# Different Methods



## HelloiamChow (Sep 16, 2007)

What is the difference between MGLS, VH, and ZB?


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 16, 2007)

MGLS finishes OLL with the last pair insert, leaving you with PLL.
VH orients the LL edges and then you do COLL and PLL.
ZB orients LL edges and then finishes LL in one algorithm.

I think with VH you have to make the pair before the insert, and in ZBF2L, you just finish the F2L and LL edge orientation in one step.


----------



## h3ndrik (Sep 16, 2007)

well, actually VH doesn't require a 'made pair'. you have to have a connected or separated pair in the top layer. then with the 40 coll's your left with 4 pll (only edges) algorithms, or a 1/12 chance of a pll skip 
heres the link to dan's old page
LINK
37 f2l + 32 extra cases + 40 coll + 4 pll = 113 algorithms.
41 f2l + 57 oll + 21 pll = 119 algorithms.
i'm confused which one to learn, if i reach the limit with roux.


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 16, 2007)

Which will get lower move counts, MGLS or VH?


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 16, 2007)

MGLS should get lower move counts. VH is not very useful unless you are going to learn ZB later.


----------



## h3ndrik (Sep 16, 2007)

Johannes91 said:


> VH is not very useful unless you are going to learn ZB later.



could you explain why VH isn't useful unless you are going to learn ZB?
at the moment I'm using roux, but I think about switching methods in the near future. so why should i prefer fridrich over VH?


----------



## DanHarris (Sep 16, 2007)

Yeah, please explain.

VH is very useful, even if you do not learn ZB. However, it was originally intended to be a stepping stone between Fridrich and ZB.

Cheers,
Dan


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 16, 2007)

DanHarris said:


> VH is very useful, even if you do not learn ZB.


Explain that first, because I can't see how it's very useful.


----------



## DanHarris (Sep 16, 2007)

We asked first, but anyway...

VH is useful because it teaches you about edge control, it causes you to learn another set of great algorithms (the COLL), most of which are just as fast to execute as OLL and it greatly increases your chance of a PLL skip or else it gives you a vastly improved PLL (no more nasty N's or E's, only edge cycles!)


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 16, 2007)

I don't think that significantly improves time over Fridrich though.

But that does raise a question, namely should a person who has a 3-look LL down well learn the other 50-some OLLs or do VH or MGLS or some other Fridrich variation, or if the times will not be improved by learning these variations.


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 16, 2007)

It's more about F2L and how good the cuber in question is, 3-look is enough until you are very fast.

VH makes solving the last F2L-pair considerably slower compared to Fridrich, and slightly easier LL doesn't compensate enough for that IMO. As a speedcubing method I can't see how it could be even as good as Fridrich (and yes, I have experimented with both).

Fridrich cubers don't need to understand edge control, and if somebody wants to learn it then Petrus or ZZ would be the way to go. VH does require a bunch of algorithms but I don't understand why that's a good thing.


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 16, 2007)

Johannes, is MGLS significantly better than Fridrich?


----------



## joey (Sep 16, 2007)

To me, (maybe apart from LBL), no method is significantly better than any other method.


----------



## h3ndrik (Sep 16, 2007)

another possibility would be only learning the 7 COLL where the edges are already oriented. it would leave you with a PLL. 
you could have a 2 look last layer with 39 (32 VHF2L + 7 COLL) 'OLL' algorithms instead of 57 Fridrich OLL algorithms.
so it could be easier for beginners due to less algorithms.


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 16, 2007)

Well, I guess the question I have is, is there a method (variation on Fridrich) that requires less algs than ZB but will still get better times than Fridrich? It seems neither MGLS or VH does this, and that Fridrich (with some extras such as basic COLL and Xcross) is indeed the best layer by layer method for the majority of cubers (the ones who don't want to learn a thousand algorithms)

That's kind of a profound thing to say.


----------



## Pedro (Sep 16, 2007)

Dan, are you using VH?


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 17, 2007)

How is ZZ? His page promises a 40 move average, versus Fridrich's 56. 300 algorithms seems achievable to memorize. Could this be a good step after Fridrich?

Source: http://www.zborowski.republika.pl/expert3x3x3method.html


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 17, 2007)

ZZ looks identical to ZB from a quick overview of the steps.


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 17, 2007)

But then how can it require only 300 algs?


----------



## Jack (Sep 17, 2007)

That is without mirrors and inverses.


----------



## fleeting_penguin (Sep 17, 2007)

Oh >.< .

So Fridrich still has the best reward/time investment ratio.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 17, 2007)

People have done sub-10 solves with Fridrich... Isn't that enough evidence for "best reward/time investment ratio"? -.-


----------



## joey (Sep 17, 2007)

ExoCorsair said:


> People have done sub-10 solves with Fridrich... Isn't that enough evidence for "best reward/time investment ratio"? -.-



People have done sub-10 with petrus.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 17, 2007)

joey said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > People have done sub-10 solves with Fridrich... Isn't that enough evidence for "best reward/time investment ratio"? -.-
> ...



My point was that if sub-10 is possible, then yes, it is worth using (i.e. very fast).


----------



## DanHarris (Sep 17, 2007)

Pedro said:


> Dan, are you using VH?



Yes, but not fully. If the edge control step is easy, then I will do it, but for some of the cases where you have to flip more than 2 edges I don't bother. I am just practising Fridrich at the moment, if it's good enough for Mr Chambon, it's good enough for me


----------



## chue.hsien (Sep 17, 2007)

ZZ is holy ****. xD


----------



## DanHarris (Sep 17, 2007)

Johannes91 said:


> . VH does require a bunch of algorithms but I don't understand why that's a good thing.



I assume you're talking about the COLL here: which is very useful for the 4x4x4, when you can't execute OLL as fast as you could on a 3x3x3 cube, so the slightly longer COLL's are even closer to doing OLL normally. You then leave yourself with easy PLL's and avoid terrible ones on the 4x4x4 like G's and N's.

Dan


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 17, 2007)

fleeting_penguin said:


> How is ZZ? His page promises a 40 move average, versus Fridrich's 56. 300 algorithms seems achievable to memorize. Could this be a good step after Fridrich?
> 
> Source: http://www.zborowski.republika.pl/expert3x3x3method.html


That page is about ZB, not ZZ. In ZZ you first orient all edges and solve DF and DB, and then finish F2L with only RUL-moves. A very interesting method, especially for OH since RUL-moves can be executed really quickly. About ZB, I do think that it's very doable, but so far I've only heard of one cuber who has learned it.

I haven't used MGLS so I don't know about it, but seems like a good idea.



DanHarris said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > VH does require a bunch of algorithms but I don't understand why that's a good thing.
> ...


I was talking about VH and not COLL. Why it's a good thing that you are forced to learn COLL? With similar logic you could say that ZB is an awesome method, because ZBLL is very useful. But that argument wouldn't be very good because it just ignores the fact that ZBLL takes time and patience to learn.


----------



## MetaboringJohnCañares (Sep 17, 2007)

Learned a lot after reading the posts on this thread. Thanks.


----------



## DanHarris (Sep 17, 2007)

2+2 = 4 Johannes. Discuss.


----------



## Lofty (Sep 17, 2007)

Well if one is a college student with about one graded homework assignment each week there is plenty of time to try and learn ZB. I'm working on learning VH now and may expand to ZB.
Do you know of a website for the ZZ method I have never heard of it.


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 17, 2007)

Lofty said:


> Do you know of a website for the ZZ method I have never heard of it.


This one, but in Polish: http://www.speedcubing.com.pl/nooks_zz.htm.
I also remember a couple of threads about it on this forum.


----------



## Lofty (Sep 17, 2007)

ok I don't speak polish... but ill look around the site.
I will also do a thread search
Edit: a search for ZZ method brings up this thread along with every other thread with the word method in it a search for ZZ brings up nothing.
Edit Again: I looked around the site. It has kool applets... what are the 80 cases down at the bottom? and it often seems like he inserts the final corner edge pair in a weird way, is that to bring the LL down to 80 cases and not the full like 177 or however many a full ZBLL is?


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 18, 2007)

Lofty said:


> what are the 80 cases down at the bottom?


I don't know, the page crashes my Firefox unless I turn Java off (haven't rebooted for 2 weeks, though...).



Lofty said:


> and it often seems like he inserts the final corner edge pair in a weird way, is that to bring the LL down to 80 cases and not the full like 177 or however many a full ZBLL is?


Yeah, he permutes LL-edges while finishing F2L. Then comes ZZLL, which is a subset of ZBLL; just the cases where all edges are solved.


----------



## DhuCerbin (Sep 18, 2007)

Thera are many variations of this method but zz is using the variant b. He "phase" [ i don't know how to translate this word ] the ll cross while solving last pair i.e. he permute *two* oposite edges in ll. So, in next step he have one of two situations :
1. cases 1-41. Permute and orient corners - classic CLL after ELL. 
2. cases 42-80. Swap RU with LU, swap two corners and orient all corners.

I'm learning this method for small time limit FM. On Polish Open 07 Zbigniew have with this method 31 moves. If you have more questions, just ask. I'll try to anwser.


----------

