I haven't actually thought about it too much.
However I would like to point out that the S-Orientation cases and
the Pi-Orientation cases are so rediculously hard to recognize... T-
Orientation recognition is a breeze for me now, as are many of the L-
Orientation (*with CP*).
The recogniton differs widely for ZBLL. For people that use the
block method, the more solved corners there are (say for T,U,L
Orientaitons, and PLL), the easier it would be to get information
from the blocks quickly.
A couple years ago I started using pattern recognition for CLL and
COLL, this has helped a lot, but even without it, recognizing by CP
then CO was really fast for me. This was becuase I had been
practicing it for very long. With enough practice the recognition
should become second nature.
As for balence, I'd say, don't learn too much too fast. Take an
estimate of the ratio of what you have mastered to what you know. I
define what I mastered to be stuff that I have actively and fully
incorporated into my solving without delays.
I keep this value over 96% always. I know that for instance Hardwick
is far from no-delays on what he knows of the T5 and T6 cases. I
think this is bad... at a certain point one should stop learning new
things and stablize in solving and especially in times.
Lately I have found lots of 31s-44s times. I get a lot of sub-18
times as well. What ZB does, *especially if you don't fully master
COLL first* is increase one's SD significantly.
The rule of thumb I use (got it from Jon) is that your SD should be
at about 2s. If it is over that then you need to figure out what
your doing wrong to get rid of those high outliers. If your SD is
under 1.7 then you are not taking enough risks. By risks I mean that
for instance I will do part of recognition and b4 being totally sure
of the case, I'll begin an algorithm. By knowing the probabilities
well enough instinctively, my average will be lowered this way.
As for motivation, that always comes right after I get back from a
competition. Every competition I do BLD solves on the plane trip
home, something I typically dred doing. I am very motivated to get
faster and learn new things. For me it is finding the balence
between learning new techniques and getting faster times.
I learn new things and get to do more exotic things when I solve
slowly, even taking back moves occasioanlly. I get faster by
practicing at full speed. rarely do I go full speed though, I would
hate to have an injury that prevents me from going about my daily
school life or typing.
Chris: I think that if you feel overwhelmed by the influx of new
algs, to stop learning for a while. Work on hte new Fridrich
techniques you takled about. A change of pace is good.
As for me I have a lot of problems in my solving. I pre-inspect for
alot of things. First I see if it's a very easy cross. If so I check
for extended cross. If not I check the locations fo the 4 middle
edges for my F2L method and then pre-inspect further. In some cases
I would go about a Petrus solve or a Gilles method solve. I use a
lot of methodology in my solving. My times would probaly be much
faster if I quit doing that, but it would be less fun. I like
getting to see all sorts of new things during a sitting, like Brent
A big problem is that for the same CLL/COLL case, I might do the CLL
with LL on D and COLL with LL on U. Also, most of my ELL's are still
with LL on F or LL on D. I re-grip the hell out of it during my
solves. This is a big problem I need to sort out if I want to be
If I go with a Fridrich cross start, then (like Jessica) I hold my
cross on L. Learning ZBF2L with LL on U has added extra difficulty
to my solving.
I decided not to learn anything new for a few months. My S1 cases
are coming along nicely, but Pi1 is a total disaster.
I use that popular 6-turn oLL a lot, but I do it with on D... this
is hampering my Pi1 and S1 cases (most of them can be done with
compositions of this alg).
Half my ELL's are with LL on D.... I would need to spend 4 months
At least I can consistantly get under 25s...
What would you do if you where me?
(last time I asked this question someone said: "gvie up and cry")
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "cmhardw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I recently have been having some doubts about ZB, which I would
> not to be having, but I wanted to bring them up.
> I recently met with Dan Knights and asked him what he thought about
> ZB. His response was, for the most part, that it seemed like a
> method but that recognition seems that it would be a big problem.
> I also have noticed that I still delay quite a bit using the block
> method for my ZBLL cases.
> I'm at a dilemma. I have been talking with lots of people about
> Fridrich after the 2005RWC and have found lots of really useful
> to drop my average. I even think now that I could get sub-15 with
> Fridrich were I to just implement all the changes that I should
> Also though, I really am curious about the potential for ZB. I
> that if I don't try it out myself, knowing all or at least almost
> of it, my curiosity of whether or not it is a worthwhile method
> eventually drive me insane.
> So I'm stuck. I have two methods that both require quite a bit of
> work to learn/master and only 24 hours in a day.
> How can we balance these methods? Should I extend my goal to
> ZB for another year or two and learn at a slower pace, and also
> practice Fridrich half the time?
> Also, after talking with Dan I think we really are underestimating
> problem of recognition. I think we need to develop several methods
> for recognizing each case. Be able to recognize from any angle,
> I really think just saying "oh and look at the case to reconize"
> not work. We need to turn ZBF2L and ZBLL recognition into a
> I am going to post pictures of all my algs from all 4 angles for
> my ZBLL algs. I will make a page for recognition at every angle
> I believe just recognizing at one will not work to master this
> The more I think about it, the harder this method will be to
> and the more I want to learn it :-)
> So anyway, I think we have grossly and terribly underestimated the
> problem of recognition. I think at a bare minimum we all need to
> recognize ZBF2L and ZBLL from any angle, and ZBF2L done in any F2L
> So I'm trying to find a balance, but there is so much to do and so
> little free time in a day :-(
> Any help whatsoever would be appreciated, I just want to stay
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: