• 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
    131

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
514
I have. EOCross is as hard to plan as cross+1 is. Cross+1 solves 2 more pieces and gets rid of a blind spot.
The issue with the blind spot argument is that because of EO, you can solve around the blind spots, and as you reduce possible locations of pieces, the extra knowledge you have because of EO makes it where you don't have to see what is in a back slot to know what case it is due to having EO.
 

sqAree

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Berlin
WCA
2015JAEH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Let's say you do. Well guess what? You do in CFOP too. Any criticism of ZZ against CFOP can't be used in the F2L department except for maybe a couple of edge flipped cases being nice (such as sledge insert), but even then there are many not nice edge flipped cases. You have to instead prove that EOCross+pair+ZBLL is worse than XCross+OLL/PLL by a significant enough margin to make up for the faster ZZ F2L, unless you want to contend that somehow ZZ F2L is worse than CFOP's.
I can't give a proof but as I already said I think you underestimate the number of great flipped edge cases in CFOP.
There are already a lot of 5-movers such as R B' U' B R' or F' R' U' R F (and many more) just to give a few examples.
Then, for the F2L cases with EO solved, CFOP can have better solutions than ZZ too (and obviously never worse solutions). For example like this alg: R' F R F' U R U R' or R' F R F' R U R'. Not so significant especially for the first case, but the point is just that CFOP F2L is probably better than ZZ F2L.
If that makes CFOP better than ZZ in total? No idea. Of course ZBLL is better than OLL+PLL.
When 1LLL for CFOP becomes viable, CFOP has certainly the edge. Without 1LLL it looks pretty good for ZZ at the moment, but it's not as definite and obvious as you make it sound.

^imo
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
514
I can't give a proof but as I already said I think you underestimate the number of great flipped edge cases in CFOP.
There are already a lot of 5-movers such as R B' U' B R' or F' R' U' R F (and many more) just to give a few examples.
Then, for the F2L cases with EO solved, CFOP can have better solutions than ZZ too (and obviously never worse solutions). For example like this alg: R' F R F' U R U R' or R' F R F' R U R'. Not so significant especially for the first case, but the point is just that CFOP F2L is probably better than ZZ F2L.
If that makes CFOP better than ZZ in total? No idea. Of course ZBLL is better than OLL+PLL.
When 1LLL for CFOP becomes viable, CFOP has certainly the edge. Without 1LLL it looks pretty good for ZZ at the moment, but it's not as definite and obvious as you make it sound.

^imo
I’m not a fan of that 1LLL for CFOP viability argument. Otherwise you can argue into a corner like this:

“1LLL will never be practical for the average person to use, it’s just too much for most people.

“okay, but the people who would learn it would be people at the top. Outliers”

“Exactly. Outliers. Because of this you can expect there to be people who are outliers that can consistently plan EOCross+1, negating the look ahead and inspection argument against EOCross. Likewise, they will have mastery of RUL turning, which is a subset of CFOP turning, making it no worse than CFOP turning. Then, if we assume 1LLL even is viable for CFOP, then ZBLL, which is a subset, must also be viable. So the amount of cases needed to be learned for 1LLL. Is reduced by nearly 10 times just by doing EOCross”

or Something like that.
I personally suspect the real innovation in methods now is going to be techniques that allow people to inspect further into the solve, like free-slotting(shameless plug lol).
 

sqAree

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Berlin
WCA
2015JAEH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I’m not a fan of that 1LLL for CFOP viability argument. Otherwise you can argue into a corner like this:

“1LLL will never be practical for the average person to use, it’s just too much for most people.

“okay, but the people who would learn it would be people at the top. Outliers”

“Exactly. Outliers. Because of this you can expect there to be people who are outliers that can consistently plan EOCross+1, negating the look ahead and inspection argument against EOCross. Likewise, they will have mastery of RUL turning, which is a subset of CFOP turning, making it no worse than CFOP turning. Then, if we assume 1LLL even is viable for CFOP, then ZBLL, which is a subset, must also be viable. So the amount of cases needed to be learned for 1LLL. Is reduced by nearly 10 times just by doing EOCross”

or Something like that.
I personally suspect the real innovation in methods now is going to be techniques that allow people to inspect further into the solve, like free-slotting(shameless plug lol).
I'm just saying that IF 1LLL for CFOP is viable at some point (use whatever definition of viable that you like, for example that it's accessible for practically everyone), then CFOP probably wins against ZZ.
Fewer algs to learn is not a scaling advantage, rather a "threshold" advantage, like as long as the number of algs to learn is below a certain threshold the methods are equal by comparison in that specific aspect.
But yeah, as I said even its current form (OLL+PLL) it's hard to argue that CFOP is not viable. ZZ isn't just strictly better, there are some parts in which it does better and some in which it does not. At this point it seems not possible to weight those particular aspects accurately.

EDIT: Sure, fewer algs to learn means also fewer algs to maintain and drill, but the threshold argument still applies to a certain degree, because at some point you have drilled enough such that more drilling wouldn't necessarily help your times further.
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
514
I'm just saying that IF 1LLL for CFOP is viable at some point (use whatever definition of viable that you like, for example that it's accessible for practically everyone), then CFOP probably wins against ZZ.
Fewer algs to learn is not a scaling advantage, rather a "threshold" advantage, like as long as the number of algs to learn is below a certain threshold the methods are equal by comparison in that specific aspect.
But yeah, as I said even its current form (OLL+PLL) it's hard to argue that CFOP is not viable. ZZ isn't just strictly better, there are some parts in which it does better and some in which it does not. At this point it seems not possible to weight those particular aspects accurately.

EDIT: Sure, fewer algs to learn means also fewer algs to maintain and drill, but the threshold argument still applies to a certain degree, because at some point you have drilled enough such that more drilling wouldn't necessarily help your times further.
The thing is is that ZB and most likely 1L as a whole has cases where OLL PLL is faster so no only would you need to learn, drill, and maintain it, but you would also need to sort through which is faster for each case.
 

Nir1213

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,435
YouTube
Visit Channel
The thing is is that ZB and most likely 1L as a whole has cases where OLL PLL is faster so no only would you need to learn, drill, and maintain it, but you would also need to sort through which is faster for each case.
you got a point. Only some 1lll cases would be good, depending on the fingertricks and how many moves it takes
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
11
hello everyone
since im officially sub 25 with vanilla zz so im thinking about a variant
im considering zz-b,zz tripod and zz reduction
so can anyone help me if this forum is still alive?
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
514
hello everyone
since im officially sub 25 with vanilla zz so im thinking about a variant
im considering zz-b,zz tripod and zz reduction
so can anyone help me if this forum is still alive?
I use Tripod. There’s only like 46-47 ZBs you need to know full ZZ-Tripod LL. And then maybe 40 something last slot algs. I should learn them at some point but you can get around weird cases by inserting either an edge or corner and using a commutator to solve the other piece. Another tip is to take advantage of lots of multislotting tricks to build an F2L pair and part of the tripod block.
If you are going for speed, I wouldn’t recommend Tripod but it’s a pretty rarely used method so you would be a unique method user. I’m working on learning full Tripod so I’d say go for it.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
11
I use Tripod. There’s only like 46-47 ZBs you need to know full ZZ-Tripod LL. And then maybe 40 something last slot algs. I should learn them at some point but you can get around weird cases by inserting either an edge or corner and using a commutator to solve the other piece. Another tip is to take advantage of lots of multislotting tricks to build an F2L pair and part of the tripod block.
If you are going for speed, I wouldn’t recommend Tripod but it’s a pretty rarely used method so you would be a unique method user. I’m working on learning full Tripod so I’d say go for it.
what about zzb and zz reduction?
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
514
what about zzb and zz reduction?
Eh. ZZ-B is bad and should only maybe used as a stepping stone towards ZZ-A. If you are gonna take the time to do influencing on LL just do Tripod and reduce the LL to 46 ZBs instead of 167. Similarly, redux is also bad. Worse tbh because you go through the trouble of phasing and remove some of the best PLLs and increase the probability of getting the trash Z perm.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
896
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I wouldn't recommend tripod (or anything that isn't mostly A).
You're better off just sticking with OCLL/PLL for a while (until you're sub 12 or faster really) while learning OLS tricks (mainly from experience), random ZBLLs and COLL recognition but not algs. The best 'redux' method for LL is probably forcing TULO ZBLL (O=PLL), which is 216 algs+PLL, but you're always gonna be better off not doing that and just waiting for a while. I know it's kinda boring, but if you only care about speed it's the way to go.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
655
Location
On a long train journey, Smashin' PBs one a stop
YouTube
Visit Channel
i actually alrdy know full coll so im using that
If you know when the COLL alg skips PLL, then it might be useful otherwise, knowing only full COLL isn't of any use other than recognition.

I'm planning to switch to ZZ for OH. I'm confused as to whether I should use vanilla ZZ or EOcross.

Can anyone tell me how to solve 2 bad edges efficiently?
(I set up to F R U R' U' F' usually which is highly inefficient, especially when I get 6 or 10 bad edges)

Also, is doing 4-2 efficient for 6 bad edges?(suggest me a better way if it's inefficient)
 
Last edited:

Yoruba

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Messages
3
For ZZ OH use EOLine
For 6 bad edges 3-3 is on average better. You put 3 edges on F/B face so that when you do F or B, You orient 3 edges but misorient 1. From here you have 4 bad edges. 4-2 is sometimes better though, for example when there are already 4 bad edges on F/B.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
896
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
If you know when the COLL alg skips PLL, then it might be useful otherwise, knowing only full COLL isn't of any use other than recognition.

I'm planning to switch to ZZ for OH. I'm confused as to whether I should use vanilla ZZ or EOcross.

Can anyone tell me how to solve 2 bad edges efficiently?
(I set up to F R U R' U' F' usually which is highly inefficient, especially when I get 6 or 10 bad edges)

Also, is doing 4-2 efficient for 6 bad edges?(suggest me a better way if it's inefficient)
For 2 bad edges, make 1 good and 3 bad then you have 4 bad. So something like F R F will flip 2 edges. Otherwise what Yoruba said.
 
Top