The ZZVolution.

[Underwatercuber]

For OH: lower movecount, better ergonomics (at least half of F2L is <RU> and the other bit is <zRU>) and easy to force 2GLL if you're semi serious, full ZBLL if you're serious. For the semi serious people, just learn CPLS and do a few hundred solves and then you have a very good LSLL that's only 2 moves more than insert->ZBLL and is definitely better than insert->OLL->PLL or insert->CPEOLL->2GLL.
Talking about official OH is just like talking about official 2H. No one has actually practiced ZZ and you're using anecdotal evidence (which is not strong evidence at all) to suggest that it's therefore worse. Which simply isn't true and even if it is, you're gonna need stronger evidence. Same with the Hyeon situation. He used CFOP for a long time, switched to ZZ (and not the best ZZ), switched back and said that CFOP was faster because he had used it for several years before switching to ZZ.

I mean theoretic stuff is cool and all but until I see the numbers I’m definitely not going to believe ZZ is superior to cfop for anything other than fmc and maybe feet

 

[PapaSmurf]

I mean experimental evidence is cool and all, but you don't see innovation without theory.

 

[Nmile7300]

Why did you bump the thread for no reason?

 

[Nmile7300]

Don't bump old threads unless you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion.

 

[Nmile7300]

He didn't bump the thread for nothing he has something to talk about

he has a question

So you deleted your post and now you are talking about yourself in third person?

 

[Username: Username:]

no this guy

bruh you can see that PapaSmurf didn't bump at all.

 

[Nmile7300]

no this guy

It's not cool to delete your post and then act as if nothing happened. It is great to have you here and everything, but you really need to start following the rules and etiquette, we are tired of explaining things over and over. This is getting quite annoying.

 

[zzcuberman]

you guys are being rude to this person so *cough* bump

 

[PetrusQuber]

He bumps, deletes post, puts blame on Papasmurf, doesn’t admit, etc?

 

[TerryD]

I think it's obvious that ZZ with EOCross is better than CFOP lol, it has better ergonomics, lower movecount, and easier lookahead.

Ergonomics:
ZZ-RULD
CFOP-RULFDy
ZZ is obviously better in this aspect.

Movecount:
ZZ with OLL and PLL(28 algs)-60 moves
ZZ-VH(46 algs)-55 moves
ZZ-a(493 algs)-45 moves to 50 moves
CFOP(78 algs)-60 moves to 65 moves
Unless you use optimal algs and do F2L very efficiently, you're not going to get 55 moves like the wiki says. Example: Feliks Zemdegs averages 62 moves.
Again, ZZ is better in this aspect.

Lookahead:
With ZZ, you only need to look for 3 things during F2L: EP, CP, and CO. With CFOP you have to look for EP, CP, CO, and EO. That means that CFOP lookahead should be harder than ZZ lookahead.

The only disadvantage that I think ZZ suffers from is more thing to be planned in inspection, but due to EO, planning in inspection becomes easier. I think consistently planning EOCross + 1 is very possible, and that nullifies most of the blind spots of ZZ.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

The only disadvantage that I think ZZ suffers from is more thing to be planned in inspection, but due to EO, planning in inspection becomes easier. I think consistently planning EOCross + 1 is very possible, and that nullifies most of the blind spots of ZZ.

If EOcross +1 is possible consistently possible, then cross+2 is equally possible, as eo takes about 6 moves, cross should be about 6 for each method, and f2l pairs take about 7 each, with EOcross +1 is about 19 moves, and cross+2 is about 20. From there, you would solve three pairs, compared to two for CFOP, which undoubtedly would favor cfop, even with the worse ergonomics. For last layer, zz wins because of the slightly faster oll. So they are pretty much equal.

ZZ with OLL and PLL(28 algs)-60 moves
ZZ-VH(46 algs)-55 moves
ZZ-a(493 algs)-45 moves to 50 moves
CFOP(78 algs)-60 moves to 65 moves
Unless you use optimal algs and do F2L very efficiently, you're not going to get 55 moves like the wiki says. Example: Feliks Zemdegs averages 62 moves.
Again, ZZ is better in this aspect.

So the wiki says 55 moves for both cfop and zz(oll/pll), but zz is bumped up by less than cfop because why? One cfop solver takes two moves more on average?

CFOP-RULFDy

lol when are d moves used? Cross, which uses 2 D moves at most? If so, you might as well say zz is also rulfbd because you use maybe two or three b and f moves in EO.

 

[Username: Username:]

If EOcross +1 is possible consistently possible, then cross+2 is equally possible, as eo takes about 6 moves, cross should be about 6 for each method, and f2l pairs take about 7 each, with EOcross +1 is about 19 moves, and cross+2 is about 20. From there, you would solve three pairs, compared to two for CFOP, which undoubtedly would favor cfop, even with the worse ergonomics. For last layer, zz wins because of the slightly faster oll. So they are pretty much equal.

People always get this wrong, EOCross + 1 is equivalent to XCross and a half, also, EOCross + 1 is more efficient than that 19. For the 2 pairs, you could RUL spam so fast that those three pairs are faster than those two pairs, why? cause of the benefits of a solved EO. and lastly, OCLL is far faster than the normal OLL, I can sub .7 most of them but normal OLL, nah and they're not equal.

So the wiki says 55 moves for both cfop and zz(oll/pll), but zz is bumped up by less than cfop because why? One cfop solver takes two moves more on average?

Heyo, you use ZZ, you use ZBLL and, ZZ's efficiency is far better when you use ZBLL you know. (bruh you know you're supposed to use ZZ with ZBLL.)

lol when are d moves used? Cross, which uses 2 D moves at most? If so, you might as well say zz is also rulfbd because you use maybe two or three b and f moves in EO.

you don't use D moves? tell that to Tymon Kolasinski and other people who use keyhole or pseudoslotting. also, F and B moves are wayyyyyyyyyy lesser than CFOP on average, and bada bing bada boom, you get better F2L and better last layer. (and better efficiency btw.)

 

[Spacey10]

People always get this wrong, EOCross + 1 is equivalent to XCross and a half, also, EOCross + 1 is more efficient than that 19. For the 2 pairs, you could RUL spam so fast that those three pairs are faster than those two pairs, why? cause of the benefits of a solved EO. and lastly, OCLL is far faster than the normal OLL, I can sub .7 most of them but normal OLL, nah and they're not equal.


Heyo, you use ZZ, you use ZBLL and, ZZ's efficiency is far better when you use ZBLL you know. (bruh you know you're supposed to use ZZ with ZBLL.)


you don't use D moves? tell that to Tymon Kolasinski and other people who use keyhole or pseudoslotting. also, F and B moves are wayyyyyyyyyy lesser than CFOP on average, and bada bing bada boom, you get better F2L and better last layer. (and better efficiency btw.)

Do and R and L' as fast as you can, your hands are gonna have to receipt to do almost anything else in RUL gen

 

[Username: Username:]

Do and R and L' as fast as you can, your hands are gonna have to receipt to do almost anything else in RUL gen

Well, not quite, you only need to do quarter turns cause EOCross, you can do RUL turns blazing fast too btw.

 

[Spacey10]

Well, not quite, you only need to do quarter turns cause EOCross, you can do RUL turns blazing fast too btw.

I'm saying from home grips

 

[Username: Username:]

I'm saying from home grips

Yes, I took that into account too.

 

[TerryD]

Do and R and L' as fast as you can, your hands are gonna have to receipt to do almost anything else in RUL gen

I assume you mean regrip instead of receipt. Switching from R moves to L moves sometimes does require a slight regrip, but you don't have to switch often. ZZ F2L is usually switching between 2-Gen <R, U> and 2-Gen<L, U> less than 6 times.

 

[zzcuberman]

Dont know why a CFOPer is arguing that its better in a ZZ thread. Scat little kitty.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

People always get this wrong, EOCross + 1 is equivalent to XCross and a half, also, EOCross + 1 is more efficient than that 19.

Ok didn’t know that

For the 2 pairs, you could RUL spam so fast that those three pairs are faster than those two pairs, why? cause of the benefits of a solved EO. and lastly, OCLL is far faster than the normal OLL, I can sub .7 most of them but normal OLL, nah and they're not equal.

For the last two cfop pairs, you can rulf spam them way faster than you could rul spam three pairs. I never said oll was as fast as ocll, I said that they were pretty close, close enough to just about offset the advantage gained by the one less F2L pair in cfop.

Heyo, you use ZZ, you use ZBLL and, ZZ's efficiency is far better when you use ZBLL you know. (bruh you know you're supposed to use ZZ with ZBLL.)

Ok then, lemme go learn full vls, which has a comparable number of algs (way less with mirrors), similar recognition time, and vls+pll has a similar amount of moves as zz last pair+Zbll.

you don't use D moves? tell that to Tymon Kolasinski and other people who use keyhole or pseudoslotting. also, F and B moves are wayyyyyyyyyy lesser than CFOP on average, and bada bing bada boom, you get better F2L and better last layer. (and better efficiency btw.)

You can also use keyhole/pseudoslotting with zz. There should be no more than 4 F moves in your cross+F2L, as rotating is a thing that doesn’t actually take that much time.

ZZ F2L is usually switching between 2-Gen <R, U> and 2-Gen<L, U> less than 6 times.

Wow! Cfop has better ergonomics than zz, as you don’t regrip in cfop any more than once per pair, and rulf turning isn’t much worse than rul turning.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

Dont know why a CFOPer is arguing that its better in a ZZ thread. Scat little kitty.

@TerryD insulted cfop, so I must defend the honor of my method