Is ZZ an objectively worse method than Roux and CFOP?

[JTcuber]

My wording was a little clumsy, when I said restrictive I meant that the EO gives fewer ways to insert and create pairs and because of that makes CFOP style multislotting harder and less move efficient. For example you can't set up your next pair by doing a sledge. Now I realize this is pretty insignificant since ZZF2L is way different than CFOPF2L and the fewer number of F2L cases also means it's easier to predict your next pairs.

Yeah. This is also just talking about pair-pair multislotting. It's often really easy to to a full 1x2x3 in 1 step. There's also just as many, if not more cases for slanting, which is probably the most common multislotting technique, and normal keyhole is a lot nicer because you never have to rotate. While CFOP multislotting may not be good in ZZ, ZZ multislotting can lead to lots of really easy and move efficient cases. I've had lots of cases that ended up taking only 3-4 moves for a full 1x2x3, and things like that are literally impossible in CFOP because of the cross restriction. Either way, the restrictions in ZZ very rarely lead to very bad cases, whereas the restrictions in CFOP force a much less efficient F2L because you need to undo any R and L move.

 

[Ksh13]

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ
There is a huge list of ZZ LL and LSLS variants.

In CFOP, you do Cross, F2L and then you have a few options: OLL/PLL, OLLCP/EPLL (and some more that I'm probably missing.), but that's usually as far as it goes.

VLS, HLS, OLS, 1LLL, ZBLL, VHLS/ZBLS, COLL. You rarely dedicate yourself to just one of these, but fast people using CFOP often use a little of every one of these, in addition to tons of F2L tricks/algs.

 

[GenTheSnail]

VLS, HLS, OLS, 1LLL, ZBLL, VHLS/ZBLS, COLL. You rarely dedicate yourself to just one of these, but fast people using CFOP often use a little of every one of these, in addition to tons of F2L tricks/algs.

You'll notice in the post where I said that, the post above me had also made a ridiculous claim about the lack of ZZ variants. I was mimicking the post, but swapping ZZ for CFOP, to point out how silly the point was.

I know that both methods have a large about of other subsets.

 

[Tao Yu]

I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.

If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.

 

[One Wheel]

I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.

If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.

Can you plan EO in inspection, or just a block? I can see a lot of potential in EOBlock --> near-optimal 2-gen 1x2x3 block --> ZBLL --> ARF if inspection and recognition could be mastered.

 

[bren077s]

@Tao Yu I don't think you can really claim the efficiency thing from HARCS that much. Petrus with ZBLL on average is 0.5 moves more efficient than ZZ with ZBLL. Also, in practice, humans are very inefficient compared to HARCS. On top of that, CFOP is an utter trash method in HARCS, but it is great for humans.

That being said, the rest of your points are all very good.

 

[Micah Walker]

I don't think any method is objectively worse than another. You could be sub 8 with literally any method averaging less than ~70 moves (including zz, Roux, CFOP, Petrus Triangular Francisco, LLOB, corners first, ect). the real question is how long will it take for me to get that fast, and how fast will I be before I max out my speed.

 

[bren077s]

the real question is how long will it take for me to get that fast, and how fast will I be before I max out my speed.

Isn't this a way of defining better/worse methods?

 

[shadowslice e]

I don't think any method is objectively worse than another.

This is just completely false. There are definitely methods which are worse than other. LBL for example is objectively worse than CFOP. And you'd need to average around 55 moves at most to sub 8 consistently.

 

[Pyjam]

Great evolution. 3-4 years ago, if you write here than a method is objectively worse than another you'll be puked on by half of the community and you'll risk a ban for being a troll...

 

[bren077s]

People are considering Petrus starting with @Tao Yu in this post:

I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.

If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.

Petrus with ZBLL on average is 0.5 moves more efficient than ZZ with ZBLL. Also, in practice, humans are very inefficient compared to HARCS. On top of that, CFOP is an utter trash method in HARCS, but it is great for humans.

That being said, the rest of your points are all very good.

(including zz, Roux, CFOP, Petrus Triangular Francisco, LLOB, corners first, ect).

 

[xyzzy]

LBL for example is objectively worse than CFOP.

I think if you want to say something is objectively worse, you have to state which objective metric you're using first. If LBL truly were objectively worse, why do people learn it at all? Because it's easier to learn? Then it's not objectively worse for those people!

Or, if you take move count (in FTM? QTM? STM? SQTM? ETM?) as the metric, is it even still true that LBL is "bad"? I can get move count averages of about 53 moves in slow solves, which isn't super great (I get ~51 on CFOP, ~48 on Petrus and ZZ), but it's not a clear loser.

(I've spent a considerable amount of time Arguing on the Internet about objective vs subjective metrics on completely unrelated matters so the shitty clickbait title of this thread is extremely annoying, and then everyone is just latching on to the wording used by the OP because that's how conversations work.)

 

[shadowslice e]

I think if you want to say something is objectively worse, you have to state which objective metric you're using first. If LBL truly were objectively worse, why do people learn it at all? Because it's easier to learn? Then it's not objectively worse for those people!

Or, if you take move count (in FTM? QTM? STM? SQTM? ETM?) as the metric, is it even still true that LBL is "bad"? I can get move count averages of about 53 moves in slow solves, which isn't super great (I get ~51 on CFOP, ~48 on Petrus and ZZ), but it's not a clear loser.

(I've spent a considerable amount of time Arguing on the Internet about objective vs subjective metrics on completely unrelated matters so the shitty clickbait title of this thread is extremely annoying, and then everyone is just latching on to the wording used by the OP because that's how conversations work.)

Well if you take the comment in context you can clearly see that I'm referring to the times that are possible to achieve with LBL.

If you take things out of context you can't really call anything objectively worse than anything else. In fact, it you take your absolute strictest definition of "objective" then there is really no context in which you can say "objectively worse".

For the purpose of this conversation I feel it is fine to adopt the colloquial usage of "objective" and allowing people to infer meaning in context as this is not a formal academic text or similar. I was merely pointing out that the previous comment (which might be more in line with your criticism) is completely wrong as you can find many ways of showing a certain method is objectively worse (in many different metrics which are being debated in this conversation) than others.

Perhaps it would be more correct to say "objectively slower" in either my post or the title but as usage defines meaning, that most people use objective when referring to the metrics which are implied or indicated in the post itself and in context it is quite clear that the OP means worse=slower for the purposes of this thread I feel like this is splitting hairs more than really necessary.

In summary, I would agree with you if this was a formal or academic text or similar but as this is an informal internet forum I feel like your complaints are too pedantic as no issue in communication of meaning is caused and all understand what is being discussed- whether ZZ is not suitable for achieving faster or similar times when solving 3x3 speedcubes given the limitations of humans and restrictions set in place by WCA regulations when compared to either Roux or CFOP.

 

[xyzzy]

Well if you take the comment in context you can clearly see that I'm referring to the times that are possible to achieve with LBL.

If you take things out of context you can't really call anything objectively worse than anything else. In fact, it you take your absolute strictest definition of "objective" then there is really no context in which you can say "objectively worse".

Yeah, that's pretty much my point. I'm really just railing at the OP for using the word "objectively" in a figurative sense for the purposes of clickbait, and (almost) everyone else for following suit. My pedantry might indeed be misplaced, though…

 

[obelisk477]

I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.

If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.

I think what really solves the 'problems' of ZZ is ZB, if we're mentioning other methods in here. But I guess that's another discussion...

 

[bren077s]

@obelisk477 how so?

 

[obelisk477]

@obelisk477 how so?

I guess I mean the corollary to what I said-- instead of 'solving problems', ZB combines strengths. If some of ZZ's strengths are it's efficiency and ability to one look the last layer, and CFOp's are it's fingertrickiness and ease of planning in inspection, then ZB is the best of both worlds. Plus with new and improved ZBLS sets having been generated recently, ZBLS is much nicer, faster, and easier to learn.

 

[bren077s]

Is zbll worth the algs and can people recall them well enough? I am not even sure people can really master all of zzll well enough

 

[obelisk477]

Is zbll worth the algs and can people recall them well enough? I am not even sure people can really master all of zzll well enough

I know of several people who know and use full ZBLL well enough that it's faster than COLL/EPLL or OLL/PLL. But it is admittedly more difficult to learn almost 3x the algs of ZZLL

 

[bren077s]

Oh, that is cool.