• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

EOLine was first proposed by Ryan Heise - What effect does this have?

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
974
Location
(0, 0, 0)
Around eight years ago I discovered a message on the SpeedsolvingRubiksCube Yahoo! Group. In 2003, Ryan Heise proposed an idea where you “orient all edges right at the beginning” then “create a line on the D side from front to back (or a cross if you wish)”. This is around three years before Zbigniew Zborowski showed his method. I then updated Ryan Heise’s SS wiki page to add that idea and other ideas of his. I recently remembered this and decided to update the ZZ wiki page to reflect that Ryan Heise was the first known person to propose the method. A discussion started on the wiki page about what should be done. Should the name be changed to something more of a general description of the method, as in CFOP? Should the name stay the same? @ProStar pointed out that a name change could go either way in the community. Fridrich was eventually changed to CFOP due to the fact that many people had claimed independent development. But there is also the case of Ortega versus Varasano. The name Varasano hasn’t yet caught on.

Below is Ryan Heise's message. Note that Ryan Heise is saying that his idea is to orient all edges on the cube and place DF and DB (EOLine) or to even make EOCross. He then references a video where someone using CFOP coincidentally had all of their F2L edges oriented, but the LL edges weren’t oriented. This meant that they only had to turn L, U, and R to finish F2L. Ryan Heise references this video to provide an example of the RUL solving, not to say only to orient the F2L edges. His idea is the same as ZZ, to orient all edges.

Ryan Heise's ZZ Proposal.png

What does everyone think?
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,255
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
I don't really know what I think should be done, but I do think that if the name is changed it should be something similar to CFOP(like EOFLL or something) instead of something relating to Ryan Heise(like RH, The other Heise, The good Heise, Heise except millions of algs, etc.), because Zbigniew still came up with the method independently, even more than Jessica came up with CFOP
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,255
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
No. EOLine is only one step in ZZ, and I am pretty sure that Zbigniew Zborowski didn't take the idea from Ryan Heise.
Zbigniew almost defiantly didn't take inspiration from Ryan, but if you look at his post it says after doing EOLine/Cross then you can solve F2L using RUL, leaving only LL. The original ZZ proposal didn't include ZBLL but simply LL(I'm pretty sure on that, correct me if I'm wrong), so ZBLL doesn't make it unique either(Zbigniew was one of the creators of ZBLL, but it isn't part of the original ZZ). What Heise suggested is ZZ, but I'd like to say again that Zbigniew didn't steal his idea, and no one is accusing him of that
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,383
YouTube
Visit Channel
Zbigniew almost defiantly didn't take inspiration from Ryan, but if you look at his post it says after doing EOLine/Cross then you can solve F2L using RUL, leaving only LL. The original ZZ proposal didn't include ZBLL but simply LL(I'm pretty sure on that, correct me if I'm wrong), so ZBLL doesn't make it unique either(Zbigniew was one of the creators of ZBLL, but it isn't part of the original ZZ). What Heise suggested is ZZ, but I'd like to say again that Zbigniew didn't steal his idea, and no one is accusing him of that
Zbigniew originally proposed ZZ-b, with Phasing and ZZLL
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
761
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I mean ZZ had a different idea with his approach. He was looking for a method that went RUL->RU whereas Heise didn't really think any further than that. From what I can tell, Heise was like 'huh, that's neat', whereas ZZ was like 'I like 2 gen. Let's force that, but we might need to settle for second best for a while'. Also, the switch from Fridrich to CFOP was an easy one as both names had existed for a while, but there's no alternative name, so for branding's sake, just keep the name as ZZ.
 

dudefaceguy

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
244
It was probably proposed somewhere else even earlier. Read this article and then tell me who invented the light bulb: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

The point is that many people contribute to almost every invention or method. Zbigniew worked out an actual method, rather than just proposing an idea. It makes sense to name the method(s) after him, even if he was not the first person to come up with every single idea that went into the method.
 

GenTheThief

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,705
Location
Illinois, U.S.A.
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think the point has been made. Ryan may have had one of the fundamental ideas, but he didn't make the method or publish it as such.
In addition, I don't know what the development process for ZZ was; maybe Mr. ZZ had the idea long before and was trying to figure out the best way to go about it and just never shared it with anyone for a couple years, maybe not.

In addition, we could try contacting Ryan to see his thoughts on the matter. Maybe he'll care a lot and have a burning resentment that the method isn't named after him, or maybe he wont remember the message at all.

defiantly
defiantly
1. defiantly - in a manner that shows open resistance or bold disobedience.
2. definitely - without doubt (used for emphasis).

They're not the same.
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
974
Location
(0, 0, 0)
It is clear that others had the idea before Zbigniew, and before Ryan. Evidence for this is in Gilles Roux's recent post in the Method Idea thread. What is important when having a name attached is talking about the idea. Some saw flaws with EOLine and moved on to other ideas. Ryan and Zbigniew saw potential and talked about it.

What is the definition of the ZZ method? Is it ZZ-b only? Is someone that uses EOLine + F2L + ZBLL or COLL+EPLL still using ZZ? If so, then does that make what is called ZZ become EOLine + F2L + LL?
 
Top