• 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

Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
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?
I can see how that works, but I cannot see a way to easily track that during a solve without a significant slowdown in pairing?
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
No?

Counter example: r U2 r' U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r2 F2 l'
yeah idk. is that the only subset of cases? perhaps you can fix that during edge pairing with greater efficiency

thats really weird.

I can see how that works, but I cannot see a way to easily track that during a solve without a significant slowdown in pairing?
it's not hard. i dont have a 4x4 to see this physically, but i think you can just make sure each slice has 2 good edges and 2 bad edges in it (like the left edge in the pair is always good, and the right edge is always bad, for all 12 sets). then i think u can do everything freely. not sure tho.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
it's not hard. i dont have a 4x4 to see this physically, but i think you can just make sure each slice has 2 good edges and 2 bad edges in it (like the left edge in the pair is always good, and the right edge is always bad, for all 12 sets). then i think u can do everything freely. not sure tho.
My worry is less the process than how easily the process can be executed without really thinking about it.
 

adimare

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
381
Location
Costa Rica
WCA
2011MARE02
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?
Great idea! I found that for me it's easier if I start pairing with the with my R face in front of me. After the u slice, the top half of my B face is facing me along with half of the dedge that will end up on BR when I'm done pairing so I can already tell if it'll be oriented. After placing the corresponding dedge on FR and doing a y rotation to keep pairing, I have a view of the 2 dedges that will end up in BR and BL. Even after the final rotation I'll be able to tell the orientation of the dedge that'll end up on BL after I'm done pairing by looking at the bottom edge piece on FL. So there's plenty of chances to figure out if the back edges will be oriented or not.

It's not necessary to replace them with good edges before doing EO, you can do R2 or L2 to place them on FL and FR to orient them (or R' U/L U' to place either on F), but it's better to do so after doing any necessary U moves to avoid having to undo too many moves to get the line edges back in place.

Example solve with BaMiao's idea
Scramble: x2 F2 U2 B L' R' F' f u2 F' L' f2 u' f B r' B' L2 u f R u2 r D2 B L F' L2 U2 R2 L' r2 U D r2 L2 R' F2 L B L

l' F' r B u x' z U F l R' U R d R2 d' // Centers
L2 F' // Position 2 cross edges
x2 R' U R U' 2L L' U // 3rd cross edge
x' U' r U' r U2 3r' U2 // Half centers
3r' U r U r2 U2 3r' U' r U r' // Full centers
U 2L R' U' R U 2R' U // Misoriented edge on last cross position
z' // Position cube for edge pairing with L ZZ face in front
u // Setup for edge pairing, here you can already tell that when doing EO BR will be oriented because the top edge piece on FL is oriented relative to the ZZ stage B face
U' R U' R' // Setup first edge for pairing, here you can already tell the BL of EO will be oriented because the bottom edge piece of FR is oriented relative to the ZZ stage R face
y U F R' F' R // Second edge
y R U' R' d' // Align 3 edges
F' L F L' u' U F R' F' R u // Align 2 edges
L' U2 L U' F R' F' R u' R U R' F R' F' R u // Last 3 edges
R' F // EO
R D // EO Line (undo the R' move that was executed during EO to get line edges back in DR and DL)
r U2 r F2 r F2 l' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r'// Oll Parity
U2 L' U L U' L' U L // Pair
R U2 R' L U2 L' // Pair
U2 R' U2 R2 // Block
U R U R' U2 R U' R' // Pair
U' R' U R U2' L' R' U R U' L // COLL
U x R2 F' 2R2 U2 2R2 u2 2R2 2U2 F R2 // Pll Parity
x' U2 // AUF

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.
To me the usefulness lies on a) being able to execute ZZ 3x3 stage instead of CFOP and b) being able to always do COLL when orienting the last layer, which will usually result in a one look PLL even if you have parity. Usefulness has nothing to do with having access to a faster OLL parity alg.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
To me the usefulness lies on a) being able to execute ZZ 3x3 stage instead of CFOP and b) being able to always do COLL when orienting the last layer, which will usually result in a one look PLL even if you have parity. Usefulness has nothing to do with having access to a faster OLL parity alg.
Yeah, I meant switching back to ZZ, which I was hoping to do if this turned into a method of equal quality to standard Yau. At least for me, it still requires too much tracking to be effective. If it works for you, I wish you much luck!

EDIT: I'm going to try Alpha Sheep's alg a couple of times. It's shorter, I wonder if I can execute it as fast.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
yeah idk. is that the only subset of cases? perhaps you can fix that during edge pairing with greater efficiency

thats really weird.
That's because the case he gave is basically a PLL Parity.

As far as I can tell, your method only applies to tracking OLL parity, which is fine in this case, since the EPLL parity cases are incredibly easy to learn.

I may actually try this method out.

EDIT: My mistake. That is an OLL parity. I have no idea how to deal with that case.
 
Last edited:

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
That's because the case he gave is basically a PLL Parity.

As far as I can tell, your method only applies to tracking OLL parity, which is fine in this case, since the EPLL parity cases are incredibly easy to learn.

I may actually try this method out.

EDIT: My mistake. That is an OLL parity. I have no idea how to deal with that case.
Yeah i'm thinking that type of case is somewhat unique. I've actually never experienced that situation when solving, but I've only done a dozen solves like this before.

It only exists because you end up with 2 edge-pairs that have a cycle and OLL parity isolated between them. So i guess u could prevent that while making centers simply by assuring that cycles arent isolated to 2-edge pairs. but there might be other manifestations of this. not sure
 

Cub3Lov3r

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
8
Location
Weiser, Idaho, United States
ZZ Method help

Learned ZZ recently, switched over from CFOP because I didn't like CFOP as much. Having trouble with my EO-line, it takes me awhile to figure out orientation and get the line. Any advice? Also I am looking into doing ZZ OH, so if anyone knows a good source for OH algs using only R,U,L,D that would be greatly appreciated. Also when performing ZZ how can I really optimize my EO-line?
 

Cub3Lov3r

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
8
Location
Weiser, Idaho, United States
Been on the same site, have the whole thing printed in a binder for reference, but still doesn't really show optimal EO-line cases except for those that it specifies. Is there a better method for recognition maybe? Also any good sites for mgls or cls would be great because the ones that I have found are really confusing.
 
Last edited:

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Recognising edge orientation just comes with time. With practise, you'll just get better at it and it'll be really simple.

One bit of advice is that starting out, you may be using half turns like R2 or L2 to do EOLine, try using more quarter turns.
Maybe even check out some ZZ example solves posted on this forum.

EDIT: Check out the ZZ/ZB thread and post some examples, I'm sure someone will critique your solve and give you constructive advice.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
1,252
Location
Brooklyn, NY
WCA
2014ATTI01
Learned ZZ recently, switched over from CFOP because I didn't like CFOP as much. Having trouble with my EO-line, it takes me awhile to figure out
orientation and get the line. Any advice? Also I am looking into doing ZZ OH, so if anyone knows a good source for OH algs using only R,U,L,D that would be greatly appreciated. Also when performing ZZ how can I really optimize my EO-line?
Try some of Phil Yu and Neil Morales' PLLs, they're pretty good for Japanese style turning, the way to optimize your EOIine is to force your Line and edges to be opposite
 

mDiPalma

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
1,536
Been on the same site, have the whole thing printed in a binder for reference, but still doesn't really show optimal EO-line cases except for those that it specifies. Is there a better method for recognition maybe? Also any good sites for mgls or cls would be great because the ones that I have found are really confusing.
yeah, for each scramble just figure out a family of "moves" that will solve EO (like 3 or 4 options), then just pick the one that puts one line edge on L and one line edge on R (you can often just do an F2 or a B2, if they are on the same side). then just do an R move, an L move, and a D move, and your EOLine is solved.


it's not going to be optimal at first, but it's a good place to start.

also, there is no real point in doing the optimal EOLine every time. Because most of the time, the optimal EOLine moves are not part of the optimal EOLine+2x2x1 block. In other words, you will be optimally solving the cube to some intermediate position between the scrambled state and the EOLine+1 state, which is kinda dumb.

it's often more efficient and ergonomic to do a 2x2x2 block on D while solving most of the EO, then solving the rest of the EO while solving the other line piece. This is how I do Petrus, a lot of the time. it's pretty good, in my opinion

gl
 

lorki3

Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
337
Location
The Netherlands
WCA
2009ENGE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Been on the same site, have the whole thing printed in a binder for reference, but still doesn't really show optimal EO-line cases except for those that it specifies. Is there a better method for recognition maybe? Also any good sites for mgls or cls would be great because the ones that I have found are really confusing.
Feel free to learn CLS, but I think your time is better spent on practising EOline and F2L. You can just use OCLL + PLL for now.

Not trying to discourage you btw, if you want to learn CLS already, go ahead. :D
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
It's been a few years since I was active, but who are some of the fastest ZZ cubers these days?

Half a decade ago, people were saying ZZ would be the method of the future, but from what I'm seeing, the fastest people are still using an improved CFOP with better algs, practice, and tricks.

How far behind is ZZ lagging from CFOP?
 

Petro Leum

Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
794
Location
Germany
WCA
2012KALH01
Thanks a lot, that video was inspirational! :eek:

Is ZZ still a minority method, or has it gained more users?
some people have told me that im the best ZZ-Cuber officially for 3x3 with a 10.30 avg, but i am not too sure. is zz still not sub10 officially?


its still a minority. according to that one thread it was like 7% ZZ 17% Roux 72% Cfop, but thats probably biased because people with minority methods are mroe eager to vote. it's probably less than 7% in reality.


the time will come! we will get our alexander lau eventually ;)
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Thanks! I'm currently practising ZZ and I feel like eventually I'll have lots of questions.

I was hoping to get a list of people who are really experienced so that I could personally contact them for advice/help.
Once I run into those questions, may I direct message you for answers? (since you're the fastest officially)
 
Top