• 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!

[Help Thread] ZZ and ZB Discussion

Wristlor

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Messages
14
Location
Germany
Thanks Wristlor. Nice collection.

However, I'm hoping for a restricted collection of ZZLL algs only (because it would be easier to find a specific case).

Thanks anyway.
This is already a ZZLL-only-list. Don't get confused by the namings, since ZZLL is a subset ob ZBLL. ;)
 

CapriPhonix

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
27
Location
Israel
Hi! Recently I decided to say "screw this" and switched to ZZ just because I enjoy it so much more. I currently average around 20 seconds in ZZ with practice on and off on ZZ and CFOP (was averaging 15 in CFOP). My orientation is orange top and yellow/white front. Any specific tips I should know? And also, is it worth it being color neutral on ZZ (I was CN on CFOP)?
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,009
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
TDM028
Hi! Recently I decided to say "screw this" and switched to ZZ just because I enjoy it so much more. I currently average around 20 seconds in ZZ with practice on and off on ZZ and CFOP (was averaging 15 in CFOP). My orientation is orange top and yellow/white front. Any specific tips I should know? And also, is it worth it being color neutral on ZZ (I was CN on CFOP)?
At the very least, learn to have four colours on F. I don't think full CN is a good idea personally, because there are far too many options to look at. However it's not too difficult to look at four orientations and still plan an EOLine within 15 (or even 10) seconds.
 
M

Malkom

Guest
May be a reinvention
ZZF2L is generally done RUL, this requires a lot of regrips and according to multiple people (including myself) this is what ruins ZZ. If the solver instead of solving DF and DB during EOline he could solve LF and LB. You could then do FB on D, SB on R and do your usual LL or whatever you prefer. FB would be a lot nicer since you never need to do Rs followed by Ls. Lookahead would be pretty weird, but if squaners can say solve both layers simultaneously a ZZ user should be able to solve the D layer in the beginning of the solve.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,880
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Shadowslice
May be a reinvention
ZZF2L is generally done RUL, this requires a lot of regrips and according to multiple people (including myself) this is what ruins ZZ. If the solver instead of solving DF and DB during EOline he could solve LF and LB. You could then do FB on D, SB on R and do your usual LL or whatever you prefer. FB would be a lot nicer since you never need to do Rs followed by Ls. Lookahead would be pretty weird, but if squaners can say solve both layers simultaneously a ZZ user should be able to solve the D layer in the beginning of the solve.
This is ZZ-LOL though for some reason it hasn't really caught on in a similar way to how cross on left solving for CFOP isn't very popular. The reason probably lies in that people are most used to solving on D and the difference isn't really large enough to make the switch really worth it when they could be learning other things that would make a bigger difference.

Incidentally you may find SSC interesting if you want to have a look at other EOLOL stuff.
 

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,079
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
May be a reinvention
ZZF2L is generally done RUL, this requires a lot of regrips and according to multiple people (including myself) this is what ruins ZZ. If the solver instead of solving DF and DB during EOline he could solve LF and LB. You could then do FB on D, SB on R and do your usual LL or whatever you prefer. FB would be a lot nicer since you never need to do Rs followed by Ls. Lookahead would be pretty weird, but if squaners can say solve both layers simultaneously a ZZ user should be able to solve the D layer in the beginning of the solve.
I used ZZ-LOL for a couple months but the big thing that hinders it is the fact that lookahead becomes harder. With the line on the bottom, you can see at least one sticker on every piece that needs to be solved. With the line on the left, you have that nasty DB blind spot which you can't see at all.

Also <R, D> is an uncomfortable move set, and the transition into a z rotation then COLL is terrible. I think <R, U, D> is only a good move set when its mainly <R, U> with alternating D and D' in between. With ZZ-LOL, you frequently need to do D2 or moves like D' R' D' R' D', which are far far slower than R2 or R' U' R' U' R'.

Lastly, its weird that you say ZZF2L is what ruins ZZ, when according to multiple ZZ solvers (including myself), ZZF2L is the best part of ZZ by far.
 

Zigmund

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
4
Hi, I was about to create a thread but found out you guys can certainly help me here :)

I'm a 36 y.o. cuber, I started about a year ago.
I rapidly went from beginner to cfop method. After a while, I started to hate rotations then I discovered ZZ. This method is so elegant I immediatly fell in love with it. My initial goal was to be sub 30 but now I average around 23/27 seconds with the ZZ method (with a PB of 19.69, yeah you can laugh ;)) and I want sub 20 average ...
I still do EO THEN line cause I find it very difficult to implement line in the EO, but I can do EO then line blind so I think it's just a matter of time before I can Eoline correctly. I love blockbuilding and never do a full cross with ZZ as some people do.

On sunday I met a good ZZ solver at the world championship (I live near Paris). He showed me multiple sub 12 solves with a beautiful ZZ style. THEN HE TOLD ME HE JUST GAVE UP ZZ !!! He told me after 4 years of ZZ practice he tried a cfop ao100 and his average was just a few seconds over his ZZ ao100 ! And he rarely practices CFOP. He was so surprised and disapointed he decided to go back to cfop as he was pretty sure he could beat his ZZ best times with it.

Then I read the post I just quoted and found very interesting to see the idea of "method efficiency vs time you have to practice".
Being a father, I can practice about an hour a day, sometimes more.
So shall I give up ZZ and go back to CFOP ?
I'm sure I'll never have the time to learn all the ZZ specific LL algs so I won't take advantage of it.
I didn't want to learn full OLL at first (one of the reasons I choosed ZZ) but I will do it if I have to (I already know full PLL).
Another reason that makes me wanna go back to cfop is that I practice 4x4 and of course, being obliged to go cfop for the 3x3 stage deeply impacts my times. I'm not sure I'll find time to be good at both methods... I also intent to learn 5x5 but I won't practice OH (hate it lol) and I just read ZZ is very good for OH...

So guys, what would you do ? Switch back to CFOP right now or continue with ZZ, hoping to be good one day ?

Thanks a lot and excuse my english, I'm french ;)

Simon
 
Last edited:

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,079
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
Hi, I was about to create a thread but found out you guys can certainly help me here :)

I'm a 36 y.o. cuber, I started about a year ago.
I rapidly went from beginner to cfop method. After a while, I started to hate rotations then I discovered ZZ. This method is so elegant I immediatly fell in love with it. My initial goal was to be sub 30 but now I average around 23/27 seconds with the ZZ method (with a PB of 19.69, yeah you can laugh ;)) and I want sub 20 average ...
I still do EO THEN line cause I find it very difficult to implement line in the EO, but I can do EO then line blind so I think it's just a matter of time before I can Eoline correctly. I love blockbuilding and never do a full cross with ZZ as some people do.

On sunday I met a good ZZ solver at the world championship (I live near Paris). He showed me multiple sub 12 solves with a beautiful ZZ style. THEN HE TOLD ME HE JUST GAVE UP ZZ !!! He told me after 4 years of ZZ practice he tried a cfop ao100 and his average was just a few seconds over his ZZ ao100 ! And he rarely practices CFOP. He was so surprised and disapointed he decided to go back to cfop as he was pretty sure he could beat his ZZ best times with it.

Then I read the post I just quoted and found very interesting to see the idea of "method efficiency vs time you have to practice".
Being a father, I can practice about an hour a day, sometimes more.
So shall I give up ZZ and go back to CFOP ?
I'm sure I'll never have the time to learn all the ZZ specific LL algs so I won't take advantage of it.
I didn't want to learn full OLL at first (one of the reasons I choosed ZZ) but I will do it if I have to (I already know full PLL).
Another reason that makes me wanna go back to cfop is that I practice 4x4 and of course, being obliged to go cfop for the 3x3 stage deeply impacts my times. I'm not sure I'll find time to be good at both methods... I also intent to learn 5x5 but I won't practice OH (hate it lol) and I just read ZZ is very good for OH...

So guys, what would you do ? Switch back to CFOP right now or continue with ZZ, hoping to be good one day ?

Thanks a lot and excuse my english, I'm french ;)

Simon
It's a very personal question that only you can answer. With regards to 3x3, it's not only a question of which method is faster, but also a question of which method you enjoy more. Personally, I enjoy ZZ more, but that's largely because it was the first viable speed solving method I learned. I like the freedom during F2L and I find CFOP to restrictive. But lots of other people prefer the feel of CFOP, and I respect that too. People can debate speed of methods as much as they like, but if you don't enjoy what you're doing, what's the point in being faster?

There's also the question of big cubes. ZZ isn't such a problem on larger cubes because the 3x3 stage makes up a smaller part of the solve. The second extra you spend doing EOline on the fly is made up for by the improved ergonomics and reduced move count. The only cube where ZZ doesn't work so well is 4x4, but I'm convinced that the right approach to the earlier parts of the solve can make it a good method. I've put quite a bit of effort into a variation of Hoya with ZZ, and I'm quite pleased with how it is turning out.
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,009
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
TDM028
Lastly, its weird that you say ZZF2L is what ruins ZZ, when according to multiple ZZ solvers (including myself), ZZF2L is the best part of ZZ by far.
I'm another one of those people who says ZZ's F2L is the worst part. Doing R2/L2 (or similar things like R U* R) will always require a regrip, even in 2-gen solving. Even doing one block at a time, the transitions between LU and RU solving are still awkward when they happen (unless you do a ZZ-rainbow-style isolation). There are also more blind spots than in CFOP's F2L. This is actually why I think EOCross is something which should be looked into further: it removes many of the weak points of ZZ's F2L, at the cost of only a slightly higher movecount (which in my opinion is worth it).

Why do you think it's the best part of ZZ?
 

Pyjam

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,265
Location
La Baule, France
Hi Zigmund,

I'm french too. I've left Paris 1 year ago. Like you, I have no ambition to become a king at comps. What's important for me is to practice a method I like and to discover new possibilities with it. ZZ is very elegant, so my advice is: if you like it, continue with it. I see no reason to switch to another method (except Roux, for curiosity).

I'm Pyjam too on francocube. You may contact me there.

About big cubes: Starting with the 5x5 and bigger, edge orientation is not a problem because while solving the edges you may orient the ones previously made, but… 4x4… there's simply no occasion to orient the edges (efficiently) while doing it or after. I think it's a desesperate case.
 

Zigmund

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
4
It's a very personal question that only you can answer. With regards to 3x3, it's not only a question of which method is faster, but also a question of which method you enjoy more. Personally, I enjoy ZZ more, but that's largely because it was the first viable speed solving method I learned. I like the freedom during F2L and I find CFOP to restrictive. But lots of other people prefer the feel of CFOP, and I respect that too. People can debate speed of methods as much as they like, but if you don't enjoy what you're doing, what's the point in being faster?

There's also the question of big cubes. ZZ isn't such a problem on larger cubes because the 3x3 stage makes up a smaller part of the solve. The second extra you spend doing EOline on the fly is made up for by the improved ergonomics and reduced move count. The only cube where ZZ doesn't work so well is 4x4, but I'm convinced that the right approach to the earlier parts of the solve can make it a good method. I've put quite a bit of effort into a variation of Hoya with ZZ, and I'm quite pleased with how it is turning out.
Thanks for the answer, well I sure enjoy ZZ more than cfop, but I'm also interested in getting good times one day (for my level of course) so that's why I wanted to switch, it seems easier to get sub 15 or less with cfop than with zz.

About big cubes, you mean you orient the edges for the 3x3 stage ??? I never thought it was possible, so for example one the 5x5 you don't make a cross, you just do the eoline as usual ? That's awesome :)
 

Zigmund

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
4
Hi Zigmund,

I'm french too. I've left Paris 1 year ago. Like you, I have no ambition to become a king at comps. What's important for me is to practice a method I like and to discover new possibilities with it. ZZ is very elegant, so my advice is: if you like it, continue with it. I see no reason to switch to another method (except Roux, for curiosity).

I'm Pyjam too on francocube. You may contact me there.

About big cubes: Starting with the 5x5 and bigger, edge orientation is not a problem because while solving the edges you may orient the ones previously made, but… 4x4… there's simply no occasion to orient the edges (efficiently) while doing it or after. I think it's a desesperate case.

Thanks Pyjam, I read many of your posts on francocube hahaha :)
I love 4x4 so I don't know what to do :(
And the ZZ cuber I met at the WC was categoric. He's giving up. So if a guy with a lot of time didn't manage to go as far as he wanted with ZZ and finally switches back, which are my chances to become better with only one hour a day ? Isn't that a good reason to follow his path and switch back to cfop before loosing too much time and effort with zz ?
 

Zigmund

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
4
I didn't want to start a controversial debate loool
Thanks again for the advice
I'm sticking with ZZ for now, I realise I got many things to learn before realising it's potential.
Happy cubing !
 
Last edited:

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,079
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
I'm another one of those people who says ZZ's F2L is the worst part. Doing R2/L2 (or similar things like R U* R) will always require a regrip, even in 2-gen solving. Even doing one block at a time, the transitions between LU and RU solving are still awkward when they happen (unless you do a ZZ-rainbow-style isolation). There are also more blind spots than in CFOP's F2L. This is actually why I think EOCross is something which should be looked into further: it removes many of the weak points of ZZ's F2L, at the cost of only a slightly higher movecount (which in my opinion is worth it).

Why do you think it's the best part of ZZ?
I guess it depends a lot on the turning style you adopt. I have more of a finger push or flick, occasionally using different fingers for repeated R moves in the same direction and I don't find it requires much of a regrip (similar to the fingertricks lots of people use for the RU U perms). For R2, I do a wrist twist or double flick depending on what comes after. I find it quite natural.

I do do one block at a time, and almost always do left block first because my LU is slower than my RU. I tend to build on R and use L moves only pull pieces up and insert. Maybe this wastes moves, but since I average around 32 moves for EOLine+F2L, I really don't think it's that bad. While the transition from R to L isn't great, I find it far better than transitioning from R to F or doing y rotations. Inserts like F U F' are absolutely horrible for me (probably because I've never really practiced them - I've spent my entire cubing life practicing RUL instead).

My main reasons for thinking that F2L is the best part of ZZ is because it gives lots of opportunity to improvise and take advantage of easy cases, it's the smoothest part of the solve where everything just flows, I rarely have to do any real regrips during F2L (only minor regrips, which every single method can't get away from).
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,009
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
TDM028
I guess it depends a lot on the turning style you adopt. I have more of a finger push or flick, occasionally using different fingers for repeated R moves in the same direction and I don't find it requires much of a regrip (similar to the fingertricks lots of people use for the RU U perms). For R2, I do a wrist twist or double flick depending on what comes after. I find it quite natural.

I do do one block at a time, and almost always do left block first because my LU is slower than my RU. I tend to build on R and use L moves only pull pieces up and insert. Maybe this wastes moves, but since I average around 32 moves for EOLine+F2L, I really don't think it's that bad. While the transition from R to L isn't great, I find it far better than transitioning from R to F or doing y rotations. Inserts like F U F' are absolutely horrible for me (probably because I've never really practiced them - I've spent my entire cubing life practicing RUL instead).

My main reasons for thinking that F2L is the best part of ZZ is because it gives lots of opportunity to improvise and take advantage of easy cases, it's the smoothest part of the solve where everything just flows, I rarely have to do any real regrips during F2L (only minor regrips, which every single method can't get away from).
How are you using finger flicks/pushes for R moves? Would you mind uploading a video? I'd be interested to see how that works!

About your last point: it's the frequency of the regrips, especially during LB, which is the problem, rather than how big they are.
 

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,079
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
How are you using finger flicks/pushes for R moves? Would you mind uploading a video? I'd be interested to see how that works!
I won't be able to record a video, but CriticalCubing has this video which shows his U perm executions. What I do is I think a little more subtle, but it's a combination of the same sort of thing in that video. The U perm is unusual because it has four consecutive R turns in the same direction, where as three is the most I usually do without a significant regrip. More than three consecutive turns in the same direction is really rare during F2L though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TDM
Top