ZZ speedcubing method

I see what you mean. It's still the same edges that must be flipped.
anyway, I say your 15.xx video on youtube, that was pretty cool.
You said there that you use EOCross, but apparently you're using EOLine now? I might try EOCross for a while, until I get more used to blockbuilding, but it's coming pretty naturally to me.

One more question: how long did it take you to get to where you are?
Since I'm almost sub 20 on Fridrich, and I'm thinking of just getting consistent sub 20 on Fridrich, and keeping ZZ as a side project until then. It would be cool to get sub 20 on two methods :)
 
Wow, no one flaming :) Anyway. Can someone answer my question about my current method:

EOLine
Blockbuilding/F2L (first three pairs)
Winter Variation/F2LL last pair for forced OLL skip
PLL

Is it good? Should I switch it? Any tips on blockbuilding? Thanks in advance.
 
I think that you should change it to -

EOLine
Blockbuilding f2l
COLL
EPLL

I think that COLL is faster than f2ll, and EPLL is obviously faster than PLL.
Get into good habits, and start blockbuilding now.

Yes, COLL is 40 algorithms whereas f2ll is 27, but I think you'll get over that (you know at least 7 COLL, if not 9 or 10 already, and quite a few are just variations on Sune/Niklas). But do learn f2ll afterwards, as it is useful knowledge.
 
Escher said:
Yes, COLL is 40 algorithms whereas f2ll is 27
Click to expand...

Wrong.
1. F2LL is 2 step and wastes moves because you have to pair up CE pairs.
Example Scramble: RU'R'
Solve: RU2R'U', F2LL
2. 27 cases counts mirrors as one case. It would be the same amount of algs as MGLS if you have the RUR' case and the paired cases.
F2LL is 54 moves using only the paired cases and the same definition for mirrors as your 40 algs for COLL.
3. I'm almost certain that there are actually only 4 algs per OCLL case, so that's around 30 (made stupid mistakes in calculation, realized I made more mistakes, blah blah blah) if you exclude mirrors. Even less, if you exclude inverses.
4. If you are allowed simple 1 move setups, For example (F, J perm, F'), then the amount of algs is even smaller. Same idea can be applied for F2LL, but it is not as intuitive to understand and apply.
(I'm being picky. :p)
Edit:
4 for T
4 for U
4 for Pi
4 for H
6 for Sune, which are all mirrors of Anti-sune
4 for L
4*5+6=26 and I hope that right.
Several T, U, and L's are inverses which I can't bother to figure out right now.
Several H and Pi are inverses.
 
Last edited:
Okay... So besides the cube theory (ps, where the best place to learn it? I want to know how the cube works as well as solve it, not simply the latter) I SHOULD switch to CO/ELL?
 
Zeroknight: If you haven't already been to Ryan Heise's page, you should check it out:

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/

It has a lot of information on cube theory, and explains techniques such as commutators and conjugates, and has multiple methods (Heise + Human Thistlewaite) for solving the cube w/o memorized sequences.

I've started to learn ZZ winter variation algorithms. I started ZZ by doing F2L, OLL, then PLL, so it is easy for me to replace the OLL (and end of F2L) with winter variation algorithms. I find this variation to be a logical approach to ZZ, because while you place your final c/e pair, you can use 1 of 27 algorithms to orient all the corners simultaneously INSTEAD of taking the c/e pair out AGAIN to do the SAME THING; this saves about 4 moves.

I would only do COLL + ELL if it had a lower move count, which I don't think it does (correct me if I'm wrong!!). Recognition for the winter variation is very fast, since you only have to see how 3 corners are oriented. I've found my own set of algorithms using Cube Explorer. Most are around 8-10 moves, and use primarily U, R, and L moves.

End note: Where the heck did this variation come from?? I want to know who made it! :D
 
Okay so it comes down to f2ll/pll vs oll/pll?

Thanks all of you some much for helping :)

(and thanks for the cube theory link :) )
 
COLL + EPLL is better than F2LL + PLL imo. When you do F2LL you have to make the pair before you insert it and doing that is annoying. Of course it's better if the pair is already made before inserting with an F2LL alg but if you are not set up with that pair then you will have to make it which is a step. So essentially, you aren't saving any steps. In addition, the algs on the website are designed for just the pair on the front right. You will have to do a lot of reflections and mirrors if you want to be able to insert a pair somewhere else.
 
Yea, you do have some good points. If you have an R U R' case (where the corner and edge are paired and placed simultaneously), you have to do a couple more moves to have an F2LL case. I suppose one could also learn ANOTHER set of 27 algorithms for R U R' cases, but it seems extraneous. The reflections aren't too difficult for me, but this will vary from person to person. I'm going to stick with this variation for a month and see how effective it is...

Here's my growing list of questions:

1. Whence did the winter variation come? (Why is it called the winter variation?)
2. Why is the variation also called F2LL? The abbreviation doesn't make sense to me... "First 2 last layers"?
3. ...AGhh, I forgot my third question... :<
 
OH I remember my third question!

1. Whence did the winter variation come? (Why is it called the winter variation?)
2. Why is the variation also called F2LL? The abbreviation doesn't make sense to me... "First 2 last layers"?
3. Is there a broader definition of "phasing?" (Does phasing refer only to permuting edges during c/e placement, or could F2LL be considered a form of phasing?)

I really don't think one should learn both COLL and F2LL... because if you learn F2LL, you must ALSO learn PLL, which means you'll need even MORE algorithms. I would definitely do one or the other.
 
Well basically 90% of the speed community uses Fridrich, which means that about 80% of those know all the PLLs, so I see no reason why you should need to unlearn algorithms...

Also it would be
17 EJF2L
27 + 27 F2LL
40 COLL
21 PLL

Where you would most likely already know
4EJF2l ( Standar F2L cases)
4 F2ll ( Standar F2L cases)
21 PLL (Standar Fridrich PLL )
7 - 14 COLL ( Standar OLL )
 
ACTUALllly, I have never used Fridrich. :) I've only started learning PLL for the ZZ method. But yes, most people already know PLL, so it would be less difficult for others to learn both variations... But if you haven't used Fridrich before, this would be a lot to learn.
 
Example ZZ solve by me. Anyone who's good at ZZ, please help! :)

Scramble (Yellow is D face and Blue is F face.)
B2 D2 L D B2 L2 R' U R U' B2 R2 D2 R' U2 F2 D R2 L2 U2 F B R' F B2

EOline
B U R D L' D' F' B2

F2L
U' L' R2 U2 L U L R' U2 L R' U R U2 R U' R' U R' U' R U' R' U R

And I use OLL and PLL, so there it is. This is probably a little better than an actual solve, since I can look it the cube for a bit. I'll post another one later.

Including OLL and PLL, it's 54 turns. Is that way too high for ZZ-a, or am I doing all right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Caleb Valenzuela
How to make a “Super Duper Unique” Speedcubing Method (for all events)
Replies
1
Views
482
Jared Burkhart
Jared Burkhart
JackTriton
New 3x3 Method: (Named) JLA 3x3 method, based on Lau Method
Replies
19
Views
2,119
JackTriton
JackTriton
Ralph Laurence
Thoughts on Lau Method
Replies
11
Views
3,510
Ralph Laurence
Ralph Laurence
Michael Wimberly
Making A New Speedcubing Method
2
Replies
32
Views
3,856
Michael Wimberly
Michael Wimberly
Epinore
Gear Cube X Method: Basic Speedcubing Tutorial
Replies
3
Views
1,898
Epinore
Epinore
Back
Top