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?
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)".
This is very interesting. As an older cuber whose fingers just don't go as fast, this is appealing as efficiency is a good way for me to improve. A more efficient path through the solve with minimal new algs to learn (i.e. just the EO algs) is very enticing. I'd love to see a tutorial video or series.
@@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.
I've been messing around with the method and LXS is such a fun step to do. I don't know the algorithms, but there are so many times when I just cancel into an F2L case while inserting the edge, which is super satisfying. The beginner EO algs are also pretty interesting, and you could kind of think about them intuitively if you borrow some ideas from Roux and ZZ EO. I think this is a pretty good method, and I hope there are more people trying to get faster with this method and discover its full potential.
Very interesting! Though I do feel like seven hundred something Algs is a crazy amount, if you put in the work and mastered this technique they’d be getting some insane times!
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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
As a Petrus main, this sounds like torture. But then again, I don’t like learning algs haha. Your comment about people who lack finger tricks hit me though. My turning style hasn’t evolved since 2007, and my wrists hate me for me 😂
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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
Hey @LiamHighducheck , great video, inspired me to try to create my own method. What is the algorithm analysis software mentioned at 6:22? Thanks in advance!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
![The BEST Speedcubing Method? [CFOP/ROUX/ZZ] Comparison](/img/1.gif)
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.
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
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)".
Aka one look
There's a way faster method (5 style )also could someone explain some othe advanced bld methods like zbld or ftft
Ye hang ( I can’t spell his name)
That might be true
@@JoMama-np3og LMAO🤣
The full name being One Look COPEOP (Corners Orient-Permute Edge Orient-Permute)
This is very interesting. As an older cuber whose fingers just don't go as fast, this is appealing as efficiency is a good way for me to improve. A more efficient path through the solve with minimal new algs to learn (i.e. just the EO algs) is very enticing. I'd love to see a tutorial video or series.
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
I've been messing around with the method and LXS is such a fun step to do. I don't know the algorithms, but there are so many times when I just cancel into an F2L case while inserting the edge, which is super satisfying. The beginner EO algs are also pretty interesting, and you could kind of think about them intuitively if you borrow some ideas from Roux and ZZ EO. I think this is a pretty good method, and I hope there are more people trying to get faster with this method and discover its full potential.
Very interesting! Though I do feel like seven hundred something Algs is a crazy amount, if you put in the work and mastered this technique they’d be getting some insane times!
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.
Cfop is faster its sadly not worth it to learn apb
zz and petrus are a lot easier to learn than this lol, zz is very similar to cfop
Sounds cool, can't hurt to give the BEST method a try. Plus I have time to learn a few algs during the summer.
I already knew about and love APB and plan to switch to it when i finally finish ZB because there's no point switching before full ZB
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
Last layer can still be solved with coll and really fast edge pll cases which is pretty nice and only 50-ish algs
Bro your chanel is extremly underrated, you put so much effort in your videos and they are actually really good videos, big respect👍👍👍
Thank you! I’m glad you like them
The mext method: 1-look 3 layers☠️
43 quin trillion algs
And it’s just blind solving
1l3l
@@mrigankakalita1943*quintillion (million, billion, trillion, quadrillion, quintillion)
@@LukeLane1984here (europe) we'd say
A million
A thousand millions
A billion
A thousand billions
A million billions
Million of billions
Great video. Apb user right here, been using it for 6 months
Thank you! Good luck with your future APB endeavours
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.
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
This is insane. Love the quality of the content. Would like to have more such videos. Subscribed! ❤
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
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!
Yo how’s it going bro ru still cubing
Amazing video!!
3 LIKES?!
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
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.
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.
@@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.
I know Summoning Salt has a great choice in music, but there are a lot of synth lofi tracks to choose from.
Can you give me some suggestions?
To increase your TPS, make sure you're using the new cover sheet.
Sounds like somebody’s got a case of the mundays.
cool method! thinking of trying it but i think i’ll just use oll pll for last layer
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 😂
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
how'd it go?
@@bl00dy-ca76 i didnt end up giving it a shot and i still avg 20-25
As a Petrus main, this sounds like torture. But then again, I don’t like learning algs haha.
Your comment about people who lack finger tricks hit me though. My turning style hasn’t evolved since 2007, and my wrists hate me for me 😂
Just lean to solve a 3x3 cube two days ago. Now I feel it is going to take me 10 years to become even half as good as what I just watched.
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.
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
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
as the 3x3 world record holder, I can say with certainty that this video is true
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
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
Honestly this video was supposed to be really niche and had no business getting as many views as it did
super cool video, well structured and interesting. Hope someone takes this method and runs with it
been cubing a while but then i just stopped some day, this vid has inspired me to keep going
(i subbed)
Good luck!
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
That bg music takes this video to nxt lvl
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
Dude... nice editing and background music
I’m already in the 95th percentile for viewers subscribing let’s goo barely even had to try
was about to send this to you then saw you posted it. shocked.
No shot RUclips raw recommended you an advanced underground method overview
I only have 5 algs memorized, and that's for the last layer, lol.
Even doing 20-30 algs would already be a stretch for me.
Just less than 30 algs for last layer, and another 12 for 2x2 Ortega method, easy peasy lemon squeezy 🎉
I will potentially switch, I do quite well with algs
When i saw the thumbnail i thought it was j perms video lol. Btw great vid!
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
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
Finally someone who uses Batch solver instead of cube explorer
Didn’t expect the video to be this good
Edited on mobile 💪💪
@@LiamHighducheck wtf actually?? I would not have the patience for that holy
heyrrison
please make tutorial, this might not be great for me for 2h, but for OH i am willing to look into this
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?
@@Arcticgdnmoreyou use the table to do M moves, just look at good roux OH solvers
I think I’ll stick with - less than 2 minutes! I’m in my 70’s and just can’t be bothered. . . . .
i might learn intuitive apb so that i know it. idk if ill switch, but i think that this is a great video.
this sounds so promising ,makes me wanna pick up the 3x3 once again.
at first i thought it was click bate. I will learn it. thanks!
This method is so good I need to learn it
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)
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.
There are so few tutorials on this method but I really want to learn it.
Ah yes. Time to learn 600 algorithms
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
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).
Or you could just use petrus
(But fr good video, interesting idea)
Alg methods are faster than intuitive methods
Alg heavy*
I will definitly look into this method, this seems very good 😎
hey! just a quick question, what's that software you're using to find the average movecount for ABS? If it's not open to the public, I'll understand.
As the first person who ever used this method as my main method, I would like to call you out for your deceptive title.
Time is not movecount/tps, you should include pauses too!
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
@@LiamHighducheck Thanks! Now I got it.
Very high quality video! For this i subscribed!😃But I will probably stick with cfop.
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.
As a GD player i can confirm abp is hard to memorize
Good one
It’s ok it’s not may so no compulsory maymory levels for me
last wave flashbacks
omg a video finally yay
I like to call APB "absolute personal best" like every time you do a solve you're gonna get your pb 😊
Here before APB method becomes very popular
Honestly just learn every zbll and winter variation and you’re good
baller method tbh
I was holding the cube before video starting and when it started i found u holding it from the same position
I am imterested, but I would need more input to decide, if this really makes sense. So I would love, if you make more vids about this method
is this a rubik's cube video or a summoning salt speed run video?
I have 2questions, what other things can we improve/optimize on this method and what do you think about doing CDRLL and L5EP instead of LXS and Zbll.
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
keep it up I want to see more
Feel like the lookahead and inspection for this method must suck though
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
That song at the end went way too hard on God
Ah yes, the "A Bizzare Phantasm" method
Mehta TDR, very good but 900 algs
Mehta-TDR is significantly and measurably worse than APB (because we did actually measure it!)
@@LiamHighducheck how come?
This method is so interesting!!
Hey @LiamHighducheck , great video, inspired me to try to create my own method. What is the algorithm analysis software mentioned at 6:22? Thanks in advance!
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 ❤️
This is actually really cool haha might experiment lol
I like how the method is literally called “a PB”
this makes me wanna watch summoningsalt
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.
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.
Cubing With Alex proves you wrong...
He didnt even learn a single LXS case, thats why he didnt achieve sub 15 in a month
This is really cool.
Congrats, Liam for 1000 subscribers. By the way, i am your 1000th Subscriber, 999 *Click*, 1000😎
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.
Can you do lxs tutorial video?
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).
Ah yes, the APB method, where you outsource your manhunt for the best time to the general public.
I’m at the point where I know I’ll never be exceptional at speed solving so I’m gonna be the guy who knows the random ass method nobody uses 😎
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
There are so many methods methods are being created every day
Just wondering, how do you get the cubes in the thumbnail?
Images were made with visual cube. If you look up “cube rider visual cube” it should come up
Can you make a tutorial on EO, since it seems to be to most important and tricky step coming from a 13 second CFOP solver.
woah that's so cool and also great video
Appreciated 🙏
The APB method gives you A PB everytime