Aka one look

There's a way faster method (5 style )also could someone explain some othe advanced bld methods like zbld or ftft

it's like that method where you must already have previous knowledge of cubing in order to learn the method

@@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

It also seems like it would be those things with a super steep learning curve but once you learn it your progression will be bigger than ever

​@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?

@@AttackOnTyler i think that's on you for not knowing cfop yet "2nd layer" is not a thing in advanced cfop

wow rlly omg that’s so cool, 你会说中文吗？

thank you I worked really hard to get there and it means a lot to see people recognise me :)

oh m gee its max park

@@archiehandler1292Bro Max Park holds the world record

this is a common misconception so i don’t blame you for making this mistake

Cfop is faster its sadly not worth it to learn apb

learning 700 algs isnt efficient

​@@chrisr6950huh? it is? oh nvm I think I get what you misunderstood. he meant that his solve can become more (move) efficient. which means less moves and less moves mean less turns and less turns means a lower time.

I'm an older cuber too. I would consider myself pretty experienced, but slow. I consistently average sub 5. Sub 5 TPS that is. In my 10+ years cubing journey I've looked into all major methods, including ZZ , Petrus and Roux, but never really switched from cfop. I started to learn coll and wv, but never completed them. This is mainly because the cases come up too rarely. APB seems to be the perfect method for me. With my low TPS, but good understanding of the cube, I might improve beyond what was doable for me before. And I might finally learn wv and coll. Thanks for sharing. And keep the tutorials flowing. Make one for the 11 EO-cases.

​@@chrisr6950That's the most advanced version

Thank you! I’m glad you like them

Thank you! Good luck with your future APB endeavours

(i subbed)

Good luck!

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

Sounds like somebody’s got a case of the mundays.

Appreciated 🙏

Before full zbll you mean right?

​@@OneDerscoreOnederZBLL is part of the ZB method, along with ZBLS which is a way to solve last slot and edge orientation at the same time

@@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.

Full zbll is not necessary. So just learn eopair and LXS

@@OneDerscoreOneder Ye i call ZBLS EOLS so i can just call ZBLL ZB so ye i meant just ZBLL

There are no blind spots in any parts of apb if you plan 2x2x3 in inspection which you really should if you are looking to seriously do APB

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)

@@LiamHighducheck Thank you for your respond, i can't believe this has been designed to be better than Mehta lol.

@@PureRockerHK ye the original mehta method promo vid actually links APB as the methods successor in the des.

@@rujon288 no wonder why they are so similar in certain ways XD

No shot KZfaq raw recommended you an advanced underground method overview

Can you give me some suggestions?

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.

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.

@@LiamHighducheck yeah but some alg (7 only) can help you. (W variation or summer variation + one of then ) and you had done the yellow face

@@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.

CDRLL and L5EP is better

APB CDRLL

After EOpair, you solve the front F2L pair (DFR+FR) You solve the last layer with CDRLL (42 algs) Then solve the last 5 edges with L5EP (16 algs)

Solving the last layer with OLL and PLL defeats the purpose of the method.

@@ugwuanyicollins6136its easier 😂

Good one

It’s ok it’s not may so no compulsory maymory levels for me

last wave flashbacks

Edited on mobile 💪💪

@@LiamHighducheck wtf actually?? I would not have the patience for that holy

heyrrison

Just less than 30 algs for last layer, and another 12 for 2x2 Ortega method, easy peasy lemon squeezy 🎉

It’s called Batch Solver, it’s made by Trangium and Ryan Hudgens has a tutorial for it. It’s very useful

@@LiamHighducheck thank youu ❤️

Roux is best for OH, there's no way you're going to learn to optimize all those algs for OH

Wouldn't this be pretty difficult for OH because you have to do algorithms that use middle slices?

@@yaboisbunker7744you use the table to do M moves, just look at good roux OH solvers

whats wrong with LxS and ZB not only are they developed highly but they are also proven to be pretty optimal

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.

Ok thanks

Do vids for fingertricks please Liam

Do you mean for the beginner variant?

I think you meant 2 look OLL and PLL. I use 17 PLL only, breaking down G perms to 2 PLL 😂 Old man can't remember much algs

Batch solver which was created by Trangium. Ryan Hudgens has a tutorial on how to use it (has a bit of a learning curve but after you gen your first alg set you should be fine)

Trangium made the MCC then later on he made batch solver and integrated the MCC in. I would say he’s not the first person to think of the idea since Jperm had this one video where he did a simplified version of it but I’d say he’s almost certainly the first person to actually make a good software version optimised for a large amount of algs

@@LiamHighducheck ye although I’ve found it to be a bit weird in its ranking when it comes to things greater than 3-gen

ZBLS is bad

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

@@ugwuanyicollins6136absolutely. I hate FR dependant methods just cuz doing wide d in between Steps is the worst for lookahead

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).

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.

EO pair is limited but i think the ideal advanced Petrus solver would combine steps like EO and 2 gen block-building to what is intuitively optimal. this would sometimes manifest with EO pair + LxS but it wouldn't be constricted to that and i know that kinda defeats the whole 'algorithmic aspect of APB but the algs in APb are extremely intuitive anyway.

I think it could because if you’re in the EO223 state, solving the back right pair then doing LXS is the most efficient 2 step way to solve the right block (we did some tests on this a while back). EOPair is a great alg set though, but of course recognition is a massive learning curve and the finger tricks can be quite complex. Good luck with your sub-15 journey!

Alg heavy*