CFOP vs. ZZ for two handed [with video]

CubeRoots

CubeRoots

Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
538
Location
Leicester, UK
WCA ID
2012LIVS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
[youtubehd]u3L7YL1M9ME[/youtubehd]

reconstructions from video
solve 1:
scramble: B L2 B' D2 R2 U2 L2 B2 R2 F' R' B' F' R2 D R' B2 D2 F2 L

CFOP
z R' D2 L' z l U' R u' // cross (7, 7)
U' L' U L // first pair (4, 11)
d' R U R' // second pair (4, 15)
L' U' L R' U' R // third pair (6, 21)
U' L' U L U2 L' U L // last slot (8, 29)
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' // OLL (9, 38)
U' F' U' F R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2 U2 // PLL (14, 52)

ZZ
x2 L' B' R' D' U' F L D' // EOline (8, 8)
U' R' U2 R U R // first square (6, 14)
U2 L' U2 L U' L // second square (6, 20)
R U2 R' // pair (3, 23)
U L U' L' U L U L' // last slot (8, 31)
U2 L' U' L U2 L R U' L' U R' U // ZBLL (12, 43)
solve 2:
scramble: R2 D2 R2 D2 F' U2 B2 U2 F' U2 R' U' F D2 R' F' R' B D2 L

CFOP
y' M' L D R u // cross (5, 5)
U2 L' U' L // first pair (4, 9)
R2 U' R2 U R2 // second pair (5, 14)
y R' U' R2 B' R' B // third pair (6, 20)
U2 R U R' F R' F' R // ZBLS (8, 28)
U' R' U2 R F U' R' U' R U F' // COLL (11, 39)
U' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' // EPLL (12, 51)

ZZ
x2 U R L B R L D' // EOline (7, 7)
L U L' U L U' R' // first square (7, 14)
L' U2 L' U' L' // second square (5, 19)
U R' U' R L' U' L // pair (7, 26)
U2 R' U R U2 U' R' U2 R // WVLS (9, 35)
U l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 B2 //PLL (11, 46)
solve 3:
scramble: U2 R B2 L' D2 U2 R2 F2 D2 L' U' F2 D' B R D U' B' U'

CFOP
x2 D U L U F' u' R u' // cross (8, 8)
U' L U' L // first pair (4, 12)
R' U' R U2 R' U R // second pair (7, 19)
y' R' U' R U' R' U R2 U2 R' U' R U R' // finish F2L (13, 32)
R U R' U R U2 R' U R U R' U' R' F R F' // OLL (16, 48)
U2 f R f' R2 u' R U' R' U R' u R2 U // PLL (14, 62)

ZZ
x2 L D2 F R' D R L' // EOcross (7, 7)
U2 L2 U L' U' L' R U2 L' // left block (9, 16)
U R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U' R // pair (10, 26)
U2 R U' R' U R U R' // last slot (8, 34)
U R' U R U2 R' L' U R U' L // COLL (11, 45)
R' U' R U' R U R U' R' U R U R2 U' R' // EPLL (15, 60)
solve 4:
scramble: F U2 B U2 L2 U2 L2 F U' F' L2 D' L D U2 B F' L' U R'

CFOP
x2 B' U' D' R L' U' R' F R // Xcross (9, 9)
U2 L U' L' R U' R' // second pair (7, 16)
d L' U2 L U' L' U L // third pair (8, 24)
U' R U' R B' R' B R' // last slot (8, 32)
U' r U' r' U' r U r' y' R' U R // OLL (11, 43)
U' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U F' r' F r // PLL (15, 58)

ZZ
x2 B U2 R' L F D L' D' // EOline (8, 8)
L U2 L' U' L' // first square (5, 13)
U R U2 R' U' R U R2 // second square (8, 21)
L' U' L U2 L' U L // pair (7, 28)
R' U R // last slot (3, 31)
U R' U2 R U R' U R U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' // ZBLL (16, 47)
solve 5:
scramble: B R' B' D F' B L2 U2 R U2 R D L2 U F2 U' F2 U B2

CFOP
z' x R' D2 R D F' D' L' D' // Xcross (8, 8)
U2 R' U R // second pair (4, 12)
L2 U L2 U' L2 // third pair (5, 17)
y' L' U' L U' L' U L // last slot (7, 24)
f R U R' U' f' R' U' R U' R' U2 R // OLL (13, 37)
l' R' D2 R U R' D2 R U' R B' // PLL (11, 48)
z' x R' D2 R D F' D' U' L2 U L D' // XXcross (11,11)
U R' U2 R // third pair (4, 15)
B' U' B U' L U' L' B' U B U2 // leave 3 corners (11, 26)
insert somewhere to get a 32 fmc solution or just finish like a speedsolve
ZZ
x2 F B' D R U B R2 D2 R D' R // EOcross (11, 11)
U L' U2 L U' L' U L // first pair (8, 19)
R U' R' U R L U' L' R' // second pair (9, 28)
U2 R' U R2 U' R2 U2 R U R' U' R // finish F2L (12, 40)
U F R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' U' F' // COLL (15, 55)
U R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 // EPLL (12, 67)

My conclusions from my experience with both methods
Since CFOP is very much the 'vanilla' speedsolving method, I am going to just describe what I see as the pros and cons of ZZ in comparison with CFOP.

First of all, EOline can be long (see zz solve 5) and can often involve turns of 5 or even 6 faces (see zz solve 1). This doesn't just make this step slow, it also makes looking ahead more difficult and gives you less space to preserve free pairs and so on. The result is that often times when using CFOP it is far easier to plan an Xcross, preserve a free pair or maybe just predict where a pair will be, than ZZ. Moreover, colour neutrality is also far more doable with CFOP, and so there is more chance of finding a nice simple cross and hence being able to look ahead further into the solve. I find that the flexibility you can have when building a cross can enable you to more frequently find 'finger-tricky' cross solutions than with eoline for ZZ. I think the fact that in every single solve the movecount for cross+1 is less for cfop than with zz is a testament to these observations.

After the awkward start to solves, F2L just feels great with ZZ. Lookahead is simpler, no rotations, less cases (all of which have nice algs, btw), more 'luck' in terms of pairs being formed. RUL is a fairly big advantage too, allthough I do feel that RUL isn't *amazing* for twohanded, I can often find horrible regrips from left to right and right to left in my solves, which might as well be rotations in cfop. Another limitation is that with experience F2L in cfop can be made to be really efficient in terms of rotations. Most of the time I will rotate once or so in a solve, oftentimes combining a rotation with a U move or simply doing a d or d'. There are also advantages to rotating at times, rotating gives you the chance to choose the angle and hand you use to solve a pair, allowing you to use your strong hand to allow for greater turnspeed. In ZZ, a weak left hand is really a terrible thing to have, as you can seriously not avoid doing lots of L moves, unless you do some weird z s**t, which I don't really care for. movecount is roughly comparable for F2L I would say, too.

Last slot is also of more interest, having EO allows for some great OLL skip opportunities, which I won't go into detail on (see zz solve 2). However EO can often be achieved intuitively when using cfop, through using sledge hammers etc and some simple ZBLS algs can go a long way, however many cases are just awkward (see cfop solve 4).

Finally, Last Layer. In these 5 solves I came across 2 ZBLLs, and these are not rare occurrences. There are so many easy ZBLL cases you can add to your arsenal, and with ZZ, you reap the benefits of this alg-knowledge far more frequently than your cfop counterpart. There are also tonnes of great COLL algs, so you give yourselves lot's of uperms zperms hperms and skips if you learn those algs. Likewise though, there is OLLCP, so many great algs, allowing you to influence your PLL with ease. Moreover, THE SHORTEST OLLs DO NOT HAVE EO! Is it really that beneficial to do a longish coll like in (zz solve 5) and then get a zperm, when a cfoper could easily get fruruf and a jperm for example, i know which last layer I would prefer.

In summary I feel that I feel so sluggish and full of pauses during the first moments of a ZZ solve compared with CFOP, in F2L ZZ is really quite nice, and like wise for last layer. I think overall I am leaning towards the notion that CFOP is probably superior for two handed, despite ZZ being my main. I think this is simply because the first step just puts you too far back far too often than if you were a devoted cfop solver solving your cross and first pair, and the benefits do not offset this enough.

Hopefully this is helpful for anyone torn between these two methods. FYI: I average 14.5 with ZZ and 17 with CFOP.
 
Your EOLine on the fifth solve could've done in 7 moves, or even 4 if you were y-axis neutral. In addition, you say that you don't like the long COLL when you could've got a J perm using CFOP, but if you did a double antisune instead of COLL (which doesn't require an AUF before), you would've got a J perm.
(also, at 7:10, I'd have done R L U2 L', which would've solved the BL pair and setup the FL pair for D' L' U L D)
 
TDM said:
Your EOLine on the fifth solve could've done in 7 moves, or even 4 if you were y-axis neutral. In addition, you say that you don't like the long COLL when you could've got a J perm using CFOP, but if you did a double antisune instead of COLL (which doesn't require an AUF before), you would've got a J perm.
(also, at 7:10, I'd have done R L U2 L', which would've solved the BL pair and setup the FL pair for D' L' U L D)
Click to expand...

Ah cool I didn't see that. The thing about last layer is exactly my point. Though doing coll is usually beneficial(imo) you can still get better last layers by doing plain old vanilla oll pll, and so it's not always *that* beneficial. I am not gonna risk doing straight oll when i know a decent coll and getting ugly Vperms or gperms though just on the off chance it's a J.
 
CubeRoots said:
Ah cool I didn't see that. The thing about last layer is exactly my point. Though doing coll is usually beneficial(imo) you can still get better last layers by doing plain old vanilla oll pll, and so it's not always *that* beneficial. I am not gonna risk doing straight oll when i know a decent coll and getting ugly Vperms or gperms though just on the off chance it's a J.
Click to expand...
Well you know you're not going to get a V perm because of the COLL case: if it was the F triple sexy F' case then you'd get an opposite corner swap. But I know what you mean about G perms. I hate Ga perms but V perms are obviously the best PLL
Also, why not do the MU EPLLs? They're much shorter and faster.
 
TDM said:
Well you know you're not going to get a V perm because of the COLL case: if it was the F triple sexy F' case then you'd get an opposite corner swap. But I know what you mean about G perms. I hate Ga perms but V perms are obviously the best PLL
Also, why not do the MU EPLLs? They're much shorter and faster.
Click to expand...


I sub 1 uperms RU like a boss
I do MU for Hperm ofc
I do MU and RU for zperm depending on what angle i get. I am like 1.5 with both.
 
CubeRoots said:
it's qtm short though. It's just a blur of moves so easy to spam i find
Click to expand...
True.
On topic, I also tried 5 CFOP and 5 ZZ solves with the same scrambles and counted moves.
x2 y' // Inspection
M' U x' D' R2 // Opp-cross (4/4)
U' L' U' L // F2L-1 (4/8)
U' R U' [M' x'] U' L' // F2L-2 (6/14)
[U D] R' U R D' // F2L-3 (5/19)
U2 R U2 R' d R' U' R // F2L-4 (8/27)
U r U R' U R U2 r2 U' R U' R' U2 r // OLL (14/41)
M2 U2 M2 // Force easy PLL (3/44)
y' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' // PLL (14/58)
x2 // Inspection
U' R' [F B'] R F D F U2 L2 D // EOLine (10/10)
L2 U L U' L2 U' L U R2 // F2L-1+2 (9/19)
U L U' L' U2 L U L // F2L-3 (8/27)
U L U2 L' U L U' L' U' L U L' // SV (12/39)
U2 R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2 U // PLL (15/54)
x2 // Inspection
R U L B L y D2 R' D2 // Cross (8/8)
U d L' U L // F2L-1 (5/13)
U' L U' M F' l' // F2L-2 (6/19)
y R U2 R' U' R U R' // F2L-3 (7/26)
U R' U' R // F2L-4 (4/30)
F R U R' U' F' / U2 l' U R D' R' U' l B // OLL (15/45)
r' U L' D2 L U' L' D2 L2 x U' // PLL (10/55)
x2 // Inspection
U R F B D' B' D' L' D' // EOLine (9/9)
L U' L U L // F2L-1 (5/14)
U R2 U R' U2 R2 U R // F2L-2 (8/22)
U' L [D U'] R U' R' [D' U] // F2L-3 (7/29)
L' U' L U' L' U' L // SV (7/36)
U' y' R' U' l D2 l' U R d R2 U' R2 U' R2 // PLL (14/50)
x2 y // Inspection
L R U R F2 D2 U' R2 F R F R // X-cross (12/12)
R' U R2 U R' y R' U R // F2L-2 (8/20)
U2 R U R' U2 R U' R' // F2L-3 (8/28)
L' U' L U' r U' r' F // VHLS (8/36)
U2 r U R' U' r' F R F' // COLL (9/45)
U' M2 U M' U2 M U M2 // EPLL (8/53)
x2 // Inspection
U B' L2 D' F D' R2 D' // EOLine (8/8)
U L U' L' // F2L-1 (4/12)
R' U M F r // F2L-2 (5/17)
R U R U2 R // F2L-3 (5/22)
U R' U' R' U' R U R' // F2L-4 (8/30)
U' R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R // COLL (14/44)
U2 M2 u' M' u2 M' u' M2 // EPLL (8/52)
y' // Inspection
F2 R D // Cross (3/3)
U R' U R2 U' R' // F2L-1 (6/9)
R' U R U' R' U' R // F2L-2 (7/16)
U L' U L2 U' L' // F2L-3 (6/22)
d R U2 R' U R U' R' U' R U R' // F2L-4 (12/34)
U' l' U R D' R' U' l B // OLL (9/43)
y' R2 F2 R U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F R2 // PLL (15/58)
x2 // Inspection
B2 U2 L2 F D' L D' // EOLine (7/7)
R [U' D] L U L' D' // F2L-1 (6/13)
M F r // F2L-2 (3/16)
R2 U2 R U R' U R U2 R // F2L-3 (9/25)
U R U' R' U2 R U' R' U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R // WV (16/41)
U' R' U' l D2 l' U R d R2 U' R2 U' R2 // PLL (14/55)
z2 // Inspection
L F' R' F' D' R2 // Cross (6/6)
U R U R2 U2 R // F2L-1 (6/12)
R U2 R' U' y' L' U' L // F2L-2 (7/19)
U2 R' U' R d' L' U' L // F2L-3 (8/27)
U' R U' R' d R' U' R // F2L-4 (8/35)
R U2 R' U' R U' R' // Start of COLL (7/42) (for this case, I just do an antisune and see what happens from there :p)
U2 R' U2 R U R' U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R' U // 2GLL (15/57)
x2 // Inspection
L U' R B' F U F L' D' // EOLine (9/9)
R U R U' R // F2L-1 making F2L-2 (5/14)
U' R' U R // F2L-2 (4/18)
L' U2 L' U2 L2 // F2L-3 (5/23)
U' L U2 L' U' L U L' // F2L-4 (8/31)
U R2 D' R U2 R' D R U2 R // OCLL (10/41)
U' R2 F2 R U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F R2 U2 // PLL (17/58)
As you can see, ZZ was fewer moves in all but one solves, and by rotating and AUFing the other way before PLL on that last solve, they could've been the same number of moves. It was fairly close throughout all solves though.
 
Try xeoline over eocross sometimes. It requires the same amount of planning, but it actually helps :) . Here are some specific examples.

solve 3:
scramble: U2 R B2 L' D2 U2 R2 F2 D2 L' U' F2 D' B R D U' B' U'
x2 L D2 F R' F2 U D (xeoline 7, saves ~5 moves)

solve 5:
scramble: B R' B' D F' B L2 U2 R U2 R D L2 U F2 U' F2 U B2
(no rotation to take advantage of pair) U' F' D' B U' R F' D2 U' L E2 R2 U L U2 R (xxeoline 16, saves 12 moves)

You can also get good solutions by building a 2x2x2 and expanding to a 3x2x2 while solving EO (like Petrus). This can also save you a few moves without sacrificing ergonomics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hazel
The Roux vs. CFOP debate is getting out of hand
Replies
18
Views
3,564
brododragon
brododragon
R
Free Android app for learning CFOP algorithms – no ads, looking for testers
Replies
0
Views
43
rca81
R
NanoTimer
Cubench (Android timer) now supports smart cubes: looking for people to help test it
Replies
6
Views
261
NanoTimer
NanoTimer
Kevencito
I vibecoded a cubing app so you don't have to:)
Replies
0
Views
95
Kevencito
Kevencito
C
[Free App] Cube Trainer — CFOP + Roux algorithm trainer with timer
Replies
0
Views
188
cellonty
C
Back
Top