ZZ-A vs ZZ-CT

[xyzzy]

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 do invalidate my argument) use ZZ-D have more credibility than someone who currently is and is up to date on the most recent developments?

More credibility regarding what?

By your own argument, because you don't use the ZZ-d method (by the old definition), therefore your argument shouldn't convince me (as someone who prefers the old definition) that you should be an authority of what "ZZ-d" means. I hope this is obvious now that I've spelt it out to you.

A much stronger argument would be that everyone else also considers "ZZ-d" to mean CPLS now, and (i) you've already made that point (along with PapaSmurf and ZF slow) and (ii) I've already acquiesced to that.

(edit: Also, re: "lying as a strategy", I also hope it's obvious I brought that up as an example because (i) I'm trying to contextualise how what you're doing looks like to me and also (ii) it's not even "lying" in the first place, but rather applying incorrect definitions to words out of spite. My responses to you have never been about why renaming was bad (because I already adequately made my point before); it's been pointing out why your counterarguments are horseshit.)

 

[Sosimomonon]

More credibility regarding what?

By your own argument, because you don't use the ZZ-d method (by the old definition), therefore your argument shouldn't convince me (as someone who prefers the old definition) that you should be an authority of what "ZZ-d" means. I hope this is obvious. A much stronger argument would be that everyone else also considers "ZZ-d" to mean CPLS now, and (i) you've already made that point (along with PapaSmurf and ZF slow) and (ii) I've already acquiesced to that.

Credibility regarding ZZ-D.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Movecount for Teri ZBLL is 13.83 including AUF, so to say 14 for ZBLL overall (assuming you use a mixture of algs from different sources) is probably fair. If we say 9 for EOCross (more like 8.5, but whatever), 7 per pair, that gives 51 moves for ZZ-A. For CT, using the ZMS CT sheet as previously posted, TSLE is abouut 10 including AUF and TTLL is about 14.7 including AUF (using a sort of ETM thing, where UD' is counted as 1 move when executed that way). This gives a movecount of 54.7, so slightly more efficient than base CFOP, but definitely less efficient than A. Remeber, movecount isn't everything, which is why CFOP is still very fast (the TPS ceiling is higher than Roux or ZZ-A), but you can at most argue that the TPS ceiling for A and CT is equal, and I would suggest it's actually a bit higher for A due to the fact you only have 1 alg step, not 2.

I hope that made at least a little sense.

On the "is CPLS D?" thing, the definition of all the variants has shifted slightly over time. Now, they're generally used like this:
A - no influence of the LL during F2L (so ZBLL finish, VH finish or OP finish, plus a few others)
B - partial influence (so this may be avoiding diag, forcing TULO cases, tripod or the traditional ZZ-B which is partially influencing EP)
C - fully solving CO (the main three being C, CT and C++)
D - fully solving CP (so traditional D such as Porky v2 or using 2GR stuff, CPLS and Porky v1)
If we accept this (which I don't expect everyone to), then the logical thing for E to be would be fully solving EP, but no one should ever use that and it would be bad. We also don't need a ZZ-E, so let's not do that.
The main reason why these categories are slightly better than the old ones is that they cover all the non-F2L variants (like snake pattern). Either way, if you're going for speed, you should only really be using A, C++ or some sort of option select.

 

[porkyp10]

Me using zz-porky (as a meme):

 

[OreKehStrah]

Movecount for Teri ZBLL is 13.83 including AUF, so to say 14 for ZBLL overall (assuming you use a mixture of algs from different sources) is probably fair. If we say 9 for EOCross (more like 8.5, but whatever), 7 per pair, that gives 51 moves for ZZ-A. For CT, using the ZMS CT sheet as previously posted, TSLE is abouut 10 including AUF and TTLL is about 14.7 including AUF (using a sort of ETM thing, where UD' is counted as 1 move when executed that way). This gives a movecount of 54.7, so slightly more efficient than base CFOP, but definitely less efficient than A. Remeber, movecount isn't everything, which is why CFOP is still very fast (the TPS ceiling is higher than Roux or ZZ-A), but you can at most argue that the TPS ceiling for A and CT is equal, and I would suggest it's actually a bit higher for A due to the fact you only have 1 alg step, not 2.

I hope that made at least a little sense.

On the "is CPLS D?" thing, the definition of all the variants has shifted slightly over time. Now, they're generally used like this:
A - no influence of the LL during F2L (so ZBLL finish, VH finish or OP finish, plus a few others)
B - partial influence (so this may be avoiding diag, forcing TULO cases, tripod or the traditional ZZ-B which is partially influencing EP)
C - fully solving CO (the main three being C, CT and C++)
D - fully solving CP (so traditional D such as Porky v2 or using 2GR stuff, CPLS and Porky v1)
If we accept this (which I don't expect everyone to), then the logical thing for E to be would be fully solving EP, but no one should ever use that and it would be bad. We also don't need a ZZ-E, so let's not do that.
The main reason why these categories are slightly better than the old ones is that they cover all the non-F2L variants (like snake pattern). Either way, if you're going for speed, you should only really be using A, C++ or some sort of option select.

I still only consider B to be edge phasing. Forcing ZB sets influences CO, so it should be a C variant since you can consider it partial OLS like how CT is pseudo OLS.

 

[Eli Apperson]

Or you could use petrus...

 

[PapaSmurf]

I still only consider B to be edge phasing. Forcing ZB sets influences CO, so it should be a C variant since you can consider it partial OLS like how CT is pseudo OLS.

That's the other possiblity. Either way, the categories for variants have been expanded to include more than 1 each.

Here's a fun suggestion from ZMS (discord server) - use Greek letters to denote categories, while the original variants retain their names.
So ZZ-A would be ZZ with a ZBLL finish, while ZZ-α would be all the variants where you do no influencing before LL. This would mean that we can categorise variants while keeping the name of the original method from being diluted.

 

[Burrito]

ZZ-OP (OCLL->PLL) is where every ZZ user should start. It is only 28 algs, and you likely know them all already. These algs apply to pretty much every ZZ variant, so there's nothing to lose starting here. Also, despite being very few algs, it's pretty fast.

ZZ-VH (COLL->EPLL) is overrated. I don't think it's worth using tbh. OCLL/PLL is faster on average. Just skip straight to learning basic ZBLL.

ZZ-A (ZBLL) is currently the fastest variant. Most ZZ users only learn a small chunk of ZBLL, and use OP for cases they haven't learned.

ZZ-B (phasing->ZZLL) is an interesting variant that @OreKehStrah says is a good stepping stone towards ZZ-A. I haven't really explored it much, so I can't say much about it.

OK now ZZ-C family!!

ZZ-C (OCLS->PLL). Lots of good cases worth learning here; but it's a lot of algs, and a lot of the time CT or HW is better because the TSLE or WSLC alg is shorter.

ZZ-CT (TSLE->TTLL). Swag variant. Algs are currently being developed.

ZZ-HW (WSLC->WDLL). Swag variant. Algs are highly undeveloped, as the variant was very recently rediscovered by me. I am currently developing the algs (which is why the D is in WDLL), and they are very promising. Check out my ZZ sheet to see the WIP WSLC and WDLL algs.

Now ZZ-D (CPLS->2GLL). I don't have much to say about it. it's a solid variant. Good for OH. I personally don't like CPLS recog, but that's just a me problem.

I don't know much about other variants that haven't been explored much.

I personally plan to do ZZ-C CT HW option select.

Like C++ but on steroids!

 

[ruffleduck]

I am currently developing the algs (which is why the D is in WDLL), and they are very promising.

I personally plan to do ZZ-C CT HW option select.

 

[abunickabhi]

Whenever I hear of ZZ-CT I remember Chris Tran. He was a pioneer.

If ZZ-C++ is a thing, I would prefer ZZ-Python as it is a bit easier to develop in it.