• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

adimare

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
381
Location
Costa Rica
WCA
2011MARE02
It doesn't make sense to teach ZZ so early. Its advantages (smoother F2L and oriented edges on LL) are lost on a beginner, the restriction of not being able to move the F and B faces is actually detrimental if you're solving corners first and then inserting edges (and trying to teach pair insertions or block-building instead of corners then edges might be too much). So even if they get EO, they'll be facing a much harder F2L and all they'll gain is not having to learn F R U R' U' F' to do EO on the last layer.
 

Berkmann18

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
245
Location
London, United Kingdom
WCA
2014BERK02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Roux's EO isn't very similar to ZZ at all. You might as well just teach ZZ EO. Also teach it four (or two) edges at a time, rather than 2-look. The simpler you make it at first, the easier it will be.

How is that even possible that you don't know that Roux/Petrus' EO detection rule is the same as one of ZZ's ?

"#1 (U/D): any edge having U/D stickers facing U/D are good otherwise it's bad"
 

aym

Member
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
6
Location
Henderson, NV
If you want to teach ZZ, you should go through Roux or Petrus' EO detection system first as it will help on getting one of the ZZ EO "rules" down which will make the EO detection on ZZ easier. You should also go through the 2-look approach of the EOline.

For teaching your method, I also don't know which suitable way could be handy :(

I actually use those characters that way and I find myself using | too for alternative (coder's habit).
For the name you might be changing to EpNc3CLS or perhaps EN3CLS or even AymLS.

I'm not vain enough to name it after myself. Also it's not good luck in the Chinese culture to do so. I still think EP+NC3C-LS.

I think teaching any of these will throw the kids for a loop. I want to build on what they previously learned, LBL starting with a white cross on the bottom. The other difficulty is teaching them something that will work for the team event, 8 students solving 25 cubes. Since the format of the contest does not have any inspection time, ZZ may be difficult. I have to rule out Roux, since the kids have never seen how to do middle slice turns. Some of them have a very hard time with finger tricks since their hands are so small. Petrus may be possible.

It doesn't make sense to teach ZZ so early. Its advantages (smoother F2L and oriented edges on LL) are lost on a beginner, the restriction of not being able to move the F and B faces is actually detrimental if you're solving corners first and then inserting edges (and trying to teach pair insertions or block-building instead of corners then edges might be too much). So even if they get EO, they'll be facing a much harder F2L and all they'll gain is not having to learn F R U R' U' F' to do EO on the last layer.

I agree with you about when to teach ZZ. My concern is that edge detection alone is a tough subject. Tried it on my 8-year old daughter and she glazed over almost instantly.

The absence of F and B turns doesn't worry me too much. For our school's club, I wrote my own guide teaching LBL-started with white cross on the bottom and didn't use F or B turns at all. For flipping the LL edges I taught x' U' R U R' x U' R' U R and R' U' R U x' R U' R' U x. Yea, it has a cube rotation, but for me at least, I could execute this faster than the usual one. The finger trick is really nice; the cube rotation feels so natural that it's not even there. I also get F R U R' U' F' confused with F U R U' R' F'. I know I'm lame. No flames required.

With that said, I know that F and B turns are inevitable. Looking at a CFOP style F2L you either have cube rotations or F and B turns and I prefer F and B turns over cube rotations. I think a ZZ F2L is easier but getting there is harder.

I kind of opened up the can of worms over turning style, but I know some of this really isn't up to me but the kids who are learning it. They won't know what turning style works for them and teaching them my style may not be in their best interest. Interestingly enough, my daughter doesn't do finger tricks. Her hands are too small. So she had to figure out a turning style that works for her. I've seen some of the kids imitate my moves and I've seen some that turn it in a beginner's sort of way. I guess at the end of the day they end up figuring out something that works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Berkmann18

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
245
Location
London, United Kingdom
WCA
2014BERK02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I agree with you about when to teach ZZ. My concern is that edge detection alone is a tough subject. Tried it on my 8-year old daughter and she glazed over almost instantly.

The absence of F and B turns doesn't worry me too much. For our school's club, I wrote my own guide teaching LBL-started with white cross on the bottom and didn't use F or B turns at all. For flipping the LL edges I taught x' U' R U R' x U' R' U R and R' U' R U x' R U' R' U x. Yea, it has a cube rotation, but for me at least, I could execute this faster than the usual one. The finger trick is really nice; the cube rotation feels so natural that it's not even there. I also get F R U R' U' F' confused with F U R U' R' F'. I know I'm lame. No flames required.

With that said, I know that F and B turns are inevitable. Looking at a CFOP style F2L you either have cube rotations or F and B turns and I prefer F and B turns over cube rotations. I think a ZZ F2L is easier but getting there is harder.

I kind of opened up the can of worms over turning style, but I know some of this really isn't up to me but the kids who are learning it. They won't know what turning style works for them and teaching them my style may not be in their best interest. Interestingly enough, my daughter doesn't do finger tricks. Her hands are too small. So she had to figure out a turning style that works for her. I've seen some of the kids imitate my moves and I've seen some that turn it in a beginner's sort of way. I guess at the end of the day they end up figuring out something that works.

Are they using small cubes or normal sized ones ?
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,006
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
How is that even possible that you don't know that Roux/Petrus' EO detection rule is the same as one of ZZ's ?

"#1 (U/D): any edge having U/D stickers facing U/D are good otherwise it's bad"
The edge orientation process is completely different with Roux and ZZ. One uses F/B moves, the other orients using <M, U>. There are also no E layer edges to worry about (and no pieces are in the E layer) so the recognition isn't very similar either.

Petrus could be seen as being similar to ZZ, and in fact it is if you hold the block in DL. However I believe almost every fast decently fast Petrus user holds the block in DB, does EO by orienting edges with R moves, and then rotates. Since all the pieces are on (and are from) two faces, recognition is also done differently, and although the process of orienting edges is the same, the orientation is done from a different angle, which could confuse a new cuber.
 

aym

Member
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
6
Location
Henderson, NV
Are they using small cubes or normal sized ones ?

Normal size. It's a Rubik's (7 Towns) sponsored event so they have to use "Rubik's" branded cubes. They all used Rubik's speed cubes. They're not terrible puzzles; corner cutting is not so hot, though.

Backing up a bit, I want to try to teach a 2-LLL with my EP+NC3C-LS method, which only takes 16 algs for LS and LL combined. I still have to look up TSEOLL, still sounds interesting. Barring that (because I still have to learn it and write a guide before classes start in the fall), I still think recognizing misoriented edges after the third CE is drop dead simple and I think they'll get it, especially if they know that yellow is on top and blue is in front. Flipping edges isn't too bad 3 moves + any AUF's. And they'll get a feel for what to look for if and when they're ready for ZZ. At least some of the edges.

Sounds good as theory. Not sure what they'll think of it.
 
Last edited:

Berkmann18

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
245
Location
London, United Kingdom
WCA
2014BERK02
YouTube
Visit Channel
The edge orientation process is completely different with Roux and ZZ. One uses F/B moves, the other orients using <M, U>. There are also no E layer edges to worry about (and no pieces are in the E layer) so the recognition isn't very similar either.

Petrus could be seen as being similar to ZZ, and in fact it is if you hold the block in DL. However I believe almost every fast decently fast Petrus user holds the block in DB, does EO by orienting edges with R moves, and then rotates. Since all the pieces are on (and are from) two faces, recognition is also done differently, and although the process of orienting edges is the same, the orientation is done from a different angle, which could confuse a new cuber.

I was talking about the detection not about the moves used to orient them.

Normal size. It's a Rubik's (7 Towns) sponsored event so they have to use "Rubik's" branded cubes. They all used Rubik's speed cubes. They're not terrible puzzles; corner cutting is not so hot, though.

Backing up a bit, I want to try to teach a 2-LLL with my EP+NC3C-LS method, which only takes 16 algs for LS and LL combined. I still have to look up TSEOLL, still sounds interesting. Barring that (because I still have to learn it and write a guide before classes start in the fall), I still think recognizing misoriented edges after the third CE is drop dead simple and I think they'll get it, especially if they know that yellow is on top and blue is in front. Flipping edges isn't too bad 3 moves + any AUF's. And they'll get a feel for what to look for if and when they're ready for ZZ. At least some of the edges.

Sounds good as theory. Not sure what they'll think of it.

If you plan on teaching them other method than ZZ, than I suggest you to check the VH method (fully managable with only 9 algs), but nothing oblige you to use teach them as a TSEOLL instead of a LSEOLL (so actual way) and doing it as a setup or pre-step for your method.
 
Last edited:

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,006
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I was talking about the detection not about the moves used to orient them.
Petrus EO detection is completely different imo, and the huge difference between the moves used to orient edges with ZZ and Roux will confuse beginners. There are also more types of pieces and they can be in more places. It could take 5 seconds to plan ZZ EO but I can recognise Roux EO almost instantly.

If you are going to try to teach ZZ to a beginner, I don't think teaching either methods first will be entirely helpful for the EO stage, although both will help to an extent.
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,006
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
I was talking about the detection not about the moves used to orient them.
Petrus EO detection is completely different imo, and the huge difference between the moves used to orient edges with ZZ and Roux will confuse beginners. There are also more types of pieces and they can be in more places. It could take 5 seconds to plan ZZ EO but I can recognise Roux EO almost instantly.

If you are going to try to teach ZZ to a beginner, I don't think teaching either methods first will be entirely helpful for the EO stage, although both will help to an extent.
 

2180161

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
750
Location
Illinois
WCA
2014HEDR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
nice double post there TDM!

On another note, I have trouble with EO, so that is why I suck at ZZ. However, the EO between ZZ and Petrus, are very similar, however, I thought petrus' EO was more algorithmic than ZZ
 

Lyn Simm

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
34
Petrus EO detection is completely different imo, and the huge difference between the moves used to orient edges with ZZ and Roux will confuse beginners. There are also more types of pieces and they can be in more places. It could take 5 seconds to plan ZZ EO but I can recognise Roux EO almost instantly.

If you are going to try to teach ZZ to a beginner, I don't think teaching either methods first will be entirely helpful for the EO stage, although both will help to an extent.

as a relative beginner, I grasped the concept of EO relatively quickly (minutes, not days) for The Petrus Method. the way my friend explained it to me was: "any edge that you cannot correctly place with [this moveset] is misoriented with respect to [the same moveset]. So we want to do [moves out of that moveset] to make all the 2-sticker pieces placeable." once you drop the fancy lingo and call it what it is, it becomes trivial!! beginners will just trace each piece mentally to see if it's oriented or not. cheap recognition tricks are silly for beginners.

the only problem with ZZ EO is that 12 pieces is too much for me to handle!! XD For The Petrus Method, its easier cause all the edges are on U and F. I don't think ZZ is a good beginner method. :(

for The Roux Method, it seems the goal moveset is {M,U2}
for The ZZ Method, its {R,U,L,D} -> {R,U,L}
and for The Petrus Method, its {R,U}

but all of the methods are using single F-moves or B-moves to orient the edges, if you ignore the rotations. what do you think??

-Lyn
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,006
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
On another note, I have trouble with EO, so that is why I suck at ZZ. However, the EO between ZZ and Petrus, are very similar, however, I thought petrus' EO was more algorithmic than ZZ
How do you recognise Petrus EO? I have a completely different method for it and ZZ.
the only problem with ZZ EO is that 12 pieces is too much for me to handle!! XD For The Petrus Method, its easier cause all the edges are on U and F. I don't think ZZ is a good beginner method. :(
I agree... EO is hard, and it helps to have done intuitive F2L beforehand to help with the blockbuilding.
all of the methods are using single F-moves or B-moves to orient the edges, if you ignore the rotations. what do you think??
Yes, this true. After all, it is the only way to orient edges [emoji14] However it really doesn't look like it with Roux.
 

Berkmann18

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
245
Location
London, United Kingdom
WCA
2014BERK02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Petrus EO detection is completely different imo, and the huge difference between the moves used to orient edges with ZZ and Roux will confuse beginners. There are also more types of pieces and they can be in more places. It could take 5 seconds to plan ZZ EO but I can recognise Roux EO almost instantly.

If you are going to try to teach ZZ to a beginner, I don't think teaching either methods first will be entirely helpful for the EO stage, although both will help to an extent.

Do you agree that one of the ways to recognise a bad U/D edge is the same for Roux, Petrus and ZZ, and that you can use Petrus's knowledge to orient edges even if it restrains you on the moves you can do ?

PS: you posted the same thing twice :)
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,006
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
Do you agree that one of the ways to recognise a bad U/D edge is the same for Roux, Petrus and ZZ, and that you can use Petrus's knowledge to orient edges even if it restrains you on the moves you can do ?
It's only the same if they're on the U/D layers.
PS: you posted the same thing twice :)
I know; I was having problems connecting and tried clicking post twice, since the first time didn't appear to have posted it (although apparently it did).
 
Top