• 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 30,000+ people from around the world today!

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

ZZ speedcubing method

Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
44
Likes
1
WCA
2008HORD01
Thread starter #1
As in the topic.

ZZ's quite interesting method, but it largely unknown in non-Polish speedcubing communities (like speedsolving.com). It's basically due to the fact that almost every information about ZZ is in Polish, which isn't lingua franca, I dunno why. :)

Because of that I've decided to write an article about it. I'm publishing it in early phase to provoke a discussion (as for today, there are only three persons that use ZZ as their primary method, so there are areas to improve). There are few thing to polish in my article:
  • One of the concepts, called 'phasing' is covered only by theory, not by factual, practical experiences
  • I'm in the process of generating my own ZZLL algs, but it's still far to go.
  • Generally, expand everything ;)

And, of course, the link: http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZ speedcubing system.html
Enjoy! :)

IMO ZZ is a wonderful method that fill the gap between Fridrich and intuitive methods, such as Petrus.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,802
Likes
2
#3
As in the topic.

ZZ's quite interesting method, but it largely unknown in non-Polish speedcubing communities (like speedsolving.com). It's basically due to the fact that almost every information about ZZ is in Polish, which isn't lingua franca, I dunno why. :)

Because of that I've decided to write an article about it. I'm publishing it in early phase to provoke a discussion (as for today, there are only three persons that use ZZ as their primary method, so there are areas to improve). There are few thing to polish in my article:
  • One of the concepts, called 'phasing' is covered only by theory, not by factual, practical experiences
  • I'm in the process of generating my own ZZLL algs, but it's still far to go.
  • Generally, expand everything ;)

And, of course, the link: http://mhordecki.googlepages.com/ZZ.html
Enjoy! :)

IMO ZZ is a wonderful method that fill the gap between Fridrich and intuitive methods, such as Petrus.
My term for Step 4: 2GLL :D
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
472
Likes
0
Location
Sweden
WCA
2007LUND01
YouTube
KConny
#4
Thank you man. This looks really interesting. I might try this out after learning MGLS.

I found a typo on the page: "The main difference lies in so called "phasing". Just when finishing F2L, one must permute two opposite LL edges, usually UF and UD."
 
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
143
Likes
1
#5
That looks really interesting. The edge orientation during the first step seems to be the thing that makes it so different. I'm going to try this out!
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
1,253
Likes
2
Location
Williamsburg, VA
WCA
2007SAHA01
YouTube
lotsofsloths
#6
As in the topic.

ZZ's quite interesting method, but it largely unknown in non-Polish speedcubing communities (like speedsolving.com). It's basically due to the fact that almost every information about ZZ is in Polish, which isn't lingua franca, I dunno why. :)

Because of that I've decided to write an article about it. I'm publishing it in early phase to provoke a discussion (as for today, there are only three persons that use ZZ as their primary method, so there are areas to improve). There are few thing to polish in my article:
  • One of the concepts, called 'phasing' is covered only by theory, not by factual, practical experiences
  • I'm in the process of generating my own ZZLL algs, but it's still far to go.
  • Generally, expand everything ;)

And, of course, the link: http://mhordecki.googlepages.com/ZZ.html
Enjoy! :)

IMO ZZ is a wonderful method that fill the gap between Fridrich and intuitive methods, such as Petrus.
My term for Step 4: 2GLL :D
REPRESENT!
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
44
Likes
1
WCA
2008HORD01
Thread starter #7
Oh, if it comes to ZZ-d LL step, it could be named 2GLL (actually there isn't any 'official' name or so), but i left '(2gen) 1-look LL' for clarity. However, ZZLL can't be recognized as 2GLL, cause it's obviously in <R, U, L>-group

@KConny: Thank you! :)
 
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
143
Likes
1
#8
Oo. I just tried a solve with this. I'm having lots of trouble with the EO step, but that's just a matter of practice. Other than that, it feels really nice being able to solve everything with just RUL, and then get a cross on top to boot. I might try switching to this, since for now I don't even have to learn any new algorithms and can just use cross OLL's and regular PLL's until I get good enough at the EOLine to justify learning the last-layer algs.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
1,585
Likes
5
Location
Gainesville, Florida
WCA
2008LOFT01
YouTube
Loftycuber
#9
I have tried to use the ZZ method before mainly ZZF2L because I didn't know all the details of the method since I don't speak Polish.
I think its a pretty good method and may look into after this weekend as it is a little close to Nationals to switch now. Being mainly a OH cuber I like the fact that F2L was been reduced to 3gen and have been trying to incorporate some kind of intuitive edge orienting system into my Fridrich to simplify my LL as obviously 1LLL is the goal.
Thanks for the article I look forward to you expanding it.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
Likes
4
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
#14
Interesting! I can tell EO would take lots of time to master. The greatest advantage of this compared to petrus, I think, is that you can tell EO during pre-inspection rather than stop during the solve.
I'm so exited about this method!!!!! :D
 
Last edited:

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Likes
5
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
vault312
#16
i agree with lofty, reducing it to the LUR group for almost all of the moves has huge benefits for OH. i think whoever perfects this will blow every OH record out of the water.

i think rapid EO for the whole cube would be useful for any cubing method.
 
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
143
Likes
1
#17
I'm getting better, but still having problems with the first step, especially finding the edges and planning it out in the 15 seconds.

I decided to stick to a fixed color scheme, yellow on top and blue in front.

The shortcuts described in the article helped, and I've distilled them into several statements:

Yellow/white on U/D: Good
Yellow/white on R/L/F/B: Bad

In the E slice, same color/opposite color from the center: Good
In the U/D layers, orange/red on the non-U/D side: Good

You can look at the 2 sides of the cube, and any edges with yellow or white on them are bad.


Is there any easy way to keep track of the edges during execution? Sometimes there are 6 or 8 edges flipped.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
44
Likes
1
WCA
2008HORD01
Thread starter #19
Wow, yurvish, you're using exactly the same color scheme as I :D Probably the simplest way is to practice :) no, really, after some solves you'll see that some patterns of EO are repeating. And it's always good to do EO mentally in preinspection (even if it's taking longer than 15 sec). I know it's hard, but after ~1 month you're gonna do it without second thought ;)

@Lordofsloths: Yes, it's exactly the same as in HTA.

IMO ZZ is superior to Petrus due to the EO - it simplifies F2L cases, so generally brain has less to process and therefore can do it quicker :)
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,802
Likes
2
#20
Oh, if it comes to ZZ-d LL step, it could be named 2GLL (actually there isn't any 'official' name or so), but i left '(2gen) 1-look LL' for clarity. However, ZZLL can't be recognized as 2GLL, cause it's obviously in <R, U, L>-group

@KConny: Thank you! :)
Mine has Sune combinations, but I still call it 2GLL.

IMO ZZ is superior to Petrus due to the EO - it simplifies F2L cases, so generally brain has less to process and therefore can do it quicker :)
Since when was that an argument for superiority?
 
Top