[Help Thread] ZZ and ZB Discussion

[AKOM]

out of interest, i just did an average of 12 timing EOLine/F2L/Last Layer separately. this is what i got:

EOLine:

Average: 2.034 (σ = 0.21)
Mean: 2.046

F2L:

Average: 5.307 (σ = 0.38)
Mean: 5.347

Last Layer:

Average: 3.157 (σ = 0.54)
Mean: 3.174


adding uo the averages i get
10,498

i average 12 seconds (today i was mostly at 11.5)
although i tried, this does not include COLL/ZBLL recognition and, far more concerning, doesnt include proper transition from EOLine to F2L.

i also didnt influence LL during F2L which is rather common for me.
i got 2 or 3 rather long ZBLLs in the average.

are these normals splits? what are yours? what should i improve?

What i'm a little wondering about is your TPS. i would guess that you have following move count: EOLine 8, Blocks 24-29=27, LL 17, all 52 (is this right?)
This will lead to following TPS: Eoline 2, F2L 5.1, LL 5.3. So you have 5 TPS in intuitive blockbuilding (which is fast) and nearly 5 in memorised LL algorithms and 4 in EOLine (which you can plan in advance).
Is your last layer 2-look?

 

[Petro Leum]

What i'm a little wondering about is your TPS. i would guess that you have following move count: EOLine 8, Blocks 24-29=27, LL 17, all 52 (is this right?)
This will lead to following TPS: Eoline 2, F2L 5.1, LL 5.3. So you have 5 TPS in intuitive blockbuilding (which is fast) and nearly 5 in memorised LL algorithms and 4 in EOLine (which you can plan in advance).
Is your last layer 2-look?

movecount is not right for speedsolving. i didnt get a full avg12 reconstructed yet, but when i pick random speedsolves, it ranges from 50-65, so id rather guess 60 moves average. especially when i get to my top speed (11.5 seconds), my F2L gets alot more inefficient, and i do many extra turns.

my last layer TPS is rather bad, there are just so many algorithms i havent trained alot to get ~10tps like in a t-perm or sth. plus you know my maximum TPS is worse than yours

my last layer consists of roughly:
~ 20% OLL skips (luck/WV)
~ 30% ZBLL/ EPLL skip
~ 30% COLL+EPLL
~ 20% Sune + PLL

this is approximated very roughly, but i might do statistic because its interesting

EDIT: @ whieleys

yes, that actually helped me alot! i started practising only EOLine + F2l now, and i noticed although my EOLine is very consistent at 2 seconds and pretty fast, i also get very different times at the end of F2l, ranging from 6.5 to 10 seconds. i believe the transition from EOLine determines how fluently i solve the rest of the F2L and shamefully, i just rarely lookahead into the blockbuilding during EOLine and only 50% of the time even track the LD and RD edges and make a decision which block to start on. my goal is now to get EOL+F2L consistently under 8 seconds, and, long-time-goal, under 7 seconds. i noticed the 6.xx F2L solves to be sub10 most of the time, so that should be a good thing to aim for

 

[Villyer]

I'm new to ZZ, but when I was looking into it I really liked the idea of ZZ-d and a 1GLL. It seemed like it fit the spirit of the method best. I was looking at ways to manage it and found an old thread posted by blah, here. How he proposes it makes the most sense, attempting to permute everything after finishing the left 3x2x1 block will allow a 2G finish but you don't feel it until the last layer anyway, so there is no harm (in my eyes) of permuting when you finish the last f2l slot anywhere. The only issue I saw with his post was the annoying matching of a permutation of numbers with an algorithm.

However there is a very simple pattern in those numbers, which I think would allow for quick recognition. It calls for noticing the relationship between the corners based on color. In this case, I think color of a cubie would be best defined as the color immediately clockwise (or counterclockwise) of the U face color (henceforth yellow). Recognizing blue as across from green is second nature, so the only learning in recognition is knowing that orange is after blue and red is before blue (measuring clockwise around the cube with yellow on top).

The recognition system is then to look clockwise around the U face of the cube when you have the pair ready to be inserted using R U' R'. If the UBL piece is the blue corner, UBR is red, and UFR is orange, you would recognize it as BC (B for Back, C for aCross, and A for After). You could choose to identify the corners in any order between the 4, and you will always get one of six letter pairs: AA, BB, AC, CA, BC, CB. Pairing these to the algorithms blah had found yields the following list:

• AA: y L' U' L F R U' R' F’
• BB: U' L' U R U' R' L
• AC: R U2 L' U R' U' L
• CA: L' U2 R U R' U2 L
• BC: U R U L' U R' U' L
• CB: R U’ R’

Of course the order you identify in changes the list you would use.

I attempted to look for algorithms for the R U R' case intuitively but was only able to find one for three of the cases. The algorithms can be mirrored in order to insert into any other slot as well, e.g. if you insert into the FL slot with L U L', look counterclockwise from the corner piece to be inserted and the recognition will be the same.

I feel like this system could work for quick recognition. The extra three moves or so seem worth it for 2GLL as well, but like I said I'm not nearly fast enough to say definitively. I posted this on /r/cubers but not many people are ZZ solvers there, I'm hoping for some experienced opinions on this and ZZ-d in general.

 

[Petro Leum]

I'm new to ZZ, but when I was looking into it I really liked the idea of ZZ-d and a 1GLL. It seemed like it fit the spirit of the method best. I was looking at ways to manage it and found an old thread posted by blah, here. How he proposes it makes the most sense, attempting to permute everything after finishing the left 3x2x1 block will allow a 2G finish but you don't feel it until the last layer anyway, so there is no harm (in my eyes) of permuting when you finish the last f2l slot anywhere. The only issue I saw with his post was the annoying matching of a permutation of numbers with an algorithm.

However there is a very simple pattern in those numbers, which I think would allow for quick recognition. It calls for noticing the relationship between the corners based on color. In this case, I think color of a cubie would be best defined as the color immediately clockwise (or counterclockwise) of the U face color (henceforth yellow). Recognizing blue as across from green is second nature, so the only learning in recognition is knowing that orange is after blue and red is before blue (measuring clockwise around the cube with yellow on top).

The recognition system is then to look clockwise around the U face of the cube when you have the pair ready to be inserted using R U' R'. If the UBL piece is the blue corner, UBR is red, and UFR is orange, you would recognize it as BC (B for Back, C for aCross, and A for After). You could choose to identify the corners in any order between the 4, and you will always get one of six letter pairs: AA, BB, AC, CA, BC, CB. Pairing these to the algorithms blah had found yields the following list:

• AA: y L' U' L F R U' R' F’
• BB: U' L' U R U' R' L
• AC: R U2 L' U R' U' L
• CA: L' U2 R U R' U2 L
• BC: U R U L' U R' U' L
• CB: R U’ R’

Of course the order you identify in changes the list you would use.

I attempted to look for algorithms for the R U R' case intuitively but was only able to find one for three of the cases. The algorithms can be mirrored in order to insert into any other slot as well, e.g. if you insert into the FL slot with L U L', look counterclockwise from the corner piece to be inserted and the recognition will be the same.

I feel like this system could work for quick recognition. The extra three moves or so seem worth it for 2GLL as well, but like I said I'm not nearly fast enough to say definitively. I posted this on /r/cubers but not many people are ZZ solvers there, I'm hoping for some experienced opinions on this and ZZ-d in general.

I can definitely say i did NOT understand your recognition approach. something i recognised as "BA", which, according, to your list, doesnt exist, turned out to be "AA", and when trying to mirror everything for the lef tside, i got "AA" to be "BC" seems im too dumb

Anyway, this thread here is full of discussion about different approaches to ZZ-d. alot of things have been proposed, but it most of the time came down to the recognition being just too difficult.

i worked on ZZ-d to the point where i had one block (lets say e.g. the left block) completed, and i would
1. bring the DFR and DBR corners to the DFR and DBR positions (swapped or not swapped)
2. i would then recognise CP on the U layer via some fancy color recognition (probably very similar to yours, but i was too lazy to make a chart about it and i forgot how i did it... maybe i can work it out again)
3. applay either no algorithm, L' U R U' L or L' U R2 U' L to solve CP
4. continue to solve normally and get a 2GLL

now, i came to the conclusion that even this is way too difficult to actually be incorporated into F2L lookahead to be worth it (especially not for twohanded, where 2GLL makes so little difference)

HOWEVER when i was playing around with this for some days, it happened to me a few times after a week or so that i "intuitively" recognised CP and solved it (like, i didnt apply my recognition scheme, i just looked at the colors distractedly, and i just knew what the CP was. Now, this sounds very adventurous, and i didnt manage to make this a reliable recognition i could practise and do all the time, so i dropped the whole idea and stopped practising zz-d alltogether.

Now, around a year later, i am actually asking myself if its worth learning ZZLL with Phasing, since the Phasing aspect actually takes more away than just "1.5 moves on average" and it also needs another step of recognition. im not through with this, and im gonna continue to learn the ZZLLs as they benefit me even if i dont Phase (theyre just some ZBLLs as well), but i have my doubts that stuff like this is worth it at all.

for example, i learned full winter variation and came to the conclusion that maybe ~5 cases are even worth using, because the rest is just too long and the recognition is just too hard. meh.

Dear fellow ZZers,

I am about to open a "ZZ-Example-Solve-Game"-Thread, but it came to my mind that its hard to compare solves and solutions especially for Blockbuilding/EOline, when people solve on different Orientations.

Do you agree this is problematic?
Would it be a good idea to have the rule that "you must solve EOLine in the orientation you scrambled in", or would that not be realistic, because some inspect 2 Orientations in speedsolving?
Any other suggestions?

 

[porkynator]

I don't think we need everyone to solve in the same orientation; it's useful to go through a solve even if you are not familiar with the orientation, and you can always scramble to make the solve match your preferences.

(cut)

Now I don't have time to read your whole post (exams ) but I'm planning to do so in the next few weeks, hoping to find some new ideas for zz-d (the idea of looking at one colour per piece seems nice).

 

[mDiPalma]

snip

I don't know if this sounds weird, and I don't know if anyone else has done enough ZZ-d solves to feel this. But whenever I solve ZZ-d (I typically use ZZ-Porky v1, where you solve EOLine and the left block, then place the F2L corners and solve CP with Niklas variants) I get a feeling that the CP is solved or not. Like, without even directly checking the colors or positions of the corners, I can just somehow know that the CP is either solved or not (maybe like ~75% accuracy or something. And usually when I'm wrong, its the diagonal swap case). I think it's my peripheral vision and my subconscious.

Anyway, I've only done maybe 1000 timed solves with ZZ-d, and I still have this small sensation. What I'm thinking is that perhaps if somebody were to learn ZZ-d and use it fluently, they would be able to instantly determine the CP case in just a quick peripheral glance (without even seeing all the colors of each corner, but by subconsciously using the process of elimination to figure everything out). They would instantly know which corners need to be swapped.

This, of course, becomes much easier when you are inserting the last F2L pairs, because you need only look at 3 corners in the U layer.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that recognition schemes like these actually don't need to exist. And I don't mean to diminish your work, but I feel that if anyone put 10% of the time they have otherwise put into CFOP or Roux into just pure ZZ-Porky v1, I'm sure that in a couple of months they would be able to pick up 10 cubes all with solved EOLines and left blocks, with right f2l corners placed, and in <10 seconds list off which cubes had which types of CP.

Yes, they have to start somewhere, and that's where your scheme may come in handy. But if cubers can subconsciously link that color pattern to a certain image of corners being adjacently or diagonally swapped, I think they will soon be able to identify CP in just a moment, without the aid of these schemes.

Dear fellow ZZers,

I am about to open a "ZZ-Example-Solve-Game"-Thread, but it came to my mind that its hard to compare solves and solutions especially for Blockbuilding/EOline, when people solve on different Orientations.

Do you agree this is problematic?
Would it be a good idea to have the rule that "you must solve EOLine in the orientation you scrambled in", or would that not be realistic, because some inspect 2 Orientations in speedsolving?
Any other suggestions?

I wouldn't recommend opening a new thread. Even the Roux thread is just clutter. We can simply commandeer the regular example solve thread whenever we want . Or we can use this Home-thread, which is what the Roux people should be doing.

But if you do make a thread, post like 52 scrambles in a spoiler, and somehow indicate that there is 1 or 2 per week or something. I hate that the Roux thread changes scrambles so haphazardly.

And I don't think we need to require solving in the scrambling orientation. I know many of us are y-axis neutral for the 10 or 12 bad edge cases.

 

[Petro Leum]

I don't know if this sounds weird, and I don't know if anyone else has done enough ZZ-d solves to feel this. But whenever I solve ZZ-d (I typically use ZZ-Porky v1, where you solve EOLine and the left block, then place the F2L corners and solve CP with Niklas variants) I get a feeling that the CP is solved or not. Like, without even directly checking the colors or positions of the corners, I can just somehow know that the CP is either solved or not (maybe like ~75% accuracy or something. And usually when I'm wrong, its the diagonal swap case). I think it's my peripheral vision and my subconscious.

Anyway, I've only done maybe 1000 timed solves with ZZ-d, and I still have this small sensation. What I'm thinking is that perhaps if somebody were to learn ZZ-d and use it fluently, they would be able to instantly determine the CP case in just a quick peripheral glance (without even seeing all the colors of each corner, but by subconsciously using the process of elimination to figure everything out). They would instantly know which corners need to be swapped.

This, of course, becomes much easier when you are inserting the last F2L pairs, because you need only look at 3 corners in the U layer.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that recognition schemes like these actually don't need to exist. And I don't mean to diminish your work, but I feel that if anyone put 10% of the time they have otherwise put into CFOP or Roux into just pure ZZ-Porky v1, I'm sure that in a couple of months they would be able to pick up 10 cubes all with solved EOLines and left blocks, with right f2l corners placed, and in <10 seconds list off which cubes had which types of CP.

Yes, they have to start somewhere, and that's where your scheme may come in handy. But if cubers can subconsciously link that color pattern to a certain image of corners being adjacently or diagonally swapped, I think they will soon be able to identify CP in just a moment, without the aid of these schemes.




I wouldn't recommend opening a new thread. Even the Roux thread is just clutter. We can simply commandeer the regular example solve thread whenever we want . Or we can use this Home-thread, which is what the Roux people should be doing.

But if you do make a thread, post like 52 scrambles in a spoiler, and somehow indicate that there is 1 or 2 per week or something. I hate that the Roux thread changes scrambles so haphazardly.

And I don't think we need to require solving in the scrambling orientation. I know many of us are y-axis neutral for the 10 or 12 bad edge cases.

i disagree that the roux thread is just clutter. IMHO it provides excellent space for optimizing speedsolves, learning tricks, comparing solves, and helping beginners.

I also dont like the idea of using the example solve thread or the ZZ/ZB Home Thread for this.
While in the example solve thread theres a new scramble every solve and discussing solutions in lots of extra posts will likely be considered spam (and furthermore that discussion would just drown in the sheer number of example solves)
same with the ZZ/ZB Home thread. lets just say 2-3 people are discussing theories for ZZ-d, while 2-3 others post example solves and discuss them. one or the other would just drown in the flood of the other's posts.

I do really like your Idea of posting lots of scrambles in a spoiler in advance though. That makes the whole thing regular and enables the thread to run by itself, without me having to go online and post a new scramble or someone just randomly doing it.

do you think new scramble every monday and friday would be good?

also i suppose you guys are right about the scramble orientation thing. im gonna let it be.

 

[AKOM]

Dear fellow ZZers,

I am about to open a "ZZ-Example-Solve-Game"-Thread, but it came to my mind that its hard to compare solves and solutions especially for Blockbuilding/EOline, when people solve on different Orientations.

Do you agree this is problematic?
Would it be a good idea to have the rule that "you must solve EOLine in the orientation you scrambled in", or would that not be realistic, because some inspect 2 Orientations in speedsolving?
Any other suggestions?

if i have a problem with the colors of an example solve, i scramble it in the wca-orientation and look what rotation is needed so get the scramble in my colors and scramble it again. i think this procedure is ok otherwise the example provider has to do such a thing.

 

[Villyer]

after a week or so that i "intuitively" recognised CP and solved it

if cubers can subconsciously link that color pattern to a certain image of corners being adjacently or diagonally swapped

Specifics of what I talked about in my post aside, these themes in your responses really rung with me. I didn't know that the recognition could become so natural and subtle, so I appreciate that insight. I don't think I'll do much more with the recognition for the time being, I don't OH solve personally and so using a ZZ-d system probably won't be as helpful.

 

[lorki3]

I'm just curious; how long did it take some of you to get to the same average with ZZ as CFOP or just 'fast' in general?
I average about 16 seconds with CFOP and I average 30ish with ZZ after using it for a week or so.

 

[ChickenWrap]

I'm just curious; how long did it take some of you to get to the same average with ZZ as CFOP or just 'fast' in general?
I average about 16 seconds with CFOP and I average 30ish with ZZ after using it for a week or so.

I averaged 19 with CFOP when I switched to ZZ. For a few weeks I wasn't having very good averages but it has been about a month and now I average 21-22 with ZZ!

 

[MM99]

I'm just curious; how long did it take some of you to get to the same average with ZZ as CFOP or just 'fast' in general?
I average about 16 seconds with CFOP and I average 30ish with ZZ after using it for a week or so.

When I switched from cfop I was at around a 19-20 avg took me about a month or so to get back down to sub 25 (that's with neglecting practice a lot... Now 6 months later I'm getting around my old cfop average but with ridiculous singles (well for me anyway) like a lot of sub 15s even though I can hardly get a sub 20 ao12 just need to work on consistency I guess lol

 

[lorki3]

Hey guys,

I've been practising ZZ a bit for one-handed (my intention is to solve timed and untimed every day)
My question is whether I should practice the method two-handed as well, or if I should stick to OH.
ZZ FTW!

Cheers,
Thijs

P.S.: Unfortunately, I can't say ZZ is my main method yet, but once I can get the same average as my CFOP OH solves I will use it. (that sounds really unmotivated, probably, but trust me, I love ZZ : D )

 

[porkynator]

Hey guys,

I've been practising ZZ a bit for one-handed (my intention is to solve timed and untimed every day)
My question is whether I should practice the method two-handed as well, or if I should stick to OH.
ZZ FTW!

Cheers,
Thijs

P.S.: Unfortunately, I can't say ZZ is my main method yet, but once I can get the same average as my CFOP OH solves I will use it. (that sounds really unmotivated, probably, but trust me, I love ZZ : D )

Keep practicing ZZ OH. If at some point you find out you like it more than your main method, you can start using it also for 2H.
That's what happened to me. I used to practice OH a lot back then.

 

[lorki3]

Keep practicing ZZ OH. If at some point you find out you like it more than your main method, you can start using it also for 2H.
That's what happened to me. I used to practice OH a lot back then.

Awesome, I'll do that.
I also just got a 20.98 single, always gives me a good feeling.

 

[goodatthis]

When can one expect to be able to plan out the entire EOline in inspection?

 

[lorki3]

When can one expect to be able to plan out the entire EOline in inspection?

I'm a beginner with ZZ as well, however, I'vevern practicing it for a little than over a month. By estimate, I'm able to plan out and solve correctly EO during inspection. I do the line after that since it is usually only 3 moves. What I think uou should do is start tracking the Line edge-pieces during your eo, that way you can easily solve it after. My guess would be this would take a week or two, depending on how much you practice.
Ultimately, you should be able to combine EO and the libe. You should read more about this in the written ZZ tutorial. Keep in mind that I am a beginner in ZZ and am basing this poßy on things I'vr read and common sense.
Cheers
Thijs

 

[Millet]

When I do my practice sessions I always start with doing EO-Line blind. This is hard to do without practice though. I would suggest that you start by doing blind EO solves (unlimited inspection), and once you are comfortable with that, start trying to track the line pieces while solving the EO. When you think you've tracked the line pieces successfully, place them, and you've solved an EO-Line. Once you've got this down, try to plan the entire EO-line in one go. With solid practice I would say this takes about a month to get down to an acceptable level. Most important thing is to take as long an inspection time as you need.

 

[Awesoham]

I have a very simple question. Given sufficient practice, which method has more (2H) potential: ZZ or Roux?
I ask because I read somewhere that Roux is supposedly very move-efficient and has great potential. What's the consensus on ZZ?

 

[porkynator]

ZZ with full ZBLL can be even more efficient than Roux.