The best RA from this session was 17.11:

----- JNetCube Session Statistics for Thu Oct 27 22:11:58 EDT 2005 -----

Cubes Solved: 50

Total Pops: 0

Average: 18.84

Fastest Time: 12.63

Slowest Time: 31.28

Standard Deviation: 03.28

Individual Times:

1) 19.78 L2 B' U2 D' L R F B D' R' L2 D U' L' F2 U2 B' R2 D U' B R U L' U

2) 15.64 D' U2 F L2 B2 R' F2 R' B L U' R2 U' R2 U B2 U' B R' U2 B2 D2 L R B

3) 18.24 B F D' F' D R B' L2 R B' F R D F2 U F U D' F2 R2 B2 R' B R U2

4) 18.68 R2 B2 F2 U R2 U2 D F2 U' B2 U' B2 D R L2 B' R L2 F2 R L F' U' R' L2

5) 19.16 B R2 D' R' L2 B D' B F L2 U2 B U B' U L' U' R D2 U2 F D U2 B L'

6) 17.69 D2 L' R U F2 B2 D' B F2 U' F L2 R2 B' D2 U R F' U2 R U2 D' R2 B' F

7) 18.38 L2 R D' U' F R2 L' F2 U F2 U R U' L2 B U2 L2 U F' L' U2 D F' U' F'

8) 17.40 F D F U' L' F L B U' B2 R2 D2 B D2 F2 B L U' F L' R' F2 U' B D

9) 21.39 R' F' B D2 F2 L2 R U' D' L2 U2 D2 F L2 U2 F L2 R' B' F2 U2 L2 U' B D'

10) 20.81 R2 U' B R2 D' R2 B' L R2 F U' B' L F U D B2 D2 U R2 U' R' L2 D R2

11) 16.52 L' D' R' D2 R' L D2 L B' L' D' B2 R D' F' D2 U B2 L D2 B2 D R' L2 B

12) 16.58 D R B' F L' R U2 D2 L' D2 L2 B F' R' F' D2 L' B U L2 R' F' D' B U'

13) 20.62 L2 F' B2 U2 D' L' F R' L2 D U2 R' D' U2 B' F D L R' B2 F D L B R2

14) 20.39 L2 F' U F D2 U F U2 F2 D2 R2 D2 L2 F R2 L2 U2 R' D R' B L B2 L D

15) 12.63 R2 D' B L' D' R' L2 B2 F2 R U' F U2 F2 L2 R B2 U' L' B' R' L2 B' L U'

16) 19.36 U' F' D' L' B' L B' L2 F2 U F U2 R D2 R U2 R2 B' L D' U2 F2 D F' U'

17) 15.98 U L2 R2 B2 U B' U L2 R' U' B2 F2 D2 B U' B R' F L B2 L R B2 D2 L'

18) 18.47 D' R' F2 L D B2 U' F2 U2 L2 F2 B2 D' L' D' R2 U2 B2 D U F R' U F' D'

19) 26.47 R' F' U F' R' B' F' U' R2 L2 U D' F U2 F' U' D' L F' D2 B2 L F' U' D2

20) 21.08 U L' R2 F2 U2 D2 B L' D2 U' F2 R2 B2 D2 U' R' D' L F' R2 B D' L B F'

21) 21.87 U F L2 U' B L F' B' L U' R2 L F2 D' U2 R2 F D2 B' U2 F' B2 R L U

22) 16.38 F' B' L' B' R' L2 B' F' R2 B2 L' B2 R2 D2 R' U' L' R' B' R2 F2 B R2 U' B

23) 24.53 D L' R2 D R2 U L2 R D2 B U' D' R D L' B R' F2 D' R' B' U2 L2 B2 U'

24) 17.82 D' R2 D' F' L F R U2 L R2 D' B U2 F R' B F' U B2 L' D' U2 B2 D2 U

25) 18.15 R L' F' D R L' U B2 L2 U D' F' U2 B U D B' F2 D2 F U' B R B2 F'

26) 15.66 B2 U2 B' R' L' B R2 D2 L' B' L2 D' U' B2 R2 U' L R' B D R2 L' F D2 L2

27) 17.66 R' F2 D R' U2 L F B U2 F' U2 D' R' U' F B' D2 F' D R F B2 R2 D' L'

28) 18.82 F2 D2 L' D' U' R2 L B2 F R U2 R2 D2 F2 U D L' B' L2 U' D' R' F' B' R2

29) 18.72 R2 B2 L B2 U' D R' D B' F' D U R U R2 L' U2 F2 D R2 D' R U' L2 U

30) 15.75 L' U2 L' R D2 U2 B2 U' D2 L' B' U2 D' R' U' F' U2 F R L U2 L R U' R

31) 15.75 B L D F2 L' B L D2 U' F' D' U' L' F U' L' R2 U2 D L B' U' F' R U

32) 17.92 F R2 U' R' L U2 R' F' U' B' F' U F D2 B' U' F2 D' R2 D L' D L' D2 F'

33) 14.88 F2 R B2 U2 L2 F2 L U' L B D2 R2 U F' R U' F' R D' F2 U R2 F' L' U'

34) 18.97 L R B F' L2 D' L U2 R U2 R2 U' R U' R2 B2 F' D F2 U R D' U' R2 D

35) 12.71 R2 F2 U2 L' R F D B U2 B U2 F U' R L U2 B D' R' D' F D F' R' L2

36) 20.20 U B2 R U F D' R U' F' R' L' U2 L2 D2 U' R2 B' F U' L F' B2 U' F L'

37) 17.52 R' D' U2 L2 D B2 D L2 B F2 D' F' U' R F' U' R L' F U2 D' L U2 B D2

38) 18.03 D2 U2 B' F' U' F2 L' D L B D' R U R F' L' D2 U L F2 U2 B' D2 U2 F

39) 19.39 B' D L U L2 U F' D2 R U2 B' D F2 B R' F2 L2 B' F D2 B' R' B2 D U2

40) 15.35 L' D F' R L' D R' L F D' R D U2 R' L2 U L2 U' R D' R' D U2 F' R2

41) 21.91 U R' B2 U2 D' B' U D' B2 F2 L' R2 B R B2 R' D R' B' D' U2 L2 R2 U' F

42) 22.08 L2 U' R' L U2 L B' L' F' L' R D' B R2 D' R2 U L2 R' F2 U2 R2 L F2 R

43) 24.25 R' D' U2 L' B L R2 U F' D' R' D2 F2 U2 L B2 F2 R' D2 R2 B2 U2 D F R

44) 17.84 F2 L2 U' R F' R2 D' U F' B2 D2 B2 L D2 R2 D2 L2 F' R2 B2 D' U' R2 D' B'

45) 16.81 F U' B U L2 F R2 L F' D' L U' B R' L' B2 L D L D' B2 L' U L R2

46) 18.19 U L B2 R2 L' D2 F' U2 B L2 R2 F' R B2 L2 D' R' F L2 F' U2 L' R D F

47) 22.30 L' F D B R2 F2 B' D2 U' R2 U' R B L2 F B2 R B F R' U R' D' R2 L

48) 18.88 B' U' D2 R2 U L U2 D' R' L B U B D2 U2 B' F D B' D' L R' D' R2 B

49) 31.28 D2 R' F2 L R2 F2 D' L' D L' R B2 R' B' L B L2 U D B' L R2 F' U R'

50) 16.99 D2 U' R2 D2 B L2 R2 U L' R' F U' R' L' B2 L F R' B' L F B U D' F

This was actually not a rolling average, that first solve was just really fast. Can't wait until I get sub-16 with ZB and can show the naysayers that ZB is worth something as a speedsolving method. After the WC I'm going to learn the rest of the U orientation pretty intensively and then move on to the L, then the sune and antisune and then the two cases with four unoriented corners. Can't wait until I can prove the ZB method is fast, but it will take at least through the U orientation and into the L I think before I can think about sub-16 averages. I mostly just want to prove that it can be done and prove the naysayers wrong.

Anyway here are my Fridrich and ZB averages for today:

16.33, 17.04, 17.81, (22.50), 19.17, 16.96, 20.63, 16.16, 17.22, 17.07, 17.58, (15.05) = 17.60

(15.17), 17.40, 16.04, 16.17, (21.41), 21.14, 15.61, 17.84, 17.38, 19.42, 16.09, 17.96 = 17.51

16.67, 17.47, (13.73), 17.80, 13.90, 15.10, 15.44, 15.19, 17.48, 15.27, (22.36), 14.83 = 15.92 *new record*

17.30, 20.99, 20.76, 18.06, 16.41, 18.08, (16.23), 18.60, (26.50), 18.63, 17.38, 17.32 = 18.35

14.42, 14.80, 17.83, (20.49), 16.63, 18.71, 19.24, (14.29), 17.88, 18.18, 15.80, 19.47 = 17.30

16.32, 19.33, 17.87, 19.15, 17.94, (13.01), 14.92, 20.10, 15.37, 22.48, (22.83), 21.25 = 18.47

16.89, (13.46), 15.49, 17.12, 15.38, 17.00, (18.93), 17.90, 16.82, 18.24, 14.79, 16.01 = 16.56

15.96, 16.56, 17.28, (22.43), 19.69, 16.04, 15.79, 18.03, 17.43, 15.26, (14.95), 19.27 = 17.13

15.73, 17.47, 17.05, (14.36), 15.67, 19.61, 17.07, (31.90), 17.08, 21.12, 22.54, 15.20 = 17.85

17.07, 16.74, 18.70, 19.06, 19.96, 14.16, 19.98, 19.74, 18.70, (13.37), (19.99), 17.01 = 18.11

16.95, 16.41, 18.67, 18.33, 17.19, 16.76, 19.64, 17.61, 16.83, (13.74), (26.33), 23.85 = 18.22

I will contine to use ZB as my practice method for Fridrich for the WC. It's so cool to me that I can not practice Fridrich at all, and still get better at it!! ZB doesn't waste my practice for Fridrich at all, it actually lets me practice both at the same time! I love this method!

I really think doing ZB averages makes the smaller alg set required for Fridrich seem much simpler to me. I mean I only have to draw from 40 OLLs and 13 PLLs basically, rather than 158 zbf2l's and so far about 100 ZBLL algs when they come up. It really seems like ZB is streamlining my Fridrich solving without me even doing anything. Even if I finally decide that the decision time for ZBF2L and ZBLL does not overcome the speed of a super optimized Fridrich LL, maybe I could use ZB to train for Fridrich? Anyway I just think it's awesome that I can train both methods at the same time, just by doing ZB practicing. I'm going to go through my OLL page again soon and brush up on my cases to make sure I don't get any unwanted amnesia. Starting to think about the WC a bit more since it is so close. I will definitely use Fridrich and only Fridrich, unless I get a very super easy ZBLL case on the 1/7 chance I get all oriented edges.

My learning for ZBLL cases has definitely slowed, but I make up for it by practicing speedsolving ZBLL. I'm pretty good at all the T cases now, though of course case #6 (the one I just finished) has some rough spots. I'm also pretty comfortable with all the algs from my first U-orientation COLL case, but then again this COLL case is very easy. In some ways I can't wait till the WC is over and I can fully focus on learning ZBLL again. I hope my ZB practice will help for Fridrich solving in competition. I would love to retain, or better, my American 3x3x3 average record, but of course I know lots of other people who want it just as much as me, if not more. I guess we'll just see what happens. Can't wait for the WC, it's going to be a blast!

Today's stats:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 11 done today):

# sub-15 solves:

The two most interesting solves this batch were the 12.67 which was only COLL/PLL. I've been trying really hard lately to not only smooth out my ZBF2L but also to really crank up the speed. I've been getting a lot better at it, and like the 12 shows, even with COLL/PLL finish I can still get sub-13 sometimes. Also I had a 16.5x solve with my absolute worst ZBF2L case. I really, really hate this case, but of course I want the advantage of ZBLL so I always do ZBF2L on it anyway. The case is R2 B' R' U' B2 U' B2 U2 B R'.

Also, I've decided to learn Doug Li's algs for ZBF2L with inserting the last cross edge of an otherwise already solved F2L. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dlli/NewAlgSet.html. I already have the first two memorized, and I really am taking my time with these. However, eventually I hope to know them all.

Anyway I think I'll try to balance practicing averages with learning as I realized lately that knowing ZBLL and speedsolving ZBLL are two completely different things, and lately I've only really been working on the former. Alright, well I'm off. Look for more posts in the next few days.

Also did two averages. The second was a rolling average out of maybe 16 cubes and the first was just a regular 12 cube average.

(14.77), 15.13, 15.55, (23.80), 16.48, 17.90, 16.62, 15.40, 15.75, 18.55, 19.76, 16.65 = 16.78

1) 16.46 B' R D' B2 U D' F' U L' U2 D' R B' D F2 D' R' B U' L U2 D' F2 R F' 2) 16.85 D' R2 F2 U F2 D B2 D2 F' L2 U2 D L F U' R2 U2 R2 D' B2 D' F' L2 U B 3) 16.52 F' U R2 F' U2 D2 F2 D2 R2 L D B2 U' F2 U' L D B2 L' U2 R2 L F' B U2 4) 15.24 F' D' U F R2 D' U F2 L' R2 D' L' D2 U2 B U2 R B L F' L' U' D' L F' 5) 16.89 B2 L' R2 U2 R' D2 R D2 L' U D' F2 R F' B' D2 L B D2 L' U' R B' D U' 6) 20.18 U2 L' D' R' L' B F D2 L F2 R L D U' F2 L' F2 D R L' U' F' U2 R' B' 7) 22.17 F2 R' U L2 B' L' R D2 B' R' D F' U2 B2 U L U R' F' U R' L' F2 R2 F' 8) 14.52 L B' F' U' L' B' D2 L2 R' B2 R U R B' L2 U' B2 L D' B2 F' L U' R U 9) 17.66 R D R' F R' B L' B2 U2 R' B2 F' R L2 U2 L' B F' L D2 L B2 F' R2 B 10) 14.28 L F2 L' F2 R2 L2 U' F' U2 B2 L2 F U R' U F D U' B L2 R2 B' U2 D' L 11) 15.25 L2 U' F2 R' L2 D L2 F2 R' B' R2 F2 R2 B2 U R D' F D' B' U2 R F' B2 L' 12) 16.32 B F L' U D F2 R' B U' B' D2 L' B2 U2 L' B F' U R' U F L' R2 B2 L' 13) 17.34 F2 U' B D' R' D' R2 L' U B D' U2 F2 U R' B' L' B2 U D2 L' F' R' D2 L 14) 19.90 R' F2 L' D F' D' F U2 B' U' L' B R' U' L2 R' F U2 D' F' L U' D' L' B' 15) 17.29 B2 U F' R' B D' U2 L' F' B D2 U R D' U2 F' L' D' F' B D L2 B U' L2 16) 21.58 F2 L2 U' R2 F2 U R2 U R2 D' U2 F2 U2 R B' F R' B2 L' R2 F2 L2 F2 D' F' 17) 16.64 D' U B2 R2 F' D' F' R' L2 F2 B2 L R B2 F' U B' F' L B R2 F' D2 F' U 18) 18.59 F2 L F' U2 B' U F2 L B2 L' F2 L B' U' R' L' B' L' F' U2 F L D' U' L 19) 21.88 D2 L U D' L' D' R' B L' D' U2 B U2 D' R D' F2 L2 R F L2 F2 B2 R L' 20) 14.76 L' D B R2 B2 U D2 L' D' U' F' U F2 L' B' F' U2 L' U R2 B' L U' L' F2 21) 24.59 D F' R U2 R' F' L' R D2 L2 D R U' R' F2 B' R2 D' R2 D R' U' L D R 22) 19.64 B U2 L B' F2 D U2 B2 U2 R2 B F' L2 B D' L F2 B2 R2 B2 R2 U2 L' F D2 23) 20.08 D2 L' U2 B2 R U L2 R' D R' B2 D' L2 F B2 D2 U' B' L2 F D U2 F2 L U 24) 16.31 L' D R D' U2 R F2 U2 B L2 R2 F U' D B D2 F U D' B2 R U R U' R 25) 19.02 R2 B' R U2 B' R2 U2 D2 L' U R' D U B R2 B F U' R F2 L B2 F R' D' 26) 17.48 F R U' L' B F2 U2 B2 U2 B2 R' F' U' R' D B' U' B' U2 F2 D' B' F2 L R 27) 18.66 B R2 U D R U' D' B' D U' R U2 B F2 U' F' R2 B' U B2 D2 L B' U L2 28) 20.36 U2 L2 U2 L B2 U' B2 L B R B2 F2 U2 B' D' F2 R' U2 D' R2 B L U' D R 29) 20.69 L' U F' D' L' R' F' D2 F2 U' B F2 R2 D2 F U' L' U2 F' R2 F2 L B2 L2 D' 30) 19.88 B' L2 R' D' B2 D' R2 F' D' L' F2 L2 B R' F' L U R D' U' L' B' D' U L2 31) 17.36 F' D L B R2 F D' B' D' B2 R' D' L' R' D2 B' U' F L2 U F2 D2 B' D2 B2 32) 21.47 U2 R U' B' D F2 D2 B' D' B2 F' U' R L F2 B' D' F' U F L' B' U' F2 L' 33) 16.67 R U' R F2 R2 U' R' B U2 R2 D L' U' F' L2 U2 D R2 B2 D2 B2 U L2 U B2 34) 17.44 U' F D2 U F' U' B' L2 B F2 R F' D2 L R D' R2 D' L R2 D F R L2 U' 35) 15.80 R2 D' F2 D B F2 R' L B2 U2 B' R2 B L B' F' D2 L2 R2 F' B R2 F2 D' L2 36) 14.07 B2 U' R' F' U2 F2 L F R2 L2 B2 L F2 U' R2 D2 L' B F' L B2 U2 R2 F D 37) 20.84 L R2 F2 R L' B U2 B F2 D2 B' U2 F B2 U' D' L U2 R' B' F2 L F2 B2 U 38) 18.47 D2 L2 R2 D R D2 L' D R F' U2 B' U F R2 L2 B2 R F D' R' D L' B2 L2 39) 20.08 L' F' U' R F D' U L D B L' D B' D2 F' U' L' D U R2 B F' D F2 R2 40) 16.15 B' F' R' F2 B L' F B2 D' F' D L F' D' F' R2 L U2 D2 B' D' L' D2 U R 41) 15.98 B2 U D2 L2 R F2 U' F2 D' B2 L' R D2 L2 R2 D2 F R' D2 F' L' U2 D B2 U' 42) 20.68 B' R L F R' D F' R U' D R D2 R L U' D' L D2 F' B L' B F L B2 43) 22.84 U2 R F' L U B F' D R' L F' L F' U R D' U' F' B L2 D2 L2 B2 D2 B 44) 17.89 B' F U2 D R' D U' L2 U2 F2 L' F2 R' L F B' D' F' L' D' B' F' L U R2 45) 19.02 R2 L2 D2 U2 R2 F D' R' B U2 D L' D R' L2 U F2 R2 D' F' D' L2 R D R 46) 31.05 U2 F2 B' L' U B2 F2 D R U2 L U L F R L2 F2 D R F2 L' U2 D' R' U2 47) 15.30 U2 B U' R2 B2 F2 U2 R' B U B' U L2 F B2 R D L D2 U B' U2 F' D B 48) 19.11 D2 U B2 R U L2 B2 F' U R F' R' L' D2 R' F2 B' D2 U' B2 F2 U B' L2 B2 49) 15.85 U' D B' D2 U' B' D U' B' F' L R D2 L' R D2 B' R F B2 D U2 R2 L2 U2 50) 15.58 D2 B' F' L' U2 B D2 F2 L U' F U' B2 L B' U' L R F' L' D' L' D2 R2 L2 |
51) 14.67 R2 B2 F' R' F' D L D' B2 L2 D2 B' D2 L D' L2 R2 F L' R B U R2 U F' 52) 20.37 L B' R2 L' D2 B' D2 R F2 L2 D2 U R' B R' D2 U R L D2 R B L' U' B2 53) 16.49 D2 B2 D' U L2 U2 F2 B2 U' L' D U B2 D2 F' D' U' B' U R U2 L U F2 R' 54) 17.89 B' D' R' L2 D2 R L' D2 F L' B2 R D F2 B2 L B' R2 D U2 L U D R D 55) 16.54 L2 B D L' F' B' U2 R2 D2 B2 F U' L U2 F2 U2 R D2 U B' U' B2 R' B2 D 56) 14.87 B' R F' U2 R' L2 F R D2 U' R2 F' B2 R' U F R' U2 F R F D R' D' U 57) 18.06 R' U2 L D' F' B' L2 R2 B D U2 B' U' B2 U' B L2 D' L' D F2 B2 D2 F U2 58) 15.07 F' D2 L' R' F2 D' B D U2 L F2 R' U' D2 R U L R' B' R F2 U F2 U2 B' 59) 19.82 B2 R U D2 B2 F2 L U2 D' B D U2 F2 U' R2 L' D' R B' L F2 R2 B2 F R' 60) 14.83 F2 B2 R F' R2 L2 U R2 F B' R U' D' R B' F U D L B' F' L' R2 F2 D 61) 18.43 L2 D' L2 D2 L' B2 F D' F2 B D L' D L' R' F' U2 D2 R U2 D2 B2 U2 L2 D 62) 16.61 R' U2 F2 D2 B D R' F' D B U' F2 B L2 B D' B U' D' B D' B2 F U2 F 63) 18.54 U R2 L2 D L2 U B' F2 L D' B2 R' B U' B2 R D2 U' F2 B U L' D2 R L2 64) 20.03 D' L F B D2 B U2 L R2 B' L2 R' D' B D B R' U D' R2 B R' F2 B2 R' 65) 17.00 U' R U2 R2 D2 U B D2 B2 F' R2 L D F2 L D R F R' D' B' F2 U2 L U2 66) 15.25 L' B2 L B F' U B' D L' U' R' D B F L B2 L B2 L U2 L D2 U' F2 U 67) 19.01 B' F' L D2 F' B2 U' D' B L' F D F L U2 F' U2 B' F L' U2 F2 L F2 L 68) 20.76 U B' L' R' U' R2 B2 D2 U' F B' D2 R2 D' B L' U2 L2 F2 L' B' L F D' F 69) 18.84 U2 L R2 D' L' D2 B2 R2 D U' L2 F' D2 L' D U2 R' B2 L' U' B2 R' L' B U 70) 15.75 U2 L2 U D' B2 L2 B D' B' R D F2 U' L' R U D' B D R2 L' B U R' D2 71) 16.27 L D' F' R2 D U' B2 L2 B U2 F D2 U2 B2 U2 L2 F' R' U' F D2 F B' R F 72) 18.20 L F' B R L' F U' L2 F U B2 F D' R2 L' D R U' B2 U' R2 B2 U D' L2 73) 16.95 U2 D R2 D' L' R2 D L R' F D2 B' F2 R2 U' R F' B D2 F2 L' U L2 B2 R 74) 15.52 U' R' L B' F' D F2 R2 F' U' B U L D F D2 F2 D2 L2 B' F D2 B' R2 F' 75) 18.53 R' D2 F' R2 D L' R2 B2 R2 L F' U R L2 B2 D' B R' U2 B2 R' D' B F2 U' 76) 16.25 U2 L' D U B' L' F2 B D2 R B2 L' R D' B2 D2 L' D2 R2 D2 F' B' U B2 R' 77) 16.45 L' F' B2 D' F B' R U B2 R B U2 D2 L B2 U D2 L2 F2 L F2 U' D2 R F 78) 16.85 R' L D2 L2 R' U' L' F2 D' U2 R B' L U2 D F' R2 F2 D' L D' L2 D' B' L 79) 19.58 F2 D2 F' D' B' F2 D B' U2 R2 D2 B R2 F2 R2 L D' B D U2 R2 B2 U2 L2 B2 80) 16.90 U' L' D2 F2 L2 B' D' L' F B L D2 R L2 U2 R' F' U F2 L2 B2 D U2 B' F' 81) 19.58 L2 U' F B2 L2 D' F2 D R' F' D' L B U2 D R U' B D' U2 R2 F2 L D2 R2 82) 19.68 F B' R L' F L' U F' R' L U' L F D R L' F2 D B' R' B' R2 B D' L' 83) 16.35 D U' B' R L2 B2 L' R U2 B2 L2 D R' B2 U R2 U' D R2 B U D2 B2 R L 84) 19.62 R' B' D' R2 D2 B' D2 U' L' U R2 D' R2 F2 U L D2 L F R' D2 F2 L2 U' F 85) 26.62 B' L2 D2 L' F D' F R' D2 B2 F L' F2 L2 B' D' B2 L2 R B2 U2 L2 B2 D2 L' 86) 17.69 R' B2 F' D' U' B' F L2 B2 R' F L2 F2 B' U' B2 R2 D' R L2 U' L2 R B' R 87) 23.62 D' F2 L' F L D' R L' U' L F2 U B2 F2 D F2 U2 R' U' F U2 R' F2 D F2 88) 22.32 R2 B2 L2 F R D2 U F2 B2 U2 R2 F R F' L U2 D L' D' R L F2 L2 B U' 89) 20.13 U' F B2 R L B U2 F2 D2 F B' R U' L' D2 B2 L F2 D2 U R' L2 D' F' L2 90) 19.28 D R2 F R B R2 B' R L2 B L' D2 R' D' L R' B F D' U' F' U2 D' F2 B 91) 17.79 L2 R' B2 U' R' B D2 R2 F2 B U2 L2 R U' F2 D2 U B F L2 D2 L2 D2 R' L2 92) 26.07 U2 R2 F' D2 L B' F L R D B' D2 L2 R2 F D' B2 R U' F' L F' R' D F 93) 16.82 D2 F U F2 D' R U2 B' F' R' L B F2 R2 D2 F' L' R D' B' L R' F2 B L' 94) 27.39 B D R B2 D B D' L' B D' R U' D2 F' L R F2 L' D B D2 R' B2 R F2 95) 17.08 D U2 R' U L2 F2 B2 D2 R' D2 B' U2 L2 F U2 B F U D L2 U F B D R2 96) POP R' L' D' L2 F2 R' F2 B U' R2 L' U' D2 R L D' B' F U2 R' F2 B U' D' F' 97) 17.57 D2 L2 R2 D' R' U D B' L2 R2 F2 L R' U L' U D F U2 B F' R L' D2 F 98) 16.15 U' D L F B2 L' B' F2 R' B2 D F U2 B' R2 B2 F U2 D2 L U2 L F L F' 99) 20.42 R2 F2 R2 D R F2 B L' U' D' R' U B2 D2 R' B R F' L2 R F2 R2 F U' L' 100) 15.31 B' D' U' R2 U' B D U2 L' U B2 R' U2 R' D L2 B2 R2 B' U' B L' F' D2 R 101) 16.29 U' L' B' L' U' R' U L' B' U' R2 F2 B2 U' B2 L' F' L' U' R U D2 L R' U2 |

My fastest rolling average is my new record average at 16.48 seconds.

I tried something new for my solving today. I tried doing ZBF2L just as fast as I do F2L. I'm starting to view the intuition of most of the ZBF2L algs, so I can just treat it as a regular F2L solve, with a more in depth intuitive decision to be made for the 4th c/e pair. On some solves it worked really well, and on others not so well. Anyway it's something I want to work on. I'm definitely glad to be getting 16 second averages more often (had a few rolling 16 second averages in this batch) even with ZBF2L and ZBLL.

Still working on the U orientation, I'm halfway done with my second COLL case, but unfortunately I've had a lot of work for school lately, so my learning has been slowed for this case. I already have some nice algs for this case though - so far I like it a lot. And what's best is that it is one of my slower COLL cases, so I get to replace a slow COLL case with fast ZBLL algs :-D

I'm out for today, gotta get to some homework.

Every solve was with ZBF2L and I'm using 28.40% ZBLL as of today. I think I had three ZBLL solves this average. I think I can safely conclude that I am now faster with ZB than with Fridrich. My average average with ZB seems to be right around 17.8, or even lately it seems to be slightly below. I also have averaged faster with ZB than I have with Fridrich. I doubt I'll use ZB at the world competition, but I can definitely see myself using it for a first round for another Caltech competition or Horace Mann tournament. I might even try a whole tournament with it and see where I get weeded out. That would be great motivation to work on it even harder. Anyway that is far down the road, right now I'm just happy to have improved beyond my skill with Fridrich!

I still don't know what the future of this method will be. All I know is that 8 months of working with ZB has gotten me faster than 7 years of working with Fridrich. Stuff like this keeps me motivated to keep learning.

(12.41), 19.43, 18.53, 18.29, (21.94), 18.63, 20.64, 14.95, 17.16, 21.84, 15.40, 15.22 = 18.01

16.88, 17.17, 18.51, 18.43, 16.37, (20.23), (15.98), 17.59, 19.76, 17.51, 16.65, 17.03 = 17.59

15.80, (14.51), 15.37, 20.95, 20.87, 18.03, 15.19, 18.45, 17.54, 18.56, (21.74), 17.56 = 17.83

17.44, 17.07, 16.40, 17.17, 17.35, 18.21, 20.31, 20.07, 16.90, 18.72, (23.48), (11.95) = 17.96

I got two sub-13 solves too! The 12.41 was ZBF2L/COLL/PLL and the 11.95 was ZBF2L/ZBLL. Overal average average for these 5 is 17.79 seconds. Still under my Fridrich 17.8 seconds! I want to make sure I can consistently keep up an average average under 17.8 seconds, and if I can then I am better with ZB than with Fridrich! I can't wait!

Anyway some observations before the averages. I really do think now that ZBF2L / COLL / PLL is a bad method. It can be very fast, especially with the 1/12 skips, but sometimes the COLL is very long, with a long PLL too, and the LL is just terribly slow. I will continue to solve this way though since I want to make my COLL recognition feel like second nature as I am learning ZBLL. I think ZBF2L / OLL / PLL would be a much better method, and perhaps a good sub-method for those not interested in ZBLL. I think ZBF2L + OLL + PLL could end up being a fast method, but of course this is only speculation. I also am now of the persuasion that COLL / PLL is not a good LL approach 100% of the time.

Notice that I still get lots of times over 20 when I mess up ZBF2L or choose the wrong ZBLL alg, but my good ZBLL solves still bring the averages down. I dropped about a second off my average average by finishing the T orientation, so I wonder if I'll have an average average of 16 seconds after I learn the U. If that is the case then after I know 13/27 of ZBLL (3 orientaiton cases and the PLL algs) then I think I can have an average average of 15 seconds roughly. Or at least I hope so, I still have never averaged sub-16. I don't think I'll ever understand how people get there in 2-3 years. My explanation to myself is that they are robots in human disguise, but hey that's just my opinion of course :-D

16.16, (13.90), 18.84, 17.43, (36.28), 21.61, 16.75, 17.57, 15.97, 16.46, 18.92, 15.86 = 17.56

(13.65), 14.27, 17.83, 20.94, 16.31, 17.10, 16.74, 20.75, 15.38, 19.11, 19.41, (45.70) = 17.78

(15.59), 15.79, 18.46, 21.07, 22.01, 18.27, 22.96, 16.37, 16.48, 17.66, 17.80, (25.53) = 18.69

16.89, 17.78, 16.75, 17.04, 16.66, 16.81, 18.19, 20.62, 16.68+, 20.88, (23.05), (13.28) = 17.83

(15.57), 19.36, 16.39, 15.65, 16.28, 17.28, 16.96, 19.02, 19.81, (20.50), 19.42, 16.66 = 17.68

Overall average average is 17.77 seconds. I feel that this can only get better as I solidy my last COLL case for the T and also my first for the U. This is already better than my Fridrich 17.8 average average, so I think I might very soon be better with ZB than I am with Fridrich.

I now know (5/27) + (4/27)*(20/72) + (18/27)*(1/12) + (16/7776) = 28.40% ZBLL! Almost 30%!!

Also, I finally finished learning the ZBLL algs for the T-orientation! I am very excited now to be able to solve the orientation 100% of the time with a 1 look LL. I've already started on the U-orientation next, and I'm halfway through with my first COLL case. Bernard Helmstetter only generated one COLL case for this orientation, since 5 of the COLL cases you can just use the inverse alg of the cooresponding T-orientation. I use ACube almost solely to find my algs for the U-orienation, so many thanks to Josef Jelinek!

Also, I didn't mention it here yet, but I did use ZB methods during the Caltech Dallas summer tournament. I used it for 4 of the 5 solves in the first round, the 1 solve I didn't was because I amnesied the ZBF2L (I

Of the 6 total ZB solves I did, 2 of them had a ZBLL finish. So I now have some competition experience with ZB and I think for competition that this method will do fine. I'm glad I used ZB some in competition, since now I can consider using easy ZBF2L and ZBLL algs for the world competition in Orlando without fear of messing up.

I'm going to try to keep up in this journal, but I've come to realize that my day to day routine for learning ZB is pretty unchanging. I'll try to come up with something to say I guess, but I might not post as frequently for a while.

All solves were with ZB

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 6 done today):

# sub-15 solves:

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

ZB average

16.63 17.73 17.93 16.00 17.58 (15.54) 19.52 18.90 18.02 16.97 21.40 19.52 = 17.88

followed immediately by a Fridrich average (however I did do partial edge control, making sure never to get the all edges flipped case, and I also did COLL the 1/7 chance it came up)

18.23 17.86 17.32 15.56 17.98 14.55 (14.08) 15.49 15.67 (20.02) 17.34 17.26 = 16.73

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

I won't send that in to speedcubing.com though since my goal is to be the fastest I can be with ZB rather than Fridrich. However now my ZB goal to beat is 16.73 and not 16.75.

Here are today's stats (all solves done with ZB):

Fastest average:

16.96 17.22 16.29 15.57 15.13 22.89 14.62 (23.73) 22.37 17.94 17.78 (13.38) = 17.68

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 6 done today):

# sub-15 solves:

In a competition, assuming you can make it to the final round, the standings in the first two rounds don't matter at all, except for to get you into the next round. So 1) The purpose of the first and second rounds is to get to the next round, period.

In the final round, your average is all that matters. If you get a fast solve, but a few other mediocre solves you will not win. So 2) In the final ALL that matters is your average time.

Now ZB is amazing at getting spike good times, and the method is fast, but not quite as fast as Fridrich. Fridrich is not as good at getting the spike times as ZB, but it is AMAZING at getting consisntently fast averages.

So here is my new view on ZB. I want to get to the point where, for a smaller competition (not a WC), where I know I can get to the final round with ZB (I hope to average sub-16 with ZB keep in mind), then I will use ZB for the first two rounds. My standing in this round doesn't matter at all, just that I get to the next round. So if I can make sure I get to the next round AND go for one of those spike fast times when I get a fast ZBLL case, then why not? So ZB becomes my "first two rounds" method!

In the final, nerves are intense and ZB is a BAD idea. This is because the method is so incredibly complex and to try to think that hard while being scared

This also has one more positive aspect. Think of the "swinging a weighted bat" technique used in baseball. Before you are up to bat you swing a weighted bat to make the real bat feel lighter and easier to handle. ZB is MUCH more complex then Fridrich, so using it for first two rounds will be quite a mental challenge. That means that when I do switch down to Fridrich for the final, I will be using a much easier method. This is good 1) Because I will be nervous and need to make easier decisions and 2) all the Fridrich steps are just really easy versions of all the ZB steps, so the method will seem quite easy to me and I can potentially look ahead really well. Plus since the method will feel easier to me, I will feel more confident during the final round.

So this has become my view of ZB now. It is

This allows me to go for really fast spike solves in the first two rounds, yet still have a chance to make it into the final (ZB can get sub-16, I am convinced of that), and then use a simpler, and for averages MUCH better, method for the final.

Why use one method to fill two different purposes when I can use two different methods that each individually specialize in the purpose I need it to fulfill?

So now I will practice Fridrich just as much as ZB, which will mean it might take longer for me to learn ZB, but I need to be fresh for both methods. I am going to use this technique in the Dallas tournament, so look for my results to see if this strategy works! Even if I screw up really badly in Dallas though, I will still practice this technique for the WC and future competitions. I don't think I have a chance for the final round at the WC, but if I can walk away with a 10 second solve I would be incredibly happy! I will know about 30-40% ZBLL by then I think, and in 10 solves for the first two rounds I am likely then to get 4 ZBLL solves, which might make that possible. Even another 13 or a 12 would make me incredibly happy.

In short, ZB is NOT a replacement to Fridrich, it is simply my method for the first two rounds of a competition. Fridrich will be faster on average than ZB, I am convinvinced of that, so I will still use it for the final round when only the average counts. I now have two methods to use for competitions that are each tailored to what I need them to do for that round!

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 14 done today):

# sub-15 solves:

Did some real serious thinking about ZB as a method today. I took some ZBF2L and LL (COLL/PLL or ZBLL when it came up) averages today and I was disturbed that often my ZBLL solves were 6 second LL times :-( :-( :-( Mostly the cases I just recently learned were that slow. So it seems that even though I can perform all my algs sub-4 on netcube, sometimes recognition just takes a while.

My current opinion on ZB is now this, it is not a "super" method. It probably won't be faster than Fridrich to be honest. In fact, because Fridrich uses fewer algs I think it will be consistently faster than ZB. However, I think a run of really easy ZBLL cases with ZB will yield a faster average record than Fridrich could. So I guess both methods are better than the other in one respect.

I miss being able to be fast with Fridrich, however I like the fact that even when I screw up my average really bad with ZB, my ZBLL solves always bring it down to sub-20. Getting sub-20 with ZB is cake, since I just wait till I get one of my 1/5 one look LL solves and the time helps me bring my average back down. To back this up with proof scroll down through the days of this journal, I have gotten 50 consecutive sub-20 averages. My last non-sub20 average was on July 18 and was a 20.42.

So in short, ZB is not a super method. It will probably be faster than Fridrich for a *single* average record, but Fridrich will be more consistently fast (less memory work). I'm still 100% set on learning full ZB. I feel 100% confident that I (again I don't speak for the method itself here, just myself) can average sub-16 with ZB once I've learned enough ZBLL. I think it might not even be that much of a stretch to average sub-15 once or twice once I know all of ZBLL. So my personal choice is for ZB, since I know it will help me meet my own personal goals. I retract all my statements about ZB being this super speedcubing method, I think Fridrich is a much more stable method than ZB over lots of solves. If a theoretical person does master ZB they would probably be in the speedcubing top-ten, maybe even hold the record average, but not be the fastest cuber around (in my opinion of course, just my own speculation).

So in short, I consider the ZB method the easy way out. I could work on my reflexes and try to train my brain to think quicker during F2L, or just learn 300 more algs and get the same times that the current fast guys do. ZB is the lazy way out, it doesn't require the immense skill that one of the top Fridrich solvers has to have, just patience in learning a LOT of algs. The Fridrich method is a beautiful method in terms of its efficiency, ZB is just crazy brute force solving and nothing more.

I still think it would be fun to solve with ZB though, so I still want to learn the whole thing :-D I imagine knowing 25-30% ZBLL will be necessary for getting sub-17, 40-50% ZBLL required for getting near the 15.99-16.00 border. Then over 50% for sub-16 and probably 100% for sub-15 (if it can even get sub-15).

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 10 done today):

I ran into "the case that I always forget" three or four times today, and because of my new name for it I remembered it every time! It was funny though, when I ran into it I was like "oh yeah I always forget that one" and then I immediately recalled how to do it :-) If I ever come up with a naming scheme for ZBF2L, that one will be immortalized as "the one I always forget" :-D

Got 11 sub-15 solves today, and another sub-13!!!! :-D

Only took two averages today, so here they are:

19.90, 18.60, 17.54, 19.45, 18.94, (15.80), 19.31, 20.27, 16.86, 21.31, 18.94, (22.06) = 19.11

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 2 done today):

I was pretty happy about the 10.xx solve today. I mean I know it's lucky, but hey at least I *can* solve the cube in 10 seconds, albeit very infrequently. Plus that means I had to have gotten a 9-10 second ZBF2L, which I think I can be

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 9 done today):

Oh my god 1 look last layer 1/5 is AWESOME!!! It helps having just finished my incomplete COLL case. It's nice to know that for any COLL case I run into I either know none of the ZBLL algs (well 1/12 since I know *A* COLL alg for that case) or all of them. That will be my new routine now. I will learn all 12 algs for a COLL case, then take averages to get used to recognizing those cases while speedsolving. Then once I'm comfortable with all 12 I'll stop taking averages until I learn the next COLL case. It's nice to not have that hesitant "Oh crap I only know 2/3 of these cases, do I know this one?!?!" feeling when I get an incomplete COLL case.

Man if a 1 look LL 1/5 is this cool, and I mean it is VERY noticeable, I can't WAIT to learn more!!!!

Another all sub-20 average using partial ZB :-D

My fastest end to a Fridrich solve would be the T orientation (F R U R' U' F') followed by this particular edge three cycle (R2 U' R' U' R U R U R U' R) which I can do sub-3 with no errors. So my BEST Fridrich LL is probably about 2.95 seconds on average. My best ZBLL case is (R2 U' R' U' R U R U R U' R) which counts as my full LL now. So my best LL solve will be about 1.50 seconds on average (including recognition). So if I got the RUR' last F2L pair I could probably have done F2L in about 9 seconds (8 if I was on fire) so I can forsee a sub-10 solve for me in the future even without multislotting or other tricks. With just a nice F2L and my favorite edge cycle I can break 10. Man this is cool! This is why I like ZB, I don't have to be a cube super-mega-prodigy to break 10 seconds. I just need to solve enough cubes to get one of the better cases for this method! ZB is awesome, even someone like me can get sub-15 with it I'm hoping :-D

Today's stats:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 11 done today):

Also my cube is starting to hurt my wrist, which means it's getting too loose and its time to retire it. It feels like a pretty good one-handed cube though, so I think I'll keep it for that. I still don't know what's up with me and one-handed. I haven't practiced in forever, and seeing Macky and Ryan's times I don't think I'll ever be able to be competitive with it again. Oh well, guess I'll just do it for fun. It's nice to do at least sorta well in a few different events. Aaaaaaaaah, I'm in such a weird mood right now. So much to do in cube land, and only one lifetime to do it in. I haven't practiced any side events for months, I've literally been doing ZB and nothing else. It's starting to show too, which sucks since the WC is coming up. I think I'll just go this WC to have fun, and set no standards for myself whatsoever. By WC2007 I'll most likely be done learning ZB and will have had 6 months to get used to it. So hopefully I'll be able to be competitive then. Man I will feel like such a gigantic moron if ZB turns out to be slower than Fridrich. I mean I guess I'll be happy that I could tell people not to learn it, but still there goes 4 years of my cubing career out the window. Aaaaah I wish I knew if this method will be fast or not, that's the most frustrating part. Well off to write my paper which is due tomorrow and I've barely started.

Today's stats:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 8 done today):

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 7 done today):

- My chance to skip OLL after ZBF2L is 1/27 since there are 27 orientations of the corners, only one of which is solved.
- 2) All of the algs I have been learning are in the "T" orientation, and this occurs 4/27 chance. There are 1152 different possible positions the cube can be in assuming the F2L is solved and the last layer is in the T orientation. I know 40/72 of the cases in this orientation, and each case has 16 ways it can occur (notice 16*72=1152). So I know 640/1152 of these cases.
- 3) I know all the COLL, so for the remaing 22/27 orientations I have a 1/12 chance of skipping the PLL after COLL.

So I have a

I also like Dan Harris' idea of using transormation OLL algs to transform whatever OLL case I get into the one I know the ZBLL algs for. I'll look into that once I know this whole orientation completely. Here are my stats for today:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 6 done today):

Took a Fridrich average today and I am disgustingly rusty. I think there is almost no doubt that I will use ZB at Dallas. It would take a lot of work to get my Fridrich times back up to speed in a month (in 5 months I've practiced Fridrich for maybe a comined time of 2 weeks). I think I'd rather put all that work into finishing those last 18 algs for this orientation before Dallas. I guess I have officially switched to ZB as of now, even for competitions. I sure as hell hope it turns out to be worth it.

Stats for today:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 10 done today):

Today was an

Stats for today:

(14.20), 19.40, 19.73, 16.50, 19.58, 18.57, 20.34, 15.73, (38.86), 18.43, 18.17, 22.08 = 18.85

21.27, 17.82, 25.04, 16.54, 24.20, 19.52, (32.68), (15.76), 15.85, 19.14, 16.17, 18.05 = 19.36

17.34, 17.68, 18.68, 17.00, 18.29, 16.84, (19.77), 16.63, 16.55, 16.94, 18.85, (16.19) = 17.48

20.29, 21.90, 18.20, (15.62), 19.96, 16.37, 20.06, 16.77, 20.03, (23.20), 22.26, 17.44 = 19.33

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 5 done today):

Stats for today:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 3 done today):

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 13 done today):

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

I also took an average racing Richard Patterson over yahoo messenger. We both solved each cube with our opposite color (the color opposite our usual cross color). I got this idea from Richard, and I think it is a nice step towards color neutrality, without the pain of not knowing the colors very well.

Tomorrow being the first day of the weekend I plan on practicing/learning ZBLL algs until smoke comes out of my ears :-D

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 4 done today):

Stats for today:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 5 done today):

I've done a lot of thinking about the ZB method lately, especially on what the role of ZBF2L will be during the solve. I've decided now that ZBF2L will

I'm also starting to think that 2 years will be unrealistic for me for learning ZBLL, but not unrealistic for other people. I'm trying to balance school and cubing, which is turing out to be very hard. I imagine having a job will be the same way after I graduate this December, so I think 2 years is not realistic for me, but not impossible for the human mind in general. I'd like to be done learning in 3-4 years from my start date though.

Also, one more piece of evidence in favor of ZB. In my 7 years of speedcubing I've only gotten sub-13 5 times with Fridrich, and all times were 12.xx seconds. With ZB I think I am now up to either eleven or twelve sub-13 solves (not including my 5 Fridrich ones), which includes one 11.xx and two 10.xx solves. I still have yet to get a 6th sub-13 with Fridrich, and yet lately I've been getting sub-13 more often with ZB. If *I* can get sub-13 on an infrequent, but regular, basis with ZB, imagine what some of the "greats" could do. Food for thought....

I guess that's about it for today, here are my stats for today also and I'll wrap this post up.

Stats for today:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 10 done today):

I've definitely noticed that ZBF2L solving gives me a much,

I

Stats for today:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 8 done today):

17.91 19.11 19.98 17.69 19.09 (16.30) 20.27 16.98 (24.54) 17.30 20.97 19.16 = 18.85

18.29 18.75 18.45 18.46 16.19 (15.59) 19.83 19.39 17.86 (21.72) 20.16 20.01 = 18.74

This ZBLL algorithm is amazing, I found it last night and replaced the one I used to have for this case. The 15.59 in the second average was this ZBLL case :-D

The 15.72 was a ZBLL case, the 13.96 had nothing skipped and was a full ZBF2L/COLL/PLL solve.

This next average was a mix of ZBF2L/COLL/PLL and F2L/OLL/PLL. I did 4 F2L/OLL/PLL solves, mostly near the end. I wanted to try to find a good balance of Fridrich and ZBF2L that I might use at the New York tournament. The 12.52 below was a ZBLL solve.

If I can practice this 50-50 ZBF2L/F2L solving style, I think I may be comfortable enough with it by May to actually use it. Based on this average it seems that ZBF2L combined with Fridrich can be

I've decided that after the May tournament I'm going to stop taking averages completely until I learn all the ZBLL cases for my first orientation case. That way I'll know 18% of ZBLL roughly, which is the magic number to make (ZBLL)COLL/PLL equal Fridrich

I'm really starting to get interested in Gilles' idea about the 2x2x2 and CLL. I want to start working on learning to recognize the CLL cases by which corners switch, and not just by colors. I think this may help me for my regular COLL recognition for the sune cases as well. It can never hurt to learn something new, so I'm definitely going to start learning how the corners switch in each CLL case. Nothing too exciting on the 3x3x3 today, though I am starting to recognize the ZBF2L cases I learned more recently a lot faster now. I can't wait till I've had about 6 good months of practice with the entirity of ZBF2L. Recognition seems like it won't be a problem after enough practice. After the New York competition I'll start working on ZBLL again as well. Well, I'm off to study for my exam tomorrow :-(

Done with a hybrid ZBF2L/COLL/PLL and OLL/PLL approach to the 3rd step of soving as a 3x3x3. I think this could come in handy as a strategy with more practice.

This was my first pure Fridrich average since January 27, for almost 13 weeks. Recognizing the last F2L pair is pathetically easy after being used to trying to recognize the ZBF2L case. I think I'll use ZBF2L as my method of practicing for May, but at the actual competition I'll honestly probably end up doing pure Fridrich. I can't wait until I know ZBF2L well enough to use it in competition. :-(

Today's stats 3x3x3:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 6 done today):

I finally went sub-19 for an average-average for the day :) I'm a little less than 1.5 seconds slower than with Fridrich now, and I'm getting much more comfortable with ZBF2L. I definitely don't have any doubts about the usefulness and quickness of ZBF2L with enough practice.

Today's stats 2x2x2:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 7 done today):

I think solving the 3x3x3 using VH techniques for the LL is definitely helping me improve my COLL recognition. I hope to go sub-7 for the 2x2x2 soon.

New record average:

Learning a new method is both incredibly exciting and extremely frustrating! Check out this average,

Three sub-15 times in the same average,

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 4 done today):

Ian Winokur and I did a few team blindfold solves over my webcam today. I was doing the solving and he was calling out the moves. I'm learning his and Raul's codes for the F2L, OLL, and PLL so I still have a lot of work to do. What got me excited is that for the last F2L pair Ian would call out the F2L case, then the correct edges so that I could do a ZBF2L alg. Most of the time I was able to do this correctly, though I messed it up a good bit too. This is cool though, because it means that for some of the ZBF2L cases I am comfortable enough with the alg to do it without even seeing the cube! I still have a ways to go to be able to do that with all of them, but I'm excited! This showed me that I am making progress with ZBF2L!

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 13 done today):

Aaaah I want to break my 17.80 record soooo badly!!! At least my average average is dropping, I now average 18-20 seconds most of the time. Right now I am almost as good with semi-ZB as I was with Fridrich at the 2004 US Championships. My average average is a little slower now, but not by a whole lot.

Today's stats:

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 4 done today):

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 5 done today):

I am going to claim sub-20 status with ZBF2L, since I can now back it up with hard data. My slowest averages are starting to be 21 or less and I get a greater majority of sub-20 averages than non sub-20 averages each day. I went consistent sub-20 with Fridrich in summer 2003, so I still have a way to go before I can catch up to my Fridrich times.

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 6 done today):

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 9 done today):

Fastest average:

Slowest average:

Fastest solve:

Slowest solve:

Average average (of the 13 done today):

The 16.22 was one of those special case solves where I could insert both the 3rd and 4th corner/edge pairs in relatively few moves so I did OLL->PLL for the LL instead of ZBF2L. I think I will continue to use OLL/PLL on these types of special case solves.

26.39 (31.34) 18.23 16.54 23.09 26.91 25.65 20.98 19.95 26.36 25.49 (16.28) = 22.96

23.56 (17.00) 27.61 23.13 19.82 22.05 18.43 21.67 (1:03.77) 26.62 18.87 18.67 = 22.04

18.45 28.66 (29.05) 19.48 24.42 (16.68) 24.68 24.93 19.30 24.64 25.33 17.02 = 22.69

This average was done later in the day. Sub-20! These were all done with scrambles from Netcube, and on the 27.47 solve I was able to spot a 7 move double Xcross during inspection, but I messed up the ZBF2L alg near the end.

19.91 19.59 18.15 23.29 (26.78) 21.81 23.32 22.65 17.12 17.26 26.05 (15.27) = 20.92

19.06 22.83 (17.71) 21.80 18.04 20.69 21.33 18.71 23.87 (1:10.06) 18.48 20.15 = 20.50

17.32 17.56 23.28 18.70 15.93 24.98 25.53 16.56 (15.35) (40.94) 21.20 17.36 = 19.84

This next average was taken later in the day. Recognition for the last c/e pair and LL edges seemed to go very quickly during this average. I'm starting to get more and more averages where I know all the ZBF2L cases and don't have to convert a case I don't know into one I do know. I can't wait till I know all the cases! It definitely helps to do the 3rd pair at less than full speed.

Later in the day again. Sub-20!!!! The 19.89 and 16.55 were ZBLL solves, and the 14.86 was a PLL skip after COLL.

This next average was done later in the day Mar. 9th. I think I did ZBF2L on either 5 or 6 solves in this average, so about 50-50. I'm going to stop taking averages for a while and get back to learning more cases. After that I'll try more 4x4 averages and see how it goes.

Here's another average from later in the day for the 4x4 using ZBF2L. I had a few mess-ups with using ZBF2L and I learned through the 1:38 solve the ZBLL is not a good strategy for the 4x4 because of the edge parities. My goal now is to perfect using the VH method for the 4x4 as a 3x3 step.

Go back