You learn how each trigger effects the pieces on the cube, and learn/figure out which triggers you need to do to reduce the cases. Like you learn all the 1 trigger cases, then figure out/learn how to turn all the 2 trigger cases into 1 trigger cases. Then 3 to 2.
Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?
We know that ZZ-CT is objectively worse than ZZ-A, and then there's a proper debate to be had whether ZZ-A or Roux are better (or equal). So no, ZZ-CT couldn't beat the big 3 (or Petrus maybe).
We know that ZZ-CT is objectively worse than ZZ-A, and then there's a proper debate to be had whether ZZ-A or Roux are better (or equal). So no, ZZ-CT couldn't beat the big 3 (or Petrus maybe).
Nope, it's the movecount mainly, also the fact that you can be (should be) slot neutral. The luck isn't a great factor to learn it and it's overhyped how useful it is.
Nope, it's the movecount mainly, also the fact that you can be (should be) slot neutral. The luck isn't a great factor to learn it and it's overhyped how useful it is.