Hey Chris,

I haven't done ANY Fridrich solves in over a month (since WC!) but
today at the library I did a few on JNetCube just because I was bored.
 The first two solves were sub-20!  I had to be quiet, too, because I
was in the library.  Keep in mind I have only one sub-20 average EVER.
 I feel that learning ZB does improve Fridrich.  I have difficulty
going back to Fridrich now, though, because my mind has been working
purely in the land of ZBF2L, so the most natural thing for me now has
been do use ZBF2L on the fourth pair.  I will use ZBF2L on the Sunday
contest later tonight to see my progress and hold off on using
Fridrich until I compete at the Caltech Winter tournament. :)

~ Bob

--- In zbmethod@yahoogroups.com, "cmhardw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I just took some ZB and Fridrich averages and am kind of surprised by
> the results.  It seems, I'm sure also due to committing fully to
> opposite color also, that my Fridrich times have dropped by a second
> while my ZB times have remained roughly the same, if not slightly
> slower than I used to get.
> Here were the average:
> 1) Done with Fridrich
> (12.45), 17.54, 18.82, (19.09), 15.76, 15.16, 18.19, 16.05, 14.95,
> 18.19, 15.15, 16.46 = 16.63
> It's weird that 12.xx was my first solve of the day too, it wasn't a
> preplanned "hey I'll start with that 12!"
> 2) Next one with ZB
> 18.44, 20.96, (26.09), (13.85), 15.32, 18.02, 18.15, 17.36, 21.40,
> 18.02, 19.67, 17.92 = 18.53
> 3) And next one with Fridrich
> 16.82, 14.90, 17.96, 17.52, 15.71, (14.63), (20.35), 16.96, 14.96,
> 15.40, 14.75, 18.18 = 16.32
> 4) And next one again with ZB
> 15.54, 16.94, (23.56), 16.92, 18.90, (13.47), 22.43, 21.56, 15.67,
> 16.26, 17.50, 17.58 = 17.93
> (the 13 was a T case ZBLL!!!!!  Recognition is not always bad!!!)
> I find it weird that the Fridrich averages feel about like my average,
> or at least thereabouts.  Neither one felt extraordinarily fast to me.
>  Yet I have definitely been neglecting Fridrich lately for ZB, even
> after WC2005.  Why does it seem that ZB helps for Fridrich, but not so
> much the other way around?  My ZB times are actually slower than a few
> months ago.  I think that could either be a) I know more ZBLL cases
> and need to learn to identify them better or b) I have neglected ZB
> before WC.
> Anyway I find it very odd that not practicing Fridrich.... makes me
> faster with Fridrich (??).  However, practicing with Fridrich is
> painfully slow improvement for me by comparison.
> My only theory is that the larger number of algs for ZB will work like
> a "weighted bat" when switching back to Fridrich.
> Anyway, this makes me think that even if ZBLL recognition is too much,
> that using ZB for practice and Fridrich for competitions will make
> your Fridrich better.
> Also, why not use ZB for the first rounds of a competition and hope
> for a 1/1944 LL skip?  Or maybe a 1/6 super awesome easy ZBLL case.
> I think maybe ZB and Fridrich should coexist and one not replace the
> other.  I've been doing a lot of thinking about the future of ZB, and
> I think that were I in a final round of a big competition, that I
> would want a simpler method that is still fast since nerves are
> INTENSE.  The final round for the WC was very stressful, and I imagine
> that trying to use ZB there (except for super easy cases) might only
> cause problems.
> But then again maybe a master of the ZB method would identify ZBLL
> algs from all angles, AUF only once, etc..
> Anyway just some thoughts, what does everyone think?
> 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