Well, I am still quite new to learning ZB and I have not even begun to
learn ZBLL, but for ZBF2L, it seems very very easy.  I still get some
amnesia, but the ZBF2L I have learned so far (just under 50%) has been
quite easy to learn (both learning algs and recognition).  I think
with enough practice, ZBF2L will be require no more recognition time
than Fridrich F2L and as little as .5 second additional time for
execution.  This would require looking ahead during the 3rd pair, but
that is something that should definitely be practiced.  As Chris
mentioned, this will also require doing ZBF2L into any slot, though I
think that is something that will not require an insane amount of
additional work (only a crazy amount). :)

I won't offer any ideas about ZBLL recognition yet because I haven't
begun to think about it, but I do not think it will be required to
recognize any case from seeing only two sides to "master" ZB.  Maybe
to become as proficient in it as possible, it might, but I don't even
do this for Fridrich.  I know I am not a very fast Fridrich solver,
but I have a 5-6 second LL using my recognition system, and it is my
14-15 second F2L that keeps me from getting more sub-20 averages. ;) 
I have several ideas for ZBLL recognition based on the little that I
know, but I haven't done a thorough analysis of cases yet to see if
any of them will work.

~ Bob

--- In zbmethod@yahoogroups.com, "cmhardw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I recently have been having some doubts about ZB, which I would prefer
> 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 good
> 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 ways
> 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 know
> that if I don't try it out myself, knowing all or at least almost all
> of it, my curiosity of whether or not it is a worthwhile method would
> 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 learning
> 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 the
> problem of recognition.  I think we need to develop several methods
> for recognizing each case.  Be able to recognize from any angle, etc.
> I really think just saying "oh and look at the case to reconize" will
> not work.  We need to turn ZBF2L and ZBLL recognition into a science.
>  I am going to post pictures of all my algs from all 4 angles for all
> my ZBLL algs.  I will make a page for recognition at every angle since
> I believe just recognizing at one will not work to master this method.
> The more I think about it, the harder this method will be to master,
> 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 slot.
> 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 motivated.
> Chris

------------------------ 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:

Reply via email to