ZZ Cubers

Discussion in 'General Speedcubing Discussion' started by JohnnyA, Dec 28, 2008.

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
    Blocks won't always be enough to recognise the whole case. If you have a 2x1x1, for example, you won't have enough information to solve the case. And if you can use blocks to recognise TTLLs in one step, you would be able to use this for ZZLL as well. You need to work out the permutation of 4 corners and the permutation of 2 edges compared to having to work out the orientation and permutation of 3 corners and the permutation of 1 edge.

    For me, the recognition would work like this:

    ZZLL recognition:
    Step 1: Orientation and Permutation of 3 corners (same as COLL)
    Step 2: Edge permutation of 1 edge

    TTLL recognition:
    Step 1: Permutation of 4 corners
    Step 2: Edge permutation of 2 edges
     
    Teoidus likes this.
  2. 4Chan

    4Chan Premium Member

    2,984
    580
    Jun 21, 2008
    Lumbridge
    YouTube:
    boxxybabee
    You do realise that I don't look at the permutation for anything, right?
    They ALWAYS give enough information.

    You're also working purely from conjecture.
    Anyone who's reached a certain level in ZBLL or 1LLL recognition just looks at patterns.

    TTLL is a simpler pattern, simpler blocks.


    My message to everyone is simple:

    Stop guessing and conjecturing.
    Actually go and learn those methods you're talking about.

    If you like ZZLL, just go ahead and do it, get fast averages, and congratulations.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
    Lazy Einstein likes this.
  3. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    Setup: R' U2 R U R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U'

    How would you use your block method in this example? I'm not sure how you would do it.

    I know 4 COLL cases of ZBLL from all 4 angles and dozens of other ZBLLs, so I can recognise the cases already very well. I was just confused how you would get the information for the case, because I can't seem to work out how.
     
  4. 4Chan

    4Chan Premium Member

    2,984
    580
    Jun 21, 2008
    Lumbridge
    YouTube:
    boxxybabee
    It's just like PLL, literally.
    I just know the colours of all the cases, just like how an A perm = block + headlights + opposite colours

    The case you listed has a block with a bunch of opposite colours, and is the only one with that particular combination. No mental gymnastics required, just pure reflex.


    If you watch the last minute of this video, you can see how I do it quickly.
     
    CubingGenius likes this.
  5. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    Thank you for explaining. I thought you were originally saying after seeing a 1x1x2 block you don't look at the other pieces and already know the cases since you didn't mention them.

    I think I would find it more difficult learning the cases to make a unique recognition method for each one, so I think I prefer my recognition method. But yours is also very good as well.

    Now I understand it better, it is quite a good recognition method. Thank you for explaining so I now know how it works. :)

    By the way, do you always AUF the F2L corner to the UBL slot?
     
  6. Rubik's cubed

    Rubik's cubed Member

    37
    1
    Mar 17, 2017
    Hi, I am new to zz and I can't find a good place to learn eo line. I get the idea, but I always end up with an odd number of bad edges. Anyone know where to learn? Thanks!
     
  7. You can never have an odd number of bad edges so you must be recognising wrong. Have a look for asmallkitten's ZZ tutorial.
     
  8. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    934
    401
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    Videos are great and all, but with EOLine, I think a text tutorial is best. I still think the best place to learn to recognise EO is Conrad Rider's tutorial: http://cube.crider.co.uk/zz.php?p=eoline
     
  9. RonM

    RonM Member

    26
    6
    Apr 4, 2017
    Central Illinois, USA
    Dropping my name here as a budding ZZ cuber. Learned it from asmallsheep's tutorials and have since fallen in love (seriously need to rewatch those. So much useful info).

    My PB with it is embarrassing and irrelevant given how new I am to speedcubing in general, and especially ZZ but I checked my Ao12 today and it's 1:38, which I don't think is too bad considering my CFOP Ao50 is barely sub 60 currently.

    I'm picking up ZZF2L fairly quickly, but coming from CFOP I'm not used to even attempting to track anything more than the 4 pieces of my cross, so when I get 6 or more bad edges I struggle to track them all; the struggle only gets more real with more bad edges. I feel like with practice and plenty of slow solves my EOLine, and ZZF2L, will get faster.

    Right now I'm just using 3LLL (because ZZ is awesome and OLL is easy with it) and have started memorizing more perms (I know the U perms, J perms, A perms, Y, T, and E perms so far). I'm aware there are a lot of great LL alg sets that go well with ZZ... but which one would you guys recommend for a beginner? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. :p
     
  10. Rpotts

    Rpotts Member

    1,858
    26
    Mar 23, 2008
    KC
    WCA:
    2010POTT01
    YouTube:
    rpotts1
    In my opinion the best beginner LL for ZZ is OLL/PLL, two look PLL for the cases you don't know.
     
  11. RonM

    RonM Member

    26
    6
    Apr 4, 2017
    Central Illinois, USA
    Thanks for the input, Rpotts! I always appreciate seeing your replies.

    As a follow up, when one is ready to move on from a beginner LL what LL would you recommend to begin learning next?
     
  12. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    934
    401
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    Learn H and Z perms to finish a full 3 look LL. After that, finishing PLL is a fairly natural progression and will let you finish LL in 2 looks every time. Once you're comfortable with full PLL, I recommend gradually learning COLL. Replace one corner set at a time. I recommend learning T, then U, then L, then Pi and then H. Leave Sune and Anti-Sune for last, but they're actually not as bad as some people make them out to be.
     
    RonM and pglewis like this.
  13. pglewis

    pglewis Member

    497
    806
    Sep 23, 2016
    Cincinnati
    WCA:
    2016LEWI07
    @RonM: I'm dipping a toe into ZZ as well, currently a low 30 second CFOP'er. I already know full PLL and nearly half of OLL so I'm already able to 2-look worst case with pre-oriented edges. COLL would by my next step for an alg-set, 1:12 chance of PLL skip and an EPLL case guaranteed otherwise. Actually, COLL would be on my priority list next even with CFOP but I'd be able take immediate advantage of it with ZZ since I can already always 2-look. Working backwards from considering COLL is what led me to try ZZ.
     
  14. RonM

    RonM Member

    26
    6
    Apr 4, 2017
    Central Illinois, USA
    So it's decided then, I'll learn the remaining PLLs (I actually know H and Z already, just forgot to list them) then start learning COLL.

    Do you see yourself favoring ZZ over CFOP so far? I've read/heard a lot of people say they "would switch, but invested so much time into [method] already". I'm fortunate enough to be almost as bad at ZZ as I am with CFOP, so I feel like after getting over the steep learning curve that is EOLine, ZZ will yield better results for me. I find that block building is a TON easier for me than pairing in CFOP, but that's likely because white stickers are a lot easier to see on edges therefore easier to find.
     
  15. pglewis

    pglewis Member

    497
    806
    Sep 23, 2016
    Cincinnati
    WCA:
    2016LEWI07
    After a few weeks of splitting practice time between normal CFOP and EO-CFOP (I'm not even doing EO+Line or block building yet) I have the same opinion as I did the first day I experimented, only with more conviction: if I were confident I could reliably plan EOLine in under 15 seconds I'd formally switch right now for 3x3. My lookahead is not innately very good and is slow to develop. Pre-oriented edges presents a much better world for me, less chaos than what I end up doing in a normal CFOP solve and it results in more enjoyment. Since the first day of experimenting with EO I often catch myself starting to plan a cross and think "screw that" and start looking at EO instead.

    If my personal laser-focused goal was to reach a sub-20 3x3 average as soon as possible from where I am then it would make most sense to just stick with CFOP and spam F2L as much as time allows. I'm at the stage where I have all the tools to get there but for the remaining lookahead deficit. With occasional singles in the low 20s now I've started to think forward to what life after sub-20 means for me because it's no longer some pie in the sky goal I set while I was over 2 mins. Sub 20 was such a ridiculous idea for so long that I hadn't given consideration to "what about sub 15?" Turning faster is always a viable option, better lookahead is always a viable option, but moving beyond OLL/PLL would be the next obvious thing for me to explore and COLL easily seems to be the most bang for the buck in that direction. Last slot twiddling in order to get a COLL case isn't very attractive to me, cool as it may be, so I literally worked backwards from considering COLL to considering ZZ.

    So, the worst possible damage I can see from looking into it-- even if it turns out to be a side-trip I abandon-- is it just delays me reaching some arbitrary next plateau with my current method by claiming practice time. In reality I believe it's going to improve my CFOP solves: better EO awareness leading to less rotational chaos during F2L and the move restrictions are forcing me to re-evaluate several F2L cases I've been approaching too generally. Continued CFOP practice with mixed orientation wasn't shedding a direct light on those cases until ZZ took away my sledgehammers.

    By speedsolving standards we're basically at the same level and it's the same for me. Given unlimited inspection time I could probably nail a PB single with just EO+CFOP now, with all the opportunities for luck. An easy 4-edge fix, cooperative rotationless F2L, OLL skip and an easy PLL... nothing completely crazy and a sub 20 recipe for me if I ever saw one. And from there I'm 40 COLL algs away from adding a 1:12 shot at PLL skip as a cherry on top of the built-in 8x greater chance of LL and OLL skip. The only question mark at all is if and how long it will take me to be able to do EOLine within the inspection window (leaving time to set the cube down and activate the timer means about 12 seconds max to me). TBH, the only strong arguments against that I've seen are that ready-made pairs spotted in inspection are harder to preserve and if I'm going to look deeper during inspection I could put that effort into x-cross. CFOP is still that constant reminder that you shouldn't underestimate judicious use of brute force when time is of the essence.
     
    RonM likes this.
  16. RonM

    RonM Member

    26
    6
    Apr 4, 2017
    Central Illinois, USA
    @pglewis As of last night I'm finally at a point where, given an unlimited inspection time, I am averaging sub 60 with ZZ! It seems a lot of my gains are in consistency though, with my standard deviation dropping from 40s to 5-10s over the last week.

    While I have no hope of doing inspection in under 15 seconds right now, I still try to go through it as fast as I can and have started using my fingers less to tag all the bad edges and instead only use them to visualize where the remaining bad edges are going to be after fixing the first four; this is a big step up for me and I think is largely why my times are growing more consistent. It's not longer about fixing six individual edges; it's about fixing a group of three then four, or fixing two then four or four then two - I've grown more versatile and comfortable with EO and for whatever reason fixing six edges is harder for me to plan than even 8 or more. I'm still not quite ready for EOLine and still do EO+Line, but I've start practicing tracking my line as I do EO as a "training wheel" until I can do full EOLine. Regardless, the time from picking up the cube and until F2L starts is about 15 seconds for me which is, honestly, embarrassing to admit. I think it takes me so long in part because I'm in the habit of checking for bad edges after fixing all of them - nothing seems to frustrate me more with a ZZ solve than discovering I missed a bad edge in the middle of a solve - and finding my first block or F2L pair can take a couple seconds. Then my LL takes between 4-7 seconds, depending if I know the PLL or not and if I need to U to recognize it.

    With that in mind I've been memorizing more PLLs and have only the Ns left to memorize and only the Gs to finish cementing (just finished memorizing them yesterday). My plan being to get them all into memory then use a PLL trainer sporadically but frequently throughout the day, for a few days, to drill them and with focus on the ones I'm weaker with. I figure if I can reliably 2LLL in 3-4 seconds then it'll just come down to reducing EOLine to sub 5 seconds and I'll be sub 30 even without any real improvement to my F2L. From there my plan is just to practice strictly slow solving for a couple days at a time between Ao100s, with a focus on efficient block-building, look ahead and overall solve fluidity for a couple weeks; I'm hoping that will take me to sub 20 or sub 25. I figure it's at that point PLL will be more reflexive, I'll have an overall better understanding of the cube and learning to recognize and execute COLLs will be much easier; with PLLs to fall back on if I don't know the COLL yet.

    I did try a handful of CFOP solves and set a new CFOP PB and Ao12: 39.03 PB and sub 50 Ao12.

    It is interesting that I, as a newbie CFOPer switching to ZZ, improved at CFOP just as a byproduct of committing to ZZ. I suspect a big part of it is because planning my cross was ridiculously easier than it used to be so I was able to spot multiple options for my first F2L pair instead of being concerned with positioning the cross; and then as you said, the EO awareness really helps kind of organize things during F2L. I had my cross and first F2Ls pairs inserted, on average, in the time it normally takes me to EO+Line. My times probably could have gotten better with more solves because at first rotating was really throwing me off but towards the middle and end I identified it as a problem and simply paid more careful attention to it. I never learned OLL either but at this point it's very, very far down on my priority list since I would much rather memorize COLL. I still find solving with ZZ much more enjoyable and have zero regrets about switching to it.

    But honestly, right now, sub 20 still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream to me, like it probably did with you, with ZZ or CFOP. Even now my best ZZ time is 42.83 seconds and it felt like my EO+Line, ZZF2L and LL all flowed really well except a small pause on PLL. I take comfort in that when I watch sub 20, and to a lesser degree sub 10, solvers on YT I can mostly follow their turns and see what is going on if not where it's going and it wasn't but a few weeks ago I had to put things like that in half speed to be able to keep up. I'm hoping that with just time and practice everything will come together. I'm really not worried about getting my inspection time to under the 15s mark (well 12s mark) yet since I don't compete and speedsolve for fun more than anything else. I'm sure when I get closer to sub 30 I'll become more concerned with the, uh, legitimacy, of my speedsolves... but until then, I'm fine cheating my way to sub 30 with however much inspection time it takes me to build good habits LOL.

    I've also been thinking of trying to learn to be y axis color neutral now, while I'm still slow, since I know I won't want to take the temporary hit to times if I ever decide to later when I'm faster and my habits are more established; but I'm not sure the best way to approach it. Would it be better to start with an adjacent to blue color (red or orange), or to start with the opposite color (green in my case)?
     
    AlphaSheep and pglewis like this.
  17. Wristlor

    Wristlor Member

    14
    4
    Dec 9, 2016
    Germany
    Well first of all: I can relate to all the things you said. These are probably the things that all the ZZ-ers have gone through and it will will improve faster than you'd think!

    I also wanna share a tip:

    To overcome the "have I done everything right?" - insecurity during the EO-Line, it can be a good idea to solve just the EO blindly for some solves. This helps making sure the "I know how to solve this EO" for your mind. If you're getting better you can also try to solve the full EO-Line.

    As for your question:

    I was actually y-Axis neutral from the start, but I can tell you that learning the opposite color won't really benefit you that much (even if it's very easy to pick up).The moves you need to make are all the same just mirrored. Go for an adjacent color first.
     
    RonM likes this.
  18. RonM

    RonM Member

    26
    6
    Apr 4, 2017
    Central Illinois, USA
    @Wristlor I took your advice about just improvising some EOs and found it to be pretty helpful. It takes me only a little longer to solve EO (if I count bad edges first) than it does if I plan it all during inspection and I only made a small handful of mistakes that didn't become noticeable until LL when I had to 2L OLL. I had previously been learning some algs from a post elsewhere for a "1-look 2L OLL" which came in handy for these cases since they eliminate a pause despite being a slightly more uncomfortable alg to execute (still not bad, just not as comfortable as the set I first learned).

    At some point the day before yesterday I decided to officially start practicing solving with a red front... which was a surprisingly easy transition once I figured out EO, and have found most of the time figuring out which side I want to solve can be determined by a quick glance at the U/D layers. If either are "cold", I solve blue; if they are "hot" I solve red. If heavy on white or yellow, I check E and S to decide if they're "hot or cold". Some times they're the same and I'll just go with the one with an obvious EOLine, or more commonly (because I've still not deliberately practiced EOLine since EO+Line is still a challenge for me) the simplest EO+Line. Initially my red front solves were considerably slower than my blue front, but throughout the first day the median shrank quickly and by the second (yesterday), I couldn't tell which was which just by looking at my timer history. I finished memorizing all the PLLs too that day and woke up yesterday able to pick a perm and execute it - some of them slowly and with pauses (N perms, Gc and Gd perm - the last four I learned), but still accurately. I think drilling PLL with red front ALL the time that first day is what really helped push my red-front F2L along. It's an interesting idea anyway. In conclusion, y-axis color neutrality is a huge help and worth every bit of the effort (IMO).

    Today though I'm experiencing something I've only experienced twice in my life; the first time when I decided to learn guitar, and the second when I decided to learn the violin... my fingers are SORE! I'm not sure if I should take an easy day and only pick up my cube to periodically go through PLLs to make sure I don't forget them or if I should just push through it. I smashed through all my PBs yesterday so I kind of feel like a lazy day has been earned.

    Speaking of smashing my PBs! Here's what my "ZZ CN" folder's Prisma Puzzle timer history looks like. At what point can I call myself a sub 60 ZZer; when I can solve sub 60 with a 15 second inspection? :p

    http://imgur.com/a/mAeLk
     
  19. RonM

    RonM Member

    26
    6
    Apr 4, 2017
    Central Illinois, USA
    @AlphaSheep I've got the PLLs down now and have started looking at/learning about COLL. Out of curiosity, why did you recommend them in the order you did?

    I see there are only 4 COLL-H cases; I don't run into H very often but it seems like it'd be easy to get them out the way? Still, I've started with T as you recommend but am considering learning H next instead of U and then proceed with the order you recommended unless there is a specific reason you suggest learning H last?
     
  20. I learned the sets in the order H, Pi, T/U, L, S/AS. I learned H and Pi first because they have the easiest CP recognition; as long as you know the AUF, all the information you need is on the top face. I forget if I leaned T or U next, but they were fairly straight forward. L, even now, I suck at recognizing, though learning how to recognize it isn't hard. I only recently learned S/AS, and they weren't as hard as I thought they would be. They are mostly beneficial for OH and Feet solving because TPS and dexterity is limited. On normal 3x3, Sune/Anti-Sune is fast enough to make up for a bad PLL.
     
    RonM likes this.

Share This Page