# Re: [zbmethod] Re: Hey everyone

On 1/11/06, Mike Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In zbmethod@yahoogroups.com, "cmhardw" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether you are set on full ZB or a hybrid this method is
> awesome.

I think in the end, I'm definitely going to go with a hybrid.  When
you get a chance, Chris (and everyone else), look through my last two
posts.  There is some definite potential there, but I would like some
input.  Is there something obvious or useful I'm missing?

I was thinking about this recently.  Let's look at solving the cube as a series of steps.  I've combined some things in to bigger steps to make it easy to analyze.

1) Solve cross and first three corner/edge pairs
2) Solve 4th corner/edge pair
3) orient edges
4) orient corners
5) permute corners
6) permute edges

Now, standard Fridrich organizes this like 1, 2, 3+4, 5+6.  As I've been studying new algorithms, I've sort of been doing VH or ZBF2L, followed by COLL and PELL, which is 1, 2+3, 4+5, 6.  As you can see, these steps overlap with the Fridrich steps in several places.  The odds of randomly skipping a partial step, such as step 3, are much greater than the odds of skipping a full step, such as OLL.  So, if I use a COLL based solution and I know Fridrich as well, I can switch to Fridrich when I skip step 4 or be finished when I skip step 6.  If I solve using Fridrich, I can switch to COLL if I skip step 3 and still have a reasonable chance of skipping step 6.

My point is that if you know two complementary systems that have overlapping steps, you can switch between them and really increase your odds of being able to skip a step.