I know 2-sided PLL recognition, but I can't directly apply that to TTLL recognition. By 2 sided PLL recognition, do you mean looking for checker patterns or blocks or headlights?When all pieces are oriented, it makes more sense to use two sided PLL recognition. If the D colored corner is at UBL and you can only see the R, U and F faces, then 2 sided PLL recognition is pretty good. I never figured out how to recognize from the other 4 angles though.
when used correctly tsle takes almost the same time as the last F2L pair meaning that the last layer is solved in one algorithm so ttll is faster than oll+pll put togetherSub-10 with ZZ-CT is definitely reasonable imo. The main thing holding it back is that most of the TTLL algs are pretty trash compared to OLL,PLL, and ZBLL. I also think TSLE is a pointless step when you can just intentionally pair the last F2L edge with 1 of 5 corners, the correct one or one of the LL corners, such that the corner is oriented and you can go directly into OCLL/COLL and PLL or OCLL/COLL and TTLL and be able to do TTLL influencing via COLL to avoid trash TTLLs.
I know 2-sided PLL recognition, but I can't directly apply that to TTLL recognition.
Yes, use any pattern that is easy to see. In the above example, you would look at the corner permutation, the fact that the bottom right corner looks like a Z perm, and the two opposite colors in the top right (blue and green).By 2 sided PLL recognition, do you mean looking for checker patterns or blocks or headlights?
The problem I have with this argument when people make this argument is that it takes the same amount of time to insert just the edge or a pair. As a result, you will be left into TSLE or OCLL/COLL and either way it’s an alg. Technically TSLE can be intuitive sure, but in practice most people would just look up and memorize an alg for it, making the point that TTLL solves the LL in one alg a moot point because there is always some recognition and execution of TSLE beforehand, which, in my mind, just changes what kind of OLL and PLL is possible. It would be like having a CFOP solver get to OLL, orient all the edges with some alg and do ZBLL. Sure, the ZBLL alg solved the LL in one alg but there was still a setup step. As a result, I personally see the future of ZZCT, assuming TTLL algs are improved as an option select thing between ZZ A and CT, where once you have one F2L pair left you choose whether you pair the edge with the proper corner or one of the LL corners based on what is the easiest to pair with and have the pairing corner be oriented correctly, and then go into ZBLL or OCLL/COLL and TTLL.when used correctly tsle takes almost the same time as the last F2L pair meaning that the last layer is solved in one algorithm so ttll is faster than oll+pll put together
If you are trying to get fast with any form of ZZ, it is widely accepted that for two handed solving, EOCross and solving normal F2L is better than EOLine and blockbuilding. So I would say no. Just do EOCross, and instead of TSLE make one of the F2L pairs with any of the last corners or the proper one and you'll get a normal OLL and either TTLL or PLL, depending on if you made a pair with a last layer corner.Would inserting an F2L edge while blockbuilding F2L to reduce TSLE case count be good? It takes probably 2 moves or less more for me on average.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|My Quest for Sub 10 ZZ (Week 1)||General Speedcubing Discussion||8|
|L||Quest to learn full 1LLL [Week 1]||General Speedcubing Discussion||31|
|S||Quest to Sub-20(CFOP)||General Speedcubing Discussion||15|
|L||Quest to learn full OLLCP [Cancelled]||General Speedcubing Discussion||95|
|Request for raw 240fps GoPro footage||Off-Topic Discussion||0|