The One-Answer Question Thread [closed]

Status
Not open for further replies.
omer said:
in ZZ you first orient edges, place the line, then build blocks on the left and right and when you finish you have to do the last layer just like CFOP, only this time the edges don't need orienting.

What you are suggesting is building the EO line, then adding another EO line and by that finishing the cross, and then doing F2L just as CFOP? I think this will just kill the nice R-L-U freedom ZZ gives.

Orienting the edges in the beginning makes building blocks on the left and right very easy, I don't think there's any need for the cross, you just build a 2x2x1 block on one side, another one on the other side, then insert the 2x1x1 blocks like a very easy F2L and you're done with the first 2 layers.
Click to expand...

Hm.. Yes I do see your point there, however, as a CFOP user (beginner though), and having learnt and practiced a little bit of Roux, I find block building rather difficult and challenging to grasp and get used to, so in a "time" aspect of it, wouldn't orienting the edges, finishing F2L like CFOP and guaranteeing a 1 look OLL be a good add on to CFOP? Or should I just learn and use full ZZ if I wanted to do such a thing? :P

P.S. Thanks for replying! :)
 
TwisterTimmy said:
Hm.. Yes I do see your point there, however, as a CFOP user (beginner though), and having learnt and practiced a little bit of Roux, I find block building rather difficult and challenging to grasp and get used to, so in a "time" aspect of it, wouldn't orienting the edges, finishing F2L like CFOP and guaranteeing a 1 look OLL be a good add on to CFOP? Or should I just learn and use full ZZ if I wanted to do such a thing? :P

P.S. Thanks for replying! :)
Click to expand...

ZZ blockbuilding is more "restricted" than petrus or roux blockbuilding. This is because edges have fixed orientations, and only <RUL> moves are permitted. In this sense, ZZ blockbuilding is easier than the others in that there are far less "block cases" to deal with. [Some will argue that this makes ZZ less efficient. That is false theoretically and experimentally.] This also makes it easier to determine which cases are easier than others. In roux or petrus, the solver needs full-cube awareness to take advantage of the easy cases. In ZZ, because you can always see all pieces that you need, it quickly becomes a sinch to pick out ~4-5 move squares and ~11-12 move blocks at full speed.

The alternative that you propose is basically solving Eoline and then place the DR and DL crosspieces (called EO-cross). This is a viable option. It's just less efficient. I'm sure a few ZZers place a cross piece whenever they get a chance, but in the long run ZZ capitalizes on its "restricted" blockbuilding.

Also, there a bunch of people that switched to ZZ in hopes of avoiding 60 OLL algorithms (myself included). However, the truth is that you will eventually learn 40+ coll algorithms, a bunch of winter variation, and perhaps some CPLS, so that in the end, you won't really have "saved" any algorithms.
 
mDiPalma said:
ZZ blockbuilding is more "restricted" than petrus or roux blockbuilding. This is because edges have fixed orientations, and only <RUL> moves are permitted. In this sense, ZZ blockbuilding is easier than the others in that there are far less "block cases" to deal with. [Some will argue that this makes ZZ less efficient. That is false theoretically and experimentally.] This also makes it easier to determine which cases are easier than others. In roux or petrus, the solver needs full-cube awareness to take advantage of the easy cases. In ZZ, because you can always see all pieces that you need, it quickly becomes a sinch to pick out ~4-5 move squares and ~11-12 move blocks at full speed.

The alternative that you propose is basically solving Eoline and then place the DR and DL crosspieces (called EO-cross). This is a viable option. It's just less efficient. I'm sure a few ZZers place a cross piece whenever they get a chance, but in the long run ZZ capitalizes on its "restricted" blockbuilding.

Also, there a bunch of people that switched to ZZ in hopes of avoiding 60 OLL algorithms (myself included). However, the truth is that you will eventually learn 40+ coll algorithms, a bunch of winter variation, and perhaps some CPLS, so that in the end, you won't really have "saved" any algorithms.
Click to expand...

ahh.. I see :P Thank you very much for the detailed and informative reply, I'll make sure I keep all that in mind and take it all into consideration when making my final decision :)

Again, Thanks a bunch! :D

- TwisterTimmy
 
The One Answer Question Thread

CUBENERD101 said:
Where can i buy a godly guhong
If i still can plz provide link
Click to expand...

Dont think izo sells them anymore but I've done it to one of mine... The main thing is cutting open the pieces with a knife to allow for zhanchi anchors, then rounding the edges. It makes the cube feel looser just warning.
 
googlebleh said:
Pure means that ONLY the dedge gets flipped, whereas impure means that other pieces might be affected too (most common pieces affected in impure are front two corners and UL and UR dedges)
Click to expand...

thank you and also do you know which is better?
 
GuapCuber said:
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_Parity_Algorithms on this website what does it mean by pure and impure dedge flips?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ I didn't know cmowla made that wiki page so enormous, I'm gonna have to take a look through there...next time I feel like sitting down with a 4x4 for 5+ hours :O

Anyway, which one you would want to use depends on what the whole last layer looks like when you first get to it in a solve. If you only want to learn one alg right now, learn an impure one because they can generally be executed faster due to the lack of slice moves. Knowing a pure alg can be useful though, for when you get to last layer and all the pieces are oriented except for that one dedge, because then using a pure alg to flip it means you don't have to do an additional OLL alg. There's various other cool tricks you can do when you get OLL parity to skip having to do an additional OLL alg, too, but you can save that for when you're comfortable with the standard approach ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
One answer random question thread
Replies
8
Views
1,767
tnk351
T
AlexvanVugt
One-Answer Square-1 Question Thread
5 6 7
Replies
138
Views
25,028
Renslay
Renslay
shadowslice e
One-Answer Puzzle Theory Question Thread
8 9 10
Replies
193
Views
32,909
eeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeee
B
  • Locked
One-Answer 3x3 Roux Question Thread
7 8 9
Replies
164
Views
32,551
PiKeeper
PiKeeper
Note
One-Answer 2x2x2 Question Thread
14 15 16
Replies
317
Views
46,084
Renslay
Renslay
Back
Top