# ZZ speedcubing method



## MHordecki (Jul 15, 2008)

As in the topic.

ZZ's quite interesting method, but it largely unknown in non-Polish speedcubing communities (like speedsolving.com). It's basically due to the fact that almost every information about ZZ is in Polish, which isn't lingua franca, I dunno why. 

Because of that I've decided to write an article about it. I'm publishing it in early phase to provoke a discussion (as for today, there are only three persons that use ZZ as their primary method, so there are areas to improve). There are few thing to polish in my article:

One of the concepts, called 'phasing' is covered only by theory, not by factual, practical experiences
I'm in the process of generating my own ZZLL algs, but it's still far to go.
Generally, expand everything 

And, of course, the link: http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZ speedcubing system.html
Enjoy! 

IMO ZZ is a wonderful method that fill the gap between Fridrich and intuitive methods, such as Petrus.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 15, 2008)

Hm...
Seems Interesting, I will check it out.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 15, 2008)

MHordecki said:


> As in the topic.
> 
> ZZ's quite interesting method, but it largely unknown in non-Polish speedcubing communities (like speedsolving.com). It's basically due to the fact that almost every information about ZZ is in Polish, which isn't lingua franca, I dunno why.
> 
> ...



My term for Step 4: 2GLL


----------



## KConny (Jul 15, 2008)

Thank you man. This looks really interesting. I might try this out after learning MGLS.

I found a typo on the page: "The main difference lies in so called "phasing". Just when finishing F2L, one must permute two opposite LL edges, usually UF and *UD*."


----------



## yurivish (Jul 15, 2008)

That looks really interesting. The edge orientation during the first step seems to be the thing that makes it so different. I'm going to try this out!


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 15, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> MHordecki said:
> 
> 
> > As in the topic.
> ...



REPRESENT!


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 15, 2008)

Oh, if it comes to ZZ-d LL step, it could be named 2GLL (actually there isn't any 'official' name or so), but i left '(2gen) 1-look LL' for clarity. However, ZZLL can't be recognized as 2GLL, cause it's obviously in <R, U, L>-group

@KConny: Thank you!


----------



## yurivish (Jul 15, 2008)

Oo. I just tried a solve with this. I'm having lots of trouble with the EO step, but that's just a matter of practice. Other than that, it feels really nice being able to solve everything with just RUL, and then get a cross on top to boot. I might try switching to this, since for now I don't even have to learn any new algorithms and can just use cross OLL's and regular PLL's until I get good enough at the EOLine to justify learning the last-layer algs.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 15, 2008)

I have tried to use the ZZ method before mainly ZZF2L because I didn't know all the details of the method since I don't speak Polish.
I think its a pretty good method and may look into after this weekend as it is a little close to Nationals to switch now. Being mainly a OH cuber I like the fact that F2L was been reduced to 3gen and have been trying to incorporate some kind of intuitive edge orienting system into my Fridrich to simplify my LL as obviously 1LLL is the goal.
Thanks for the article I look forward to you expanding it.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 15, 2008)

Very interesting read, looking forward to updates.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jul 16, 2008)

Thanks for posting the link. The method looks great, but I don't think I would want to learn all the algorithms.


----------



## rubiksfriend (Jul 16, 2008)

I still don't understand why you wouldn't use Petrus. ZZ is a variation, no?


----------



## badmephisto (Jul 16, 2008)

looks interesting. ill try looking into it sometime


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

Interesting! I can tell EO would take lots of time to master. The greatest advantage of this compared to petrus, I think, is that you can tell EO during pre-inspection rather than stop during the solve.
I'm so exited about this method!!!!!


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 16, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Interesting! I can tell EO would take lots of time to master. The greatest advantage of this compared to petrus, I think, is that you can tell EO during pre-inspection rather than stop during the solve.
> I'm so exited about this method!!!!!



EO could be like in HTA?


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 16, 2008)

i agree with lofty, reducing it to the LUR group for almost all of the moves has huge benefits for OH. i think whoever perfects this will blow every OH record out of the water.

i think rapid EO for the whole cube would be useful for any cubing method.


----------



## yurivish (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm getting better, but still having problems with the first step, especially finding the edges and planning it out in the 15 seconds.

I decided to stick to a fixed color scheme, yellow on top and blue in front.

The shortcuts described in the article helped, and I've distilled them into several statements:

Yellow/white on U/D: *Good*
Yellow/white on R/L/F/B: *Bad*

In the E slice, same color/opposite color from the center: *Good*
In the U/D layers, orange/red on the non-U/D side: *Good*

You can look at the 2 sides of the cube, and any edges with yellow or white on them are bad.


Is there any easy way to keep track of the edges during execution? Sometimes there are 6 or 8 edges flipped.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 16, 2008)

I am CERTAINLY going to learn zz  can't wait for all of the algs (I have somewhat found I like learning new algs >.< lol)


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 16, 2008)

Wow, yurvish, you're using exactly the same color scheme as I  Probably the simplest way is to practice  no, really, after some solves you'll see that some patterns of EO are repeating. And it's always good to do EO mentally in preinspection (even if it's taking longer than 15 sec). I know it's hard, but after ~1 month you're gonna do it without second thought 

@Lordofsloths: Yes, it's exactly the same as in HTA.

IMO ZZ is superior to Petrus due to the EO - it simplifies F2L cases, so generally brain has less to process and therefore can do it quicker


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 16, 2008)

MHordecki said:


> Oh, if it comes to ZZ-d LL step, it could be named 2GLL (actually there isn't any 'official' name or so), but i left '(2gen) 1-look LL' for clarity. However, ZZLL can't be recognized as 2GLL, cause it's obviously in <R, U, L>-group
> 
> @KConny: Thank you!



Mine has Sune combinations, but I still call it 2GLL.



> IMO ZZ is superior to Petrus due to the EO - it simplifies F2L cases, so generally brain has less to process and therefore can do it quicker



Since when was that an argument for superiority?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 16, 2008)

hay guys, after you do the f2l, the corners are meant to ALL be permuted? I get cases where the corners arn't permuted but I don't know why (also another person with the same colour scheme but sometime I have green in-front) avg of 5= 1:17.42 >.< room for improvement


----------



## yurivish (Jul 16, 2008)

As I understand it, if you do that "phasing" step as/before you insert the last F2L pair (the step that swaps two opposite edges*), then you get all of the corners permuted correctly. I'm not sure what exactly to do for that step, and the article said that a better description was coming soon. For now I just use a cross OLL/PLL for the last layer.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

What are the optimal move counts for EOline? How to If there are 4 misoriented edges on S slice, how do you orient them? I think this is an ugly case. 
I see D L R’ B2 U2 F
Or U F’ L’ F B’ R’ B
Any better ways?
2 misoriented edges and 12 are very easy cases. This is the only one I don’t like for 4. I don’t think 6 is very pretty. I’ll probably have to be doing 2 and 4. 8 can be very nice (just F B), haven’t considered any bad cases yet. 10 isn’t so bad: misorient the 2 that are right, then mindlessly flip all 12.
What is the best way to flip all 12? I see F B then flip 4 in S slice. (I hope I’m getting the correct idea for EO.)


----------



## yurivish (Jul 16, 2008)

From the article:

_EOLine optimal average move count is calculated as 6, there are 8 move cases and one 9 move case, though._

On here (caution, lots of polish and java applets), there is an optimal EOLine solver (I think) at the bottom, under the heading 2.3 Narzędzia.

www.speedcubing.com.pl/nooks_zz.htm


----------



## blah (Jul 16, 2008)

How come everyone is responding to this like it's a new idea? If I understood the method correctly, it was posted in the Yahoo! group ages ago, I can't find the link now, but it's somewhere in Macky's website. I think it was suggested by Ron van Bruchem and I really don't know why no one adopted it. I personally have tried it for a while (about 2 weeks or so), but didn't like it because of some weird reason that I can't seem to recall now


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree that this idea was vaguely familiar. I had read about some sort of pre-orient before, I just never found it appealing. Now, I’m trying out Petrus, this is a bit similar, so I will see which will go better. I’m skeptical about the EOline step. Would orienting really make F2L easier? Would EO line take more time than cross? How many moves will it save in an average speedsolve compared to Petrus or Fridrich? Would CP recognition be convenient and easy?


----------



## yurivish (Jul 16, 2008)

I haven't heard of this method until this thread. After reading the article, I did come up with some information from a while ago, so yes, it's not new. It is for me, though, and it seems like a good idea.

Orienting makes the F2L easier because you don't have to make any cube rotations – every single F2L case you run into is solvable using just R, U, and L turns. 

I think EO line has the potential to be the same speed as the cross, but with a lot more practice. You have to determine misoriented edges and figure out a way to orient them all during the preinspection time, so you're keeping track of many more pieces. It takes roughly an equal amount of moves, however.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 16, 2008)

It appears to me corners were only permuted in the first variant and then after that it was dropped as permuting corners while doing the first 2x2x3 block would have terrible recognition. After the first variant either VHLL or ZBLL was used except in the methods including phasing which worked on permuting 2 edges to reduce the cases rather than permute the corners.
I know that it is not a new method since it was started in 2006. I had heard about it before but abadoned it as pre-orient is kind of annoying, the only resources on the method were in polish and at the time I didn't want to learn so many algs, now I pretty much already know VHLL and have 2GLL generated i just have to learn them.


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 16, 2008)

@Swordsman Kirby: The point of my thought is that correctly oriented edges is always an advantage (versus both fridrich and petrus), just because it's IMHO much faster to solve the cube without any rotation + using only RUL.

A variation with correctly permuted edges (ZZ-d) as I said in article is incomplete. I've probably made a mistake putting the incomplete method as the first described 

There are two variants currently in use:
ZZ-b, where you do phasing, which permutes two opposite LL *edges*, therefore leaving you with ~80 cases (+ their inversions and symmetries = ~167).

ZZ-VH, which you do EOLine, finish the F2L as you like (without phasing or anything), and then you do VHLL (COLL + EPLL).

@fanwuq: With all S slice edges flipped I do the former alg you proposed, I just use U instead of D. With 6 misoriented edges it varies. There are nasty cases, but usually I orient 4 edges while placing remaining two on the F/B. Then, in example, with two edges on F I do something like this: R' F R F'.

Move count of ZZ is various: somewhere in 40's for ZZ-b and 50's for ZZ-VH. 

Yes, EO-first is not so new idea, it was mentioned at Euro 2004 by Ron.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

I just tried my first 5 solves. I sucked. Best was 1:03. It takes me forever to recognize EO. 10seconds of pre-inspection was not enough for me. F2L without rotations felt really awkward. But With lots of practice, I believe this method can be very fast.

Edit: Yes! 42.70, 7th try
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/record.cgi?db=single&name=WF+ZZ
It was a really awkward solve. EO was certainly not optimal, but I saw it faster than my other attempts. LL was the BLD pure corner flip. I realized that half way through the OLL, so I undid it and did the flip.
The F2L was badly made. I need new 2gen algs for some of the cases.

Edit2: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3649
This is so much better than that orient first method! Lofty knew about this before! Why didn't he tell us?!


----------



## Lofty (Jul 16, 2008)

Haha, Well I mentioned it all you guys had to do was ask lol... I think i heard about it on the TP forums I go there sometimes i just dont post.
But like the OP said this is the first time any resources for the method are in english so I didn't know all the details just what I could gather from the java applets on the polish site.


----------



## LarsN (Jul 16, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Edit2: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3649
> This is so much better than that orient first method!




You can't compare those two methods. They are not the same at all !


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

LarsN said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Edit2: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3649
> ...



You are right. I should have said, " The EO step is so much easier in this method." I thought they were pretty similar at first.

Anyway, just got a 29.89!


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm in the process of reorganizing & expanding my article, now I'm waiting for proper copyright permissions to translate some fragments from ZZ-related polish texts.
I've already reorganized things so incomplete ZZ-d isn't so highlighted, now variations come in order of difficulty (i.e. ZZ-VH -> ZZ-b -> ZZ-d). I'm also in the process of making some explanatory solves for each of the variants.

And, I've got a question for you: what do you want expanded the most (so I can focus on it deeper)?


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 16, 2008)

I'd like to see some examples for solving the EO line (is there some nice cases with special cases, or bad cases, where memorizing an alg is suggested?)
Also solving the 2x2x3. I'm so used to using F moves when solving such a block. And I don't want to just solve like Fridrich F2L.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 16, 2008)

I think EOline, the phasing and the LL.
The block building stuff doesnt need to be explained too much as blockbuilding is similar to other methods but EOline, phasing and ZZLL are unique to this method.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 16, 2008)

Why not expand on variant d? It has a 2 gen LL, that's a lot easier than the ZZ LL.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 16, 2008)

To MHordecki (or anyone who can help with this part:
I have a question for you... I really can't get all of the corners permuted  and I don't really understand the phasing part, please help me!!!
also where can I get 2GLL algs from?


----------



## yurivish (Jul 17, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> Why not expand on variant d? It has a 2 gen LL, that's a lot easier than the ZZ LL.



I think the problem is that nobody has been able to find the missing link step – after the left block, before the right side – it's some sequence of moves that changes the cube from RUL-solvable to RU-solvable. 

If I understand everything right, the phasing bit towards the end is sort of a replacement. It allows for the LL to be solved in one algorithm, although I'm not sure if it's 2-gen or not.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 17, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > Why not expand on variant d? It has a 2 gen LL, that's a lot easier than the ZZ LL.
> ...



argh! NOOOOOO I so badly want the missing link to be found and published 
also what are the TP forums?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 17, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > Why not expand on variant d? It has a 2 gen LL, that's a lot easier than the ZZ LL.
> ...



It CAN be 2-gen, but about half the time that's a waste of moves.


----------



## yurivish (Jul 17, 2008)

I have a quick question. Is COLL part of ZZLL? I think it should be at least a subset of the cases, the ones with the cross pieces properly permuted.

I only ask because if it is, then I might start learning COLL now rather than waiting for the entire list of ZZLL algorithms.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 17, 2008)

yurivish said:


> I have a quick question. Is COLL part of ZZLL? I think it should be at least a subset of the cases, the ones with the cross pieces properly permuted.
> 
> I only ask because if it is, then I might start learning COLL now rather than waiting for the entire list of ZZLL algorithms.



I believe it is a simpiler version of ZZ. and why wait for ZZLL algs when you can FIND THE MISSING LINK AND USE 2-GEN


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 17, 2008)

I believe some things have been found for permuting corners for petrus before LL. It was on a thread a few months ago, (maybe march?) I didn't pay much attention to it, but I remember that it did link to a detailed site. I think the main concern was that recognition would be horrible. 
I'd optimize my F2L and EO line before attempting such crazy LL ideas. Mean while, OLL + PLL works just fine.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 17, 2008)

yurivish said:


> I think the problem is that nobody has been able to find the missing link step – after the left block, before the right side – it's some sequence of moves that changes the cube from RUL-solvable to RU-solvable.


Arnaud and I have done it. 
(Well, at least I know I have an okay-ish [but, most importantly, working] general solution.)


----------



## yurivish (Jul 17, 2008)

Care to share? If it's workable for speedcubing, then that's pretty awesome.

it could be renamed the ZZLGAVG method!

Edit - Did you find it when specifically looking for this step of the ZZ method, or was it discovered some other way?


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 17, 2008)

Another example of EOline
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3503

Still can't find the CP thread.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 17, 2008)

The only real let down with this method is with big cubes like bigger than 3x3 cos you have to spend time after redux (if you use it) to look for the incorrectly oriented edges. I'm gonna learn COLL now  for the basic zz method!
EDIT* Oh C'MON LUCAS share the love, you don't even use zz but you know the missing link -_- please share, I'M BEGGING OF YOU!!!


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 17, 2008)

ZZLGAVG? Hah.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59828#post59828

It's really not worth it, especially not for speedsolving, which is the main reason we care about 2-gen, anyhow. Unless you have a fantastic recog scheme, even the short fix algs are not that fantastic. But go develop this further, it's always worth it...


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 17, 2008)

I think something that could improve this method more though is a corners ZB method. So you do EOLine, block build one side, then do the other but this time only do the cross edge and ONE slot next to it. Now when you do the last slot, orient all of the corners then procede to PLL.
Otherwise you could just go with ZBLL. Like do the F2L (which is easier than fridrich cos of no cube movements and 3-gen style) then finish with ZBLL (which would benefit to Jason considering that he knows a lot of it.
Also Lucas Thanks for the link but can you do an ani-cube so I can see what you mean because when I try those algs on a solved cube it pretty much screws it up. Thanks.
*shakes hands after tying hardout *
EDIT***zz (with OLL/PLL) avg. of 12 50.12
-_- so close to sub 50, also just to make th post even longer  here are some time schemes for differant variations on zz

ZZ with OLL/PLL

(all times in seconds)
***pro's and con's for LL***
EOLine = 2.5
Left block = 2.5
right block = 2
OLL = 1.5
PLL = 2
+around 1.5 secs of recog =
12

pro's = Very little amount of algs only 28 (20 excluding mirrors and inverse), very possible to get sub 15 avg, Very fast algs.
con's = 2LLL= more recog

ZZ with COLL/EPLL
EOLine = 2.5
left block = 2.5
right block = 2
COLL = 2
EPLL = 1.25
+ around 1.5 secs recog =
11.75

pro's = EPLL VERY fast, can get great averages. Less recog than OLL/PLL for last step.
con's = 2LLL = more recog

ZZ with ZBLL
EOLine = 2.5
left block = 2.5
right block = 2
ZBLL = 2.25
+ around 1 sec recog =
10.25

Pro's = 1LLL = less recog time, can get 10sec avgs with enough practise.
con's = A LOT of algs and easy to forget them if you don't practise, some ZBLL slow, CRAZY hard to do a ZBLL time attack. 

ZZ with ZZLL
EOLing = 2.5 
left block = 2.5 
right block + phasing = 2.25
ZZLL = 2.25
+ around a little less than 1 sec recog = 
10.50 or a little less

pro's = Phasing can be done easily on the fly ,far less algs tham ZBLL, can get 10 sec avgs with enough practise.
con's = Phasing takes a little more thinking, only 160 algs (which is actually like 80 after counting mirrors and inverses)

This is measured as if they were the Harris chan of F2L and had good LL with very little stops, recog could be quicker than this though and EOLine could be better or worse down by about 1.25 secs on a lucky solve(0 or 2 edge unoriented) or up by about 0.75 on an unluck solve (6 or 8 edges unoriented)
IMO I will go with ZZ with ZZLL because of only 160 algs (which is actually like 80 after counting mirrors and inverses) and because it has a lot of potential.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 17, 2008)

Ok guys... chill out and read around before you start spouting all this stuff out.
Phasing is to permute two of the LL edges thus reducing the number of cases of ZBLL down to the smaller ZZLL.
The missing link is not really missing and has been throughly discussed especially in relation to the Petrus method. The conclusion is that orienting corners at that stage of the solve has terrible recognition and doesn't really work well for speedsolving.
As for orienting the corners yes you could just do a very simplified version of MGLS (not very simplified you just get to cut off ELS). You could also do the Winter Variation (aka F2LL) but that requires that you have a connected pair created to orient your corners while inserting the last pair. 
I think the method is best as is. It only takes a few moves to "phase" and reduce ZB to ZZ. You could also just ignore phasing and learn VHLL and then ZZLL and then 2GLL and then you have a little chunk of ZBLL already memorized.
Edit: I am seriously considering switching to this method after Nationals this weekend. It seem to have a nice blend of everything. And being similar to Fridrich we can use things we already though be slightly more efficient as the whole cross is not in the way. I think in the future how much that is able to be accomplished in the inspection time will be important, not that it isnt already important now. Both Fridich and Petrus solve only 4 pieces in the first step while Roux solves 5 so roux wins there, this solves only two pieces but oreints all your edges which i think is a very good step to get out of the way right at the start of the cube. Then the simplified blockbuilding LUR F2L with a 1LLL its my dream, I don't know why I stopped considering it before.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 17, 2008)

Lofty:
You can't use 2GLL without permuting corners (which I have heard is really annoying in a solve.) Also Thanks for clearing that ZZLL and ZBLL differance for me, I didn't really get it. Thanks again Lofty!


----------



## Lofty (Jul 17, 2008)

*LukeMayn* said:


> Lofty:
> You can't use 2GLL without permuting corners (which I have heard is really annoying in a solve.) Also Thanks for clearing that ZZLL and ZBLL differance for me, I didn't really get it. Thanks again Lofty!



I know you cant use 2GLL without permuted corners... but if you already know COLL you can solve the what 1 in 3 i think times your corners are permuted in 1 look, assuming you are referencing my saying learn different LL alg sets. So I'm not saying you would use it every time just increase your probability of a 1LLL from 1 in 12 to something greater than 1 in 12 lol.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 17, 2008)

Lofty said:


> *LukeMayn* said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty:
> ...



I'll just learn ZZLL


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 17, 2008)

Doing EO line in 6 moves is amazingly hard on average. I usually can't see the whole thing during pre-inspection.

LUR F2L for some reason feels really awkward. I end up rotation without reason just out of habit. So cases won't work with my regular F2L algs. 
Would Multislotting be a lot easier to recognize with ZZF2L than Fridrich F2L?
I'm considering MGLS and PLL for the finishing.

Expected move counts during a speedsolve:
EOline: 9
L Block: 8
one more 2x2x1 on R: 5
MGLS: 13
PLL: 13
Total: 48
Not bad if I can improve my Block building on L and the EOline.
The recognition would be quite easy for this method.
It's pretty much a 5 look method. (Of course, EOline is 2 looks for me now, first block might also be 2 looks, MGLS can be 2 looks.)


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 17, 2008)

I've did a statistic concerning phasing. Out of 20 solves, overhead generated by phasing step is 1.95 on average. It was suprising for me that in 18 of 20 solves, overhead was either 4 or 0 moves(0 meaning 'skip'). I like it, cause phasing do not require any algorithms (or maybe I'm not doing it optimally) - it's usually some 2-gen moves before last move of a slot-inserting algorithm.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 17, 2008)

Can someone make a youtube video..like a walkthrough solve?


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 17, 2008)

How do you do phasing exactly?
Does it get rid of nicer LL cases such as the Sune?


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 17, 2008)

Yup, some of the nicest LL do not apply to ZZLL, but some of them are retained ( such as (F R F') r (U R') U' r' - that's my favourite COLL, by the way  ).

As for phasing, my current method (I'm still a beginner, though) involves learning no algs (so, probably, it's not so optimal, but it's still quick and ~2 move avg).

Given the example:






In classic F2L, we would do R U R'. Then, we would end with:





(it's actually COLL case I hate the most ;P )

This time, we want do do phasing. So, we do R U2 R':




Now, phasing is done (with UF edge in UR and UB edge in UL), we need to solve c+e pair - we can do it using double move: U R U2 R':





Done! It's 7 moves instead of 3, so +4 moves this time.


----------



## GuyWithFunnyHat (Jul 17, 2008)

here's the corner permutation thread, http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3818

as was said before, the main concern was that recognition would be terrible.

another concern is that all edges are already correctly oriented after the 2x2x3 block is made, and the alg to switch two corners is 7 moves, the same as niklas, so it would be much better to do a 2LLL with niklas first, if you really really really want to use 2GLL.


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 17, 2008)

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* (Jul 17, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> 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* (Jul 18, 2008)

yurivish said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## yurivish (Jul 18, 2008)

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* (Jul 18, 2008)

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 soon*ISH* and I doesn't really speed you up from OLL/PLL


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

*LukeMayn* said:


> 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 soon*ISH* 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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

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* (Jul 18, 2008)

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 (Jul 18, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> I got a question about ZZ-VH.





*LukeMayn* said:


> 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 (Jul 20, 2008)

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 (Jul 20, 2008)

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 (Jul 20, 2008)

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


----------



## yurivish (Jul 20, 2008)

GuyWithFunnyHat said:


> 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 (Jul 20, 2008)

GuyWithFunnyHat said:


> 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?


----------



## yurivish (Jul 20, 2008)

I bet that EO blockbuilding would be quite a bit better than EOLine + left side. The only thing that would be hard is doing the EO and part of the block at the same time, like you do with the line when you're really good at it.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 20, 2008)

Can someone PLEASE make a few example solves with this method?


----------



## yurivish (Jul 20, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Can someone PLEASE make a few example solves with this method?



I think the article guy was working on it.

Why's it so important? If you play around with it after reading the article, I don't think there will be any points of confusion, other than ZZLL since you'll have to go algorithm-hunting yourself.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 20, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone PLEASE make a few example solves with this method?
> ...



I like videos.
If a picture is 1000 words...
Jesus..how many words is a 2:00 video?


----------



## yurivish (Jul 20, 2008)

Assuming 24 frames per second, the answer to your rhetorical question is [edit: not] 144,000. It's a bunch of awfully similar pictures, though, so I'm not sure if the 1,000 word/frame rule applies.


----------



## jbrungar (Jul 20, 2008)

Actually its 2,880,000 words. 24frames*1000words gives 24000words/second, then 24000*120 seconds = 2,880,000 words


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 20, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> yurivish said:
> 
> 
> > Lotsofsloths said:
> ...



Dude,

This is just like a video with no body talking, I think it's actually more clear.
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/record.cgi?db=single&name=WF+ZZ
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/record.cgi?db=average&name=WF+ZZ

That's already 11 sample solves.

Of course, the LL is OLL + PLL, the solves sucked, but everything else should be pretty clear.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Jul 20, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Can someone PLEASE make a few example solves with this method?



i can just wait for like a week cause i have like 5 other videos to make


----------



## Lofty (Jul 22, 2008)

Back from Nationals.
Time to start generating ZZLL...


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 22, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Back from Nationals.
> Time to start generating ZZLL...



What alg finder do you use, thanks.


----------



## yurivish (Jul 22, 2008)

I don't know how to find algorithms, but if someone can explain then maybe we can make this a distributed sort of thing.

I also have some webspace we can use. I can put up a page with all of the cases and several algorithms for each one, along with that ImageCube script I saw somewhere.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 22, 2008)

Can someone explain how phasing works?


----------



## Lofty (Jul 22, 2008)

I use Acube.
Or Ron's cubesolver for things like 2gen cases.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 22, 2008)

where can I got ron's cube solver?


----------



## yurivish (Jul 22, 2008)

From Google.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=ron's+cube+solver&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

First result.

As for phasing, you might want to check out the rest of this thread


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 22, 2008)

how exactily does rons cube solver work?
I can't get an alg out of it...
also for some reason acube doesn't work on this computer, it just says "Failed to load Main-Class manafest atridute from"then the area on my computer


----------



## yurivish (Jul 22, 2008)

Try running run.bat.

Ron's solver – read the instructions right there on the same page.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 22, 2008)

ahhh.... I can't work it out, I'll wait until Lofty or someone who has really good algs posts them..


----------



## Jason Baum (Jul 23, 2008)

I've been away on vacation for the past week without internet access, so I just saw this topic earlier today. I've read through it all as well as everything on Michal Hordecki's site. I remember reading about this idea when Ron first posted it on the Yahoo group. It seemed like it would be a good method, but no one really picked up on it at all. When I tried it, it always took forever to orient edges first. That was the main thing I didn't like about the method. But I must say, I am completely amazed that you can not only orient edges but also solve two cross pieces in 5-7 moves over 96% of the time! That figure alone has me very excited about the potential of this method. It does seem like it would be very hard to use in speedsolving, but then again using Fridrich seemed impossible to me a few years ago. I am curious though if you guys think that ZZ could be a better method than ZB. I've taken a long, long break from ZB, but I am planning on getting back into it and have already started going over algs again. Since I already know ZBF2L, it seems silly to abandon all of that and switch to ZZ. At one point, I was very comfortable using ZBF2L in speedsolves and rarely had a noticeable pause while using it. I could comfortably average in the low 12 range, and my best average using 100% ZBF2L was 11.60. I plan to get back in that range pretty soon, but the problem I have with ZB is in ZBLL. Right now, there are just too many slow ZBLL cases. Back when I practiced it, about 75% of my ZBLL cases were in the 1.75-2.5 range, but there were some cases that took well over 3 seconds. The thing that intrigues me about ZZ is the phasing part, where you would essentially eliminate all of the bad ZBLL cases. The move count seems to be about the same between ZZ and ZB, but ZZ seems like it might be more fingertrick-friendly. Still, after having put so much time and effort into learning ZB, including all of ZBF2L, it seems silly for me to switch now.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 23, 2008)

I like ZZ for its potential in OH not in speedsolving. Also I think a very big difference is in the alg count. I have heard you say countless times if you do ZB you will be doing just that and no other puzzles. I feel like the lower alg count of ZZ makes it possible that you can still do other things while learning it.


----------



## yurivish (Jul 23, 2008)

The only hard-seeming part to me is the first step, and that gets better with practice. Recognition's definitely no worse than ZB, and doesn't seem to be too much harder on top of the recognition needed for COLL cases.

Do I think ZZ is better than ZB? Daunting number of algorithms notwithstanding, I think ZB is still faster, at least in theory. For the last layer, it comes down to the finger-friendliness of the ZZ algorithms vs. those of ZB, and how the time for recognition of phasing + ZZLL combined with the execution time compares to that of ZB. 

As for the F2L, I don't know if there is enough data to even make a comparison. If you can get the no-rotation-after-EOLine thing down, then ZZ might actually end up the same or faster than ZBLL.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 23, 2008)

Well ZZLL is just a subset of ZBLL.. the only difference is if ZZLL includes more good ZBLL's then bad ones.
In the end I think it comes down to the persons preference and what they are using it for. For me ZZ is better cause I do OH for 2H ZB might be better. Tho IMO the number of algs required for full ZB is a bit much.
I've been doing some solves and phasing isnt really that bad. EOLine causes me a lot of problems and often I just ende up getting a line and then doing the last 2-4 Petrus style. Also my block building isnt very fast. I could do it Fridrich style very fast but I would end up wasting moves. and then Phasing at the end was much easier then I expected it can get to be very fast as its just like 2moves average that are 2-gen.
The method seems like it has potential but it is daunting learning a completely new method when I am already so fast with Fridrich especially when there arent many list of the ZZLL algs...
And so for me ZZ is daunting enough ZB is just way out there.
Edit: In retrospect looking at when I was learning Fridrich I thought I would never be able to get my cross in 7 moves and see it in preispection. Now that part is pretty much instant. Maybe I should just learn it and get it over with cause unless something comes out better its my dream method with all the right mixes, LUR, part blockbuilding and a 1LLL.
Edit2: I have just noticed one thing. I was doing an F2L algorithm because I had a nasty case for my last pair. I know when I did Petrus for like 2 weeks my last pair was often not inserted fridich style as I woud think would be required for phasing. So anyway since I was doing the algorithm I missed the opportunity to phase how would this be avoided? loads of moves would have to be added to both inefficiently build the pair and then to phase.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 24, 2008)

I still don't understand the phasing step. How can you just switch 2 LL edges? Do you do it while doing the last 2x2x3 block? And even so, I still don't see how that would reduce the number of LL algs to learn...


----------



## yurivish (Jul 24, 2008)

You do it before inserting the last pair.

It reduces cases because now you have 2 last layer edges solved.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 24, 2008)

yurivish said:


> It reduces cases because now you have 2 last layer edges solved.


How will there always be 2 last layers edge solved?
On the site it says, "one must permute two opposite LL edges, usually UF and UB."


----------



## yurivish (Jul 24, 2008)

As I understand it, what you're doing with the phasing step is essentially solving two cross pieces that are across from each other. This leaves the other two either solved or opposite of their required place.

You also have all of the edges oriented. With those 2 pieces solved, the number of cases is reduces since, you know, the pieces are solved.


----------



## cubeRemi (Jul 24, 2008)

scramble: RUR' U' RUR' U2 RUR' U'

solve: U2 RUR'. normally you would do U R U' R' next. but then you will not have 2 across edges solved. 
so instead you will trace the (relative) permutation of the edges.

then you see you don't want to insert like URU'R' but like: 

UR U R' U'R U'R' 
OR : 
U2 R U' R' U R U2 R'

this is a nice start but 12 moves is a lot,

but if you can trace the permutation of the edges before connecting the corner/edge you could train yourself to see: ( perform just after scramble, pair is not connected): R U'R' U2 R U R' (7) 

another example:
scramble: RUR' U' RUR' U2 RUR' U' + R U R'U R U2 R'

solve: U R U R' U RUR' 
here you can see that UF and UB are solved. however, UR and UL are solved as well!! the only goal is to solve 2 edges. 
now perform a U turn. you can see the edges are "solved" UB is always opposite of UF, and your BU and FU color is opposite as well. 


http://fmc.mustcube.net/results.php ( fewest moves challange) 
Zbigniew Zborowski has a lot of zz solves you can watch. take a look at the other rounds as well. 

Remi


----------



## Stefan (Jul 25, 2008)

Some statistics for solving F2L in <R,U,L>:

Method 1
a) Solve DL and DR edges: average 3.47 moves
b) Solve four pairs: average *25.71* moves
=> average 29.18 moves

Method 2
Same as method 1 except don't start with DL and DR but start both left and right side with a 2x2x1 block
=> average 24.64 moves

Both methods tested with 100 solves, always choosing the shortest current subgoal to solve.

For comparison: "normal" Fridrich solving of the four pairs takes *23.03* moves. So solving four pairs in ZZ takes *more* moves. Although if you allow D turns, it drops a bit:

Method 1
3.34 + *24.38* = 27.72 moves average

Method 2
24.41 moves average

(highlighted numbers are for solving four F2L pairs in different ways, so they're somewhat comparable)


----------



## Lofty (Jul 25, 2008)

Hmm is it really more moves? I was thinking they would be about the same.
When I do ZZ I think I do method 2 tho. I solve a left 2x2x1 block then insert pair then right 2x2x21 then phasing and last pair so I use only one more move average not bad. I think the lack of cube rotations makes up for this one move. Plus how does the move count come in when you are doing an optimal cross and an optimal EOLine. Like if you started from completely scrambled to F2L done in fridrich and then completely scrambled to F2L plus EO in the ZZ method.


----------



## yurivish (Jul 25, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Hmm is it really more moves? I was thinking they would be about the same.
> When I do ZZ I think I do method 2 tho. I solve a left 2x2x1 block then insert pair then right 2x2x21 then phasing and last pair so I use only one more move average not bad. I think the lack of cube rotations makes up for this one move. Plus how does the move count come in when you are doing an optimal cross and an optimal EOLine. Like if you started from completely scrambled to F2L done in fridrich and then completely scrambled to F2L plus EO in the ZZ method.



You'd also need to take into account the already-oriented top edges.

Edit: I've been practicing ZZ-VH, since I don't want to learn over 100 cases for the last layer just yet. 40 COLL cases is good enough for now. Anyway, the nice thing about this is that I have no need to insert a certain slot last, or even do them in any order whatsoever.

Could someone who is efficient at F2L take an average of a couple of solves doing the EOLine and then filling in whatever happens to be efficient without caring for the order in which the slots/blocks are done? I'd do it myself but my move count is very high, even when I'm going slow and trying for the least moves I can do.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 26, 2008)

Ah, ok thanks yurivish and cubeRemi. Didn't know "switch UF and UB" meant to solve them...
So only UF and UB are solved, or any 2 edges solved(or 4)?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Jul 26, 2008)

2 and guys I made a video tutorial on ZZ so I'll post that if you want (though it might be a bit long for youtube (over 10 mins) so I'll make 2, 5min vids. It has my little tricks and tips on phasing and how I block build and stuff ok? I will do this if you guys answer me 2 questions....
1. how can I put windows movie maker things on youtube?
2. how do I get video from a camera which uses tape onto the computer?


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 28, 2008)

Hello there!

I've updated my article with my approach to phasing.
This time, the web address is different:
http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZ speedcubing system.html

You can also look at my ZZLL algorithm set (all algorithms, but in raw format - you have been warned):
http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZLL/


----------



## Lofty (Jul 28, 2008)

Wow! Very nice algs! These must have taken a long time to generate. 
Are they all optimal tho? I know of some cases that are 8moves but you only have a 18qtm for this case...
Edit: Nvm, i forgot to take into account that the corners must be correct relative to the edges not just the edges. So tho the COLL case is 8 moves this one is not.
btw i think most people count in htm not qtm, but im sure it would be a lot of work to add it now so its not a big deal.


----------



## MistArts (Jul 28, 2008)

fanwuq said:


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



Petrus ftw! After Heise.


----------



## Lofty (Jul 29, 2008)

I have a question about phasing.
Prior to ZZ the main blockbuilding I have done is in my attempts at the Petrus method. Often a case is encountered in which the standard pair-up/insert format is not used as is seen here: http://lar5.com/cube/s4b.html
When you encounter cases like these it would seem to be able to phase properly you would have to throw efficiency to the side and add moves to take apart the pieces, put them together properly and then phase them. Another alternative I was thinking of is phasing algorithms for certain nasty cases when it is not a standard pair.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Jul 30, 2008)

What do you guys think would be a better idea for ZZF2L? Should I use regular F2L, or should I use blockbuilding? I know that they can both get very fast with practice, but in terms of move count etc., which would be better?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 30, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> What do you guys think would be a better idea for ZZF2L? Should I use regular F2L, or should I use blockbuilding? I know that they can both get very fast with practice, but in terms of move count etc., which would be better?



Move Count = Block-building.


----------



## yurivish (Jul 30, 2008)

Yep. Look on the previous page.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Jul 30, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Yep. Look on the previous page.



k thanks to you and lotsofsloths it helped

PEACE OUT!


----------



## Lofty (Jul 30, 2008)

Blockbuilding is pretty much always less moves than slots and pairs.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Jul 30, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Blockbuilding is pretty much always less moves than slots and pairs.



my blockbuilding is horrible right now. I need to find shorter ways to build blocks


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 30, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Blockbuilding is pretty much always less moves than slots and pairs.
> ...



We can be block building buddies.(alliteration FTW)
Here I'll make a video real quick.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Jul 30, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> McWizzle94 said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...



block building buddies......please don't ever say that again xD

but thx for the video


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 30, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > McWizzle94 said:
> ...



Blockbuildingbuddies YAY!


----------



## McWizzle94 (Jul 30, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> McWizzle94 said:
> 
> 
> > Lotsofsloths said:
> ...



that kinda sounds wack (wack is like my new favorite word)


----------



## Lofty (Jul 30, 2008)

Does anyone have any serious thoughts on the matter of phasing in nasty cases?
btw I'm going through the list nicely generated for us by the OP and picking out the ones I like, adding cube rotations to the obvious ones etc.


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 31, 2008)

AFAIK when you solve last c+e pair you can compose your algorithm list in such a way that every algorithm ends with either RUR' or URU'R' or R' - so, you can prepare 3 cases for each of these three and use it while solving. That's actually my approach, while solving last c+e pair I try to look-ahead phasing case, then I use one of my 2-gen algs. The only thing that worries me is that my lookahead really sucks (all of all it's not a 'simple' c+e lookahead), but it's probably only a matter of time.


----------



## cubeRemi (Jul 31, 2008)

@ Lofty,

could you please include some optimal algs (present more algs for the same case) specially if the friendly one is like 5 moves longer...

I think others are interested in zz-b for FMC as well. 

thank you very much
Remi


----------



## Lofty (Jul 31, 2008)

As of now I don't plan on creating any algs as Mhordecki has done a great job and provided us with a wonderful list of algs. MHordecki has provided the optimal cases as far as I know. And for friendliness generally I dont add that many more moves than optimal.
Back to the phasing. There are a few cases that i had specifically in mind one being R'U2R2UR2UR, but i guess you can break that up and cut off the last R2 and phase there. F'UFU2RUR'(only done 2gen) which also turns out to end in such a way that you can do pahasing.
My main problem then turns out just to be this case here U2R2U2R'U'RU'R2.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jul 31, 2008)

Lofty: that case is on his site


----------



## Lofty (Jul 31, 2008)

oh do we just take it as a R' case?


----------



## MHordecki (Jul 31, 2008)

Yes, I planned R' case for algs that end with R2 (which I have a few) and for lucky slot skips. Hovewer, as R' case algorithms tend to be longer than in other cases, it should be probably optimized, somehow.

I've been practicing it for two days by now(I mean leaving other methods, including ZZ-VH, behind and training only ZZ-b). After developing the mini-system for case recognizing (recog with 3 arbitrary stickers depending on slot position and phasing case) I'm experiencing +3 sec 'penalty' in F2L caused by phasing step. IMHO it's due to my fatal recognition. Furthermore, I see look-aheading phasing is much harder than a c+e pair, as LL edges (especially when preoriented) are much less distinguishable that F2L pieces imo. I believe it's only a matter of practice, though.

Does anybody of you actually also train it in terms of speedcubing? I'm curious about your experiences.


----------



## Lofty (Aug 1, 2008)

I have not yet really trained it in terms of speed. 
I really would like to learn this method as I feel it can be one of the best methods and has the best mix of large quantity of algs but not too large so less moves still and all the things talked about before unfortunately I can already do Fridrich OH sub-19 quite easily and so its not much incentive for me to practice ZZ tho I think in the long run it will be better for me. I am trying to do EOLine practice as that is the hardest part by far for me (and looking ahead on the blockbuilding) but im not doing that for speed yet more fewest moves.
And for me I only have one case for the final pair which ends in R2 and its already 8 moves itself so it couldn't be that bad to learn like 3 cases for it or whatever.
Edit:
I just realized something terrible! Unless you force an OLL skip instead of phasing you will never get to do a U!


----------



## cubeRemi (Oct 3, 2008)

so who is done learning zz-b ll ??

is there someone using zz as a primary method?? are you already faster with zz then your normal method?? 

I want some up-dates from you!!


----------



## nitrocan (Oct 3, 2008)

cubeRemi said:


> so who is done learning zz-b ll ??
> 
> is there someone using zz as a primary method?? are you already faster with zz then your normal method??
> 
> I want some up-dates from you!!



This thread is 2 months old.


----------



## Matthew (Oct 3, 2008)

cubeRemi said:


> so who is done learning zz-b ll ??
> 
> is there someone using zz as a primary method?? are you already faster with zz then your normal method??
> 
> I want some up-dates from you!!



Yes - ZZ-VH is my main method - I averaged about 17-18 and I use this method for 10 months

And I'm not going to learn full zbll - i'm going to learn ZZLL algs (500 vs 160)


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Oct 3, 2008)

Matthew said:


> cubeRemi said:
> 
> 
> > so who is done learning zz-b ll ??
> ...



Silly, there are much fewer than 500 ZBLL algs. >_>


----------



## cubeRemi (Oct 3, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> cubeRemi said:
> 
> 
> > so who is done learning zz-b ll ??
> ...



are you trying to communicate something?


@ Matthew, nice to hear! but you might be confusing ZB last layer and ZZ-B last layer. ( al the simular sounding stuff  )


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 3, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> cubeRemi said:
> 
> 
> > so who is done learning zz-b ll ??
> ...



So? That's why he is asking for updates...

I still like this method, but it's just too difficult for me to speed solve with. The EO line, I do inefficiently, but it's not the problem, it's still mostly under 5 seconds. It's F2L with restricted moves that is really annoying. I cannot stop the urge to rotate during F2L, or else it ends up taking over 60 moves per solve.


----------



## Matthew (Oct 3, 2008)

cubeRemi said:


> @ Matthew, nice to hear! but you might be confusing ZB last layer and ZZ-B last layer. ( al the simular sounding stuff  )



Yes I know - I distinguish them... ZZLL (variation B) is my goal for few next months... 

@Swordsman Kirby - ZBLL has exactly 493 algs (+ 21 PLL's)


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Oct 3, 2008)

Matthew said:


> cubeRemi said:
> 
> 
> > @ Matthew, nice to hear! but you might be confusing ZB last layer and ZZ-B last layer. ( al the simular sounding stuff  )
> ...



Huh? It only has 177, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're including symmetries and inverses, you're being silly.


----------



## Matthew (Oct 3, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > cubeRemi said:
> ...



Ok - 1) my fault - oc I have talked about ~500 & 160 cases

2) so... I like to see that you learn your 177 algs, recognize and do each of them sub2s... I can engage that you don't have to learn symmetries.. but inversions - maybe I'm too weak... (too silly) 

I don't want to argue with you.. I did a mistake and I come clean it... but transform the main alg in mind to his inversion symmetry is difficult


----------



## yurivish (Oct 4, 2008)

I decided to switch when I saw this thread. My best average (which I'd only gotten twice or so) with Fridrich at the time was around 25.5 seconds.

Now, My best with ZZ is 23.99. I still have some trouble with the EOLine; I don't look for the 2 pieces except for when I have the really easy orientation cases.

I'm using COLL | Anti/sune + EPLL | PLL for the last layer. I'm currently fooling around with the "2 pairs" Heise thing, but I doubt that will go anywhere.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Oct 4, 2008)

Matthew said:


> Ok - 1) my fault - oc I have talked about ~500 & 160 cases
> 
> 2) so... I like to see that you learn your 177 algs, recognize and do each of them sub2s... I can engage that you don't have to learn symmetries.. but inversions - maybe I'm too weak... (too silly)
> 
> I don't want to argue with you.. I did a mistake and I come clean it... but transform the main alg in mind to his inversion symmetry is difficult



Inversion is quite tricky at first, but it gets better as you go along.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Oct 4, 2008)

does anyone know how far Jason Baum has gotten on ZB?


----------



## yurivish (Oct 4, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Ok - 1) my fault - oc I have talked about ~500 & 160 cases
> ...



You can really invert algorithms on the fly? Like, 8-14 move long ones?


----------



## McWizzle94 (Oct 5, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Swordsman Kirby said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



http://speedcubing.com/chris/algconversion.html


----------



## yurivish (Oct 5, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> yurivish said:
> 
> 
> > Swordsman Kirby said:
> ...




I know _how_ to do it. I just think that it's a pretty complex process to go through every time you run into a case that's the inverse of an algorithm you already know. You have to invert the algorithm _during the solve_, which is what I was asking about.


----------



## MistArts (Oct 5, 2008)

yurivish said:


> McWizzle94 said:
> 
> 
> > yurivish said:
> ...



Practice a few algs with inversion and then once you know how differently it feels, then you can apply the "feel" to another algorithm.


----------



## ScottKidder (Oct 8, 2008)

Just trying out ZZ today and I'm getting much better at seeing EO and several times seen one piece of the line i.e Doing F' instead of F to get a line edge in D layer. I looked into phasing a little bit just to understand it but as I'm already learning MGLS just started using MGLS to finish off F2L and I really like it. It could also be used very well with EJF2L but I haven't done much with it. Just wanted to say thanks for the guide


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 8, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> does anyone know how far Jason Baum has gotten on ZB?



the last I heard he knew all of ZBF2L, and i think 30-something% of ZBLL


----------



## Zeroknight (Mar 16, 2009)

So any updates with anyone on anything? Statistics, improvements, etc?

The method I'm trying is:

EOLine- 6 moves
Blockbuilding/F2L- 24 moves
4-move setup: lol
F2LL (aka Winter Variantion)- 12 moves
PLL -12 moves

Total:58, but I probably calculated something wrong....

How come this was only touced on briefly? People keep asking for something like it, but I guess they keep forgetting about it? Anyway, setting up for F2LL usually takes about four more moves than normal, (connect the CE pair, then move it to UF and UFL) but I don't have to OLL. Ever. Is case recognition really that bad? It doesn't seem like it with only ~20 odd cases?

PS: Are the videos that you guys made on youtube yet? (I don't know. I just assumed that you guys would update when they were done...I just probably need to find them myself)


And yes, I am bumping a year old thread. But there is just cause.

EDIT: If you're going to post about bumping an old thread, please don't even bother posting...


----------



## Johannes91 (Mar 17, 2009)

Zeroknight said:


> EOLine- 6 moves
> Blockbuilding/F2L- 24 moves


Some optimal averages:

EOLine without color neutrality - 6.1265 moves
Left 1x2x3 block using <U,R,L> - 9.6922 moves
Right 1x2x3 block using <U,R> - 10.0254 moves

That would give an average of 25.8441 moves for F2L (and EOLL). Of course, that might not be at all close to what people do; seeing optimal move sequences of 10+ moves isn't really easy, and, on the other hand, we don't need to use so fixed steps.


----------



## ostracod (Mar 17, 2009)

I have a somewhat random question: Is it more efficient (for human solving) to solve the left and right 1x2x3 blocks at the same time, instead of separately? That means building parts of each block as you see convenient moves; I've been doing ZZ this way for a few weeks, and I find it to be a good technique. I first build a 2x2 block on either side, then I might start the block on the other side, or finish the first block if it's easier. Then I finish both blocks or build the second 2x3 block to finish the F2L.

This strategy makes finding potential c/e pairs much easier. I don't have to search for corners and edges in a particular block; Instead, I find the EASIEST to make c/e pair, which usually involves picking a corner and edge in the U layer.

...Do other people do this? >_>


----------



## yurivish (Mar 17, 2009)

ostracod said:


> I have a somewhat random question: Is it more efficient (for human solving) to solve the left and right 1x2x3 blocks at the same time, instead of separately? That means building parts of each block as you see convenient moves; I've been doing ZZ this way for a few weeks, and I find it to be a good technique. I first build a 2x2 block on either side, then I might start the block on the other side, or finish the first block if it's easier. Then I finish both blocks or build the second 2x3 block to finish the F2L.
> 
> This strategy makes finding potential c/e pairs much easier. I don't have to search for corners and edges in a particular block; Instead, I find the EASIEST to make c/e pair, which usually involves picking a corner and edge in the U layer.
> 
> ...Do other people do this? >_>




I do it that way. I currently average around 18.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 17, 2009)

I started on Sunday, I'm almost sub-40 now. 
A few tips would be appreciated, so if I were to post a scramble and a solve, would any of you experienced ZZers be willing to maybe post your solution for the scramble, and stuff like that?
(I have my cube "taken away" from me right now, so....)

I'm not too great at blockbuilding, and my EOline is still around 10 seconds.

Also one more question. 
When making EOline, do you always may the same colors?
Like on Orange/Red/White EOline instead of adding a Blue/Green option?
I think only doing one would be beneficial, since then you could always tell which edges are flipped, right?


----------



## a small kitten (Mar 17, 2009)

If you post a scramble I can definitely give you my solution. I always use blue front yellow up because then I can easily tell edge orientation. In addition, I also know where each piece is and where they belong when I do the F2l.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 17, 2009)

Ok, thanks a lot.
I'm a Fridrich convert, so I've been kind of thinking of it like a cross, always using white on the bottom, but using any color for the front and back. Do you recommend always using something like green in front, or should I keep blue open too? I know it doesn't make too much of a difference either way, but yeah.

btw, how fast are you at ZZ?


----------



## a small kitten (Mar 17, 2009)

I'm a Fridrich convert too and I currently average very low 20s. I sub 20ed 10/12 two weeks ago and I can somewhat consistently sub 20 3 of 5s. It is definitely improving though since I am speeding up my EO line and learning COLL. 

I guess using green front if you use blue front is ok. I don't think it boasts that much of an advantage, but sure. It won't hurt. I usually stay away from it though. However, don't trust me 100% on this. Get some more opinions.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 17, 2009)

I see what you mean. It's still the same edges that must be flipped.
anyway, I say your 15.xx video on youtube, that was pretty cool. 
You said there that you use EOCross, but apparently you're using EOLine now? I might try EOCross for a while, until I get more used to blockbuilding, but it's coming pretty naturally to me. 

One more question: how long did it take you to get to where you are?
Since I'm almost sub 20 on Fridrich, and I'm thinking of just getting consistent sub 20 on Fridrich, and keeping ZZ as a side project until then. It would be cool to get sub 20 on two methods


----------



## Zeroknight (Mar 18, 2009)

Wow, no one flaming  Anyway. Can someone answer my question about my current method:

EOLine
Blockbuilding/F2L (first three pairs)
Winter Variation/F2LL last pair for forced OLL skip
PLL

Is it good? Should I switch it? Any tips on blockbuilding? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Escher (Mar 18, 2009)

I think that you should change it to - 

EOLine
Blockbuilding f2l
COLL
EPLL

I think that COLL is faster than f2ll, and EPLL is obviously faster than PLL. 
Get into good habits, and start blockbuilding now.

Yes, COLL is 40 algorithms whereas f2ll is 27, but I think you'll get over that (you know at least 7 COLL, if not 9 or 10 already, and quite a few are just variations on Sune/Niklas). But do learn f2ll afterwards, as it is useful knowledge.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 18, 2009)

Escher said:


> Yes, COLL is 40 algorithms whereas f2ll is 27



Wrong. 
1. F2LL is 2 step and wastes moves because you have to pair up CE pairs. 
Example Scramble: RU'R'
Solve: RU2R'U', F2LL
2. 27 cases counts mirrors as one case. It would be the same amount of algs as MGLS if you have the RUR' case and the paired cases.
F2LL is 54 moves using only the paired cases and the same definition for mirrors as your 40 algs for COLL.
3. I'm almost certain that there are actually only 4 algs per OCLL case, so that's around 30 (made stupid mistakes in calculation, realized I made more mistakes, blah blah blah) if you exclude mirrors. Even less, if you exclude inverses.
4. If you are allowed simple 1 move setups, For example (F, J perm, F'), then the amount of algs is even smaller. Same idea can be applied for F2LL, but it is not as intuitive to understand and apply.
(I'm being picky. )
Edit:
4 for T
4 for U
4 for Pi
4 for H
6 for Sune, which are all mirrors of Anti-sune
4 for L
4*5+6=26 and I hope that right.
Several T, U, and L's are inverses which I can't bother to figure out right now.
Several H and Pi are inverses.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 18, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> 3. I'm almost certain that there are actually only 4 algs per OCLL case, so that's 7*4=28 if you exclude mirrors. Even less, probably around 20 if you exclude inverses.


Hey! Don't generalize your symmetries recklessly!
(Try Sune. 1 no-swap, 1 diag, 4 adjs)


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 18, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > 3. I'm almost certain that there are actually only 4 algs per OCLL case, so that's 7*4=28 if you exclude mirrors. Even less, probably around 20 if you exclude inverses.
> ...



Oh. Thanks. I am reckless.


----------



## Zeroknight (Mar 18, 2009)

Okay... So besides the cube theory (ps, where the best place to learn it? I want to know how the cube works as well as solve it, not simply the latter) I *SHOULD* switch to CO/ELL?


----------



## ostracod (Mar 18, 2009)

Zeroknight: If you haven't already been to Ryan Heise's page, you should check it out:

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/

It has a lot of information on cube theory, and explains techniques such as commutators and conjugates, and has multiple methods (Heise + Human Thistlewaite) for solving the cube w/o memorized sequences.

I've started to learn ZZ winter variation algorithms. I started ZZ by doing F2L, OLL, then PLL, so it is easy for me to replace the OLL (and end of F2L) with winter variation algorithms. I find this variation to be a logical approach to ZZ, because while you place your final c/e pair, you can use 1 of 27 algorithms to orient all the corners simultaneously INSTEAD of taking the c/e pair out AGAIN to do the SAME THING; this saves about 4 moves.

I would only do COLL + ELL if it had a lower move count, which I don't think it does (correct me if I'm wrong!!). Recognition for the winter variation is very fast, since you only have to see how 3 corners are oriented. I've found my own set of algorithms using Cube Explorer. Most are around 8-10 moves, and use primarily U, R, and L moves.

End note: Where the heck did this variation come from?? I want to know who made it!


----------



## Zeroknight (Mar 18, 2009)

Okay so it comes down to f2ll/pll vs oll/pll?

Thanks all of you some much for helping 

(and thanks for the cube theory link  )


----------



## a small kitten (Mar 18, 2009)

COLL + EPLL is better than F2LL + PLL imo. When you do F2LL you have to make the pair before you insert it and doing that is annoying. Of course it's better if the pair is already made before inserting with an F2LL alg but if you are not set up with that pair then you will have to make it which is a step. So essentially, you aren't saving any steps. In addition, the algs on the website are designed for just the pair on the front right. You will have to do a lot of reflections and mirrors if you want to be able to insert a pair somewhere else.


----------



## ostracod (Mar 18, 2009)

Yea, you do have some good points. If you have an R U R' case (where the corner and edge are paired and placed simultaneously), you have to do a couple more moves to have an F2LL case. I suppose one could also learn ANOTHER set of 27 algorithms for R U R' cases, but it seems extraneous. The reflections aren't too difficult for me, but this will vary from person to person. I'm going to stick with this variation for a month and see how effective it is...

Here's my growing list of questions:

1. Whence did the winter variation come? (Why is it called the winter variation?)
2. Why is the variation also called F2LL? The abbreviation doesn't make sense to me... "First 2 last layers"?
3. ...AGhh, I forgot my third question... :<


----------



## Werner (Mar 18, 2009)

Learn both... 

Already pair F2LL 
Hard F2l case which does not end in a R U' R insertion COLL 
Edge and or corner already in place, use EJ insertion. Imho 

If I just had to learn one I would learn COLL, but bear in mind
learning that is trice as hard as learning F2LL 

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/f2ll-angl.htm


----------



## ostracod (Mar 18, 2009)

OH I remember my third question!

1. Whence did the winter variation come? (Why is it called the winter variation?)
2. Why is the variation also called F2LL? The abbreviation doesn't make sense to me... "First 2 last layers"?
3. Is there a broader definition of "phasing?" (Does phasing refer only to permuting edges during c/e placement, or could F2LL be considered a form of phasing?)

I really don't think one should learn both COLL and F2LL... because if you learn F2LL, you must ALSO learn PLL, which means you'll need even MORE algorithms. I would definitely do one or the other.


----------



## a small kitten (Mar 18, 2009)

Well, some people consider the sune and anti sune cases for COLL slower because they prefer sune/ anti sune + PLL.


----------



## Werner (Mar 18, 2009)

Well basically 90% of the speed community uses Fridrich, which means that about 80% of those know all the PLLs, so I see no reason why you should need to unlearn algorithms... 

Also it would be 
17 EJF2L
27 + 27 F2LL 
40 COLL 
21 PLL 

Where you would most likely already know 
4EJF2l ( Standar F2L cases) 
4 F2ll ( Standar F2L cases) 
21 PLL (Standar Fridrich PLL ) 
7 - 14 COLL ( Standar OLL )


----------



## ostracod (Mar 18, 2009)

ACTUALllly, I have never used Fridrich.  I've only started learning PLL for the ZZ method. But yes, most people already know PLL, so it would be less difficult for others to learn both variations... But if you haven't used Fridrich before, this would be a lot to learn.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 18, 2009)

Example ZZ solve by me. Anyone who's good at ZZ, please help! 

Scramble (Yellow is D face and Blue is F face.)
B2 D2 L D B2 L2 R' U R U' B2 R2 D2 R' U2 F2 D R2 L2 U2 F B R' F B2

EOline
B U R D L' D' F' B2

F2L 
U' L' R2 U2 L U L R' U2 L R' U R U2 R U' R' U R' U' R U' R' U R

And I use OLL and PLL, so there it is. This is probably a little better than an actual solve, since I can look it the cube for a bit. I'll post another one later.

Including OLL and PLL, it's 54 turns. Is that way too high for ZZ-a, or am I doing all right?


----------



## Zeroknight (Mar 18, 2009)

Thanks guys


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 18, 2009)

Zeroknight, are you 38.xx average with ZZ, or some other method?


----------



## Zeroknight (Mar 18, 2009)

I wish it was ZZ... No it's Fridrich.


----------



## ostracod (Mar 19, 2009)

HUZZAH.

I'm working on my own collection of F2LL algorithms. You can find them here:

http://web.mac.com/teisenmann/Tripod/winter.html

The page includes a case identification system which is useful for memorization. Each F2LL case is given a letter, much like PLL cases. I tried my best to make the letters resemble their cases... Remember that I had to use ALL 26 letters and a symbol (&), so there are a few cases that are a stretch (like S and H).

All of the algorithms are optimal. The average move count is 8.07 (face metric). I plan to add notes for each case soon!


----------



## Neroflux (Mar 19, 2009)

rar, i hate the diagrams.


----------



## ostracod (Mar 19, 2009)

In Soviet Russia, diagram hate YOU_!!_

If you know how to read a standard LL picture, you can understand these as well. Just remember that the slot is at FR, and the blue thing is the corner-edge pair which goes in the slot.


----------



## Neroflux (Mar 19, 2009)

no really, i can read them, just with a little more difficulty. hey no need to be so pissed, im just complaining.


----------



## ostracod (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm not pissed, it's a Russian Reversal. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Smirnoff


----------



## ostracod (Mar 19, 2009)

Ok, I added some notes for each algorithm. Some of it is like poetry. XD This one is my favorite:

"N case (9 moves):
U' R' F2 R F2 U L' U L
U c/e is sledge-hammered in with double F turns. This results in the displacement of the LF c/e, which is repositioned with a slight toggle."

Here's the link again:

http://web.mac.com/teisenmann/Tripod/winter.html

These kinds of descriptions help me memorize the algorithms much better. I hope they do the same for others learning this variation!


----------



## Matthew (Mar 19, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Example ZZ solve by me. Anyone who's good at ZZ, please help!
> 
> Scramble (Yellow is D face and Blue is F face.)
> B2 D2 L D B2 L2 R' U R U' B2 R2 D2 R' U2 F2 D R2 L2 U2 F B R' F B2
> ...



My linear solution: 

EOLine: 
U' L' B' F' R F U' R2 D (9 moves but we have a CE pair connected)

F2L:
u' L2 u R' U R U L' R2 U R U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U' L U' L' U' L U2 L' (27)

I build in another way EOLine so I have a little more difficult f2l cases - your cases are more pleasant


----------



## ostracod (Mar 21, 2009)

I was surprised to find a lack of ZZ method videos on YouTube, so I made a tutorial... I put a lot of emphasis on EOline (it is the most unique feature, after all!). I hope people find this remotely interesting/helpful.

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO0IeE40wfc

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjKyZg_PJms


----------



## ostracod (Mar 29, 2009)

I thought I might as well...

BUMP

This topic. I have a lot of stuff to say still!

As you might have learned by reading this thread, I am trying out the Winter variation of the ZZ method (which involves orienting all corners during the last c/e placement). I have just finished learning ALL 27 algorithms on my page. This has taken me under 2 weeks... I don't think that many other people have memorized full WV, so here are some tips:

-The method is QUITE useless until you've memorized ALL of the algorithms. Unlike solving LL cases, WV cases cannot be done in parts; it's all or nothing. So deciding to learn WV is a bit of a leap of faith, because you won't make progress until you've finished.

-You have to be REALLY good at recognizing and executing mirror cases/algorithms. 3/4 of the time you will get a case which is a mirror of what you've learned! What I'm doing now to practice mirrors is I'm making 27 flash cards, one for each case. Each card has a picture of a case drawn in heavy sharpie, and on the back I've drawn the MIRROR by seeing where the marker leaked through. This way, I can practice all 4 mirrors by flipping the notecard along the X and Y axes.

-Use lots of tricks for memorization! I find it extremely helpful to use my lettering system for both recognition and identification (I can remember what the "A" algorithm is, and I can easily translate a case into "A"). Finding similarities between algorithms helps. Lastly, the most useful thing to do is to follow the F2L pieces during the execution of each algorithm. I intentionally picked most of the algorithms on the page so that once can easily see where c/e pairs are moving.

-PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE. For learning algorithms, I will repeat a brand new one at least 10 times, then I'll repeat somewhat new ones a few times. A few times a day, I will go from A through & and execute each algorithm, just to make sure I remember all of them.

So far, this variation seems to be rewarding. When I do a WV algorithm, I think to myself, "Wow, I totally just placed that c/e pair and oriented all the corners! That was fast." XP

Again, this method saves about 3 moves during solving. I don't know what the move count is for COLL, but the Winter variation has a legitimate reason for having a lower move count: LL algorithms tend to work by breaking up the F2L; however, with WV, the F2L is ALREADY broken up, so you save those few breakup moves!

I would only recommend this method to people who are comfortable with mirror cases/algs (LOTS of them). If you can do mirrors, then you have to learn 27 WV algs + 13 PLL algs (which many people already know). You will theoretically obtain faster solve times WITHOUT learning bajillions of algorithms.

Now here's my question for ZZ solvers:

Should I learn all the algorithms for the R U R' case ("Easy join up")? Blah, another user on this forum, has called this the Summer variation. I have already generated all 27 of the algorithms, and unfortunately, the average move count is more than 9. This is higher than for WV, which is about 8. The average move count leads me to believe that it's not worth the effort to learn the Summer variation... Is this a correct assumption, though??

And also, the origin of this variation is STILL unknown!! PLEASE, if somebody knows, tell me! Thanks!


----------



## Werner (Mar 29, 2009)

I would say sebastian felix is the "creator" of this method 
But i would not bet my life on it 

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/f2ll-angl.htm

Also there is this page 

http://ten10.myweb.hinet.net/f2ll.html

Ostracod 
Ever thought about learning 
COLL 40 
WV 27 + 
EJF2L 17 

whenever you got a pair you would use WV 
If you got a ugly pair you would use EJF2l or COLL 

When i get fast i think i will start using this ZZ method for pure OH cubing. 
I dont think it would be that hard to learn those 87 algorithms (I already know full fridrich )


----------



## ostracod (Mar 29, 2009)

Werner,

I'm pretty sure I've heard of that combination of algs before, but I don't think it's worth learning WV with COLL and EJF2L... Perhaps EJF2L would be worth it, but whenever I have a corner+edge next to each other, I separate them and either join them or make an R U R' case (which would lead to WV or... SV). COLL would just be a hassle, because it would involve learning a second LL method in addition to OLL + PLL. But if you had the will power to learn all of that, then you'd be pretty fast. ;D Then again, 1 look LL might be better at that point...

I saw the first page before (perhaps I'll email the owner to find out more info)... But the second page I have not. The little animation things look helpful.


----------



## Werner (Mar 29, 2009)

Btw have anyone done any studies to the PLL and OLL skip probability using 
WV and EJF2l, with and without ZZ. 
I would also like to see some studies about skips done with ZB 

My guess is that in ZZ only half of the standar F2l cases are possible 
edges can be flipped correctly or incorrectly. 
question is how many of these ends with a R U' R insertion normally ? 
My guess would be that the OLL skip probability is very high 50%+ using 
ZZ + WV only on the normal cases. With setup moves it is 100% but if this is efficent or not can be debated. 
LL skips in both ZZ and ZB would be interesting to know. 
If you theoretically got 100% oll skips you then would get a LL skip every 72 solve ( which imo is extremely good, think about competitions) 

Just me releasing my thoughts. If you learn COLL algorithms that does affect the edges you would be able to do a 1look ll pretty quickly. COLL + H Z or U 
4sec LL anyone ? And a skip every 12th solve seems very tempting...


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 29, 2009)

Werner said:


> Btw have anyone done any studies to the PLL and OLL skip probability using
> WV and EJF2l, with and without ZZ.


PLL skip: 1/72
OLL skip: Nonsense


----------



## ostracod (Mar 29, 2009)

According to my calculations, even with setup moves (for R U R' case, doing R U2 R' instead), WV is still more efficient by a fraction of a move. So you WOULD get a 100% OLL skip, if you use WV 100% of the time (since it is more efficient than direct placement). If you really wanted, you could learn the Summer variation as well for R U R' cases, but as I said before, the benefits are slim.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 1, 2009)

We're closer to finding the origin of the Winter variation... I sent Sebastien Felix an email asking him about where he found the variation. He sent me this reply back:



> Hi, i first see the Winter Variation(what I called F2LL because it was easy to remember and we immediatly see that it happens at the end of F2L and that it helps to simplify the LL) on the international yahoo speedcubing group. In the file section you could find a "winter variation" document, originally designed for petrus after step 3 is completed and shared by "Cubacca1972".
> I feel good to see you enjoying F2LL, it can leads to very short LL's. But like multislotting, its much more usefull for OH.
> 
> I hope that i answered you correctly, have fun
> ...



Perhaps after some searching I may be able to contact this person?


----------



## Zeroknight (Apr 2, 2009)

Awesome. So move count for EBWP (EOLine/Cross, Blockbuilding, Winter Variant, and PLL) is how much again?


----------



## ostracod (Apr 3, 2009)

It should be 3 less than ZZ-VH w/ PLL. I'll do a solve to see what I can get...

FULL FACE TURN METRIC (ZZ-WV) with arbitrary scramble:

EOLine: 6 moves (2 bad edges, place both line pieces)
Right block: 10 moves (average 2x2x1 build, then c/e pair already made)
Part of left block: 7 moves (not good..)
Formation of final c/e: 5 moves (again, not lucky)
*Winter variation:* 9 moves (W phase, not an easy one)
PLL: 12 moves (G-perm, not the easiest PLL)

So I got... 49. This was a somewhat unlucky solve. Here's another one.

EOLine: 8 moves (TONS of bad edges. However, I spotted a premade c/e pair, which I preserved.)
Half of right block: 3 (using the salvaged c/e pair...)
Left block: 11 (while making the other block, a c/e pair was made, which I used)
Final c/e pair formation: 9 (the pieces were together, so I had to shimmy and shake)
*Winter Variation:* 6 (Z phase, a nice short one )
PLL: 13 (F perm... long)

Sum: 50

...I'm think I'm just incompetent at low move count solves. XD However, I'm pretty sure that WV is cutting down my average move count by a small amount.

However, I think a problem might be that I'm wasting moves by trying to make a c/e pair on U. For the second scramble, perhaps MGLS would have been more efficient, since the corner and edge were in an "EJ" pair. However, if the c/e can easily be made on U, WV is a fast technique.


----------



## Musturd (Apr 3, 2009)

Does anyone have algorithms for solving the last F2L pair and permuting the edges at the same time? (or is this not a good idea for some reason?)
Then all you would have to do after EOLine + F2L is COLL* and you're done.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 3, 2009)

Ah, this has been done before. It's similar to ZZ-d, except at least somewhat possible, since there are only 2 dozen permutations. Here's the thread:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8871

It's not a very good idea, because recognition is a pain (but perhaps it is possible to do quickly if you work hard?) However, unlike WV, there are only a handful of algorithms to learn.

PS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnLpHP7_4A
- Another resource for ZZ beginners trying to do EO.


----------



## Musturd (Apr 3, 2009)

That thread is for permuting the corners, though, right?
Has no one tried to do edges?
IMO edges should be easier to recognize.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 3, 2009)

Musturd: I discussed that, you would eng up having to do a CLL last.
Which is similar to doing OLL after PLL :/
PS I wish I kept on doing ZZ... I had a 26 sec avg :facepalm:


----------



## Athefre (Apr 3, 2009)

ostracod said:


> Perhaps after some searching I may be able to contact this person?



There is a Cubacca1972 here, the member still posts and comes up with neat ideas.


----------



## Neroflux (Apr 3, 2009)

zz is cool, i did it for a week and got 20.xx avg.

i do it eo cross style though... T.T


----------



## ostracod (Apr 3, 2009)

To Mustard: Ah, sorry, I didn't see that you were talking about edge permutation. This is similar to ZZ-b, except if you permuted ALL edges (instead of 2 opposite ones), you would have fewer cases. I think your idea could work well.

To Athefre (and others): I did PM Cubacca1972, and he kindly sent me a reply. He turns out to be the creator of WV. I finally found out that the name "Winter variation" comes from his last name, which is "Winter". The term "F2LL" didn't come from him, I think from Sebastian. I'm happy to know these things. ;D


----------



## Jhong253 (Apr 3, 2009)

Still don't understand EOLine or whatever it is...


----------



## a small kitten (Apr 3, 2009)

It's half a cross on the D layer with all edges oriented.


----------



## Jhong253 (Apr 3, 2009)

I got that part, but still don't understand how to make it and stuff...


----------



## ostracod (Apr 3, 2009)

Try searching for "ZZ tutorial" on youtube to find some of my videos. I give 2 explanations of EOLine.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 5, 2009)

Ok, so I've been using full Winter variation for about a week now, and I have a few thoughts on it.

Recognition for WV is NOT slow. Even with all the mirrors and whatnot, I can execute the algorithms without slowing down; it's all a matter of learning not specifically what sides to turn, but how to move corner/edge pairs around for each case (thinking about pieces in a relative position to the slot). In most cases, I save a few moves during the solve. I did an average of 3, and I got 36.13 seconds, which is my best yet (and also got a new PR, 34.38 seconds ). Because WV has "only" 27 algorithms, it's not too much to learn, and the benefits outdo the work involved.

However, there IS one weakness, which is when you have... the corner next to the edge, but misoriented/placed. In this case, you would have to separate the corner + edge, then REjoin them correctly, then use WV...... So here's where I recommend what some other people have said in the forum:

AFTER you learn WV, learn EJF2L (aka: CLS MGLS).

I think this order is important, since there are considerably more algorithms for EJF2L (56, compare with 27 for WV), and EJF2L is only faster than WV probably less than 50% of the time (either when the edge is placed, or when you have an "EJ" pair; WV should faster for the other cases, algorithms ARE 1.5 moves shorter on average...)

So it seems that the Winter variation and MGLS really complement each other, because each is fast where the other is weak. I think I'll start learning EJF2L pretty SUNE (HAHA. Sune. Soon. I've made that joke before. I still find it hillllarrrious). I'll learn maybe 1 algorithm per day, since I'm not on vacation now.

Here's my little flowchart to a super ZZ method. Note that each step in the process doesn't abandon any previously learned knowledge (it's all cumulative). By the end, the solver will know a little over 100 algorithms. 
1. Learn basic ZZ-VH, with OLL + PLL (3 algorithms)
2. Learn 1 look OLL (7 algorithms)
3. Learn 1 look PLL (13 algorithms)
4. Learn the Winter Variation (27 algorithms)
5. Learn EJF2L (56 algorithms)


----------



## a small kitten (Apr 5, 2009)

With a little over 100 algs you might as well do ZZLL. Right?


----------



## ostracod (Apr 5, 2009)

To a Small Kitten: Ahh... You mean permute 2 opposite edges instead of corner orientation, then do 1 look LL? My guess is that ZZLL is more efficient. Let's see...

It's very fuzzy to see exactly how many moves each technique takes during F2L, since some require setup moves. But I'll try my best.

Roughly 50% of the time, edge and corner are not adjacent, or only corner is in last slot. In these cases, you would probably use WV. ZZ-b setup is relatively easy, but WV requires a few extra moves if there is an R U R' case, which we'll say happens... Perhaps 30% of the time, so we'll add 1 move on average to WV for extra move setup. Once a desirable case has been reached, ZZ-b requires an average of 5 moves to insert the c/e pair, and WV requires 8. But remember that the 1 extra setup move increases this number to 9.
ZZ-b: 5
ZZ-WV: 9

The other rough 50% of the time, you will get an EJ pair, or the edge will be in the last slot. This is where EJF2L is more efficient than WV. Assume that EJF2L has an average of 2 moves for setup (placing final edge if it is not placed, or just turning the top face to place the final corner over the final edge...), then 9.5 moves for algorithms. ZZ-b would need more setup moves... perhaps an average of 4? Then the algorithms still take 5 moves.
ZZ-b: 9
ZZ-EJF2L: 11.5

So (theoretically) on average, ZZ-b will use 3.25 fewer moves than ZZ-WV/EJF2L for the F2L.

However, then we have our last layer.

PLL optimally takes 11.2 moves. I am unable to find a calculated average for ZZLL... However, scrolling down a list of optimal averages, and seeing a couple dozen move counts, it seems that the numbers range from 10 to 15. This leads me to believe that it takes around 12.5 moves to do ZZLL.

So (probably) on average, ZZ-b will use 1.25 moves MORE than ZZ-WV/EJF2L for the LL.

And so, if we combine F2L averages and LL averages, we find that ZZ-b roughhhhly probbbably uses 2 moves FEWER than ZZ-WV/EJF2L.

So which one is better? I assume that ZZ-WV/EJF2L and ZZ-b have a similar number of algorithms (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and it seems that ZZ-b is more move efficient by a couple moves. We must also consider recognition as a factor... recognizing how to permute 2 opposite edges before finishing F2L is easier than orienting the corners, but I get the impression that ZZLL recognition is a lot more tricky than PLL.......

SO, which one is better? I still can't say for sure, but ZZ-b wins by a tiny bit.

If you can find any flaws in my reasoning, please point it out!


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 5, 2009)

ok, I'm back to a ~25ish avg!!!
Now just have to memo winter variation, so far I know 3 xD


----------



## Joseph Gibney (Apr 5, 2009)

I really think that ZZ-b is the most promising variant as a major speedcubing method. Personally I think that WV and CLS would be more useful as a way to skip OLL (sorry Lucas ) when not using phasing.
I think for most people, ZZF2L and OLL/PLL is a fine method until at least sub 15, and requires very few algorithms. COLL is a nice way to possibly speed up a bit, as is WV and CLS. 
If you manage to learn full ZZ-b, then you actually know a large portion of ZBLL, and could eventually switch to that. At that point, now that you're not phasing, WV and CLS would be a nice way to force into PLL.

Of course ZZ-d would be an awesome method, with perhaps ~47 moves and very fast turn rate, however it seems to be out of our grasp. I have put forth some effort into trying to reduce to <R,U> during F2L, but so far all attempts have been only partial, and required very long recognition. If anyone has any insight into this, let me know! If this could be done, F2L would be a bit harder (as you can't form both sides at the same time as easily), but the LL would be amazing: 2GLL is one look with relatively few and fast algorithms. Combined with corner orientation control (WV, CLS) you could often force EPLL, and even last layer skips would not be very rare. AMAZING!!

EOline is a bit difficult for many to master, but I found it to be alright with a bit of practice. For most I'd imagine the <R,U,L> F2L to be a bit of a challenge, since CFOP users need to use a different mind set. You must solve 2x2x1 blocks, not just pairs. Multislotting might be more feasible with ZZ with fewer possible cases (not sure about this). Also, some people rely on one hand heavily during F2L, for ZZ you must use both hands nearly equally. People who use many cube rotations during F2L might find RUL F2L slower than normal F2L. This style actually fits me well, I hardly rotate at all.

I'm currently a bit under 15 using ZZ with OLL/PLL, but I haven't been practicing it that much (for comparison I'm a bit under 13 with CFOP 3LLL, thus with ZZ the advantage for me is having 1 look OLL). I think EOline is still holding me back, as is the F2L. While the RUL fits me well, I still haven't gotten completely used to it. I plan to at least learn COLL and 2GLL soon, and eventually ZZ-b, although it would be great if zz-d was possible. I already know some WV, and learning WV+CLS would be nice, but not a major goal yet. Working on EOline + F2L will help me the most right now by far. 

I kinda still want to finish up CFOP by learning OLL (and the two PLLs I don't know.... ahaha), would probably get me sub 12 with some practice, but I dunno, what do you guys think? I could probably get it done in less than a day if I actually tried...

For anyone trying ZZ, I would suggest focusing on your EOline + F2L, but of course these LL ideas are neat  and GOOD LUCK!!


----------



## ostracod (Apr 5, 2009)

I think it's pointless to learn BOTH ZZ-b and ZZ-WV/EJF2L, unless you want to see how well they work in comparison. When solving the slot, there is no reason to believe that one would be better to use than the other (unless you're low move count solving, in which case you could try each variation...) Plus, each variation has its OWN set of 100 algorithms. You'd be learning 200+. At that point, you'd be better off learning 1 look LL.

I agree, ZZ-d would be very fast, if there were a way to find the "missing link". But really, there ISN'T a good way to find the missing link. By definition, you must find the permutations of 6 corners (and fix them) in order to put the cube into <R,U>. This obviously makes for difficult recognition... But perhaps someone can find an effective way to recognize ZZ-d cases.

And I think your idea of multislotting is a good one... It would definitely be easier, and it would probably make solving considerably faster. However, I'm not sure if you can use any special techniques (WV, EJF2L, etc) if you multislot. I will look into that for sure.


----------



## Escher (Apr 5, 2009)

Ostracod, multislotting is something that you use when solving fridrich pairs. You basically try and make the next pair as easy as you can while solving one pair. You can end up with f2ls of very few moves. Winter Variation is actually a part of 'multislotting' - the aim of multislotting is to influence the next step, just as WV does.
applying multislotting knowledge to ZZf2l would be fantastic - not only would the f2l be RUL, it would also be as short or shorter than the normal f2l (as i understand it, the zzf2l is slightly longer than the fridrich equivalent?). 
Multislotting is something that most people do intuitively, like knowing the different effects on the cube between R U' R' and R U2 R'.
So yes, actually WV and EJf2l fit nicely into multislotting.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 6, 2009)

I got sub 22 with Fridrich, and a sub 20 3 of 5, so I'm focusing more on ZZ again. I used it in the weekly comp, btw. Around 35 seconds, but with almost no practice on ZZ in the last 2 weeks.

I dion't like Winter Variation... a lot of it seems sort of obvious, and it's perhaps faster to use R U' R'/R U2 R' insertions to perhaps force a Sune/Anti-Sune as much as possible. I might just learn it, but I don't know.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 6, 2009)

Lord:
It's shite easy to learn... I could learn the whole thing in 1 day if I could be bothered sadly I can't 
so I'll stick with 1 or 2 a day 
EDIT: woah, I just realized that there is a 1/72 chance of LL skip with WV
If anyone gets good with this, I bet the WR single would be easy EOline, nice F2L, LL skip


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 6, 2009)

Okay, I'm bored...
So I'll make a ZZ progreesion chart!

*Aiming for:* 1min
*EOline* - 12 secs
*F2L* - 28 secs
*OLL* - 10 secs
*2-look PLL* - 10 secs
*Work on your EOLine and F2L the most But also don't for get OLL, PLL... should be easy to minus 10 secs from here*

Aiming for: 50 secs
*EOline* - 10 secs
*F2L* - 25 secs
*OLL* - 7 secs
*2 look PLL* - 8 secs
*Work on F2L the most, also practise EOline. Practise OLL a bit too. I would say mainly recognition and TPS*

*Aiming for:* 45 secs
*EOline* - 9 secs
*F2L* - 22 secs
*OLL* - 6 secs
*PLL* - 8 secs
*As always practise EOline and F2L the most. Learn block-building and try making both side at the same time. Just get TPS higher for OLL, PLL*

*Aiming for:*40 secs
*EOline* - 8 secs
*F2L * - 20 secs
*OLL* - 5 secs secs
*2 look PLL* - 7 secs
*EOline and F2L... Practically do what you did in the last step *

*Aiming for:*35 secs
*EOline* - 7 secs
*F2L * - 18 secs
*OLL* - 4 secs
*PLL* - 6 secs
*please note, full PLL, you have to get round to it some time... And you can learn the whole thing in 3 weeks, 1 a day...*

*Aiming for:*30 secs
*EOline* - 6 secs
*F2L * - 16 secs
*OLL* - 3.5 secs
*PLL* - 4.5 secs
*Now it's time to work hard on F2L and Eoline, the TPS will come naturally from here, make sure you are doing optimal moves *.

*Aiming for:*25secs
*EOline* - 4.5 secs
*F2L * - 13 secs
*OLL* - 3 secs
*PLL* - 4.5 secs
*REALLY work on PLL's especially recognition. OLL's should be nice and quick now! to get to the next step do MASSIVE work on F2L, here are some tips:
Optimal turns
Block building
TPS
Recognition
and whatever YOU think you have to practice.*

*Aiming for:* 22 secs
*EOline* 4.5 secs
*F2L*11 secs
*OLL*3 secs
*PLL*3.5 secs
*You may want to start to learn WV now. like the 0 corners case and the 3 and 2 corner cases. Practise EOline recognition, improve move count.*

*Aiming for:* 20 secs
*EOline* - 4 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 8.5 secs ( yes a big leap, practise hard, it will come)
*Winter variation* - 4 secs
*PLL* - 3.5 secs
*whew, at the 20 mark finally, look foward so your sub 20 avgs. they're great  Try PLL time attacks and aim for sub 1 min. more work on F2L and uh one thing...
ZOMG WV learn the cases, they're super easy to memo and very quick.*

*Aiming for:* 17 secs
*EOline* - 3.5 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 7.5 secs
*Winter variation* - 3 secs
*PLL* - 3 secs
*You should be getting regular sub 20 avg's. Pratise your WV speed and recog, work on EOline and predicting how the F2L will turn out and how you'll approach it. Maybe start to learn CLS. *

*Aiming for:* 15 secs
*EOline* - 3 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 7 secs
*Winter variation+CLS* - 2 secs
*PLL* - 3 secs

*And from here it's up to you *

*Aiming for:* 14 secs
*EOline* - 3 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 6.5 secs
*Winter variation+CLS* - 2 secs
*PLL* - 2.5 secs

*Aiming for:* 13 secs
*EOline* - 2.5 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 6 secs
*Winter variation* - 2 secs
*PLL* - 2.5 secs

*Aiming for:* 12 secs
*EOline* - 2.25 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 6 secs
*Winter variation* - 1.75 secs
*PLL* - 2 secs

*Aiming for:* 11 secs
*EOline* - 2 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 5.5secs
*Winter variation+CLS* - 1.5 secs
*PLL* - 2 secs

*Aiming for:* 10 secs
*EOline* - 1.75 secs
*F2L minus last slot* - 5 secs
*Winter variation+CLS* - 1.25 secs
*PLL* - 2 secs

Okay, so I got a bit unrealistc at the end, but I think it would be about right...


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 6, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> *Aiming for:* 10 secs
> *EOline* - 1.75 secs
> *F2L minus last slot* - 5 secs
> *Winter variation* - 1.25 secs
> ...


- Optimal EOLine is about 6.13 moves (less with color neutrality), so 1.75s is easy.

- For F2L + OCLL, I just tried an average of fairly fast linear solves.

27, (23), 33, 24, 30, 29, (40*), 32, 25, 31, 32 => 29.22 FTM avg
* whole LL

I haven't practised this much at all, didn't use any fancy tricks, and don't know optimal algs for all WV cases, so about 25 moves should be possible. But even with 30 moves, 6 seconds is clearly doable.

- And PLL, the fast cubers are probably doing it sub-2 already.

So, sub-10 does sound quite realistic to me.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 6, 2009)

I should theoretically be at 20 seconds, since I know all of the Winter variation, but I get times around 35... I think I need to push my TPS a lot. XP


----------



## Escher (Apr 6, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> Lord:
> It's shite easy to learn... I could learn the whole thing in 1 day if I could be bothered sadly I can't
> so I'll stick with 1 or 2 a day
> EDIT: woah, I just realized that there is a 1/72 chance of LL skip with WV
> If anyone gets good with this, I bet the WR single would be easy EOline, nice F2L, LL skip



Erik Akkerdijk knows f2ll, im pretty sure. At least, he has mentioned he knows the 'OLL skip' algs. As only CLS and winter variation would make any sense here, im assuming he knows WV.


----------



## Joseph Gibney (Apr 6, 2009)

ostracod said:


> I should theoretically be at 20 seconds, since I know all of the Winter variation, but I get times around 35... I think I need to push my TPS a lot. XP



While it is cool that you learned WV, it won't improve your solves by very much. The difference between using OLL/PLL and WV/PLL for ZZ is probably comparable to the difference between 3LLL and 2LLL for CFOP (few seconds at best). Work on EOline and F2L if you want to get faster!

I agree with Johannes. Sub 10 seconds does not seem unreasonable for this method. EOline + F2L/OCLL + PLL can probably be as fast as anything else currently used. ZZ-b should also be very fast, possibly faster, although I haven't spent much time with the phasing so I don't know from personal experience. Of course, ZBLL is a great LL method as well 

Getting very good at OCLL would probably take a considerable amount of time and algorithms. CLS and WV are a good start, but there will still be lots of nasty cases. You could try to learn OCLL for more F2L cases, but the number of algorithms becomes ridiculous, something like 689 in all. Many of these are just a normal F2L setup followed by a WV-like alg or sune variation. Thus learning many might be possible, but probably not worth it. The best compromise might be to learn as many distinct cases as possible, and then learn how to deal with the nastier cases.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 6, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> Okay, I'm bored...
> So I'll make a ZZ progreesion chart!
> 
> *Aiming for:* 1min
> ...



lol, I can't imagine 10 seconds for a 1 look OLL (or 1LOLL )

One more thing -
"Aiming for:25secs
EOline - 4.5 secs
F2L - 13 secs
OLL - 3 secs
PLL - 4.5 secs
REALLY work on PLL's especially recognition. OLL's should be nice and quick now! to get to the next step do MASSIVE work on F2L, here are some tips:
Optimal turns
*Block building*
TPS
Recognition
and whatever YOU think you have to practice."

Block building should start at the very beginning.
If you get into the habit of doing an EOCross and putting in F2L Pairs, it's hard to kick that habit and get your time back to where you were before...


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 6, 2009)

lol, for 1 min, I couldn't find where to put the time xD
seems like no-one sholud avg. 1 min with this method of pwn


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 6, 2009)

Not sure if its been mentioned in this thread yet, but I think blah's method of using corner control to de-orient all corners, followed by 1LLL looks fairly promising. With this method you are left with just the pi and H corner orientation cases, which is good for case recognition and _apparently_ has only 104 algs to do in one-look!


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 6, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> lol, for 1 min, I couldn't find where to put the time xD
> seems like no-one sholud avg. 1 min with this method of pwn



Chuck it all in EOline...


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

I just learned this method 2 minutes ago (literally) and I tried a solve. I got a 27.91. This is at least ten seconds slower than my normal average, but I see huge potential for this to become the next most popular method. I am going to practice ZZ a lot more.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

It's great, after some practise EOline seems naturtal O.O
still struggling with it's move count though (EOline)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Hey guys,

So I've read up on ZZ, and and trying to determine what exactly to learn. I seem to have more fun with ZZ, and would like to join this little sub-cult, but was wondering what variation to start up on. I understand EOline and phasing (haven't memo'd '"algs" yet, however) and definite enjoy them. 

Here is what I currently (with a Fridrich solve) would do:
*F2L
2-step OLL
1-step OLL*

Right now, here is what I've been testing with ZZ:
*EOline* (my variation  if anyone would like to see this, please let me know; I figured this out quite a while ago (before my zz discovery))
*Blockbuilding F2L*
*OLL*
*PLL*

What's your suggestion?

I'd like to incorporate phasing into my solves, and would not memo-ing those (12?) cases.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Don't do phasing or OLL. learn WV and CLS.
so the last slot is done with OLL


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> So I've read up on ZZ, and and trying to determine what exactly to learn. I seem to have more fun with ZZ, and would like to join this little sub-cult, but was wondering what variation to start up on. I understand EOline and phasing (haven't memo'd '"algs" yet, however) and definite enjoy them.
> 
> ...



Please share 
btw, I think you mean one step PLL. 
Winter Variation seems to be pretty popular here, since it's only 27 algorithms for a 1LLL with only PLL. it's also recognizable by only looking at the top face. Phasing, to ZZ-VH, doesn't seem to have enough of a benefit over Winter Variation, if any (someone here analyzed it to be about the same move count as WV/PLL) to warrant the extra 119 algorithms.


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

I have sub-30 average with ZZ now and I have been using it for under half an hour. I'm wondering, should I learn CLS or COLL


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

learn Winter Variation first
then when your sub 17, learn CLS


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

That fast? Wow...
With only the 15 second inspection for EOline?

What is CLS, btw?

EDIT: Luke, is the time in your signature for ZZ?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

EOlines easy and finger trick friendly though :|


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys,
> ...


I'll make a video (YT), maybe tomm.
Yes, I meant one-step PLL 
Thanks; where would I find this Winter Variation (algs) ?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

in the previous pages, I'll give you a link soon


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

Here's where I got mine.
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/f2ll-angl.htm


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

lol, I was just about to post it, I also use them 

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/f2ll-angl.htm

wow, posts are coming in so fast that this is like a chatroom O.O


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> That fast? Wow...
> With only the 15 second inspection for EOline?
> 
> What is CLS, btw?
> ...



CLS is corners last slot, which is part of MGLS

15 seconds is more than enough if you know 3OP, I can detect which edges are not oriented in sub-10

I don't know what Winter variation is, so I am going to look at cls


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Thanks!
So I do this instead of phasing?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

No, It's not may avg. that's it with Fridrich...
I'm like 25's with ZZ
WV is pairing up the corner and edge, then inserting it while Orienting the LL corners.

The uber method is

EOline
RUL F2L minus 1 slot
last slot with OLL (WV + CLS) the CLS is for when the edge is already in place.
PLL


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Thanks!
> So I do this instead of phasing?



Preferably. 
I think it's better. 
The only drawback is when you have something like this:
Setup: R U' R' (insert the pair)
Obviously, the thing is that you would have to take out the pair in order to do WV. So the algorithms for 2LOLL are still needed.

I still don't get it: what's CLS?
I looked at this page, but...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> No, It's not may avg. that's it with Fridrich...
> I'm like 25's with ZZ
> WV is pairing up the corner and edge, then inserting it while Orienting the LL corners.



Alright, so is this my solve?:
EOline
Block-build left side & BR 'slot'
Winter variation
EPLL


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

CLS is when you put in the fourth F2L corner and orient all corners at the same time. In ZZ, that means a guarenteed OLL skip


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Winter Variation won't lead you to EPLL stachuk...
Just PLL


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> Winter Variation won't lead you to EPLL stachuk...



by EPLL, I meant Permutation of the Edges of the Last Layer...
oh, wait...will it lead me to a full PLL, because I've been just did 4 solves, and got all cases w/ no corners mispermuted...


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

byu said:


> CLS is when you put in the fourth F2L corner and orient all corners at the same time. In ZZ, that means a guarenteed OLL skip



How's that different from Winter Variation then?
Oh, I see. But I never understood this about MGLS - what's the point in just putting in an edge for your last pair to force a 1LLL? Isn't that just wasting time in the F2L to get a 1LLL?


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

26.94 average of 5. I haven't even used this method for an hour


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > CLS is when you put in the fourth F2L corner and orient all corners at the same time. In ZZ, that means a guarenteed OLL skip
> ...



It's basically there so it's good for when the edge is already in place


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

byu said:


> 26.94 average of 5. I haven't even used this method for an hour



what avgs did you get before?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

byu said:


> 26.94 average of 5. I haven't even used this method for an hour



Argh...
I see your #3 UWR for memo though...
If you get sub-20 before the hour ends, I'll feel quite sad for my lack of skill 

@Stachuk - yes, you got lucky with the corners 4 times in a row.
MAYBE HE DISCOVERED ZZ-D SUBCONSCIOUSLY!!!!!! OMG


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > 26.94 average of 5. I haven't even used this method for an hour
> ...



Lol same, he must recog the EO like crazy


----------



## Anthony (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > CLS is when you put in the fourth F2L corner and orient all corners at the same time. In ZZ, that means a guarenteed OLL skip
> ...



The point of MGLS is to insert the final edge while simultaneously orienting the LL edges. Then with CLS you will insert the final corner while orienting the LL corners. Basically, that means you don't do OLL and remember, all CLS cases are two gen R U algorithms.  It can be very fast.  Just not many people use it, I can only think of Lucas and Justin, although there may be a couple more.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > 26.94 average of 5. I haven't even used this method for an hour
> ...



Actually, I think I have an idea of the missing link that I've read about. Since I'm doing my EOline in a different way, I may be accidentally doing this...
3 more solves...corners still permuted!


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

YOU!
Explain right now 
You're doing something, 7 lucky solves in a row is like.... I don't know.
Probably a smaller chance than a 2x2x2 skip.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Anthony said:


> Lord Voldemort said:
> 
> 
> > byu said:
> ...



Baiscally, we're doing CLS for only the cases where the edge is pre in because it's quicker or about the same.
We also do Winter Variation because it's quicker than placed edge in, then CLS.


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

18.89 single, first sub 20 with ZZ,is it lucky if only 2 edges misoriented. Hours over now.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> YOU!
> Explain right now



Well, unfortunately, I did get one solve (out of about 20) that had mis-permuted corners (2); still, reducing the number might still help, and I may have made a mistake in that solve.

I think that I might be onto something...skipping House in order to help find 'missing link'...


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

wtf????
What's your previous method and average with that?


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

My EO recognition has dropped to sub-7, buy I need help with actually doing the EOLine. My EOLine is re only thug that stands between me and sub-20 ZZ. How do all of you do EOLine?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

There are a few example solves here, I don't know if it's enough though.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10305


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

byu said:


> My EO recognition has dropped to sub-7, buy I need help with actually doing the EOLine. My EOLine is re only thug that stands between me and sub-20 ZZ. How do all of you do EOLine?



wow; I think my way of EOline might be helpful
I only JUST started this, and I can get sub 10;
Here's approx. what I do.
lineo
That's right, I be switching the syllables on ya'.
This 'method' of EOline consists of finding an optimal (like 1-2 move) line, followed by petrus-ing up the edges. I unfortunately cannot record a vid. atm, but I guess I could do a linEO walkthrough:
Scramble: (white on top; green on front)
L R B L' D2 U2 F U2 F R D B2 U L' R F' D U' B' F' R' F2 D' R2 F L' B R' B' U


linEO
R U' B2
y'
F U'
L' U L
B U R' U R
y
13 moves...actually not too good 
This was kinda a bad scramble, but I think that you guys can get the jist of it.
Oh, and btw, just did an avg of 12: 2 cases had mispermuted corners; I guess I'm just lucky 
OH!!! and I got a LL skip  (w/o winter variation  , just phasing)

PS:I know this 'method' absolutely sucks, but if people like it, I think that likEOK (line Edge-Orientation Korick) or linEOSK (line Edge-Orientation Stachu Korick) would be really sweet! 
JK


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 7, 2009)

What's so good about ZZ?
I almost never rotate during my Fridrich solves anyway. I average less than one rotation per F2L (I tend to rotate for PLL) and get no more than 2. However, for ZZ, my F2L slows down a lot: from 8 seconds excluding cross to 18 seconds excluding EOline. I just couldn't lookahead at all.


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

ZZ is amazing. You just need to try it for an hour (Ive been going for an hour and 20 minutes now.


----------



## Gparker (Apr 7, 2009)

byu said:


> ZZ is amazing. You just need to try it for an hour (Ive been going for an hour and 20 minutes now.



how is it so amazing? i might try it but i want to know


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

Reduced move count, F2L is in the subset RUL, and LL edges are are oriented already. Blockbuilding takes a while to get used to, but apart from that it's great. (byu, do you do EOCross or EOline? Were you using Petrus before?)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Reduced move count, F2L is in the subset RUL, and LL edges are are oriented already. Blockbuilding takes a while to get used to, but apart from that it's great. (byu, do you do EOCross or EOline? Were you using Petrus before?)



pshhh...EOline
linEO is what it's about. Or CrossEO!


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

lol 
The disadvantage with your approach is that you can only do 2 edges at a time, unless you remove one of the line edges.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> lol
> The disadvantage with your approach is that you can only do 2 edges at a time, unless you remove one of the line edges.



Dude...
http://www.lar5.com/cube/fas3.html
http://www.lar5.com/cube/fas3_2.html
http://www.lar5.com/cube/fas3_4.html
http://www.lar5.com/cube/fas3_6.html

and what's so wrong with temp. moving one of the line edges?

anyone like LinEO?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 7, 2009)

silly me...
I think the good ZZers try to integrate the line and EO together though.
That's possible with this too, but it seems a little harder.
Best to just keep your options open. I'm sure if someone good with ZZ saw a case where putting in the line edges first would be beneficial, they would, but this seems less efficient for some cases.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> silly me...
> I think the good ZZers try to integrate the line and EO together though.
> That's possible with this too, but it seems a little harder.
> Best to just keep your options open. I'm sure if someone good with ZZ saw a case where putting in the line edges first would be beneficial, they would, but this seems less efficient for some cases.



Ah; I see what you're saying, but for now, I think I'll stick with LinEO for most cases, unless I see a good case for a EOLine solution...I really wished that LinEO would catch on...


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Reduced move count, F2L is in the subset RUL, and LL edges are are oriented already. Blockbuilding takes a while to get used to, but apart from that it's great. (byu, do you do EOCross or EOline? Were you using Petrus before?)



I average around 50 moves for Fridrich and around 60 for ZZ.
My F2L is already RUL with only one rotation. I use VHF2L, so LL edges are oriented. I already use excross much of the time. 
Advantages of Petrus and Fridrich: Actually seeing how to solve at least 4 pieces during inspection. Freedom of rotations and expansion in many directions (especially Petrus). You can be color neutral easily.

EOline is pretty easy, but what bother with it when you can plan for a excross or 2x2x3 block?
I've tried ZZ for a few hours before, but I just don't like it.

Edit:
If you read the first few pages, you would know that I liked this idea when I heard about it at first, but then when I tried it, it just didn't work so well. What puzzles me is that what is supposed to be improved (F2L) actually gets worse.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 7, 2009)

i honestly think that the idea's promising... it just takes a while to get used to.. i think i'm going to stick to my VHF2L though... any ideas on how ZZ can be incorporated with VHF2L? other than EOline?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 7, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> i honestly think that the idea's promising... it just takes a while to get used to.. i think i'm going to stick to my VHF2L though... any ideas on how ZZ can be incorporated with VHF2L? other than EOline?



Do you know what is VHF2L? I think you are just a DNF.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 7, 2009)

VHF2L? that's inserting the final pair while orienting the last layer edges...correct?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > i honestly think that the idea's promising... it just takes a while to get used to.. i think i'm going to stick to my VHF2L though... any ideas on how ZZ can be incorporated with VHF2L? other than EOline?
> ...



nah, just a +n00b (as opposed to a +2)

haha
Scoresheet:
19.36
20.31
18.69
17.90 + n00b = puzzlemaster
18.54


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 7, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> VHF2L? that's inserting the final pair while orienting the last layer edges...correct?



In ZZ, your edges are already oriented. So you can't use VHF2L.



Stachuk1992 said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > puzzlemaster said:
> ...


 ROF2L!


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 7, 2009)

hahaha ah jeez what did i get myself into...i thought VHF2L was the vandenbergh-harris method?


----------



## Asheboy (Apr 7, 2009)

With ZZ, all the edges are already orientated, no need for VHF2L.

Edit:Three other posts in a space of a minute, bad luck for me


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 7, 2009)

could someone please explain ZZ to me? so far all i've gathered is the winter variation and CLS but that's only for the corners. I still don't understand the edges


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 7, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> could someone please explain ZZ to me? so far all i've gathered is the winter variation and CLS but that's only for the corners. I still don't understand the edges



CLS and WV are not part of ZZ, they are separate ideas, but can be used with ZZ. 
In petrus, you build blocks, then EO, then finish F2L RU.
In ZZ, you do EO, build blocks while finishing F2L RUL.
one F turn flips 4 edges on that layer. Figure out the rest of it yourself.


----------



## Musturd (Apr 7, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> In ZZ, you do EO, build blocks while finishing F2L RUL.
> one F turn flips 4 edges on that layer. Figure out the rest of it yourself.



Or go
here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10305
here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO0IeE40wfc&feature=related
or here: (and I can't find a third link)

I've been following the ZZ thread (and looking up old threads) for a few days now.
If I wasn't swamped with work, I would probably be trying to get eoline down.

Also try looking through this thread.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 7, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> puzzlemaster said:
> 
> 
> > could someone please explain ZZ to me? so far all i've gathered is the winter variation and CLS but that's only for the corners. I still don't understand the edges
> ...



ooo i get it...now just an unrelated question if i may: in VHF2L, the edges are oriented. Is there anyway to orient the entire last layer while inserting the last pair? I'm just curious. I'm sure there is a way but it must be a very large amount of algorithms as ZBF2L only orients the edges and is already a very large amount..


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 7, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > puzzlemaster said:
> ...



:FacePalm:

You can do use VHF2L algs (they are the same as ELS for most cases), then do CLS.


----------



## Musturd (Apr 7, 2009)

Well, I'm no expert, but from what I understand:
Winter Variation (actually it's probably CLS not WV, actually I was right it is WV) orients the corners and the edges are already oriented from eoline.
So, there you go.
WV is less than 50 algorithms (probably around 40 or 20 or something, not sure, and not going to look up)

EDIT: I decided to look it up. 27 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/f2ll-angl.htm


----------



## puzzlemaster (Apr 7, 2009)

ahhh ok i get it... i'm done with dumb questions now


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 7, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> L R B L' D2 U2 F U2 F R D B2 U L' R F' D U' B' F' R' F2 D' R2 F L' B R' B' U
> 
> linEO
> R U' B2
> ...



This isn't a difficult EOline case. You have four bad edges, Two are already in the B slice. One of your line edges is already in place in DF. EOline can be done with: U L B R U' B2

If I remember rightly, it should never take more than 9 moves for EOLine.


----------



## byu (Apr 7, 2009)

That is correct


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Woah 
I just got 25.82 *OH* solve!
the EOline was 1 move (D) lol
and the right hand side was super easy to make
normal left side, norm OLL
A perm


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 7, 2009)

About what "method" to use for solving EOLine: It's such a short step that I don't see any point in breaking it into even smaller ones (like first line, then EO). Just do whatever works best for the particular scramble. If you can't do it in one step, then EO first is better than line first.

And I use OCLL to mean "Orient Corners of LL". Some call it just OLL, but I think that's confusing because the OLL in CFOP has 57 cases but the OLL in Petrus or ZZ has just 7. Since COLL already has another meaning I call it OCLL.



fanwuq said:


> What puzzles me is that what is supposed to be improved (F2L) actually gets worse.


Only if you do it Fridrich style. Which is stupid.

For me, the advantage of having EO solved is that it makes things much simpler. I can track more pieces at once and plan more moves ahead.



Cride5 said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > Scramble: L R B L' D2 U2 F U2 F R D B2 U L' R F' D U' B' F' R' F2 D' R2 F L' B R' B' U
> ...


That's optimal for DF-DB. Color neutral: L2 U L B (z').



Cride5 said:


> If I remember rightly, it should never take more than 9 moves for EOLine.


Yep, and superflip is the only case that takes 9 moves. Eight moves is rare, too (about 0.7%), so 7 is almost always enough.


----------



## Matthew (Apr 7, 2009)

Some stats from me:

*Winter variation (F2LL) + PLL:*

27 cases - 8.4 moves avg.

but you also have to connect C+E pair - in ZZF2L we have 20 cases - at an average it is 5.5 moves

So overall it is sth about 15 moves (and I exclude AUF) + 12.5 moves for PLL
= 27.5 moves at an avg.


*basic ELS + CLS + PLL:*

m: 9.59 m. (27 cases)
p: 9.67 m. (27 cases)
o: 11.04 m. (27 cases)
i: 11.88 m. (8 cases)
im: 11.75 m. (8 cases)
c: 8.43 m. (7 cases)

Overall: 104 cases - 10.25 m. at an avg. (I take optimal algs for every case)

but you also have to put edge in correct place:

avg: 2.6 m.

so overall again: str about 13 moves (excluding AUF - and I think that some (1-2) moves can be canceled)

+ 12.5 moves for PLL = 25.5 moves at an avg



*normal F2l + COLL + EPLL:*

last slot: 7.2 m.

COLL - 10.5 m.

EPLL - 12.25 m.

overall: 30 moves (but EPLL is very fast - can be executed sub1s) - and 1/13 chance to EPLL skip 

I use this variation - my averages are earlier in this theard 



*F2L with phasing + 1 LLL (part of ZBLL)*

last slot with phasing - sth about 10 moves (I calculated this in previous year and IMO we need add about 3 moves to phase LL-edges)

1LLL: 12.3 m. optimal so I think a bit over 13 m. for fingers-friendly algs... (169 cases)

overall: 23 m.



*F2L + 1 LLL (ZBLL):*

last slot: 7.2 m.

LL: 12.2 m. optimal algs so likewise zz-b LL about 13 m. for fingers-friendly algs...


overall: a bit over 20 moves..


Decision belong to you


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 7, 2009)

Matthew said:


> Some stats from me:
> 
> *Winter variation (F2LL) + PLL:*
> 
> ...



... or there's blah's method


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 7, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > Stachuk1992 said:
> ...



Nice solution. I prefer not to be colour neutral in ZZ, since the advantages of instinctively knowing where pieces belong deffo outweigh the slightly more optimal EOline/f2l options. Could be an option for FMC though.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 7, 2009)

I prefer set colors too. I don't think its feasible to do color neutral in the 15s inspection like how in fridrich most people just do white cross. I first check red/orange/white and only if it is terrible will I switch to blue and green. 
I started practising this method again and started gathering ZZLL algs again.


----------



## Matthew (Apr 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> ... or there's blah's method




Yes - but i don't have move count for last slot in this variation 


And... Maybe zz-b has the lowest move count from all this variations.. but I have already all this algs... and.. the shortest algs for each case are very, very finger-unfriendly (likewise more from zbll)... more finger-friendly algs are just so long (both in HTM and in executing) - so few days ago I stopped learning new algs and probably i would stay with COLL+EPLL...


----------



## Neroflux (Apr 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> ... or there's blah's method



that's garbage.

ok, at least, the recognition will be garbage.


----------



## Joseph Gibney (Apr 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> ...since the advantages of instinctively knowing where pieces belong deffo outweigh the slightly more optimal EOline/f2l options.





Lofty said:


> I don't think its feasible to do color neutral in the 15s inspection...



I've seen other people mention that they always use the same cube orientation. I am opposite color neutral for CFOP (white/yellow), so for ZZ I put either white or yellow on the bottom, and hold the cube with any color on the front face. Usually I first decide if I want F/B to be Red/Orange or Blue/Green depending on the edge orientation. Then I look for the line pieces, and decide whether white or yellow would be better for the line. In 15 seconds I don't have enough time to do this very thoroughly, but I am no expert at EOline. I think a master of EOline would be able to at least utilize this level of color neutrality.

As for color neutrality slowing down the solve, I recognize edge orientation just as fast either way, and the white/yellow neutrality has no effect on the rest of my solve. Sometimes I start with one color over the other, and don't notice until I hit OLL.


----------



## Escher (Apr 7, 2009)

This is marginally off topic, but how fast are the fast zz-ers times at bigger cubes after reduction (if you use reduction, that is)? Do you just do EO as fast as possible, and then create line, or do you actually work out a proper EOLine? Or do you just use fridrich? I can imagine that with no/little inspection EOline is hard to do.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 7, 2009)

I'd bet that ZZ isn't appropriate for large cube reduction methods. Whenever someone wants to time me solving the cube, I HAVE to tell them that inspection is a necessary step before solving. Otherwise, I think I'd add at least 5 seconds to my solve time.

... Would it be possible to orient edges during REDUCTION (while pairing up edge pieces)? Or is that impossible/impractical?


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 7, 2009)

Escher said:


> This is marginally off topic, but how fast are the fast zz-ers times at bigger cubes after reduction (if you use reduction, that is)? Do you just do EO as fast as possible, and then create line, or do you actually work out a proper EOLine? Or do you just use fridrich? I can imagine that with no/little inspection EOline is hard to do.



Its interesting you should mention bigger cubes. Doing a 4x4 or any larger even denomination, you can easily detect orientation parity right after edge pairing (during EO inspection) .... which is quite cool.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 7, 2009)

Matthew said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > ... or there's blah's method
> ...



I have recently been gathering the algs for zz-b and maybe it is because I am gathering OH algs so I like LUR but the best LUR or LFR are normally never more then 2 moves or so more then optimal... its really not that bad for a 1LLL.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Apr 7, 2009)

Lofty said:


> I prefer set colors too. I don't think its feasible to do color neutral in the 15s inspection like how in fridrich most people just do white cross. I first check red/orange/white and only if it is terrible will I switch to blue and green.
> I started practising this method again and started gathering ZZLL algs again.



Yay, this method really is godly for OH... It scares me


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 9, 2009)

Another advantage of ZZ: Much higher probability of LL skip compared with Fridrich.

First time I got it I thought it was a total fluke, but I had another one today. Has anyone else had one? Compared with Fridrich the probability of an entire LL skip should be over 8 times higher since the number of oll cases is reduced from 57 to 7. Not sure what the actual probability is, but it should be 1 / the number of ZB cases, which I believe is 493. This would make probability of a ZZ LL skip just over 0.2% 

The reason this is quite significant is that if you imagine someone like Erik getting a complete LL skip, there is every chance of a sub 5 sec world record!!

Big up the ZZ


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 9, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Compared with Fridrich the probability of an entire LL skip should be over 8 times higher


Exactly 8 times.



Cride5 said:


> the number of oll cases is reduced from 57 to 7.


From 216 to 27.



Cride5 said:


> Not sure what the actual probability is


1/1944


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 9, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > Compared with Fridrich the probability of an entire LL skip should be over 8 times higher
> ...



Yeah, but with Winter Variation ( http://pagesperso-orange.fr/absolutemind/f2ll-angl.htm ), you have a 1/72 chance, because there is no OLL at all 
I'm currently learning all of those.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 9, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > Cride5 said:
> ...



I don't think you can call that anymore than a PLL skip. You are just blurring the lines between F2L and LL, you are working to orient the corners its just in the middle of the last pair instead of right after it.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 9, 2009)

True, WV is a transition between F2L and LL... Hence the alternative name, F2LL, as Sebastien explained... But this abbreviation could be used to describe other similar techniques, such as ZZ-b and MGLS. 

It's still a REALLY nice thing to get a PLL skip when using ZZ-WV. With an average of 5 additional moves, you greatly increase the chance of having the last layer completed after F2L.

...I have to start learning CLS soon. >_<

PS: Happy 100th post for mua!


----------



## ostracod (Apr 9, 2009)

Here's a video about all the lovely ZZ variations (in celebration of my 100th post, i suppose). It should be useful for those who want to take the next step in the ZZ method after learning the basics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHJBsGwnvuQ


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 12, 2009)

Hey guys,
It seems as though I'm having some problems with EOline...I'm averaging about 45 seconds with ZZ, but at least 20 of those seconds are usually working on EOLine...I think that if I got my EOLine down to about 7 seconds (or at least 10), I could get sub-25 averages with this, which would be really nice.

Do you guys recommend doing any of the following:
-just keep practicing full solves
-Scramble, do EOLine, repeat
-take unimportant stickers off of another cube, and practice EOLine on that
(by unimportant, I mean take off all corner stickers, as well as blue/green stickers)

Other alternatives and/or help would be GREATLY appreciated


----------



## byu (Apr 12, 2009)

To improve your EOLine:

-Learn 3OP and get REALLY fast at memorization
-Read the guide in the first post
-Scramble, do EOLine, repeat
-PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICEx100


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 12, 2009)

so there's no point in taking off stickers off of an old cube to help practice?


----------



## byu (Apr 12, 2009)

You might get use of that, but really, learning 3OP to recognize bad edges almost instantly is extremely important, and it helps a lot.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 12, 2009)

Where can I find a '3OP' guide?


----------



## byu (Apr 12, 2009)

Macky's 3OP Guide


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 12, 2009)

haha...I actually *just* found that 
Thanks...I'm guessing that I just need to learn how to identify, right?
:Here is one way to process this information quickly:
In U/D layer

1. If the piece has a U/D color, correct if this is on U/D, incorrect if on F/B/R/L.
2. Otherwise, correct if R/L color is on F/B/R/L, incorrect if on U/D.
In the middle layer

3. If the piece has a U/D color, correct if this is on F/B, incorrect if on R/L.
4. Otherwise, look at either one of the two stickers and the adjacent center. If these two colors are same or on opposite sides, correct. Otherwise, incorrect.


----------



## byu (Apr 12, 2009)

Exactly.
I would do this:

-Scramble, start time, figure out which pieces are misoriented, stop timer, repeat

Tell me what your times are. I'm going to try this too.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 12, 2009)

Alright...I'll do 5 now, 5 later:
about 16 seconds on avg., but I actually just got a 27.59 single full solve


----------



## byu (Apr 12, 2009)

(6.66), 5.50, 5.28, 5.58, (5.16) = 5.45
It's all about practice, then it gets really easy.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 12, 2009)

And don't forget the line component of EO*Line*. It can take 2 or 3 seconds to search for the line edges during a solve, if you haven't found them during inspection. Even if you have a general idea of which face they'll be on, that's useful information. And if you can, plan out your edge orienting moves so that the line (or at least half of it) is formed in the process.


----------



## byu (Apr 12, 2009)

As for the Line part, I recognize EO during inspection and plan that out. Then, I can execute it without looking, and instead, I'm figuring out how I'm going to do the line.


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Apr 24, 2009)

Just a question: Has anyone else besides Zbigniew Zborowski himself learned full ZZLL (167-168 algorithms) for the 1LLL in ZZ-b?


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Apr 24, 2009)

I was trying to learn the WV algs the other day, and it really didn't seem that great. So I have two ideas that could possibly be explored.
1) Permute edges with the last slot. With ZZ, this will leave you with just a COLL (a special group would have to be created to preverve edge permutation too) for the last layer. Edge permutation is obviously 2 Gen and can be done fairly intuituvely. I got this idea from phasing
2) Permute the corner with the last slot. If I'm correct, there are only 24 cases for this. This would get the last layer 2-gen, which would leave make it pretty fast. There are 77 Algorithms for the last layer, though I suspect it will be lower because of symmetry. 

What do you people thinkof this?


----------



## blah (Apr 24, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> I was trying to learn the WV algs the other day, and it really didn't seem that great. So I have two ideas that could possibly be explored.
> 1) Permute edges with the last slot. With ZZ, this will leave you with just a COLL (a special group would have to be created to preverve edge permutation too) for the last layer. Edge permutation is obviously 2 Gen and can be done fairly intuituvely. I got this idea from phasing
> 2) Permute the corner with the last slot. If I'm correct, there are only 24 cases for this. This would get the last layer 2-gen, which would leave make it pretty fast. There are 77 Algorithms for the last layer, though I suspect it will be lower because of symmetry.
> 
> What do you people thinkof this?



1. Slow, might as well use EPLL.
2. Slower. And, not new. http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=126953#post126953


----------



## Musturd (Apr 25, 2009)

I've been fooling around with ZZ lately, and I was wondering about a few things:
1. Is it better to blockbuild a 1x2x3 left block before working on the right side, or just do an occasional xcross and do all but the last F2L slot in a random order (using the FR slot as a buffer, and finishing with it)?
2. I know how everyone is obsessed with WV, but wouldn't CLS make more sense? Are there any downsides to CLS, or any reason I should learn WV instead (besides the number of algorithms difference)?


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 25, 2009)

Musturd said:


> I've been fooling around with ZZ lately, and I was wondering about a few things:
> 1. Is it better to blockbuild a 1x2x3 left block before working on the right side, or just do an occasional xcross and do all but the last F2L slot in a random order (using the FR slot as a buffer, and finishing with it)?
> 2. I know how everyone is obsessed with WV, but wouldn't CLS make more sense? Are there any downsides to CLS, or any reason I should learn WV instead (besides the number of algorithms difference)?



1. Your probably best going with whatever you see first, after all lookahead is really what constrains F2L times. Searching for difficult pieces will only slow you down. I do it in four stages:

 first 1x2x2 block
 complete 1x2x3 side or start second 1x2x2 block
 start second 1x2x2 block or complete 1x2x3 side
 complete 1x2x3 side
One thing to make sure off though, is when starting an uncompleted side, complete the 1x2x2 block before moving onto the next block since its difficult to add a single edge to a completed 1x1x2 block.

2) I may be wrong, but does CLS not start with the last mid-slice edge already placed??


----------



## Musturd (Apr 25, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Musturd said:
> 
> 
> > I've been fooling around with ZZ lately, and I was wondering about a few things:
> ...


Thanks


> 2) I may be wrong, but does CLS not start with the last mid-slice edge already placed??



Sorry, I meant place last mid-slice edge, AUF, then CLS (this should be a max of 4 or 5 moves). Isn't set-up for WV on average many more turns? Maybe it's not...
And that is why I'm asking which is more efficient. Which is more efficient -- CLS or WV or EJF2L?

EDIT: I googled around and found this thread: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10100
EJF2L seems like it would be a good way to finish ZZ (and wouldn't require many setup moves)


----------



## Cride5 (May 6, 2009)

Hay people! I've just finished my second all-nighter working on a ZZ cubing page. It explains EOLine and F2L in some detail, along with algs, diagrams, animations etc. Get it here:

http://cube.crider.co.uk

Let me know what you think .. if you have any comments or suggestions etc.

Now I need to get some ZZzzz's


----------



## blah (May 6, 2009)

> 1. SAME COLOUR TOP
> (U') R' U2 R' U R' U' R U2' R
> (U R U2 R') U R U R' U2 R U R'



Change to R U' R U'2 R'2 U' R2 U' R'2. Been using this for ages, unbelievably smooth for OH.

Edit:
Okay I'm done reading that page and I have a little something to say. I've done very extensive research on every single Last 2 Slots (hereafter known as EOL2S) possibility and I think you have too few cases listed there. There's that example that I just mentioned. Here's another example: (setup: L' U' L U L' U' L U L' U' L U) Instead of solving that last slot with the same "alg", a y' rotation followed by R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' is much faster for people like me who just never can get their left hands to function as they'd like it to. And for others with this "weak hand" issue, if the last slot happens to be on L, a z cube rotation will do the trick. And these two things I mentioned are just 2 of the many many many tips and tricks I've come to discover after flirting with ZZ for more than half a year now.

There are lots and lots of nice cases with mismatched pairs, empty slots and stuck pieces for EOL2S that I've stored all over the place on my computer in random text files that are, sadly, yet to be organized.

Also, something worth mentioning to those interested, is that the number of ZBF2L cases is reduced by half with EOLine. This might motivate someone to work towards full ZB.

I believe an entire algorithm set of all EOL2S cases is not unreasonable and in fact, very achievable, and REALLY cuts down the move count. (EOLine > Block 1 > Block 2 > EOL2S > ZBLL, worth a shot?) I just haven't had the time to do any cubing nor cubing research these days, sigh. Paying bills sucks big time


----------



## blah (May 6, 2009)

Ah, and I discovered a long list of unpublished OLL and PLL algs by snooping around the source code for a while


----------



## Cride5 (May 6, 2009)

blah said:


> > 1. SAME COLOUR TOP
> > (U') R' U2 R' U R' U' R U2' R
> > (U R U2 R') U R U R' U2 R U R'
> 
> ...



Nice alg, added to list 



blah said:


> Edit:
> Okay I'm done reading that page and I have a little something to say. I've done very extensive research on every single Last 2 Slots (hereafter known as EOL2S) possibility and I think you have too few cases listed there.
> 
> There's that example that I just mentioned. Here's another example: (setup: L' U' L U L' U' L U L' U' L U) Instead of solving that last slot with the same "alg", a y' rotation followed by R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' is much faster for people like me who just never can get their left hands to function as they'd like it to. And for others with this "weak hand" issue, if the last slot happens to be on L, a z cube rotation will do the trick. And these two things I mentioned are just 2 of the many many many tips and tricks I've come to discover after flirting with ZZ for more than half a year now.
> ...


If it works for you, I guess there's no reason to religiously stick to the 'no cube rotations' philosophy, and I'm guessing most cases using z rotations to solve LH slot cases will be 2-gen, making them super-fast  I've added a bit of blurb on using cube rotations, as well as your algorithm. If you're able to dig out all your last-slot cases I'll be more than happy to add them to the page. This kind of info would be very useful to ZZ cubers *thumbs up*




blah said:


> Also, something worth mentioning to those interested, is that the number of ZBF2L cases is reduced by half with EOLine. This might motivate someone to work towards full ZB.
> 
> I believe an entire algorithm set of all EOL2S cases is not unreasonable and in fact, very achievable, and REALLY cuts down the move count. (EOLine > Block 1 > Block 2 > EOL2S > ZBLL, worth a shot?) I just haven't had the time to do any cubing nor cubing research these days, sigh. Paying bills sucks big time


One algorithm for all EOL2S cases sounds HARDCORE, but that's to be expected from someone already dabbling in ZBLL 



blah said:


> Ah, and I discovered a long list of unpublished OLL and PLL algs by snooping around the source code for a while


Lolz, very observant of you! I initially posted them up, but then thought that there are tonnes of these algs already out there, so doesn't really contribute much considering the extra blurb required. Its reserved as a perk for those who take the time to check my source 

Cheers for the feedback


----------



## irontwig (May 6, 2009)

Cride5, you might want to add this to your ZBLL links:

http://lar5.com/cube/270/index.html


----------



## Cride5 (May 6, 2009)

Lolz, another 'applet soup' page! Added with a warning 

Cheers


----------



## irontwig (May 6, 2009)

Yeah, I wished that he (or someone else for that matter) did a version with notation and diagrams.


----------



## Lofty (May 6, 2009)

Maybe I'm slow but I don't get how ZBF2L can be used at all for the EOL2S. It seems to me that the number of ZBF2L cases should be reduced to around 20 cases for the last pair. 
I don't really see why you would want to use an alg for that step either. I think that since the 3rd slot can easily be put in close to optimally using intuition and the 4th can be put in close to optimally with an alg/intuition is it really worth it to add the recognition of 2 slots into the mix?


----------



## Cride5 (May 6, 2009)

ZBF2L can be used for the last 1x1x2 blocks on each side, but as far as I'm aware, no-one has generated algorithms for placing both 1x1x2 blocks on each side in one step. I'm assuming that this is what blah meant by EOL2S. I would guess that the number of cases for EOL2S in one step would be fairly huge. No way my goldfish memory could cope with that 

Intuition is optimal if both pieces are disconnected and in the U layer, but becomes much more difficult to achieve when pieces are connected, or in difficult positions. This is why it can be useful to learn algorithms for these cases. My ZZ page has algs for some of these difficult cases, but at blah says, it could have many more, as well as algs for making LH cases more RH friendly.


----------



## Lofty (May 6, 2009)

Right... I know all of these tough cases and use them, that is why I said for the 4th pair alg/intuition and not just intuition like I did for the 3rd pair. The point of ZBF2L is to orient the LL edges as I'm sure you know, so I don't know how that is even remotely applicable for the ZZ method. The only thing I can think of is that when doing the EOLine you ignore the LL edges and then the number of ZBF2L would be cut in half if you count mirrors as separate algs as you wouldn't have to mirror anything since the last edge is already oriented.


----------



## ostracod (May 6, 2009)

Cride5, I'm happy you made a ZZ page for everyone.  Looks very useful, I will have to read through it myself. I saw you included my WV link. ;U

It seemed before that there was no real "portal" page for ZZ containing a lot of information. Such a page exists for Petrus, Roux, and of course for Fridrich. But now there's a nice home base for ZZ 

Edit: And I see you have my videos as well... XU


----------



## Cride5 (May 7, 2009)

Lofty said:


> Right... I know all of these tough cases and use them, that is why I said for the 4th pair alg/intuition and not just intuition like I did for the 3rd pair. The point of ZBF2L is to orient the LL edges as I'm sure you know, so I don't know how that is even remotely applicable for the ZZ method. The only thing I can think of is that when doing the EOLine you ignore the LL edges and then the number of ZBF2L would be cut in half if you count mirrors as separate algs as you wouldn't have to mirror anything since the last edge is already oriented.



Actually, I think that figure of half would probably be less than a quarter in reality. Anyhoo ... the point is that ZBF2L cases where edges are already oriented are the ones which would apply. The point about the ZBF2L algs is that the cases with LL edges already oriented _preserve_ LL edge orientation, where normal Fridrich F2L algs would destroy edge orientation. Its deffo worth a mention because a lot of work has already gone into generating these algs, which is something that the ZZ community can tap into for free 

With regards to solving the '3rd pair' ... I just need to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and you aren't thinking in terms of EOCross. When I do ZZ its broken down into two 1x2x2 blocks and two 1x1x2 blocks. For any given side, its 1x2x2 comes before the 1x1x2. If I come across a connected case after completing the 1x2x2 block, I'll just pick a different set of pieces to build the next 1x2x2. If, however I've completed the two 1x2x2 blocks and both my remaining corner-edge pairs are connected then I'll apply my connected case algs. I do this because using the free 1x1x2 slot rarely, if ever results in an optimal move count. In addition, because you already know these algs, then you should be able to rattle them off really easily.



ostracod said:


> Cride5, I'm happy you made a ZZ page for everyone.  Looks very useful, I will have to read through it myself. I saw you included my WV link. ;U
> 
> It seemed before that there was no real "portal" page for ZZ containing a lot of information. Such a page exists for Petrus, Roux, and of course for Fridrich. But now there's a nice home base for ZZ
> 
> Edit: And I see you have my videos as well... XU


You're welcome! I mainly did it because I want ZZ to grow in popularity so that it can be properly compared to Fridrich. ZZ should be faster than Fridrich in theory, so let's get some practice


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Hay people! I've just finished my second all-nighter working on a ZZ cubing page. It explains EOLine and F2L in some detail, along with algs, diagrams, animations etc. Get it here:
> 
> http://cube.crider.co.uk
> 
> ...



I love the website 
I have decided to go COLL over WV. 
However, I have decided to skip the Sune, Anti Sune, and Double Sune sets since I'm sub one on the oll anyway. That leaves me with only 24! Yay!


----------



## blah (May 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> However, I have decided to skip the Sune, Anti Sune, and Double Sune sets since I'm sub one on the oll anyway. That leaves me with only 24! Yay!



Don't skip double Sune. You'll regret it


----------



## Chuberchuckee (May 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Hay people! I've just finished my second all-nighter working on a ZZ cubing page. It explains EOLine and F2L in some detail, along with algs, diagrams, animations etc. Get it here:
> 
> http://cube.crider.co.uk
> 
> ...



Awesome. We need more support for ZZ!

Also, doesn't ZZLL (ZZ-b) require 167 algorithms?


----------



## Cride5 (May 7, 2009)

Its 167 distinct cases (actually 168 if you count the solved state). You could learn an algorithm for each case, but you can get away with 80 if you mirror/inverse the cases.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 7, 2009)

Where does 167 come from?
40 COLLs that preserve edges
40 COLLs that switch two opposite edges


----------



## Chuberchuckee (May 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Its 167 distinct cases. You could learn an algorithm for each case, but you can get away with 80 if you mirror/inverse the cases.



Oh, duh. It makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Full ZZLL doesn't look as intimidating as it did before.


----------



## Cride5 (May 7, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Where does 167 come from?
> 40 COLLs that preserve edges
> 40 COLLs that switch two opposite edges



Lol, if only it were that simple 

During phasing, the cube is setup so that two edges are permuted correctly with respect to eachother. Note that this does not guarantee correct permutation with respect to the corners.

If two opposite edges are permuted correctly, then it follows that the two other edges are permuted correctly with respect to eachother. However, this does not mean that all four edges are permuted correctly in relation to eachother since two edges may be swapped - consider the edges in a T-perm for example.

So there are two possible cases when considering edge permutation in isolation:
NO PARITY - All four edges are permuted correctly
PARITY - Two edges are swapped (like edges in T-perm)

Now when we consider edge permutation along with corner permutation, then when there is no parity, then it is impossible for the edges to be in any position other than the correct position with respect to the corners, since any other positions with the edges permuted correctly with respect to eachother break the laws of the cube - ie: 3 swaps would be required to correct it. If you don't believe me, try to imagine a PLL where all edges need to be rotated by 90°, while edges are solved - it doesn't exist!

Now when we consider edge/corner permutations where there is parity then it gets a bit more complicated. There are actually 2-ways the edge permutation with swapped edges can be permuted with respect to the corners: Z-perm and T-perm. With the T-perm only two edges need to be swapped which means two will be solved during ZZLL, thus two must already be in a solved state. With the Z-perm all four edges are in an unsolved state (with respect to the corners), and so the algorithm will need to swap two pairs of edges. It is called ROTATED PARITY, since it is the same as twisting the edges in a T-perm by 90°.

So, what it boils down to is that you need COLL with NO PARITY, COLL with PARITY (swaps two edges), COLL with ROTATED PARITY (swaps four edges).

With regards to number of algorithms required: COLL has 40 distinct cases, but can be solved with knowledge of 25 algs, thus by your reasoning ZZLL would only require 50 algs total. This however is not the case, because of what I described above. ZZLL actually has 167 cases, which are solvable with knowledge of 80 algs.

Hope that made sense!!


----------



## Lofty (May 7, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Right... I know all of these tough cases and use them, that is why I said for the 4th pair alg/intuition and not just intuition like I did for the 3rd pair. The point of ZBF2L is to orient the LL edges as I'm sure you know, so I don't know how that is even remotely applicable for the ZZ method. The only thing I can think of is that when doing the EOLine you ignore the LL edges and then the number of ZBF2L would be cut in half if you count mirrors as separate algs as you wouldn't have to mirror anything since the last edge is already oriented.
> ...


A quarter? try going from about 300 to about 20... For most of the 41 F2L there are 8 different cases for the edges. Hence why VHF2L is "32 algs" but only one of those 8 has all the LL edges oriented. But then more than the LL edges are oriented, all of them are. That cuts out half of the 41 F2L cases leaving about 20. 
For me I don't think of inserting a pair using 2-gen algs (which all or most all of these algs would be) as ZBF2L. Using very simple edge control like that is a totally different thing than ZBF2L. So yea. For those of us who have worked on any kind of edge control for our fridrich solves (mainly just went on Lar5 and saw all the ways to solve the last slot of the petrus method) this step is trivial while ZBF2L is no where near trivial. Its also nowhere near half but maybe blah will clarify that for us. 
Yes, f'or the third and forth pairs we are talking about the same thing.
Edit: Learn the double sune cases! At least some of them are pretty nice.


----------



## JustMean (May 13, 2009)

*ZZ method..*

im starting to learn ZZ method..

any tips for starting ZZ?
or guides, websites or videos teaching ZZ..

please help!


----------



## irontwig (May 13, 2009)

http://cube.crider.co.uk/


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 13, 2009)

JustMean said:


> im starting to learn ZZ method..
> 
> any tips for starting ZZ?
> or guides, websites or videos teaching ZZ..
> ...



I love your avatar 
This is a useful page.
And here is the EOline thread, if you have trouble.
There are also a few EOLine tutorials on youtube.


----------



## ostracod (May 13, 2009)

Mah YOUTUBE vids. :U (Just search ZZ, I think they're still the only video source there.)


----------



## Cride5 (May 13, 2009)

Good choice! Deffo have a good stab at it, especially EOLine. Its hard at first but gets easier later on, trust me 
Start by doing EO first, followed by the line (EO+Line). Integrating EO and Line is easy enough once you've mastered EO.

Good luck


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 21, 2009)

Yes. I know this is a rather large bump, but I think that I may have something to add to help some with (the solving, not recog. of EOline, mainly with EO).

M' U M'.
While, yes, one would mainly think that this could only be used in cases such as [UR, UL, UF, DF] disoriented, it could be used in any situation where there are 3+ disoriented edges on a given face.

Given the following scramble, (white top, green front), one can see the immediate advantage of (M' U M').

U' R2 F R' B U' F2 R L U2 B2 D2 F D2 B L B L B L U L2 R2 U2 R'

One should see 6 disoriented edges (All on U face + DB + FL).

First, do a y2 during inspection, making it so after (M' U M'), there are only 2 disoriented edges.
Next, do (M' U M')
Then fix the other two however.
Well, while that was an alright example, I have confidence that there are many GREAT examples. Using this EO "method", I got a new PB avg of 5, so needless to say that I'm liking it.


----------



## Cride5 (May 21, 2009)

I guess conceptually, what you're doing is temporarily changing the edge orientation face to U. The concern I'd have with M' U M' is that it essentially flips the cube over, so I'd probably prefer something like M' U M, or M U M' to preserve the cube colour scheme. NOTE: This is exactly equivalent to doing L' R B L R', or L R' F L' R respectively. It could be useful in FM situations where slice-turn metric was used, or if you're faster at M-slice moves.

My normal EOLine for this case would be: L' B' D2 L R' F' B2. The EOLine using M-slice turns could be: M' U M L' F' L F'. In this case its no more efficient, but but deffo something worth including in the EO hacking repertoire, even if its just making EO more finger friendly


----------



## allstar550 (May 31, 2009)

*ZZ method EOline help*

In the ZZ speedcubing method, the first step is the EOline. You have to look and make sure all the edges are flipped the right way. How do you go about this? I can do the Roux method, when you have to make sure the last 6 edges are flipped right, but how do you make sure all 12 are flipped right? The website suggested looking at Macky's tutorial, but all I could find on his website was the BLD edge tutorial. Are you suppose to use this? 

Here is the ZZ speedcubing system, if any of you want to see my question in context. It is very possible i am just misunderstanding the EOline step. 

http://www.emsee.110mb.com/Speedcubing/ZZ%20speedcubing%20system.html

Thanks,
Zach


----------



## Ellis (May 31, 2009)

Yes look at macky's BLD edge tutorial. Don't read about how to orient the edges with this method, just what the definitions of oriented and misoriented edges are. I think the site you linked quotes the part you'd need from Macky's tutorial. 

A short summary:
-U/D colors on U/D = good
-R/L colors on U/D = bad

For the middle slice edges:
U/D colors on F/B = good
U/D colors on R/L = bad
R/L colors on R/L = good
R/L colors on F/B = bad


----------



## blah (May 31, 2009)

If you can bring the little lost edge home without using F or B moves, it's good. That's how I see it.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 1, 2009)

Ellis covered it,. Just a word of advice from experience though, at first it’s really hard, but after a few weeks, the bad edges just come out.


----------



## Waynilein (Jun 1, 2009)

It's just like Petrus EO, except with 4 colors instead of 2. If you look at opposite colors as being the same, it's just normal Petrus.


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 1, 2009)

Ellis said:


> Yes look at macky's BLD edge tutorial. Don't read about how to orient the edges with this method, just what the definitions of oriented and misoriented edges are. I think the site you linked quotes the part you'd need from Macky's tutorial.
> 
> A short summary:
> -U/D colors on U/D = good
> ...



This is pritty much the way I do it, apart from there's one thing missing. For F/B colours on U/D, check the side, U/D is bad, L/R is good. I created a whole heap of stuff on how to detect and solve EOLine here. Let me know if there's anything you're having trouble with


----------



## allstar550 (Jun 4, 2009)

Thanks for the replies everyone. I can do it now, but it is really slow. Time to start practicing.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 4, 2009)

That's the spirit!


----------



## JLarsen (Jun 4, 2009)

I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 4, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?


Less moves.

also, with winter variation, no CO for LL.

Plus, we get our bad edges out of the way first thing; get the worst part of the solve over with!


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 4, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?



Although I'm familiar with Petrus, I've not taken it to anywhere near the level required to make a fair comparison. I'm currently fully committed to ZZ and happy with my progress, so don't fancy spending time on Petrus ATM.

I don't want to start treading on peoples toes and proclaim that ZZ is better than method X. Instead I'll present some advantages and disadvantages I've personally found with the method, and leave you to make the judgement call...

Advantages:

 Cube is never rotated, held in the same position through out the solve, allowing a strong mental map and intuitive sense of pieces' locations.
 Reduction of F2L to <L, R, U> group really does make it really quick and easy to hammer out these F2L moves!
 Pre-orientation of edges means there are less C+E pair cases during F2L, which is good for recognition/lookahead.
 EOLine does a lot to make the cube easier to solve at all stages and is very good use of inspection time, for the comparatively few moves it uses.
 Automatic orientation of LL edges without any extra work opens up a huge plethora of LL options/advantages:
 For OLL/PLL, OLL is corners only so recognition/execution is super-fast.
So far I've not started to dabble into the other LL options since my F2L still needs more work. However:
 COLL/EPLL: Fewer moves, and most likely easier recognition than full Fridrich OLL/PLL.
 ZBLL: If its nailed is way fewer moves and only one look.


Disadvantages

 Learning time - EOLine takes a long time to master, until its mastered its unlikely you'll be able to plan full EOLine during the 15 seconds inspection time. Some EO cases are easier than others, so integration of the line is a gradual process. It starts with the easier cases and gradually you'll start planning lines for more complex EO cases.
 F2L involves placement of two extra pieces (compared with Fridrich). However, being DF edges makes them very easy to find, and the extra freedom to fully rotate L/R faces makes them very easy to place.
 If you're strongly right handed, then the use of L moves during F2L may cause problems. A 180° cube rotation during F2L could fix this, but I believe that with even practice of L and R moves you will become a more balanced/faster cuber.

I think that about covers the jist of it


----------



## JLarsen (Jun 4, 2009)

Now THAT was what I was looking for. However the previous argument of less moves is ********. Just so you know. The ergonomic quality is impressive though.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 4, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't see the advantage of zz over petrus...can someone explain?
> ...



1. Less moves is way wrong. It is difficult to say which one truly has less moves. But I'm willing to accept a linear FMC challenge from any ZZ user. I average around 40 with Petrus in less than 10 minutes. (Pseudo blocks are allowed.)

2. You can use winter for Petrus too. I like MGLS-PLL and COLL-EPLL better. 

3. That point does make sense, but I hate breaking up blocks, so I have to always build my blocks first.

Funny thing is that when I first heard about ZZ, I really liked the idea, but in practice, it never worked out for me. The EO was actually no problem. The LUR F2L screwed me up. I usually only do 0 to 2 rotations for Fridrich F2L anyway. Rotations are natural, around 30% of my solves are already rotation free without any employment of M slice tricks or B moves. For Petrus, I build blocks while freely rotating. After that, it is <R,U> to finish F2L and very nice LLs. Sometimes it really feels natural to rotate the cube when it isn't necessary; that can make <L, U, R> really awkward.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 4, 2009)

Pseudo blocks shouldn't be allowed.
If we're comparing two speed methods, then very few people, if anyone can use Pseudo blocks well in speed. Cride is pretty good at FMC ZZ, I remember this one time where you got optimal F2L. (go for the challenge )


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 4, 2009)

Lol, it deffo wasn't a linear solve by any stretch of the imagination! Felt a bit like Ebeneezer Goode; _goin forwards and a backwards, backwards and a forwards_ 

Although its not bad for move-count, I wouldn't use it for FMC since the EO part makes it difficult to take advantage of any nice easy starting blocks. Plus, following a fixed solving procedure for F2L is almost always going to introduce move-count inefficiencies.

I may be making too much of a generalisation here, but it seems like the recognition friendly, fixed procedure and minimal thinking in speed solving methods is totally counter to the highly flexable, mentally challenging creativity required in FMC. This is why I've got one method for FM and another for speed. Not that techniques from both don't sometimes cross over.


----------



## JLarsen (Jun 4, 2009)

So my final opinion on zz, and it's users. I think that zz is potentially faster, or at least easier to become fast with. I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding. Cride, you're the exception.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 4, 2009)

?
That seems to be an unfair blanket statement.
Is it necessary to have skill in something(in this case, blockbuilding) when you're starting something? I've said before that ZZ is like Petrus, and I do respect the method. However, saying that every ZZ user should become proficient in Petrus before they try ZZ is stupid.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jun 4, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding.


Just because you can't think other than Petrus way doesn't mean all other methods are bad variations of it. Seriously, Petrus and ZZ have almost nothing in common except LL.

And why does using ZZ make me lose grasp of Petrus and my blockbuilding skillz?


----------



## soccerking813 (Jun 4, 2009)

Cride, I was just looking at your ZZ page, and noticed that you said that COLL requires 25 algs minimum. How is that exactly?


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 4, 2009)

It assumes the cuber is familiar/able to apply mirrors and inverses. If you imagine the Sune cases for example. Take an alg for a sune case, convert R to L', U to U' etc and you have the alg for the equivalent anti-sune. I personally prefer doing this because I have a terrible memory and I'm not too bad with my left hand. The site says 25 algs min, but you may want to optimise your solve by learning different, more RH friendly algs for flipped cases.


----------



## soccerking813 (Jun 4, 2009)

Oh, ok. I was just messing around with ZZ and saw that.

Might experiment with it a little, see if I like it.


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 4, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I also still think that all the users are idiots...



PandaMan...




... stirrin it up since birth. So cute


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 5, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding.
> ...




PandaMan, 

You dare to make the all-powerful Johannes mad? No wonder the Petrus gods are against you! 
Also, you can't overgeneralize about ZZ users. A small kitten is a ZZ user and he said, "I love how people gape at me when I stylishly turn my cube. Sometimes my cubing style is so pretty that I distract myself. That's why I'm slow." Anyone who say that surely cannot be an idiot.


----------



## a small kitten (Jun 7, 2009)

> So my final opinion on zz, and it's users. I think that zz is potentially faster, or at least easier to become fast with. I also still think it makes Petrus boring. I also still think that all the users are idiots with no grasp of the method it's based on, which is petrus, and have no experience or skill with blockbuilding. Cride, you're the exception.



As far as I know, ZZ is not based on Petrus. Instead of randomly badmouthing the method and its users why don't you go practice and make yourself faster so you can say something actually substantial next time?

It's amazing that the title of this thread is ZZ method EOline help xD


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 7, 2009)

blah said:


> I tried ZZ for half a year. I'm sub-14 ...



Sub 14 with ZZ or Fridrich?


----------



## blah (Jun 8, 2009)

Cride5 said:


> Sub 14 with ZZ or Fridrich?



Fridrich. My mistake in expression. Sub-20 with ZZ.


----------



## TheMatureOne (Jul 23, 2009)

I love the ZZ method! I am polish so the small amount of English tutorials doesn't affect me!


----------



## James (Jul 24, 2009)

I have a quick question about ZZ-b and I thought I ought to post it here rather than create a new thread. After phasing and edge orientation, what is the probability that the entire last layer would be solved (what is the chance of a ZZLL skip)?




Here's my try, please correct me:

(1/2 chance of edges correct) * (1/162 chance of a COLL skip) * (1/2 chance of non-rotated parity) = 1/648

I figured that even if the edges where correct and you got a COLL skip, you could still end up with an H-perm, which, I think, would be a rotated parity).


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 24, 2009)

James said:


> I have a quick question about ZZ-b and I thought I ought to post it here rather than create a new thread. After phasing and edge orientation, what is the probability that the entire last layer would be solved (what is the chance of a ZZLL skip)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you're right yes. 

I'm pretty sure that after phasing, the number of possible edge permutations is: 4 * 2

My explanation is: If you imagine placing one edge on the LL, there are four possible options. By placing one edge, you've dictated the position of its opposite colour, so only two edges remain to place. For the third edge it must go adjacent to the first edge which gives two possible positions. Once the third edge is placed the fourth must go opposite... thus:
4 possible locations for first edge, 2 possible locations for the third edge gives number of possible permutations of phased edges as: 4 * 2 = 8

So...

# ZZLL cases = # corner orientations * (# corner permutations * # edge permutations) / 2 = 3^3 * (4! * 4*2) / 2 = 2592

If you include solved, but rotated cases (which most people do) then four of these cases would be included as a 'skip'. Thus chances of a ZZLL skip = 4/2592 = 1/648


----------



## Musturd (Jul 24, 2009)

Because this thread got bumped, I'll ask a question here.

I do EOCross(usually in two different steps) then I do an intuitive F2L with no cube rotations and OLL/PLL. I'm planning on ending with a different LL eventually, but I was just wondering if my beginning steps are alright. My recognition for F2L cases in the reduced EO set is beginning to get fast, but I just feel like I'm doing something wrong. My times in an avg of 12 usually range from high-20s to low-40s which is definately strange.

I know it would be ideal to EOLine + blockbuild, but I am terrible at blockbuilding.

I was wondering if anyone had any tips, on what I can do to bring down my SD.
Should I attempt to learn blockbuilding? Should I continue with my method? Should I memorize most of the F2L cases?


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 24, 2009)

I'm by no means the fastest ZZ solver out there, but I've been working on it for the 6-months or so since I started cubing. Before going for ZZ I spent about 2-weeks learning Fridrich (and still dabble in it now and again), so know where you're coming from with the desire to do EOCross. The short answer: Don't do it!

The explanation: Asside from the fact that planning EOCross is very difficlut, the main reason is that its much less efficient. By sacrificing the ability to do F/B turns with EO, you're straight away losing some efficiency in your F2L slots. This is more than made up for if you allow the L and R sides full freedom to rotate ... which means blockbuilding I'm afraid 

However, its not as bad as it sounds. To start with, just create your C+E pairs (as you've done with Fridrich) and then find your DF edge. Place it in FR/BR/FL/BL and connect your C+E pair to it by rotating the U-face. As you become more familiar with it you can start dealing with joining the C+DF edge and then connecting it to a mid-slice edge. Don't restrict yourself to doing one whole side first. Best is to mix and match for greatest efficiency. A general rule though: Always complete a 1x2x2 before its connecting 1x1x2. 

During the solve you're likely to run into nasty cases such as badly connected blocks. Although dealing with them intuitively is fine at first, I'd recommend learning algs for getting out of these cases optimally or for better fingertrickage. As well as learning algs, there are a lot of 'tricks' you'll pick up with blockbuilding. For example, avoiding running into badly connected blocks or prematurely placing corners/edges. Don't worry about learning them now, they'll develop as you work with it. Slow solving or ZZ FM can be good for increasing your awareness to these techniques.

The great thing about block building is that there is a lot of depth to it, lots of places where you can improve. As your experience builds your block building move count will go down and down. This is a great thing about ZZ in general. Every step can be progressively improved as you spend more time on it. For example:

EO + Line -> EO + Planned Line -> EOLine -> EOLine and looking into your first block
F2L: Intuitive blockbuliding -> algs for special cases -> more tricks -> use of F2LL/Phasing etc.
LL: OCLL/PLL -> COLL/EPLL -> Phasing/ZZLL -> ZBLL (if you're hardcore )

Wow! This post is a lot longer than I intended ... sorry! Hope it helps


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 27, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Example ZZ solve by me. Anyone who's good at ZZ, please help!
> 
> Scramble (Yellow is D face and Blue is F face.)
> B2 D2 L D B2 L2 R' U R U' B2 R2 D2 R' U2 F2 D R2 L2 U2 F B R' F B2



Rereading through this thread, I think I'll contribute to this topic. Here is my example speed ZZ solve (I scrambled the WCA way).

Inspection: y' x2
EO: F D2 R' B' [4/5]
Line: L' D [2/2]
1x2x2: U' L2 R' U' R' U [6/7]
1x1x2: L U2 R' U L' [5/6]
1x2x2: R2 U' R U2 R2 U' [6/9]
1x1x2: R' U R' U' R U R' [7/7]
COLL: U R U’ L’ U R’ U L U L’ U L [12/12]
EPLL: U R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U [13/14]
Total: [55/62]

So basically, my split was [6/7]-[24/29]-[25/26] for that solve. EOline was good, the LL was long because of the COLL case, but my F2L needs improvement.


----------



## Quaddro (Jan 5, 2010)

*ZZ method- Ignoring pieces.*

I was watching the tutorial at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO0IeE40wfc and I couldn't get one part of it. Ignoring colours. It says you need to ignore green and blue, but what does ignore in this case mean? If I ignore them, I can't apply ZZ rules to the edges. I just don't get what is meant there by saying ignore. Please help!


----------



## Escher (Jan 5, 2010)

Gosh those tutorials are terrible.
Read this instead: http://cube.crider.co.uk/

It has pretty much _everything_ you need to get decent at ZZ.


----------



## Quaddro (Jan 5, 2010)

Thank you very, very much! That page you posted is a lot easier to understand!


----------



## fei193 (May 4, 2011)

*EOLine (ZZ method) help.*

Im learning ZZ method for speedcubing. I have some problem with the first step EOLine, it take so much time and moves . Help me please!!!!


----------



## souljahsu (May 4, 2011)

Just practice it a lot, your move count will decrease significantly.


----------



## a small kitten (May 4, 2011)

try this

http://rubiks-cube.c0.pl/inne/eoline.html


----------



## EricReese (May 4, 2011)

Put a finger on each misoriented edge. Recognition of bad edges will come with time. I can recognize bad edges fairly quickly but I still have to put a finger on each edge though for planning out EOLine. Just practice and use kittens link


----------



## fei193 (May 4, 2011)

Im trying fix some bad edges when make a line, i usually make a line first, after that do other edges. Someone said to me fixed bad edges and make a line could be done same time.
Edit: In Roux method, fix bad edges have solutions for each cases. i don't know how i do same thing in ZZ method.


----------



## Arkwell (Jul 10, 2011)

*ZZ Method questions*

Guys, I'm facinated by the ZZ Method but for the Last Layer I'm a fan of the ZZLL and I just wanted to know if Phasing and ZZLL can be used all the time to solve the LL?


----------



## Selkie (Jul 10, 2011)

Not that I do ZZ, but with EOLine being the first step all edges are already orientated so the LL will always be a ZBLL case. I could stand corrected however


----------



## Erzz (Jul 10, 2011)

I think you need to use phasing to permute edges while doing F2L.


wiki said:


> ZZ-b: During F2L, the solver employs a technique called Phasing to correctly permute two opposite LL edges. Before the last corner-edge pair is placed, the solver uses one of several algorithms depending on how the edges are positioned. The last layer is then completed with one look using ZZLL.


----------



## a small kitten (Jul 10, 2011)

Phasing is edge permutation. Look it up in the wiki. It has a good description.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jul 10, 2011)

Arkwell said:


> Guys, I'm facinated by the ZZ Method but for the Last Layer I'm a fan of the ZZLL and I just wanted to know if Phasing and ZZLL can be used all the time to solve the LL?


 
Yes it can, just like it can always be solved with OLL/PLL.


----------



## Arkwell (Jul 15, 2011)

*ZZLL Complete Algs*

Guys, are there any links that have the complete ZZLL algs?


----------



## Jorghi (Jul 15, 2011)

I'not sure but I think you are looking for 2 look oll/pll.
Or that sub group of ZBLL in which 2 opposing edges are permuted?

check the wiki above


----------



## Arkwell (Jul 16, 2011)

*Subset of ZBLL algs*

Actually it was the complete sub set of the ZBLL algs you would use after Phasing for the ZZ method that I was looking for.


----------



## Arkwell (Sep 14, 2011)

*EOLine Help?*

Ok ZZ cubers, I'm a ZZ noob and I'm good at recognizing EOLine bad edges but I'm a little confused with how to solve them. Bldmaster on youtube has a great EOline tutorial so am I to understand that I move the bad edges to the Front or Back face to solve them and are Crider's EOline algs(the one's in Black & Grey) general ways to solve certain EOline situations or just setup EOline solves? Once I understand EOline should I be doing it for speed?


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 14, 2011)

Seems to me that at this stage you should first focus on fixing EO, then making the line.
As you get better at this you could start optimising EO so it sets you uip for a lower movecount -Line.

So you can identify the bad edges?
All you need to do is bring them to F or B face and apply a quarter turn.
offcourse you want to take care that there are no good edges in the face because then the quarter turn will turn them into bad ones 

Conrad's tutorial is really the way to go! study it in detail.

For learning proper EO and/or EO line do not worry about speed. Take as much time as you need to find a good solution.
First work on efficiency, speed comes later. You cannot solve fast if you do not know how to solve


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 14, 2011)

Idea:

let's compare EO line solutions for these scrambles:
1. U2 R D' B' U2 B F D2 L' F R' B2 R U' F U B'
2. D' L' D2 B2 F2 D' L B D' L2 R' B' D2 U R2 B R' F'
3. F2 L2 D U2 L' D' L U' R' B' U' B2 U2 F R D' B' R
4. B2 D2 B F R' U' B2 D U2 B R2 F' D R2 F2 U R' F'
5. U' F L F U B2 L' F D' F2 L U' B2 L D' U' B2 U2

Please put your solutions between spoiler tags.
I'm not very good at EO line myself but perhaps some of the experts can show us some magic.

I suggest we build the line in the WCA scrambling orientation White on top, green on front: build a yellow EO line on D


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Sep 14, 2011)

Ill give this a go. I'm not amazing either.


Spoiler



1. U R B' R2 U' L' F D R' D (10 HTM)
2. B2 F' U F U2 B' D2 L D' (9HTM)
3. R F B D' B' D (6HTM)
4. R' F R B' U B L' B' L2 D' F2 D2 (12HTM)
5. R U R' B2 U2 B' F2 R' D (9HTM)
the 4th one was horrible. 10 edges I find hard to deal with. Most of mine are EO then Line aswell, except 3, I got lucky


----------



## RyanReese09 (Sep 14, 2011)

Spoiler



1) B L' U' R' U' F' D' F2 D2-Meh (9htm)
2) B' L2 R' D' F L' D2 L' D-Meh (9htm)
3) F' R D L2 F' D2 F2-Good(7htm)
4) B' F' D R' L F D' F2-Good I guess (8htm)
5) R D R U B' D L D'-Meh (8htm)



I feel like the different orientation screwed with my ability to find stuff.


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 14, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> I feel like the different orientation screwed with my ability to find stuff.



Feel free to post your solutions starting with z2 


Yellow line


Spoiler



1) B L' U R' U' F R' D' - 8
2) B F R2 D' F D R' D - 9
3) B' D U2 R F R D - 7
4) B F' D L R' F D' F2 - 8
5) U R' D R F D L D' - 8 fixed


----------



## porkynator (Sep 14, 2011)

Spoiler



1) D' R' B' F' L' F R L2 D' - 9
2) R F' R' F' R D B' D' R2 D - 10 (or U' B' instead of D' R2 D, but it's slower)
3) R' F' B D' B D F2 - 7 (accidental cross)
4) B R' F D F L F' D' R' D - 10 (again...)
5) U2 R U' D B D L D' - 8


I tried to find the solutions as I were inspecting the cube before a solve, so with 15s time limit.
They are not move-optimal, but possibly fast to execute.



RyanReese09 said:


> I feel like the different orientation screwed with my ability to find stuff.


 
I scrambled with my normal orientation (White-Orange) and solved normally, problem solved


----------



## Cride5 (Sep 15, 2011)

@ Arkwell, I would agree with cubenovice - definitely concentrate on solving EO on its own first. Eventually you'll be able to see a number of near-optimal EO-solutions for each case. Integrating the line is basically just choosing the EO solution which lands the edges at the nicest possible place. 



Spoiler



These are the basic solutions I would use. While inspecting I try to find nice ways to execute them - for example, using multilayer or inner slice moves to save time and reduce F/B moves.

1. B' D R L' F' L D' -> B' D M D' r D'

2. B' R' D' L2 F D' L' D'

3. R F B D' B D -> x' R D U x D' B' D

4. B' F R' U' L' F' L D -> z S' R' U' r' D' r D
I would normally treat something like this as a 6-edger, ignoring the 4 on the back.

5. U2 R U' D B D L D'



EDIT: @novice I couldn't get your solution for #5 to work


----------



## Arkwell (Sep 15, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Idea:
> 
> let's compare EO line solutions for these scrambles:
> 1. U2 R D' B' U2 B F D2 L' F R' B2 R U' F U B'
> ...



Thanks, at this point I don't try to solve EOLine, I just do edges first and then the line but I'm used Yellow top and Blue front.


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 15, 2011)

Welcome back Arkwell!
To keep notation the same for all solutions you can just scramble the cube in your own preferred orientation. 

Looking forward to your Lines 

Good to see you Conrad, after work I'll have another look at my 5th solution, can't cube right now.


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 15, 2011)

Random speedsolving solutions. Some are kind of bad.

1. U2 R D' B' U2 B F D2 L' F R' B2 R U' F U B'

x2 F' U M U' x D' R D' 
R2 U2 R’ U R U’ L’ U’ L’ U L’ R U R’ U L U L’ 
y’ L’ U’ L U L’ U2 L U L’ U’ L 

2. D' L' D2 B2 F2 D' L B D' L2 R' B' D2 U R2 B R' F'

x2 y2 B’ R2 L’ U’ F’ D L u 
y L U L’ R U2 L’ U’ L’ U2 L’ U R2 U L U L’
R2 U2 R’ U’ R2 U2 R U2 R’ U’ R U’ R’ U’ R

3. F2 L2 D U2 L' D' L U' R' B' U' B2 U2 F R D' B' R

x2 y2 F’ L R’ U F D L2 u 
y U L’ R’ U2 L U L2 R’ U R2 L’ U L
R’ U’ R U’ R U R U2 R U R’

4. B2 D2 B F R' U' B2 D U2 B R2 F' D R2 F2 U R' F'

x2 R’ B F R U’ L’ F D R D 
L’ R’ U2 L U L U2 L U L’
R’ U’ R U’ R’ U2 R’ U’ R2 U’ R U’ R’ U’ R

5. U' F L F U B2 L' F D' F2 L U' B2 L D' U' B2 U2

x2 R U R D F’ L R’ D’
U2 R U L’ U2 L U L U R’ U’ R U R’ U R U’ R’
R’ U R U’ R’ U R
L U2 L’ U2 L U2 L’ U’ L U L’


----------



## Arkwell (Sep 18, 2011)

*ZZLL of ZBLL?*

Guys, this site has a great Algorithm database and I wanted to know which of the ZBLL cases are the ones you can use for ZZLL after Phasing in the ZZ Method?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2011)

the ones with two opposite edges solved


----------



## y235 (Sep 18, 2011)

http://www.boca.bee.pl/cat.php?l=en&cat=th&m=zz&ch=b
those algs.


----------



## nickvu2 (Sep 18, 2011)

Here are mine, except for Pi and Sune cases: 
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...2MtMzBmOS00MTA0LTg3ODEtOGE1MDY4OGRhOGY0&hl=en


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 18, 2011)

Dear Arkwell, with all due respect: at this moment in time you should not even think about ZZZBLL.

It's been just 4 days since this:


Arkwell said:


> Ok ZZ cubers, I'm a ZZ noob and I'm good at recognizing EOLine bad edges but I'm a little confused with how to solve them. Bldmaster on youtube has a great EOline tutorial so am I to understand that I move the bad edges to the Front or Back face to solve them and are Crider's EOline algs(the one's in Black & Grey) general ways to solve certain EOline situations or just setup EOline solves? Once I understand EOline should I be doing it for speed?



BTW: you still havent posted your EO line solutions'for the scrambles in that thread


----------



## Godmil (Sep 19, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Dear Arkwell, with all due respect: at this moment in time you should not even think about ZZZBLL.


 
To be fare though, since this is a hobby that he's doing for fun, he can learn whatever he wants to.


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 19, 2011)

Godmil said:


> To be fare though, since this is a hobby that he's doing for fun, he can learn whatever he wants to.



True dat...
All this is for fun so yes, feel free to do as you please 

I see the parallel with an early start of learning OLL / PLL algs (which to me actually *does* make sense).
But as ZZZBLL is such an extensive alg set this seems (to me) like a bridge too far if you're still working on the basics.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 19, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> But as ZZZBLL is such an extensive alg set this seems (to me) like a bridge too far if you're still working on the basics.



Yeah, to be honest I think ZBLL is a waste of time for speedsolving, and ZZLL is only slightly better.


----------



## Arkwell (Sep 20, 2011)

Godmil said:


> To be fare though, since this is a hobby that he's doing for fun, he can learn whatever he wants to.



Godmil has it right, you walk into a store you're not going to buy everything, I'm just having fun and I didn't know I was going to be tested I have an Idea where I want to end up and I just wanted to take a look at what the complete ZZLL looks like. That's the fun of it, messing around with different things while you're learning


----------



## Arkwell (Sep 27, 2011)

*EOLine fingertricks?*

Guys, on Crider's ZZ method EOLine page he has 57 Edge Orientation cases with algs. Is working on Fingertricks for those algs overkill and should I save fingertricks for the Blockbuilding F2L and Last Layer?


----------



## souljahsu (Sep 28, 2011)

Definitely figure out a few finger tricks for EOLine. I find mixing in a few M-slices here and there makes the EOLine extremely fast for executing.
Crider is probably saying that it's overkill because of the number of cases for EOLine, but I figure out all of my EOLine finger tricks intuitively on the spot. It takes up most of my inspection time anyway. Hope this helps !


----------



## Cride5 (Sep 29, 2011)

Although there are a huge number of EOLine cases, many of them end in similar ways. I normally aim for a D-turn to place the line, which in turn means I'm usually trying to get one line edge in L and the other in R. In this situation a both sides can often be turned in a single motion. As well as the M-slice moves, there's things like R2' L (use ring finger on DF) and L' R' (starts as r', use LH ring finger on DF to stop M'slice, completing the R-move). Practising common line scenarios (eg R D R' D') can also be useful.

At the beginning of EOLine, I sometimes start with my normal D-face somewhere other than D to make exec easier. For example, rotated on z to use S/S' to orient 8x edges at once, or rotated on x to allow use of U/D to orient, followed by r/r' to place D-centre and edges.

It's just a case of being creative really. There are a couple of examples of fingertricky EOLines here:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?32326-EOLine-Help&p=642768&viewfull=1#post642768
(also see kitten's solutions further down)

Ohwait - I see you started that thread! NVM


----------



## Arkwell (Oct 7, 2011)

*One finger or thumb 180 degree turns?*

Guys, when doing EOLine 180 degree turns, because of how loose the Zhanchi's & Guhongs are I find I can do those turns with one finger or thumb just pulling on the diagonal and it seems faster than the two finger flicks when working out finger tricks especially on the Front Face. Is this something I should work on or is it a bad habit? How would you fingertrick some of these EOLine algs? You can find the rest of the algs on Crider's ZZ tutorial all input is welcome.

LRU2
U'D'R2
D'UR2
F2U2
F2U2R2
LR'F2U2
F2UD'R2


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 7, 2011)

Um... Well if you find it fast use it. Like I use my thumb for E sometimes and I find it fast so I still use it.
L R U2 right wrist+left wrist, right thumb pull 180
U' D' R2 left index+right index, right wrist.
L R' F2 U2 executed as M' U2 x' U2


----------



## teller (Oct 7, 2011)

I don't ZZ, but I totally pull from the diagonal throughout my solves and would recommend it anytime your finger is near that spot.


----------



## Arkwell (Oct 9, 2011)

teller said:


> I don't ZZ, but I totally pull from the diagonal throughout my solves and would recommend it anytime your finger is near that spot.



Means a lot coming from you, trying to apply Teller like fingertricks to ZZ Method!


----------



## TheZenith27 (Oct 9, 2011)

Sounds like your two finger flick is slow... I find the diagonal turning for those kinds of turns to be slow and awkward.


----------



## Arkwell (Oct 9, 2011)

TheZenith27 said:


> Sounds like your two finger flick is slow... I find the diagonal turning for those kinds of turns to be slow and awkward.




My two finger flick is pretty fast but I have long fingers and thumbs so for an EOLine alg like F2R2 the thumb flick front face diagonal and ring finger flick for the R2 works a little faster. If you can imagine it in drum beats it gave me two beats compared to 4 really fast beats but all of this is only because of the loose & smooth Zhanchi/Guhongs.


----------



## Arkwell (Nov 13, 2011)

*ZB2FL + ZBLL, dead, alive or on life support?*

Anyone still working on complete ZB method?


----------



## asportking (Nov 13, 2011)

YrMyKnight said:


> wHOSE SO FREE TO MEMORIZE 800 ALGORITHMS!?
> AT THE COMPETITION WHEN THEY FOUND A CASE OUT OF 800 ALGORITMS THEY STILL HAVE TO THINK !
> IN CONCLUSION , RECOGNITION ON ZBF2L AND ZBLL TAKES ALMOST A DECADE TO PRACTICE.
> stuck at a case where trying to think one of 800 algoritms in a competition is going to get u eliminated


People can use it for FMC, that would be where it's most helpful. 
Also, please don't type almost all of your message in capital letters, it gives the impression that you're screaming at the person.

anyway, although I doubt many people know full ZBF2L and ZBLL, I've heard people memorize some of the more useful cases for solves.


----------



## Hershey (Nov 13, 2011)

YrMyKnight said:


> RECOGNITION ON ZBF2L AND ZBLL TAKES ALMOST A DECADE TO PRACTICE.


 
But it doesn't seem to affect Ville much... Well, maybe a little bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiARJdpqOig


----------



## Arkwell (Nov 24, 2011)

*EOLine, ZZF2L, Phasing + ZZLL, Dead, Alive or on Life Support?*

Complete ZZ Method(EOLine, ZZF2L, Phasing + ZZLL). Conrad is the master and tutor. Most use ZZ up to last layer then a variation from another method. Is there anyone using the complete ZZ Method? What do you think is the future of ZZ and would it go further is someone started breaking WR's with it?


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 24, 2011)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?33491-ZB2FL-ZBLL-dead-alive-or-on-life-support

;_;


----------



## Athefre (Nov 24, 2011)

High move count and half-turns are a turnoff.

Few people practice it, even fewer are fast and the fast users rarely post videos. Without fast solve videos being posted often, ZZ is a hard sell.


----------



## Arkwell (Nov 24, 2011)

Jaycee said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?33491-ZB2FL-ZBLL-dead-alive-or-on-life-support
> 
> ;_;


 

Sorry, tried to move it but couldn't.


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 8, 2011)

*Anyone using the complete ZZ method/phasing/ZZLL?*

Anyone using the complete ZZ method ie: EOline, Blockbuilding F2L, Phasing & ZZLL(I'm asking this because most use a more standard way to finish the last layer rather than ZZLL)? If you are, how good are you at it and what kind of potential do you see in it?


----------



## Dennis (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't personally think phasing+ZZLL is worth the work. I'm using both Winter and Summer variation to finish last slot to get OLL (OCLL actually) skip then regular PLL. Working on getting used to all reflections not just FR slot


----------



## Genesis (Dec 8, 2011)

Who knows, maybe someone had already mastered the whole thing but is still an underground cuber.


----------



## Jukuren (Dec 12, 2011)

I know a local cuber who does... Nick Vu, Well all ZZLL minus the sune cases cuz he said its easier and just as fast to do Sune+PLL


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 14, 2011)

Jukuren said:


> I know a local cuber who does... Nick Vu, Well all ZZLL minus the sune cases cuz he said its easier and just as fast to do Sune+PLL


 

Do you know what kind of times he's getting with ZZ. Is it his main method and how does he think it stacks up against CFOP?


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 14, 2011)

James Creswell

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2009CRES01


----------



## tx789 (Dec 14, 2011)

If some poeple learn ZB then there will be people who use full ZZ


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 15, 2011)

Jukuren said:


> I know a local cuber who does... Nick Vu, Well all ZZLL minus the sune cases cuz he said its easier and just as fast to do Sune+PLL


^That's me XD
In general, I'm not a fast cuber. I've been slowly transitioning from CFOP (>3yrs; 23 sec) to ZZ (1yr; 29 sec). <- those are official avgs. Now that I'm using ZZ in comp, I consider it my main.

I do think ZZ is superior to CFOP, of course that's just an opinion. I have no doubt that my ZZ times will eventually surpass my CFOP times. The biggest hangup at the moment is EOLine. Honestly, your time would probably be better spent mastering that than learning tons of algs that may only save you a couple seconds. Yet even though I'm not breaking any records with it, I do get a lot of satisfaction for being one of only a few in the world who knows it. Not to mention it's a pretty epic feeling to solve LL in 1-look. XD

So again, if fast times are your only concern, your energy would probably be better spent elsewhere...at least until you've mastered every other aspect of the method.

Let me know if you have any more questions.


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 16, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> ^That's me XD
> In general, I'm not a fast cuber. I've been slowly transitioning from CFOP (>3yrs; 23 sec) to ZZ (1yr; 29 sec). <- those are official avgs. Now that I'm using ZZ in comp, I consider it my main.
> 
> I do think ZZ is superior to CFOP, of course that's just an opinion. I have no doubt that my ZZ times will eventually surpass my CFOP times. The biggest hangup at the moment is EOLine. Honestly, your time would probably be better spent mastering that than learning tons of algs that may only save you a couple seconds. Yet even though I'm not breaking any records with it, I do get a lot of satisfaction for being one of only a few in the world who knows it. Not to mention it's a pretty epic feeling to solve LL in 1-look. XD
> ...



1) Nick, what do you think are the pro's and con's of complete ZZ compared to CFOP?

2) How hard was it for you to re-learn F2L Blockbuilding?(At first I had a pretty easy time with good/bad edges EOLine but I took a cube and just put stickers on 2 layers to learn block building F2L and it killed me even following Crider's tutorial. I'm slow at CFOP F2L but it seemed more intuitive and even color neutrality came easy after learning edge orientation). 

3) Do you always 'Phase' and how do you recognize your ZZLL cases?

4) Do you think that in the hands of an expert ZZ times could beat CFOP times?

5) Ever thought about a Youtube blockbuilding tutorial?


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 16, 2011)

1) Nick, what do you think are the pro's and con's of complete ZZ compared to CFOP?
_ZZ: fewer moves(?), no cube turns & lots of 3 gen, fewer looks in last layer
CFOP: more popular=>more resources=>more help available, more straight forward transition from beginner methods, less LL cases=>lower memo burden and you get more practice with each case_

2) How hard was it for you to re-learn F2L Blockbuilding?(At first I had a pretty easy time with good/bad edges EOLine but I took a cube and just put stickers on 2 layers to learn block building F2L and it killed me even following Crider's tutorial. I'm slow at CFOP F2L but it seemed more intuitive and even color neutrality came easy after learning edge orientation). 
_Between EOLine, block building and LL, it was block building that was by far the easiest. That's not to say it was easy._

3) Do you always 'Phase' and how do you recognize your ZZLL cases?
_Some Phase cases are nasty and I go back and forth on whether to phase them or not. I recently added an entry on Advanced Phasing to the wiki. There's also a link to my doc at the bottom. I'm considering learning a couple of those cases._

4) Do you think that in the hands of an expert ZZ times could beat CFOP times?
_The simple answer, yes. It's hard to compare 2 anomalies (expert cubers) though; unless you clone them and provide identical environments and experiences. So we're really talking statistics here. I think disparity in the total population of each plays a big role. Lots of CFOPers means lots of outliers, ie bigger chance of really good solvers. Further, the more people, the more sharing of ideas and increased opportunity for feedback. This also gives the CFOP community a huge edge. But ZZ seems to be growing, providing ever increasing opportunity for experts to emerge. I don't think it's inevitable that ZZ surpasses CFOP, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did._

5) Ever thought about a Youtube blockbuilding tutorial?
_I've thought about lots of tutorials! ZZ is higher on the list and it would include block building. According to my wild schemes, it'll be done by the new year. But knowing me, don't hold your breath._


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 17, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> 1) Nick, what do you think are the pro's and con's of complete ZZ compared to CFOP?
> _ZZ: fewer moves(?), no cube turns & lots of 3 gen, fewer looks in last layer
> CFOP: more popular=>more resources=>more help available, more straight forward transition from beginner methods, less LL cases=>lower memo burden and you get more practice with each case_
> 
> ...



Thanks! Brilliant little treatise! I forgot to ask with your form of phasing what is the general Alg count for complete ZZ compared to CFOP? 

And for question (4) I should have put it the way: Clone Feliks Zemdegs, have one Feliks master CFOP and one Master total ZZ, where would ZZ Feliks have an advantage over CFOP Feliks and vice versa.

To me the main advantage that ZZ has is that if you master EOLine, and Phasing you have 1 look ZZLL compared to OLL/PLL with the recognition for both. It's said that the total ZZLL cases after Phasing is 80(not much more than OLL/PLL combined) but I don't know if that's including Phasing Algs.


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 17, 2011)

Not 80 cases, 80 algs minimum if you're not counting mirrors and inverses. Here's the thing though, an inverse sexy move is one thing, an inverse PLL is quite another; not to mention an inverse alg may not flow as nicely, requiring a brand new alg for the case. And I wouldn't say mirrors are a given, they still require practice. To say 80 is quite misleading. 

Phasing is done to achieve a particular edge state. Regardless of whether your using intuitive or advanced phasing, you're always left with the same outcome, thus the same number of algs. Full ZZLL is 160 cases (Does anyone know why the wiki says 167? Am I missing something?) Plus 21 PLLs, which you have to know in case of an OLL skip. So 181 cases. However I decided, and Harris Chan confirmed, that sune and anti-sune cases aren't worth learning since sune is so freaking fast as it is. Therefor, I only use 112+21=133 algs. And you can always get away with intuitive phasing, but once dialed in you could call that 6 very simple algs after setup. Although 2 phase cases are a serious pain, so eventually I want to learn those 6 algs as well.

CFOPFaz vs ZZFaz...fight! You probably gather by now that my money is on ZZ, and again this is based on little more than intuition. But I'm starting to think SnyderFaz might beat them both. _*Did I just hear a can of worms openning* _


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 17, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> Not 80 cases, 80 algs minimum if you're not counting mirrors and inverses. Here's the thing though, an inverse sexy move is one thing, an inverse PLL is quite another; not to mention an inverse alg may not flow as nicely, requiring a brand new alg for the case. And I wouldn't say mirrors are a given, they still require practice. To say 80 is quite misleading.
> 
> Phasing is done to achieve a particular edge state. Regardless of whether your using intuitive or advanced phasing, you're always left with the same outcome, thus the same number of algs. Full ZZLL is 160 cases (Does anyone know why the wiki says 167? Am I missing something?) Plus 21 PLLs, which you have to know in case of an OLL skip. So 181 cases. However I decided, and Harris Chan confirmed, that sune and anti-sune cases aren't worth learning since sune is so freaking fast as it is. Therefor, I only use 112+21=133 algs. And you can always get away with intuitive phasing, but once dialed in you could call that 6 very simple algs after setup. Although 2 phase cases are a serious pain, so eventually I want to learn those 6 algs as well.
> 
> CFOPFaz vs ZZFaz...fight! You probably gather by now that my money is on ZZ, and again this is based on little more than intuition. But I'm starting to think SnyderFaz might beat them both. _*Did I just hear a can of worms openning* _



Ah ha! It's those 133+ algs & 181 cases that's gonna keep me in CFOP for a while But yes you did open a big can of SnyderFaz worms!


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 18, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> Not 80 cases, 80 algs minimum if you're not counting mirrors and inverses. Here's the thing though, an inverse sexy move is one thing, an inverse PLL is quite another; not to mention an inverse alg may not flow as nicely, requiring a brand new alg for the case. And I wouldn't say mirrors are a given, they still require practice. To say 80 is quite misleading.
> 
> Phasing is done to achieve a particular edge state. Regardless of whether your using intuitive or advanced phasing, you're always left with the same outcome, thus the same number of algs. Full ZZLL is 160 cases (Does anyone know why the wiki says 167? Am I missing something?) Plus 21 PLLs, which you have to know in case of an OLL skip. So 181 cases. However I decided, and Harris Chan confirmed, that sune and anti-sune cases aren't worth learning since sune is so freaking fast as it is. Therefor, I only use 112+21=133 algs. And you can always get away with intuitive phasing, but once dialed in you could call that 6 very simple algs after setup. Although 2 phase cases are a serious pain, so eventually I want to learn those 6 algs as well.
> 
> CFOPFaz vs ZZFaz...fight! You probably gather by now that my money is on ZZ, and again this is based on little more than intuition. But I'm starting to think SnyderFaz might beat them both. _*Did I just hear a can of worms openning* _



Nick, I always forget to ask, when looking at ZBLL cases on the Alg Database do I just look at the cases where 2 edges are opposite to use as ZZLL?(Thinking Alg ZBLL Database might have more fingertricky algs to use for ZZLL) 

I have Simon Swanson's 2.57 version ZZLL's(Don't know if it's complete) what is your ZZLL source?


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 19, 2011)

Here's my alg list, which is a highly edited version of Simon's list. You're the first to see the final version =) I did a TON of work finding speed optimal algs. I left in all the algs I tried so you have alternatives should you not like the one I settled on. Maybe one day I'll clean it up a little. 

ZZLL algs (no sune cases)

On the wiki, just look at the ZBLL cases with phased edges. But you probably won't need the wiki if you have this doc...unless you're looking for sune cases.


----------



## y235 (Dec 19, 2011)

Nick, how does recognition work?


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 20, 2011)

The conventional way of doing it, which is how they name the cases, it to 1) identify the OLL case, 2) identify the COLL case by looking at the U stickers (or U & F stickers depending on the OLL) of the 4 top layer corners, 3) identify the relationship between the FU, FUR, RUF and RU stickers. 

But basically I just recognize the case by its bars, headlights, checker patterns, etc. Oh, and all this is done with only looking at the R, F and U faces. I'm still working on it, but I'm confident I can get recognition to equal that of PLL.


----------



## Arkwell (Dec 21, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> The conventional way of doing it, which is how they name the cases, it to 1) identify the OLL case, 2) identify the COLL case by looking at the U stickers (or U & F stickers depending on the OLL) of the 4 top layer corners, 3) identify the relationship between the FU, FUR, RUF and RU stickers.
> 
> But basically I just recognize the case by its bars, headlights, checker patterns, etc. Oh, and all this is done with only looking at the R, F and U faces. I'm still working on it, but I'm confident I can get recognition to equal that of PLL.



I never realized that true ZZLL involved so many algs(133-181). Is that what makes most use OLL/PLL or variation rather than ZZLL and with that many more algs can ZZLL recognition compete with 78 alg CFOP?


----------



## MalusDB (Dec 21, 2011)

It feels to me like you would really need to spend a lifetime to achieve the level of mastery in ZZ that can be achieved in a few years hard graft with CFOP. At the cutting edge I don't think ZZ holds any advantage over CFOP for singles. I mean Theres guys out there who have unoffical 4.xx times. It isn't realistic to think that zz can top that without it being considered equally anomalous. I think ZZ is a good, viable method, but its not worth the effort if you wanna achieve only blistering speed. Your time could be better spent. Then again what do I know? Not hating btw, I'm really interested in ZZ, hence me being here


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 22, 2011)

Arkwell said:


> ...true ZZLL...


I wouldn't say ZZ-b is any more legitimate than the other variations.



Arkwell said:


> Is that what makes most use OLL/PLL or variation rather than ZZLL


Yup



Arkwell said:


> with that many more algs can ZZLL recognition compete with 78 alg CFOP?


More algs requires more practice. Can ZZLL recognition times match that of CFOP? I'm betting a lot of time and energy that it can! I do daily flashcard drills on Anki, which I consider way more effective than only doing solves and hoping for all the cases to show up. 



MalusDB said:


> It feels to me like you would really need to spend a lifetime to achieve the level of mastery in ZZ that can be achieved in a few years hard graft with CFOP. At the cutting edge I don't think ZZ holds any advantage over CFOP for singles. I mean Theres guys out there who have unoffical 4.xx times. It isn't realistic to think that zz can top that without it being considered equally anomalous. I think ZZ is a good, viable method, but its not worth the effort if you wanna achieve only blistering speed. Your time could be better spent. Then again what do I know? Not hating btw, I'm really interested in ZZ, hence me being here


You very well could be right about that! But isn't that what speedcubing is all about!? Investing absurd amounts of time into gaining even the slightest edge...into gaining the hope of having the slightest edge. lol Yes, ZZ-b is ridiculous, and that's why I'm drawn to it XD I won't be doing any sub-4.xx solves, but I do think it will take me, personally, further than CFOP could. Nevertheless, Malus, you make excellent points!


----------



## Mal (Dec 22, 2011)

Wheres a good place I could learn ZZ? Because I just want to learn half of it. Like no ZZLL just OLL and PLL. Like what asmallkitten does.


----------



## a small kitten (Dec 22, 2011)

http://cube.crider.co.uk/


----------



## Mal (Dec 22, 2011)

a small kitten said:


> http://cube.crider.co.uk/


 
Thanks but you already told me about that website. I am going to start learning it today, wish me luck!


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Dec 24, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> Here's my alg list, which is a highly edited version of Simon's list. You're the first to see the final version =) I did a TON of work finding speed optimal algs. I left in all the algs I tried so you have alternatives should you not like the one I settled on. Maybe one day I'll clean it up a little.
> 
> ZZLL algs (no sune cases)
> 
> On the wiki, just look at the ZBLL cases with phased edges. But you probably won't need the wiki if you have this doc...unless you're looking for sune cases.


 
Hmm... Maybe I should have updated my ZZLL doc with my ZBLL. I was under the impression that people used it less than my ZBLL sheet (can you use something less than 0 times?). At least you kept it going. Some of the cases just aren't great no matter what, but I'm very happy you kept it updated. Might have to steal a few hehehe.

I very happy to hear you've completed ZZLL, even if it is without the Sune cases. I'm still running the Sune debate on ZBLL in my head. Some of the 2-gen cases are really fast, but after that it gets a little bit iffy. I thought about running each one and finding the PLL that went with it, but that just seemed too much. Do you even bother recognizing the COLL/ZZLL case before you Sune it?

Also, can you go into more detail about your recognition system? It sort of sounds like you are using Harris-Baum but maybe not. You don't have all 12 edge permutations to recognize so I imagine there are some shortcuts you can take.



nickvu2 said:


> You very well could be right about that! But isn't that what speedcubing is all about!? Investing absurd amounts of time into gaining even the slightest edge...into gaining the hope of having the slightest edge. lol Yes, ZZ-b is ridiculous, and that's why I'm drawn to it XD I won't be doing any sub-4.xx solves, but I do think it will take me, personally, further than CFOP could. Nevertheless, Malus, you make excellent points!



That's my attitude. I don't care that much about my times anymore. I'm sub-20 and that's plenty good. But my goal since the beginning was to learn ZBLL, and that's what drives me. I didn't make and update my ZBLL algorithms for you guys. You guys were I formatted it nicely.


----------



## nickvu2 (Dec 24, 2011)

eastamazonantidote said:


> Do you even bother recognizing the COLL/ZZLL case before you Sune it?.


 
No, I just 2-look it.



eastamazonantidote said:


> Also, can you go into more detail about your recognition system? It sort of sounds like you are using Harris-Baum but maybe not. You don't have all 12 edge permutations to recognize so I imagine there are some shortcuts you can take.


It's really not a system at all. I'll share my process though. Basically I started with 1 case as a flashcard. After I reached a level of performance with that case, I introduced a second case. I just had to distinguish between the 2. (Ex. 1 was double bar the other checkered.) Down the line another checkered case may show up so I had to identify a different or additional characterizing feature. (Ex. top corners match vs. bottom corners match; in addition to checkered) If I see some initial pattern, then I look here for the secondary pattern; if I see another initial pattern, I look over there for the secondary. There are specific things I'm looking for, it's just different in every case.

How far along are you in ZBLL?


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Dec 24, 2011)

nickvu2 said:


> It's really not a system at all. I'll share my process though. Basically I started with 1 case as a flashcard. After I reached a level of performance with that case, I introduced a second case. I just had to distinguish between the 2. (Ex. 1 was double bar the other checkered.) Down the line another checkered case may show up so I had to identify a different or additional characterizing feature. (Ex. top corners match vs. bottom corners match; in addition to checkered) If I see some initial pattern, then I look here for the secondary pattern; if I see another initial pattern, I look over there for the secondary. There are specific things I'm looking for, it's just different in every case.
> 
> How far along are you in ZBLL?


 
Yeah blocks are recognized faster than directly comparing stickers, so ZZLL definitely has a recognition advantage there.

My ZBLL isn't nearly where I want it. This time last year I knew all of U and H. Now I remember one COLL set of H (but the rest is coming back fairly quickly). Time off really hurts alg-heavy methods.


----------



## KimOrbit (Jan 2, 2012)

*Questions about ZZ method....*

Hi every body.
Im learning ZZ method and Im solving rubik's cube with CLL/ELL method now.

But now im wondering is there anyone who knows all the ZZ algorithms??
and after that is there someone who use ZZ method in tournaments??

and do you have any suggestions for memorizing algorithms??
I know these two answers: "Just practice" "Muscle Memory". I memorize 6 algorithms per day But I want to improve that.

thank you so much.


----------



## avgdi (Jan 2, 2012)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ne-using-the-complete-ZZ-method-phasing-ZZLL&

Check out that thread.


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 12, 2012)

nickvu2 said:


> Here's my alg list, which is a highly edited version of Simon's list. You're the first to see the final version =) I did a TON of work finding speed optimal algs. I left in all the algs I tried so you have alternatives should you not like the one I settled on. Maybe one day I'll clean it up a little.
> 
> ZZLL algs (no sune cases)
> 
> On the wiki, just look at the ZBLL cases with phased edges. But you probably won't need the wiki if you have this doc...unless you're looking for sune cases.


I Nick,

Thanks for your useful documents about phasing and algorithms.

Here are a couple of algorithms, you could be happy to know.

COLL U = *(R U R2' U') (R' F R U R2' U') (R' F')*

and its reverse, COLL T = *(F R U R2' U') (R' F' R U R2' U') R'*

Another COLL T = *(r U' r U2') (R' F R U2') (r2' F)*

and his brother, COLL L = *(R' r U' r U2') (R' F R U2') (r2' F R)*

Hope, you'll like them.


----------



## already1329 (Apr 8, 2012)

*Easier way to recognize bad edges? (ZZ Method)*

Hi. I'm learning the ZZ method and I have trouble recognizing the bad edges. I use the recognizing method from http://cube.crider.co.uk and the method is:

Look at the U/D faces. If you see:

L/R colour (orange/red) it's bad.
F/B colour (green/blue) means you need to look round the side of the edge. If the side is U/D (white/yellow) it is bad.


Then look at the F/B faces of the E-slice (middle layer). The same rules apply. If you see:

L/R colour (orange/red) it's bad.
F/B colour (green/blue) means you need to look round the side of the edge. If the side is U/D (white/yellow) it is bad.

This method is easy to understand and good for finding bad edges, but when orienting the edges, I need to make F/B turns, so I have to think in 3 layers, F, S, and B.
But when finding the bad edges, I have to think in a different kind of 3 layers, U, E, and D. I find making this kind of transition in my mind very difficult, and I think a different method would be nice. I watched some videos on youtube, but they didn't help much.


----------



## MWilson (Apr 8, 2012)

Make sure you understand why they are considered a bad orientation, and then just spend some time mixing up the cube and looking at each edge. Give it time.

In other words, look at an edge and without making any physical moves think about whether or not you can solve the edge without using quarter turns on the front or back. With enough experience doing that, you will automatically gain a natural feeling ability to just look and know. If you were doing Roux, I would suggest just learning to see the colors relative to the centers, but ZZ is much more than that.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 8, 2012)

Try this. I look at the Front face first, then S-slice, then Back face.


----------



## already1329 (Apr 8, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> Try this. I look at the Front face first, then S-slice, then Back face.


 
That was the method I was thinking of, but I couldn't find a quick and easy way to recognize the bad edges using colors(like in the method I mentioned above).


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 8, 2012)

Right/Left color must be on FU and FB.
Up/Down color must be on FL and FR.


----------



## ChaosWZ (Apr 13, 2012)

*Tips to improve ZZ efficiency?*

Right now my EOLine is averaging like 8-9 moves when I know EOLine can be done in about half that, any tips for a more efficient approach?


----------



## aronpm (Apr 13, 2012)

Switch to CFOP


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 13, 2012)

don't switch to cfop

during EO put the DF and DB edges on opposite slices (L and R) so you can end the solve with LRD and look ahead.

this wont help your movecount much, but it will help transition to f2l, and it is very fingertricky.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 13, 2012)

why not? It would improve his efficiency and the method is pretty similar (F2L->LL)


----------



## ChaosWZ (Apr 13, 2012)

aronpm said:


> Switch to CFOP


 
CFOP -> Boring -> Zzzzzzz -> ZZ? -> ZZ Method? -> Google ZZ Method -> ZZ Method! -> Requires more than 3 brain cells! -> Not boring!
Dat train of thought


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 13, 2012)

ChaosWZ said:


> Right now my EOLine is averaging like 8-9 moves when I know EOLine can be done in about half that


 
8-9 moves is fine, no idea why you think you can do it in half that



ChaosWZ said:


> CFOP -> Boring



People just think CFOP is boring because it's popular. It's just as deep as any other method. (In fact, it's deeper atm because of extensive research)


----------



## a small kitten (Apr 13, 2012)

Play with this: http://rubiks-cube.c0.pl/inne/eoline.html


----------



## already1329 (Apr 13, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> People just think CFOP is boring because it's popular. It's just as deep as any other method. (In fact, it's deeper atm because of extensive research)


 
CFOP is boring because you just look at look at the cube and use algorithms. Not much thinking needed.(In my opinion)


Also, what is a good beginner method for easy transition into ZZ?


----------



## cubelover111 (Apr 13, 2012)

already1329 said:


> CFOP is boring because you just look at look at the cube and use algorithms. Not much thinking needed.(In my opinion)
> 
> 
> Also, what is a good beginner method for easy transition into ZZ?


 dude only the last layer uses algorithms the cross and f2l is intuitive


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 13, 2012)

cubelover111 said:


> dude only the last layer uses algorithms the cross and f2l is intuitive



Not if you use algorithms for F2L


----------



## applemobile (Apr 13, 2012)

Then don't use algs for F2l :|


----------



## cubelover111 (Apr 13, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> Not if you use algorithms for F2L


 
The majority uses intuitive f2l and you can not make a statement that CFOP is based on algorithms just by looking at a few people.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 13, 2012)

This is a “constructive” thread about ZZ ?
Please !


----------



## already1329 (Apr 13, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> This is a “constructive” thread about ZZ ?
> Please !


 
What is a good beginner method for easy transition into ZZ?


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 13, 2012)

already1329 said:


> What is a good beginner method for easy transition into ZZ?



I don't think there is any "beginner" method that involves an EO start*
To understand EO some cube experience would be very usefull.

Therefore I think Petrus could be a good starting point
-	Starts with blockbuilding
-	Followed by EO

This way you build experience with both, then it is just a matter of reversing the order  and integrating the “line” into the EO

*Human Thistlethwaite starts with EO though


----------



## already1329 (Apr 13, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> I don't think there is any "beginner" method that involves an EO start*
> To understand EO some cube experience would be very usefull.
> 
> Therefore I think Petrus could be a good starting point
> ...


 

Thanks.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 13, 2012)

I think of Petrus, too. For the same reason.
But I don't believe that Petrus is an “easy” transition from CFOP to ZZ. It's more a way to approach blockbuiding.


----------



## ChaosWZ (Apr 15, 2012)

a small kitten said:


> Play with this: http://rubiks-cube.c0.pl/inne/eoline.html


 
This is brilliant, I love you.


----------



## aznanimedude (Apr 16, 2012)

ahaha, i never bothered to use this, i just trudged along learning EOLine

this is pretty useful though, gotta admit


----------



## Petro Leum (May 3, 2012)

Okay, first of all, hi! This is my first post on this forum. i switched from Fridrich (around 20s ao12) to ZZ (27s+ ao12) yesterday, and now im not sure what to do with the last layer... i am currently learning COLL which i will definately give a try, but is it possible that WV+PLL is faster in terms of MC/Recognition/Performing speed than COLL+EPLL? Since my blockbuilding isnt the greatest (due to lack of practice with petrus/roux etc) would that be a good alternative?

How long did it take you (advanced ZZ-cubers) to master the planning of EOLine in 15 seconds?
will phasing +ZZLL be worth the amount of learning after finishing COLL, or is the recognition time just too long?

Okay, i am done with the Questions 
Good evening


----------



## aznanimedude (May 3, 2012)

personally i would go COLL + EPLL because of how it transistions to ZZLL if you go for that. Once you have COLL down, i feel it's really then just being able to recognize how you're supposed to move the edges around at that point i think (i'm not quite at that point yet so i can't speak for that)

work on block building, it's different to get your head around that because of how free you are really to be moving the R U and L faces around, i'm still getting used to it myself, or at least making my block building more economic and efficient
i've been using ZZ for at least 2 months, still not quite that strong in EOLine planning, but it's more just me being too lazy to actually plan it out and just being content to spot bad edges as i go, i really need to make more of an effort to plan that part out


----------



## Pyjam (May 3, 2012)

I recommend that you start with COLL + EPLL, but choose COLL algs that preserve the phase. Later, it will be easier if you choose phasing + ZZLL.


----------



## Petro Leum (May 3, 2012)

Pyjam said:


> I recommend that you start with COLL + EPLL, but choose COLL algs that preserve the phase. Later, it will be easier if you choose phasing + ZZLL.



how do i know a COLL alg would preserve the phase? i mean, i also firstly want to use the fastest COLLs...


----------



## Pyjam (May 3, 2012)

Hum... just try it, and you'll see.
I believe there are some ZZLL algs that are not so bad.
I wrote a pdf with my algs for ZZLL Pi, but it's in french. Not really a problem, I suppose.

What you need to know:
C = FU equal to FUL.
O = FU opposite to FUL.
xC = FU equal to UFL.
xO = FU opposite to UFL.


----------



## Egide (Dec 17, 2012)

Hi guys, has any of you ever considered using JTLE in order to reduce move count in a solve (or just for fun) ? it's 2Gen (10 moves on average) and in some cases very easy to set up.


----------



## Gucci Cubing (Jan 26, 2015)

I can solve eo line in an average of 4.27 seconds. However, my f2l takes about 47 seconds. I learned ZZ 3 days ago and I was curious if anyone knew any tips for learning and getting better at f2l?


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 26, 2015)

Gucci Cubing said:


> I can solve eo line in an average of 4.27 seconds. However, my f2l takes about 47 seconds. I learned ZZ 3 days ago and I was curious if anyone knew any tips for learning and getting better at f2l?



do slow solves, try to average under 35 moves for f2l.


----------



## noodlez (Aug 10, 2015)

oy does anyone have a pdf on the zz method? if so send please. it must have instructions to eoline, f2l, and coll.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 10, 2015)

noodlez said:


> oy does anyone have a pdf on the zz method? if so send please. it must have instructions to eoline, f2l, and coll.



if youre talking about a tutorial; check this out: http://cube.crider.co.uk/

best written tutorial out there. you can save it to html.


----------



## noodlez (Aug 10, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> if youre talking about a tutorial; check this out: http://cube.crider.co.uk/
> 
> best written tutorial out there. you can save it to html.



i mean a pdf or something that is made for printing but thanks anyway


----------



## noodlez (Aug 10, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> if youre talking about a tutorial; check this out: http://cube.crider.co.uk/
> 
> best written tutorial out there. you can save it to html.



i was talking about a pdf or something made for printing but thanks anyway.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Sep 2, 2016)

So I don't know if this is the newest thing to look at but I am switching for a month to ZZ for kicks and having trouble with block building. My mind wants to make the cross and then solve. I feel like I do that anyway even when I see people block build most of the time. I can't seem to find a good video to help me out with the transition. Any help? The EO line is just taking time and much longer than 15 seconds to inspect which I am not worried about.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 2, 2016)

SpeedCubeReview said:


> So I don't know if this is the newest thing to look at but I am switching for a month to ZZ for kicks and having trouble with block building. My mind wants to make the cross and then solve. I feel like I do that anyway even when I see people block build most of the time. I can't seem to find a good video to help me out with the transition. Any help? The EO line is just taking time and much longer than 15 seconds to inspect which I am not worried about.


Try watching asmallkitten's video.

It would also be better to use this thread in future.


----------



## Miro (Oct 7, 2016)

Is viable partial edge orientation in EOLine step? If I orient only edges for F2L? Does somebody using it?
Pros:
- only 8 edges orientation
- simpler process of orientation, because I dont care about LL edges
- simpler inspection
Cons:
- harder LL


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 7, 2016)

Miro said:


> Is viable partial edge orientation in EOLine step? If I orient only edges for F2L? Does somebody using it?
> Pros:
> - only 8 edges orientation
> - simpler process of orientation, because I dont care about LL edges
> ...


You could do this but I really don't see any real advantage.

You still need to look at most of the edges during inspection to see whether they are last layer edges or not. To do so you need to find the last layer sticker, which tells you orientation anyway. So inspection is almost the same amount of effort - you're just taking different information out.
Inspecting 12 edges is not the time consuming part. I take around 2 seconds to inspect EO. Tracking the line edges is what takes most of the inspection time.


----------



## Miro (Oct 7, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> You could do this but I really don't see any real advantage.
> 
> You still need to look at most of the edges during inspection to see whether they are last layer edges or not. To do so you need to find the last layer sticker, which tells you orientation anyway. So inspection is almost the same amount of effort - you're just taking different information out.
> Inspecting 12 edges is not the time consuming part. I take around 2 seconds to inspect EO. Tracking the line edges is what takes most of the inspection time.


Thanks for answer. I want to try it for transition from CFOP.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 7, 2016)

Miro said:


> Thanks for answer. I want to try it for transition from CFOP.


I recommend going all out and planning full EO from the start. It's not that difficult and any shortcuts will only hurt in the long run.


----------



## Miro (Oct 7, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> I recommend going all out and planning full EO from the start. It's not that difficult and any shortcuts will only hurt in the long run.


Ok, I will try.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Oct 9, 2016)

how do you plan out full eoline when its a 10 misorietnated case?


----------



## JTWong71 (Oct 9, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> how do you plan out full eoline when its a 10 misorietnated case?


Usually I would just rotate with a "y" to get a different orientation case (Basically just partial color neutrality), but before that I would look to see if the 10 Bad Edges case is actually an easy one, where the F/B Layer has 4 Bad Edges and the other F/B Layer has 3, that are also well placed. Try to think in inspection that there are X many bad edges after a single F/B move, and plan from there, just remember the move that removes some of the bad edges in the beginning.


----------

