# [Help Thread]ZZ and ZB Discussion

#### theROUXbiksCube

##### Member
FULL COLL FOR OH
some ZBLL's, still can't find some optimized tho

#### mDiPalma

##### Member
WV for front slots and COLL for everything else

#### Petro Leum

##### Member
COLL (but sune and niklas for sune cases), most 2GLLs, the easiest WV cases, the easiest CLS cases, loads of ZBLLs and ZZLLs in no particular order

#### Millet

##### Member
Mostly normal OLL and about 1/6th ZBLL so far.

##### Member
Do any of you use a ZZ-ish method to solve the 4x4? The only thing I could find was Z4 and it seems a bit slow because of the complicated edge pairing. I tried coming up with a way to use Yau edge pairing to get to an easy ZZ 3x3 stage and this is the best I could come up with:

1. Solve 2 opposite centers and 3 of the cross edges (2 of the solved edges should be the line edges).
2. Solve the remaining 4 centers.
3. Solve one more dedge and place it misoriented in the last cross position (doesn't have to be the cross edge).
4. Solve the remaining edges, make sure that when finished you have a good view of the B face relative to the orientation you use for ZZ (if using 3-2-3 with y rotations this can be done by starting with your ZZ L face in front of you).
5. Replace misoriented edges in your ZZ back face with oriented ones.
6. Rotate your cube into your ZZ position, place the misoriented edge of the D face in DF (this positions your line edges on DL and DR).
7. Solve the EO line using F or F' moves to orient edges, this shouldn't be too hard since all your misoriented edges will be visible and you won't need to place a bad edge on DF, if there's an odd number of misoriented edges, execute OLL parity alg.
8. ZZF2L
9. LL

Example Solve

Scramble: x2 U2 F B2 U' B' F' U2 r2 R' u2 f U f' u' f u B2 R D' R L' f' U B2 F2 D f2 r U' L' f' R2 U2 f' R2 L2 U f R U
B r B r // First Center
u2 y B2 r U2 B2 l' y // Second center
U' r2 B // First cross edge
U r2 D' // Second cross edge
R' U r' F' // 3rd cross edge
2L U2 2L U' 3r' // Half-centers
r' U' r' U2 r' // First 2 centers
U r' U2 r // Last 2 centers
R2 U2 // Misoriented edge on last cross position
x z' // Position cube for yau edge pairing
u U y L' U L U2 R U' R' y R U' R' d' // First 3 edges
U' L' U L u U2 L' U L u' // 2 edges
U2 F R' F' R u' R U' R' u // Last 3 edges, back edges are oriented
y' 3u' // Position cube in ZZ orientation
R' F R D' // EO Line
R U2 R' U R U' R' // pair
L U' L' U' L U' L' U L U' L' // pair
L' U' L U L' U2 L U L' U' L // pair
U' 3r U R' U' 3r' F R F' // COLL
2R2 U2 2R2 u2 2R2 u2 // PLL parity
U' // AUF

* If you get too many bad edges on step 7 you are likely to greatly alter the position of the cross pieces you solved on step 1 making it harder to solve the EO Line.
* Pause between edge pairing and EO Line phase.

* Edge pairing is as fast as Yau's.
* EO Line is usually very simple to solve.
* If you use COLL, you'll be able to solve PLL with a single algorithm 5 out of every 6 solves (1/2 the times you won't have PLL parity, and when you do, 2/3 of the times you'll have 2 solved edges and will be able to solve the remaining 2 with just the PLL parity alg).

On step 1 it may be unnecessary to do 3 cross edges, it might be faster to do the 2 line edges and a random one (I'm getting better results with 3 probably because I'm used to it thanks to Yau and it helps me keep track of the misoriented one when I have to place it in DF later in the solve). Placing oriented edges on BR and BL might just be silly, more experienced ZZ solvers can probably do the EO line quite fast even if they have to recognize and bring bad edges from those positions to the front. I'd love to get thoughts from you ZZ gurus and hopefully ideas to turn this into something viable.

#### supercavitation

##### Member
Inspecting EO wastes a decent amount of time, and you waste quite a lot of moves with the inefficient EO. Unless you find better OLL parity algs by using algs that mess with F2L, there's no really advantage. It's honestly probably more efficient just to do Z4.

Last edited by a moderator:

##### Member
Inspecting EO wastes a decent amount of time, and you waste quite a lot of moves with the inefficient EO. Unless you find better OLL parity algs by using algs that mess with F2L, there's no really advantage. It's honestly probably more efficient just to do Z4.
Did you try it? The thing about starting with Yau is that you solve 3 of the edges in the first step, and solving means orienting. So by the time you get to EO you don't have to worry about as many cases as you do when doing EO as the first step on a 3x3. With your line edges on DR and DL, and all of your misoriented edges on the U and F faces (plus a forced misoriented edge on DF), EO line usually comes down to 1-3 [R, U, L] setup moves, F, undo any [R, L] setup moves to get the line edges back on DR and DL, then D or D' to finish. Check out the example solve I posted, it is not a lucky scramble but a pretty typical one using this method.

#### supercavitation

##### Member
Did you try it? The thing about starting with Yau is that you solve 3 of the edges in the first step, and solving means orienting. So by the time you get to EO you don't have to worry about as many cases as you do when doing EO as the first step on a 3x3. With your line edges on DR and DL, and all of your misoriented edges on the U and F faces (plus a forced misoriented edge on DF), EO line usually comes down to 1-3 [R, U, L] setup moves, F, undo any [R, L] setup moves to get the line edges back on DR and DL, then D or D' to finish. Check out the example solve I posted, it is not a lucky scramble but a pretty typical one using this method.
I meant the replacement of edges on the B face for the wasted moves (and the bad case, all edges misoriented or at least cases where there is no easy way to swap out two B face misoriented edges, would be absolutely horrible). Again, I would emphasize the amount of time you waste with the EO inspection midsolve (this is why Z4 is so much more efficient, you orient the edges as you pair them), and that unless knowing whether or not you have parity before completing F2L allows a better parity alg than normal OLL parity, the big advantages of ZZ are entirely wasted on a 4x4 solve.

Just an additional point: It may just be my setup, but my 4x4 doesn't like RUL so much, the layers tend to misalign a bit and catch, which is not something I want to have to deal with during a speedsolve (it's absolutely amazing for RUF, though).

#### mDiPalma

##### Member
If you REALLY wanted to take advantage of your ZZ skilledness, you could inspect to prevent OLL parity. Then just use ZZ-Yau.

#### supercavitation

##### Member
If you REALLY wanted to take advantage of your ZZ skilledness, you could inspect to prevent OLL parity. Then just use ZZ-Yau.
Can you trace a cube in 15 seconds?

#### mDiPalma

##### Member
Can you trace a cube in 15 seconds?
Trace?

If you mean inspect all 24 edges for orientation, I'm pretty sure every single proficient ZZer could identify the # of bad edges in ~5 seconds. Then it's just a matter of being a smart center-solver.

#### Robert-Y

##### Member
If you REALLY wanted to take advantage of your ZZ skilledness, you could inspect to prevent OLL parity. Then just use ZZ-Yau.
Can you explain how?

Example "scrambles":

1. swap UFl and UBr
2. swap UFl and UBr, UFr and UBl

#### mDiPalma

##### Member
Can you explain how?

Example "scrambles":

1. swap UFl and UBr
2. swap UFl and UBr, UFr and UBl
not sure what you mean by "swap," but here's an example. don't let those hoaxers tell you that odd/even numbers of slice moves will solve different EO cases. that's five-thirds bogus.

this is an example with reduction and petrus, preventing OLL parity. i'm sure there are easier ways to do it. (FYI, i don't own a 4x4, so i had to use alg.cubing.net )

scramble: L2 F r2 U' D2 L u B' D U f' B L2 B2 r' L D' f' R' U' L' R' B' R B' U2 L' B' u L F L F2 U L F' r' F R2 f'

z // my fave orientation. 10 good edges, need to make multiple of 4
L' u // turning u is ok cuz it's 2-2
F r // add 4 bad edges, but make r slice 2-2. no change
U R' uU' F' r U2 r' U r U' r'// only turned 2-2 sides. no change
r' U2 r // cancels. turn a 3-1. fix everything 8 goods.
F u R2 u' // make u NOT 3-1 on the way back. 16 goods.
f2 R2 f2 // double turns are safe all day every day
u B2 u'
// half of 16 is an even number. we good2go. just dont be retarded during pairing

u R U2 R' u2
B D B' u'
D' R D R' u2
F' L u' R U R' U' F' U F u
R' F' r' F R' F' U' R2 U r // pairing

U' R L D2 L' B' R U' L2
U F' U2 F' R2 U F' U F' R U2 R F2 R'
L' B L' F2 L B' L' F2 L2 // Petrus

##### Member
I meant the replacement of edges on the B face for the wasted moves (and the bad case, all edges misoriented or at least cases where there is no easy way to swap out two B face misoriented edges, would be absolutely horrible).
I'm not 100% on the replacing of edges in the B face, it's probably just a crutch I'm relying on for now because it makes it very easy to do EO afterwards. If you get a horrible case you can simply bail out and do a regular Yau solve, at that point the only thing that you'll have done differently is place a misoriented edge instead of the last cross piece in the D face. The most common cases are 4 and 5 bad edges, which are very easy to solve (5 actually feels a bit easier since you have more options to choose the 3 edges you place on F along the already bad one on DF, then you just do F or F' followed by OLL parity).

Again, I would emphasize the amount of time you waste with the EO inspection midsolve
* I'm not too fast at 4x4, sub 1:20 with 2 parities is pretty good for me even when using Yau.
* Edge pairing finishes at 1:35, afterwards I do one insert on B of an oriented edge, rotate the cube and do EO.
* I started learning COLL last week (still don't know the Pi and H cases), so it still takes a bit for me to recognize the case. At the moment I'm having smaller pauses to plan the EO than to figure out the COLL, so I don't think the pause for EO is such a huge deal.

...(this is why Z4 is so much more efficient, you orient the edges as you pair them), and that unless knowing whether or not you have parity before completing F2L allows a better parity alg than normal OLL parity...
I disagree, I think using Yau edge pairing instead of a more complicated version of redux edge pairing (which is what Z4 does) will lead to faster solves. With this method you can totally do OLL parity before starting F2L.

If you REALLY wanted to take advantage of your ZZ skilledness, you could inspect to prevent OLL parity. Then just use ZZ-Yau.
That sounds great, but I couldn't find anything on ZZ-Yau, is that a thing? Can you link me? Plz?

Last edited by a moderator:

#### BaMiao

##### Member
I actually kinda like this Yau variant. I don't think it'll replace normal Yau for me, but it is at least fun to do ZZ solves on 4x4.

If I can make a suggestion: If you begin the edge pairing while facing your B face, you can make note of the orientation of the backside edges while you place them. After the first three edges are done, you can do the rest of edge pairing with your F face in front, and you can replace any bad edges in the back without having to inspect them and avoid the awkward rotation before EO. Alternately, if you finish edge pairing while looking at the L or R face, you can just orient the backside edges, Petrus-style rather than simply replacing them.

I find that the EO inspection really doesn't take much time at all. The biggest issue is dealing with the backside edges, which takes a lot of extra moves- especially when they're both misoriented.

By the way- does anyone actually know of an OLL parity alg that would be useful here? Something that doesn't preserve F2L?

#### supercavitation

##### Member
I disagree, I think using Yau edge pairing instead of a more complicated version of redux edge pairing (which is what Z4 does) will lead to faster solves. With this method you can totally do OLL parity before starting F2L.
By the way- does anyone actually know of an OLL parity alg that would be useful here? Something that doesn't preserve F2L?
This is my point about OLL Parity. Unless you can find a parity alg that works better because F2L isn't solved yet, the usefulness is mitigated.

Looking back at my posts from yesterday, I feel like I came across as moderately hostile. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to switch to ZZ (I'm a CFOP user because 4x4 is my main event and I hate Meyer) and still have an effective 4x4 method. But until I see an effective method of dealing with EO, especially during bad cases (including parity), I can't see it replacing Yau.

#### Robert-Y

##### Member
What are the rules for detecting parity based on the number of bad edges alone? I ask this because I don't think it's possible to do this.

Example scrambles:

1. l' R U2 R2 U' R U R U2 (R'M) U' R' U Rw
2. r' U2 x l U2 l' U2 x' r2 U2 r U2 r' U2 F2 r2 F2

With both scrambles, I believe that the number of "bad" edges is the same. However, scramble 1. has no parity but scramble 2 does.

#### mDiPalma

##### Member
yeah i see ur point. having a number of bad edges that is NOT a multiple of 4 may or may not have OLL parity. you will not know until you pair the edges completely. Like having 10 bad edges means you could either HAVE or NOT HAVE OLL parity

however, if u have strictly a multiple of 4 for your number of bad edges, you CAN'T have OLL parity. (you may have 2*N OLL parities, but that cancels out).

in other words, forcing a multiple a 4 bad/good edges during centers (and not being stupid while pairing edges) will prevent OLL parity

right?

#### Robert-Y

##### Member
No?

Counter example: r U2 r' U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r2 F2 l'