• 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
    107

u Cube

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
423
Location
your imagination
YouTube
Visit Channel
I’m just saying, people who don’t actively use ZZ/EOCross really shouldn’t be trying to put their opinion out there with claims that something else is objectively better. Most people just hear somebody fast say something and echo it, instead of forming their own opinions from personal experience.
purpose of objective comparison is looking at both sides with pure facts and that's what I do with roux/cfop/zz comparisons. I'll make a vid sometime this month on why Eocross is objectively worse than Roux because it gets really tiring to re-explain my position every time some ZZ user gets mad.
 

u Cube

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
423
Location
your imagination
YouTube
Visit Channel
As most people in this thread have said, how?

EOCross=FB+DR (4 pieces plus EO of everything else vs 6 pieces is pretty fair, similar number of moves, ~9 for each).
2.5 ZZ pairs=rest of second block (ZZ pairs are very fast (imagine CFOP pairs but faster) and Roux SB has some bad blind spots as well as some overturning issues).
Finish F2L=CMLL (this is like a 1 second alg vs a .6 second alg for LS and about .3 for half of other pair, so is in ZZ's favour mildly).
ZBLL=LSE (both are about sub 2 and could be substantialy faster depending on the case, even when factoring in using OCLL/PLL instead).

Also, that video doesn't have these:
Woah nice solves, didn't know it was 2017 lol
 

MichaelZRC

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
58
Location
Florida, Hell
purpose of objective comparison is looking at both sides with pure facts and that's what I do with roux/cfop/zz comparisons. I'll make a vid sometime this month on why Eocross is objectively worse than Roux because it gets really tiring to re-explain my position every time some ZZ user gets mad.
EOCross isn't objectively worse than Roux?
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
347
purpose of objective comparison is looking at both sides with pure facts and that's what I do with roux/cfop/zz comparisons. I'll make a vid sometime this month on why Eocross is objectively worse than Roux because it gets really tiring to re-explain my position every time some ZZ user gets mad.
I have no complaints with discussing the issues of EOCross. What I don’t like is when people make a blanket claim something is more optimal without backing it up or even detailing by what metric something is more optimal.
 

u Cube

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
423
Location
your imagination
YouTube
Visit Channel
I have no complaints with discussing the issues of EOCross. What I don’t like is when people make a blanket claim something is more optimal without backing it up or even detailing by what metric something is more optimal.
I agree, I switched to roux because nobody had objective evidence that cfop was better by a big margin, and for the first year of using people would be like "ew roux why not use cfop" so I get your point of blanket claims. Blanket claims are useless and get us nowhere. Going around saying HARHAR ZZ NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB isn't helping anybody. So like I said, I will go more in depth and make a video on which method is "objectively better". It takes me more than ten minutes to type an argument usually and I'm really busy today so that's why I'm not doing that rn lol. Idk, might copy paste some comments I've previously made here instead but it's really hard to convince people without giving evidence cuz I don't really mention the regular argument of "RUL has bad ergonomics so ZZ is bad" as the main flaw.
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
347
Yeah I conp
I agree, I switched to roux because nobody had objective evidence that cfop was better by a big margin, and for the first year of using people would be like "ew roux why not use cfop" so I get your point of blanket claims. Blanket claims are useless and get us nowhere. Going around saying HARHAR ZZ NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB isn't helping anybody. So like I said, I will go more in depth and make a video on which method is "objectively better". It takes me more than ten minutes to type an argument usually and I'm really busy today so that's why I'm not doing that rn lol. Idk, might copy paste some comments I've previously made here instead but it's really hard to convince people without giving evidence cuz I don't really mention the regular argument of "RUL has bad ergonomics so ZZ is bad" as the main flaw.
Yeah I completely understand! Let me know when you post your vid! I’m personally working on sub 10 with CFOP, Roux, and EOCross because I want to form my own opinions from my personal experience. I have some ideas based on what I’ve noticed with EOCross that maybe could boost its viability, but I’ll do more tests first. I think EOCross can probably end up roughly equal to CFOP
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
40
coming from someone who is fast at ZZ (im the person in the videos papasmurf linked) I think LSE is objectively better than ZBLL, because the recognition is not as hard, it's 0 algs vs 500 algs, it's entirely MU gen which is extremely fast, and it's also just straight up faster in general at a top level

as far as which method is better, it's kinda hard to prove it objectively but I'd say the lower movecount of roux combined with its great ergonomics give it more potential than ZZ, although I'm still going to use ZZ because I don't want to put time into getting to the same level with roux.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
750
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
coming from someone who is fast at ZZ (im the person in the videos papasmurf linked) I think LSE is objectively better than ZBLL, because the recognition is not as hard, it's 0 algs vs 500 algs, it's entirely MU gen which is extremely fast, and it's also just straight up faster in general at a top level

as far as which method is better, it's kinda hard to prove it objectively but I'd say the lower movecount of roux combined with its great ergonomics give it more potential than ZZ, although I'm still going to use ZZ because I don't want to put time into getting to the same level with roux.
And last pair and a bit is better than CMLL. :)
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,943
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
Visit Channel
The question of if ZZ with eocross or crop is better comes down too is the time added in eocross saved by zzs f2l and LL as compared to cfop.

Eocross is objectively slower than cross you are doing more than solving cross. Is doing EO worth the cost of a slower start to the solve.

LL is easier to quantify. Both have the same minimum but cfop has a wider spread.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,943
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
Visit Channel
You do about 3-4 extra moves with EOCross to save that and some later on, with a better F2L and LL.
Is the F2L better? RUL is a little akward. You must master RU and LU turning. For cfop you have a bit more freedom. And while f2l is techinall RULFB-gen when do you use a 4-gen f2l pair. That is about the limit and only for non fr slots. The difference seems small. Modern hardware allows for a lot of fancy fingertricks. So it makes F turns a lot better relative to old hardware and other turns.

Those 3-4 moves add a lot since you'll end up inspecting less.


Honestly I think ZZ is worse but if you want to prove me wrong go ahead. Use this as motivation if you need it. Someone has to explore it to know it is viable I could be wrong. I think sometimes doing eocross could work but only when it only affects cross a little but that seems rare.
 

OreKehStrah

Member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
347
Is the F2L better? RUL is a little akward. You must master RU and LU turning. For cfop you have a bit more freedom. And while f2l is techinall RULFB-gen when do you use a 4-gen f2l pair. That is about the limit and only for non fr slots. The difference seems small. Modern hardware allows for a lot of fancy fingertricks. So it makes F turns a lot better relative to old hardware and other turns.

Those 3-4 moves add a lot since you'll end up inspecting less.


Honestly I think ZZ is worse but if you want to prove me wrong go ahead. Use this as motivation if you need it. Someone has to explore it to know it is viable I could be wrong. I think sometimes doing eocross could work but only when it only affects cross a little but that seems rare.
I’ve never really gotten why LU turning being a bit awkward is such a big deal. You can fudge the LU turning via wide r, which lowers the amount of times actual LU turning is needed. Of course there are times where some awkward turning is unavoidable but I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world, especially when you consider how some people still don’t do basic things like double flicks, proper slice moves, etc.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
750
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Is the F2L better? RUL is a little akward. You must master RU and LU turning. For cfop you have a bit more freedom. And while f2l is techinall RULFB-gen when do you use a 4-gen f2l pair. That is about the limit and only for non fr slots. The difference seems small. Modern hardware allows for a lot of fancy fingertricks. So it makes F turns a lot better relative to old hardware and other turns.

Those 3-4 moves add a lot since you'll end up inspecting less.


Honestly I think ZZ is worse but if you want to prove me wrong go ahead. Use this as motivation if you need it. Someone has to explore it to know it is viable I could be wrong. I think sometimes doing eocross could work but only when it only affects cross a little but that seems rare.
Saying the F2L is <RUL> is slightly misleading. It's more accurately <RU LU>. It also isn't a problem when you have to "master RU and LU turning" as this is the case in CFOP too. In fact, with CFOP you have to master RUFD turning and LUFD turning and rotating whereas in ZZ it's RUD and LUD. No one is saying F moves are bad, just as no one is saying that F moves are slow. Simply, the lack of F moves doesn't hurt and the lack of rotations only improves the solve. In CFOP F2L you don't (conventionally) use M moves. That doesn't mean M moves are bad, it just simply means that you don't use M moves and it simplifies the solve slightly.

On the inspection, you don't necessarily end up inspecting less. To see EOCross+1 you need to be able to track a pair through about 9 moves of inspection which is definitely harder than the 5 of normal cross but it is still 100% doable (Rouxers can consistently see FB+DR which is 8 moves into inspection plus an extra move to solve DR). You also get the advantage of first pair and EO, which is, imo, a much bigger advantage than first pair plus maybe an edge of the second.

On your last point of it being worth it "when it affects cross", that's more times than it isn't. There are quite a few examples of CFOP solvers getting EO skips and doing ZZ by accident for a super amazing solve and doing ZZ basically guarentees that for 4 extra moves. Anyway, there are people who are very fast and there are several sub 10 solvers now. Hopefully that keeps on growing and ZZ can finally reach the top (way too late, but it will happen).
 

Owen Morrison

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,727
Location
Tennessee
WCA
2017MORR06
YouTube
Visit Channel
On the inspection, you don't necessarily end up inspecting less. To see EOCross+1 you need to be able to track a pair through about 9 moves of inspection which is definitely harder than the 5 of normal cross but it is still 100% doable (Rouxers can consistently see FB+DR which is 8 moves into inspection plus an extra move to solve DR). You also get the advantage of first pair and EO, which is, imo, a much bigger advantage than first pair plus maybe an edge of the second.
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.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,943
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Saying the F2L is <RUL> is slightly misleading. It's more accurately <RU LU>. It also isn't a problem when you have to "master RU and LU turning" as this is the case in CFOP too. In fact, with CFOP you have to master RUFD turning and LUFD turning and rotating whereas in ZZ it's RUD and LUD. No one is saying F moves are bad, just as no one is saying that F moves are slow. Simply, the lack of F moves doesn't hurt and the lack of rotations only improves the solve. In CFOP F2L you don't (conventionally) use M moves. That doesn't mean M moves are bad, it just simply means that you don't use M moves and it simplifies the solve slightly.

On the inspection, you don't necessarily end up inspecting less. To see EOCross+1 you need to be able to track a pair through about 9 moves of inspection which is definitely harder than the 5 of normal cross but it is still 100% doable (Rouxers can consistently see FB+DR which is 8 moves into inspection plus an extra move to solve DR). You also get the advantage of first pair and EO, which is, imo, a much bigger advantage than first pair plus maybe an edge of the second.

On your last point of it being worth it "when it affects cross", that's more times than it isn't. There are quite a few examples of CFOP solvers getting EO skips and doing ZZ by accident for a super amazing solve and doing ZZ basically guarentees that for 4 extra moves. Anyway, there are people who are very fast and there are several sub 10 solvers now. Hopefully that keeps on growing and ZZ can finally reach the top (way too late, but it will happen).
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.
 
Top