ZZ-A vs ZZ-CT

What is the best ZZ Variant?

  • ZZ-A

  • ZZ-CT

  • Other

Results are only viewable after voting.
PapaSmurf said:
A quick point on B, it's an ok stepping stone to full ZBLL, but not worth it imo. You're better off just using OCLL/PLL for cases you don't know.
Click to expand...
As the one ZMS B user I agree. You can definitely use it as a stepping stone to A, but really shouldn’t be used other than as a stepping stone, or to use ZZ like Mr.ZZ himself.
 
MJbaka said:
But wouldn't that be four times as many algs? At that point it would be more than ZZ-A
Click to expand...
Not really. It would be easy to mirror the algs and remember how pieces move. But you can’t compare algorithm total for SN TSLE to ZBLL because ZB is 493 unique cases while TSLE is like 95 that you recognize the same but learn to solve differently.
 
PapaSmurf said:
As has already been mentioned, ZZ-D is now just anything that forces 2GLL, just as CT would count as a C "subvariant". I know what you mean, as ZZ-D was originally solving CP before right block, but that's been demonstrated many times as being unviable for speedsolving, so ZZ-D is now used for the much more viable CPLS.
Click to expand...
I take offence at this misappropriation because the original ZZ-d has a very clean mathematical description (literally: going from RUL 3-gen to RU 2-gen), and it has different restrictions (e.g. can't use keyhole on the third slot).

Never mind that the original ZZ-d is not speed-viable; we could've decided to call CPLS literally just "CPLS" (bonus: nomenclature can also be used with non-ZZ EO-early methods like Petrus; disambiguation can be done by calling them ZZ-CPLS or Petrus-CPLS). It's much more descriptive, and it also doesn't overwrite the meaning of an older term for no good reason.

(AFAICT, the original ZZ-d has move efficiency similar to slightly worse than ZZ-a (2GLL is slightly shorter than ZBLL on average, compensating the worse F2L); it's just that CP recognition makes it almost impossible to use in speedsolves.)

LukasCubes said:
Its just my opinion, why would I have evidence? lol I dont want to be in another argument.
Click to expand...
"Hypothesis" or "claim", not "opinion".

It's not impossible to refute what I said. The graph I linked was made four years ago by a now-inactive forum user, and current ZBLL and TTLL algs have changed a lot since. If you care to put in the effort, you can verify for yourself which of ZZ-a or ZZ-CT has the lower move count now (when using reasonable algs).

This isn't an entirely objective question – which algs count as "reasonable" will vary from person to person – but (i) they'll likely vary in the same way between ZBLL algs and TSLE/TTLL algs, and (ii) even then, they don't vary that much. This is why I think it's still safe to say that ZZ-a is more efficient than ZZ-CT. If ZZ-CT's superiority is something you truly believe, then show us your ZBLL, TSLE and TTLL alg sheets. (And obviously, don't cheat the comparison by using move-optimal algs for TTLL and speed-optimal algs for ZBLL or anything along those lines.)
 
Last edited:
xyzzy said:
I take offence at this misappropriation because the original ZZ-d has a very clean mathematical description (literally: going from RUL 3-gen to RU 2-gen), and it has different restrictions (e.g. can't use keyhole on the third slot).

Never mind that the original ZZ-d is not speed-viable; we could've decided to call CPLS literally just "CPLS" (bonus: nomenclature can also be used with non-ZZ EO-early methods like Petrus; disambiguation can be done by calling them ZZ-CPLS or Petrus-CPLS). It's much more descriptive, and it also doesn't overwrite the meaning of an older term for no good reason.

(AFAICT, the original ZZ-d has move efficiency similar to slightly worse than ZZ-a (2GLL is slightly shorter than ZBLL on average, compensating the worse F2L); it's just that CP recognition makes it almost impossible to use in speedsolves.)


"Hypothesis" or "claim", not "opinion".

It's not impossible to refute what I said. The graph I linked was made four years ago by a now-inactive forum user, and current ZBLL and TTLL algs have changed a lot since. If you care to put in the effort, you can verify for yourself which of ZZ-a or ZZ-CT has the lower move count now (when using reasonable algs).

This isn't an entirely objective question – which algs count as "reasonable" will vary from person to person – but (i) they'll likely vary in the same way between ZBLL algs and TSLE/TTLL algs, and (ii) even then, they don't vary that much. This is why I think it's still safe to say that ZZ-a is more efficient than ZZ-CT. If ZZ-CT's superiority is something you truly believe, then show us your ZBLL, TSLE and TTLL alg sheets. (And obviously, don't cheat the comparison by using move-optimal algs for TTLL and speed-optimal algs for ZBLL or anything along those lines.)
Click to expand...
Cry about it.
- One of the only ZZ-D users in existence.
 
Thom S. said:
He's the one guy who is out to do things right, so watch what you say. Besides, you're the one in the wrong here, soo
Click to expand...
Do things right according to who? In the wrong according to who?
Second of all, do either of you use ZZ-D? Do either of you even use ZZ?
 
ZF slow said:
Not using a method/variant doesn't mean you can't complain about the definition changing over time. Someone's giving their opinion and sticking to the old definition, but there's no need to gatekeep them from giving that.
Click to expand...
Yes there is.
 
Sosimomonon said:
Do either of you even use ZZ?
Click to expand...
I've been using it for OH since like 2017 (alongside CFOP); what's even your point? I've looked into ZZ-d (as in, both CPLS and the original), tried it for a while, and decided it was not for me. Props to you for being brave enough to main some form of ZZ-d, I guess??????

I also use 2-gen redux on 2×2×2 when it's easy to see (e.g. there's a free bar in the scramble), for that matter.
 
xyzzy said:
I've been using it for OH since like 2017 (alongside CFOP); what's even your point? I've looked into ZZ-d (as in, both CPLS and the original), tried it for a while, and decided it was not for me. Props to you for being brave enough to main some form of ZZ-d, I guess??????

I also use 2-gen redux on 2×2×2 when it's easy to see (e.g. there's a free bar in the scramble), for that matter.
Click to expand...
My point is that you and Thom aren't exactly the highest authority on what ZZ-D is or should be, since y'all don't even use the method.
 
Sosimomonon said:
My point is that you and Thom aren't exactly the highest authority on what ZZ-D is or should be, since y'all don't even use the method.
Click to expand...
By your logic, I could say that I'm a Mehta user (which I'm not) and you wouldn't have any right to argue against that because you're not a "Mehta" (by my definition) user.
 
xyzzy said:
By your logic, I could say that I'm a Mehta user (which I'm not) and you wouldn't have any right to argue against that because you're not a "Mehta" (by my definition) user.
Click to expand...
Sure if you feel like lying is a good strategy, I would then expect Mehta users to tell you that you're wrong and I'm not exactly flying blind when it comes to Mehta, I've mained it in the past.
 
xyzzy said:
I have also used ZZ-d in the past, so: what's your point again?
Click to expand...
That you have no right to tell me what variant I'm using, especially since the definition has long since been changed and widely accepted by the ZZ community.
 
xyzzy said:
By your logic, I could say that I'm a Mehta user (which I'm not) and you wouldn't have any right to argue against that because you're not a "Mehta" (by my definition) user.
Click to expand...
While you are correct about the definition of D, by the book, the vast majority of conversation about CP related ZZ variants surrounds CPLS/2GLL and it is simply called D. Terminology changes, it happens in hobbies and in real life. It's not just this one guy on the forums, the majority of the zz community is now referring to CPLS 2GLL as D and that's becoming the new definition
 
Sosimomonon said:
since the definition has long since been changed and widely accepted by the ZZ community.
Click to expand...
ZF slow said:
While you are correct about the definition of D, by the book, the vast majority of conversation about CP related ZZ variants surrounds CPLS/2GLL and it is simply called D. Terminology changes, it happens in hobbies and in real life. It's not just this one guy on the forums, the majority of the zz community is now referring to CPLS 2GLL as D and that's becoming the new definition
Click to expand...
That's fair, but it also doesn't mean I can't also dislike that the name was reappropriated for a different method for no good reason. (I have already stated my justification in my earlier post.)

I have plenty of terminology hills to die on (cf. "subset", among others), but this is not one of them, because "ZZ-d" is literally just a name without any further meaning (besides being the ZZ variant proposed after ZZ-c). I'm not going to defend my position any further.

Sosimomonon said:
That you have no right to tell me what variant I'm using
Click to expand...
But I was a ZZ-d user too! Your main argument (that I have no right because I don't use the method) holds no water; the only important consideration is that most people now consider ZZ-d to be CPLS for some reason. And, for that reason, fine, whatever, I'll begrudgingly accept that "ZZ-d" now refers to a different method from the ZZ-d of yore.
 
xyzzy said:
That's fair, but it also doesn't mean I can't also dislike that the name was reappropriated for a different method for no good reason. (I have already stated my justification in my earlier post.)

I have plenty of terminology hills to die on (cf. "subset", among others), but this is not one of them, because "ZZ-d" is literally just a name without any further meaning (besides being the ZZ variant proposed after ZZ-c). I'm not going to defend my position any further.


But I was a ZZ-d user too! Your main argument (that I have no right because I don't use the method) holds no water; the only important consideration is that most people now consider ZZ-d to be CPLS for some reason. And, for that reason, fine, whatever, I'll begrudgingly accept that "ZZ-d" now refers to a different method from the ZZ-d of yore.
Click to expand...
ZZ-D was the first proposed ZZ variant, but Mr. ZZ thought the recog was too difficult (which is correct for the version of D he was talking about) after that came B.
So you think that you as someone who used to (briefly I'm assuming, if at all, since you talked about lying as a strategy to invalidate my argument) use ZZ-D have more credibility than someone who currently is and is up to date on the most recent developments?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top