ZZ Cubers

Trust me, that goes way down with practice.

It used to take me anywhere from 15 to 45 seconds to determine EO and the line, but now I can do EO in less than 5 seconds. I still don't usually preinspect the pieces, except for easy cases.

Keep at it. I seriously considered switching back several times, but I'm glad I stuck with it.

Edit: I was 25s with fridrich, but now I'm around your level with ZZ. I can't get that average at will, though; usually if I try I can get sub20 averages.
 
Sorry to post in an old thread but I'm quite excited about ZZ, and I thought I'd share my experience with it as a novice :)

I'm nowhere near the level of you guys. At the moment I'm averaging about a minute, with a best time of 47-sec (I have a Long way to go!). So far I've had a good go of the following methods:
* Vanilla LBL - slow as hell, but can be improved with shortcuts
* Corners first - elegant method, but I found edge insertion to be very slow
* Petrus - great method for thinking about the cube, but deffo too slow to be a speed method IMHO
* Fridrich, with 4-stage LL - greatly improved my times, but really wasn't keen on learning all the algs for 2-look LL!!
* ZZ - much more difficult at first but keep improving all the time!

I can see how EOLine puts people off, because it is very hard to start with. It deffo improves with time tho - even for a novice like me! If you put in the work and nail it the benefits are huge:
* Automatic orientation of LL edges - gives me 3-look LL ;)
* Easier F2L, using R, L, U moves only
* More predictable F2L blockbuilding (because of EO)
* No cube turns on EOLine or F2L means no time lost re-positioning, and allows memorisation of piece locations

The only real downside I noticed with this method is the two remaining hidden edges on the D-face. It can make the search for blocks during blockbuilding slightly harder. Going for an EOCross could be a solution, but its even harder than EOLine to do in one step, and it also reduces freedom during the blockbuilding phase, making it less efficient.

At the moment my F2L is way too slow to think about learning more LL algs, but the fact that a 1-look LL is feasible is pretty cool :cool:
 
i would love to learn this.....are there NO videos at all?....i dont know where to start with this method...can someone help?
 
I don't build EO line very effectively and I don't block build but I still average low 20s with ZZ. I may be able to make a video when I'm free. But really, everything you need is on the online guide.
 
ZZ is not good. It involves way too much movement on both sides of the cube at the same time. It's physically lacking compared to other methods. It's more of a fact than an opinion. I tried it as best I could, and "wanted" to like it, but it's really slow. Kudos to whomever can get 14~seconds with it.
 
KYLE ALLAIRE DROPS BOMBS! said:
ZZ is not good. It involves way too much movement on both sides of the cube at the same time. It's physically lacking compared to other methods. It's more of a fact than an opinion. I tried it as best I could, and "wanted" to like it, but it's really slow. Kudos to whomever can get 14~seconds with it.
Click to expand...

Your comment about turning both sides of the cube at the same time does not make sense. I assume you're talking about ZZ F2L, so I will talk about that. Once you begin doing the F2L the left block is usually 2 gen with a couple of R moves in it. It's not that bad. After that the right block is completely 2 gen. You can build the blocks however you want but if it's done correctly you won't really have to mix R U and L that much. I think that you are just complaining that it requires the cuber to be more ambidextrous? Maybe you are just slow at using your non dominant hand.

Physically lacking compared to other methods? Once I finish the EO line I can basically complete the F2L (with reasonably high tps) without pausing because lookahead is made so easy. The reason I'm not extremely fast with ZZ is because my EO line needs more practice and I need to know more last layer algs. The method is hard to adjust to but that does not mean it is a bad method. The advantage of ZZ is the fact that the moves are physically easier to execute.

EO line takes time to get used to. I have been practicing ZZ as my main method for two and a half months now, and some cases are still difficult (such as 10 awkwardly placed bad edges). However, I have confidence that more practice will eventually make those cases comfortable.
 
When you have a few people using a method, it isn't good. The cubing community is smart enough to lean towards a faster method when they see it. ZZ is not used much at all. People try it, and like its concept, but it's slow. Nearly everyone has tried it, why do you think no one stuck with it? I think this sport is in the stage now where people can stop denying how terrible some methods are. just my opinion.
 
But isn't ZB method considered a faster method, even though nobody uses it? And the speedsolving community is not really open to new ideas, because fridrich is used by so many people, and people have put years of work into getting really good at it.
 
a small kitten said:
some cases are still difficult (such as 10 awkwardly placed bad edges).
Click to expand...

Its much easier to keep track of just the two good edges in this case. All you need to do is move the two good edges out of F and B faces, do your F + B turns, and deal with the two remaining bad edges. I personally find the most common case of 6-bad edges hardest to deal with, because it either involves removing 3 bad edges (while creating 1), then moving the remaining 3 (+1) into position ... or (probably easier) ... removing 4 bad edges and then dealing with the extra two.

I think much of the lack of popularity of this method comes from the fact that its not an easy transition from Fridrich. Being a bit of a n00b I only practiced fridrich for a couple of weeks, so never created any habits. I've been on this method for about 6-weeks and keep improving. Now down to 38-sec best (non lucky) :D
 
soccerking813 said:
But isn't ZB method considered a faster method, even though nobody uses it? And the speedsolving community is not really open to new ideas, because fridrich is used by so many people, and people have put years of work into getting really good at it.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm open to plenty of other method ideas, but I'm not fast at any of them. (I think a lot of faster Fridrich users are the same, they have tried things like Petrus, Roux, ZZ, Corners First, Heise, etc. but they always go back to Fridrich for speed solves because it is what they get the fastest times with.) As far as ZB goes, it is WAY too many algorithms for me to consider learning. Maybe it's faster than what I do... but I don't like 3x3 anywhere near that much :P
 
soccerking813 said:
But isn't ZB method considered a faster method
Click to expand...

With ZB you spend extra moves (and learn more algs) to insert the last two F2L pairs and orient the LL edges simultaneously. With ZZ this is already done when you reach the end of F2L, so no need to learn extra algs or waste extra moves. With ZZ much of the hard work is done once you've done EOLine.

The ZB LL algs are considered (by some) to be better because of the possibility to complete it all in one step. It only involves a mere 493 cases! You can make you're life a lot easier by breaking it into two steps (CLL + EPLL), or even three (COLL + CPLL + EPLL) like me ;) Note that the LL algs for ZZ are exactly the SAME as ZB, since they both start with LL edges already complete.
 
Cride5 said:
soccerking813 said:
But isn't ZB method considered a faster method
Click to expand...

With ZB you spend extra moves (and learn more algs) to insert the last two F2L pairs and orient the LL edges simultaneously. With ZZ this is already done when you reach the end of F2L, so no need to learn extra algs or waste extra moves. With ZZ much of the hard work is done once you've done EOLine.
Click to expand...

It's important to note, however, that this comes at the cost of limiting F2L to <U,R,L> (or, technically, one of several other variations depending on how you wish to define edge orientation, but I believe that is the one widely regarded as most useful and the only one I've seen used for ZZ). Some might consider this a bonus; personally when I tried ZZ I didn't like it. Then again, I'm not very good at blockbuilding.

My point being that there is a tradeoff there, and that you need to weigh the costs versus the benefits. It seems to me that ZZ is way more practical for speedcubing, but time will tell.
 
mrbiggs said:
Then again, I'm not very good at blockbuilding.
Click to expand...

After a bit of practice the 'block building' becomes much more like algs, since you build up a set of common patterns in your memory. The advantage of not using algs to start with is that you are aware of what's happening as you solve the pieces, so can do better lookahead. Personally, when I do F2L I usually start with a corner + mid-edge pair first, then as I put them together I find the DF edge it goes with to create the first 1x2x2 block. I very rarely connect the corner to the DF edge first (unless they are already connected). I guess that in going for this approach I may be reducing my efficiency 'slightly', but it vastly reduces the possible cases you have to think about, and means that for each pair I'm always searching (initially) for a corner + mid-edge (in a similar manner to fridrich).

I find that having edges oriented during F2L makes finding corner/edge pairs easier, because mid-edges on the L or R faces will always have their L/R colour on that face, any other colours on the L or R faces mean that the edge belongs to the U or D face. Because of this, a simple glance to the L & R faces quickly reveals a lot about where things are!
 
I agree with Cride5, c/e pair formation has about twice the speed for recognition. If you find a corner which needs to be on the bottom (if it has a white sticker), and if you find an edge which can be paired with that corner (it doesn't matter which, if your line is already formed), then you can join them without thinking about edge orientation. If you're making a block, then matching a centre-edge pair is REALLY easy, and joining the pairs together is also extremely easy. And all of this is done with L, R, and U moves, which makes it even faster!

I've taken interest in this method in the past month. I used an edges-first method once, which involved orienting all edges as a first step. I became very good at orienting edges first... Unfortunately, I found that an edges first method is not a great method! However, the edge recognition has become very useful for ZZ solves.
 
i've been fooling around with ZZ lately, it's fun and i've managed to get a 14.10 (single obviously) after a few days of practice, but i want help with two things:

- quick ways to get fewest edges to flip via y rotation,
- & improving look ahead for building e.o. cross (and maybe even e.o. X-cross)

any advice? or will i just have to brute force practice?
 
qinbomaster said:
i've been fooling around with ZZ lately, it's fun and i've managed to get a 14.10 (single obviously) after a few days of practice, but i want help with two things:

- quick ways to get fewest edges to flip via y rotation,
- & improving look ahead for building e.o. cross (and maybe even e.o. X-cross)

any advice? or will i just have to brute force practice?
Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but I'm not sure if anything can give you any advice period. Practically nobody uses ZZ, and some of the algs are up to 40 moves long, from what it says on the wiki page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

abunickabhi
WCA volunteering model failure for serious/elite/focused cubers
Replies
1
Views
219
Ordway Persyn
Ordway Persyn
B
Introducing WeCube: A Marketplace Built for Cubers
Replies
6
Views
557
-Cube Kid-
-Cube Kid-
M
Lebanon/middle east cubers
Replies
16
Views
888
Kami
Kami
David1994
Any Waterford (Ireland) based cubers out there?
Replies
2
Views
275
David1994
David1994
shubhsquare-1
Alberta Cubers
Replies
7
Views
569
shubhsquare-1
shubhsquare-1
Back
Top