[Help Thread] ZZ and ZB Discussion

Discussion in 'Cubing Help & Questions' started by koreancuber, Apr 29, 2010.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    I actually do count them from the same angle. I look at an edge and work whether it is oriented or not on every one.

    Like this:
    [​IMG]
     
  2. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    I have more information:

    I did 6 solves and timed the EO axis recognition and the line recognition.

    1. 15.42, 1:18.73, 1:34.16
    2. 17.62, 52.42, 1:10.45
    3. 11.16, 34.78, 45.94
    4. 36.75, 40.69, 1:17.45
    5. 35.20, 23.13, 58.34
    6. 13.18, 53.61, 1:06.79

    I think the first step is getting better, apart from practicing solves, not much I can do there. But I feel like the second step is good with 0-4 misoriented edges, but weaker with 6+ misoriented edges. I think I should train with 6+ misoriented edge scrambles. Do you agree?
     
  3. pinser

    pinser Member

    193
    27
    Feb 12, 2014
    I just had to get this on the first solve of the session.

    11.26 D R2 U' L2 U' R2 B2 R2 B2 U2 F2 L U' L2 B2 F' L2 F2 L2 R'

    F2 L2 F D’ L2 D’
    U R2 U2 R’ L2 U2 L2 U’ R’ U L
    U R U2 R U R2 UR’ U2 R U R’ U
    28 HTM
     
    CubingGenius likes this.
  4. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    I also got a LL skip on the first solve of my session yesterday as well that also came to 28 HTM.

    13.16

    L2 B2 F2 R2 U L2 U L2 U' L2 F' L B2 U R F2 U R2 D' F'

    y' R d L R' F L R D'
    R2 U2 R U R
    U' L' U L U' L' U2 L' U L
    U L U L'
    U2

    Lol.
     
    pinser likes this.
  5. mDiPalma

    mDiPalma Member

    1,475
    254
    Jul 12, 2011
    Because some people erroneously believe that phasing takes more moves than TSLE, and the forum search function is too useless to find any information to prove them wrong...

    On a flight without a physical cube, I mentally went through all the possible last-slot F2L cases (<RU>) and came up with these statistics for creating+inserting a pair and phasing the LL edges:

    To reduce the F2L state to either a pair in the U-layer (any AUF) or an R-U-R' type insert (just that single AUF), 4.667 moves are required.

    (As a side note, to reduce the F2L state to a pair in the U-layer (any AUF), 5.573 moves are required.)

    Of these, 20/75 are the R-U-R' type, which takes 5.667 moves to insert while phasing, using basic intuition of the 3 unique cases.

    52/75 are pair-types that have edges at UR or UB. These all require a 1 move AUF before insertion while phasing.

    1/75 has the edge at UL which requires .667 moves to AUF.

    2/75 have the edge at UF which requires .333 moves to AUF (one of these is literally taking a LS-skipped pair out of the slot).

    Of the pair types, 4.333 moves are required to insert the pair while phasing, using basic intuition of the 3 unique cases.

    Combining those statistics and frequencies, we see that 10.067 moves <RU> are required to solve *any* LS case while phasing the LL edges.

    And if you aren't dumb about how you deal with a LS-skip, I believe this number drops to 10.004 htm <RU>.

    *although i believe i'm pretty (hopefully, by now, perfectly) efficient with <RU>, I may have missed something shorter, so these are upper bounds.

    ---

    Now, according to Phillip Espinoza, TSLE requires 10.37 htm (I think this is <RU>; if not, the <RU> movecount would exceed 10.37). Add .75 moves for AUF and you have 11.12 htm <RU> for TSLE from any initial F2L state.

    ---


    Therefore, creating and inserting the final F2L pair while phasing the LL edges is more than 1 move <RU> shorter than TSLE.
     
  6. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    934
    401
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    I believe Philip's estimation already includes AUF.

    I generated my own algs with an optimal number of (R U* R' U*) triggers and got an average move count of 10.65 including AUF. You can check my math if you like: (0.75 + 3*3.75 + 24*7.75 + 73*11.75 + 4*15.75)/105. If you generate pure <RU> you can get a bit shorter for some cases (eg the four 15 move cases are all 11 moves optimal in <RU>), but for the vast majority, the trigger combos are already optimal in <RU>, so the average move count won't be much lower.

    Your point still stands though. Phasing in 2-gen is still a bit shorter than 2-gen TSLE.
     
  7. pinser

    pinser Member

    193
    27
    Feb 12, 2014
    Is ZZLL merely a stepping stone to full ZBLL or is it fast enough to use by itself?
     
  8. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    Simon Kalhofer used it to get the first official sub 10 average with ZZ in the world I believe.

    So it would be fast enough to use on its own. It's definitely superior to OCLL/PLL and COLL/EPLL.
     
  9. Does anyone know what an official 13.79 3x3 2H average would rank me among ZZ solvers?
     
  10. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    934
    401
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    No idea, and also no way of knowing. But I know there are several ZZ solvers with 10.xx averages, so definitely not that high up.
     
  11. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    How many with sub 9 averages?
     
  12. genericcuber666

    genericcuber666 Member

    207
    26
    Aug 5, 2016
    so if zzll has less moves for the first step, and I already know how to recognize the second step well, because of coll, could someone remind me why i'm supposed to be learning zzct
     
  13. mDiPalma

    mDiPalma Member

    1,475
    254
    Jul 12, 2011
    zzll (second step) is also less moves than ttll

    now you see why many people question the adequacy of zzct
     
  14. genericcuber666

    genericcuber666 Member

    207
    26
    Aug 5, 2016
    I think that i'm going to learn zzll, phasing is easier, I already know a lot of the algs and the recognition is so much easier. Also currently the algs are better.


    I'll learn ct when I average sub 6 and I really want to get lucky and get a wr...
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
  15. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    Why would you change methods when you average 6 seconds? Why don't you just use ZZ-CT now?
     
  16. genericcuber666

    genericcuber666 Member

    207
    26
    Aug 5, 2016

    I don't like CT, I've used a fairly good 2 look system and it feels restrictive.

    The only way I can see myself wanting to learn CT is if I'm so fast that I just need to be lucky to get a wr/ER
     
  17. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    But at that point, wouldn't it take an extremely large amount of practice to get back to the times you had beforehand?

    Anyway, ZZ-CT's chances of skips aren't very good. I suppose learning OLS would increase the chance to 1/72 LL skip, but even then the chances aren't that good. I think the best way to get a good single would be learning how to force easier F2L cases and avoid bad cases.
     
    GenTheThief likes this.
  18. genericcuber666

    genericcuber666 Member

    207
    26
    Aug 5, 2016
    i've been looking at zzll algs and they don't seem to bad.
    Should I use baum-harris recognition?
    is it ever worth learning advanced phasing?
    could I realistically use zzll for oh?

    my point was the only benefit I see with ct is skips, I don't care about skips I want a good average, also if I learn it now I will eventually have to relearn all the algs because they're not very optimised yet
     
  19. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    Isn't the change of TSLE skip 1/108 and TTLL 1/360? Not very good chances at all...

    Advanced phasing would be a good idea.

    Baum-Harris sounds good. All you need to do is compare one edge's sticker to a corner.

    Simon Kalhofer uses ZZLL for OH and has a 13.70 OH average.
     
  20. TheBrutux168

    TheBrutux168 Member

    148
    89
    Oct 3, 2014
    Sydney
    WCA:
    2014WONG08
    YouTube:
    TheBrutux168
    <iframe width="500" height="300" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R4_S8Scd63I?vq=hd720&amp;iv_load_policy=3&amp;rel=0&amp;showinfo=0&amp;theme=light&amp;color=white&amp;autohide=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Critique please? I feel like my F2L is inefficient but I don't really know how it compares to good ZZ solves. And also at times I feel like the efficient way of doing things ends up being unergonomic. Do ZZ solvers always go for efficiency in F2L or is there a balance? Or should I just practice the things I feel are unergonomic?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2017

Share This Page