• 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!

muchacho

Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
1,597
Location
Spain
WCA
2016ALAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Done... sort of, the first of the 2 new buttons searches for slower people in the exact same events you've done, the second just adds people that have less events added to the singles table, that doesn't take into account if that person have competed in an event that you haven't. I may combine those 2 buttons and make it work like it should, but not sure.
 
Last edited:

AreRouxAmused

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14
Roux has better chances for skips. 1 in 162 chance for a CMLL skip, 1 in 32 chance of an EO skip, 1 in 30 chance for a UL+UR skip, 1 in 24 chance for an LSE skip. It leaves you with some sort of skip in 10.8% of your solves. In ZZ-CT, you actually only skip a step in 0.5% of solves. For reference, ZZ+COLL+EPLL has a skip in 8.9% of solves.

Also 42 algs for Roux (33 new if you're coming from CFOP) vs 198 for ZZ-CT (170 new if you're coming from CFOP) is a pretty big difference. ZZ+COLL+EPLL has only 46 algs, roughly half of which are shared with Roux.

I like @shadowslice e's advice of learning both methods before making a decision, but ZZ-CT is a pretty advanced variant of ZZ that requires significant commitment to learn.
I do say your math is wrong you would have to multiply the fractions for each skip. ZZ-CT is the least chance for a skip and the alg set for most are triggers. but thank you anyway.
 

obelisk477

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
1,144
Location
Raleigh, NC
WCA
2009BATT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
What exactly is NMLL? I am not sure I understand the process very clearly

If you're willing to take my word for it, here's the short answer--don't worry about it or use it unless you're trying to be like sub-10 with Roux and are trying to add in various tricks to get faster singles.

I leave the long answer to others if that's not satisfactory enough.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
6
I've heard that it is applicable for ZZ too, I use ZZ and CFOP. I average around 14 seconds : I want to really understand this method.
 

obelisk477

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
1,144
Location
Raleigh, NC
WCA
2009BATT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I've heard that it is applicable for ZZ too, I use ZZ and CFOP. I average around 14 seconds : I want to really understand this method.

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R2_R_U_R-_U-_R-_F_R2_U-_R-_U-_R_U_R-_F-_M2_U_M2_U2_M2_U_M2

Let's say you finish left block for ZZ (white eoline on bottom), and you find that your right block, luckily enough, is sort of solved upside down as in the example above - like, it would be the correct block for a yellow EO-line from the same y orientation. And while that is not the correct block, it is not too hard to recognize what needs to be done in this example. The LL very much resembles an F-perm PLL -- so give it a try. It turns out all you then need to do is solve the cube with an R2, and you're done.

So there isn't much to learn like you would learn a method or other algorithms. The cases come up pretty rarely, and when they do, they are often hard to recognize, especially when you start getting LL corners that are not as easy as the ones above. And it gets even harder to see if your luckily solved block is an R or R' away instead of an R2

TL;DR see my original answer. I can't think of one solve that I've ever seen by a fast CFOP or ZZ user that uses this technique.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
6
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R2_R_U_R-_U-_R-_F_R2_U-_R-_U-_R_U_R-_F-_M2_U_M2_U2_M2_U_M2

Let's say you finish left block for ZZ (white eoline on bottom), and you find that your right block, luckily enough, is sort of solved upside down as in the example above - like, it would be the correct block for a yellow EO-line from the same y orientation. And while that is not the correct block, it is not too hard to recognize what needs to be done in this example. The LL very much resembles an F-perm PLL -- so give it a try. It turns out all you then need to do is solve the cube with an R2, and you're done.

So there isn't much to learn like you would learn a method or other algorithms. The cases come up pretty rarely, and when they do, they are often hard to recognize, especially when you start getting LL corners that are not as easy as the ones above. And it gets even harder to see if your luckily solved block is an R or R' away instead of an R2

TL;DR see my original answer. I can't think of one solve that I've ever seen by a fast CFOP or ZZ user that uses this technique.

Thanks very much......it seems that I had already encountered this and I had also solved the problem similarly, though at that point of time, I didn't know what it was called.

Yeah, I totally agree with you, it seems kinda too hard to implement.

anyway, thanks :)
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,879
I've heard that it is applicable for ZZ too, I use ZZ and CFOP. I average around 14 seconds : I want to really understand this method.

There's NMCLL (one-look CLL with nonmatching blocks) and then there's NMLL (two-look ZBLL with nonmatching blocks), which are similarly named, do similar things, but are not the same thing.

NMCLL is essentially just a recognition system for CLL when your left and right layers aren't aligned: you scan for the L and R colours on the corners, then find matching colours on the two corners with L colours and matching colours on the two corners with R corners.

NMLL splits ZBLL into two steps that are like OCLL and PLL, where instead of orienting the top face, you orient the left and right faces, then permute in one look. Because the orientation step only depends on the L and R colours, whether you use matching blocks or not doesn't matter. The permutation step can be recognised similarly to NMCLL by looking for matching colours. This needs the last layer edges to already be oriented, so it's most applicable to ZZ.
 

RennuR

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
161
Location
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Is that how you do it on bigger puzzles as well? Like 4x4 and 5x5?

I had a 4x4 for a while, and yeah thats exactly how I did it. I sold my 4x4, didnt have time to really get into the event, rather sell it for a 3x3 which is my main event, so I need to focus on that ;).

But back on topic yeah thats how I did it
 

Dash Lambda

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2016
Messages
392
Location
Ambiguaville
WCA
2016SCHU05
I just wondered if that was what people did.
I usually just solve it however many times and log it in a program (my current session in qqtimer has 1800 solves), the averages don't depend on each other or anything like that. You just can't take an average of non-contiguous solves, of course, but that's really the only condition.

I'm pretty sure that's how most people handle it as well.
 

UberJay

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
23
Noon question but I'must confused. I intuitively solve the cube and don't really think if a piece is orientated or not. However, when watching YouTube tutorials this is now confusing me. Can someone please explain how I tell if a piece is orientated or not... Sorry if this is a dumb question but I just can't seem to understand it... Thanks.
 
Top