Ok, thanks. I'm having enough trouble recognizing corner permutation on COLL as it is, adding in edges right now would probably be a bit too ambitious. Thanks for the advice.
Matt --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "cmhardw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Matt, > > I guess I should have clarified a little more ;-) > > COLL/EPLL is extremely fast, and I think when you factor in the 1/12 > chance to skip EPLL that it might be faster than most people's OLL/PLL > combos. I think a really good OLL/PLL set of algs though would > probably win out. > > What I don't like is getting a slow COLL case, and ending with a Z > permutation. As weird as that sounds, and as much as I like the Z > perm in my solving, it is my slowest and longest EPLL alg. That > double combination can mean a slow LL time compared to the average > COLL/PLL gives you. > > On this page: http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/zbstats.html > > I have twice done a 100 cube average that shows the number of moves > used in COLL/PLL finish. > > I get that, including the EPLL skips, COLL/PLL averages 21.12 moves on > average. I think Fridrich averages around 19-20 as well so they are > fairly close. The problem though, for me, is that keeping the edges > oriented for some CLL cases means a slow alg. > > Having said that though I have managed sub-17 averages using COLL/PLL > on ZBLL cases that I don't know. I am certain I have had a full 12 > cube sub-17 average that only had EPLL skips for the ZBLL stuff, > meaning that sub-17 is definitely possible. > > I don't think a transformation+ZBLL combo used exclusively would be > faster, but rather a combination of COLL/PLL finish (only on fast COLL > cases) and transformation+ZBLL on slow COLL cases would be best. > > I think all of COLL should be required before learning any ZBLL > though, since the recognition of ZBLL for me is so heavily based on > COLL. I use the block recognition technique for ZBLL, and often the > only thing different between three different ZBLL cases is the COLL > case. They can have the same block structure, but be different COLL > cases. > > So I would definitely say to learn COLL, and use COLL/EPLL until you > finish your first orientation case for ZBLL. After that point, > replace your slowest COLL cases with transformations into your ZBLL > orientation. At least that is the experiment I am trying, but I have > a feeling it has potential to e very fast. > > So when I say slower, I only mean sometimes. COLL/EPLL is still fast, > but I don't think it is the best option. It is, however, still a good > one. > > Chris ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 1.2 million kids a year are victims of human trafficking. Stop slavery. http://us.click.yahoo.com/WpTY2A/izNLAA/yQLSAA/MXMplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zbmethod/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
