Is ZZ an objectively worse method than Roux and CFOP?

[_zoux]

Mostly all points here are honestly dumb anf fits category "I don't do zz, so let me call it bad".
When i was reading this thread first time, it was killing me inside, so let me break some points:
-L2/R2s are bad.
If so, then roux look at awkward roux transition beetwen CMLL and LSE.
If your CFOP is rotationless, or just less rotations, then look at your giant regrips with B/R/F/L moves.
If something doesn't fit your turn style, it doesn't mean that it's bad.
EOLine worse than cross/EOline less finger-friendly/EOline is hard to inspecc.
Why comparing steps, where one forces on 4 pieces, and other on 12.
It's not less finger friendly, same as cross.
I can do Xeoline in most of my solves.
You can't be sure that any method is a bad method if you're not at
least sub 30 with it.
ZZ is objectivly better than cfop, and on par with roux.

 

[shadowslice e]

ZZ is objectivly better than cfop, and on par with roux.

Why bother saying objectively? You listed a load of subjective points of view so you can't really claim objectivity.

 

[1001010101001]

If so, then roux look at awkward roux transition beetwen CMLL and LSE

No, it is very easy actually if you know what edges are flipped during CMLL. You can then proceed to the EO case. Subjectively I thinks CMLL > LSE transition is very easy and to me by far the worst transitions are SB > CMLL and L/R > 4c.

 

[UnknownCuber]

From a 20-second, ex-zz, cfop solver:
I don't see how zz and cfop are that different but I've noticed that for f2l, zz has (slightly) harder to execute f2l cases (talking about last pair here) that cfop has, such as the case which both corner and edge are connected and the colors facing up are the same, though they are not paired. In zz the moves are restricted to { L, R , U } so it cannot use the cfop alg (F' U F U2 R U R' ) to solve the case. For last layer cfop has significantly more algs (50 with partial edge control) to drill so zz would be better(7),unless you're using coll (42). So I would say that both are equal, though I prefer cfop.

 

[_zoux]

No, it is very easy actually if you know what edges are flipped during CMLL. You can then proceed to the EO case. Subjectively I thinks CMLL > LSE transition is very easy and to me by far the worst transitions are SB > CMLL and L/R > 4c.

yeah, i meant transition with SB and CMLL, CMLL and LSE, and those that are in LSE.

Why bother saying objectively? You listed a load of subjective points of view so you can't really claim objectivity.

Did I even say anything against CFOP, except, the last sentence?

hmm

Good job on taking my works out of context, and using it against me.
First sentence is *comparing*.
And last one didn't even tell the reasons so you cant judge it.

 

[WombatWarrior17]

Mostly all points here are honestly dumb anf fits category "I don't do zz, so let me call it bad".
When i was reading this thread first time, it was killing me inside, so let me break some points:
-L2/R2s are bad.
If so, then roux look at awkward roux transition beetwen CMLL and LSE.
If your CFOP is rotationless, or just less rotations, then look at your giant regrips with B/R/F/L moves.
If something doesn't fit your turn style, it doesn't mean that it's bad.
EOLine worse than cross/EOline less finger-friendly/EOline is hard to inspecc.
Why comparing steps, where one forces on 4 pieces, and other on 12.
It's not less finger friendly, same as cross.
I can do Xeoline in most of my solves.
You can't be sure that any method is a bad method if you're not at
least sub 30 with it.
ZZ is objectivly better than cfop, and on par with roux.

I agree with a few of your points, but I would not say that ZZ is better than CFOP (and I use ZZ).
And how do you do an XEOLine in most of your solves?

And when I used CFOP, I barely ever used B moves.

You can't be sure that any method is a bad method if you're not at
least sub 30 with it.

This is just wrong. I know that LBL is a bad speedsolving method, and I was never sub-30 with it. Yes, it's better to judge a method if you are actually good with it, but it's easy to tell if some methods are bad. (I'm not saying that ZZ, CFOP, or Roux are bad.)

 

[GenTheSnail]

I'm not going to entangle myself back in this thread, as fun as it was when it started.

But please learn to multi-quote.

 

[xyzzy]

I know that LBL is a bad speedsolving method

LBL is good, actually. You just need to be efficient: do blockbuilding for the first layer, edge control and multislotting for the second layer, ZBLL for the last layer.

 

[WombatWarrior17]

LBL is good, actually. You just need to be efficient: do blockbuilding for the first layer, edge control and multislotting for the second layer, ZBLL for the last layer.

True, but I was talking about standard LBL. But I get what you're saying, though.

 

[shadowslice e]

Did I even say anything against CFOP, except, the last sentence?

So what does that have to do with objectivity?

 

[_zoux]

So what does that have to do with objectivity?

This is a ZZ thread and i didn't see that sence to talk about CFOP here, thats why i didn't even say any reasons.
If you want so, here they are:
-ZZ is more efficient:
I've seen people that doesn't even care about movecount, which is very wrong.
to get 15 second solve, for example, with ZZ you would need ~3.2-3.6 TPS, and with CFOP you would need ~3.7-4.0.
Small numbers, but theres still some additional effort.
-ZZ has less algorithms then CFOP, and still being more efficient:
like tbf, 7+21 vs ~54+21 + extra moves...
-ZZ is rotationless
-ZZ has better ergonomics:
Even a lot says that L2/R2 sucks, CFOP still having worse ergonomics, because of rotations, and other stuff.
ZZ has way more options:
Nothing much to say about this.
ZZ can give you better lookahead:
Rotationless ZZF2L allows you to track pieces easily, and EOL is pretty much the same as cross.
IMO, CFOP's + is only more resources.

I agree with a few of your points, but I would not say that ZZ is better than CFOP (and I use ZZ).
And how do you do an XEOLine in most of your solves?

And when I used CFOP, I barely ever used B moves.


This is just wrong. I know that LBL is a bad speedsolving method, and I was never sub-30 with it. Yes, it's better to judge a method if you are actually good with it, but it's easy to tell if some methods are bad. (I'm not saying that ZZ, CFOP, or Roux are bad.)

I'm half CN, and back in time i liked EOL a lot, and was doing tons of solves with it, + experementing n stuff.
By sub 30 i was talking about speedsolving methods only, and by that i mean't that you have to be familiar with thing, that you're talking about.
Also i'm very sorry about spamming, i'm just new to the speedsolving forums, so sorry again, and bye.
Also sorry for being kinda mean in first post, i just got triggered.

 

[shadowslice e]

This is a ZZ thread and i didn't see that sence to talk about CFOP here, thats why i didn't even say any reasons.

Do you know what objectivity means?

 

[_zoux]

Do you know what objectivity means?

Um, yes.

 

[shadowslice e]

Um, yes.

Your posts don't seem to be convincing me of that.

 

[TheVideoGamer]

I personally believe that it depends a lot on what you want to achieve, I've heard that ZZ is much much better than CFOP for events such as one handed for many people simply because of the way you move the cube however it is very dependent on how much you have practised also

 

[adimare]

Why comparing steps, where one forces on 4 pieces, and other on 12.

It's funny how you use the verb "forces" to hide the fact that one method solves 4 pieces, while the other orients 12. There's a big difference between those two things. From my experience, having 4 pieces solved is a far better starting point than having 2 solved pieces and the remaining edges oriented. Lookahead is a lot easier since you know there won't be any edges you need to solve stuck in the bottom layer, and solving 4 pairs is a lot easier and can be done more automatically than 2 blocks, which again makes lookahead a lot easier.

ZZ is objectivly better than cfop, and on par with roux.

Where did that conclusion even come from?

 

[_zoux]

It's funny how you use the verb "forces" to hide the fact that one method solves 4 pieces, while the other orients 12. There's a big difference between those two things.From my experience, having 4 pieces solved is a far better starting point than having 2 solved pieces and the remaining edges oriented. Lookahead is a lot easier since you know there won't be any edges you need to solve stuck in the bottom layer, and solving 4 pairs is a lot easier and can be done more automatically than 2 blocks, which again makes lookahead a lot easier

not just orients 12, but also solves 2 of them. anyway, you check 12 pieces, find bad edges, and after orienting them, you don't care about them anymore, plus while this procces you just track 2 pieces which isn't that bad, and solve them. While with cross, you check 12 pieces too, and then solve 4 pieces, while tracking all of them. And "Solving pairs is easier" is just not right, since you don't rotate with zz, so looking at other pieces is so much easier lul

 

[adimare]

not just orients 12, but also solves 2 of them. anyway, you check 12 pieces, find bad edges, and after orienting them, you don't care about them anymore, plus while this procces you just track 2 pieces which isn't that bad, and solve them. While with cross, you check 12 pieces too, and then solve 4 pieces, while tracking all of them.

Planning a cross is way easier than planning an EO line. For the cross you directly plan how to solve 4 pieces, and that's it. The EO line requires you to first plan EO, then re-run the moves in your head while tracking 2 pieces to figure out how to solve them. A lot of times the line edges end up in very uncomfortable spots and it's not easy to change EO to get them in nice positions.

And "Solving pairs is easier" is just not right, since you don't rotate with zz, so looking at other pieces is so much easier lul

In CFOP you solve 4 pairs. In ZZ you solve 3 pieces, then a pair, then 3 pieces, then another pair (or 3 pieces, then 3 pieces, then 2 pairs). Solving 3 pieces involves a lot more cases than just 2, which makes lookahead a lot harder in ZZ. Also, the fact that you don't need to rotate doesn't make it easier to locate pieces; the fact that in ZZ after the EO line you can have edges you need to solve stuck in the opposite side's bottom layer actually makes it harder to look for pieces.

 

[_zoux]

Planning a cross is way easier than planning an EO line. For the cross you directly plan how to solve 4 pieces, and that's it. The EO line requires you to first plan EO, then re-run the moves in your head while tracking 2 pieces to figure out how to solve them. A lot of times the line edges end up in very uncomfortable spots and it's not easy to change EO to get them in nice positions.


In CFOP you solve 4 pairs. In ZZ you solve 3 pieces, then a pair, then 3 pieces, then another pair (or 3 pieces, then 3 pieces, then 2 pairs). Solving 3 pieces involves a lot more cases than just 2, which makes lookahead a lot harder in ZZ. Also, the fact that you don't need to rotate doesn't make it easier to locate pieces; the fact that in ZZ after the EO line you can have edges you need to solve stuck in the opposite side's bottom layer actually makes it harder to look for pieces.

Uh could you tell me please what do you average with zz, and with cfop

 

[Pyjam]

@adimare I'm sorry to disagree, but lookhead is a lot easier in ZZ because the edges are oriented, and solving a 2x3 block required significantly less moves on average than solving two pairs (and you don't have to care about edge orientation and cube rotation). And as usual, you may influence the last layer case while solving the second block.