Even though I stopped learning ZB a few weeks ago, I'm still
interested in that extension.
I'm kind of fed up with learning an huge amount of algorithms without
always understanding what I do.
But I'm really interested in finding new ones either by myself or with
the help of a computer.

If you want some help, I could help for exemple on one of the
orientation case (maybe split it with someone if anybody is

I'm rather fond of the Double-Sune orientation so if there is any case
you prefer to have first (since I'm probably not gonna use this in
competition), just tell me which one :-)


2005/12/11, cmhardw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  Hey everyone,
>  I've been talking to Richard a lot lately, and he really inspired me
>  about one thing.
>  I think ZBLL can be extremely fast, but we have to set a higher
>  standard for it.  We have to set the standard of sub-3 average for
>  every alg (just straight execution) and that would make the LL have a
>  sub-4 solve time with recognition also (in theory).
>  Well I don't think even a few people could do this in a short amount
>  of time, so here is the suggestion.  ZB doesn't have much popularity
>  yet, since it isn't fast.  Sadly it will take that to get many to
>  notice.  Also, why learn ZBLL quickly now and redo 300 algs later when
>  it does gain some popularity after people have learned it, when we can
>  all work on generating algs (with the sub-3 requirement) and make it
>  fast now?
>  It would work like this, learn ZBLL in any way you want, and generate
>  and save all algs for that path.  If you are learning algs that have
>  already been generated, then learn the algs you want from a webpage or
>  from someone, but generate other cases only to make them fast, learn
>  them later.
>  We could each take a COLL case and generate algs and spend a few weeks
>  or maybe a month on optimizing each case to sub-3.
>  After that we can meet here and post the best ones on a central
>  website (perhaps Ron will lend us a space in the Algs section).
>  I think if we make ZBLL fast right from the start, then we can learn
>  the fastest ZBLL right from the start and have a chance for the method
>  to be fast.
>  I know a lot of you guys are very serious about the method, so I ask:
>  who is willing to help me make a sub-3 requirement for ZBLL a reality?
>  I can start with my slowest T algs (some are already easily sub-3)
>  and work from there.  Again you don't have to learn the algs you
>  generate, learn however you want, but spend time each day helping
>  optimize the ZBLL.
>  I think with all of us it will still not be much man power, but it
>  will be enough to make a start.
>  I will now require sub-3 for all algs, and try to spend a few weeks to
>  1 month on each COLL case to really get this right.  I will stop
>  learning until my T and U algs are fully sub-3 optimized.
>  Also if sub-3 is just not possible, let's find the true limit, and get
>  under that.
>  ZB can still have a change, but we have to have a higher standard than
>  sub-4.  I'm already convinced that a sub-4 ZBLL stands no change
>  whatsoever against Fridrich.
>  I'm going to start on my worst T cases and go from there.  Is anyone
>  else interested?  Let me know, I would really love for all of us to
>  really take this method seriously (we already do, but I think a new
>  level of dedication will be required for ZB to be fast) and move this
>  method into being a top level method?
>  Chris
>  ________________________________
>  Visit your group "zbmethod" on the web.
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>  ________________________________

------------------------ 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