted M2 Pochman rofl...
after two solves i was like... uhhhh... no.

perhaps if i too had barren pants i would be cool like kir


----------



## Jukuren (Oct 19, 2010)

but back to my original question... whats the potential?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 19, 2010)

method potential is unquantifiable


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Oct 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> method potential is unquantifiable


 
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

And Jessica Fridrich thought the fastest possible average was sub 12 *smirk*.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 19, 2010)

Jukuren said:


> but back to my original question... whats the potential?


 
ZERO.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 19, 2010)

Seems like a pretty decent method if you get used to it. I dunno about sub-10 but it's definitely sub-15able. Pure EO is relatively few moves so you can look ahead to the first block.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 19, 2010)

Method potential is certainly quantifiable. A 300 turn on average beginner method, assuming a sustained turn rate of 5 turns per second, will certainly be slower than a 50 move expert solution assuming a sustained turn rate of 5 turns per second. You can also look at the probabilistic distributions of the case skips, the easy cases depending on the alg set used. You can absolutely quantify the potential of a method. Now, that analysis might not be 100% accurate, but it still quantifies the method's potential.



theanonymouscuber said:


> Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
> 
> *And Jessica Fridrich thought the fastest possible average was sub 12 *smirk*.*


 
So the fastest possible average *isn't* under 12 seconds?


----------



## Cool Frog (Oct 19, 2010)

I wonder how hard EOBlock would be for inspection?


----------



## MichaelP. (Oct 19, 2010)

Jukuren said:


> but back to my original question... whats the potential?


 
34


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Oct 19, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> So the fastest possible average *isn't* under 12 seconds?


 
Don't make me explain this, Chris. You know what I meant.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 19, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Method potential is certainly quantifiable.



Sure, but there is too much human element involved to make the results meaningful imo.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 20, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Don't make me explain this, Chris. You know what I meant.


 
My point was that I shouldn't have to "know what you mean." Say what you mean, rather than making people infer it from what you probably meant.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2010)

Well, if you're going to insist on using "sub-X" to mean "absolutely anything under X", you have to be prepared to occasionally have to think twice about things people say.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 20, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Well, if you're going to insist on using "sub-X" to mean "absolutely anything under X", you have to be prepared to occasionally have to think twice about things people say.


 
I think my comment will perhaps lead to an unintended flame war, but I think that sub-X is generally used to mean absolutely anything under X. When someone says that they are sub-15 on average, we would generally *assume* they mean 14.xx average. However, a 12.xx average cuber would still be a "sub-15" cuber in my mind. They just *also* happen to be sub-14, and sub-13.

Another way to put the original phrase would be "Jessica Fridrich predicted that the fastest averages would be 10-12 seconds," or "Jessica predicted that the fastest averages would not be sub-10."

My original comment was just an observation on my part.

\thread hijack

Chris


----------



## Olivér Perge (Oct 20, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> When someone says that they are sub-15 on average, we would generally *assume* they mean 14.xx average. However, a 12.xx average cuber would still be a "sub-15" cuber in my mind. They just *also* happen to be sub-14, and sub-13.


 
You are absolutely right. I think the same too.

When someone tells me: "Ahh, I'm so slow, I average sub-minute...", I just simply say: "Yeah, me too...".


----------



## Jukuren (Oct 20, 2010)

i thought the answer would have been pretty simple but i guess not
i wasn't looking for the human limit or anything like that... just ballpark based on people knowledge or experience 
the method is derived from two other well accepted methods
sub 15 seems pretty reasonable to me... sub 10? not so sure... (are there any sub ten ZZ users out there?)
i guess in the end only practice will answer that for me... lol


----------



## a small kitten (Oct 20, 2010)

> are there any sub ten ZZ users out there?



Not that I know of.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Oct 20, 2010)

a small kitten said:


> Not that I know of.



Is there any knowledge How fast a given method (petrus, mgls , ZZ, ZB, Roux, Non matching color Roux ) have every been solved (under competion like circumstances) ?


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 22, 2010)

^wat? I'm assuming that you're asking how fast methods are in comp? As kirjava has already stated method potential is not quantifiable. Any method (except belt lol) can be fast in the right hands.

Also, what do you mean by non matching color roux? I've never heard that phrase.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Oct 22, 2010)

I'm pretty sure what he's trying to say is that somebody may be sub-10 and be solving under competition-like conditions, we just don't know about them.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 22, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> As kirjava has already stated method potential is not quantifiable.


Sure it is. The only problem is that speed does not depend entirely on the potential of the method.



Rpotts said:


> Any method (except belt lol) can be fast in the right hands.


Fast, maybe, but not *equally* fast.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 22, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> As kirjava has already stated method potential is not quantifiable.


 
Of course method potential is quantifiable. In an engineering, or scientific, sense to quantify something is to analyze it numerically. If method X has a calculated average move count of 50 turns, then you can quantify, in one aspect, it's potential. If you can solve with most methods using, say, 3 turns per second average sustained throughout the solve, then an estimate of your speed using method X is 50/3 = 16.67 seconds on average. The *accuracy* of this calculation can be obtained by analyzing how accurate a 3 turn per second turn rate is for a) you the solver and b) method X based on how often consecutive turns use things like RUL subgroups or RUD, etc. Doing this for a method gives a numerical quantity that can be compared to the same numerical quantity from other methods, giving a ranking of which methods are faster or slower.

How would this *not* be quantifying method X's potential, in the particular aspect of estimating your personal average using that method?

Chris


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 22, 2010)

Like I elaborated before, of course you can quantify the potential. 

The problem is, comparing two methods this way is useless, movecount is not the only factor. 

In fact, with the methods I assume you'd be intending to compare, the movecount is so similar as to make it an unimportant consideration.

You could consider things like case recognition and ergonomics - while it would be possible, I think you would have difficulty quantifying these things with much meaning.

The reason why I originally said it was unquantifiable is because attempting to seriously quantify each result accuratly is an exercise in frivolity.


----------



## joey (Oct 23, 2010)

Just pick the fastest user with each method, and compare their times.


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 23, 2010)

but what if the fastest person had devoted all their time to another method?


----------



## TMOY (Oct 26, 2010)

joey said:


> Just pick the fastest user with each method, and compare their times.


 
lol.That kind of comparison is just meaningless because of its strong bias towards the most popular methods.


----------

