Zed Zed

miniGOINGS

miniGOINGS

Legend
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
3,049
A little while ago, in this thread, Cride suggested doing ZZ solves with the EOline on L. After thinking about this idea for a while, I came up with Zed Zed.

In a typical ZZ solve, the EOline is built, and then the L and R blocks are completed with a lot of freedom. The main problem (at least for me) is switching from R and U turns to L and U turns during the L and R blocks. To combat this, in Zed Zed EOline is done on the side, occupying the FR and BR edges. From here, the DF and DB edges are placed in the opposite places, while making sure that the three pieces needed for the next step are not in DFL, DBL, or DB. Then a 1x1x3 block is built consisting of the DFL, DBL, DB pieces. The block is connected to the opposite edges and then D2 is done. From here the cube is identical to a Petrus state after the 2x2x2, expansion to 2x2x3, and EO.

The advantages I see in this variant are the ability for the left hand to never leave its position, with the thumb on the F center and the middle finger on the B center. Also, I think that the recognition and move count might be less than typical ZZ F2L. The only down side I can find is making sure that the pieces for the 1x1x3 block are not located in thier spots already. Getting used to this varient might take a while, but I think it has advantages over the original ZZ.

Please comment, criticize, ask questions, and flame.
 
From my understanding, Canadians pronounce "Z" interchangeably as "zee" or "zed".

I heard that from my cousin in British Columbia, is that true?
 
Cubes=Life said:
From my understanding, Canadians pronounce "Z" interchangeably as "zee" or "zed".

I heard that from my cousin in British Columbia, is that true?
Click to expand...

True. If I was spelling "Faz" outloud I would say "Ef eh zed". When I sing the alphabet (to kill time) I finish by saying "Ecks why zee". I pronounce the ZZ method as "Zee zee". I use them very interchangably.
 
Here is an example:

Scramble: U2 F2 D2 F' D' B2 L R' B R2 D2 U' B2 R' D2 B' D L' D U' R' D L U2 F
(qqtimer)

Inspection: x2 y
EOline: F2 R2 D2 F' U L' = 6 HTM
Opposite: D2 U' R2 D' = 4 HTM
1x1x3: R' U R2 U R U R' U R' D2 = 10 HTM
Total = 20 HTM
 
Cubes=life, I have numerous friends that live in Canada and some say "zee," and some say "zed." I live in Texas, and I use "zee" most of the time, and "zed" in mathematics sometimes.
 
I've solved 1x2x3 blocks that way many times and thought it still qualifies as ZZ. You yourself said there's a lot of freedom in the F2L. I don't see a point in using it exclusively (other than OMG NEW METHOD, of course), though, because often it's really cumbersome compared to square + ce-pair. So the only difference is the way you hold the cube, and that hardly makes this a different method.

miniGOINGS said:
Also, I think that the recognition and move count might be less than typical ZZ F2L.
Click to expand...
Statements like that are absolutely pointless if you don't have anything to back them up.
 
Johannes91 said:
I've solved 1x2x3 blocks that way many times and thought it still qualifies as ZZ. You yourself said there's a lot of freedom in the F2L. I don't see a point in using it exclusively (other than OMG NEW METHOD, of course), though, because often it's really cumbersome compared to square + ce-pair. So the only difference is the way you hold the cube, and that hardly makes this a different method.

miniGOINGS said:
Also, I think that the recognition and move count might be less than typical ZZ F2L.
Click to expand...
Statements like that are absolutely pointless if you don't have anything to back them up.
Click to expand...

Understandable.
 
miniGOINGS said:
A little while ago, in this thread, Cride suggested doing ZZ solves with the EOline on L. After thinking about this idea for a while, I came up with Zed Zed.

In a typical ZZ solve, the EOline is built, and then the L and R blocks are completed with a lot of freedom. The main problem (at least for me) is switching from R and U turns to L and U turns during the L and R blocks. To combat this, in Zed Zed EOline is done on the side, occupying the FR and BR edges. From here, the DF and DB edges are placed in the opposite places, while making sure that the three pieces needed for the next step are not in DFL, DBL, or DB. Then a 1x1x3 block is built consisting of the DFL, DBL, DB pieces. The block is connected to the opposite edges and then D2 is done. From here the cube is identical to a Petrus state after the 2x2x2, expansion to 2x2x3, and EO.

The advantages I see in this variant are the ability for the left hand to never leave its position, with the thumb on the F center and the middle finger on the B center. Also, I think that the recognition and move count might be less than typical ZZ F2L. The only down side I can find is making sure that the pieces for the 1x1x3 block are not located in thier spots already. Getting used to this varient might take a while, but I think it has advantages over the original ZZ.

Please comment, criticize, ask questions, and flame.
Click to expand...

I can see the fingertrick advantage of doing EOLine on the left, then building your blocks on the D and R sides, but there are some issues:

1. Lookahead - there are more pieces hidden in the D-layer. This is the main reason I abandoned the line-on-left strategy. Ensuring your first block pieces aren't hidden in the D-layer after EOLine will require you to know where these pieces are. However you figure this out, if you then know where the pieces are then why move them out of the D-layer?

2. Complexity - building blocks the way you suggested requires a different strategy for D-blocks and R-blocks. In a speedsolving context this means more mental effort is required, which usually results reduced speed. I think part of the success of Fridrich is down to its raw simplicity. The exact same strategy can be used to fill in each of the four slots, to the point it can be broken down into 40 or so algorithms.

3. Lack of Freedom - You're forced to start with building the block on D before doing the block on R. In regular ZZ you have more freedom to change the order in which blocks are built. This is better for lookahead because more pieces can be candidates for the first block after EOLine. As well as this, regular ZZ F2L provides more freedom to take advantage of free slots/layers. More freedom generally implies a lower move count, so I'd question weather your strategy is more efficient. Do you have any stats to support your claim?

If you were to go for just doing normal EOLine on the left, followed by ZZ F2L on U/D followed by z' to setup for LL, then only lookahead would be the issue, rather than having problems with freedom/complexity. On the face of it, building blocks on D and R seems like a lot of extra work for the sake of avoiding a z' rotation.

As a side-note .. I pronounce ZZ as "Zed Zed". Z is pronounced "Zed" in the original English alphabet ;)
 
Because you live in the United States of America, like mee~
(x

EDIT: I first heard it when my cousin says, "Press the zed button!"
I'm like, what's a zed button? :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top