ZZ speedcubing method

[MHordecki]

Facing the fact I leave for holiday tomorrow early morning, I've posted what I've done so far ( http://mhordecki.googlepages.com/ZZ.html ). Main parts are still unfinished (ZZLL and Phasing), but that's just a matter of time.

 

[*LukeMayn*]

Thanks!!!!
I'm gonna try get fridrich and ZZ sub 20 so that when I get a lot of edges misoriented, or an easy cross, I can just do Fridrich. So good sovle either way!
Also a question, How would you phase if you have an already paired corner+edge? thanks!

 

[fanwuq]

For some odd reason, LUR F2L is taking longer for me than regular F2L (Petrus, or Fridrich) With some rotations and F turns. Some cases are so awkward. Also, I have trouble seeing pieces in the back.
I had done EO line probably sub-2 and average about 7 seconds, if F2L was as fast as Fridrich (it should actually be faster), that would mean I average about 25 seconds, but I'm not. I average in the low 40s. Why?

 

[Lotsofsloths]

OK, so I just read the guide, and I will try and dedicate all of my free time to this method but I have a couple questions..EOline, explain it in more detail, and also, what is phasing?

 

[McWizzle94]

For some odd reason, LUR F2L is taking longer for me than regular F2L (Petrus, or Fridrich) With some rotations and F turns. Some cases are so awkward. Also, I have trouble seeing pieces in the back.
I had done EO line probably sub-2 and average about 7 seconds, if F2L was as fast as Fridrich (it should actually be faster), that would mean I average about 25 seconds, but I'm not. I average in the low 40s. Why?

maybe its because you aren't used to the method yet. instead of using regular fridrich for the F2L, try a little more block building stuff. I am also trying to learn it, except with COLL and EPLL at the end. i have a feeling that some practice will make your times better.

btw, how fast do you think this method can get (ZZF2L with COLL and EPLL)? also, i really don't have the speed of Nakajima right now so can you give a more realistic estimation?

 

[yurivish]

For some odd reason, LUR F2L is taking longer for me than regular F2L (Petrus, or Fridrich) With some rotations and F turns. Some cases are so awkward. Also, I have trouble seeing pieces in the back.
I had done EO line probably sub-2 and average about 7 seconds, if F2L was as fast as Fridrich (it should actually be faster), that would mean I average about 25 seconds, but I'm not. I average in the low 40s. Why?

Sometimes it's easier to do a y2 rotation to fill in a slot on the back or left side. I know you're supposed to build blocks, but sometimes I see easy cross piece insertions so I put them in rather than pairing things up in a square.

It's also going to be a bit of getting used to the blockbuilding – it probably isn't as much a problem for you, since you're using Petrus too, but I'm really bad and it takes some thinking for me to make a square.

 

[*LukeMayn*]

For some odd reason, LUR F2L is taking longer for me than regular F2L (Petrus, or Fridrich) With some rotations and F turns. Some cases are so awkward. Also, I have trouble seeing pieces in the back.
I had done EO line probably sub-2 and average about 7 seconds, if F2L was as fast as Fridrich (it should actually be faster), that would mean I average about 25 seconds, but I'm not. I average in the low 40s. Why?

Sometimes it's easier to do a y2 rotation to fill in a slot on the back or left side. I know you're supposed to build blocks, but sometimes I see easy cross piece insertions so I put them in rather than pairing things up in a square.

It's also going to be a bit of getting used to the blockbuilding – it probably isn't as much a problem for you, since you're using Petrus too, but I'm really bad and it takes some thinking for me to make a square.

Do you know phasing? If so, can you tell me how to do it from a formed pair? thanks.

 

[yurivish]

I don't know it – I stumbled upon this method for the first time here in this thread. I've decided to learn ZZ-VH, anyway, at least for now. That doesn't use phasing.

The general idea of it is sort of like the VH cross-forming cases. Basically, you move the pair out of the way and then do something like an R U' R. The goal is to get two opposite cross pieces solved when the pair is in. I don't think it's too hard to figure out all of the cases, sincei t's just two pieces you're trying to solve. The other two are going to end up solved automatically or they'll be exchanged. Either way, having the two solved across from each other sets you up for a 1-look ZZLL case.

(If there are any glaring errors in this I apologise. Point them out and I'll edit the explanation for future readers.)

 

[*LukeMayn*]

From what I have heard, there are no errors there (I'll try learn phasing intuitivly( it will only take like 10mins)) lol
Also I wouldn't waste my time learning COLL because the ZZLL algs will be out soonISH and I doesn't really speed you up from OLL/PLL

 

[fanwuq]

Just did a few solves of
F2L with Oriented edges of LL:

Fridrich:

36, 37 (OLL also done), 36, 36, 40, 27

Petrus:

32, 32, 20 (whole solve in 30 moves, the ending was a COLL. This is tied as a PB, not as lucky as my other PB which was Heise with LL skip. This was 6min31seconds. http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/record.cgi?db=single&name=WF+30+moves I screwed up the LL badly at first, got back to the same position, then found the COLL on Jason Baum's site, and just did it), 32, I lost count-- low 20s (also amazing block building, LL was some easy OLL and PLL with nice cancellations. Total was in high 30s.)

ZZ: 45 (worse than usual, EO line in 14 moves, ugly F2L), 42 (EO line in 9), 26 (EO could have being done in 7, I continued with block building first, I think this might be a better approach.), 38 (EO line done in 6), 31 ( EO line could be done in 8, blocks first.)

All Fridrich F2Ls about 1min, Petrus are about 1-2 min.
ZZ also about 2 min each.

 

[yurivish]

From what I have heard, there are no errors there (I'll try learn phasing intuitivly( it will only take like 10mins)) lol
Also I wouldn't waste my time learning COLL because the ZZLL algs will be out soonISH and I doesn't really speed you up from OLL/PLL

Well, not only are some COLL algs sure to be part of ZZLL, but I'm not sure I want to learn 160 algorithms right now anyway. With COLL, I'll be left with a fun PLL almost each time (U, H, or Z. I say "almost" because sometimes it'll be an OLL skip, which is solvable with the standard set of 21 PLL's).

I have a question to anyone who's getting good with this method. For the EOLine, preinspection takes me forever. Part of the problem is that I try to plan out the movements required to solve the EO part. I would be content to figure that out as I go along, but I screw up fairly often when keeping track of the positions of the misoriented edges.

I'm currently trying out looking at the edges on the F face first, followed by the B face, and then the 4 E slice ones. Otherwise I have to mentally adjust my idea of all of the edges later, since I'm trying to figure out how to get 4 at a time onto either the F or B face.

Can anyone describe what they do differently, or is this all solely a matter of practice?

 

[fanwuq]

I use D/U as White/Yellow. It doesn’t matter which is D or U.
Then, I look at D and U for E layer pieces. If there’s more blue/green, I use blue/green as F/B. Also memorize which White and yellow pieces are flipped. Then, tell the orientation on F and B faces and plan the set up.

Or, sometimes, I just immediately look at F face to see if any thing needs to be flipped, plan setups to fill F with bad edges. Then look for other Bad edges. This way, I can always see how to flip 4-6 edges during 10 seconds of pre-inspection. 8 and 10 doesn’t seem to be difficult, and if you do a y turn, the number of bad edges will change usually, so I don’t know. 12 = just one easy alg, but that hasn’t happen to me yet.

 

[McWizzle94]

I got a question about ZZ-VH. What exactly is a lucky case in this method? I can see a few but I'm not sure if they're correct:

1. EO is already solved at the beginning
2. OLL skip (I'm not sure if this is lucky because you still have to use a PLL)
3. After COLL, the cube is solved (EPLL skip)

I'm not exactly sure if these are right, and I'm pretty sure there are more than just these 3. Can anyone me tell if there are more, or verify the ones that I came up with?

 

[*LukeMayn*]

You're talking about ZZ-VH. Thats when you do VH at the end.
In the normal ZZ (with ZZLL) lucky (I believe) is EO skip, one of the sides skip, and ZZLL skip.

 

[yurivish]

I got a question about ZZ-VH.

You're talking about ZZ-VH.

Indeed.

Anyway, I'm not sure how complex the ZZLL algorithms are, but an OLL/PLL skip might still be lucky. Or are OLL's and PLL's just subsets of ZBLL for when the edges are already correct / oriented?



Edit: Does anyone know the average move count for ZZF2L vs. Fridrich's?

 

[GuyWithFunnyHat]

a thought just occurred to me for the missing link step. would it be reasonable to permute the corners while inserting the last corner edge pair?

this is kind of taking the ZB approach, but there can't be nearly as many cases, and it wouldn't take any more moves than inserting a regular corner edge pair, right?

I think this would at least partly solve the recognition time issue because you only really have to pay attention to the four top corners.......yea, just a thought

 

[yurivish]

Why can't there be as many cases?

Since the edges are all oriented, the number of F2L cases are halved. However, instead of 2 orientations (flipped right or wrong) for edges, corners have three – correct, clockwise, and counterclockwise. I'm not sure, but I think that though there are less F2L cases, the corner orientations make up for it.

Edit – Also, the "missing link" was for the first incarnation. It was a step between the left and right block which would leave the entire cube solvable with R and U. What you're proposing is, I think, a different approach from ZZLL. Instead of phasing, you'd just do OLL, and then PLL instead of ZZLL.

 

[GuyWithFunnyHat]

no no, not orient the corners, permute them. then the cube can be finished with 2GLL

 

[yurivish]

no no, not orient the corners, permute them. then the cube can be finished with 2GLL

Oh, sorry. Anyway, I don't know about permuting corners. Recognition would be just a bit bothersome, since you'd have to look in the slot too. With COLL, you just look at the stickers, so I suppose you could do the same for this.

 

[fanwuq]

a thought just occurred to me for the missing link step. would it be reasonable to permute the corners while inserting the last corner edge pair?

this is kind of taking the ZB approach, but there can't be nearly as many cases, and it wouldn't take any more moves than inserting a regular corner edge pair, right?

I think this would at least partly solve the recognition time issue because you only really have to pay attention to the four top corners.......yea, just a thought

That can be interesting, it can be like the CLS step of MGLS. It wouldn't be too hard to recognize, but is it worth it?

I'd say MGLS with PLL and COLL with EPLL are already fast enough. F2L is where is real improvements can be made, I think. Anyone did a comparision of EO first block building vs. EO line?