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.

..well, I think the only reason zz-d would be viable is that it ends with 2gll...

the issue with 2g that is that it's very ergonomic but can tend to be inefficient. solving the entire last layer with 1 algorithm is one of few ways in which you can efficiently take advantage of 2g

the other option is to solve all of the remaining f2l+ll with new algsets, like maybe some 3phase orient-separate-permute type thing. those algs will likely be R2-heavy though

..well, I think the only reason zz-d would be viable is that it ends with 2gll...

the issue with 2g that is that it's very ergonomic but can tend to be inefficient. solving the entire last layer with 1 algorithm is one of few ways in which you can efficiently take advantage of 2g

the other option is to solve all of the remaining f2l+ll with new algsets, like maybe some 3phase orient-separate-permute type thing. those algs will likely be R2-heavy though

I think ZZ ergonomics is a bit overhyped for OH. Sure, you only have to do z rotations, but there are still double turns that CFOP doesn't have and awkward D moves.

I think ZZ ergonomics is a bit overhyped for OH. Sure, you only have to do z rotations, but there are still double turns that CFOP doesn't have and awkward D moves.

I do say that the beginning of ZZ is a little hard. But I still like the ergonomics of COLL-EPLL over OLL/PLL. You know how hard it is to do G perms OH? In fact, I specifically don't use CFOP for OH because of how much I hate OH-ing the last layer.

I had an idea that can be useful for total beginners if they want to start out with the ZZ method.
As everyone knows, LL edges in ZZ are already oriented and so there are only 7 OLL cases that a beginner will have to remember. But if the solver also applies phasing and then solves the OLL, out of the 7 OLL cases, 5 of them will preserve the solved edge permutation and the solver will only have to memorize 9 PLL cases!!!
A-a, A-b, E, F, H, Z, N-a, N-b, T
and the two OLLs that don't preserve the edge permutation : they are the ones that have all the 4 corners un-oriented.
and instead of using sune/antisune, the solver will have to use Alan/Inverse Alan so that the permutation of the edges is preserved and then he'll get a PLL case only out of the 9 ones that I stated above.

I guess that this can help a beginner solve a cube with moderate speed without having to learn too many algs right from the start

For the rest of the 2 OLL cases, the edges, if they are not permuted correctly and after applying the OLL, there is a 50% chance that a PLL out of the above 9 will occur, as after applying the OLL, the edges will get permuted correctly

What do you guys think about this? Can this help a beginner cuber only slightly or can it help him/her to a large extent?

So… ZZ-reduction? It's okay for the reduced alg count, but using OCLL and two-look PLL might be better anyway.

Pros: fewer algs than OCLL + PLL; phasing is very intuitive; lower move count than OCLL + two-look PLL.
Cons: more algs than OCLL + two-look PLL; OCLL preserving phasing has slightly worse algs; you can't always phase while inserting the last pair.

("Frequent skips" as mentioned on the wiki is super-misleading. The skip rates are comparable to OCLL with 2-look PLL.)

I decided to get my 4x4 method and optimize it into a 3x3 method, and actually, it seems quite good, so i'll place the format here. I found it to be a hybrid of Petrus and PCMS, which are two methods highly acclaimed for their low movecount and ergonomics. Since none of the steps are really unique to this method, I'm inclined to call it LMBC, or Low Movecount Block Conglomerate.

- Make a 2x2x3 block at the back of the cube. The sky is the limit. I usually do A 2x2x2 block and add a 1x2x2 extension. However, you could also make a 1x2x3 and extend that into a 2x2x3, or make a 3cross and add the two f2l pairs.

- Make two columns on the F face. you could also do a psuedo WV here if you wanted to.

I decided to get my 4x4 method and optimize it into a 3x3 method, and actually, it seems quite good, so i'll place the format here. I found it to be a hybrid of Petrus and PCMS, which are two methods highly acclaimed for their low movecount and ergonomics. Since none of the steps are really unique to this method, I'm inclined to call it LMBC, or Low Movecount Block Conglomerate.

- Make a 2x2x3 block at the back of the cube. The sky is the limit. I usually do A 2x2x2 block and add a 1x2x2 extension. However, you could also make a 1x2x3 and extend that into a 2x2x3, or make a 3cross and add the two f2l pairs.

- Make two columns on the F face. you could also do a psuedo WV here if you wanted to.

I created a new method for 3x3. I call it Perry !
The step:
S1: Make b-block + last edge in E-slice ( seems like 3x2x1 block in LD+ 2x2x2 block in BR) (intuitive)
S2: Orient
a) Orient corner (23 cases)
b) Orient edge (intuitive)
S3: Make 2x2x1 block on UBL (intuitive)
S4: Permute last 4 corner and last 3 edge (about 20 cases + symmetry).
What do you think about this method ?

You can use M,U2 to make a square on UBL without breaking your 2x2x2 in DBR.
Here is example solve:
SCR: F' D R' F B2 L' U' F U2 R D2 R2 B2 L D2 R' U2 L2 F2
S1: F2 R U' B r2/FB
+ U R2 U' R U' M U' r U2 R' U' R2 U2 R'/2x2x2 in DBR
S2
a) skip
b) M' U2 M U2 M' U M
S3: U2 M' U2 M U M' U2 M U2
S4: B2 U L2 F2 U' B2 D2 R2 D' F2 D'
sorry for my English