You may or may not find this helpful, but I hope you do: I have posted all the ZBF2L algorithms I have learned onto this page:
http://www.cubewhiz.com/zbf2l/ There may be some mistakes, so if you do find some, please let me know. The pages are not yet fully complete, but I have listed the algs for my cases #1-15 + the four basic cases. I wrote them all in the notation that demonstrates how I perform the algorithm. Let me know if you find this helpful. I also dislike B turns, so I tried to avoid them as much as possible. ;) ~ Bob Team [zb] --- In [email protected], Brent Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Computer puzzle game Online puzzle games Free puzzle games Puzzle games Jigsaw puzzle game Free puzzle inlay games > > --------------------------------- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "zbmethod" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > :) > --Brent > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! Personals > Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. > Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/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/
