ZZ speedcubing method

[allstar550]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I can do it now, but it is really slow. Time to start practicing.

 

[StachuK1992]

That's the spirit!

 

[JLarsen]

I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?

 

[StachuK1992]

I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?

Less moves.

also, with winter variation, no CO for LL.

Plus, we get our bad edges out of the way first thing; get the worst part of the solve over with!

 

[Cride5]

I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?

Although I'm familiar with Petrus, I've not taken it to anywhere near the level required to make a fair comparison. I'm currently fully committed to ZZ and happy with my progress, so don't fancy spending time on Petrus ATM.

I don't want to start treading on peoples toes and proclaim that ZZ is better than method X. Instead I'll present some advantages and disadvantages I've personally found with the method, and leave you to make the judgement call...

Advantages:

• Cube is never rotated, held in the same position through out the solve, allowing a strong mental map and intuitive sense of pieces' locations.
• Reduction of F2L to <L, R, U> group really does make it really quick and easy to hammer out these F2L moves!
• Pre-orientation of edges means there are less C+E pair cases during F2L, which is good for recognition/lookahead.
• EOLine does a lot to make the cube easier to solve at all stages and is very good use of inspection time, for the comparatively few moves it uses.
• Automatic orientation of LL edges without any extra work opens up a huge plethora of LL options/advantages:
  • For OLL/PLL, OLL is corners only so recognition/execution is super-fast.
    So far I've not started to dabble into the other LL options since my F2L still needs more work. However:
  • COLL/EPLL: Fewer moves, and most likely easier recognition than full Fridrich OLL/PLL.
  • ZBLL: If its nailed is way fewer moves and only one look.

Disadvantages

• Learning time - EOLine takes a long time to master, until its mastered its unlikely you'll be able to plan full EOLine during the 15 seconds inspection time. Some EO cases are easier than others, so integration of the line is a gradual process. It starts with the easier cases and gradually you'll start planning lines for more complex EO cases.
• F2L involves placement of two extra pieces (compared with Fridrich). However, being DF edges makes them very easy to find, and the extra freedom to fully rotate L/R faces makes them very easy to place.
• If you're strongly right handed, then the use of L moves during F2L may cause problems. A 180° cube rotation during F2L could fix this, but I believe that with even practice of L and R moves you will become a more balanced/faster cuber.

I think that about covers the jist of it :rolleyes:

 

[JLarsen]

Now THAT was what I was looking for. However the previous argument of less moves is ********. Just so you know. The ergonomic quality is impressive though.

 

[fanwuq]

I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?

Less moves.

also, with winter variation, no CO for LL.

Plus, we get our bad edges out of the way first thing; get the worst part of the solve over with!

1. Less moves is way wrong. It is difficult to say which one truly has less moves. But I'm willing to accept a linear FMC challenge from any ZZ user. I average around 40 with Petrus in less than 10 minutes. (Pseudo blocks are allowed.)

2. You can use winter for Petrus too. I like MGLS-PLL and COLL-EPLL better.

3. That point does make sense, but I hate breaking up blocks, so I have to always build my blocks first.

Funny thing is that when I first heard about ZZ, I really liked the idea, but in practice, it never worked out for me. The EO was actually no problem. The LUR F2L screwed me up. I usually only do 0 to 2 rotations for Fridrich F2L anyway. Rotations are natural, around 30% of my solves are already rotation free without any employment of M slice tricks or B moves. For Petrus, I build blocks while freely rotating. After that, it is <R,U> to finish F2L and very nice LLs. Sometimes it really feels natural to rotate the cube when it isn't necessary; that can make <L, U, R> really awkward.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Pseudo blocks shouldn't be allowed.
If we're comparing two speed methods, then very few people, if anyone can use Pseudo blocks well in speed. Cride is pretty good at FMC ZZ, I remember this one time where you got optimal F2L. (go for the challenge )

 

[Cride5]

Lol, it deffo wasn't a linear solve by any stretch of the imagination! Felt a bit like Ebeneezer Goode; goin forwards and a backwards, backwards and a forwards

Although its not bad for move-count, I wouldn't use it for FMC since the EO part makes it difficult to take advantage of any nice easy starting blocks. Plus, following a fixed solving procedure for F2L is almost always going to introduce move-count inefficiencies.

I may be making too much of a generalisation here, but it seems like the recognition friendly, fixed procedure and minimal thinking in speed solving methods is totally counter to the highly flexable, mentally challenging creativity required in FMC. This is why I've got one method for FM and another for speed. Not that techniques from both don't sometimes cross over.

 

[JLarsen]

So my final opinion on zz, and it's users. I think that zz is potentially faster, or at least easier to become fast with. I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding. Cride, you're the exception.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

?
That seems to be an unfair blanket statement.
Is it necessary to have skill in something(in this case, blockbuilding) when you're starting something? I've said before that ZZ is like Petrus, and I do respect the method. However, saying that every ZZ user should become proficient in Petrus before they try ZZ is stupid.

 

[Johannes91]

I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding.

Just because you can't think other than Petrus way doesn't mean all other methods are bad variations of it. Seriously, Petrus and ZZ have almost nothing in common except LL.

And why does using ZZ make me lose grasp of Petrus and my blockbuilding skillz?

 

[soccerking813]

Cride, I was just looking at your ZZ page, and noticed that you said that COLL requires 25 algs minimum. How is that exactly?

 

[Cride5]

It assumes the cuber is familiar/able to apply mirrors and inverses. If you imagine the Sune cases for example. Take an alg for a sune case, convert R to L', U to U' etc and you have the alg for the equivalent anti-sune. I personally prefer doing this because I have a terrible memory and I'm not too bad with my left hand. The site says 25 algs min, but you may want to optimise your solve by learning different, more RH friendly algs for flipped cases.

 

[soccerking813]

Oh, ok. I was just messing around with ZZ and saw that.

Might experiment with it a little, see if I like it.

 

[Cride5]

I also still think that all the users are idiots...

PandaMan...

... stirrin it up since birth. So cute

 

[fanwuq]

I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding.

Just because you can't think other than Petrus way doesn't mean all other methods are bad variations of it. Seriously, Petrus and ZZ have almost nothing in common except LL.

And why does using ZZ make me lose grasp of Petrus and my blockbuilding skillz?

PandaMan,

You dare to make the all-powerful Johannes mad? No wonder the Petrus gods are against you!
Also, you can't overgeneralize about ZZ users. A small kitten is a ZZ user and he said, "I love how people gape at me when I stylishly turn my cube. Sometimes my cubing style is so pretty that I distract myself. That's why I'm slow." Anyone who say that surely cannot be an idiot.

 

[a small kitten]

So my final opinion on zz, and it's users. I think that zz is potentially faster, or at least easier to become fast with. I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding. Cride, you're the exception.

As far as I know, ZZ is not based on Petrus. Instead of randomly badmouthing the method and its users why don't you go practice and make yourself faster so you can say something actually substantial next time?

It's amazing that the title of this thread is ZZ method EOline help xD

 

[Cride5]

I tried ZZ for half a year. I'm sub-14 ...

Sub 14 with ZZ or Fridrich?

 

[blah]

Sub 14 with ZZ or Fridrich?

Fridrich. My mistake in expression. Sub-20 with ZZ.