• 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.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

The ZZVolution.

What do you think is the superior method?


  • Total voters
    62
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
265
This is a super secret society known as, the ZZVolution. No it’s not that secret. But on this thread we must plan how to switch everyone to ZZ. So we need facts that prove why they should switch to ZZ. I will provide a fact. The first reason why ZZ is exceptionally good is because you can get very lucky. My Pb is with CFOP- 11.97 but I have a 12.7 single with ZZ that I acquired when I was averaging about 23 seconds. Just today I achieved a OH pb single- a 23. Now my OH single with cfop was no where close to this being a whole 30 seconds. I have achieved 4 sub 30 OH singles with ZZ averaging 40 seconds. Now next fact! (If no one responds I have another reason why ZZ is superior.)
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
265
Hmmmmmm


This video proves everything.

Also isn’t Phil you sub 7?

Edit: oh nope never mind but there are some very fast ZZ solvers out there. Papa smurf is sub 10. Phil yu is also sub 10. And they both use ZZ. Also j perm said that you can get very fast with ZZ.
 

u Cube

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
325
Location
your imagination
YouTube
ucubeyt
Hmmmmmm


This video proves everything.
View attachment 10814

Also isn’t Phil you sub 7?
Phil yu is hardly sub-10. There is only one good zz solver out there and he uses zz cross and I think he might be sub-8. Also I can't see the vid it won't let me click on it

Hmmmmmm


This video proves everything.

Also isn’t Phil you sub 7?

Edit: oh nope never mind but there are some very fast ZZ solvers out there. Papa smurf is sub 10. Phil yu is also sub 10. And they both use ZZ. Also j perm said that you can get very fast with ZZ.
oh i see it now
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
534
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
N/A
I have nothing against ZZ, and I don't see why I would not, so I'll provide amother point - ZZ reorients the last layer edges, resulting in, like 50 less OLL cases to remember than in CFOP. Plus, the long 3 gen RUL provides no rotations at all, and also helps with fast tuening.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
436
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
Here's the current state of ZZ.
EOLine is bad for 2H (OH and feet are different). It has bad regrips and overall crappy ergonomics.
EOArrow (EOLine plus either DL or DR edge piece) is better, gives better solutions for speed on the non dominant hand while keeping the blockbuilding aspect.
EOCross (aka ZZ-cross, but don't call it that, it makes it seem like it's a seperate method) is even better, as it allows for non-linear blocks a lot more than the other 2 (linear blocks reduces regrips). It also has at least the same (if not a bit higher) tps as CFOP F2L for a slightly lower movecount over the whole solve. At this point I would say that ZZ is better than CFOP and equal to Roux.
Doing EOCross + a pair is basically the same as EOCross, but slightly better (just as cross+1 is better with CFOP). On the other hand, if you do XEOArrow (the same thing as XEOLine) or XEOCross you definitely surpass CFOP. This is because the movecount is drastically lower (46 and 50 respectively vs CFOP's 56) but with better ergonomics. I would also argue that 'advanced' Roux (just as this is 'advanced' ZZ) is equal to this.
The king of ZZ is XEOArrow on left. What this is is a 2x2x2 in DBL + FL edge + EO. This allows for the EO2x2x3 to be finished with <RUD> then the right block with <RU(D)> then LL. It is the same movecount as XEOArrow, just with better ergonomics. I would be hesitant to say that it is definitely better than Roux, but if I had to choose one, I'd say this, but only by the narrowest of margins. The biggest problem with this is that inspection would have to reach about 13 moves which is pushing it, although people can do it. ZBLL is a given with ZZ and option select can also be applied.

TL;DR - basic ZZ is bad, but it gets so much better the more you do in inspection.

If you want a more detailed thing, ask. (Btw, I'm not sub 10, but I have a 10.06 ao1000 and quite a few ao100s. Currently on 10.14 ao1000.) Also check out Dale Palamares. He's just sub 8 (according to chats with him on discord).
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
436
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
134
Here’s my thought process as someone decent but more interested in methodology:
In the base form ZZ is not as good as CFOP or Roux. The Eoline is more difficult to inspect in the same amount of time as cross and is (supposedly) a lot harder to be color neutral. Then the block building is a lot harder to automate how you solve a case that could come up as there’s more variety in what’s possible due to less pieces being solved. This leads to a bit more efficient solves than in CFOP. However stock ZZ is not as efficient as Roux generally speaking. Therefore Stock ZZ is worse than CFOP and Roux.
If you start using EOCross, the inspection is more difficult, especially when planning first pair. However, you then get a subset of F2L cases that is rotationless, and more importantly, potentially more ergonomic which can increase TPS and compensate for Lookahead issues, at least to an extend. So theoretically the lookahead between pairs can become a bit easier after the initial pair issue.
The real kicker for ZZ to be viable at the highest level in my opinion is using a combination of ZBLL, TTLS from CT, and some Tripod Algs. ZZ can produce a lot of unique cases far more frequently that in CFOP and as a result, if you know a lot of algs for these cases you can increase your efficiency even more, which can also compensate for the inspection and initial look ahead issues.
So in conclusion, I think ZZ is viable at the top of speed solving, but it requires a lot of practice, planning and alg learning.
If you look at 경햔교 , who is arguably the best ZZ user in comp, he uses EOcross with normal CFOP last layer and gets low 8 averages and Sub 7 and even Sub 6 solves in comp and ZZ is not his main method. If that’s possible when ZZ isn’t your main method and advanced LL / LSLL isn’t used then someone who had the dedication could improve these times below the 8 second barrier for sure. And as solves are achieved even Sub-7 in the not endgame for of the method sub-7 average is likely possible.
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
143
Location
Washington
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
CuberStache
The king of ZZ is XEOArrow on left. What this is is a 2x2x2 in DBL + FL edge + EO.
I can see this being very good, but it just seems like too many things to do at once. Would you do EO first and predict locations of the block pieces? It seems really difficult and if it's not a good case you've used far too much inspection time to pick a different start. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just would like to hear more of what you have to say about it.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
436
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
What about zipper, leor and zb?
All of them are very good methods that are also equal. ZB is about the same as ZZ with EOCross as it is more efficient but also has slightly worse ergonomics imo for more algs that aren't slot neutral with worse LL lookahead. LEOR comparison is FB+EO=EOArrow+pair, DFDB=another pair, right block=2 pairs, ZBLL=ZBLL. Zipper is just CFOP but better, although it does have drawbacks which I think weigh it in around the XEOArrow/EOArrow+1/EOCross+1 level.
I can see this being very good, but it just seems like too many things to do at once. Would you do EO first and predict locations of the block pieces? It seems really difficult and if it's not a good case you've used far too much inspection time to pick a different start. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just would like to hear more of what you have to say about it.
Take this scramble: F2 L2 D' B R F R' L U2 B2 D2 B' R2 U2 F U2 L2 B' U2 R2 U'
I can see the blue/red/yellow pair, so I'll use that. I can also see that on orange front/white on U that there are 6 bad edges compared to 8 with green front. U B D2 F' will solve EO and set up the pieces for a kinda nice 2x2x2, so L' F2 L2 D L2 D2 will solve an EO2x2x2, then it's just a simple R' F2. All of that was without actually turning anything.
That was an easier than average scramble to see the solution, but to see that many moves in inspection isn't absurd, just very hard. I hope it showed that you do a bit of both (looking for the pieces and solving EO). I also agree, if it's not a good case, just drop it and go for EOCross, but that's what CFOPers do with XCrosses. They don't do them all the time, just when the scramble suits it.
My current views on method optimality:

2H: CFOP/Roux
OH: Roux
Feet: ZZ/CFOP
Why CFOP for feet when ZZ exists, and why not ZZ for 2H?
 
Last edited:

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
436
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
ZZ 'fingertricks' (you probably mean ergonomics) for most non-EOLine variants are better than CFOP. You have <RULy> in CFOP. In ZZ you have <RUL>, and with EOCross you don't get the annoying R2s and L2s that EOLine has. ZZ is (over simplified) pretty much CFOP with a better F2L and LL.
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
143
Location
Washington
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
CuberStache
Take this scramble: F2 L2 D' B R F R' L U2 B2 D2 B' R2 U2 F U2 L2 B' U2 R2 U'
I can see the blue/red/yellow pair, so I'll use that. I can also see that on orange front/white on U that there are 6 bad edges compared to 8 with green front. U' B D2 F' will solve EO and set up the pieces for a kinda nice 2x2x2, so L' F2 L2 D L2 D' will solve an EO2x2x2, then it's just a simple R' F2. All of that was without actually turning anything.
Thanks a lot for this but I think you have a move written wrong somewhere and I can't figure out where. I even did all your starting moves backward and there aren't any pairs on the cube :/ The scramble seems correct; I can see the pair and the EO works but it breaks the pair.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
436
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
Thanks a lot for this but I think you have a move written wrong somewhere and I can't figure out where. I even did all your starting moves backward and there aren't any pairs on the cube :/ The scramble seems correct; I can see the pair and the EO works but it breaks the pair.
Fixed. Also, in that case it would actually be better to go for normal XEOLine due to the free pair.
 
Top