# New ZZ Variant: ZZ - Profane Koala (ZZ-D with 4 algs)



## a small kitten (Aug 6, 2013)

Hey Everyone,

I am writing to present a new ZZ variant I've been working on with Statue. We thought of this idea more than a year ago and we recently reconvened to discuss actually going forward with formalizing the method. It's based on ZZ-d.

*Method Breakdown*
(This description presumes white EO Line)

1. EO Line
2. Left block
3. Push your two remaining white corners to the two bottom-right corner spots (orientation and permutation do not matter) (this usually takes 1-2 moves) 
4. Corner permutation (sometimes the corners will come permuted) (otherwise, the algs are 5-6 moves) 
5. Right block
6. 2GLL

*You can also approach solving the block + EO with Petrus
**You can mirror this stuff if you prefer making a right block first and doing lefty 2GLL

*Algs for Basic ZZ - Profane Koala* 
Good + Good: 2GEN
Good + Adj: [R] D' R U R' D
Good + Opp: L R U' R U L'
Bad + Good: R' D' R U' R' D
Bad + Adj: [F] U D R' U R D'
Bad + Opp: 2GEN

*The first term refers to corner permutation
**The second term refers to what swap is required to reduce the cube to a 2gen state
***The letters in brackets denote what face the swap will take place

*Hypothetical Extensions*
Instead of pushing the two corner pieces to the bottom layer, you can extend to pushing them to other, more convenient spots. This would reduce the move count of step 3, which should allow easier transition from step 3 into step 4. Eventually, we expect solvers to know so many "pushing arrangements" that they can make at most 1 move and then permute the corners straight after. 

*Help!*
We're looking for ideas on how to recognize corner permutation for step 4. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

*Video*
For those of you that want a video:






Many thanks,

_Statue of Kitten_


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 6, 2013)

I have toyed around with something similar (finishes with putting the two right corners on D and does CP, then 2gll). Here is what I have found:
- Putting in the two corners is a bit annoying and takes a lot (relatively) of time
- CP recog is annoying
- It's annoying when you did all the stuff and you get CP skip anyway

edit: The way I would recog CP is I would do a U move until there were two solved pieces. If they were diagonally swapped, I would do the diag alg, and two adj. were solved, I would put then on B and do the alg. Similarly, if the two corners that I had inserted were not in the right slots, I would do U until there were two solved corners on U, and do the opposite, so if there were two diagonally swapped corners on U CP was good, and if they were solved I'd have to do the diag swap alg, and if there were two adj. ones solved I'd put them on F then do the adj. swap alg in order to get diag. swap on the U layer, and solved CP on the whole cube.


----------



## Forte (Aug 6, 2013)

This seems really fun for OH


----------



## Hershey (Aug 6, 2013)

Interesting idea.


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 6, 2013)

Isn't this more moves then CFOP now?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 6, 2013)

aceofspades98 said:


> Isn't this more moves then CFOP now?



No. The average 2gll case is approx 13 moves. The avg for this is 4 (6 if you don't include the solved). 17 vs 24 (iirc). And zzf2l is usually more efficient. 

OP: I'll try this. If I like it, I might stick with zz. I kinda switch back and forth. I just like being sub-20 with CFOP. I avg barely sub-25 with zz.


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 6, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> No. The average 2gll case is approx 13 moves. The avg for this is 4 (6 if you don't include the solved). 17 vs 24 (iirc). And zzf2l is usually more efficient.
> 
> OP: I'll try this. If I like it, I might stick with zz. I kinda switch back and forth. I just like being sub-20 with CFOP. I avg barely sub-25 with zz.



To solve the corners there are about 6 moves though.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 6, 2013)

This is brilliant! I feel like this would be a sub-set of zz-d and all the cases you mentioned of different positions for the last 2 white corners would be full zz-d. I think recog would be similar to recog for cpls, or rather, if you could recog cpls or eocpll then you should be able to transfer over reocg methods. Great job!

EDIT: What if you could create algs that would fix cp _during_ the construction of the last slot (or at least the 1x2x2 block of the last block?) If you could master recognition, do you think looking into last block corner permutation would be feasible?


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 6, 2013)

a small kitten said:


> *Hypothetical Extensions*
> Instead of pushing the two corner pieces to the bottom layer, you can extend to pushing them to other, more convenient spots. This would reduce the move count of step 3, which should allow easier transition from step 3 into step 4. Eventually, we expect solvers to know so many "pushing arrangements" that they can make at most 1 move and then permute the corners straight after.
> 
> *Help!*
> We're looking for ideas on how to recognize corner permutation for step 4. Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Here's an idea on the topic of recognition: 
Another way to place the corners is one on ULB and one on DRB. You can see all the yellow corners clearly, and it only takes two setup moves. If I'm right, there are only 12 recognition cases: four that are correct, eight that are swapped. However, you would have to take note on which of the white corners you put in which place; the recognition would still be 12 cases, but which ones are correct and not would change. This takes a lot of guesswork from looking at the top layer and deciphering which corners are which. 

This stemmed from another idea I had to learn the patterns for all cases, ie. adjacent corners, opposite corners, and one corner on each layer. This would reduce to a case for adjacent corners on U and it's mirror on R, a case for opposite corners on U and its mirror on R, and a case for one corner on each layer at ULB/DRB. The last case I realized could be achieved in two moves, which is where I came up with the above idea. Hopefully this sparks some discussion.


Also, I don't understand the point of doing CP after EO. You might as well solve a 2x2x3 block like in Petrus, then do both CP and EO in one alg set. A more efficient method would be like porkynator's CP during the first block of ZZ here:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?43236-New-Approach-to-ZZ-d
On a related note, it doesn't make sense to do CP if you're not going to do 2GLL. You might as well just stick with PLL or CLL.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Aug 6, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> This takes a lot of guesswork from looking at the top layer and deciphering which corners are which.



A lot of the guesswork should be able to be eliminated by tracking at least one, preferably two of these corners while placing the white corners in ULB and DRB, and taking note of what the sticker that will end up on the L/B/D face is.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 6, 2013)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> A lot of the guesswork should be able to be eliminated by tracking at least one, preferably two of these corners while placing the white corners in ULB and DRB, and taking note of what the sticker that will end up on the L/B/D face is.



True, I was just thinking about this myself. Would definitely reduce the # of algs to recognize. I haven't looked extensively at ZZ-Orbit but I wonder how it compares to this and other methods of recognition.

**EDIT: I'm thinking that since you can see so much on this variation, it might not be so much of identifying all the yellow corners and their permutation scheme, but maybe just looking to see if the blue corners are adjacent and the green corners are adjacent/opposite to determine the CP. I'll begin research on this tomorrow.


----------



## RubiXer (Aug 6, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this just ZZ Rainbow w/o the isolation? If so I do do this in my OH solves every once in while if I immediately recognize the CP case.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 6, 2013)

RubiXer said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this just ZZ Rainbow w/o the isolation? If so I do do this in my OH solves every once in while if I immediately recognize the CP case.



Please elaborate, I couldn't find any documentation of it online.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 6, 2013)

This is really cool. I'm surprised the CP algs are so short.


----------



## RubiXer (Aug 6, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> Please elaborate, I couldn't find any documentation of it online.


Sorry about that should've provided a link. More info on next few pages....Also check page 61
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?20834-ZZ-ZB-Home-Thread/page63


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 6, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> **EDIT: I'm thinking that since you can see so much on this variation, it might not be so much of identifying all the yellow corners and their permutation scheme, but maybe just looking to see if the blue corners are adjacent and the green corners are adjacent/opposite to determine the CP. I'll begin research on this tomorrow.



Just by doing some preliminary testing, this looks like it could be THE cp recognition scheme. It looks as though it could be as simple as placing the two corners on ULB and DRB with two moves, then based on which corner is where, looking at the other yellow corners and seeing if there is a common color between two certain corners. I'll have to look into it more, but I wanted to get this out there so I have dibs on the name  if it happens to work out.


----------



## stoic (Aug 6, 2013)

Naming conventions for ZZ just keep getting better


----------



## porkynator (Aug 6, 2013)

Is this a joke?


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 6, 2013)

porkynator said:


> Is this a joke?



Definitely not.


----------



## porkynator (Aug 6, 2013)

Ok, go to page 61 of 'the zz/zb home thread' then.


----------



## JasonK (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm not exactly up to date on the multitudes of ZZ variations, but isn't this just ZZ-porky?


----------



## TDM (Aug 6, 2013)

It's just ZZ-porky with different (and more) algs.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 6, 2013)

Could someone link to Porky NOT with page numbers?
As a rule of thumb, NEVER LINK WITH PAGE NUMBERS! I have more posts per page than 10 as do many people.

Thanks for the interest.



EDIT:
Eventually found it. It's similar but not the same. I have difficulty figuring out what your post is saying, and this method seems a bit more optimal move-count.

To Phil's point, maybe recog like CPLS but with some adjustments:
Place the two corners in DBR and UBL, and recog the corners UFR, UFL, and UBR. From here I think we should be able to recog CP.


----------



## porkynator (Aug 6, 2013)

I thought this was a joke considering that in these days there are many people posting new threads about new methods, and I thought Phil was aware that this had already been proposed. If it isn't so, it's one of the cases when different people discover the same thing in different moments (even one year ago, when I found this approach, Robert Yau said he thought of the same thing once).
anyway, in my signature there is a link to a post where I explain what I think is an improvement to the method.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 6, 2013)

This approach seems to be the easiest one to think up. That's not to say that it's bad, but it's definitely not as good as I'd expect ZZ-d to be. As I already offered to Porkynator, some possible improvements to this method include: placing the DR corners and isolating the left block pieces to U and L after eoline, placing different corner pairs in DR or UL to identify orientation, and using CxLL recognition to identify U-layer CP. I average ~17 seconds with this variant.

But honestly, Porkynator's new ZZ-d approach blows all of the other variants out of the water.


----------



## stoic (Aug 6, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> Porkynator's new ZZ-d approach blows all of the other variants out of the water.



Just to be clear, all other variants of ZZ or all other variants of ZZ-d?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 6, 2013)

Who cares who came up with it first, it's not exactly a mindblowing discovery requiring masses of innovation.


----------



## elrog (Aug 6, 2013)

I thought this was just standard ZZ-d? Or is the standard the one that uses CPLS?

For step 4 recognitions, recognize the CLL case and you'll just have to know what swaps each CLL case needs.

@ ellwd: I'd say it blows all other ZZ-d Varients out of the water, but I think standard ZZ is still just as good if not better.


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 6, 2013)




----------



## Unparalleled (Aug 6, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "Bad + Adj" case supposed to be done on R face instead of F?


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 6, 2013)

Unparalleled said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "Bad + Adj" case supposed to be done on R face instead of F?



I used different algs.


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 6, 2013)

Porky, I wouldn't expect you to notice these, but please refer to the following links: 1 and 2. 

This stuff isn't "new" as in "it's just recently discovered". We just labeled it as "new" since we think it's somewhat new to the general public. We've been looking at a ZZ variant that pushed corners around to simplify CP since early 2011. 

I also recently learned that Petrus tried to do something like this with his method early on too.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 7, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> To Phil's point, maybe recog like CPLS but with some adjustments:
> Place the two corners in DBR and UBL, and recog the corners UFR, UFL, and UBR. From here I think we should be able to recog CP.



I looked into this today and here's what I found. It seems fairly simple, and I don't think I'm missing anything. As far as algs, I have no clue. 

CP Recognition

1. Place 2 D corners in UBL and DBR (2 moves)
.......-Make note of the corner in DBR
2. Examine colors on FRU corner
.......-Find the other two corners with the same colors 
.......-This will make an L shape on either the F, R, or U face
.......-If the L is on:
..............R or U, do an adjacent corner swap alg
..............F, move to step 3
3. Determine the case
.......a. The DBR corner is placed correctly:
..............-FRU and FLU are permuted correctly => opposite swap alg
..............-FRU and FLU swapped => *correct CP*
.......b. The DBR corner is incorrect:
..............-FRU and FLU are permuted correctly => *correct CP*
..............-FRU and FLU swapped => opposite swap alg


Pros:
-fast setup
-easy recognition
-little time wasted if CP is correct

Cons:
-must be done after first block (ZZ) instead of beginning of solve

I think that there would be two variations for this CP recognition: CP only (for ZZ), and EO/CP (for Petrus and CFOP)
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it doesn't really make sense to do CP after the first block. Instead it would probably just be faster to stick with PLL or CLL. Also, it doesn't really make sense to do CP if you're not going to do 2GLL. My recommended finish after this step would be Advanced Phasing + special Winter Variation algs for 2GLL (see my other thread on Phasing + WV). I feel like that three/four step method could be very efficient and fast. It would go like this:
1. 2x2x3 block
2. a. Place 2 D corners
.....b. EO/CP
3. Right block and phasing
4. WV

*Example Solve:

B' L F R B' F U2 L' y' 2x2x3 (8/8)
R U Place D corners (2/10)
F' U' F EO/CP (3/13)
R2 U R' U2 R U2 R U R' U2 F2L (10/23)
U R U' R' Edge/Corner Phasing (4/27)
U R U2 R' U2 WV alg (5/31)*

This example has an extremely low move count, but it shows the full potential of this method. Current WV algs average around 8 moves, but the new set for this would average more. Also, F2L will vary and I haven't figured out all the cases for EO/CP. Here's what I estimate:

2x2x3 ~13 moves
Place D corners 2 moves
EO/CP ~5 moves
F2L ~10 moves 
Phasing 6 moves
WV alg ~10 moves
Total Avg: ~46 moves


----------



## rj (Aug 16, 2013)

This is a good idea. I have been thinking about orienting and/or permuting 2 corners in Roux, but this is new to me. Do you actually use this?



AHombaker said:


> I looked into this today and here's what I found. It seems fairly simple, and I don't think I'm missing anything. As far as algs, I have no clue.
> 
> CP Recognition
> 
> ...



2x2x3 block can be solved in fewer moves than 13.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 16, 2013)

although i think its just the good old zz-porky, this getting some attention might get me back into cubing. i had many thoughts about recognising CP back when it came up in the ZZ/ZB Home thread. I went with some color patterns which were recognisable at at ablink but required more intuition than actual case learning... i might sort it out and write it down if i get motivated to cube some more!

thanks for the thread
Petro


----------



## IQubic (Sep 29, 2013)

I just worked out a recognition method that is fairly simple. The algs are the same ones asmallkitten posted in the OP.
First solve the EOLine and right F2L block.
Next push the 2 D corners onto the D layer, regardless of position or orientation.
Now the tricky part of determining U layer CP, the part that i worked out:
1. Turn the U layer until the corner that belongs in the UFL is in the UFL.
2. Look at the Corner in the UFR and the corner in the UBR, see how many of the two corners are solve, there are possibilities:
A:The Corners are both in the correct positions. Meaning that twisting UFR and UBR would solve them both.
You have good Corners
B:Only 1 of the two Corners are in the right position. It can either be on the Front layer, or the Right layer:
If it is on the Front layer, then UBL and UBR need to swap.
If it is on the Right Layer, then UBR and UFL need to swap.
C:Neither of the two corners are in the right position. Look at the 2 corners, if you see two pairs of opposite colors you have a diagonal swap. If you see 2 stickers (one from each corner) that are the same color (not the top color, some other color), look at the UFL corner and the UBL corner, if they have two same color stickers (again not the top color, some other color), then UFL and UBL need to swap, otherwise UBR and UBL need to swap.

Sorry if that was confusing. Send me a PM if you have questions, or ask them here on this thread. I think this is fairly easy once you memorize the way to do this.

-IQubic


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 29, 2013)

Seems neat - how fast can you recognize with this?


----------



## IQubic (Sep 29, 2013)

About 2 seconds or so.


----------



## Joël (Sep 29, 2013)

Great idea! Fun to play around with.



a small kitten said:


> Hey Everyone,
> Bad + Adj: [F] U D R' U R D'



Is that U supposed to be in there? It seems to work better if I skip that.


Edit: I think there are also a bunch of alternative algs. How about: Good + Adj: * L U' R U L' ?*


----------



## Joël (Sep 30, 2013)

Hello everybody,

I am very interested in this method, so I took a good long look at it. I am not sure if it's suitable for speed, but I've always been interested in methods that do a certain step very early in the solve (Just like ZZ does EO at the beginning). The idea that CP can be solved with "half a commutator" is just great!

Basically, after looking at this for a long while, I think I found a decent way to recognize it. I can now do it slowly while looking at my notes. At first I thought I would have to track the cycles, to recognize one out of many cases (like in BLD). Fortunately, it turns out to be easier than that. It´s still quite hard, and to fully recognize it quickly, I think a cuber would have to be trained to know the 3rd color of a corner by looking at 2 stickers, because 3 out of 4 relevant pieces have only 2 stickers visible (If you want to recognize it in 1 look, without rotating the cube).

Anyway, here is a description of how I would recognize this.

*Scenario 1*
So first, the case where DRB corner is at DRB, and the DRF corner is at ULB. Set this case up on a solved cube with RU2R' with white on the bottom, orange on front, and read the colors of the 4 remaining corners in this order:

1. ULF 
2. URF 
3. DRF 
4. UBR

You'll see these colors (ignoring top face color): 

1. Blue Orange 
2. Orange Green 
3. Green Red 
4. Red Blue

I can also setup with U R U2 R', U2 R U2 R' or U' R U2 R', but the order remains the same, it just starts with a different corner. The order is the order I see on the front face if I start with white on bottom, and keep doing y': Orange Green Red Blue Orange, etc. If you know in which order the cross pieces have to place, you can also figure this out. You'd have to see which two corners have to be switched to 'restore' this order, and choose one out of 5 algs:

(ULF URF): D' R U' R' D
(URF DRF): D R' U R D'
(DRF UBR): D' R U2 R' D
(UBR ULF): L R U' R U L'

(ULF DFR): D R' U' R D'
(URF URB): D R' U' R D'

The last two cases correspond with 'reversing' the order.


*Scenario 2:*
So next, examine the case where DRB corner is at ULB, and the DRF corner is at DRB. Set this case up on a solved cube with R' U' with white on the bottom, orange on front, and read the colors of the 4 remaining corners in this order:

1. ULF 
2. URF 
3. DRF 
4. UBR

You'll see these colors (ignoring top face color): 

1. Red Green
2. Green Orange 
3. Orange Blue
4. Blue Red

I can also setup with U R' U', U2 R' U' or U' R' U', but the order remains the same, it just starts with a different corner. The order is the order I see on the front face if I start with white on bottom, and keep doing y: Red Green Orange Blue Red, etc. If you know in which order the cross pieces have to place, you can also figure this out. You'd have to see which two corners have to be switched to 'restore' this order, and choose one out of 5 algs:

(ULF URF): D' R U' R' D
(URF DRF): D R' U R D'
(DRF UBR): D' R U2 R' D
(UBR ULF): L R U' R U L'

(ULF DFR): D R' U' R D'
(URF URB): D R' U' R D'

The last two cases correspond with 'reversing' the order.

So for both scenarios, the algs are the same, but in one scenario the goal is to get the order Orange Green Red Blue, and in the other scenario the goal is to get this in reverse order.

*Example:*

Orientation: White on bottom, orange on front
Scramble: T-Perm + (R U2 R')

Reading the corners in the described order, we see:

ULF: Red Blue 
URF: Orange Green
DRF: Green Red
UBR: Blue Orange

Looks like URF and DRF are in good order, and ULF and URB have to switch. So it's the 4th algorithm: L R U' R U L'. After this, solve the cube 2-gen and confirm that CP is done.

Now recognizing this will take practice, and it's a bit confusing with all the different orientations. But there are some patterns that can be studied, just like in COLL. For example: If the FLU sticker and FRU stickers are yellow (top face color), and the ULF and URF stickers match, that is GOOD in the case where DRF is at DRF and BAD if DRF is at BLU. These patterns could be studied, and I think it's conceivable that somebody could practice this often enough to develop a weird twist in the brain that allows for a fast recognition of this step.

Please give me feedback, or let me know if I made a mistake somewhere. (It's getting quite late here, and I am only human)

Edit:
Btw, It's possible to only look at the stickers that are positioned 'clockwise' from the 'top face sticker', to determine the order. Or alternatively, the ones that are positioned 'counterclockwise' from the top face sticker.

Edit2:
We should create diagrams with two adjacent corners positioned next to each other when 'In order' and 'out of order', in the combinations ULF URF, URF DRF, DRF URB, URB ULF, in all different orientations. By studying those, It will be possible to spot 'in order' and 'out of order' patterns.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 1, 2013)

Very cool, but I think the process if we simplify the process like this:

Set up the same way (DBR and DFR in DBR, UBL).
Read the corner the the right of the yellow sticker, for UFL, UFR, and DBR/UBR (doesn't matter which, just keep it consistent)

For example, 
Setup: R U2 R'
Stickers: ogr or ogb

Setup: tperm R U2 R'
Stickers: bgr or bgo

ogr = grb = rbo = bog
etc.

It's pretty easy to 'see' the DFR, LUF and BUR stickers without looking.
Really the DFR-corner sticker's obvious to see and you should only have to 'look around' for one of the other stickers on average.


I'm unfortunately still not satisfied with this method.


----------



## Joël (Oct 1, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> Very cool, but I think the process if we simplify the process like this:
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm unfortunately still not satisfied with this method.



I agree, it's possible to recognize this by looking at just three stickers. You do have to identify which stickers, this is guided by the top face stickers.

I am quite satisfied with just knowing this method. I am not sure if I will train myself to do this, but I am really excited about learning how to go from 2x2x3 block into 2-gen easily. I am pretty sure this can become a reflex. For OH, the 2gen ending just feels so comfortable.

I have been trying EO-line, and I like it a lot, but I've also been playing around with this order of doing things:

1. Cross
2. 2 adjacent pairs
3. Petrus style edge orientations/edge control
4. Profane Koala to get into 2gen
5. Solve 2gen.

Obviously for step 5 it would be recommended to learn the 85 2GLL cases, if you are serious about this.

Con's: 2 Adjacent pairs instead of opposite ones needs planning. Sometimes you just have free pair, but you can't do anything with it.
Pro's: Easier inspection. Planning 2 pairs ahead forces better look ahead.


----------



## Joël (Oct 1, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> Very cool, but I think the process if we simplify the process like this:
> 
> Set up the same way (DBR and DFR in DBR, UBL).
> Read the corner the the right of the yellow sticker, for UFL, UFR, and DBR/UBR (doesn't matter which, just keep it consistent)
> ...



So yeah, to elaborate more on how to recognise by looking at three stickers, here is some more:

We read the stickers that are clockwise from the top layer sticker from the corners ULF URF DRB, and find a 'color code'. 

When DBR is at DBR and DBF is at ULB, we are looking for the order: GRBO.

If we have no opposites next to each in the 'color code', it's either in good order or reverse order. So GRB would be good, but RBG would be bad. In the bad case, fix it with D R' U' R D'.

If there are two opposites in sequence, that means 2 corners would have to switch to restore the order. For example ORB. Orange and Red are opposites. We then check the order of the RB part. RB is good, so the Orange (ULF) and Green (URB) have to switch: L R U' R U L'

If we get the colors ORG, we see O and R are opposite, RG are not in the right order. So in that case URF and DRF have to switch to restore the order.

(Of course when DRB is at ULB and DRF is at DRB, the order you are looking for is reversed)

Etc etc.

It seems that a system like this could also be used with Roux btw. Since M doesn't effect CP, once we have CP done we can do M R and U moves without destroying CP.

1. First block
2. Profane Koala into 2 gen for corners
3. Solve however you like without breaking up the first block.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 1, 2013)

Joël said:


> [stuff]


Just a quick note while I have time - one can on-the-fly choose to check the clockwise OR counter-clockwise sticker relative to the U-layer color.
With this knowledge, I think only 2/9 of the time you'll have to do any 'thinking' when recognizing.

I plan to do further analysis tonight and make a short video demonstrating this method of recognition.

This might be nearing something acceptable for me, but I'm still hopeful that there's something better out there.


By the way, using it with Roux would be pretty neat. Do first block, PK, 1x2x2, CLS/WV, then do step 4 as usual.

Also, WV can be dramatically reduced for Roux; just some thoughts, need to explore further.


----------



## Joël (Oct 1, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> Just a quick note while I have time - one can on-the-fly choose to check the clockwise OR counter-clockwise sticker relative to the U-layer color.
> With this knowledge, I think only 2/9 of the time you'll have to do any 'thinking' when recognizing.
> 
> I plan to do further analysis tonight and make a short video demonstrating this method of recognition.
> ...



I've been practicing this today, and I already notice an improvement in how fast I can recognize it. It's still slow, but like I said before I am sure with practice, it becomes a reflex. It is kind of a mind****, because the order you are looking for is different depending on the situation. For example when you have the 2x2x3 block on the right, and mirror all of this, the 'order' that is 'correct' is also mirrored (=reversed). A similar thing happens on when you want to be x2 neutral.

I still have to look into the case where you place the two bottom layer edges next to UL.

Another random thought: An alternative for L R U' R U L' would be L U' R2 U L', which does the same thing. Not very significant, but I thought I'd share it.


----------



## TDM (Oct 1, 2013)

Joël said:


> Another random thought: An alternative for L R U' R U L would be L U' R2 U *L*, which does the same thing. Not very significant, but I thought I'd share it.


Fixed.
Also, that's just the alg used in ZZ-porky v1 (which is exactly the same as Profane Koala but with different (and fewer and shorter and better for OH) algs) (the moves are inverted, but it's basically the same). So many people are thinking more about ZZ-d after this than after Porky v1 and v2. Why?

Also, my CP Recog:
1- Put the two corners in place and see which one is which as you do this, as usual.
2- For recognising the CP on the U face, see where the UFR and UFL corners are in relation to each other, and same with UBR and UBL.
2a (if UBL and UBR (or UFL and UFR) are adjacent to each other - this should happen in most solves)- If one pair is swapped, then it's an adjacent swap of those two. If neither are swapped, corners are correctly permuted. If both pairs are swapped, it's a diagonal swap.
2b (if UBL and UBR (or UFL and UFR) are opposite)- Do the same thing as before, except there'll always be one pair swapped. Here's how you can do it (although I don't usually do this because I know where the corners should go): put the two corners that go on UR/UL on UR/UL. Look at either of the front two corners, let's say UFR. If it is permuted then it's an adjacent swap for UFL and UBL. If it isn't, it's a swap of UFR and UBR.
I don't ever look at the same position when recognising (e.g. I mentioned UFR in the last example), but it can help to AUF and then do this to begin with.
Some other stuff you may know if you know a bit of COLL: if two adjacent corners have yellow on the same face (like U OCLL) and opposite colours on U, they are permuted correctly, and if they are the same colour they are swapped. Also, if the two adjacent corners with yellow on opposite faces (like the T COLL), they are permuted if their colour is the same and swapped if the colours are opposite. For both cases, if they are adjacent colours (e.g. red and blue), then you know there's an adjacent swap somewhere on the U face.
It looks difficult at first, but if you do a lot of solves with CP in (I do), it becomes really easy to recognise CP. I don't actually practise OH that much (I use a variant of ZZ with CP in for OH only), but I still don't take very long at all recognising CP.


----------



## Joël (Oct 1, 2013)

TDM said:


> Fixed.
> Also, that's just the alg used in ZZ-porky v1 (which is exactly the same as Profane Koala but with different (and fewer and shorter and better for OH) algs) (the moves are inverted, but it's basically the same). So many people are thinking more about ZZ-d after this than after Porky v1 and v2. Why?



I my case, it's because I didn't cube/learn new stuff for a while, and now stumbled upon _this_ thread before learning about the existence of Porky.


----------



## a small kitten (Oct 1, 2013)

Profane Koala was conceived early 2011. 

People are probably posting on this topic because it appears to be the most recent topic relating to ZZ-d.


----------



## TDM (Oct 2, 2013)

Joël said:


> I my case, it's because I didn't cube/learn new stuff for a while, and now stumbled upon _this_ thread before learning about the existence of Porky.


True, but porky v2 was posted before this. Thinking about it, it's probably because v1 didn't have its own thread so less people saw it and v2 has too many algs/cases.


a small kitten said:


> Profane Koala was conceived early 2011.
> 
> People are probably posting on this topic because it appears to be the most recent topic relating to ZZ-d.


I never said porky thought of his ideas before you did; I'm saying he posted them earlier but no one really noticed, and even after v2 it's still this thread that many people are posting on.


----------



## a small kitten (Oct 2, 2013)

> Is this a joke?





> I'm not exactly up to date on the multitudes of ZZ variations, but isn't this just ZZ-porky?





> It's just ZZ-porky with different (and more) algs.





> So many people are thinking more about ZZ-d after this than after Porky v1 and v2. Why?



I got a strong impression that you were implying that Profane Koala was a derivative of ZZ-porky (judging from your above question and the quoted statements from others). I know you didn't actually state anything about who came up with what first. 

I feel the answer to your "why" question is simple. These specific threads about minority methods seem to die if nothing radically awesome gets concretely developed. There are very few people that care about ZZ enough to discuss. The set of people that care about experimental extensions of ZZ is also very small. Naturally, a new thread popping up will revitalize the discussion for the people that lost track of older threads. Once these threads pop up, it's easily imaginable that people will read the thread and comment directly on the same thread. It's not like people will migrate back to older threads. 

Obviously, I will feel momentarily miffed if I perceive that people are saying or implying that the thread's idea is derivative and/or a joke. Ultimately, though, I don't care that much about who thought of these ZZ-d variations first. It's more interesting to me that people keep revisiting the idea. Every time someone posts a new thread, the people that care return to discuss. At the same time, the thread attracts new people that missed old threads (like Joël).


----------



## TDM (Oct 2, 2013)

a small kitten said:


> I got a strong impression that you were implying that Profane Koala was a derivative of ZZ-porky (judging from your above question and the quoted statements from others). I know you didn't actually state anything about who came up with what first.


I'm not. When I said "It's just ZZ-porky with different (and more) algs", I was trying to say that they are the same thing, even if developed separately from each other. I was answering their question. Also, I knew asking "Why" was bad as I couldn't really word it right. I wasn't trying to say the ZZ-porky's should've had more people posting about them, I was asking why it is that it's this thread that people are interested in. And I answered myself last post.


> I feel the answer to your "why" question is simple. These specific threads about minority methods seem to die if nothing radically awesome gets concretely developed. There are very few people that care about ZZ enough to discuss. The set of people that care about experimental extensions of ZZ is also very small. Naturally, a new thread popping up will revitalize the discussion for the people that lost track of older threads. Once these threads pop up, it's easily imaginable that people will read the thread and comment directly on the same thread. It's not like people will migrate back to older threads.


It's just porky v2 was posted first, then this shortly after, and this was the thread that more people saw. Why was it that nothing radically awesome was developed in the other thread but it was in this? And, as I said before, I answered myself when I said "Thinking about it, it's probably because v1 didn't have its own thread so less people saw it and v2 has too many algs/cases".


> Obviously, I will feel momentarily miffed if I perceive that people are saying or implying that the thread's idea is derivative and/or a joke. Ultimately, though, I don't care that much about who thought of these ZZ-d variations first. It's more interesting to me that people keep revisiting the idea. Every time someone posts a new thread, the people that care return to discuss. At the same time, the thread attracts new people that missed old threads (like Joël).


I think the reason why porky asked if this was a joke was because of the similarity to his old method and because you have said it is "new". This is like my "why?" question: you meant it as new to the public, but when reading it it looks like you're saying it's a new idea that no one has thought of before.
Also, a question for Joël: why did you see this thread and not see the porky v2 thread?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 2, 2013)

TDM said:


> I'm not. When I said "It's just ZZ-porky with different (and more) algs", I was trying to say that they are the same thing, even if developed separately from each other. I was answering their question. Also, I knew asking "Why" was bad as I couldn't really word it right. I wasn't trying to say the ZZ-porky's should've had more people posting about them, I was asking why it is that it's this thread that people are interested in. And I answered myself last post.
> 
> It's just porky v2 was posted first, then this shortly after, and this was the thread that more people saw. Why was it that nothing radically awesome was developed in the other thread but it was in this? And, as I said before, I answered myself when I said "Thinking about it, it's probably because v1 didn't have its own thread so less people saw it and v2 has too many algs/cases".
> 
> ...


The reason Porky's thread didn't do well is because he didn't present his method well.

His post makes me sleepy. That's nothing against his cubing skills; he's just not someone that can captivate my interest at all.

Further, people know Phil and I. We've both been active on the forums for years, and have made various contributions.
No offense to Porky, but I don't think he bears the same reputability on the forums, so it's likely that our efforts have some different weight to them because of this.

Anyway, let's talk about recognition. How is everyone doing?
I can recognize using my most recent system in about 1s. That's not too shabby. With practice, I could see a .6s recog.


----------



## Joël (Oct 3, 2013)

TDM said:


> Also, a question for Joël: why did you see this thread and not see the porky v2 thread?



I guess it's a coincidence. Thread was not on top, maybe not even on the first page, or maybe the title didn't interest me.

One thing that was attractive about this thread was the easy-to-understand video. EO-Line, 2x2x3... How do you get into 2gen..? Magic trick! I was intrigued by it.

I've been taking a look at the porky v2 thread, and I recognise the funny cycles (5cycles) and diagrams. When I worked out the cases for having the two corners at DRB and BLU, I started drawing diagrams just like that!

I agree with Phil Yu that it's a good thing that there are multiple threads where different approaches to similar steps are being discussed. 



StachuK1992 said:


> ... How is everyone doing? ...



I am doing fine. I don't have a lot of time to work on this, because I work full time. But I've been practicing it slowly, and I it's getting better.

Some random thoughts:

1) You can also choose to look at 3 corners in this order: BRU ULF URF. This is better for TH, because you your thumb won't block the vision on the stickers you need to see. The BRU has two visable stickers, and that's enough. Judging by the number of stickers you'd have to look at, I think this is equivalent to recognizing a COLL case. Actually... Now that I think about it, it's more equivalent to recognizing what type of PLL you have (diagonal, adjacent or solved) by looking at two sides. Everybody already agrees that this is not "too hard to apply" in speedcubing.

2) I had another random thought today. A solver could choose to put the UL and UR corners in DF and DB positions during EO line, and finish with an LSE ending. Not sure if it is that much better than just ending with U, H or Z. I dont think it's that good, but I am just putting it out there.

3) I've also been thinking about other ways to recognize whether the 'order' is correct. When the DRF corner is at DRB and DRB is at BLU, the order kind of makes sense, because when I look from ULF to URF, if it's 2gen it will follow the same order as when I look at the F and R centers, which is also looking from left to right (relating this to the centers could also be helpful for those who want to be CN).

Now when the DRB corner is at DRB, this doesn't really work for me. One thing I just thought about, is that in this case, you can try to see (=imagine) what would happen if you would twist the ULF, URF and DRF corners in such a way that all top face stickers would come to the F face. If you imagine doing that, the stickers at *U*LF and *U*RF would have to match, and the *R*FU and *R*DF stickers have to match too. I haven't tried this a lot yet, but I think this way of thinking about it could make it easier for me.

Edit:
(Similarly, when DRF is at DRB, you would have to imagine rotating the ULF, URF and DRF corners so that the top face stickers are on the L and R face. In that case *U*LF and *U*RF would have to match, and *F*RU and *F*RD would have to match).

Edit2:
Yes! This seems to be much easier, it becomes exactly like determining the type of PLL when OLL is done.

Edit3:
Holy cow, it's much better this way. It's weird how thinking about something in a slightly different way can make all the difference in the world. I am making fewer mistakes now, and it's much faster.


----------



## TDM (Oct 3, 2013)

ty both for giving good answers to my questions.


StachuK1992 said:


> Anyway, let's talk about recognition. How is everyone doing?
> I can recognize using my most recent system in about 1s. That's not too shabby. With practice, I could see a .6s recog.


Well I usually feel like I can recognise in under a second, but with me when I feel like I'm doing something fast it's usually slow.
My lookahead sucks, but has anyone tried to track a couple of corners during the end of the first F2L half? If you could follow at least three you could effectively have 0s recognition, but that's going to be difficult - with me even 1 is impossible, and that's when doing OH so I'm turning slower than 2H. But my lookahead is _very_ bad and I don't know much about lookahead; I'm not too sure about whether 3 corners is too many for other people.


----------



## porkynator (Oct 3, 2013)

I'm sorry if my "Is this a joke?" comment seemed rude, but...


porkynator said:


> I thought this was a joke considering that in these days there are many people posting new threads about new methods, and I thought Phil was aware that this had already been proposed.


...I was honestly thinking it was a possibility.


StachuK1992 said:


> The reason Porky's thread didn't do well is because he didn't present his method well.
> 
> His post makes me sleepy. That's nothing against his cubing skills; he's just not someone that can captivate my interest at all.


I never thought about it, but it's true: I didn't care at all about making my post(s) interesting. I should work on that if I ever get to make a porky v3 approach to ZZ-d (as well as giving it a cool name) 


StachuK1992 said:


> Further, people know Phil and I. We've both been active on the forums for years, and have made various contributions.
> No offense to Porky, but I don't think he bears the same reputability on the forums, so it's likely that our efforts have some different weight to them because of this.


I totally agree. When I read something on the forums I always try to forget about who has written it and to care only about what they have written, but it's just impossible. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing.


porkynator said:


> [...]
> it's one of the cases when different people discover the same thing in different moments
> [...]


I thought this would have put an end to this "debate" (or whatever you want to call it).

Sorry for the OT, but I wanted to make it clear that I'm not like "I posted it first!", but more like "Cool, if people are still thinking about this method it means that it wasn't that bad after all!" (as you can see here, I was a little skeptical about it).


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 3, 2013)

You should be skeptical about it.
This is really neat, but I still think it's horrible. I'm nowhere near satisfied with this method until a better recognition method is found.
This is far too clumsy!


----------



## Joël (Oct 3, 2013)

In order to make this a bit more understandable/readable, I've made some diagrams for the cases when the bottom layer corners are at DRB and ULB

*Scenario 1*
DRB corner is at DRB
DRF corner is at ULB

Recognition: Imagine rotating the corners ULF URF and RDB so that the top face sticker will come to the F face. Determine the relationship of the ULF URF sticker pair, and the RFU RFD sticker pair. For both pairs the relation can be "match", "opposite" or "adjacent", so we have 2x3=6 patterns. We can then figure out what needs to be done in order to get into 2GEN. In the diagram, this is shown by an arrow indicating that 2 pieces need to swap. But we will not actually swap those pieces. Instead, we do an algorithm that brings the corners into a 2GEN state.

The diagrams will show the orientations with the top face color already on F. This is just for clarity. In a real solve, the solver will need to imagine rotating the corners to that orientation, or find a different way to determine which stickers to compare.

Sticker pairs to compare when top face stickers are rotated to F:
*U*LF *U*RF
*R*FU *R*FD

1.1) 2GEN





ULF and URF match
RFU and RFD match
ALG: None, it's 2GEN already!



1.2) ULF <-> URF




ULF and URF opposite
RFU and RFD adjacent
ALG: D' R U' R' D


1.3) FUR <-> FDR




ULF and URF adjacent
RFU and RFD opposite
ALG: D R' U R D'

1.4) RDF <-> RUB 




ULF and URF match
RFU and RFD adjacent
ALG: D' R U2 R' D

1.5) ULF <-> URB




ULF and URF adjacent
RFU and RDB match
ALG: L U' R2 U L'


1.6) FLU <-> FDR 




ULF and URF opposite
RFU and RFD opposite
ALG: D R' U' R D'



*Scenario 2*
DRB corner is at ULB
DRF corner is at DRB

Recognition: Imagine rotating the corners ULF URF and RDB so that the top face stickers will come to the L and R faces. Determine the relationship of the ULF URF sticker pair, and the FUR FDR sticker pair. For both pairs the relation can be "match", "opposite" or "adjacent", so we have 2x3=6 patterns. We can then figure out what needs to be done in order to get into 2GEN. In the diagram, this is shown by an arrow indicating that 2 pieces need to swap. But we will not actually swap those pieces. Instead, we do an algorithm that brings the corners into a 2GEN state.

The diagrams will show the orientations with the top face stickers already on L and R. This is just for clarity. In a real solve, the solver will need to imagine rotating the corners to that orientation, or find a different way to determine which stickers to compare.

Sticker pairs to compare when top face stickers are rotated to L and R:
*U*LF and *U*RF
*F*UR and *F*DR

2.1) 2GEN




ULF and URF match
FUR and FDR match
ALG: None, it's 2GEN already!

2.2) ULF <-> URF




ULF and URF opposite
FUR and FDR adjacent
ALG: D' R U' R' D

2.3) FUR <-> FDR




ULF and URF adjacent
FUR and FDR opposite
ALG: D R' U R D'

2.4) RDF <-> RUB 




ULF and URF match
FUR and FDR adjacent
ALG: D' R U2 R' D

2.5) ULF <-> URB




ULF and URF adjacent
FUR and FDR match
ALG: L U' R2 U L'

2.6) FLU <-> FDR 




ULF and URF opposite
FUR and FDR opposite
ALG: D R' U' R D'


----------



## Joël (Oct 3, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> You should be skeptical about it.
> This is really neat, but I still think it's horrible. I'm nowhere near satisfied with this method until a better recognition method is found.
> This is far too clumsy!



This kind of reminds me of a quote from Ron van Bruchem about what he thought when he first read about F2L a looooong long time ago. "Too hard to apply", that's what he thought of it.


----------



## JackJ (Oct 6, 2013)

Not sure if it's been mentioned but wouldn't it make more sense to learn the COLL cases? Surely 15+ move 2gen algs aren't faster.


----------

