[Help Thread] ZZ and ZB Discussion

[CubingGenius]

There is a trick, yes.

I can't know this because I have only ever been color neutral with every method I've learned, but when solving I don't even think about colors, the correct pieces just pop out at me from practice. I think this is how it happens with all CN solvers eventually, whatever method they use.


It's probably a lot easier to switch from CN than to it, so go for it if it's appealing to you. Again, I'm not sure of the real benefits, and you'll have to learn how to deal with difficult cases anyway. I've read in a lot of CN discussions that by taking the easier orientations a CN solver won't be as good with difficult scrambles that don't have any easy orientations. That's hooey. There's nothing stopping a CN solver from practicing difficult cases. When I was getting myself used to CN first block in Roux, I just forced myself to figure out a solution for all 24 possible blocks. The only potential downsides of CN arise from poor practice, not from something inherent.

Would you say this is a good method for recognition of edge orientation?

 

[Wristlor]

Yep thats what I did too, when I was trying CN.
It's fast and simple.

 

[CubingGenius]

Does anyone know an EOline solver that has multiple options for the best EOline?

Does anyone also know a good 4x4-7x7 method involving ZZ?

Yep thats what I did too, when I was trying CN.
It's fast and simple.

Thanks.

 

[pinser]

Does anyone know an EOline solver that has multiple options for the best EOline?

Does anyone also know a good 4x4-7x7 method involving ZZ?

Jarcs was the best, but it's down atm. @mDiPalma said he's working on a user-side replacement. cstimer solves one EOline but that's pretty much worthless lol

For big cube method, https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/5e0j0i/zz4not_z4_a_4x4_zz_variant_on_the_same_level_as/
but redux is probably better

 

[CubingGenius]

Jarcs was the best, but it's down atm. @mDiPalma said he's working on a user-side replacement. cstimer solves one EOline but that's pretty much worthless lol

For big cube method, https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/5e0j0i/zz4not_z4_a_4x4_zz_variant_on_the_same_level_as/
but redux is probably better

Thanks, Jarcs was what I used to use.

Thank you for the 4x4 method, I will look at it soon.

 

[AlphaSheep]

Does anyone also know a good 4x4-7x7 method involving ZZ?

I think Hoya is reasonably well suited to ZZ. I posted a description of how I do it here: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/hoya-discussion.45461/page-26#post-1194841

 

[CubingGenius]

I think Hoya is reasonably well suited to ZZ. I posted a description of how I do it here: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/hoya-discussion.45461/page-26#post-1194841

Thank you very much for this.

 

[CubingGenius]

A few questions:

- What are the fastest ZZ solvers in the world and what do they average? Andy Huang, Phil Yu and Simon Kalhofer are the main three I know of.

- How common is colour neutral ZZ? How many people use it?

- Would anyone be interested if I generate algorithms to solve pair 12, 15 and 23 on this website (http://algdb.net/Set/F2L) while solving LL simultaneously?

- What are the fastest ZZ user's times like for 4x4 to 7x7 and how do they solve it?

 

[GenTheSnail]

A few questions:

- What are the fastest ZZ solvers in the world and what do they average? Andy Huang, Phil Yu and Simon Kalhofer are the main three I know of.

- How common is colour neutral ZZ? How many people use it?

- Would anyone be interested if I generate algorithms to solve pair 12, 15 and 23 on this website (http://algdb.net/Set/F2L) while solving LL simultaneously?

- What are the fastest ZZ user's times like for 4x4 to 7x7 and how do they solve it?

[Andrew Nathenson has a 13.61 OH average. He isn't that great at 2H though. I would still count that as a top ZZ solver.] [Chris Tran only has a 12.20 2H average, but is a pretty top-ZZ solver.]

Phil does orange front if if blue is bad, and I can but I average about a second more. Chris is x2/y2.
Idk about anyone else.

Not really. That's like (ZBLLx4)x3= a lot.

Simon uses hoya+eo+ZZ on 5+ iirc.
Phil doesn't do big cubes.
Andrew uses hoya+cfop. I think Chris just cfops big cubes too.

Not the best information, but if there is something here that you didn't know, then your welcome, if not, sorry.
E: wtf happened to my links?

 

[Wristlor]

So BTW, if you haven't noticed yet.
We have got a ZZ-Solver again!

 

[mDiPalma]

So BTW, if you haven't noticed yet.
We have got a ZZ-Solver again!

yeah you can currently solve (in any orientation):

eoline > left block [RUDL]> right block [RUD]
xxeoline (left) > right block [RUD]

in the next version I will adjust it so you can also do right block first.

 

[CubingGenius]

[Andrew Nathenson has a 13.61 OH average. He isn't that great at 2H though. I would still count that as a top ZZ solver.] [Chris Tran only has a 12.20 2H average, but is a pretty top-ZZ solver.]

Phil does orange front if if blue is bad, and I can but I average about a second more. Chris is x2/y2.
Idk about anyone else.

Not really. That's like (ZBLLx4)x3= a lot.

Simon uses hoya+eo+ZZ on 5+ iirc.
Phil doesn't do big cubes.
Andrew uses hoya+cfop. I think Chris just cfops big cubes too.

Not the best information, but if there is something here that you didn't know, then your welcome, if not, sorry.
E: wtf happened to my links?

Thanks for the information. What about Andy Huang's method for 4x4 to 7x7?

I also seem to have issues quoting my posts.

So BTW, if you haven't noticed yet.
We have got a ZZ-Solver again!

Thanks, I heard about that.

yeah you can currently solve (in any orientation):

eoline > left block [RUDL]> right block [RUD]
xxeoline (left) > right block [RUD]

in the next version I will adjust it so you can also do right block first.

That looks good. I am having issues running the codes though. I got to typing in ZZ and showing the options but don't know what to do after that.

A few suggestions:

- Allow it to solve XEOline (EOline plus one 2x2x1 block) and XXEOline with 2x2x1 blocks on each side of the EOline.

- Allow it to solve one side or two pairs with RULD after EOline has been completed.

But the program looks good and I am very happy with what I have heard so far.

 

[supercavitation]

Thanks for the information. What about Andy Huang's method for 4x4 to 7x7?

Pretty sure Andy does normal Yau for 4x4, but I haven't seen him solve in a while, 5x5 is Redux into ZZ iirc, and I don't think he does anything bigger.

 

[GenTheSnail]

Do you guys use ZZ when super casually solving?
Like when you misscramble in FMC, or DNF a Blind solve and need to have solved cube for your next attempt?

I find myself using a random amount of petrus blockbuilding and lazy vhls/wv or roux.
eg. I don't use ZZ for those occasions.

---

Also, how fast can you do a no-inspection solve using ZZ?
I timed myself a couple weeks ago and, iirc, got a sub-20 [I averaged like ~15.5] average of 12, with a 16 single. I spent about 2-3 seconds inspecting and messed up EO about 1/3 of the time.
How fast can you guys get, and what are your successful EO rates?

 

[AlphaSheep]

Do you guys use ZZ when super casually solving?
Like when you misscramble in FMC, or DNF a Blind solve and need to have solved cube for your next attempt?

I find myself using a random amount of petrus blockbuilding and lazy vhls/wv or roux.
eg. I don't use ZZ for those occasions.

---

Also, how fast can you do a no-inspection solve using ZZ?
I timed myself a couple weeks ago and, iirc, got a sub-20 [I averaged like ~15.5] average of 12, with a 16 single. I spent about 2-3 seconds inspecting and messed up EO about 1/3 of the time.
How fast can you guys get, and what are your successful EO rates?

I use ZZ for everything since it's my fastest method by far. I don't work with unoriented edges if I don't have to. Especially with FMC, I struggle with time management, so my priority is getting the cube solved as fast as possible without wasting time.

My no inspection solving is pretty good because I drilled it quite a bit (so that I could do ZZ after reduction in big cubes). I plan EO only which takes less than 2 seconds, and then pause slightly after EO to find the line edges. I average around 21-23 seconds when I average 18-19 with inspection. I get EO right around 90% of the time.

 

[mDiPalma]

If I have no inspection, I'll usually glance around the cube to see if I have a low bad-edge case (0,2,4). Otherwise I'll just do Petrus starting with the first block I see.

 

[genericcuber666]

is it worth learning x2 y color neutrality or is it okay to just do blue and green front?

ive almost finished learning coll L which is the last set apart from sune and anti sune should i finish coll or learn something else?
do you have any tips for open slotting?

 

[pinser]

is it worth learning x2 y color neutrality or is it okay to just do blue and green front?

ive almost finished learning coll L which is the last set apart from sune and anti sune should i finish coll or learn something else?
do you have any tips for open slotting?

Imo, x2 isn't worth it. y could be.

Finish COLL. COLL + EPLL is pretty fast.

Practice. Unless you see the other pair, don't openslot for the back because that makes it harder to lookahead

 

[CubingGenius]

My colour neutral inspection is getting a lot faster. I am focusing on the EOline stage at the moment. The F2L for colour neutral and EO has adjusted very quickly, it's just the inspection that needs a lot more practice.

Does anyone have good tips for the first pair/block after the EOline? I struggle a lot with that and my move count for that step is often quite high.

What is the fastest official and unofficial single and average for 3x3 and 3x3 OH?

What is a good method for recognising what AUF I will have after I execute the ZBLL algorithm?

is it worth learning x2 y color neutrality or is it okay to just do blue and green front?

ive almost finished learning coll L which is the last set apart from sune and anti sune should i finish coll or learn something else?
do you have any tips for open slotting?

I would say colour neutral is worth looking at. It will probably take longer to get the inspection under 15 seconds than other methods. If not, then yes, try x2 y. That was what I was using before I switched to colour neutral.

Finishing COLL is a good idea. After that maybe learn 2GLL if you want to.

Just try to play around with open slotting if you have some time. It is occasionally quite useful.

 

[CubingGenius]

Does anyone have good tips for the first pair/block after the EOline? I struggle a lot with that and my move count for that step is often quite high.

I am still having major issues with my first pair/block's efficiency.

Here are a few example solves:

1. F U F' R' L' F B2 L U2 L2 D' F2 D' B2 R2 B2 U' D' F2 L
z' F U D' L R' F - EOline
R U R2 U' R U L2 U2 R U R - What I did in the solve
U R' U R' U2 L' U' L2 - What I did with unlimited time

2. B2 U2 D2 L' U D L B' R' L F R2 L2 U2 B U2 D2 B L2 F L2
x z' U' R u' U F L D - EOline
R' U2 R U2 R U2 L U L - What I did in the solve
R U' R U2 R2 L U L2 - What I did with unlimited time

3. D' F' L2 U2 L2 D2 U2 F D2 B' R2 F2 R' F2 R F L D' F D2 R'
z2 F' U D' R F R D' - EOline
U R U2 L' U' L' - What I did in the solve
U R U2 L' U' L' - What I did with unlimited time

I think the inefficient first 2x2x1 block could have something to do with poor lookahead - if I could guess, even though my tps isn't that good (around 5-6) whilst turning, I wouldn't be surprised if I am pausing for at least half the solve. I am consistently appearing to have a large pause after EOline, even if I turn at something like 1 tps.

Does anyone have any idea how to fix this problem?