The ZZVolution.

[Username: Username:]

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.

evidence? 3 pairs in ZZ is already so fast, the advantage given by ZBLL is even more.

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.

a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is ZZ-C++, better than VLS + PLL, it also only slightly higher algcount.

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.

Pseudoslotting on ZZ is far better than pseudo on CFOP, as TerryD has once said, you don't need to recognize the orientation of pieces and that's a plus during pseudoslotting. You contradicted your argument, why not RULF spam? you basically said don't use much F moves, also, the advantage of EO is far more than just not rotating.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is ZZ-C++, better than VLS + PLL.

What’s zz-c++?

 

[zzcuberman]

Ok didn’t know that

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.

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 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.

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.

RUL is very fast. ZZ with eocross is regripless. Also, VLS + PLL might be similar to ZZ pair + ZBLL, but you have to make the pair first. It saves 3 moves and most people consider ZBLL leaps and bounds better my guy. Saves around 8-9.

 

[Username: Username:]

What’s zz-c++?

ZZ-C++ is basically a method that takes advantage of 2 methods while algcount is not that higher than ZBLL.

 

[TerryD]

evidence? 3 pairs in ZZ is already so fast, the advantage given by ZBLL is even more.


a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is ZZ-C++, better than VLS + PLL, it also only slightly higher algcount.


Pseudoslotting on ZZ is far better than pseudo on CFOP, as TerryD has once said, you don't need to recognize the orientation of pieces and that's a plus during pseudoslotting. You contradicted your argument, why not RULF spam? you basically said don't use much F moves, also, the advantage of EO is far more than just not rotating.

a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is WV. ZZ-C++ is equivalent to CFOP with OLS, which is 17,712 algorithms. ZZ-C++ has a movecount similar to ZBLL.
CFOP undebatebly has worse ergonomics than ZZ. CFOP is basically ZZ but there's no EO so you have to do F moves and rotations. RULFy is obviously worse than RUL.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

What does everyone think the best variation of ZZ is?

 

[I'm A Cuber]

CFOP is basically ZZ but there's no EO so you have to do F moves and rotations.

Zz is basically cfop but you can’t look as far in inspection so that you can turn at 9tps instead of 8.9tps and you also have to learn hundreds of algorithms so that you can save less than half a second on your last layer.
Edit: ergonomics don’t really matter on 3x3. If they did, then roux would not be a viable method. But it is

 

[Username: Username:]

What does everyone think the best variation of ZZ is?

That's debatable, while some people say ZZ-A with full ZBLL is better (majority), some people also say ZZ-C++ is better than ZZ-A.

 

[Username: Username:]

Zz is basically cfop but you can’t look as far in inspection so that you can turn at 9tps instead of 8.9tps and you also have to learn hundreds of algorithms so that you can save less than half a second on your last layer.

what?! clearly, the TPS cap of ZZ is far higher than CFOP, that's really obvious, and WHAT??????? BRUH YOU KNOW ZBLL SAVES ATLEAST A SECOND OR MORE
ZBLL vs OLL + PLL, ZBLL wins, duh, you know why top CFOP solvers use ZBLL.

sorry for the double post btw.

 

[TerryD]

Zz is basically cfop but you can’t look as far in inspection so that you can turn at 9tps instead of 8.9tps and you also have to learn hundreds of algorithms so that you can save less than half a second on your last layer.

bruh, you can turn at higher tps with zz because of better ergonomics and easier lookahead. You don't necessarily need to learn ZBLL to be fast. ZZ is as fast as CFOP even with just OLL and PLL. ZBLL is just an option you can choose to be even faster.

Edit: ergonomics don’t really matter on 3x3. If they did, then roux would not be a viable method. But it is

do a BLDy-gen solve and get the same times as you normally do and I'll believe you

 

[zzcuberman]

I use C++ and i gotta say its amazing, but if anything id say its about the same as A. I do get crazy lucky single though. Ill finish last pair and solve the whole cube normally once everyday

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

Is portico discussed or is that just not good

 

[RadicalMacaroni]

BRUH YOU KNOW ZBLL SAVES ATLEAST A SECOND OR MORE

As someone who knows full ZBLL U and uses it in solves, I would say that it saves less time than you might think because recognition makes you lose some time. I find that it rarely saves more than .6 for me, and while that's definitely a worthwhile time save, it's not as much as 1 whole second.

 

[Username: Username:]

As someone who knows full ZBLL U and uses it in solves, I would say that it saves less time than you might think because recognition makes you lose some time. I find that it rarely saves more than .6 for me, and while that's definitely a worthwhile time save, it's not as much as 1 whole second.

Just git gud at recog and you'll see.

 

[TerryD]

Is portico discussed or is that just not good

I think it's not a bad method, it's just that it only gives you slightly easier inspection at the cost of going from RUL to RULFM. If you forced the DF edge to be a LL edge and proceeded like normal ZZ until LL, I think that would be better, but I think then you would be better off doing normal ZZ.

 

[Username: Username:]

Is portico discussed or is that just not good

It is better than CFOP in @I'm A Cuber's logic cause you know, ergonomics don't matter.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

If everyone in this thread came up with a ZZ variant with a high-ish TPS, and low move count and a low amount of algorithms (~100) that would get lots of people to convert

 

[zzcuberman]

ZZ CT is kinda that lol

 

[TerryD]

If everyone in this thread came up with a ZZ variant with a high-ish TPS, and low move count and a low amount of algorithms (~100) that would get lots of people to convert

zz-b seems to fit the bill, variants are not that easy to come up with lol

 

[tx789]

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 think your wrong. The ergonomics are that much better. RUL as a move set sucks. RUD is better and F turning are fine in many cases. Yes CFOP has rotations. It is hard to say how much of a difference in move sets ZZ has from CFOP but I feel you are making out it is way more than it is.

But here is something what about when pdeuso slotting and F RU F' stuff is included. These techniques give way more options for f2l. What does zz with ZBLL was in this regard?


Also lookahead isn't necessary that much easier. All you need to do is not look at the current pieces your solving but the next ones you are going to solve. Hardness of this is based off how good you are at lookahead.