Re: [zbmethod] F2L vs. ZBF2L and future of competitive ZB

Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:46:44 -0800

Hello guys/gals,
     that's interesting.  I have been thinking of f2l a bit lately, pertaining to Fridrich f2l and ZBf2l.  When I take Fridrich f2l averages just to see how my f2l is, I average around 8-9 seconds- but sometimes I'm "time aware," meaning, aware of the time and going as fast as I can, as I watch piece by piece, which might even be faster than just solving cubes.  So this can follow your idea here, Chris.  Fridrich f2l, fast times for it (atleast for me) include going as fast as possible, and seeing each piece and looking ahead (and, also, when your hands are "in the mood," which is a completely new idea that sprung to me the other day- i'll discuss further in the email).
     Ah, but when I try Zbf2l, I really don't understand _what's_ going on...  I go fast, and the algs don't match up with my style (zbf2l algs require, me atleast, to rotate often, turn D and B more often than usual, and is just way wierd).  Yeah, for me right now, ZBF2L is way slow, and chaotic...  I'll take this "super slow, maybe too slow" idea when I practice more, see if it helps me.
     Another thing, that I found the other day.  I think it was last Wednesday, I had a good day and was refreshed; I did all my school work and was comfortable with myself- I did an average, and I did a 14.52 NOT ROLLING average.  My hands were "warm" I guess, and things seemed "cheery" or something- I really can't explain it.  My average of 60 was still sub 15- then I had to go do something so I abandoned it.  Then the next day, I did a 17.8 average or something- and my hands just "couldn't move," so to speak.  This spreads to the observation at the WC2005- I was racing a lot of people, since I like it :).  Like when I was racing Chris/Dan Knights/Joel/Andy C/Ryan Patricio/Stefann/others, I pulled a few 12's and 13's that I wouldn't have usually done- then, my hands were "in the mode" and keeping constant motion during the F2L- which was making hte biggest difference.  When I was racing Lars V, too, I was experiencing this- I was surprised by how fast my hands were moving!  They were just "in the mood" and warm, I guess.  I dunno, just something to ponder or observe- the mood of your body and mind when you make an average may make the difference.
     Anyway, I see the possible doubts for ZB in full.  zbF2l is the biggest nightmare, I agree- I'm making like 16+ zb f2l times, which is crazy. But anyway, sorry for hte long email- there is information out there to help us with the F2L times, that goes beyond the algs.
 
Human capabilities are much underestimated in the matter, i think.  ZB full, when the time comes, will lead to Master times.
but this is only my opinion, and not the "actual" answer.
-Brent M

cmhardw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey everyone,

I've been doing lots of practicing switching between ZB and Fridrich
today.

My Fridrich averages have definitely gotten much faster as of late,
and my ZB averages definitely much slower.  I think I've found the
reason too.  Because of WC2005 I've been thinking in Fridrich mode,
which for F2L for me means go as fast as absolutely possible while
still being able to catch glimpses of pieces I'll need later.  I've
found that instead of slow-fast going "not quite break neck fast" for
F2L gives me better averages.

Well I noticed that this is influencing my ZBF2L.  My ZB solves are
always really really bad immediately after switching from a really
good Fridrich average, and then get better.  I also tried going what
felt like "too slow" after doing a good Fridrich average and then my
ZB times got back down to my usual good range for ZB.

So anyway I think that ZBF2L, even when mastered, should definitely be
done slower than Fridrich F2L.  I think ZBF2L should be strictly
defined as "the 4 corners and 4 edges of the first layer, the 4 edges
of the middle layer, and the opposite layer stickers of the last layer
edges."  I've noticed that by going slower and keeping an idea of how
the LL edge orientations will end up, or even inserting pairs earlier
in the F2L so as to keep my LL edges oriented, helps my times a lot.

This has me thinking though, obviously since ZBF2L requires more moves
than Fridrich F2L, and by all my experience should be done slower,
that means that ZBLL has to make up the lost time from ZBF2L.

Also recognition is clearly going to be an issue, so that time is
added as well.  That means that execution of the ZBLL cases has to
overcome that lost time, and should be FAST.

What I've been thinking lately, and again I am not trying to keep a
negative attitude about ZB, I think the method is brilliant, but I
lately I've had some persistent doubts about using it in a high
pressure situation.  I am starting to fall back on my idea of using ZB
as a first and second round method.  Meaning in the first and second
rounds of a competition you use ZB, which is fast enough to get you to
the next rounds.  However, it also has the added benefit of, much more
likely than Firdrich, getting a super incredibly easy LL and a super
fast solve.  So you can use ZB to still make it into the next rounds,
and have the potential to set some incredibly fast solves.  Then in
the final switch back to Fridrich.  Fridrich will seem easier at this
point, and you will be under more stress as well.  You will feel as if
the easier method balances the more stress and hopefully get a burst
of confidence to help with nerves.

Maybe this is the best way to approach ZB before mastering it.
Obviously if someone with the mind of Kasparov were an addicted
speedcuber he/she would probably be able to speedcube ZB very easily.
I imagine with practice most people could do that too.  So maybe
before mastering ZB we should approach it as a slightly slower than
the main stream methods, that has a greater potential for spike
superfast times and use it accordingly.

Then once people start to master it we can rethink its future.

What does everyone else think?

Chris




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






:)
--Brent

Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals

SPONSORED LINKS
Puzzle games Online puzzle games Jigsaw puzzle game
Free puzzle games Computer puzzle game Free puzzle inlay games

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to