• 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 40,000+ 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 vs ZZ-C++

Swagrid

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
443
Location
Downtown Swagistan
YouTube
Visit Channel
I've only used copypasta one in my life so maybe that's some sort of reference that went over my head, but if you don't mind me asking, what in the world are you talking about?
Alright, I guess I'll engage then.
I did that because I'm tired of seeing the two extremes that either COLL is trash or that COLL is OP.
I very rarely see either of these thrown about. As far as I'm aware, common consensus is to take the easy cases + some anti-diag and call it a day. However, the argument isn't about COLL as a set in and of itself. The argument is about this:
True, but if you're working towards full ZZ-A then COLL is a good, pretty easy place to start
Notice how this assumes, if you're working towards full ZZ-A.
COLL here is not the destination, it's an intermediate step. And a poor one.

I don't think there's any problem with COLL if you use it OS style. Personally, I don't really want to dedicate the time to learning 3x3 HPLL sequences
So when you say something like this quote here above, well yes I agree. And as I've said already, I thought this were common sentiment. However, it's also entirely irrelevant to the point. This isn't about COLL for OS, or people who don't want to put in the time. This is about people who DO want to put in the time, and use COLL as almost scaffolding while they build their alg knowledge.

Of course COLL>>EPLL isn't as good as HPLL, and a lot of times it's not as good as OCLL>>PLL. A moron could see that. There's no reason for pushing that limited statement around. Give the full picture, be more inclusive. COLL is not objectively bad; it has its purposes and it has its flaws. Learn how to work with it.
This block of text here starts out good - it acknowledges all of the right points. But once you start talking about giving the full inclusive picture, in a conversation about specifically using coll as a bridge between ZZ-OP and ZZ-A, well you just look foolish.

By now my point should be made. I won't sit and conclude why arbitrarily learning full COLL before ZBLL/HPLL is a bad idea, everyone already knows. But there's no need to write multiple paragraphs about the bigger picture and how my take wasn't inclusive of different solvers when we are talking about one specific use case. You missed the point.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,812
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
Notice how this assumes, if you're working towards full ZZ-A.
COLL here is not the destination, it's an intermediate step. And a poor one.

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to anything you say, as you've yet to say anything backing up your claim of "COLL bad always".

If you're learning ZBLL, COLL is a great step towards that, as it's a smaller set that can be immediately useful in regular solves and really helps with learning the rest of ZBLL.

If you're not learning ZBLL, COLL can still be very useful. There are many COLLs that are just as/nearly as fast as their respective OCLLs, but guarantee a good PLL (in the form of EPLL). Please note that I am not claiming that *all* COLLs are worth learning if you're not learning ZBLL, but a decent number of them are.
 

Swagrid

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
443
Location
Downtown Swagistan
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm not entirely sure how to respond to anything you say, as you've yet to say anything backing up your claim of "COLL bad always".
Allow me to elaborate on what I've already said then, and once again make my case that I'm not saying that every coll is bad every time.

don't even COLL EPLL. just OCLL PLL. still comparable to CT if you keep your algs on lock.
This message was in response to you saying that ZZ-VH (eof2l, COLL, EPLL every solve) was about the same speed as ZZ-CT. I'm just saying that you don't even need to go that far, even just OCLL PLL, which is even less algs, is comparable to CT. I haven't even begun the COLL slander yet.

Easy, but not good. Just pick a set and dive in.
Again, this is in regard to COLL as a step between OCLL and ZBLL. At no point yet have I said that COLL on the whole is bad, so my:
claim of "COLL bad always".
Isn't actually anywhere in this thread.

My thoughts on COLL are similar to what I said in my previous message - most anti-diag cases are good, and I also some others (most notably quite a few L COLLs) are also worthwhile. I would like to mention however the idea that COLL guarantees a good PLL. No doubt EPLLs are good, but I think the gap between then and a lot of adj, and even the better cases of diag, has been overstated. Z perm especially.

So now you have, actually for the first time in this thread, my take on COLL. Its good sometimes. If you're in the habit of recognising CP anyway, and the alg itself happens to be quite good, it's probably alright. Most of L is good in my opinion, and anti-diag is good until it isn't (I am never not doing a 2gen sune or antisune. Haven't checked out Pi anti-diag so can't comment) But in general I wouldn't want to do a slower version of an OCLL so I can have a marginally faster PLL, or end up getting a Z perm and possibly lose out on both fronts.
 
Top