Introducing Twisted ZZ-CT: A faster, more ergonomic alternative to normal ZZ-CT

trangium

Regular
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
133
WCA ID
2019TRAN10
Background and motivation:
ZZ-CT is a great method in theory. It splits LSLL into two nearly equal steps, resulting in a 2-look LSLL method with only 197 algs. There's just one huge problem:
TTLL algorithms suck.
Despite huge efforts in the ZZ discord server to optimize TTLL, the majority of these algorithms still have either weird ergonomics, high movecount, or both.
In early 2020, Jayden McNeill proposed the concept of twisted TTLL, which solves LSLL from the R' D' R U* R' D R CLS case. In 2021, OreKehStrah and I generated the algs for this set, and they're significantly better than normal TTLL despite the algset being much less developed, which suggests that twisted TTLL is just an inherently better algset than normal TTLL. So now the question remains: Is there a good way to set up to twisted TTLL? After some experimentation, I have finally discovered a practical way to do so.

The Method:
1. Get to EO + F2L missing the FR slot. You can do this with ZZ, but there are other good ways to do this. For example, Nautilus-LSLL is another great option, especially because it guarantees that your last slot will be in FR.
2. Mentally twist the corner that belongs in DFR counterclockwise. (Equivalently, you could also just pretend that the R facelet of the DFR corner is the U/D color.)
3. Recognize the case based on the locations of the U/D colors on the corners (remembering to take the mental twist into account) and the location of the F2L edge.
4. Execute the Twisted TSLE algorithm for that case (104 algorithms).
5. You now either have a PLL (21 algorithms) or a Twisted TTLL (72 algorithms). Recognition is fairly straightforward.

The Algs:
Twisted ZZ-CT algsheet
Twisted TSLE is 104 algs and averages 9.04 moves in mostly <RU>.
Twisted TTLL is 72 algs and averages 14.39 moves in mostly <RUF> and <RUD>.
Together with PLL (21 algs), a total of 197 algs are needed for the full method, the same as normal ZZ-CT.

Example Solves:
Example using ZZ
Example using Nautilus
Example using CFOP + edge control


Conclusion:
The TTLL algorithm quality was the main drawback preventing ZZ-CT from being viable. Twisted ZZ-CT fixes this drawback without any major sacrifices. At worst, twisted TSLE recognition becomes a little bit harder since you have to mentally twist the DFR corner, but with practice this should become instant.
 
I really want to implement this alongside regular CT. OS based on TSLE vs TSLE+. But I feel I would run into issues with recogging both TSLE and TSLE+ at once without immense practice. Maybe I entirely switch to CT+?

Either way, this is a very exciting development and i'm looking forward to looking further into it in the coming days.
Great job, Trangium!
 
How about just use the the ribbon method but instead of TOLS just do OLL and have the F2L corners get twisted and finnish with twisted TTLL . This use OLL and TTLL+/TTLL- which have significantly better algs . What do you think? I know my reply is late but whatever
 
How about just use the the ribbon method but instead of TOLS just do OLL and have the F2L corners get twisted and finnish with twisted TTLL . This use OLL and TTLL+/TTLL- which have significantly better algs . What do you think? I know my reply is late but whatever
When using zz. If the edge is solved already and your not using cls. The normal twisted tsle will do the same thing your trying to explain and also you wouldn't have to use cfop. Also you don't have to pre insert the edge with ct
 
When using zz. If the edge is solved already and your not using cls. The normal twisted tsle will do the same thing your trying to explain and also you wouldn't have to use cfop. Also you don't have to pre insert the edge with ct
My point is to use the idea of twisted TTLL to improve the ribbon method not ZZ
 
My point is to use the idea of twisted TTLL to improve the ribbon method not ZZ
You said how about just using ribbon implying to use it instead of zz. My point was twisted tsle is easier then tols
 
Last edited:
I think you mean "TSLE is easier than TOLS"
Thank you for the obvious.
I said in my reply to use OLL instead of TOLS and oll have only 57 algs instead of TSLE 104
I mean alot of tols and tsle are shorter and faster then olls because they preserve less. You also can't do an oll to get to that last layer state if the last f2l corner is is stuck in the same slot as the ribbon edge and you sill have to solve that edge beforehand making it less steps to do regular ct. 3 less moves on average which does make a big deal. Most zz people don't like when you go to a zz forum and say hey just use cfop..
 
Most zz people don't like when you go to a zz forum and say hey just use cfop..

I mean this is a bit of an overreaction imo. Categorizing this as simple 'just CFOP' is, frankly, misrepresentation ( or rather an over-simplificatoin ). Just because it shares similarities with CFOP doesn't make it so ( otherwise ZZ is also just CFOP ). ZZ-CT doesn't have a monopoly on TTLL, TTLL+/-.
 
Most zz people don't like when you go to a zz forum and say hey just use cfop..
I use ZZ for one handed and I think that ZZ is a great method
You also can't do an oll to get to that last layer state if the last f2l corner is is stuck in the same slot as the ribbon edge
That can be avoid with influencing
Also my entire idea is NOT to use CFOP instead of ZZ. My idea is just to apply twisted TTLL to improve the ribbon method
 
I use ZZ for one handed and I think that ZZ is a great method

That can be avoid with influencing
Also my entire idea is NOT to use CFOP instead of ZZ. My idea is just to apply twisted TTLL to improve the ribbon method
The way you said it was how about you use ribbon. That insinuates hey how about instead if that you use this. Not hey this would also work like this or for this purpose
 
Back
Top