ZZ Cubers

[McWizzle94]

I figured you could work out the best orientation for your cube by counting the number of U/D pieces in the middle layer, which tells you how many of each type (U/D or Middle Slice) pieces are in each layer. But then I realised you need to know their current orientation in order to make any concrete decisions about whether to turn or not.

But remember that we have only 15s of preinspection!

In 15s isn't easy to see a good solution to the full-EOLine - and you want to look even from two views - isn't better have in pinky the EOLine from one-view?

Apart from this - I don't like only cases when I have 10 or 12 flipped edges - but when I have 8 or 6 or low.. always is the way to see solution <=10 moves in 15s

I personally find 10 and 12 edges easier than 6. 6 is the most difficult for me. When I get 6, I almost always rotate to get 8 or 4 or a different number ... it's because I don't like having just 2 edges left over to solve with some variation of F'UF. I don't think rotations are useful, unless you are like me and hate having a certain number of edges to orient.

Also, how about ignoring U edges during orientation and doing OLL+PLL if you don't know COLL yet?

If you get 6 misoriented, flip 3 of them plus an oriented edge and you are left with 4 misoriented edges.

 

[JohnnyA]

Oh! I like that ... but it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented. Surely that is a waste of moves?

 

[Matthew]

Oh! I like that ... but it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented. Surely that is a waste of moves?

Everything depends of the case you have... Sometimes it is a great profit, sometimes it is non-cost-effective

 

[blah]

Oh! I like that ... but it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented. Surely that is a waste of moves?

There's almost always more than one optimal solution for cases with 6 bad edges. For a specific case, one optimal solution may involve flipping 4, then 2; and another may involve flipping 3 (+1 good edge), then 4. Pick the variation that allows you to solve at least one of DF/DB, or at least the one that allows you to keep track of both pieces easily after EO.

I know, whatever I've just said is trivial, but I have a feeling that people tend to focus more on EO than on Line. Line, imo, should be the priority, because it requires tracking two specific pieces, which is harder than flipping "general" (i.e. non-specific) edges.

Again, I may be completely wrong. I've only had half a week's experience with ZZ

 

[yurivish]

Oh! I like that ... but it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented. Surely that is a waste of moves?

There's almost always more than one optimal solution for cases with 6 bad edges. For a specific case, one optimal solution may involve flipping 4, then 2; and another may involve flipping 3 (+1 good edge), then 4. Pick the variation that allows you to solve at least one of DF/DB, or at least the one that allows you to keep track of both pieces easily after EO.

I know, whatever I've just said is trivial, but I have a feeling that people tend to focus more on EO than on Line. Line, imo, should be the priority, because it requires tracking two specific pieces, which is harder than flipping "general" (i.e. non-specific) edges.

Again, I may be completely wrong. I've only had half a week's experience with ZZ

I think you're right. I still plan out EO and then track edges, but it is quite a lot to do each solve if you want to orient them AND solve the 2 at once. I've only been using ZZ for a few months, so I've still got loads of room for improvement.

I don't know how people who do XCrosses/crosses quickly plan, but I just have a mental model of what pieces need to be oriented that I update with each move; I don't plan out the sequence (e.g. R U F' D B') of moves; is that what most people do? It seems like it would lend itself better to quick execution, but it seems rather harder.

What do other people do when they preinspect? Do they just note where the pieces are, or actually figure out the "algorithm" needed, so that they can execute it as quickly as they can when they start?

 

[JohnnyA]

When I preinspect I memorize a quick sequence to orient four edges, and make sure I know where the next four will be. Often I plan the next four/two as well. Then I'll find the red and orange pieces so I can try to track them while solving EO.

 

[Stefan]

it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented. Surely that is a waste of moves?

Exactly how do you orient two bad edges? Please provide an example.

 

[blah]

it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented. Surely that is a waste of moves?

Exactly how do you orient two bad edges? Please provide an example.

@JohnnyA: I disagree that it's a waste of moves to flip 3+3 (of the "original" bad edges, if you know what I mean). For some cases, the optimal EO (note: not EOLine) solution is 4+2, for others, it's 3+3.

Take a look at the following cases (just came up with these examples off my head, don't have a cube right now so I might be wrong):

If you have FU, FD, FR, FL, BR, UL flipped, (one of) the optimal solution(s) is obviously y L R U R' (4 HTM). That's the lowest number of moves you can get if you flip 4+2.

If you have FU, FR, FL, BU, BD, BL flipped, (one of) the optimal solution(s) is obviously F' R2 B (3 HTM). And this is the lowest number of moves you can get if you flip 3+3.

Keep in mind that it takes a minimum of 1 move to flip 4 edges, but a minimum of 3 to flip 2. This should be enough to convince you that 4+2 is not always better than 3+3, I hope

@Stefan: I'm not sure what you mean. Is it really as simple a question as I think it is?

 

[blah]

To answer Stefan's "simple" question (if it really is that simple), I'll provide something I've worked on when I started ZZ a couple of days ago, it's probably gonna be useful for ZZ beginners (well it helped me, at least).

There are 12C2 = 66 cases with 2 bad edges, including all isomorphic cases. Of the 66, there are only 9 unique cases:
UF-UR UF-BR UF-DR (optimal solution 3 HTM)
UF-FL UF-DF UF-DB UR-UL UR-DL (optimal solution 4 HTM)
UF-UB (optimal solution 5 HTM)

The first 3 are the most basic cases, they all have the common "template":
[F/B] {U/D/R/L} [F/B], where [X] denotes X or X', {X} denotes X, X' or X2

I won't give the solutions to the first 3 cases, just mess around your cube for a while and it shouldn't take you more than a minute to start seeing how things work.

The cases in the second row require 1 setup move, and the case in the third requires 2 setup moves, just avoid it, 5 moves to orient 2 edges really isn't very economical at all.

Notice that this also means there are only 9 unique cases with 10 bad edges, just learn them all and 10 bad edges wouldn't seem so bad after all

Should I start working on all 495 cases with 4/8 bad edges? :rolleyes:

 

[Stefan]

If that's your answer to my question, then the question is much simpler than you think. I'm still hoping for his answer, and maybe he realizes himself what I'm after.

Ah, wait. Actually he kinda already provided an example earlier:

it seems a waste of moves by misorienting one that is already oriented.

I don't like having just 2 edges left over to solve with some variation of F'UF

Do you realize that this kind of "wasting moves by misorienting already good edges" is exactly what you're doing with that F' turn? That misorients three already oriented edges.

 

[JohnnyA]

Would it be possible to find solutions for EO of each case (like blah is doing) since so many of them cancel each other out? Then you could track red and orange (or your own colours) through the solve and have a very quick line after EO.

@Stefan - that's true of course, but in some cases F' U F will be quicker than orienting 3 and misorienting 1 and then orienting 4. I had a look myself, and it really depends on the case.

 

[Stefan]

Yeah I know. I just wanted to point out that unless you have a multiple of four bad edges, you *have to* misorient an already oriented edge at some point, so it's not really "wasteful".

 

[JohnnyA]

Ok I see. Just as a matter of interest, I think the times to orient 3 and then 3 are when you can move the misoriented piece into position in two moves or less, and 4 and then two when you can move the misoriented piece into position in 2 or less moves - trivial, but makes it easier to plan your line.

 

[Stefan]

3 and then 3 are when you can move the misoriented piece into position in two moves or less
4 and then two when you can move the misoriented piece into position in 2 or less moves

Uh... that's the same criterion for both.

 

[blah]

People don't really re-read what they type do they?

 

[JohnnyA]

3 and then 3 are when you can move the misoriented piece into position in two moves or less
4 and then two when you can move the misoriented piece into position in 2 or less moves

Uh... that's the same criterion for both.

Ok, it wasnt very clear. What I mean is that if you have 6 edges you should always be able to complete the two F or B moves with only 2 setup moves between them (at least I can't quickly think of a case that would need more than two). So if you are using more than two moves to setup the second orientation, you are not getting the best move count.

 

[vloc15]

is ZZ-VH faster than fridrich? how bawt ZZ-B? in terms of move count and look ahead..where can you find an easy tutorial for ZZ? i want to give it a try.

 

[JohnnyA]

The only site that really gives a description of ZZ is the one given before. ZZ-VH can be just as fast as Fridrich, and ZZ-b will probably be faster.

 

[mrbiggs]

The only site that really gives a description of ZZ is the one given before. ZZ-VH can be just as fast as Fridrich, and ZZ-b will probably be faster.

That's quite an impressive, but totally unsupported assertion...

 

[blah]

The only site that really gives a description of ZZ is the one given before. ZZ-VH can be just as fast as Fridrich, and ZZ-b will probably be faster.

That's quite an impressive, but totally unsupported assertion...

He didn't say is. *shrugs*