ZZ-CT Thread

Discussion in 'How-to's, Guides, etc.' started by 4Chan, Jun 18, 2016.

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. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    948
    410
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    Not sure what happened to the website... @gyroninja?

    In the mean time you can just use the archived pages, although images don't work properly.
     
  2. ECSCubed

    ECSCubed Member

    14
    2
    Jul 28, 2017
    Pensacola, FL
    YouTube:
    ECSCubed
    Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?
     
  3. Doing Cubing

    Doing Cubing Member

    17
    1
    Jul 13, 2017
    Illinois, USA
    YouTube:
    Doing Cubing
    The website is now back online, I checked this morning.
     
  4. bren077s

    bren077s Member

    46
    11
    Dec 17, 2015
    ZZ-CT is a higher move count than all of the previous stated methods. This means that you will need to turn faster than people who know the other methods in order to get the same solve times. I think that any method that you enjoy and dedicate yourself to can lead to high speeds, but I do not think you will easily beat Roux, Petrus, or ZZ(okay, maybe petrus).
     
  5. ypermcuber

    ypermcuber Member

    11
    0
    Aug 19, 2017
    Does anyone have a good system for recognizing TTLLs?
     
  6. Aerma

    Aerma Member

    204
    47
    Apr 1, 2017
    Right here
    Recognize them just as you would a PLL case
     
  7. TyeDye

    TyeDye Member

    25
    0
    Mar 26, 2016
    Kansas, USA
    WCA:
    2017WIEC02

    Alright, so I disagree with you because the only thing that you mentioned was move count, which a lot of people will tell you, means almost nothing if you can execute it faster. The two major things that make up a fast solve are TPS (knowing your algs and executing them fast) and fluidity (good lookahead with no pauses). Having good algs does also factor in a bit but I find that it falls under TPS because the algs that you're most comfortable with, you'll turn faster. Move count really doesn't matter unless it's associated with a step skip (which luckily ZZ-CT has, I believe, the highest chances of a skip that any other method).


    Now, just going off of ZZ, I think it's a great method. It uses mainly <R,U,L> moves after the first step, which are much more ergonomic than F or B moves. I know that I can perform a R U R' U' faster than a U F R or some other similar move. It also uses no rotations since everything is already oriented into that position and you can use process of elimination to track edges that you can't see both sides of. This, for me, was a god send after using CFOP for years. I never really got around to learning full OLL, so I was still using 2 look. So there was no problem with getting used to OLL with ZZ and PLL is the exact same. The only thing was getting used to EOLine which isn't even hard after you've done like 100-200 solves. Blockbuilding is also very simple after you start recognizing the cross edge as a block edge instead.


    Now, this is where the ZZ-CT comes in. You have one less pair to do, which Tran already said, you get used to not solving after you've been doing CT for a while. So, with one less pair, this is technically a skip. And that comes with the benefit of saved time. You just jump straight into TSLE.


    And of course with TSLE, it's 100% R and U moves, which as I mentioned earlier, are wonderful and ergonomic. And they can be as short as one trigger and only as long as four. And it reduces down with each trigger which makes learning the entirety, fairly straighforward.


    Then, there are the ridiculously high chances of skips for TSLE and TTLL. This is a welcome change for a CFOP solver. ZZ solvers may also be surprised at how often they get skips as well.


    And that brings me to my last point of TTLL recognition which is possible by only looking at the front and right sides. 72 cases! By only looking at two sides! That's amazing!


    So, do I think that ZZ-CT could beat Petrus, Roux, or CT? Honestly, I think that it could. The skips and ergonomics alone make it a good candidate. Petrus is already beaten, honestly. I know no one off the top of my head that really cares about Petrus or is very good at it. ZZ, I will say is disqualified since this is ZZ, just a subset. Roux is more difficult since it is an entirely different method in almost every sense. I believe that for now, Roux does beat it. If I'm not wrong, Roux doesn't require rotations and is very good with ergonomics with the slices moves and extremely intuitive which, I think, is a good quality. However, I do think that if enough people got behind CT, it could beat Roux. Lots of practice and some time. It has a good shot.
     
  8. Pyjam

    Pyjam Premium Member

    790
    35
    Oct 8, 2010
    Paris, France
    How do you think the chances of a skip are ridiculously high when ZZ-CT has 197 algorithms for 2 steps?

    Ignore Sune and AntiSune cases, there are 328 ZBLL remaining. If you learn 159 of them (less than 197 so), your chances to skip EPLL is 1/2*. I wonder how ZZ-CT can beat that.

    (*) Even if you count Sune/AS cases as non-skip cases, 159/493 is close to 1/3, still way better thant the chances to skip TSLE or TTLL.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
  9. TyeDye

    TyeDye Member

    25
    0
    Mar 26, 2016
    Kansas, USA
    WCA:
    2017WIEC02

    The problem with that is that you are learning 159 individual unique algorithms to have the 1/2 chance. With TSLE, you are learning 104 cases which all reduce into each other. Which means that it is much faster to learn and execute.
     
  10. xyzzy

    xyzzy Member

    594
    235
    Dec 24, 2015
    If you really want to count "learning cases which reduce into each other", fish and chips (or SIMPLE) has higher skip rates, fewer algs, and lower average move count than ZZ-CT. (It's not really a fair comparison because fish and chips is essentially 2-look ZBLL, which is one more look than the 2-look LSLL you get with ZZ-CT, but it still fares better in terms of move count in spite of requiring one more look.)
     
  11. TyeDye

    TyeDye Member

    25
    0
    Mar 26, 2016
    Kansas, USA
    WCA:
    2017WIEC02

    Sounds interesting, I'll look into it
     
  12. Tao Yu

    Tao Yu Member

    1,016
    52
    Jun 29, 2011
    Ireland
    WCA:
    2012YUTA01
    YouTube:
    taoxyu
    I feel like people here don't realize that ZZ-CT isn't the best subset of ZZ. ZZ-a is. If ZZ is going to beat Roux or CFOP, CT is not the variant that's going to give it it's best chance.

    Even Chris Tran says this in this first post of this thread.

    ZBLL has many advantages: Lower movecount, you can finish the F2L with any slot, no rotations before doing the alg, easier to recognise from multiple angles, and algs that are just as good if not better.

    The only "problem" is that there are 472 algs, but honestly this shouldn't be a problem for the type of person who is going to put in the practise to get sub 7 with ZZ. It's also easier than it has ever been before to learn the algs, with trainers such as Roman's and mine available.

    It's still a lot of work, sure, but I would hope that the "Alex Lau of ZZ" would push the method to the absolute limit, rather than be too lazy to learn the best subset - I would be very disappointed if they used ZZ-CT.
     
  13. Pyjam

    Pyjam Premium Member

    790
    35
    Oct 8, 2010
    Paris, France
    It is often recommended not to learn Sune cases for ZBLL, so there are 328 cases remaining (not counting PLL), of which 28 are COLL that people likely already know at this level. So, actually, ZBLL has only 300 new cases, and some of them are already known because they are easy 1-LLL (8-11 moves long).

    From my point of view, I prefer to learn some additional cases from the CLS subset to solve the last pair for the hard cases.
     
    Tao Yu likes this.

Share This Page