[Help Thread] ZZ and ZB Discussion

[Zelda]

What LL method are you using?

I'm currently using COLL to recognize cases.

i think he's trying to jump the gun and go straight for ZZLL, don't think he's learned COLL yet though

I have some COLL, but would rather just go straight into ZZLL.

 

[immortalchaos29]

I have some COLL, but would rather just go straight into ZZLL.

I highly recommend that you stick with OCLL - PLL then learn COLL - EPLL later, then full ZZLL much later.

Memorizing lots of algorithms is impressive, but no where near as valuable to your improvement as f2l practice. Also you will have a head start with many of the algs and it will be easier to memorize because you will be much more accustomed to the finger tricks and muscle memory will kick in (this was key in my memorizing all OLLs).

Whatever you do end up choosing, good luck.

 

[Zelda]

I'd rather go with full ZZLL and spend all the time learning that and imporving on the way. Know any good just ZZLL algs, the wiki ones aren't that good.

 

[aznanimedude]

define not that good, the ones on the wiki are actually...pretty good

 

[Zelda]

Well, they are, but i can't seem to find just the ones for ZZ, meaning at least 2 edges are premuted opposite each other, So say green is opposite blue. And I have trouble checking which algs I need.

 

[Brest]

Well, they are, but i can't seem to find just the ones for ZZ, meaning at least 2 edges are premuted opposite each other, So say green is opposite blue. And I have trouble checking which algs I need.

How about you use the Wiki? [Wiki]ZZLL[/Wiki]

 

[aznanimedude]

i mentioned it before, but BOCA also is another place, and they happen to have a page for ZZLL
you could use that i suppose.

edit:
I just got Brest'd

 

[Zelda]

How about you use the Wiki? [Wiki]ZZLL[/Wiki]

Gee, thanks. Looks like the algorithms were updated...

 

[a small kitten]

I would try the polish algorithm database.

ZZLL is listed under ZZ-b.

 

[Zeotor]

Question for ZZ solvers.
Do you have a set order that you look for bad edges in? Do you think that it's a good idea to have a set order?

When looking for bad edges during inspection, I've been looking for them in set order. That order is:
-B layer, from D up to U
-UR and UL
-DL and DR
-F layer, from U down to D

I'm wondering if this is a good thing to do or not. I've been using ZZ for 3x3 regularly since December 5, 2012. I've done about 425 (yes, I've been counting) solves or solve attempts (EO mistakes) combined since then. So, it's still fairly easy for me to adopt better ways of doing things.

Thanks.

 

[MWilson]

It doesn't matter. Just by practice, whatever order you do it, you will start noticing the EO of edges just have having the cube in your vision. Eventually you'll just look wherever.

 

[Zelda]

Question for ZZ solvers.
Do you have a set order that you look for bad edges in? Do you think that it's a good idea to have a set order?

When looking for bad edges during inspection, I've been looking for them in set order. That order is:
-B layer, from D up to U
-UR and UL
-DL and DR
-F layer, from U down to D

I'm wondering if this is a good thing to do or not. I've been using ZZ for 3x3 regularly since December 5, 2012. I've done about 425 (yes, I've been counting) solves or solve attempts (EO mistakes) combined since then. So, it's still fairly easy for me to adopt better ways of doing things.

Thanks.

Hi there, I know I'm a newbie, but here's my 2 cents.

First, my cube is aligned blue/green front, white/yellow top, just kinda used to it.

Next, my order is:

-UB, then BR, BL and UR and UL. (So maybe a slight tilt required)
-Then top down (from front) UF, FR, FL, UD.
-Finish off with DR, DL and DB.

This is just a personal preference that I'm used to. It's fast for me, and I can normally do EO inspection in maybe 10~15 seconds. In the end, it's whatever's the best way you like.

 

[mDiPalma]

While I look for my line edges, I note the bad edges with my peripheral vision. Then I look for pairs.

 

[Zeotor]

Thanks for the helpful responses. I welcome any more.
-----
I plan to eventually be y-axis color neutral. I've been building up to that by alternating between two orientations for each solve - Yellow/Green and Yellow/Orange (with yellow as U). My EO inspection+planing time currently ranges from 30 seconds to around two minutes.

Do you think that I should continue to approach y-axis color neutrality this way? Or, should I get one orientation down, and add the other one later? Or, something else?

I have improved and know I will continue to improve. I'm just wondering if there's a better way.

 

[MWilson]

You can do z axis neutral with front back y axis neutral. You can inspect the EO of a cube, and do as many Z, Z', Z2 and Y2 turns as you want without changing which edges are oriented. It would allow you to memorize the EO, then look around for the best pair of line edges out of the four possibilities, and then choose your Y2 rotation for best finger tricks or whatever.

I won't pretend to be fast with ZZ overall, I'm about ~15s and just do left square->right square->pair then OLL/PLL, but I am completely CN with it. I start by inspecting a random axis, and if I see more than six bad edges, I switch to another axis, and then once more if necessary, and I can inspect all three in ~6s. What I do then is look at a random line pair for the chosen axis, and if they're in awkward places I switch to another line pair, and so on. This doesn't take long with practice, and I rarely have a difficult EOLine as a result. Once the solve starts, I don't notice the think about colors because I've been CN with CFOP for years since I started cubing. That said, if you just stick to the same color on front and top, very strictly, you'll just end up good enough at EOLine over time that it won't matter, so the benefit is debatable. My point overall is that CN is possible, and if you find it to be more fun, do it. If you just care about getting fast and the idea of being CN isn't too appealing, then don't bother.

 

[immortalchaos29]

but I am completely CN with it.

I didn't even know this was possible. Seemed like inspection suicide but your explanation makes sense. Are there many others that can say the same? This is really cool and impressive.

You can do z axis neutral with front back y axis neutral.

This is more what I was anticipating for myself. But now idk what's best. Did you start here then transition to CN or just start CN?

 

[MWilson]

Did you start here then transition to CN or just start CN?

I've always been full CN in CFOP, Roux, and ZZ. I just don't worry about getting the most out of it by over-inspecting to find the most optimal move count solution. The real benefit to CN in speed solving is not saving a few moves by inspecting every possibility, but to avoid awkwardness. When inspecting, you realize right away when you're dealing with an awkward inspection, or that you're going to have awkward finger tricks with the scramble at hand, and you're forced to just deal with it if you always do the same color. As CN, you can just go "not dealing with this" and switch to another orientation. For example, in CFOP, I would rather do a seven move cross that is smooth physically and easy to figure out than one that is six moves but awkward. CN is not about saving moves. It's about intuitively zeroing in on the least awkward starting color for whatever method you're using. In the end, it's really just preference.

 

[Alcuber]

Question for ZZ solvers.
Do you have a set order that you look for bad edges in? Do you think that it's a good idea to have a set order?

When looking for bad edges during inspection, I've been looking for them in set order. That order is:
-B layer, from D up to U
-UR and UL
-DL and DR
-F layer, from U down to D

I'm wondering if this is a good thing to do or not. I've been using ZZ for 3x3 regularly since December 5, 2012. I've done about 425 (yes, I've been counting) solves or solve attempts (EO mistakes) combined since then. So, it's still fairly easy for me to adopt better ways of doing things.

Thanks.

The way I've always done it since I started ZZ'ing, was to check UB UL UR and UF first, then check DB DL DR and DF. Then I would check FL and FR then finally BL and BR.

I've never really thought too much about it, as it seems like I do it automatically because of doing it so many times. There might be more efficient ways to do it but I'm fine with this way for now, as I have more important things to work on in ZZ.

 

[aznanimedude]

i've pretty sure i usually checkFL and FR first, then check B face edges, then as i turn the cube i recheck front, check U face, then check BL and BR. But i've never really thought about it, just check all edges and then plan

 

[Zeotor]

You can do z axis neutral with front back y axis neutral. You can inspect the EO of a cube, and do as many Z, Z', Z2 and Y2 turns as you want without changing which edges are oriented. It would allow you to memorize the EO, then look around for the best pair of line edges out of the four possibilities, and then choose your Y2 rotation for best finger tricks or whatever.

I never knew/realized that. I'll think about using that approach.

I won't pretend to be fast with ZZ overall, I'm about ~15s [...] but I am completely CN with it. [...] My point overall is that CN is possible, and if you find it to be more fun, do it. If you just care about getting fast and the idea of being CN isn't too appealing, then don't bother.

I find it very appealing; I just didn't think that it was practical. Do you think that it has the same potential for speed as having a set orientation?