We will soon have a solving method like "Identify which one of the 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 scrambles you have, and use the corresponding algorithm (20 steps at most)".
I think this actually has potential, the main thing holding it back is the lack of a clear progression from beginner to advanced but I could see this really taking off in a few years. I'm definitely going to learn it.
@@paper2222 but it is the natural progression of advanced CFOP tymon as an example moving towards xx cross and ZBLL and doing EO mid F2L very similar to Petrus/APB
@rujon288 bruh, you just wrote a bunch of letters. How would you go from cross on the 1st layer, 1st layer corners, 2nd layer, 3rd layer cross, corners fixed and then rotated to learning the beginning of what you said?
i didn't want to learn zz or petrus because it seemed too different from cfop and layer by layer. but this method seems fun, has potential to be really fast, and combines parts of different solving methods all into one. when i have time, i'll definitely try learning this! your video really convinced me.
Wow! This method seems like it has a lot of potential. However, I'm refraining from learning it (Partly because it has so few resources and mainly because of the obvious difficulty- I mean, 700 algs, I've just barely learned full OLL and advanced F2L.) I'm glad you've made a video on it, though; You've exposed the method to many more people, and it truly does seem like it could become mainstream in the future. I think that you should make a more in-depth tutorial, as you suggested! It's always best for the cubing community to keep innovating and changing. (But are there any noticeable flaws to the method- or in other words, aspects or benefits that other methods have that APB doesn't? Maybe you could mention those if you made another video.) I'd also like to say that this video's quality is immaculate for under 1K subs! I was shocked when I saw your sub count. You did a great job on this, I'm looking forward to another video (and I'm sure other people are too.)
Thank you so much! Fear not for I’m already working on the beginner tutorial. There are of course some flaws with the method but I believe they can be fixed. For example one problem is alg recognition, especially ZBLL but we have someone who created an alternate ZBLL recognition system which is easier to do ZBLL prediction with. Although it’s obviously quite hard to test this stuff when no one’s at the level where it becomes necessary yet.
It is crazy to the of the possibility’s though because since it’s so alg based and good move turning it could make people like max park turn 16+ tps and get a 3 second avrg
@@milomaher1582 yeah... I know. I know all of zbll and half of zbls, you don't need to explain them to me. I said that because there's no reason to learn zbls (the other part of zb) before learning APB since APB doesn't use zbls. Hence why I was questioning why he would need to finish learning all of zb before APB since the zbls part of zb isn't useful for APB.
Awesome video and it’s a very cool method. Highly algorithmic methods are just not for me, but for someone with the time & dedication to learn the algs this seems really worthwhile & a very cool method. Thanks for sharing
3:36 actually if you can just do the R move before the algorith to bring the pair on top the created pair will allways end up in 2 locations. That reduces the number of cases.
For cfop it also 50 coups. If you learn Xcross and neutral face, 7-9 can make a pair. Also you made two pairs ( F2L) and it's like 10-12 moov. After you learn winter and summer variation, it's like 7-9 moov, OLL easy case, 8-9 moov and pll 13-14 It's 50 but without learn 1000 alg
Bro where did you pull those numbers from. Also you can’t use summer and winter variation every solve cause they require EO to be done and if you do use them you don’t also do OLL the same solve cause the whole point of summer and winter variation is that it skips OLL. F2L is up for debate in terms of movecount but if you just take Yiheng’s average movecount for F2L in his reconstructed ao100 it’s 32.5 moves. Then you forgot about AUF while calculating OLL and PLL so OLL is actually about 10+0.75 and PLL is 13.5+1.5 so the total for CFOP ends up being 58.25 moves on average. Even taking Kian Mansour’s theoretical estimate of perfect CFOP where he estimates F2L as low as 29 moves (8 move Xcross+7 moves per pair) that still only gets you to about 55 moves on average.
@@cyrildubois1815 I don’t think you know what winter and summer variation are. Winter variation is a set of 27 algs that inserts a built pair into your last slot and solves OLL when and only when you have all the edges oriented. Summer variation also has 27 algs and does the same thing but with a split pair. I have a theory that what you actually mean by winter and summer variation is ZBLS (302 algs) or rather it’s simpler version, VHLS (32 algs) which inserts either a built or split pair while orienting the edges. This would also make sense as you’re saying there are 7 algs you can do after that step which fits with OCLL (OLL with edges oriented (has 7 algs)). So the overall method I think you’re talking about is F2L-1 > set up pair > VHLS > OCLL > PLL Which using perfect F2L numbers gives a movecount of 22 + ~4 + 9.5 + (7.9 + 0.75) + (13.5+1.5) = 59.15 which is actually worse than standard CFOP. I think this must also be what you meant because in your original comment you said OLL was 8-9 which fits with OCLL. Either way still not close to 50 moves.
This sounds like a slightly altered, more algorithm oriented version of petrus. I can see this being popular but it seems intimidating to learn with the large algorithm sets. Will definitely give this a shot, thanks for the vid
In some ways, I feel like APB is quite similar to Mehta in its heay reliance on algs. In the future, I can think of one possiblity is that we might change and adjust more to heavy algs set, the only thing left to improve is how we should develop more beginner-friendly approaches for new solvers and most importantly the transition from basic LBL method to advanced methods like the aforementioned example, or from CFOP and Roux to those methods. I feel like in some way this method doesn't have a very good look ahead compare to CFOP because of the blind spots at the first step and doing it like Roux maybe is the only optimal way to do so. The only thing I would like to point out is the look ahead aspect since you have already covered the ergonomics and move counts. It is really nice to see some small groups this community who pioneer research to construct new and possibly better methods to replace and improve CFOP. I will start trying this method soon.
Thank you! It’s funny you mention Mehta because APB was originally designed to be an objectively better version of Mehta-TDR and it was proven to be better in almost every aspect (I believe there is a forums post which compares 2x2x3 systems you can check out) which lead a lot of people who were learning Mehta (myself included) to drop it and switch to APB. The lookahead isn’t really a problem in the first steps because planning 2x2x3 is more than doable, it’s more so in the later step with alg lookahead which can become difficult and some new prediction methods may need to be developed (particularly the LXS to ZBLL transition)
As someone who has never learned anything more advanced than the beginner method, not sure how the yt alg placed this in my feed. I was impressed nonetheless.
JEEEZUS 😂, im on my 2nd week n got down to 1:32, thought I was doing well so went on youtube to look at how to get quicker, had no idea how advanced it could get!
I originally learned the petras method, not knowing any other choices (and not having instructions) around 2003. This is a fantastic tutorial !! Now that im learning other cubes ive been learning other styles and moves with different operation orders
Bro i used to cube every day like 3-4 years ago then it stopped being intressting for me and i stopped but once in while i come across a speedcubing video and after watching this i was asking myself wtf has happend to speedcubing
2x2x3: 15 FBEO: 5+7=12 LXS: 9 ZBLL: 14 Average 50 moves, which comparable to CMLL+intuitive Roux or optimized CFOP. The planing during inspection is equal to CFOP Cross+FP and harder than Roux FB+DR. While Roux M slice is problematic, this method is just a worse Roux with S slice abuse. But still I'm looking for a global sub 6 stackmat APB user.
Then I'm your guy, was sub-10 global with CFOP after 2 years, now after four days of beginner APB, I already have this: 7.58 F' L' U2 R' B2 U2 B2 R D2 F2 R' F' R D' L2 B R' B2 D x' z // inspection D2 x' U2 R U' R' U R U' R' U F' U' r' U r // 2X2X3 U2 R U' R' U R' U2 R U' R U' R' U2 F R' F' R // EOPAIR U2 R U R' U' R U2 R' // LXS 40 moves, 7.58 seconds = 5.28 tps
as a cfop user who averages around 25 seconds, im going to give this a shot. if i can match my times with the beginner or an intermediate variant, i might go for it
Good video and very persuasive, but I think I'll stick with cfop, because I'm bad at doing the 2x2x3 and Eo seems difficult. These are also the same reasons why I don't use roux
ZB's average movecount is 45.43, and its alg count is 772 I don't trust myself to analyze too much beyond that, but I think it's worth throwing out there
CFOP with ZBLL every solve is called ZB and orients the edges during LS in a step called ZBLS. ZBLS is not a very good step, not to mention people often forget it has to be done from more than just the FR slot. APB will also offer more consistency. Due to being mostly algs, you’re always going to be doing the best solution for every case and each of those solutions will be algorithms that you have practiced and drilled to provide high tps. Credit: LIAM
Certainly a worthwhile comparison as at first glance the methods seem similar. A lot of stuff has already been mentioned about ZBLS and its flaws but I’d also like to point out something about that movecount and why you should be careful taking the wiki at face value. That 45.43 assumed an average ZBLL movecount of 12.85 which is close to if not move optimal. The ZBLL algs used to analyse APB are about 3 moves higher, at 15.7. For ZB, the reason move counts like that were used of course was because it was analysed in practice, by hand over a slow turning Ao100, in 2005, where the efficiency/TPS balance was wildly different than it is today (not exactly the height of objectivity).
I’m not sure this is the best method, but I’m very interested in learning a completely new thing and I think it would be interesting to be along for the journey of this
Ngl when I saw this video thought it was a jperm one, glad to see we have someone new in the mix, I'm kinda wanting to come back to cubing as well as learn this, I'm curious to how popular this could become as well
It’s still movecount/tps, pausing just means your tps is lower. Also all pauses are skill issue except ZBLL and even then you can do partial prediction with tv2
You use the same alg generator as me lol. I’m also working on a method that should rival this (just as algorithmic but lower movecount and less than 200 algs)
Potentially. I’ve got a few ideas for the some videos but in the mean time I made a sheet that groups the cases by what the alg does so it makes them easier to learn. It’s linked in the mega doc (LXS learning guide).
Here's the thing I'm trying to do It's crazy I know but I wanna 1 look f2l With that I can develope an alg set that turns any paired case to an oll cross in any angle And with that I can also see the ZBLL which means I can 1 look which is possible I know it I just don't know how to yet
Lmao me too. I’ve already started work on systems to memorise the edge cycles that occur during a LXS alg to predict ZBLL. I’ve also started learning Tv2 recognition for ZBLL which is a system that I think is much more suited to prediction/1 looking. Also I think the alg set you’re thinking of is VHLS which is a sub set of ZBLS which is one of the 2 big alg sets in the ZB method.
How many methods to solve 3x3 ? I know 1 method and memorized it but take 5 mins First do the white + Then white corners Then mid edge Then yellow + Then yellow edge Then 2 methods to fix the last layer forgot its name
As a roux solver I’m curious about the planning part of this method? For roux planning First Block + DR consistently is something recommended for people in the sub-12 to sub-10 range, so adding another piece seems really difficult, and I feel like the probably slightly wonky finger tricks don’t help? Also, is the beginner method version of this any different than just doing eo then petrus? Is there a meaningful difference between making the pair before or after eo? Overall it looks cool, and seems around equal to CFOP and Roux. Subjectively is there difference in fun/style you see in this method that would make you recommend it? The differences in style between CFOP and Roux are obvious, but this seems like CFOP for someone who loves algs, which I can see being popular in ZMS server lol. I don’t mean this as an insult btw, but just how does the solve feel to do?
It’s hard to say since I came into APB with a pretty strong foundation in CFOP and my inspection planning was pretty good. I don’t think planning DFDB will be too difficult for solvers around the sub 10 area but once again it’s hard to say since the method is quite new and we don’t have a lot of users. Even I didn’t have a background in Roux so my FB leaves much to be desired. Another thing to note is that FB>DFDB is only one way to solve the 223 and it’s possible to find some more efficient solutions that partially combine the steps, so it’s not strictly FB>DFDB which can make planning the entire 223 in inspection easier. I would like to do some analysis on DFDB finger tricks, including perhaps making some sort of intuitive way you can solve every case within 1 move of optimal. The other solution is just algs which is less elegant (and will probably only be learnt by the most dedicated individuals) but it gets the job done while guaranteeing the best ergonomics/fingertricks. In the beginner version solving the pair does make a large impact. The difference between recognising EO with 2 F2L edges vs 1 F2L edge is large and only having 1 F2L edge means it can be tracked and therefore EO recognition becomes instant. Also making the pair in the beginner method makes sense for transitioning into full APB. In terms of fun/style I can say it’s very fun to use. Since the entire method is optimised algs after the first few steps, you get some really satisfying solutions because of how good the ergonomics are, particularly in LXS which is an amazing alg set. In most methods with large semi-intuitive steps (like F2L or SB that are partially supported by algs) it usually takes a solver a lot of practice with the method to start finding the speed optimal solution and sometimes even the most advanced solvers will miss something good, but having alg steps means a beginner and the most advanced solver will be doing the same most ergonomic solution.
Maybe I’m just old (I’ve been cubing for 10 years now), but I’m not convinced. The ergonomics of LXS seem nice, but ZBLL recognition is a beast that I don’t think a “fastest method” will ever use. This seems like a method that prioritizes a relatively consistent average over fast solves, but the lack of resources for any recently developed method will make convincing a cuber already at a high level to switch incredibly difficult.
Zbll has been proven by top solvers like Tymon and Max Siauw to have really fast recognition when trained right You only need to recognize a few things depending on the system Doing zbll may only be slightly faster than oll and pll, but that slight amount matters at the top level
I mean if you're going for a WR you should 100% know some useful ZBLL algs, but like, as an example of why it's just not worth it for most people, let's look at Tymon's 4.86 WR Average. Tymon uses ZBLL 3 out of 6 solves (this was the one where the 4th solve was a misscramble) Solve 1 he does an ELL into ZBLL because of a neat cancellation. Fastest solve of the average, sure, but it's still a 2-look LL that was fast because he was able to predict the ZBLL case and not recognize it. If APB can figure out a way to predict ZBLL out of LXS, then more power to it, but that's going to be hard with unsolved stickers on D. Solve 3 is a bit of EO in F2L to force a ZBLL, which resulted in the slowest counting solve of the average. Solve 5 is another ZBLL case, which he does nothing to force, and it's the slowest solve of the average. Solve 6 (rescrambled Solve 4), Tymon actually gets another ZBLL opportunity, because he gets a sune, but instead of going for the ZBLL alg, he goes for the sune into a TPerm because it's fast and consistent. Is that really a ZBLL alg? Doesn't really feel like it to me. So in conclusion, of the 4 opportunities Tymon got to use ZBLL, he opted for something else faster one time, and was able to predict and cancel into the ZBLL in the other fast solve. The other two solves were the slowest of the average. This isn't to say Tymon is a bad cuber at all but like, ZBLL is an algset that you should take bits and pieces from rather than just brute forcing it.
If you' planning to learn that many algs, I'd suggest to instead learn ZB (CFOP-start (cross+ 3 F2L-pairs)-->ZBLS-->ZBLL). It's just 5% more algs, but has an even lower move count (a bit higher than 40) and arguably the best inspection-planned portion of all methods (x-cross). But anyways, any method with ZBLL won't be superior to CFOP, at least for averages, because the case recognition takes so damn long and most of the algs are a disaster. Most people think ZBLL is equivalent to getting a PLL-skip every time, but it's not - AT ALL. Instead, ZBLL is equivalent to getting an OCLL-skip, e.g. skipping a Sune or T-OLL, and then getting one of your *worst PLLs every time* ! (Avg. ZBLL is 2-3 moves longer than avg. PLL, plus, less streamlined algs). It saves just ~ 5 moves (not 12, like a PLL-skip) but the longer recognition time kills even that advantage. Plus, there's the what I call the "upkeep": You have to invest several hours a day just to keep your ZBLL-recognition and execution at its best, otherwise you're making mistakes (see Tymon's failed Ao5 sub-5 attempt and he's one of the best pro-cubers, so if that happens to him ...) or you mis-recognize cases or stare at the cube for 2 full seconds to finally recognize the case, etc.
ZB is not very good and definitely does not average just over 40 moves. The first problem with ZB is ZBLS. ZBLS algs are not very good, we’ve done analysis on them and regenned speed-optimal algs for the FR slot and ZBLS is worse in movecount and ergonomics than LXS and EOPair. Furthermore ZB requires you to end with the front right slot every solve, so a ZB user will either have to learn a large amount of algorithms to use ZBLS in every slot or rotate. Forcing the FR slot removes the important freedom F2L offers and will reduce efficiency. Taking numbers from Kian Mansours seminar where he assumes 8 moves for an Xcross then 7 moves per F2L pair we would get to F2L-1 at 22 moves. Then 9.16+0.75 for ZBLS and 15.7 for ZBLL gives 47.61 at best assuming you have the world class knowledge and skill to make an ergonomic 22 move F2L-1 vs APB’s only non-alg step requiring a 12 move start to average the same thing. To further add insult to injury, notable users of ZBLS such as Tymon and Tao Yu have begun unlearning cases they have found aren’t worth it. ZBLL recognition is naturally harder than something like PLL, but not by as much as you would think. Tymon averages around 0.5-0.6 for recognition. The main reason PLL recognition of top solvers seems so much faster is because of PLL prediction. ZBLL prediction is still in relatively new territory and is something that hasn’t been looked into a lot due to no cubers that use ZBLL every solve getting to a high enough level where it matters, but this is absolutely something we’ve thought about. One of our members developed a new ZBLL recognition technique (Tv2) which allows applications for prediction during a step such as LS or LXS. Still of course recognition will take longer, but ZBLL will still be faster overall because, OCLL averages 8 moves and PLL averages 13 moves, + 0.75x3 for AUF gives you 23.25 moves compared to ZBLLs 15.7 which means ZBLL saves around 7.5 moves which is more than enough to make up for any losses in recognition. Furthermore, characterising ZBLL as getting your worst PLL every time is inaccurate as depending on what algs you use, half of PLL is over 14.2 moves. Furthermore the best ZBLL algorithms are better than the best PLLs. But obviously movecount isn’t everything, it’s about speed, and in terms of speed we have people like Daniel Egdal who has timed 98% of his ZBLLs to sub 1, and 46% to sub 0.9 and even to my personal experience I would say the algs are far from a disaster. Regarding upkeep, it takes nowhere near several hours a day just to keep ZBLL recognition and execution at its best, in fact you don’t even have to train it daily or even weekly. Like all algs sets it gets to a point where you just know it, there are just simply more algs so it takes longer to get to that point which is why people dedicate time in the beginning to drilling cases and using alg trainers because that way you can master the alg set faster than just getting better at the cases through solves. Mis-recognising cases or pausing to stare at the cube for 2 seconds is what happens when you’ve just recently learnt the algs. After you get comfortable with them it doesn’t. People messing up while using ZBLL isn’t as a result of ZBLL being a bad algset, it's a result of not having practised it enough, which keep in mind if you’re trying to be one of the best cubers in the world, putting that much time into practising shouldn’t be a problem and if anything should be expected. Recognition also gets better when you use a method that always ends in ZBLL because of priming which is why it can be worth it to learn sunes and anti-sunes in a ZBLL ending method but not in CFOP.
@@LiamHighducheck Sorry for the delay. I think I remember ~40 moves for ZB from Zbigniew's website. He obviously underestimated the number to advertise their method. I had a feeling that was too low, but arrived at an estimated ~42-44 back then. And I forgot that all that came from a time in which they used one of the first ZBLL alg sets, which were focussed on low movecount vs. low execution time (which turned out to be a bad idea) so I think the avg. ZBLL movecount was ~12 moves. Also, back then, they didn't include the 0.75 moves for each AUF. So you're right, the ZB movecount is apparently just a bit lower than that of APB. Regarding the move count savings of ZBLL: PLL has 12.8 moves on average, accounting for alg frequency, and I found ZBLL to have 14.55 moves on average (I saw this on Tao Yu's alg trainer page, but now the stats seem to be gone. Anyways, I wrote them down in a file with my alg sets), so it's 23.05 (OCLL, PLL) vs. 16.05, i.e. 7.0 moves less. But PLL is much more streamlined than ZBLL - only 21 algs were optimized for over 20 years now and the global optimum is fairly surely reached. That can't be said at all for ZBLL. It will take a very long time until ZBLL will be at the state of current PLL. And until then, ZBLL algs of move count x are just worse/take longer to execute than PLL-algs of move count x. So it's actually a bit less than a 7.0 moves advantage. So now we have to -compare- consider the execution time of a bit less than 7 moves of OCLL/PLL, which for pro cubers -is roughly at 15 TPS (or a bit higher), so- , for which I estimate an algorithm-TPS of 15 (which is a conservative estimation), is 2gen-algs) like adv./exp./rotation-less F2L or VHLS to even work on the fly (F/B-mirroring obviously doesn't work on the fly), i.e. without ever having practiced them for the FL-slot. I always thought they're using both front slots for ZBLS, in which case you're actually as flexible as it gets because the backslots should be solved first anyways in CFOP. Another issue, and an important one, is color-neutrality and that is much, much more difficult with ZBLL than with PLL (ZZLL is already much harder, but a breeze compared to ZBLL, because you only have 4 cases per COLL, vs. 12 for ZBLL). Tao Yu in his video was apparently dual neutral in 2022, and with a strong preferrence for yellow cross over white cross (10 y, 2 w). Are there any CN-ZBLL cubers out there and what are their recognition times? Edit: Sorry, I messed up two phrasings - I crossed them out, followed by the correction, so the (wrong) original is still available.
@@gewinnste feliks, tymon, and juliette are all comfortable with most ll colors if not full cn from what i've seen, and as far as I know feliks knows TUL, tymon currently knows TULHPi, and juliette knows full. Recognition is not an issue if you use a regulated system like tranv2 or baum-harris since all you need to recognize are the color relationships between a corner and 2 edges after recognizing corner permutaion, and methods like tranv2 make multi-angle recognition significantly easier than blocks or bh. Viability of zbll for not just cfop but other methods has still yet to be proven given how few top solvers are actually committed to learning and applying it. Also I am inclined to believe that your experience with zbll might be a tad skewed given you skipped learning literally any good zbll cases in favor of zzll, which is categorically worse than unphased and can be avoided with antiphasing lol.
I’ve been solving CFOP since I was 15. I’m now 19. This honestly looks like a lot of fun and I really want to work on efficiency. Also what cube are you using in this vid? It has a very nice sound.
The only problem is that at the very top level, cubers can one-look F2L, being able to solve it in about 2 seconds. Solving intuitive F2L in 15-30 moves is more efficient than this.
TL:DR: F2L isn’t solved 15-30 moves, ergonomics are important and top solvers being good at inspection benefits all methods. Inspection is definitely a large part of high level solving and personally I think one day we’ll be one-looking a 3x3. But nothing that is applied to F2L can’t be applied here. Even at the sub-10 level you’ll be planning the 2x2x3 in inspection most of the time. We’ve even toyed with developing a way to solve DFDB such that it allows you to track your pair pieces and EO through your 223, which is a lot closer to systematic one-looking, i.e. something that’s easier to teach and learn rather than something you pick up after a couple hundred thousand solves. Planning in inspection isn't something that was forgotten about while developing this method and if high level planning is possible in CFOP there’s no reason it can’t be applied to other methods. Saying that solving intuitive F2L in 15-30 moves would be more efficient is like saying if Usain Bolt ran 70km/h he would be faster. Solving F2L in 15 or even 22.5 moves (as this range suggests) on average with amazing ergonomics would be great, but it's not possible and people aren't doing that. Top cubers aren’t finding the optimal solution to block build their entire F2L, sure they might sometimes plan single double or even triple Xcrosses but most of the time they're just looking further into the solve (the difference between a triple Xcross and Cross+3) which doesn’t necessarily decrease the move count. Even with those high order Xcrosses they often take advantage of pseudosolving which still uses the fundamentals of standard algorithmic F2L. This is made abundantly clear in Yiheng’s reconstructed 5.47 ao100 where his F2L averaged 32.4 moves. And let's assume top solvers could find a 15 move F2L solution, sure it may be the most efficient solution, but it most likely wouldn’t be the fastest because of ergonomics. You’re much better off taking an ergonomic 30 move solution over an abomination of a 6-gen 15 move solution, and assuming you could turn equally as fast on the 15 move solution is disingenuous. I think Kian Mansour’s estimate of 29 moves in his seminar is extremely accurate and is what should be used to make comparisons with peak world class CFOP. Base high level APB gets to a similar point in 31-32 with EO done which gives it the boost it needs to remain competitive all while using the method in a very rigid form, not to mention it retains very good ergonomics (which you don’t have to think about because they’re built into the algs).
idk, i tried learning beginner abp and is quite good with barely any practise but it takes the fun out of it somehow and idk why, so as good as it is, im not that serious about this and im probably gonna stay with cfop
What do you average on it? beginner or advanced idc... also this is possibly the most underrated channel I have ever seen. remember me when your famous lol...
Lmao thank you, I average around 11-12 seconds with full LXS, 5/7 ZBLL and 1 set of EOPair+solved EOPair. Recognition still isn’t the best and my FB leaves much to be desired but overall not too bad.
So we’ve actually put hours into brainstorming new variants or ideas then genning and testing alg sets for different ways to solve things or different sub steps but most of them just can’t beat standard APB. For an extremely advanced solver their main improvements will come from planning further in inspection, solving pseudo blocks, drilling algs for faster execution, and learning alg prediction. Alg prediction is probably the biggest thing we are currently looking into, specifically with ZBLL as that is the hardest pause to overcome. One of our members developed a new ZBLL recog system (Tv2) that could allow us to track some useful information during steps like LS or LXS. But obviously no one has gotten near the level where that stuff actually matters so it’s hard to test ideas. We are still working on finding other optimisations where possible. For CDRLL and L5EP it is just a worse way to solve things when compared to LXS and ZBLL and is kinda just there for fun. The main reason it’s a variant is because it was a variant in Mehta and when all the Mehta users switched to APB and development started occurring in APB the CDRLL variant was bound to occur.
Here’s an interesting idea. Instead of doing LXS and ZBLL, it might be faster to do CPLS (Corner Permutation + Last Slot) and 2GLL+1. Not sure how good this is for recog, but it might be fast.
This video is not (primarily) for beginners nor is it a tutorial. However I have made a beginner tutorial which explains the steps more in depth (found in the second line of the description)
Looks cool, especially since it's possible for a CFOP solver to manage with only learning 11 algs. I've subscribed, just in case you ever make that tutorial 😉
Funny method lol I used this for a while and it was my fastest method So I’d highly recommend learning it And for anyone who wants to, pls learn lxs before eopair
