[Help Thread] ZZ and ZB Discussion

Nilsibert said:
What do you avg with ZZ and what did you avg before switching? I'm still hanging around between CFOP and ZZ, trying to get sub 20. I know it takes time to get comfortable with it. But it seems like it's too hard to get an efficient ZZF2L because there's just too many things to look out for. I often end up having a bad ZZF2L. CFOP is "easier" because you can ignore the D edges. It's all about look ahead, pair after pair. In ZZ I can see an easy pair, but the Cross edges is in a bad location, making the pair "useless". The same goes for blocks.
Right now I'm training CFOP look ahead, very slowly getting comfortable with it.
It just seems to me that EOLine plus ZZF2L almost can't be really fast and efficient compared to a cross and 4 pairs.
I should have learned Roux from the start then I wouldn't have that problem :D
Click to expand...

I can usually complete ZZF2L in ~9 seconds, which is the same amount of time it takes me to complete Fridrich-F2L. This equality is likely very similar for other CFOP-ZZ converts.

The difference is in the endgame. There are only 7 short OLL cases in ZZ, while there are 57 longer OLLs in CFOP.

Additionally, if you collect 4-leaf clovers and rabbit feet like I do, you can manage to get PLL skips 72 times more frequently in ZZ than in CFOP.
 
Nilsibert said:
What do you avg with ZZ and what did you avg before switching? I'm still hanging around between CFOP and ZZ, trying to get sub 20. I know it takes time to get comfortable with it. But it seems like it's too hard to get an efficient ZZF2L because there's just too many things to look out for. I often end up having a bad ZZF2L. CFOP is "easier" because you can ignore the D edges. It's all about look ahead, pair after pair. In ZZ I can see an easy pair, but the Cross edges is in a bad location, making the pair "useless". The same goes for blocks.
Right now I'm training CFOP look ahead, very slowly getting comfortable with it.
It just seems to me that EOLine plus ZZF2L almost can't be really fast and efficient compared to a cross and 4 pairs.
I should have learned Roux from the start then I wouldn't have that problem :D
Click to expand...
I've decided to switch to ZZ for 2H today. I averaged ~18.5 before, and I average ~24 after a few days of practise with Yellow/Blue orientation (I've been using Orange/Blue for OH for a while). Personally, I find knowing edges are oriented makes looking ahead much easier, but I also hate it when a pair and the D edge make a square on the U layer. And there are some F2L cases which are longer when you can't rotate (e.g. corner solved, edge in U). Although I like the idea of ZZ more, I do think that the F2L isn't faster in ZZ - it's better in some ways but not in others, so I think they're about the same. But because the LL is better, imo ZZ is a better method than CFOP.
mDiPalma said:
Additionally, if you collect 4-leaf clovers and rabbit feet like I do, you can manage to get PLL skips 72 times more frequently in ZZ than in CFOP.
Click to expand...
I can't find any 4-leaf clovers :(
 
Thanks for the responses but ultimately I think ZZ just isn't for me. Look ahead is harder IMO. The only real benefit I see is the last layer. Maybe ZZF2l sometimes, you can get very lucky, but you can also get pretty bad cases like the ones I pointed out before. Also of course, having all edges oriented makes for easier pair cases, but if you mix it with blocks due to the cross pieces not being solved, it doesn't make much of a difference. As soon as you are left with 2 pairs or a whole side, ZZ shines with those cases except for a few cases and of course LL, as I said.
Also edges being oriented is good but switching R and L "all the time" is quite awkward.

ZZ seems more like roux in a way due to the block building. CFOP is straight forward: Cross, 4 pairs, LL. ZZF2L is more free, like blockbuilding in Roux is. Maybe some people are more talented in a way to deal with the freedom ZZF2L and Roux gives you, for others it's easier to have a somewhat fixed system where the most important thing is lookahead. Of course lookahead is important and useful in any method, but I think you get my point.
Another thing is that it's much easier to see the first pair in inspection with CFOP than it is with ZZ, at least in my experience.

What learning ZZ did for me though is making me more aware of edge orientation, thus making me better at F2L. And it trained my left hand a bit, which is useful as well. But overall I think I'm better off using CFOP. I really tried and spent a good amount of time on ZZ, but I think for me it's more of a fun method to be able to solve with quite "fast" rather than a method I want to practice primarily.
I'm really not looking forward to learning full OLL though ;)
 
Last edited:
Nilsibert said:
What do you avg with ZZ and what did you avg before switching? I'm still hanging around between CFOP and ZZ, trying to get sub 20. I know it takes time to get comfortable with it. But it seems like it's too hard to get an efficient ZZF2L because there's just too many things to look out for. I often end up having a bad ZZF2L. CFOP is "easier" because you can ignore the D edges. It's all about look ahead, pair after pair. In ZZ I can see an easy pair, but the Cross edges is in a bad location, making the pair "useless". The same goes for blocks.
Right now I'm training CFOP look ahead, very slowly getting comfortable with it.
It just seems to me that EOLine plus ZZF2L almost can't be really fast and efficient compared to a cross and 4 pairs.
I should have learned Roux from the start then I wouldn't have that problem :D
Click to expand...

Hello, I avg 30 using ZZ, before i avg 35 using CFOP. I'm using CFOP for 4 months and ZZ for only 1 month. Yes CFOP is easier but i really enjoyed using ZZ. I dont know but i don't enjoy using CFOP.
 
I averaged like 26ish when I switched. I'm now sub-20ish but don't cube now as much as I used to. I think matt hoarded all the 4 leaf clovers. I only have one and it gives me only half as many pll skips as him. Its also running out of luck. Rude guy. #freetheclovers
 
I agree that ZZ is quite a fun method to play around with. But for me, it stops there. I think being angry that I couldn't get sub 20 and the sorta "hype" that exists around ZZ, plus its promising benefits, were the things that made me switch. But I found EOLine and ZZF2L more and more frustrating as time went on. In the end I fell in love with CFOP again. It was cool to learn ZZ and as I said, I'm not too bad with it, so it's a fun method to be moderately good at, if I do say so myself. But I'll stick with CFOP for real now :)
 
Nilsibert said:
I agree that ZZ is quite a fun method to play around with. But for me, it stops there. I think being angry that I couldn't get sub 20 and the sorta "hype" that exists around ZZ, plus its promising benefits, were the things that made me switch. But I found EOLine and ZZF2L more and more frustrating as time went on. In the end I fell in love with CFOP again. It was cool to learn ZZ and as I said, I'm not too bad with it, so it's a fun method to be moderately good at, if I do say so myself. But I'll stick with CFOP for real now :)
Click to expand...

Interesting because I don't remember thinking ZZ had any "hype" when I switched. :P
When I switched, I was just barely sub-20 with CFOP. Now I average 13-14 or something. It's definitely not true that I improved only because I switched to ZZ. In fact, if I had continued with CFOP for all this time (and actually learned full OLL...), I would probably be about the same speed. Everyone probably has different "ideal" methods, but objectively, most methods that a lot of people actually use (CFOP, ZZ, and Roux basically) have equal potential, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not going to hate on you for not liking ZZ lol and it's great that you at least gave it a try. :)

EDIT: I forgot that I had a question to ask.
People seem to have calculated "ideal" ratios of steps for CFOP based on fast people's solves. Has anyone done this with ZZ? If not, could someone estimate splits for sub-15, sub-12, and sub-10? I'm pretty sure I suck the most at last layer, but I would like to hear some other people's opinions. Thanks to whoever answers.
 
Last edited:
cubingawsumness said:
Interesting because I don't remember thinking ZZ had any "hype" when I switched. :P
When I switched, I was just barely sub-20 with CFOP. Now I average 13-14 or something. It's definitely not true that I improved only because I switched to ZZ. In fact, if I had continued with CFOP for all this time (and actually learned full OLL...), I would probably be about the same speed. Everyone probably has different "ideal" methods, but objectively, most methods that a lot of people actually use (CFOP, ZZ, and Roux basically) have equal potential, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not going to hate on you for not liking ZZ lol and it's great that you at least gave it a try. :)
Click to expand...

Wow, I seem to be in the same situation as you, except I'm at about 18 seconds. The thing is, I think CFOP just doesn't work that well for me, I didn't like it at all. I've been using CFOP for months and seriously practicing, but I didn't seem to improve much. On the other hand, I got my first sub-20 average of 12 last week and that was only my third week with ZZ.
 
cubingawsumness said:
EDIT: I forgot that I had a question to ask.
People seem to have calculated "ideal" ratios of steps for CFOP based on fast people's solves. Has anyone done this with ZZ? If not, could someone estimate splits for sub-15, sub-12, and sub-10? I'm pretty sure I suck the most at last layer, but I would like to hear some other people's opinions.
Click to expand...
I don't think this has been done. The main problem is that to calculate the ideal splits, you need to get the splits of a lot of fast people and average them. And there aren't many ZZ users. But I would also really like to see something like this.

Also, I did an Ao12 and my EOL-F2L-LL splits are 6.14-12.25-5.79 (25%-50%-24% of the 24.34 Ao12). How fast should my EOLine be for someone my speed?
 
Ok so I ran into a hiccup in my OH solving... I average 22/23 and for some reason, EO (plus line) takes anywhere from 4-6 seconds... and considering thats just the LINE, and not even first block really shows it is keeping me from 20/sub 20 times. Im having problems physically executing D/D' F/F' B/B' moves when just doing an Z to reach the B face. to me it seems inefficient and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas... I was thinking of starting on orange/blue face to make EO easier since the F/B faces become the R/L faces making it easier. Thanks.
 
I switched to ZZ i avg about 20-25 :/ but 1/5 time take EO-line and i need more than 15 sec. for inspection :/ do u have tips for eo line ?
 
NikkHales said:
I switched to ZZ i avg about 20-25 :/ but 1/5 time take EO-line and i need more than 15 sec. for inspection :/ do u have tips for eo line ?
Click to expand...

I have recently switched to ZZ as well, and I average around the same time you do. I find it really helpful to take long inspection times, and then doing the EO-line completely blind. The better you become doing it blind, the faster you will become at both inspection and execution.

Natually you need to practice the transition from EO-line to ZZF2l as well, but do this in a different session.
 
ZZ Method - COLL is it worth it?

I recently learnt the ZZ method which, obviously, results in all edges being oriented after F2L. I am wondering if it is more efficient to use COLL to limit the PLLs or just use the full PLL.

Thanks
 
so for normal two handed solving, is it faster or slower than pll, and is it easier or harder to recognize cases? i'm relatively new to speedsolving so i'm just trying to gather info.
 
you still have to do PLL
COLL just makes it so when you solve OLL, you solve lal the corners so you end up only using 4 algs from that point, it also gives you a better chance of a PLL skip.
There's no getting around learning all the PLLs though, because in the off chance you get a OLL skip, there's no guarantee the corners will be solved as well so you'd still have to do it unless you want to 2 look it
As for recognition, it's slightly harder than regular OCLL because you also have to detect sticker orientations, there's 6 cases per OCLL (but in H 2 of them are the same so H only really has 4 distinct), which adds up to 40 cases you have to learn, which is more than 7. Learn COLL for 1H as Eli said, or if you are thinking of going on to ZBLL or ZZLL, aka the lands of no return
 
ZZ method help thread

Hey there everyone, im on a quest to master zz method and so far it's coming along great, i just have a few questions,
1. how to get faster at zzf2l
2. what should i use to solve the ll, currentyl im using cfop oll/pll algs and i was wondering i there was an alternative and if so, links please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iguana
  • Poll Poll
V Perm Discussion Thread
2
Replies
22
Views
253
iguana
iguana
B
CEOR help and discussion thread
Replies
7
Views
635
bcube
B
ikindalikeclock
General Hypercubing Discussion
Replies
1
Views
226
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
SSL-S5 discussion
Replies
14
Views
924
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
abunickabhi
Speedtyping discussion
Replies
3
Views
257
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
Back
Top