• 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 Method: Cross first

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,923
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
3 reasons:
1) You can't blockbuild which is more efficient
2) It can actually be worse for lookahead because you need to solve more things while tracking other pieces you would need to solve.
3) is is actually not very efficient compared to EoLine as you can't really solve the whole thing without having to make "redundant" moves after all the Eo is already done.
 

AlphaSheep

Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
1,083
Location
Gauteng, South Africa
WCA
2014GRAY03
With cross completed, you have a very restricted F2L because you are constantly having to waste moves restoring the cross (e.g to move a edge from the wrong slot to the U layer is R U R' instead of just R if you weren't worried about the cross). In CFOP this is a trade off that is worth it because block building with misoriented edges is real pain, so its worth spending a couple extra moves finishing the cross, and few more moves preserving that cross during F2L. Advanced CFOP users mitigate those extra moves somewhat using tricks like Xcrosses or multislotting and things like that. Roux eliminates it completely by freeing the M slice for orientation.

With edges oriented, everything changes. Block building is almost as easy as doing F2L pairs, and inserting a pair + another edge is often no more moves than inserting just the edge. Not to mention that theres a far higher chance of lucky cases, and particularly bad cases are less common.

In fact, I can say quite confidently that a more efficient F2L is ZZ's biggest advantage over CFOP by far. If all you want is oriented edges for an easier LL, then CFOP with edge control during the last 2 slots is probably better than EOCross-FOP.

tl;dr - It's not real ZZ if you do the cross first.
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yooooo, I been doing EOCross, and once you get good with it, it's SICK.

You avoid awkward L2 and R2, and you can just spam TPS, and if you have a background in CFOP, it's bretty gud.
For anyone who tells you that EOCross is too hard compared to EOLine, the secret is to git gud.

Disclaimer: I'm playing around with it, because I like it, but I don't recommend it to anyone else.
 
Last edited:

biscuit

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
1,811
Location
Kansas City
WCA
2015WEBS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yooooo, I been doing EOCross, and once you get good with it, it's SICK.

You avoid awkward L2 and R2, and you can just spam TPS, and if you have a background in CFOP, it's bretty gud.
For anyone who tells you that EOCross is too hard compared to EOLine, the secret is to git gud.

And I hardly get efficient Eoline :(
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
254
why dont we solve dr and dl then do 4 f2l pairs for roux?
blockbuilding is efficient and as hard as it may be having 8 ways to do your first block helps alot
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,923
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
why dont we solve dr and dl then do 4 f2l pairs for roux?
blockbuilding is efficient and as hard as it may be having 8 ways to do your first block helps alot
Because it is less efficient and lookahead isn't actually any better because you have to track more pieces and work out which one is nicer so in general FB->SB is better
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
254
Because it is less efficient and lookahead isn't actually any better because you have to track more pieces and work out which one is nicer so in general FB->SB is better

And this is the same with zz in general we should make every method as far from cfop because it's bad and stupid and slow and ineffiecnt and alg intensive and look ahead intensive and slow and bad and unoriginal and bad and bad and bad
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,923
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
And this is the same with zz in general we should make every method as far from cfop
Yes, I do agree with this but mostly for the reason that CFOP works well for CFOP. However, if another method can be created to work well with a specific part of CFOP, it stands to reason that it should be implemented. To clarify, a method should not have something simply because it has been done before and it works especially if it is not that hard to think of other ways which could be better. For example, if you want to get rid of F2L, then there is clearly something wrong with the way in which you think in terms of methods as something like F2L is in fact a useful concept and a good way to reduce the cube to something which a solver can use.
because it's bad and stupid and slow and ineffiecnt and alg intensive and look ahead intensive and slow and bad and unoriginal and bad and bad and bad
This I almost completely disagree with and think it is quite a stupid position. Let's break this down:
This is quite a baseless and unfounded comment especially as it is still statistically the fastest and most successful method which has ever been created. A more reasonable perspective would be that it does not have the most potential for speed for 3x3 or OH though it clearly is not bad as it seems to have taken us reasonably close to the theoretical and generally agreed limit to human speedsolving times.
I'm not even sure what you mean here. If you mean that it is a method which is not open to innovation, i point you to the fact that it can be used with almost technique you can name: VHLS? what do you think it was designed for? MGLS, of course. Partial edge control? Again, designed originally for CFOP. If you mean that lazy people use CFOP, then why are there more potential expansions for CFOP than any method with the only possible exception being ZZ though I'm still inclined to there being more for CFOP. Another interpretation of "lazy" would be that it is only algs and can not be used in any other way. As a counter example to this, I point you to a little technique used by almost all the fastest solvers: multislotting (and partial edge control though to a lesser degree).
Again, it is the most successful method which has thus far been created and the fastest method yet utilised. While this might not be that strong an argument as for years corners first was the fastest though it is now accepted it cannot be used to consistently get world class times. However, as CFOP is still faster than almost every other method (and there is only so much faster we can get given the limits of human cognition and physiology). This is not to say that I think that CFOP has the greatest potential (in fact I think there are at least 2 methods which can be used to get faster times) but rather that it is far from slow
inefficient
This depend on what metric you are using. In most metrics, yes, it is less efficient than many modern methods: notably Roux. However, as @Robert-Y pointed out to me when I was quite new to the forum as well as cubing, it deos quite well in SQTM which is arguably the most important metric when it comes to speed (though personally I prefer AQTM though the situation is similar there). There are also many ways in which you can improve the efficiency such as Xcrosses and the multislotting mentioned above. Also, in modern cubing there is a general balance which has to be struck between efficiency and turning speed (hence why not everyone uses the same method) and CFOP is definitely leaning towards fast turning which is not necessarily a bad think.
alg intensive
Honestly, it isn't. It really just isn't. This might have been a reasonable position to hold maybe 10 years ago, in the current era it really does not have any base as there are many more methods which have a higher alg count such as ZZ-CT, ZB or similar. There is also a somewhat dangerous slant towards method creators becoming anti-algorithm. While I am all for elimination of arbitrary algorithms, they do have their place in modern methods and indeed form one of the foundational parts of modern cubing: a list which also includes Blockbuilding, Lookahead and Intuition. If something can be done faster with algorithms without too much recognition time or case count, then use algorithms.
lookahead intensive
What method (at world class level) isn't?
See above.
See above.
unoriginal
I don't see how this is a criticism. CFOP is one of the oldest methods and also the longest enduring and successful and the only remaining member of the original big 3 thanks to it being one of the most adaptable. Even if it wasn't, would you came up with a whole new method of multiplying by 10 just because the simple and effective method of "adding a 0" was unoriginal?

I guess most people are not going to read the whole of this but I am not going to apologise for the long post because I feel that it is a necessity to put an end to the people who think that CFOP is bad simply because everyone uses it and they want to be hipster and can hold themselves up as "better" because they use another method.

While most frequenters of this forum will know that I do not think that CFOP is the be all and end all of methods, nor even the best method which we currently have, I just wanted to emphasise that I do not think that it is by any means a bad method.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
254
Yes, I do agree with this but mostly for the reason that CFOP works well for CFOP. However, if another method can be created to work well with a specific part of CFOP, it stands to reason that it should be implemented. To clarify, a method should not have something simply because it has been done before and it works especially if it is not that hard to think of other ways which could be better. For example, if you want to get rid of F2L, then there is clearly something wrong with the way in which you think in terms of methods as something like F2L is in fact a useful concept and a good way to reduce the cube to something which a solver can use.

This I almost completely disagree with and think it is quite a stupid position. Let's break this down:

This is quite a baseless and unfounded comment especially as it is still statistically the fastest and most successful method which has ever been created. A more reasonable perspective would be that it does not have the most potential for speed for 3x3 or OH though it clearly is not bad as it seems to have taken us reasonably close to the theoretical and generally agreed limit to human speedsolving times.

I'm not even sure what you mean here. If you mean that it is a method which is not open to innovation, i point you to the fact that it can be used with almost technique you can name: VHLS? what do you think it was designed for? MGLS, of course. Partial edge control? Again, designed originally for CFOP. If you mean that lazy people use CFOP, then why are there more potential expansions for CFOP than any method with the only possible exception being ZZ though I'm still inclined to there being more for CFOP. Another interpretation of "lazy" would be that it is only algs and can not be used in any other way. As a counter example to this, I point you to a little technique used by almost all the fastest solvers: multislotting (and partial edge control though to a lesser degree).

Again, it is the most successful method which has thus far been created and the fastest method yet utilised. While this might not be that strong an argument as for years corners first was the fastest though it is now accepted it cannot be used to consistently get world class times. However, as CFOP is still faster than almost every other method (and there is only so much faster we can get given the limits of human cognition and physiology). This is not to say that I think that CFOP has the greatest potential (in fact I think there are at least 2 methods which can be used to get faster times) but rather that it is far from slow

This depend on what metric you are using. In most metrics, yes, it is less efficient than many modern methods: notably Roux. However, as @Rob Yau pointed out to me when I was quite new to the forum as well as cubing, it deos quite well in SQTM which is arguably the most important metric when it comes to speed (though personally I prefer AQTM though the situation is similar there). There are also many ways in which you can improve the efficiency such as Xcrosses and the multislotting mentioned above. Also, in modern cubing there is a general balance which has to be struck between efficiency and turning speed (hence why not everyone uses the same method) and CFOP is definitely leaning towards fast turning which is not necessarily a bad think.

Honestly, it isn't. It really just isn't. This might have been a reasonable position to hold maybe 10 years ago, in the current era it really does not have any base as there are many more methods which have a higher alg count such as ZZ-CT, ZB or similar. There is also a somewhat dangerous slant towards method creators becoming anti-algorithm. While I am all for elimination of arbitrary algorithms, they do have their place in modern methods and indeed form one of the foundational parts of modern cubing: a list which also includes Blockbuilding, Lookahead and Intuition. If something can be done faster with algorithms without too much recognition time or case count, then use algorithms.

What method (at world class level) isn't?

See above.

See above.

I don't see how this is a criticism. CFOP is one of the oldest methods and also the longest enduring and successful and the only remaining member of the original big 3 thanks to it being one of the most adaptable. Even if it wasn't, would you came up with a whole new method of multiplying by 10 just because the simple and effective method of "adding a 0" was unoriginal?

I guess most people are not going to read the whole of this but I am not going to apologise for the long post because I feel that it is a necessity to put an end to the people who think that CFOP is bad simply because everyone uses it and they want to be hipster and can hold themselves up as "better" because they use another method.

While most frequenters of this forum will know that I do not think that CFOP is the be all and end all of methods, nor even the best method which we currently have, I just wanted to emphasise that I do not think that it is by any means a bad method.

oh... as much as what i said was a joke a few things i said i honestly believed such as algorithms and ineffiecnecy but now im not "anti cfop"
the only thing i dont agree with is this

Honestly, it isn't. It really just isn't. This might have been a reasonable position to hold maybe 10 years ago, in the current era it really does not have any base as there are many more methods which have a higher alg count such as ZZ-CT, ZB or similar. There is also a somewhat dangerous slant towards method creators becoming anti-algorithm. While I am all for elimination of arbitrary algorithms, they do have their place in modern methods and indeed form one of the foundational parts of modern cubing: a list which also includes Blockbuilding, Lookahead and Intuition. If something can be done faster with algorithms without too much recognition time or case count, then use algorithms.

im not anti alg but 70+ algs minimum for 2lll is alot compared to most modern methods but thats not my problem with the algs its the amount of f2l algs people use to get sub 12 is ridiculous when i used to watch f2l vids it was like

"if the front slot is open and the back slot has a solved pair and its a lunar eclipse and your solving on red cross and all the edges are oreintated do this 'short' 40 move alg"

Compared to zz and roux, roux has only 42 algs with some for avoiding 6 flip and zz you can use wv and pll to technically get 43 algs and a 1lll. i personally find cfop too robotic to the point where if you got 10 world class cfoppers (assuming they arent cn) at least 2 would get the same solve which i dont think is good we need options and variety cfop isnt the worst but if any other of the new methods roux m-cell zz etc where invented first we would be in a better place with sub 3 averages

EDIT: sub 3.6
 
Last edited:

Rnewms

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
164
Location
South Carolina
WCA
2013NEWM01
its the amount of f2l algs people use to get sub 12 is ridiculous when i used to watch f2l vids
Have you considered that most of those F2L 'algs' you saw were intuitive solutions? They're presented as algorithms to aid learning, but personally I only use a few algorithms for cases that have better, less-obvious solutions. I get sub-12 solves with intuition-heavy F2L and manage to use multislotting.

Not to mention every point you make is exaggerated beyond the point of taking you seriously.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
254
no i didnt try to exagerate except from the alst thing i said i legitimately thought cfoppers used algs for every f2l case and actually thinking of thaem as intuition solutions makes it seems much more not crazy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Umm Roux?

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
307
I separated these posts because this one is cubing related.

So if if you do cross first, the only difference between CFOP is EO vs Last layer. The difference between OLL and PLL vs ZBLL is 8 moves(approx) and it might be less or because of recog(in CFOP, you recog twice while I'm ZZ, you have to recog a lot at once) and remembering the alg. For EO, it's X number of moves so you just compare the two. I'm assuming ZZ and CFOP are really similar so if ZZCross is better than CFOP.. Blahblahblah
 

WACWCA

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2015
Messages
728
Location
Maryland
WCA
2012CALL01
YouTube
Visit Channel
no i didnt try to exagerate except from the alst thing i said i legitimately thought cfoppers used algs for every f2l case and actually thinking of thaem as intuition solutions makes it seems much more not crazy
Then maybe before making all these claims of how superior your method is and how inferior ours is you should do a little more research first.
 
Top