The ZZVolution.

[OreKehStrah]

No one (Maybe 1 person) Can consistently see EOCross+1. Cross+2 is the same difficulty if not easier. imo, cross+2 is a much bigger advantage than EOCross+1.

I think EOCross+1 is way better than cross+2 and here’s why. At the top level, which is where you would see each inspection level come up, the solvers obviously have excellent planning and look ahead. Because of this, if a solver can plan cross+1, they should be able to execute the moves and just watch for the second pair. Planning cross+2 will be a bit faster, but then they still have to look ahead to pairs 3 and 4, which may or may not be awkward cases. With EOCross+1, you should still be able to execute the solution and focus on looking ahead to the second pair, but because of EO, look ahead is easier, possible cases are reduced, and you can do ZBLL every solve if you wanted

 

[PapaSmurf]

Eocross+1 is a lot longer than cross so I find it difficult to believe it is equivalent to regular cross+1. Cn crosses typically range from 4-6. 7 is incredibly rare (but then that is assuming you always use move opitmal which you shouldn't be). You spend more time with awkward cross type ergonomics too.

How colour neutral are zz solvers? Cfop has more and more world class solvers who are cn. But zz is fixed orientation. I know some people use yx2. But you could be z neutral too. Z rotations doesn't change the number of bad edges.


Eocross has a significantly greater spread and the fastest typical is still 50% slowe than cross.

So all I am saying is the question of comparison is does adding time to cross save more time in F2L. LL should save a little bit.

I never claimed it was equal, but just that EOCross+1 is definitely feasible most of the time.

ZZ solvers are (should be) x2y, so white or yellow on D, any colour on F. This gives you 4 EOCrosses to choose from. You can instead be neutral on any 2 F/B combinations (so you can solve with any colour on D, blue/green or red/orange on F for example) which gives 8 options, although this isn't really necessary imo.

EOCross distribution for fixed orientation looks like this: .
As you can see, almost every case is between 5 and 9 moves, so the spread is not much greater than 4-6 of CN cross and if you were x2y, that spread would decrease and shift lower.

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I would argue that it definitely does make up for it. It's close, but the faster pairs (from not having most of the bad CFOP cases or rotations) and faster LL make up for the 3-4 extra moves spent during EOCross.

 

[OreKehStrah]

I can do EOCross from 6 orientations x2y or zy2 so in normal color scheme with white or yellow on top, and front, or with green or blue front, yellow or red top. The red/yellow EOCross is a relatively recent thing I learned but once I get it up to par, I plan on working on green or blue top. Idk how practical fully CN EOCross is, but I think it would be cool just to be able to do it

 

[tx789]

I never claimed it was equal, but just that EOCross+1 is definitely feasible most of the time.

ZZ solvers are (should be) x2y, so white or yellow on D, any colour on F. This gives you 4 EOCrosses to choose from. You can instead be neutral on any 2 F/B combinations (so you can solve with any colour on D, blue/green or red/orange on F for example) which gives 8 options, although this isn't really necessary imo.

EOCross distribution for fixed orientation looks like this: View attachment 13925.
As you can see, almost every case is between 5 and 9 moves, so the spread is not much greater than 4-6 of CN cross and if you were x2y, that spread would decrease and shift lower.

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I would argue that it definitely does make up for it. It's close, but the faster pairs (from not having most of the bad CFOP cases or rotations) and faster LL make up for the 3-4 extra moves spent during EOCross.

That is closer than I expected maybe it is better but that is hard to prove can it even if be diffintively the done beyond informed opiniomms. Devolping certain "useless" skills is still useful. Defining useless as slower.

If I ever did eocross I would want to be fully cn but obviously that is jrd since there are 24.

How many more moves does speed otimised eocross take compared to move optimal. I imagine eocross is hard to be efficient at and beginners suck at it.

I would be interested to see how x2y, z and fully neutral compare in move counts. I wonder if it saves more than fixed cross vs cn cross.

 

[PapaSmurf]

That is closer than I expected maybe it is better but that is hard to prove can it even if be diffintively the done beyond informed opiniomms. Devolping certain "useless" skills is still useful. Defining useless as slower.

If I ever did eocross I would want to be fully cn but obviously that is jrd since there are 24.

How many more moves does speed otimised eocross take compared to move optimal. I imagine eocross is hard to be efficient at and beginners suck at it.

I would be interested to see how x2y, z and fully neutral compare in move counts. I wonder if it saves more than fixed cross vs cn cross.

There are 12 EOCrosses for full CN (not 24) as each EO has 4 different ones and there are 3 EOs. It’s still not easy to do though.

It takes about 9-10 whereas move optimal is about 7-8 (as you can see from the data).

Me too. Please could someone who can do that kinda thing look into this?

 

[RadicalMacaroni]

How many more moves does speed otimised eocross take compared to move optimal.

my speed optimized eocrosses in solves usually take 8 or 9 moves, compared to 7 avg moves for optimal

No one (Maybe 1 person) Can consistently see EOCross+1. Cross+2 is the same difficulty if not easier. imo, cross+2 is a much bigger advantage than EOCross+1.

as one of the people who can plan eocross+1, i can tell you that cross+2 is straight up harder

 

[Owen Morrison]

my speed optimized eocrosses in solves usually take 8 or 9 moves, compared to 7 avg moves for optimal



as one of the people who can plan eocross+1, i can tell you that cross+2 is straight up harder

Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.

 

[PetraPine]

Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.

cross+2 is more moves, its that simple.

 

[tx789]

cross+2 is more moves, its that simple.

You can need to track pieces threw f2l+1.l and there are less places those pieces can be too. It isn't that simple.

 

[OreKehStrah]

Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.

That's a really demeaning and kinda disrespectful way to put things. You really should work on not coming across as standoffish all the time. Also, I assure you that anyone who does EOCross can do CFOP just fine.

 

[PetraPine]

That's a really demeaning and kinda disrespectful way to put things. You really should work on not coming across as standoffish all the time. Also, I assure you that anyone who does EOCross can do CFOP just fine.

Agreed, Thats like saying a petrus user couldn't do Xcrosses well
Also I just saw that original post and that was my gut reaction, so sorry about that.

You can need to track pieces threw f2l+1.l and there are less places those pieces can be too. It isn't that simple.

 

[PapaSmurf]

You can need to track pieces threw f2l+1.l and there are less places those pieces can be too. It isn't that simple.

You don't have EO though and it's more moves. It's all circular.

 

[RadicalMacaroni]

Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.

Well, I don't use CFOP as my main method, but I'm still sub 10 with it. I may not be as advanced with CFOP but Cross+2 is simply more pieces to solve, and takes more moves, thus it's harder to plan in inspection. It's that simple.

 

[abunickabhi]

I think becoming method neutral is the best approach for the future. Taking all the best things of each method, and being able to judge which method to use in inspection time will be good.

Currently, I use CFOP and Roux.

 

[RadicalMacaroni]

I think becoming method neutral is the best approach for the future. Taking all the best things of each method, and being able to judge which method to use in inspection time will be good.

Currently, I use CFOP and Roux.

This would be good if you could be equally fast with each method. I'm currently avging mid 7 with zz, high 8 with roux, and low 9 with cfop so maybe I'll try to get to the same speed with all 3.

 

[Username: Username:]

I think becoming method neutral is the best approach for the future. Taking all the best things of each method, and being able to judge which method to use in inspection time will be good.

Currently, I use CFOP and Roux.

It is probably a huge disadvantage as you waste a TON of inspection just to even pick a method, you also waste many hours of practice that makes you sub 10 with ZZ and CFOP instead of sub 9 with Roux. (heh)

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

It is probably a huge disadvantage as you waste a TON of inspection just to even pick a method, you also waste many hours of practice that makes you sub 10 with ZZ and CFOP instead of sub 9 with Roux. (heh)

Yea i'd say maybe best to be method neutral with ZZ and Roux or CFOP and Roux. All 3 bad.

 

[Username: Username:]

Yea i'd say maybe best to be method neutral with ZZ and Roux or CFOP and Roux. All 3 bad.

Dual method neutral at least has potential but not all 3, yep.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

Dual method neutral at least has potential but not all 3, yep.

I think being CFOP and ZZ method neutral would also be bad since it'd be harder to decide a method, so you waste a lot of inspection

 

[PapaSmurf]

ZZ/CFOP method neutrality is the easiest of the combos as they're quite similar. The problem is that you could very easily tend to do more solves with one than the other depending on your approach. Roux/ZZ or Roux/CFOP is probably the best combination as you can exploit both blocks and cross/EO.