genericcuber666
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2016
- Messages
- 254
I've been using it for a while and it just seems to be a bad method, even ZZ-CT which was surposed to be amazing couldn't avoid the downside of being a ZZ variant.
Is ZZ an objectively worse method than Roux and CFOP?
- Thread starter genericcuber666
- Start date
obelisk477
Veteran
I think it's a pretty fair thing to say that it is objectively worse than Roux and CFOP unless you know and use full ZBLL with ZZ. In that case I don't think it's obvious at all which is best/worst
pglewis
Veteran
"... it just seems to be a bad method" is subjective.
One Wheel
Legend
As a CFOP user who had toyed with ZZ (and a little tiny bit with Roux and Petrus) I don't think it's objectively worse, if anything it's probably a little bit better. By orienting edges in inspection (essentially) you are vastly reducing the number of possible cases both for f2l and for LL, allowing for faster recognition. If you are fast enough that recognition is not an issue then it may be that allowing for more different moves during f2l makes for better ergonomics, and a higher ceiling for CFOP.
Ultimately I don't think ZZ is worse, but I'd say that ZZ probably is better for getting to sub-10, CFOP is better for getting to sub-7. Since I'll never make either of those milestones, my learning priorities are:
1. M2
2. OLL (for CFOP with big cubes)
3. ZZ-CT.
Ultimately I don't think ZZ is worse, but I'd say that ZZ probably is better for getting to sub-10, CFOP is better for getting to sub-7. Since I'll never make either of those milestones, my learning priorities are:
1. M2
2. OLL (for CFOP with big cubes)
3. ZZ-CT.
FJT97
Veteran
I use zz, i used to use cfop.
I think zz is not worse, maybe even slightly better than cfop. Reasons:
eoline and cross are pretty much the same thing. equal for moves, equal for look ahead.
zzf2l is way better than cfop f2l imo:
look ahead is easier, zzf2l can be more efficient, no cube rotations.
LL is way better with zz too as each new learnt alg is just a percentage of 1LLL (being arguably the fastest)
Only downside i see is that RUF for f2l might be generally fingertrickier than RUL
Well, i think Roux is objectively the best method. But that doesn't fit for, as i don't like <M>
What downsides do you see for zz?
I think zz is not worse, maybe even slightly better than cfop. Reasons:
eoline and cross are pretty much the same thing. equal for moves, equal for look ahead.
zzf2l is way better than cfop f2l imo:
look ahead is easier, zzf2l can be more efficient, no cube rotations.
LL is way better with zz too as each new learnt alg is just a percentage of 1LLL (being arguably the fastest)
Only downside i see is that RUF for f2l might be generally fingertrickier than RUL
Well, i think Roux is objectively the best method. But that doesn't fit for, as i don't like <M>
What downsides do you see for zz?
Rcuber123
Veteran
EOline is objectively worse than cross in every single way IIRC:
Move count is slightly better
Ergonomics and look ahead are way better.
Also it's way easier to master.
EntireTV
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2015
- Messages
- 384
Most people say too many people use CFOP and ZZ might not be able to catch up. And from what I've seen people who use it have a hard time having consistency.
pglewis
Veteran
Keeping in mind I'm just a 30 second CFOPer who has toyed with ZZ: among the few downsides I can see is it may be harder to preserve ready-made pairs spotted in inspection. Also, potentially an argument to be made that deeper inspection could be put towards XCross rather than working out edge orientation.
EOLine being harder, ehn... you get to bury it in inspection. That's subjective anyway.
EOLine being harder, ehn... you get to bury it in inspection. That's subjective anyway.
Y2k1
Regular
As a sub 13 zz-er, I honestly find it harder to plan an efficient cross than an eoline, and eoline imo is just as finger trick friendly as cross for a much easier f2l and ll
mDiPalma
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,533
while zz may not be objectively worse, it is certainly alphabetically worse
obelisk477
Veteran
you know things about ZZ right? do you know QTM/HTM ratios for ZZ vs CFOP? To me, that would be the biggest indicators of ZZ's faults when compared to CFOP, what with all the U2s R2s and L2s and junk
genericcuber666
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2016
- Messages
- 254
Thats why I wanted some 'objective facts (opinions)'
eoline is harder to plan out so you cant plan as far ahead as CF(l)OP some of the ergonomics arent nice in zz, if it was good people would use it
this is one of the things I think is true, although maybe its just that there's so many people using CF(l)OP the better people will end up all using it.
this is the best point I've read, guess I'm swiching methods to briggs2
D
Daniel Lin
Guest
zz's movecount isn't really lower than CFOP's i think
CFOP allows you to plan more in inspection (in felik's 4.73 he already knew what his first 3 pairs were going to be)
but in zz the best you can do is probably EOline and a square
one thing i don't like about ZZF2L is that if your making blocks on the left it's annoying to have all your pieces on the right, since you have to do weird <RUL> stuff instead of just doing <RU> or <LU> really quickly like in CFOP.
Also, orienting all the edges at the beginning isn't that great, because you can easily do it during your last 2 slots on CFOP without much effort. just by doing regular inserts and sledges, the probability of skipping EO is 1/8, you can also make that higher by solving your pairs in different ways or in a different order.
CFOP allows you to plan more in inspection (in felik's 4.73 he already knew what his first 3 pairs were going to be)
but in zz the best you can do is probably EOline and a square
one thing i don't like about ZZF2L is that if your making blocks on the left it's annoying to have all your pieces on the right, since you have to do weird <RUL> stuff instead of just doing <RU> or <LU> really quickly like in CFOP.
Also, orienting all the edges at the beginning isn't that great, because you can easily do it during your last 2 slots on CFOP without much effort. just by doing regular inserts and sledges, the probability of skipping EO is 1/8, you can also make that higher by solving your pairs in different ways or in a different order.
GenTheSnail
Veteran
I think these moves are just a preference thing. Like how some people don't like <M> moves and call Roux bad, people don't like <R2, L2> moves and call ZZ bad.
I switched to ZZ from CFOP because I really hated rotations during F2L, and ZZ had a really nice move set. Better LL helped too. IMO, alternating between R/L moves is better than doing rotations.
I don't think that EOLine is so much more difficult than Cross, though definitely is. Looking ahead through EOLine is significantly more difficult, though I personally haven't put much effort into it yet. EOLine fingertricky-ness is as bad as Cross. As I said before, L moves are better than rotations and/or B moves. ZBLL is better than ZBLL+3.5k other algs/cases.
However, I do think that CFOP is a very good method, just not one that I personally like.
I also don't think that optimal stats will be able to tell us whether or not ZZ < CFOP and Roux, as fingertricks for optimal solutions are bad (?) and hard to find during a speedsolve.
Also, I don't get why these thread keep popping up. I've been on the forum for a bit over a year and have seen at least a dozen of these Roux vs CFOP vs ZZ threads.
obelisk477
Veteran
I think U2, R2, and L2 would have to take longer to perform because the face simply has to rotate further in order to complete the move. I mean just time (R2 U2' R2' U2)*4 and then (R U' R' U')*4 and see how the times compare.
It seems to me, therefore, that ZZ would be slightly slower because of this.
pglewis
Veteran
And never having to do F, B, or a rotation after EOLine might easily nullify this? CFOP doesn't escape U2s and R2/L2 are hardly a key component of ZZ. This seems like far too simplistic a generalization to something that is much more complex IMO.
EmperorZant
Regular
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2016
- Messages
- 215
- Location
- Greenfield, Indiana
- WCA ID
- 2015LAUE01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I've always liked ZZ, and thought it was a really neat idea for a method. I'm glad that many people have tried it (whether they liked it or not), because it's definitely an interesting concept for an "efficient" method.
The reason I don't use ZZ, and a possible reason that others don't as well, is because it's much more linear than CFOP. In ZZ, you do EOline, ZZF2L, and then you have a few options: WV, CLS, COLL, or ZBLL. (And CTLL, and probably some others that I'm missing.) And that's about as far as things tend to go, as learning and perfecting just those subsets (whether it be some or all of them) takes a lot of time and commitment.
But if you're solving with CFOP? You can start with a cross, or an X-cross; you can try your best to make a good cross out of a bad case and improvise your F2L, or if you have a decent case, track your first F2L pair in inspection. What? Your cross is easier than that? Consider an X-cross, or track more than one pair. Also remember that there are many different ways to approach cross building and a few different ways to approach X-crosses, so at the start of the solve, you have quite a few options.
Then there's F2L; if you don't mind rotations, CFOP F2L is pretty fast and efficient, and you also have a lot of control over multiple pairs and empty slots, so you can preserve/force certain edge/corner orientations. This affects the pairs you are solving (multislotting), the pairs you are going to solve (which assists in lookahead and ergonomics), and your last layer itself. And that's another thing that you can take more advantage of in CFOP: Last Slot Last Layer. Whether it be VLS, MGLS, CLS, RLS... you can learn quite a few algs to deal with all kinds of cases depending on what you're comfortable with.
I want to point out that all of these options do not necessarily make CFOP better; in fact, it may make CFOP worse in some cases, as a more straightforward approach is sometimes much better than a more complicated (maybe even theoretically better) one. The point of both methods, initially, was to make a straightforward and efficient method, and both went in different directions. Simply due to ZZ's nature (edge orientation, optimized last layer, etc.), there is not much one can do to perfect upon the method other than learn ZBLS/ZBLL and practice a lot. To contrast, a lot of CFOP's steps can be interrupted or approached in different ways, which yields more diversity. This is exactly how I look at CFOP and ZZ: for better or for worse, CFOP is more compatible with a lot of alg sets and intuitive approaches that ZZ solvers will never have to worry about.
The reason I don't use ZZ, and a possible reason that others don't as well, is because it's much more linear than CFOP. In ZZ, you do EOline, ZZF2L, and then you have a few options: WV, CLS, COLL, or ZBLL. (And CTLL, and probably some others that I'm missing.) And that's about as far as things tend to go, as learning and perfecting just those subsets (whether it be some or all of them) takes a lot of time and commitment.
But if you're solving with CFOP? You can start with a cross, or an X-cross; you can try your best to make a good cross out of a bad case and improvise your F2L, or if you have a decent case, track your first F2L pair in inspection. What? Your cross is easier than that? Consider an X-cross, or track more than one pair. Also remember that there are many different ways to approach cross building and a few different ways to approach X-crosses, so at the start of the solve, you have quite a few options.
Then there's F2L; if you don't mind rotations, CFOP F2L is pretty fast and efficient, and you also have a lot of control over multiple pairs and empty slots, so you can preserve/force certain edge/corner orientations. This affects the pairs you are solving (multislotting), the pairs you are going to solve (which assists in lookahead and ergonomics), and your last layer itself. And that's another thing that you can take more advantage of in CFOP: Last Slot Last Layer. Whether it be VLS, MGLS, CLS, RLS... you can learn quite a few algs to deal with all kinds of cases depending on what you're comfortable with.
I want to point out that all of these options do not necessarily make CFOP better; in fact, it may make CFOP worse in some cases, as a more straightforward approach is sometimes much better than a more complicated (maybe even theoretically better) one. The point of both methods, initially, was to make a straightforward and efficient method, and both went in different directions. Simply due to ZZ's nature (edge orientation, optimized last layer, etc.), there is not much one can do to perfect upon the method other than learn ZBLS/ZBLL and practice a lot. To contrast, a lot of CFOP's steps can be interrupted or approached in different ways, which yields more diversity. This is exactly how I look at CFOP and ZZ: for better or for worse, CFOP is more compatible with a lot of alg sets and intuitive approaches that ZZ solvers will never have to worry about.
It is so hard to compare methods objectively because there is no agreed upon good metric.
If you want the most time proven method, then CFOP is the clear winner.
If you want a method that has shown capability to break the world record, then Roux or CFOP.
If you look at move count only, then everybody should be using a method like Heise.
If you look at which method requires the least intuition/blockbuilding(cause thinking is "slow"), then something like CFOP.
If you care a lot about rotations, then Roux or ZZ.
If you want a low alg count and high speed, then Roux or CFOP(Collin Burns not knowing full OLL)
The fastest video of someone solving with ZZ is of a solver that does EOline and then cross. This is considered bad ZZ, but Hyeon Kyo Kyoung is the fastest. I think that this can be looked at in 2 possible ways: 1) If someone as good as him learns propper ZZ, they would be even faster(especially with ZBLL). 2) ZZ is a bad method and doing it more like CFOP makes it better.
If a 10 year old(who has a natural knack for cubing) started learning ZZ and practised until they were 20, would they be able to set the WR? No one knows. I would bet yes(assuming the world record isn't way lower 10 years from now).
The move count and alg count statics have been on the speedsolving wiki for 5 years. Those are the objective numbers. I think the only good way to objectively compare the methods would be to build 2 robot hands that have to move like human hands but could perfectly execute every finger trick at a high tps. Use optimal ZZ, Roux, and CFOP solvers and compare the average time it takes to do the different solves. Because the robot hand would have the same limitations as a human hand, it would show the lower limit of human speed if you had perfect look ahead and had mastered the method.
I have been trying to answer this posts questions for a long time. All I can say is that I think(subjective), for 2 handed, ZZ is worse than both CFOP and Roux, but not by a lot. Maybe it could shine for oh or feet.
If you want the most time proven method, then CFOP is the clear winner.
If you want a method that has shown capability to break the world record, then Roux or CFOP.
If you look at move count only, then everybody should be using a method like Heise.
If you look at which method requires the least intuition/blockbuilding(cause thinking is "slow"), then something like CFOP.
If you care a lot about rotations, then Roux or ZZ.
If you want a low alg count and high speed, then Roux or CFOP(Collin Burns not knowing full OLL)
The fastest video of someone solving with ZZ is of a solver that does EOline and then cross. This is considered bad ZZ, but Hyeon Kyo Kyoung is the fastest. I think that this can be looked at in 2 possible ways: 1) If someone as good as him learns propper ZZ, they would be even faster(especially with ZBLL). 2) ZZ is a bad method and doing it more like CFOP makes it better.
If a 10 year old(who has a natural knack for cubing) started learning ZZ and practised until they were 20, would they be able to set the WR? No one knows. I would bet yes(assuming the world record isn't way lower 10 years from now).
The move count and alg count statics have been on the speedsolving wiki for 5 years. Those are the objective numbers. I think the only good way to objectively compare the methods would be to build 2 robot hands that have to move like human hands but could perfectly execute every finger trick at a high tps. Use optimal ZZ, Roux, and CFOP solvers and compare the average time it takes to do the different solves. Because the robot hand would have the same limitations as a human hand, it would show the lower limit of human speed if you had perfect look ahead and had mastered the method.
I have been trying to answer this posts questions for a long time. All I can say is that I think(subjective), for 2 handed, ZZ is worse than both CFOP and Roux, but not by a lot. Maybe it could shine for oh or feet.
While I don't have much experience with ZZ, I've been (trying) to develop new methods for the cube since the 80's, and I will say that after trying countless different approaches, I have found that methods that orient pieces first will eventually be defeated by methods that solve the pieces in one go.
Of course, methods that try to orient pieces first tend to have very fast recognition which makes them quick to learn (like CFOP OLL/PLL, very easy to learn, and fast recognition). But that is slowly being defeated by ZBLL which is the poor man's 1LLL, and only orients some of the pieces (edges) and solves the corners all at once.
Similarly when I was developing the LMCF method, I tried many approaches which oriented pieces first (when solving the edges) and they all eventually were defeated by 'all at once' solving which had harder recognition but ultimately ended up faster in the end. Yet another example is 2x2 solving (which is also the first step in LMCF), Ortega attempts to orient the corners then permute them, whereas EG attempts to solve them all at once, and EG takes much longer to learn and master but is unquestionably faster in the end.
The question of 'which is a better method' can never be answered unless you qualify the question with 'after X hours of practice.' Bindedsa has shown that CFOP 1LLL is possible and with enough practice will beat any other LL method, but has unrealistic practice time required for most people. If you ask for the fastest method within limited practice time, you get a much different answer than the fastest method with unlimited practice time.
Of course, methods that try to orient pieces first tend to have very fast recognition which makes them quick to learn (like CFOP OLL/PLL, very easy to learn, and fast recognition). But that is slowly being defeated by ZBLL which is the poor man's 1LLL, and only orients some of the pieces (edges) and solves the corners all at once.
Similarly when I was developing the LMCF method, I tried many approaches which oriented pieces first (when solving the edges) and they all eventually were defeated by 'all at once' solving which had harder recognition but ultimately ended up faster in the end. Yet another example is 2x2 solving (which is also the first step in LMCF), Ortega attempts to orient the corners then permute them, whereas EG attempts to solve them all at once, and EG takes much longer to learn and master but is unquestionably faster in the end.
The question of 'which is a better method' can never be answered unless you qualify the question with 'after X hours of practice.' Bindedsa has shown that CFOP 1LLL is possible and with enough practice will beat any other LL method, but has unrealistic practice time required for most people. If you ask for the fastest method within limited practice time, you get a much different answer than the fastest method with unlimited practice time.
M
Malkom
Guest
I started writing a post here but 400 words in i realized it might be a little too long for a forum post. I'll save what I wrote and will probably use it if I ever need to write a debate article in school (I will of course share that with you here on the forum).
Here I'll quickly explain why I think ZZ is an objectively worse method.
EOline is less fingertrickfriendly than cross and makes it harder to plan ahead into F2L
The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse and forces a lot of regrips and lowers overall TPS, it also makes the F2L too restricted and makes multislotting almost impossible
The unsolved D edges make R2s and L2s possible and those are just horrible(if they aren't part of a nice alg like the Uperm), it also screwes up lookahead and overall flow of the solve.
Here I'll quickly explain why I think ZZ is an objectively worse method.
EOline is less fingertrickfriendly than cross and makes it harder to plan ahead into F2L
The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse and forces a lot of regrips and lowers overall TPS, it also makes the F2L too restricted and makes multislotting almost impossible
The unsolved D edges make R2s and L2s possible and those are just horrible(if they aren't part of a nice alg like the Uperm), it also screwes up lookahead and overall flow of the solve.
