• 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!

ZZ-CT Thread

ECSCubed

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
14
Location
Pensacola, FL
YouTube
Visit Channel
EDIT (6-20-2016): Updated first post

Welcome to the ZZ-CT thread!

My original post with my first public debut is here, you'll find a lot of the information regarding the method there.

In this thread, you'll find general information and a beginner's guide, as well as my opinions regarding the method. I'm still developing it, and things are subject to change, but you'll be able to see and judge for yourself!


Should you learn ZZ-CT?
First ask yourself some questions:

Are you good at ZZ?
Are you a busy individual who lacks spare time?
Are you feelin' lucky, punk? (Do you want sick single times?)

If you answered yes to the above questions and you want the next step up from standard ZZ and are willing to put in the work, then ZZ-CT is for you.

If you have hundreds of hours to burn and like to learn algorithms, go with ZZ-A (ZBLL). ZZ-A ONLY works if you are dedicated. If you take half-measures, then just forget about it, you'll never become fast with it, and that's coming from years of experience.

So where should you start?
The first thing is learning TSLE. This is honestly the hardest, and most frustrating step. It took me two weeks to learn basic TSLE, and over a month to get them into muscle memory.

I suggest learning all of the 1 corner cases first, because you can easily reduce any case down to one corner intuitively. Then learn the two corner cases, three corner cases, and finally the four corner cases.

This is because any of the 3 or 4 corner cases can quickly be reduced down to a 1-2 corner case with R U R' or R' U' R' or R U2 R'.

Don't be afraid to push your limits.
You might stop at 10 algs per day because you think that's all you can humanly do. Those numbers are completely arbitrary, I'll tell you right now that if you truly wanted to, if you had to save your own life, you could probably learn this method in a few days. Just count to yourself how many breaks you're taking. What is the ratio of time spent between drilling algs and doing non-constructive things?

The best habit when it comes to learning algorithms is to push yourself and really make an effort.

As for TTLL, you should be able to memorise it in a few days. Since a lot of the algorithms are so easy, and a few of them are super short. My opinion is that TTLL is even easier than COLL because so many of the algs are related to eachother, and a bunch of them are conjugated PLLs.



Here's some TSLE tricks and advice!



So for TSLE, I put them into a few categories:

1. Obvious/Irreducible Cases
For a LOT of TSLE cases, the goal is to do some number of triggers to reduce the case into an irreducible case. Mr colourful pockets once made an analogy relating it to sq-1 cubeshape. You do moves and slices to reduce the case into a cubeshape case that you know, except instead of a slice move and things, you do a trigger. ezpz
Example: R U R'

2. Insert + Sune
A BUNCH of cases are optimally solved by simply inserting and doing a sune. also ezpz.
Example: (R U' R') + U' + (R' U' R U' R' U2 R)

3. Sune + Insert
It's like the earlier case, but backwards.
Example: R' U2 R U R' U R + U2 + R U R'

4. Pretend you're doing the F2L case.
So for a LOT OF THESE cases, it's the same alg as the F2L case. The strength behind TSLE is that you get to reuse a lot of F2L algs and you don't have to learn anything new.
This might be confusing, but let's try some examples.

Set up the case with U2 L U' R F2 D2 R D2 F2 R' U F2 L' F2
Just pretend that you're going to make the F2L pair with the corner in FDR. Even though that's obviously not the corresponding corner, just pretend that it is, and do U' R U' R' to make the fake pair. Now insert it with U R U' R'. Wow, everything's oriented!
If that didn't make sense, do R U R' U' R U R' to set up the same case, observe the orientation of the corners, make the F2L pair and insert it.

5. WV Cases
You probably know some WV. Some of those WV cases are still pretty darn good.
Example: R2 D R' U' R D' R2

6. Reflectional Cases
When the edge is already placed, you can mirror those cases, but like, the mirror plane is um, diagonal? So you have to rotate and do the case on the left side. This isn't good in the long term, but when you're learning, it's okay as a stepping stone.
Examples: R U' R' U2 R U' R' and y L' U L U2 L' U L

7. Cases that could be done with triggers, but are better off with an alg.

I know it sucks, but sometimes you just gotta learn the alg. It's better that way.
Examples: U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' is better as R' D' r U2 r' D R





Other advice and tips:

Forcing PLL:
So like, you can also learn easy and fast alternate cases to force PLL to happen, so you can predict things better. Since you know it's PLL, you can mentally prepare yourself to recognise it.

In this respect, TSLE is also a stepping stone to ZZ-C. However, my personal opinion is that ZZ-C has a LOT OF garbage cases, and TTLL is better. Only using obvious and fast alternate cases is worth it.

For example, these are my favourite to force a skip, because with the latter two, I have an extra split second to think about the case because they start the same way. They're also all decently fast and easy to recognise. Do the inverse to see the case and try it out!

U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' (When the bad corner is in the back left)
U' R' F' R U R U R' F (When you don't see the bad corner)
U' R' F R U R U' R' F' (When there's a pair)


For rotationally symmetric cases, you can force the skip most of the time.
Whenever the 4 misoriented comes up, it's an 80% chance PLL. You just have to put the bad edge in the right place.
Example: R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U2 R'
Do the inverse, and see that like, no matter how many U moves you do, it's still the same orientation. That means if you put the bad corner in the back right position and do the alg, you'll always get OLL skip. If you put it in any other position, you'll get a TTLL.

Another example: R U2 R' U R U R'
This case is U2 rotationally symmetric. So that means you have double the chance for PLL. If the bad corner is misoriented, put it in back right (SAME AS EARLIER CASE), and then do the alg, you'll get PLL instead of TTLL.



Finally, some opinions:

I think that doing TSLE in one slot is better than being slot neutral.
You can train your brain to ignore the pieces in your slot while you blockbuild, and keep rotations to an absolute minimum. (No more than 1 rotation per solve)

However, with slot neutral TSLE, even though you may save 3-5 moves, there's a chance you'll have to do a rotation or ADF. With extra rotations and ADF, you'll introduce pauses and extra looks that puts you behind. I think that avoiding extra looks and rotations is worth 3-5 moves every 15% of the time.
Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?
 

bren077s

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
53
Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?
ZZ-CT is a higher move count than all of the previous stated methods. This means that you will need to turn faster than people who know the other methods in order to get the same solve times. I think that any method that you enjoy and dedicate yourself to can lead to high speeds, but I do not think you will easily beat Roux, Petrus, or ZZ(okay, maybe petrus).
 

TyeDye

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
33
Location
Kansas, USA
WCA
2017WIEC02
ZZ-CT is a higher move count than all of the previous stated methods. This means that you will need to turn faster than people who know the other methods in order to get the same solve times. I think that any method that you enjoy and dedicate yourself to can lead to high speeds, but I do not think you will easily beat Roux, Petrus, or ZZ(okay, maybe petrus).

Alright, so I disagree with you because the only thing that you mentioned was move count, which a lot of people will tell you, means almost nothing if you can execute it faster. The two major things that make up a fast solve are TPS (knowing your algs and executing them fast) and fluidity (good lookahead with no pauses). Having good algs does also factor in a bit but I find that it falls under TPS because the algs that you're most comfortable with, you'll turn faster. Move count really doesn't matter unless it's associated with a step skip (which luckily ZZ-CT has, I believe, the highest chances of a skip that any other method).


Now, just going off of ZZ, I think it's a great method. It uses mainly <R,U,L> moves after the first step, which are much more ergonomic than F or B moves. I know that I can perform a R U R' U' faster than a U F R or some other similar move. It also uses no rotations since everything is already oriented into that position and you can use process of elimination to track edges that you can't see both sides of. This, for me, was a god send after using CFOP for years. I never really got around to learning full OLL, so I was still using 2 look. So there was no problem with getting used to OLL with ZZ and PLL is the exact same. The only thing was getting used to EOLine which isn't even hard after you've done like 100-200 solves. Blockbuilding is also very simple after you start recognizing the cross edge as a block edge instead.


Now, this is where the ZZ-CT comes in. You have one less pair to do, which Tran already said, you get used to not solving after you've been doing CT for a while. So, with one less pair, this is technically a skip. And that comes with the benefit of saved time. You just jump straight into TSLE.


And of course with TSLE, it's 100% R and U moves, which as I mentioned earlier, are wonderful and ergonomic. And they can be as short as one trigger and only as long as four. And it reduces down with each trigger which makes learning the entirety, fairly straighforward.


Then, there are the ridiculously high chances of skips for TSLE and TTLL. This is a welcome change for a CFOP solver. ZZ solvers may also be surprised at how often they get skips as well.


And that brings me to my last point of TTLL recognition which is possible by only looking at the front and right sides. 72 cases! By only looking at two sides! That's amazing!


So, do I think that ZZ-CT could beat Petrus, Roux, or CT? Honestly, I think that it could. The skips and ergonomics alone make it a good candidate. Petrus is already beaten, honestly. I know no one off the top of my head that really cares about Petrus or is very good at it. ZZ, I will say is disqualified since this is ZZ, just a subset. Roux is more difficult since it is an entirely different method in almost every sense. I believe that for now, Roux does beat it. If I'm not wrong, Roux doesn't require rotations and is very good with ergonomics with the slices moves and extremely intuitive which, I think, is a good quality. However, I do think that if enough people got behind CT, it could beat Roux. Lots of practice and some time. It has a good shot.
 

Pyjam

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,666
Location
La Baule, France
How do you think the chances of a skip are ridiculously high when ZZ-CT has 197 algorithms for 2 steps?

Ignore Sune and AntiSune cases, there are 328 ZBLL remaining. If you learn 159 of them (less than 197 so), your chances to skip EPLL is 1/2*. I wonder how ZZ-CT can beat that.

(*) Even if you count Sune/AS cases as non-skip cases, 159/493 is close to 1/3, still way better thant the chances to skip TSLE or TTLL.
 
Last edited:

TyeDye

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
33
Location
Kansas, USA
WCA
2017WIEC02
How do you think the chances of a skip are ridiculously high when ZZ-CT has 197 algorithms for 2 steps?

Ignore Sune and AntiSune cases, there are 328 ZBLL remaining. If you learn 159 of them (less than 197 so), your chances to skip EPLL is 1/2*. I wonder how ZZ-CT can beat that.

(*) Even if you count Sune/AS cases as non-skip cases, 159/493 is close to 1/3, still way better thant the chances to skip TSLE or TTLL.

The problem with that is that you are learning 159 individual unique algorithms to have the 1/2 chance. With TSLE, you are learning 104 cases which all reduce into each other. Which means that it is much faster to learn and execute.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,977
The problem with that is that you are learning 159 individual unique algorithms to have the 1/2 chance. With TSLE, you are learning 104 cases which all reduce into each other. Which means that it is much faster to learn and execute.
If you really want to count "learning cases which reduce into each other", fish and chips (or SIMPLE) has higher skip rates, fewer algs, and lower average move count than ZZ-CT. (It's not really a fair comparison because fish and chips is essentially 2-look ZBLL, which is one more look than the 2-look LSLL you get with ZZ-CT, but it still fares better in terms of move count in spite of requiring one more look.)
 

TyeDye

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
33
Location
Kansas, USA
WCA
2017WIEC02
If you really want to count "learning cases which reduce into each other", fish and chips (or SIMPLE) has higher skip rates, fewer algs, and lower average move count than ZZ-CT. (It's not really a fair comparison because fish and chips is essentially 2-look ZBLL, which is one more look than the 2-look LSLL you get with ZZ-CT, but it still fares better in terms of move count in spite of requiring one more look.)

Sounds interesting, I'll look into it
 

Tao Yu

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,106
Location
Ireland
WCA
2012YUTA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I feel like people here don't realize that ZZ-CT isn't the best subset of ZZ. ZZ-a is. If ZZ is going to beat Roux or CFOP, CT is not the variant that's going to give it it's best chance.

Even Chris Tran says this in this first post of this thread.

If you have hundreds of hours to burn and like to learn algorithms, go with ZZ-A (ZBLL). ZZ-A ONLY works if you are dedicated. If you take half-measures, then just forget about it, you'll never become fast with it, and that's coming from years of experience.
ZBLL has many advantages: Lower movecount, you can finish the F2L with any slot, no rotations before doing the alg, easier to recognise from multiple angles, and algs that are just as good if not better.

The only "problem" is that there are 472 algs, but honestly this shouldn't be a problem for the type of person who is going to put in the practise to get sub 7 with ZZ. It's also easier than it has ever been before to learn the algs, with trainers such as Roman's and mine available.

It's still a lot of work, sure, but I would hope that the "Alex Lau of ZZ" would push the method to the absolute limit, rather than be too lazy to learn the best subset - I would be very disappointed if they used ZZ-CT.
 

Pyjam

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,666
Location
La Baule, France
It is often recommended not to learn Sune cases for ZBLL, so there are 328 cases remaining (not counting PLL), of which 28 are COLL that people likely already know at this level. So, actually, ZBLL has only 300 new cases, and some of them are already known because they are easy 1-LLL (8-11 moves long).

From my point of view, I prefer to learn some additional cases from the CLS subset to solve the last pair for the hard cases.
 

Duncan Bannon

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
1,817
Location
Here
Alright, so I disagree with you because the only thing that you mentioned was move count, which a lot of people will tell you, means almost nothing if you can execute it faster. The two major things that make up a fast solve are TPS (knowing your algs and executing them fast) and fluidity (good lookahead with no pauses). Having good algs does also factor in a bit but I find that it falls under TPS because the algs that you're most comfortable with, you'll turn faster. Move count really doesn't matter unless it's associated with a step skip (which luckily ZZ-CT has, I believe, the highest chances of a skip that any other method).


Now, just going off of ZZ, I think it's a great method. It uses mainly <R,U,L> moves after the first step, which are much more ergonomic than F or B moves. I know that I can perform a R U R' U' faster than a U F R or some other similar move. It also uses no rotations since everything is already oriented into that position and you can use process of elimination to track edges that you can't see both sides of. This, for me, was a god send after using CFOP for years. I never really got around to learning full OLL, so I was still using 2 look. So there was no problem with getting used to OLL with ZZ and PLL is the exact same. The only thing was getting used to EOLine which isn't even hard after you've done like 100-200 solves. Blockbuilding is also very simple after you start recognizing the cross edge as a block edge instead.


Now, this is where the ZZ-CT comes in. You have one less pair to do, which Tran already said, you get used to not solving after you've been doing CT for a while. So, with one less pair, this is technically a skip. And that comes with the benefit of saved time. You just jump straight into TSLE.


And of course with TSLE, it's 100% R and U moves, which as I mentioned earlier, are wonderful and ergonomic. And they can be as short as one trigger and only as long as four. And it reduces down with each trigger which makes learning the entirety, fairly straighforward.


Then, there are the ridiculously high chances of skips for TSLE and TTLL. This is a welcome change for a CFOP solver. ZZ solvers may also be surprised at how often they get skips as well.


And that brings me to my last point of TTLL recognition which is possible by only looking at the front and right sides. 72 cases! By only looking at two sides! That's amazing!


So, do I think that ZZ-CT could beat Petrus, Roux, or CT? Honestly, I think that it could. The skips and ergonomics alone make it a good candidate. Petrus is already beaten, honestly. I know no one off the top of my head that really cares about Petrus or is very good at it. ZZ, I will say is disqualified since this is ZZ, just a subset. Roux is more difficult since it is an entirely different method in almost every sense. I believe that for now, Roux does beat it. If I'm not wrong, Roux doesn't require rotations and is very good with ergonomics with the slices moves and extremely intuitive which, I think, is a good quality. However, I do think that if enough people got behind CT, it could beat Roux. Lots of practice and some time. It has a good shot.
Do you think that ZZ-CT could beat CFOP? How many algs are needed for ZZ-CT, Is there any shortcuts(like 2 look oll in cfop). Thanks
 

ypermcuber

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
39
You can learn “intuitive” TSLE, which cuts the alg count down from about 200 to about 110. As for TTLL, I don’t think there is any shortcuts.
 

GenTheThief

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,691
Location
Illinois, U.S.A.
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
2-step TSLE:
- put in the edge
- do an "alg" (its more like a tree of triggers)

2-step TTLL:
- solve corners
- solve edges
Before you just put the edge in, you can also attach a corner to it. This leaves you with only 7 OCLLs that everyone should already know.
And how many algs would that be? Thanks
Not counting D-layer corner skip->PLL cases, I believe that there are 12 CP groups after OCLL. Each group only requires 1 alg, with EPLL which is only 4 algs.
7 OCLLs + 12 CP + 4 EPLL + 17 PLL = 40 algorithms for a beginner ZZ-CT.
And how fast could you be with that? Sub 20? Thanks again.
With a decent (~10) F2L you should be able to hit sub 15 pretty easily. If your F2L was good (6-7) then sub-10 shouldn't be to hard. But if you're that fast you should have moved onto full ZZ-CT or, better yet, full ZZ-a.
 

Duncan Bannon

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2017
Messages
1,817
Location
Here
Okay, Thank You. Ill consider CT as an option. I average around 33 seconds with CFOP. 4LLL and Cross+F2l takes me about 19 sec.
 

Peter Jiang

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
Messages
2
I'm wanting to learn zz-ct, after learning normal ZZ with PLL + OCLL, but all the images on the main page for algorithms is gone. What happened, and are there any alternative alg sheets available?
 
Top