# The ZZVolution.



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 23, 2019)

This is a super secret society known as, the ZZVolution. No it’s not that secret. But on this thread we must plan how to switch everyone to ZZ. So we need facts that prove why they should switch to ZZ. I will provide a fact. The first reason why ZZ is exceptionally good is because you can get very lucky. My Pb is with CFOP- 11.97 but I have a 12.7 single with ZZ that I acquired when I was averaging about 23 seconds. Just today I achieved a OH pb single- a 23. Now my OH single with cfop was no where close to this being a whole 30 seconds. I have achieved 4 sub 30 OH singles with ZZ averaging 40 seconds. Now next fact! (If no one responds I have another reason why ZZ is superior.)


----------



## u Cube (Sep 23, 2019)

I _extremely _doubt there will ever be a world class zz solver here soon that breaks sub-7. Good luck though but I think the method is going down.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 23, 2019)

Hmmmmmm


This video proves everything.





Also isn’t Phil you sub 7?

Edit: oh nope never mind but there are some very fast ZZ solvers out there. Papa smurf is sub 10. Phil yu is also sub 10. And they both use ZZ. Also j perm said that you can get very fast with ZZ.


----------



## u Cube (Sep 23, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Hmmmmmm
> 
> 
> This video proves everything.
> ...


Phil yu is hardly sub-10. There is only one good zz solver out there and he uses zz cross and I think he might be sub-8. Also I can't see the vid it won't let me click on it



Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Hmmmmmm
> 
> 
> This video proves everything.
> ...


oh i see it now


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 23, 2019)

I have nothing against ZZ, and I don't see why I would not, so I'll provide amother point - ZZ reorients the last layer edges, resulting in, like 50 less OLL cases to remember than in CFOP. Plus, the long 3 gen RUL provides no rotations at all, and also helps with fast tuening.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 23, 2019)

Also all the people who still use ZZ come to this thread so we can unite.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 23, 2019)

Here's the current state of ZZ.
EOLine is bad for 2H (OH and feet are different). It has bad regrips and overall crappy ergonomics.
EOArrow (EOLine plus either DL or DR edge piece) is better, gives better solutions for speed on the non dominant hand while keeping the blockbuilding aspect.
EOCross (aka ZZ-cross, but don't call it that, it makes it seem like it's a seperate method) is even better, as it allows for non-linear blocks a lot more than the other 2 (linear blocks reduces regrips). It also has at least the same (if not a bit higher) tps as CFOP F2L for a slightly lower movecount over the whole solve. At this point I would say that ZZ is better than CFOP and equal to Roux.
Doing EOCross + a pair is basically the same as EOCross, but slightly better (just as cross+1 is better with CFOP). On the other hand, if you do XEOArrow (the same thing as XEOLine) or XEOCross you definitely surpass CFOP. This is because the movecount is drastically lower (46 and 50 respectively vs CFOP's 56) but with better ergonomics. I would also argue that 'advanced' Roux (just as this is 'advanced' ZZ) is equal to this. 
The king of ZZ is XEOArrow on left. What this is is a 2x2x2 in DBL + FL edge + EO. This allows for the EO2x2x3 to be finished with <RUD> then the right block with <RU(D)> then LL. It is the same movecount as XEOArrow, just with better ergonomics. I would be hesitant to say that it is definitely better than Roux, but if I had to choose one, I'd say this, but only by the narrowest of margins. The biggest problem with this is that inspection would have to reach about 13 moves which is pushing it, although people can do it. ZBLL is a given with ZZ and option select can also be applied.

TL;DR - basic ZZ is bad, but it gets so much better the more you do in inspection.

If you want a more detailed thing, ask. (Btw, I'm not sub 10, but I have a 10.06 ao1000 and quite a few ao100s. Currently on 10.14 ao1000.) Also check out Dale Palamares. He's just sub 8 (according to chats with him on discord).


----------



## Iwannaganx (Sep 23, 2019)

Hey ZZers. 
How do I do zz?
I don't know.
To your point that you get lucky singles, I average 35-40 with CFOP and my pb is 20.xx. 15 seconds.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 23, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> Hey ZZers.
> How do I do zz?
> I don't know.
> To your point that you get lucky singles, I average 35-40 with CFOP and my pb is 20.xx. 15 seconds.


Go to this website: http://cube.crider.co.uk/zz.php
With ZZ you get lucky solves much more often. Also the chance of you getting an oll skip is much more common with ZZ.


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 23, 2019)

I'd like to see a world class cuber use it. If it were that great why wouldn't top cubers like Feliks have switched to it


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 23, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> I'd like to see a world class cuber use it. If it were that great why wouldn't top cubers like Feliks have switched to it


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6P1LGpAqQW9XwnKhUxwTiQ/videos
And about fast people not switching: if you were winning world championships with a method and switching would effectively stop 10 years of improvement, would you?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 24, 2019)

Here’s my thought process as someone decent but more interested in methodology:
In the base form ZZ is not as good as CFOP or Roux. The Eoline is more difficult to inspect in the same amount of time as cross and is (supposedly) a lot harder to be color neutral. Then the block building is a lot harder to automate how you solve a case that could come up as there’s more variety in what’s possible due to less pieces being solved. This leads to a bit more efficient solves than in CFOP. However stock ZZ is not as efficient as Roux generally speaking. Therefore Stock ZZ is worse than CFOP and Roux.
If you start using EOCross, the inspection is more difficult, especially when planning first pair. However, you then get a subset of F2L cases that is rotationless, and more importantly, potentially more ergonomic which can increase TPS and compensate for Lookahead issues, at least to an extend. So theoretically the lookahead between pairs can become a bit easier after the initial pair issue.
The real kicker for ZZ to be viable at the highest level in my opinion is using a combination of ZBLL, TTLS from CT, and some Tripod Algs. ZZ can produce a lot of unique cases far more frequently that in CFOP and as a result, if you know a lot of algs for these cases you can increase your efficiency even more, which can also compensate for the inspection and initial look ahead issues.
So in conclusion, I think ZZ is viable at the top of speed solving, but it requires a lot of practice, planning and alg learning.
If you look at 경햔교 , who is arguably the best ZZ user in comp, he uses EOcross with normal CFOP last layer and gets low 8 averages and Sub 7 and even Sub 6 solves in comp and ZZ is not his main method. If that’s possible when ZZ isn’t your main method and advanced LL / LSLL isn’t used then someone who had the dedication could improve these times below the 8 second barrier for sure. And as solves are achieved even Sub-7 in the not endgame for of the method sub-7 average is likely possible.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 24, 2019)

What about zipper, leor and zb?



Spoiler



i luv <3 all methods but for me roux is genius.


----------



## Cuberstache (Sep 24, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> The king of ZZ is XEOArrow on left. What this is is a 2x2x2 in DBL + FL edge + EO.


I can see this being very good, but it just seems like too many things to do at once. Would you do EO first and predict locations of the block pieces? It seems really difficult and if it's not a good case you've used far too much inspection time to pick a different start. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just would like to hear more of what you have to say about it.


----------



## Zeke Mackay (Sep 24, 2019)

My current views on method optimality:

2H: CFOP/Roux
OH: Roux
Feet: ZZ/CFOP


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 24, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> What about zipper, leor and zb?


All of them are very good methods that are also equal. ZB is about the same as ZZ with EOCross as it is more efficient but also has slightly worse ergonomics imo for more algs that aren't slot neutral with worse LL lookahead. LEOR comparison is FB+EO=EOArrow+pair, DFDB=another pair, right block=2 pairs, ZBLL=ZBLL. Zipper is just CFOP but better, although it does have drawbacks which I think weigh it in around the XEOArrow/EOArrow+1/EOCross+1 level.


CuberStache said:


> I can see this being very good, but it just seems like too many things to do at once. Would you do EO first and predict locations of the block pieces? It seems really difficult and if it's not a good case you've used far too much inspection time to pick a different start. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just would like to hear more of what you have to say about it.


Take this scramble: F2 L2 D' B R F R' L U2 B2 D2 B' R2 U2 F U2 L2 B' U2 R2 U'
I can see the blue/red/yellow pair, so I'll use that. I can also see that on orange front/white on U that there are 6 bad edges compared to 8 with green front. U B D2 F' will solve EO and set up the pieces for a kinda nice 2x2x2, so L' F2 L2 D L2 D2 will solve an EO2x2x2, then it's just a simple R' F2. All of that was without actually turning anything.
That was an easier than average scramble to see the solution, but to see that many moves in inspection isn't absurd, just very hard. I hope it showed that you do a bit of both (looking for the pieces and solving EO). I also agree, if it's not a good case, just drop it and go for EOCross, but that's what CFOPers do with XCrosses. They don't do them all the time, just when the scramble suits it.


Zeke Mackay said:


> My current views on method optimality:
> 
> 2H: CFOP/Roux
> OH: Roux
> Feet: ZZ/CFOP


Why CFOP for feet when ZZ exists, and why not ZZ for 2H?


----------



## Zeke Mackay (Sep 24, 2019)

Fingertricks


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 24, 2019)

ZZ 'fingertricks' (you probably mean ergonomics) for most non-EOLine variants are better than CFOP. You have <RULy> in CFOP. In ZZ you have <RUL>, and with EOCross you don't get the annoying R2s and L2s that EOLine has. ZZ is (over simplified) pretty much CFOP with a better F2L and LL.


----------



## Cuberstache (Sep 24, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Take this scramble: F2 L2 D' B R F R' L U2 B2 D2 B' R2 U2 F U2 L2 B' U2 R2 U'
> I can see the blue/red/yellow pair, so I'll use that. I can also see that on orange front/white on U that there are 6 bad edges compared to 8 with green front. U' B D2 F' will solve EO and set up the pieces for a kinda nice 2x2x2, so L' F2 L2 D L2 D' will solve an EO2x2x2, then it's just a simple R' F2. All of that was without actually turning anything.


Thanks a lot for this but I think you have a move written wrong somewhere and I can't figure out where. I even did all your starting moves backward and there aren't any pairs on the cube :/ The scramble seems correct; I can see the pair and the EO works but it breaks the pair.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 25, 2019)

CuberStache said:


> Thanks a lot for this but I think you have a move written wrong somewhere and I can't figure out where. I even did all your starting moves backward and there aren't any pairs on the cube :/ The scramble seems correct; I can see the pair and the EO works but it breaks the pair.


Fixed. Also, in that case it would actually be better to go for normal XEOLine due to the free pair.


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 26, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> Hey ZZers.
> How do I do zz?
> I don't know.
> To your point that you get lucky singles, I average 35-40 with CFOP and my pb is 20.xx. 15 seconds.


I do not understand the whole orienting edges and EO line thing


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 26, 2019)

An edge can be flipped or not flipped. An edge is flipped if you have to use F and B turns to solve it, therefore you need F and B turns to flip it. See if you can figure it out. If not, look at http://cube.crider.co.uk/zz.php


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 27, 2019)

Zeke Mackay said:


> My current views on method optimality:
> 
> 2H: CFOP/Roux
> OH: Roux
> Feet: ZZ/CFOP



Don't discount roux for feet so easily. [E,R] moveset for LSE can potentially be pretty fast. And with few moves and few rotations, I'm seeing a possibly great feet method.


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 27, 2019)

But isn't constituency more important than lucky singles? With CFOP I consistently average around 23 seconds


Zeke Mackay said:


> My current views on method optimality:
> 
> 2H: CFOP/Roux
> OH: Roux
> Feet: ZZ/CFOP


But isn't Roux harder for OH because of M slices?


----------



## Cuberstache (Sep 27, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> But isn't Roux harder for OH because of M slices?


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 27, 2019)

CuberStache said:


>


What methods to Max and Feliks use? I can see that roux would be good because of its lower move count but getting used to going OH M slices might be hard


----------



## Zeke Mackay (Sep 27, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> What methods to Max and Feliks use? I can see that roux would be good because of its lower move count but getting used to going OH M slices might be hard


Max and Faz both use CFOP, but despite M slices being difficult to get used to, Roux is objectively better.


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 27, 2019)

wow, the poll results are amazing. As someone who started using roux in 2013, it's crazy to see that roux is actually starting to become very popular. perhaps one day, it'll be the main speedcubing method.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 28, 2019)

GuRoux said:


> wow, the poll results are amazing. As someone who started using roux in 2013, it's crazy to see that roux is actually starting to become very popular. perhaps one day, it'll be the main speedcubing method.


Ya I feel like this backfired...


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 28, 2019)

Zeke Mackay said:


> Max and Faz both use CFOP, but despite M slices being difficult to get used to, Roux is objectively better.


How is it objectively better


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 28, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> How is it objectively better


Evidence...


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 28, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> Evidence...


 such as?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 28, 2019)

TheKravCuber said:


> The evidence is me averaging 25 OH, with 18 2H, which doesn't really happen in any other method other than Roux, when you are a world class OHer, the difference might not be as much, but it is much easier to get faster at OH with Roux with its movecount and ergonomics


Lol


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 28, 2019)

I wonder if you polled the top 100 OH solvers on what the best method for OH is, what the results would be.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Sep 28, 2019)

TheKravCuber said:


> The evidence is me averaging 25 OH, with 18 2H, which doesn't really happen in any other method other than Roux,


If you're going to present evidence, please make it actual evidence. I avged 25 OH and 18 2H with CFOP, and avg 15 OH and 12 2H with ZZ. I believe Roux is the best OH method, but your reasoning is false.


----------



## Parke187 (Sep 28, 2019)

Vanilla zz is pretty garbage, some variants can be good though.


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 28, 2019)

J perm made a video on the matter recently. He made good arguments and both CFOP and Roux came out on top. ZZ suffered from bad ergonomics and regroups, and bad look ahead


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 28, 2019)

Bad ergonomics? Lol


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 28, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Bad ergonomics? Lol


R U L isn’t exactly the best set..


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 28, 2019)

[R,U,L] shouldn't be a bad moveset. especially with zzcross so there are no R2 or L2s. it just doesn't seem clear to me that zz is inferior to roux or cfop.


----------



## ottozing (Sep 28, 2019)

My big take away from the video is that ZZ needs EOcross and ZBLL to even be part of the big 3 period

ZZ still suffers from the fact that you can't easily inspect far enough into the solve to mitigate blindspots anywhere near as effectively as Roux/CFOP, and I think this is inherent to the method


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Sep 29, 2019)

ottozing said:


> My big take away from the video is that ZZ needs EOcross and ZBLL to even be part of the big 3 period
> 
> ZZ still suffers from the fact that you can't easily inspect far enough into the solve to mitigate blindspots anywhere near as effectively as Roux/CFOP, and I think this is inherent to the method



I’m not going to learn ZBLL, does this mean I should switch back to CFOP? I know full OLL/PLL/COLL


----------



## ottozing (Sep 29, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I’m not going to learn ZBLL, does this mean I should switch back to CFOP? I know full OLL/PLL/COLL



Assuming your goal is to get as fast as possible, then yes I would switch to CFOP and stick with it

If you want to prove ZZ's worth (like, for realz), and you're OK with potentially being slower than you could have been, stick with ZZ knowing that you're eventually going to have to tackle ZBLL


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 29, 2019)

ottozing said:


> My big take away from the video is that ZZ needs EOcross and ZBLL to even be part of the big 3 period
> 
> ZZ still suffers from the fact that you can't easily inspect far enough into the solve to mitigate blindspots anywhere near as effectively as Roux/CFOP, and I think this is inherent to the method



I would think if you're doing eocross and you are a top zz user, blindspots wouldn't be a problem. Edge oriented seems powerful to deduce pieces. And if it's still a problem, you can train to look for back slot pairs while doing eocross.


----------



## David ep (Sep 29, 2019)

Whats the point of zz it’s basically a longer and less fingertrickerble version of cfop the only thing its good for on my opinion is one handed


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Sep 29, 2019)

Zeke Mackay said:


> Max and Faz both use CFOP, but despite M slices being difficult to get used to, Roux is objectively better.



No, it's not objectively faster. Only subjectively 

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/rankings/333oh/average


----------



## jo1215 (Sep 29, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> R U L isn’t exactly the best set..


cfop f2l is RULy, so not exactly better


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 29, 2019)

ottozing said:


> My big take away from the video is that ZZ needs EOcross and ZBLL to even be part of the big 3 period
> 
> ZZ still suffers from the fact that you can't easily inspect far enough into the solve to mitigate blindspots anywhere near as effectively as Roux/CFOP, and I think this is inherent to the method


I agree with the first sentence but not the second. I know that it's harder to see further, but 2 things: Ben Baron (and Keaton iirc) says that he consistently sees cross+2 in inspection which, on average, is at least the same number of moves as EOCross+1, probably more, but going from EOCross->EOCross+1 and Cross->Cross+1 is more beneficial than Cross+1->Cross+2, so I don't see that as a big disadvantage. I'd go as far to say that it's nearing on negligble. I'd also say that the changing blindspots in CFOP can take away from the method in certain cases, although this can be mitigated from smart rotations. And as GuRoux said, EO helps a lot with lookahead and deducing what a piece is.


----------



## David ep (Sep 30, 2019)

jo1215 said:


> cfop f2l is RULy, so not exactly better


Not true we use f moves which don’t require regrips and they flow better as rul moves aren’t exactly regripless


----------



## White KB (Sep 30, 2019)

I use CFOP but it's bad so I'm switching to ZZ soon (or sune, pun intended)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

David ep said:


> Not true we use f moves which don’t require regrips and they flow better as rul moves aren’t exactly regripless


It is true. <RULFy> then, and ZZ is <RULD>. No good CFOP solver does CFOP F2L rotationless, and if you do ZZF2L with EOCross solved, you have fewer regrips than in CFOP F2L.


White KB said:


> I use CFOP but it's bad so I'm switching to ZZ soon (or sune, pun intended)


Woo! Join the squad.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 30, 2019)

White KB said:


> I use CFOP but it's bad so I'm switching to ZZ soon (or sune, pun intended)



Another one on the ZZ squad.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 30, 2019)

White KB said:


> I use CFOP but it's bad so I'm switching to ZZ soon (or sune, pun intended)


casually calls the method used to set most old and all current 3-7, OH and feet WRs bad.

Meanwhile ZZ is chilling out with 1 sub 10 OH, no fast big cube results and the world’s fastest ZZ user switched from ZZcross to CFOP and dropped time.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> casually calls the method used to set most world and all current 3-7, OH and feet WRs bad.
> 
> Meanwhile ZZ is chilling out with 1 sub 10 OH, no fast big cube results and the world’s fastest ZZ user switched from ZZcross to CFOP and dropped time.


I mean CFOP isn't really CFOP anymore, so it isn't great. Instead it's more like XFOS for Xcross, F2L, Option Select. It's also certainly not as good as ZZ for feet or OH. For big cubes, ZZ might actually be pretty good. It just depends on how fast you can inspect EO (for me that's less than 2 seconds). It has a lower movecount which is more important than ergonomics on big cubes imo. Then again, I suck at big cubes, so I wouldn't trust my advice. I have 2 sub 10 singles and other people have sub 10 singles OH. And Hyeon Kyo Kyoung used bad techniques for EOCross and LL so CFOP would be better. His offical PB single is with ZZ still. Also, it's not ZZcross, it's EOCross which is still ZZ.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 30, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> I mean CFOP isn't really CFOP anymore, so it isn't great. Instead it's more like XFOS for Xcross, F2L, Option Select. It's also certainly not as good as ZZ for feet or OH. For big cubes, ZZ might actually be pretty good. It just depends on how fast you can inspect EO (for me that's less than 2 seconds). It has a lower movecount which is more important than ergonomics on big cubes imo. Then again, I suck at big cubes, so I wouldn't trust my advice. I have 2 sub 10 singles and other people have sub 10 singles OH. And Hyeon Kyo Kyoung used bad techniques for EOCross and LL so CFOP would be better. His offical PB single is with ZZ still. Also, it's not ZZcross, it's EOCross which is still ZZ.


How is it not as good as ZZ for OH? 
Lol big cubes
I’m talking official
My bad on calling it zzcross not eo Cross, anyway my point was that the fastest guy who used ZZ switched after realizing cfop was better


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> How is it not as good as ZZ for OH?
> Lol big cubes
> I’m talking official
> My bad on calling it zzcross not eo Cross, anyway my point was that the fastest guy who used ZZ switched after realizing cfop was better


For OH: lower movecount, better ergonomics (at least half of F2L is <RU> and the other bit is <zRU>) and easy to force 2GLL if you're semi serious, full ZBLL if you're serious. For the semi serious people, just learn CPLS and do a few hundred solves and then you have a very good LSLL that's only 2 moves more than insert->ZBLL and is definitely better than insert->OLL->PLL or insert->CPEOLL->2GLL. 
Talking about official OH is just like talking about official 2H. No one has actually practiced ZZ and you're using anecdotal evidence (which is not strong evidence at all) to suggest that it's therefore worse. Which simply isn't true and even if it is, you're gonna need stronger evidence. Same with the Hyeon situation. He used CFOP for a long time, switched to ZZ (and not the best ZZ), switched back and said that CFOP was faster because he had used it for several years before switching to ZZ.


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 30, 2019)

u Cube said:


> I _extremely _doubt there will ever be a world class zz solver here soon that breaks sub-7. Good luck though but I think the method is going down.



God, I hate when people spread misinformation.

We have Dale Stephen who is already sub8, and I have the highest hopes that he will be sub7 too.


I still think ZZ with EOCross and ZBLL (The only Variant you should use) is better than CFOP. EASILY for onehanded, and probably for twohanded as well.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

Petro Leum said:


> God, I hate when people spread misinformation.
> 
> We have Dale Stephen who is already sub8, and I have the highest hopes that he will be sub7 too.
> 
> ...


EOLine for OH though. And yeah, check out his YouTube channel here. He can, relatively consistently, see EOCross+1 too.


----------



## Petro Leum (Sep 30, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> EOLine for OH though. And yeah, check out his YouTube channel here. He can, relatively consistently, see EOCross+1 too.



Of course! Badly worded by me.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

Oh phew. I was confused because I was pretty sure you used EOLine for OH.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 30, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> For OH: lower movecount, better ergonomics (at least half of F2L is <RU> and the other bit is <zRU>) and easy to force 2GLL if you're semi serious, full ZBLL if you're serious. For the semi serious people, just learn CPLS and do a few hundred solves and then you have a very good LSLL that's only 2 moves more than insert->ZBLL and is definitely better than insert->OLL->PLL or insert->CPEOLL->2GLL.
> Talking about official OH is just like talking about official 2H. No one has actually practiced ZZ and you're using anecdotal evidence (which is not strong evidence at all) to suggest that it's therefore worse. Which simply isn't true and even if it is, you're gonna need stronger evidence. Same with the Hyeon situation. He used CFOP for a long time, switched to ZZ (and not the best ZZ), switched back and said that CFOP was faster because he had used it for several years before switching to ZZ.


I mean theoretic stuff is cool and all but until I see the numbers I’m definitely not going to believe ZZ is superior to cfop for anything other than fmc and maybe feet


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

I mean experimental evidence is cool and all, but you don't see innovation without theory.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 15, 2020)

Why did you bump the thread for no reason?


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 15, 2020)

Don't bump old threads unless you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> He didn't bump the thread for nothing he has something to talk about





ribbon method said:


> he has a question


So you deleted your post and now you are talking about yourself in third person?


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> no this guy


bruh you can see that PapaSmurf didn't bump at all.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> no this guy


It's not cool to delete your post and then act as if nothing happened. It is great to have you here and everything, but you really need to start following the rules and etiquette, we are tired of explaining things over and over. This is getting quite annoying.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

you guys are being rude to this person so *cough* bump


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 15, 2020)

He bumps, deletes post, puts blame on Papasmurf, doesn’t admit, etc?


----------



## TerryD (Aug 16, 2020)

I think it's obvious that ZZ with EOCross is better than CFOP lol, it has better ergonomics, lower movecount, and easier lookahead.

Ergonomics:
ZZ-RULD
CFOP-RULFDy
ZZ is obviously better in this aspect.

Movecount:
ZZ with OLL and PLL(28 algs)-60 moves
ZZ-VH(46 algs)-55 moves
ZZ-a(493 algs)-45 moves to 50 moves
CFOP(78 algs)-60 moves to 65 moves
Unless you use optimal algs and do F2L very efficiently, you're not going to get 55 moves like the wiki says. Example: Feliks Zemdegs averages 62 moves.
Again, ZZ is better in this aspect.

Lookahead:
With ZZ, you only need to look for 3 things during F2L: EP, CP, and CO. With CFOP you have to look for EP, CP, CO, and EO. That means that CFOP lookahead should be harder than ZZ lookahead.

The only disadvantage that I think ZZ suffers from is more thing to be planned in inspection, but due to EO, planning in inspection becomes easier. I think consistently planning EOCross + 1 is very possible, and that nullifies most of the blind spots of ZZ.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 16, 2020)

TerryD said:


> The only disadvantage that I think ZZ suffers from is more thing to be planned in inspection, but due to EO, planning in inspection becomes easier. I think consistently planning EOCross + 1 is very possible, and that nullifies most of the blind spots of ZZ.


If EOcross +1 is possible consistently possible, then cross+2 is equally possible, as eo takes about 6 moves, cross should be about 6 for each method, and f2l pairs take about 7 each, with EOcross +1 is about 19 moves, and cross+2 is about 20. From there, you would solve three pairs, compared to two for CFOP, which undoubtedly would favor cfop, even with the worse ergonomics. For last layer, zz wins because of the slightly faster oll. So they are pretty much equal.


TerryD said:


> ZZ with OLL and PLL(28 algs)-60 moves
> ZZ-VH(46 algs)-55 moves
> ZZ-a(493 algs)-45 moves to 50 moves
> CFOP(78 algs)-60 moves to 65 moves
> ...


So the wiki says 55 moves for both cfop and zz(oll/pll), but zz is bumped up by less than cfop because why? One cfop solver takes two moves more on average?


TerryD said:


> CFOP-RULFDy


lol when are d moves used? Cross, which uses 2 D moves at most? If so, you might as well say zz is also rulfbd because you use maybe two or three b and f moves in EO.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> If EOcross +1 is possible consistently possible, then cross+2 is equally possible, as eo takes about 6 moves, cross should be about 6 for each method, and f2l pairs take about 7 each, with EOcross +1 is about 19 moves, and cross+2 is about 20. From there, you would solve three pairs, compared to two for CFOP, which undoubtedly would favor cfop, even with the worse ergonomics. For last layer, zz wins because of the slightly faster oll. So they are pretty much equal.


People always get this wrong, EOCross + 1 is equivalent to XCross and a half, also, EOCross + 1 is more efficient than that 19. For the 2 pairs, you could RUL spam so fast that those three pairs are faster than those two pairs, why? cause of the benefits of a solved EO. and lastly, OCLL is far faster than the normal OLL, I can sub .7 most of them but normal OLL, nah and they're not equal.



I'm A Cuber said:


> So the wiki says 55 moves for both cfop and zz(oll/pll), but zz is bumped up by less than cfop because why? One cfop solver takes two moves more on average?


Heyo, you use ZZ, you use ZBLL and, ZZ's efficiency is far better when you use ZBLL you know. (bruh you know you're supposed to use ZZ with ZBLL.)



I'm A Cuber said:


> lol when are d moves used? Cross, which uses 2 D moves at most? If so, you might as well say zz is also rulfbd because you use maybe two or three b and f moves in EO.


you don't use D moves? tell that to Tymon Kolasinski and other people who use keyhole or pseudoslotting. also, F and B moves are wayyyyyyyyyy lesser than CFOP on average, and bada bing bada boom, you get better F2L and better last layer. (and better efficiency btw.)


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> People always get this wrong, EOCross + 1 is equivalent to XCross and a half, also, EOCross + 1 is more efficient than that 19. For the 2 pairs, you could RUL spam so fast that those three pairs are faster than those two pairs, why? cause of the benefits of a solved EO. and lastly, OCLL is far faster than the normal OLL, I can sub .7 most of them but normal OLL, nah and they're not equal.
> 
> 
> Heyo, you use ZZ, you use ZBLL and, ZZ's efficiency is far better when you use ZBLL you know. (bruh you know you're supposed to use ZZ with ZBLL.)
> ...


Do and R and L' as fast as you can, your hands are gonna have to receipt to do almost anything else in RUL gen


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Do and R and L' as fast as you can, your hands are gonna have to receipt to do almost anything else in RUL gen


Well, not quite, you only need to do quarter turns cause EOCross, you can do RUL turns blazing fast too btw.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Well, not quite, you only need to do quarter turns cause EOCross, you can do RUL turns blazing fast too btw.


I'm saying from home grips


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> I'm saying from home grips


Yes, I took that into account too.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 16, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Do and R and L' as fast as you can, your hands are gonna have to receipt to do almost anything else in RUL gen


I assume you mean regrip instead of receipt. Switching from R moves to L moves sometimes does require a slight regrip, but you don't have to switch often. ZZ F2L is usually switching between 2-Gen <R, U> and 2-Gen<L, U> less than 6 times.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

Dont know why a CFOPer is arguing that its better in a ZZ thread. Scat little kitty.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> People always get this wrong, EOCross + 1 is equivalent to XCross and a half, also, EOCross + 1 is more efficient than that 19.


Ok didn’t know that


Username: Username: said:


> For the 2 pairs, you could RUL spam so fast that those three pairs are faster than those two pairs, why? cause of the benefits of a solved EO. and lastly, OCLL is far faster than the normal OLL, I can sub .7 most of them but normal OLL, nah and they're not equal.


For the last two cfop pairs, you can rulf spam them way faster than you could rul spam three pairs. I never said oll was as fast as ocll, I said that they were pretty close, close enough to just about offset the advantage gained by the one less F2L pair in cfop.


Username: Username: said:


> Heyo, you use ZZ, you use ZBLL and, ZZ's efficiency is far better when you use ZBLL you know. (bruh you know you're supposed to use ZZ with ZBLL.)


Ok then, lemme go learn full vls, which has a comparable number of algs (way less with mirrors), similar recognition time, and vls+pll has a similar amount of moves as zz last pair+Zbll.


Username: Username: said:


> you don't use D moves? tell that to Tymon Kolasinski and other people who use keyhole or pseudoslotting. also, F and B moves are wayyyyyyyyyy lesser than CFOP on average, and bada bing bada boom, you get better F2L and better last layer. (and better efficiency btw.)


You can also use keyhole/pseudoslotting with zz. There should be no more than 4 F moves in your cross+F2L, as rotating is a thing that doesn’t actually take that much time.


TerryD said:


> ZZ F2L is usually switching between 2-Gen <R, U> and 2-Gen<L, U> less than 6 times.


Wow! Cfop has better ergonomics than zz, as you don’t regrip in cfop any more than once per pair, and rulf turning isn’t much worse than rul turning.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 16, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> Dont know why a CFOPer is arguing that its better in a ZZ thread. Scat little kitty.


@TerryD insulted cfop, so I must defend the honor of my method


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> For the last two cfop pairs, you can rulf spam them way faster than you could rul spam three pairs. I never said oll was as fast as ocll, I said that they were pretty close, close enough to just about offset the advantage gained by the one less F2L pair in cfop.


evidence? 3 pairs in ZZ is already so fast, the advantage given by ZBLL is even more.



I'm A Cuber said:


> Ok then, lemme go learn full vls, which has a comparable number of algs (way less with mirrors), similar recognition time, and vls+pll has a similar amount of moves as zz last pair+Zbll.


a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is ZZ-C++, better than VLS + PLL, it also only slightly higher algcount.



I'm A Cuber said:


> You can also use keyhole/pseudoslotting with zz. There should be no more than 4 F moves in your cross+F2L, as rotating is a thing that doesn’t actually take that much time.


Pseudoslotting on ZZ is far better than pseudo on CFOP, as TerryD has once said, you don't need to recognize the orientation of pieces and that's a plus during pseudoslotting. You contradicted your argument, why not RULF spam? you basically said don't use much F moves, also, the advantage of EO is far more than just not rotating.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is ZZ-C++, better than VLS + PLL.


What’s zz-c++?


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Ok didn’t know that
> 
> For the last two cfop pairs, you can rulf spam them way faster than you could rul spam three pairs. I never said oll was as fast as ocll, I said that they were pretty close, close enough to just about offset the advantage gained by the one less F2L pair in cfop.
> 
> ...


RUL is very fast. ZZ with eocross is regripless. Also, VLS + PLL might be similar to ZZ pair + ZBLL, but you have to make the pair first. It saves 3 moves and most people consider ZBLL leaps and bounds better my guy. Saves around 8-9.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> What’s zz-c++?


ZZ-C++ is basically a method that takes advantage of 2 methods while algcount is not that higher than ZBLL.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> evidence? 3 pairs in ZZ is already so fast, the advantage given by ZBLL is even more.
> 
> 
> a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is ZZ-C++, better than VLS + PLL, it also only slightly higher algcount.
> ...


a ZZ variant that matches to VLS with ZZ is WV. ZZ-C++ is equivalent to CFOP with OLS, which is 17,712 algorithms. ZZ-C++ has a movecount similar to ZBLL.
CFOP undebatebly has worse ergonomics than ZZ. CFOP is basically ZZ but there's no EO so you have to do F moves and rotations. RULFy is obviously worse than RUL.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

What does everyone think the best variation of ZZ is?


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 16, 2020)

TerryD said:


> CFOP is basically ZZ but there's no EO so you have to do F moves and rotations.


Zz is basically cfop but you can’t look as far in inspection so that you can turn at 9tps instead of 8.9tps and you also have to learn hundreds of algorithms so that you can save less than half a second on your last layer.
Edit: ergonomics don’t really matter on 3x3. If they did, then roux would not be a viable method. But it is


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> What does everyone think the best variation of ZZ is?


That's debatable, while some people say ZZ-A with full ZBLL is better (majority), some people also say ZZ-C++ is better than ZZ-A.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Zz is basically cfop but you can’t look as far in inspection so that you can turn at 9tps instead of 8.9tps and you also have to learn hundreds of algorithms so that you can save less than half a second on your last layer.


what?! clearly, the TPS cap of ZZ is far higher than CFOP, that's really obvious, and WHAT??????? BRUH YOU KNOW ZBLL SAVES ATLEAST A SECOND OR MORE
ZBLL vs OLL + PLL, ZBLL wins, duh, you know why top CFOP solvers use ZBLL.

sorry for the double post btw.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Zz is basically cfop but you can’t look as far in inspection so that you can turn at 9tps instead of 8.9tps and you also have to learn hundreds of algorithms so that you can save less than half a second on your last layer.


bruh, you can turn at higher tps with zz because of better ergonomics and easier lookahead. You don't necessarily need to learn ZBLL to be fast. ZZ is as fast as CFOP even with just OLL and PLL. ZBLL is just an option you can choose to be even faster.



I'm A Cuber said:


> Edit: ergonomics don’t really matter on 3x3. If they did, then roux would not be a viable method. But it is


do a BLDy-gen solve and get the same times as you normally do and I'll believe you


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

I use C++ and i gotta say its amazing, but if anything id say its about the same as A. I do get crazy lucky single though. Ill finish last pair and solve the whole cube normally once everyday


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

Is portico discussed or is that just not good


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> BRUH YOU KNOW ZBLL SAVES ATLEAST A SECOND OR MORE



As someone who knows full ZBLL U and uses it in solves, I would say that it saves less time than you might think because recognition makes you lose some time. I find that it rarely saves more than .6 for me, and while that's definitely a worthwhile time save, it's not as much as 1 whole second.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> As someone who knows full ZBLL U and uses it in solves, I would say that it saves less time than you might think because recognition makes you lose some time. I find that it rarely saves more than .6 for me, and while that's definitely a worthwhile time save, it's not as much as 1 whole second.


Just git gud at recog and you'll see.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Is portico discussed or is that just not good


I think it's not a bad method, it's just that it only gives you slightly easier inspection at the cost of going from RUL to RULFM. If you forced the DF edge to be a LL edge and proceeded like normal ZZ until LL, I think that would be better, but I think then you would be better off doing normal ZZ.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Is portico discussed or is that just not good


It is better than CFOP in @I'm A Cuber's logic cause you know, ergonomics don't matter.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

If everyone in this thread came up with a ZZ variant with a high-ish TPS, and low move count and a low amount of algorithms (~100) that would get lots of people to convert


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

ZZ CT is kinda that lol


----------



## TerryD (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> If everyone in this thread came up with a ZZ variant with a high-ish TPS, and low move count and a low amount of algorithms (~100) that would get lots of people to convert


zz-b seems to fit the bill, variants are not that easy to come up with lol


----------



## tx789 (Aug 16, 2020)

TerryD said:


> I think it's obvious that ZZ with EOCross is better than CFOP lol, it has better ergonomics, lower movecount, and easier lookahead.
> 
> Ergonomics:
> ZZ-RULD
> ...


I think your wrong. The ergonomics are that much better. RUL as a move set sucks. RUD is better and F turning are fine in many cases. Yes CFOP has rotations. It is hard to say how much of a difference in move sets ZZ has from CFOP but I feel you are making out it is way more than it is. 

But here is something what about when pdeuso slotting and F RU F' stuff is included. These techniques give way more options for f2l. What does zz with ZBLL was in this regard?


Also lookahead isn't necessary that much easier. All you need to do is not look at the current pieces your solving but the next ones you are going to solve. Hardness of this is based off how good you are at lookahead.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

tx789 said:


> I think your wrong. The ergonomics are that much better. RUL as a move set sucks. RUD is better and F turning are fine in many cases. Yes CFOP has rotations. It is hard to say how much of a difference in move sets ZZ has from CFOP but I feel you are making out it is way more than it is.
> 
> But here is something what about when pdeuso slotting and F RU F' stuff is included. These techniques give way more options for f2l. What does zz with ZBLL was in this regard?
> 
> ...


RUL is great. Your hating in a zz thread were people will defend it


----------



## ProStar (Aug 16, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> RUL is great. Your hating in a zz thread were people will defend it



EOCross's RUL is good. EOLine's RUL is pretty bad


----------



## tx789 (Aug 16, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> RUL is great. Your hating in a zz thread were people will defend it


R UL sucks cause of all the regrips caused by switching between R and L. RUD is way better.


----------



## ProStar (Aug 16, 2020)

tx789 said:


> R UL sucks cause of all the regrips caused by switching between R and L. RUD is way better.



If you use EOCross, then the regrips aren't bad at all. Besides, CFOP is almost never RUD for F2L, only when you're doing a keyhole insert. CFOP F2L is RUFLy, so it could be debated that ZZ ergonomics are better since it's just RUL


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 16, 2020)

Let's move this to the method debate thread, please.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 16, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> RUL is very fast. ZZ with eocross is regripless. Also, VLS + PLL might be similar to ZZ pair + ZBLL, but you have to make the pair first. It saves 3 moves and most people consider ZBLL leaps and bounds better my guy. Saves around 8-9.


Please send me a video of someone or you doing a ZZ solve with 0 regrips


----------



## ProStar (Aug 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Please send me a video of someone or you doing a ZZ solve with 0 regrips



You couldn't do a CFOP solve with 0 regrips without it being bad


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> You couldn't do a CFOP solve with 0 regrips without it being bad



I don't see how that is related to what I am talking about.

@zzcuberman is trying to say that ZZ is better than CFOP because it has 0 regrips which is obviously not true.


----------



## ProStar (Aug 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I don't see how that is related to what I am talking about.
> 
> @zzcuberman is trying to say that ZZ is better than CFOP because it has 0 regrips which is obviously not true.



ZZ definitely has regrips, but CFOP also has them. Amount of regrips doesn't make ZZ better than CFOP, but it also doesn't make ZZ worse than CFOP.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> ZZ definitely has regrips, but CFOP also has them. Amount of regrips doesn't make ZZ better than CFOP, but it also doesn't make ZZ worse than CFOP.


You are still totally misunderstanding what I am saying, I am not trying to say one method is better or not because of regrips, I am trying to say that zzcuberman's statement about zz having no regrips is wrong.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 16, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> Let's move this to the method debate thread, please.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 16, 2020)

TerryD said:


> do a BLDy-gen solve and get the same times as you normally do and I'll believe you


If there was a BLDy-gen method that had a decent movecount, I would
Edit: wait do you mean a gen similar to moves used in 3bld or one using back, left, and down moves?


----------



## TerryD (Aug 17, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> If there was a BLDy-gen method that had a decent movecount, I would
> Edit: wait do you mean a gen similar to moves used in 3bld or one using back, left, and down moves?


I meant a method using only B, L, and D moves.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 17, 2020)

The main problem with ZZ lies in the inspection and EO phases. Because you have to plan more during inspection just to do your EOCross, it makes it harder to consistently plan your cross. This snowballs into a bigger problem when you try to plan a first pair alongside the EOCross since you have even less time to plan and have to work around your EO solution.

That being said, F2L and LL are definitely nicer and there are a lot of really cool LS and LL things you can do because of EO, although whether or not some of those things are practical or not can be it's own debate. I personally use CFOP for my main method, and ZZ for fun and to practice/train my TPS.

There really isn't enough data for a truly compelling argument for planning EOCross plus one vs Cross plus two, simply do to the low sample size. Most people never give any thought to ZZ and go straight to CFOP. In an theoretical world where say, all the top 100 CFOP solvers all decided to spend a couple of years practicing EOCross, you could then really start to compare EOCross ZZ vs CFOP.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I don't see how that is related to what I am talking about.
> 
> @zzcuberman is trying to say that ZZ is better than CFOP because it has 0 regrips which is obviously not true.


i never once said ZZ is better then CFOP. Im trying to say they are equal. Now quit bashing ZZ in a ZZ Thread


----------



## tx789 (Aug 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> If you use EOCross, then the regrips aren't bad at all. Besides, CFOP is almost never RUD for F2L, only when you're doing a keyhole insert. CFOP F2L is RUFLy, so it could be debated that ZZ ergonomics are better since it's just RUL


RUD-gen is a better 3 move set of moves. F2L can have also no D moves if you want but adding them is very efficient and pdueso slotting and F RU F' gives F2L way more options while remaining very ergonomic and uses D turns. 

For RUFLy vs RUL yes RUL has less moves but F turns can be fine and there are ways to minimise rotations a bit. People here are making out like it is so so much better but the difference is small. This depends on how good your turning is of course. Fancy finger tricks are harder and have more risk but give you more options.


----------



## ottozing (Aug 17, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> i never once said ZZ is better then CFOP. Im trying to say they are equal. Now quit bashing ZZ in a ZZ Thread



They're not equal, and it's not even close!



Spoiler: long wall of text that's going to give ZZ lovers an existential crisis



ZZ has been around and well known by cubers for more than a decade, and for a long time had similar popularity levels to Roux since at the time, 3x3 hardware made M slices bad and RUL good

If ZZ were equal, the best CFOP solvers in the world wouldn't be more than 2 seconds faster on average than the best ZZ solvers we've seen (ZZ WR official average is 7.6x with EO cross variant, and I don't think we've seen anything faster than a mid 6 avg5 as far as unofficial results are concerned, which is again 2 seconds slower than the best CFOP averages)

I also think that the EOcross variant of ZZ isn't even really ZZ, since every step after EO is exactly the same as the CFOP steps with some advanced LL stuff (which we already see in CFOP) plus an F2L state that can be solved RUL gen (which isn't even optimal because of cases like R D' R' U R D R' and possibly setups to it), but this is a discussion for another time

If you or anyone else wants to prove that ZZ is on the same level as CFOP, then the actual core steps of the method need to fundamentally change, because EO>Line>RUL blockbuilding>ZBLL has obviously failed to compete with CFOP (though I realize that most ZZ users have figured this out and started pursuing EO+Cross)

EO>Cross>F2L>ZBLL also doesn't seem like it would be enough based on a few things

1st, obviously you want to do a mix of EO and Cross at the same time, but on a practical level they're going to be mostly separate steps the majority of the time, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that you're essentially making EO your first step for this method

(If any ZZ solvers want to prove me wrong on this and show me say, an average of 12 where you're consistently doing two or more cross edges before EO is done, then please do because if this assumption is wrong then everything else I'm about to write is at least partially wrong)

With that assumption in mind, you absolutely have to ask the question "is adding this additional step of solving EO worth it?"

The way you work that out is simple (in theory at least). You have to see how long it takes to solve EO time wise on average, and from there, see how much time you save with every other step (those steps being Cross, F2L, and LL)

Cross I would have to believe is worse to be honest, because #1 you're restricted to R,L,U,D,F2,B2 instead of R,L,U,D,F,B and #2 your capacity to plan a good Cross from a fingertrick/efficiency standpoint is never going to be as good as a CFOP solvers Cross

This isn't up for debate based on my original assumption... It's not a case of it being "harder", it's a case of it literally being worse, because you're trying to plan a Cross on a cube that's scrambled while tracking the 4-5 moves of your EO in your head on top of it (all while being restricted in what moves you can and can't do)

Trying to do CN ZZ only makes this problem worse... Technically on one EO axis you have 4 cross options if you do z/z'/z2 or no rotation after EO, but then you have to check all 4 after committing to an EO axis, and if you find a nice cross that requires a z2, you also have to ideally rotate and change your EO solution so that your solve start isn't "solve EO>z rotation>solve Cross"

If you want to say that hypothetically it's possible to plan EOCross+1 every solve, then I'm going to say that it's hypothetically possible to plan Cross+2 with CFOP every solve. Inspection wise, you're always going to be behind CFOP by at least one "step" (counting each F2L pair as a step) if it's truly a level playing field (I would argue more but I want to give y'all some breathing room)

Based on all of the reasonable theory-crafting I can do, I'm going to go ahead and say that EO first makes Cross a lot harder since once you commit to an EO axis, you're down to 4 possible Crosses instead of 6, you can't use F or B quarter turns, and if you're picking the nicest cross out of the 4, on average, you're going to have to adjust your EO solution 3/4 times if you want to be optimal and avoid doing a z/z'/z2 between steps

Good luck planning a first pair on top of that in 15 seconds (really more like 12 because everyone panic starts on the 8 or 12 warning)

With that now in mind, I think the next question to ask is "which of the two post-inspection scenarios is better?"

a) A Cross solved with all of your edges oriented for F2L/LL
b) A Cross solved with your first pair also solved

This wall of text is already getting very long, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that anyone who's gotten decently good with both CFOP and ZZ would agree that B is a lot nicer

People have already said a bunch about move-group stuff in this thread, but I'll go ahead and say that there's a reason most people don't use RULgen algs for PLL, even though virtually every adj/diag swap PLL has an RULgen alg that's the same movecount (or better) than the RUF/RUD equivilents (a good example is the R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L Jperm)

It's because RUL is worse than RUF, RUD, and a variety of other move-groups. Again, RULgen PLL algs exist, and I'm fairly certain all of them are very close to the optimal FMC movecount, so if RUL was a good move-group, all of the fastest cubers would be using these algs since low movecount+good move-group is a complete no brainer

Finally, is ZBLL better than OLL>PLL? Probably, but not by more than half a second in my honest opinion

The only full ZBLL sets that I can safely say have been proven worthwhile are U, T, and L 

Sune and Antisune have the worst CP recognition of the 7 sets, along with the fastest normal OLL's of the 7 sets. This makes ZBLL for these OLL's very hard to justify, even though on paper the algs are actually quite good (especially for Sune)

H and Pi have a unique issue where they have the easiest CP recognition (though only slightly better than U/T/L IMO), but also the worst ZBLL recognition due to the lack of any oriented corner

At least with Sune/Antisune, you can use a 1x2x2 oriented square to recognize things somewhat nicely, but with H/Pi you have to be a lot more creative with how you recognize the cases

I've talked with the best ZB users in the world, and even they agree that they only think parts of H/Pi are worth it for ZB, while some COLL sets aren't worth it

On the other hand, even though I don't have the best TPS or even turning, I've been able to get most PLL's sub 1 framecounted (can probably do the last two which are Fperm and one of the Nperms but I'm lazy), and almost every OLL sub .8 framecounted (minus an OLL where I do FRURUF>T ZBLL in actual solves), and with ROLL/JOLL recog tricks, I know that without learning anything new I can probably make my LL 2.5ish on average even if I stopped using ZBLL stuff/1LLL stuff/VLS stuff entirely 

Still, I think all edges oriented last layer (aka a mix of ZB and OLL>PLL) when mastered would probably be low or sub 2, so this is the one area where I think EO as a first step could make a half second difference in theory 

Bottom line, EO makes Cross worse in the sense that you're one step behind a CFOP solver inspection wise (if not more, I personally think it's closer to 2 than 1), but in theory makes LL half a second faster

Is RULgen 4 pairs is better than random-gen 3 pairs? Considering fast cubers can do a y2 in sub .4 framecounted (and y/y' a lot faster), along with the fact that good CFOP solvers won't rotate more than twice in a solve via rotationless F2L tricks like f R f' stuff, r U' R' U R U r', and a billion other neat tricks I could list, I highly highly doubt it

ZZ is a lot worse than Roux & CFOP, and that's OK


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 17, 2020)

ottozing said:


> They're not equal, and it's not even close!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jay, you did a good job destroying ZZ lol and that's also ok.


----------



## mukerflap (Aug 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Please send me a video of someone or you doing a ZZ solve with 0 regrips






obvious eo cross has regrips but in his f2l he stays in home grip, i think thats what he meant to say


tx789 said:


> RUD-gen is a better 3 move set of moves. F2L can have also no D moves if you want but adding them is very efficient and pdueso slotting and F RU F' gives F2L way more options while remaining very ergonomic and uses D turns.
> 
> For RUFLy vs RUL yes RUL has less moves but F turns can be fine and there are ways to minimise rotations a bit. People here are making out like it is so so much better but the difference is small. This depends on how good your turning is of course. Fancy finger tricks are harder and have more risk but give you more options.


pseudo slotting is actually much easier in ZZ beacuse you dont have to worry about the EO


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> obvious eo cross has regrips but in his f2l he stays in home grip, i think thats what he meant to say
> 
> pseudo slotting is actually much easier in ZZ beacuse you dont have to worry about the EO


yes thats what i meant, obviously lol these guys are dense.


----------



## ProStar (Aug 17, 2020)

tx789 said:


> RUD-gen is a better 3 move set of moves. F2L can have also no D moves if you want but adding them is very efficient and pdueso slotting and F RU F' gives F2L way more options while remaining very ergonomic and uses D turns.
> 
> For RUFLy vs RUL yes RUL has less moves but F turns can be fine and there are ways to minimise rotations a bit. People here are making out like it is so so much better but the difference is small. This depends on how good your turning is of course. Fancy finger tricks are harder and have more risk but give you more options.



But CFOP isn't RUD. Even when you take advantage of pseudo slotting and keyhole, you usually don't have a lot of D moves. It's mostly RUFL

How are fingertricks harder?


----------



## tx789 (Aug 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> But CFOP isn't RUD. Even when you take advantage of pseudo slotting and keyhole, you usually don't have a lot of D moves. It's mostly RUFL
> 
> How are fingertricks harder?



RUD algs are much much better than RUL. Name a alg where RUL is the best option(the bad jperm is the only commonly used alg I can think of and there are good alternatives that are pontenially better). How many RUL algs can you find that people actually use and are good. RUD and RUF are way more common for a reason.

Yes this isn't in f2l but you use the same fingertricks throughout the solve. And what move sets are used in algs are limited for ergonomics the fact RUL is used and is avoided shows us that it isn't as good as others.


Yes CFOP F2L isn't limited much in moves. D turns maybe be uncommon (less so for fast people) but RUF is better than RUL. Yes there are rotations but they don't take that long. It just on extra move.


The point is while EO F2L might feel fast because of no rotations and RUL. it really isn't that different than basic cfop. 

ZZ in general seems slower. The EO cross is way longer meaning the only step that is shorter is ZBLL and that is a very minimal difference. In my mind ZZ with EO cross is basically a version of cfop where you take much longer to do cross and what is gained f2l that at best is about the same and ll that is a little faster. 

Hey maybe I'm wrong but it'll take someone getting a 5.xx offical average. If you want to prove this method is better get a really fast. 

I know the whole no good uses it agrument is flawed but Roux has some really fast people using it and it definitely isn't that popular. Either it's just bad or just waiting for someone to get good with it. If it is so much better why are the best people using the method a lot slower than CFOP or Roux solvers. Numbers of people using it is possible. But hardly anyone used Roux before Alex Lau. Maybe this is something waiting to happen with ZZ but I highly doubt it. The f2l is better because RUL as a move set isn't good. And EO cross is pretty bad compared to cross. No one is colour neutral with zz. 

I mean ZZ with eocross on left compared to cfop cross on left might be better but the. That is cross on left which almost no one uses anymore.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 18, 2020)

RUL is actually very fast. Theres also no rotations.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 18, 2020)

Also, you can bypass the issue of RUL turning by treating L/L' moves as r/r' (Wide R moves). People really should do this irregardless of what method they are using.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 18, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Also, you can bypass the issue of RUL turning by treating L/L' moves as r/r' (Wide R moves). People really should do this irregardless of what method they are using.


But then it's rRF gen


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 18, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> But then it's rRF gen


But no rotations i actually use the L moves


----------



## N's-cvt (Aug 18, 2020)

I use some ZZLL's that have RUL and they are fun and fast to do. The only biff I have with L moves is that if they are not algorithmic they slow me down and they make my hands do weird stuff sometimes.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 18, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> But then it's rRF gen


That's just the technical details. Try doing lefty T Perm and then do lefty T perm while substituting L moves for wide R moves. I would be that you will find a way to execute it more comfortably and quickly using wide R moves. It doesn't matter that it's RUL if you execute it in a way that is comfortable.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 18, 2020)

N's-cvt said:


> I use some ZZLL's that have RUL and they are fun and fast to do. The only biff I have with L moves is that if they are not algorithmic they slow me down and they make my hands do weird stuff sometimes.


There will almost certainly be RUD/RUF algs for those cases too. Not saying that they're faster, but they exist.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 18, 2020)

I need tips on how to get good at eo.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 18, 2020)

Practice, be as efficient as possible, be at least y axis neutral. Now do 1000 solves, the first 200 on the EO you don't know yet.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Practice, be as efficient as possible, be at least y axis neutral. Now do 1000 solves, the first 200 on the EO you don't know yet.


should I practise planning eoline/eoarrow before starting on eocross or should I go with eo+cross and then gradually bring it to eocross?


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 18, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> should I practise planning eoline/eoarrow before starting on eocross or should I go with eo+cross and then gradually bring it to eocross?


Start practising EOArrow, that's a good transition to full EOCross.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 18, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Start practising EOArrow, that's a good transition to full EOCross.



thanks


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Oct 16, 2020)

hey everyone
so i started using zz and im quite slow (still getting used to eo coming from roux)
im scared that im going to have to learn zbll eventually
and when i see the algs i go ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... im never going to learn this
edit also im using portico and planning to switch to full zz a but should i?or should i stick to portico?


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 16, 2020)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> hey everyone
> so i started using zz and im quite slow (still getting used to eo coming from roux)
> im scared that im going to have to learn zbll eventually
> and when i see the algs i go ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... im never going to learn this
> edit also im using portico and planning to switch to full zz a but should i?or should i stick to portico?


Stick to Roux if you don't like algs.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 16, 2020)

You don't need to learn full ZBLL to have the fastest ZZ. You only really need TUL, 2 sets of Pi, 2 sets of H and then use OCLL/PLL for the rest. You also don't need to learn it all in a set time frame - you can learn an alg per day and be done with those algs in less than 8 months, or you could go through more intense periods of alg learning then taking a break for a bit and still be done in less than a year. Also, there's not really much point using portico when you could just do vanilla ZZ (OCLL/PLL) and be as fast, if not faster. 
TL;DR: don't be scared of full ZBLL because you don't have to learn all of it and OCLL/PLL can be pretty fast anyway.
Welcome to ZZ! If you need any more help, just ask (you could also join the discord server we have, invite is in my signature).


----------



## Cubing Forever (Oct 16, 2020)

I honestly think ZZ has a lot of untapped potential because it is the newest method in the Big 4.
First of all, we have ZBLL which is the most optimal approach
Next, If someone comes up with algs for multi angle TTLL then maybe CT can be a practical 1LLL approach with a manageable algcount. 
If you use 12 seconds of Inspection, you can plan X-EOCross(that's doable imo)
I have an idea for 2 look TSLE though.
I don't know if it has been proposed.
You can pair up any. corner with the last edge, insert and then you can do OCLL. This reduces the no. of algs required from 104 to 7.


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 16, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> I honestly think ZZ has a lot of untapped potential because it is the newest method in the Big 4.
> First of all, we have ZBLL which is the most optimal approach
> Next, If someone comes up with algs for multi angle TTLL then maybe CT can be a practical 1LLL approach with a manageable algcount.
> If you use 12 seconds of Inspection, you can plan X-EOCross(that's doable imo)
> ...


People like Radmac can already inspect EOCross+1 (lol) in under 15 seconds.
it's already been used for 2 look TSLE lol.


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Oct 16, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You don't need to learn full ZBLL to have the fastest ZZ. You only really need TUL, 2 sets of Pi, 2 sets of H and then use OCLL/PLL for the rest. You also don't need to learn it all in a set time frame - you can learn an alg per day and be done with those algs in less than 8 months, or you could go through more intense periods of alg learning then taking a break for a bit and still be done in less than a year. Also, there's not really much point using portico when you could just do vanilla ZZ (OCLL/PLL) and be as fast, if not faster.
> TL;DR: don't be scared of full ZBLL because you don't have to learn all of it and OCLL/PLL can be pretty fast anyway.
> Welcome to ZZ! If you need any more help, just ask (you could also join the discord server we have, invite is in my signature).


thanks for your advice i think im going to do that


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Oct 16, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You don't need to learn full ZBLL to have the fastest ZZ. You only really need TUL, 2 sets of Pi, 2 sets of H and then use OCLL/PLL for the rest. You also don't need to learn it all in a set time frame - you can learn an alg per day and be done with those algs in less than 8 months, or you could go through more intense periods of alg learning then taking a break for a bit and still be done in less than a year. Also, there's not really much point using portico when you could just do vanilla ZZ (OCLL/PLL) and be as fast, if not faster.
> TL;DR: don't be scared of full ZBLL because you don't have to learn all of it and OCLL/PLL can be pretty fast anyway.
> Welcome to ZZ! If you need any more help, just ask (you could also join the discord server we have, invite is in my signature).


so i was using portico to get into zz beacuse its kinda hard to not use m moves and completly ruin your eo so i guess its zza now


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Oct 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Stick to Roux if you don't like algs.


you misunderstood me 
its not that i dont like algs . im neutral about them but500 is a bit too much 
you also have to remember i came from roux and roux is mostly intutive


----------



## Cubing Forever (Oct 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> People like Radmac can inspect XEOCross in under 15 seconds.
> it's already been used for 2 look TSLE lol.


I've inspected X EO Cross once in 14 seconds. It was a 4 mover 4 bad EO case. The solve turned out to be my ZZ PB lol.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 16, 2020)

I see, you used portico because it's kinda like Roux, not a bad way to do it tbf.
There's also ZZ-4c which is where you solve your EOLine with your ULUR edges instead, do normal F2L, COLL, then you insert them and do 4c, but I would definitely recommend ZZ-A over that.

I can sometimes recognise EOCross+1 but not with any consistency.


----------



## u Cube (Oct 16, 2020)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> hey everyone
> so i started using zz and im quite slow (still getting used to eo coming from roux)
> im scared that im going to have to learn zbll eventually
> and when i see the algs i go ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... im never going to learn this
> edit also im using portico and planning to switch to full zz a but should i?or should i stick to portico?


Do not use ZZ, roux is objectively better and has been proven many times.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

u Cube said:


> Do not use ZZ, roux is objectively better and has been proven many times.


people have their choices and you have to respect that


----------



## u Cube (Oct 16, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> people have their choices and you have to respect that


If you are just cubing for fun idc what method you use but if you are trying to get fast ZZ isn't it.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

u Cube said:


> If you are just cubing for fun idc what method you use but if you are trying to get fast ZZ isn't it.


huh, what did you say?




watch the first part
sub 7 avg with zz is possible
the zz solver is close to it, and there is always room for improvement


----------



## Spacey10 (Oct 16, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> huh, what did you say?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But sub 7 CFOP and roux solvers are more common


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> But sub 7 CFOP and roux solvers are more common


because there are more cfop and roux users
just not enough ZZ users which is sad


----------



## Spacey10 (Oct 16, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> because there are more cfop and roux users
> just not enough ZZ users which is sad


If you scale it up, they are not proportional


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> If you scale it up, they are not proportional


yep


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 17, 2020)

u Cube said:


> If you are just cubing for fun idc what method you use but if you are trying to get fast ZZ isn't it.


How???


----------



## PetrusQuber (Oct 17, 2020)

Most people cube for fun...


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 17, 2020)

u Cube said:


> Do not use ZZ, roux is objectively better and has been proven many times.


As most people in this thread have said, how?

EOCross=FB+DR (4 pieces plus EO of everything else vs 6 pieces is pretty fair, similar number of moves, ~9 for each).
2.5 ZZ pairs=rest of second block (ZZ pairs are very fast (imagine CFOP pairs but faster) and Roux SB has some bad blind spots as well as some overturning issues).
Finish F2L=CMLL (this is like a 1 second alg vs a .6 second alg for LS and about .3 for half of other pair, so is in ZZ's favour mildly).
ZBLL=LSE (both are about sub 2 and could be substantialy faster depending on the case, even when factoring in using OCLL/PLL instead).

Also, that video doesn't have these:


----------



## mukerflap (Oct 17, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> As most people in this thread have said, how?
> 
> EOCross=FB+DR (4 pieces plus EO of everything else vs 6 pieces is pretty fair, similar number of moves, ~9 for each).
> 2.5 ZZ pairs=rest of second block (ZZ pairs are very fast (imagine CFOP pairs but faster) and Roux SB has some bad blind spots as well as some overturning issues).
> ...


LSE is objectively faster


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Oct 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> LSE is objectively faster


LSE is objectively faster than what?
Solving the whole cube with zz? Zbll? EOCross? EOXCross?


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Oct 17, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> LSE is objectively faster than what?
> Solving the whole cube with zz? Zbll? EOCross? EOXCross?


All of those


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 17, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> LSE is objectively faster than what?
> Solving the whole cube with zz? Zbll? EOCross? EOXCross?


Of course, you can't compare LSE with EOCross or XEOCross, so ZBLL.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 17, 2020)

I’m just saying, people who don’t actively use ZZ/EOCross really shouldn’t be trying to put their opinion out there with claims that something else is objectively better. Most people just hear somebody fast say something and echo it, instead of forming their own opinions from personal experience.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 17, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> LSE is objectively faster


LS is objectively faster than CMLL if we are comparing Roux L10P to ZZ-A LS:LL


----------



## u Cube (Oct 18, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I’m just saying, people who don’t actively use ZZ/EOCross really shouldn’t be trying to put their opinion out there with claims that something else is objectively better. Most people just hear somebody fast say something and echo it, instead of forming their own opinions from personal experience.


purpose of objective comparison is looking at both sides with pure facts and that's what I do with roux/cfop/zz comparisons. I'll make a vid sometime this month on why Eocross is objectively worse than Roux because it gets really tiring to re-explain my position every time some ZZ user gets mad.


----------



## u Cube (Oct 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> As most people in this thread have said, how?
> 
> EOCross=FB+DR (4 pieces plus EO of everything else vs 6 pieces is pretty fair, similar number of moves, ~9 for each).
> 2.5 ZZ pairs=rest of second block (ZZ pairs are very fast (imagine CFOP pairs but faster) and Roux SB has some bad blind spots as well as some overturning issues).
> ...


Woah nice solves, didn't know it was 2017 lol


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 18, 2020)

u Cube said:


> purpose of objective comparison is looking at both sides with pure facts and that's what I do with roux/cfop/zz comparisons. I'll make a vid sometime this month on why Eocross is objectively worse than Roux because it gets really tiring to re-explain my position every time some ZZ user gets mad.


EOCross isn't objectively worse than Roux?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 18, 2020)

u Cube said:


> purpose of objective comparison is looking at both sides with pure facts and that's what I do with roux/cfop/zz comparisons. I'll make a vid sometime this month on why Eocross is objectively worse than Roux because it gets really tiring to re-explain my position every time some ZZ user gets mad.


I have no complaints with discussing the issues of EOCross. What I don’t like is when people make a blanket claim something is more optimal without backing it up or even detailing by what metric something is more optimal.


----------



## u Cube (Oct 18, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I have no complaints with discussing the issues of EOCross. What I don’t like is when people make a blanket claim something is more optimal without backing it up or even detailing by what metric something is more optimal.


I agree, I switched to roux because nobody had objective evidence that cfop was better by a big margin, and for the first year of using people would be like "ew roux why not use cfop" so I get your point of blanket claims. Blanket claims are useless and get us nowhere. Going around saying HARHAR ZZ NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB isn't helping anybody. So like I said, I will go more in depth and make a video on which method is "objectively better". It takes me more than ten minutes to type an argument usually and I'm really busy today so that's why I'm not doing that rn lol. Idk, might copy paste some comments I've previously made here instead but it's really hard to convince people without giving evidence cuz I don't really mention the regular argument of "RUL has bad ergonomics so ZZ is bad" as the main flaw.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 19, 2020)

Yeah I conp


u Cube said:


> I agree, I switched to roux because nobody had objective evidence that cfop was better by a big margin, and for the first year of using people would be like "ew roux why not use cfop" so I get your point of blanket claims. Blanket claims are useless and get us nowhere. Going around saying HARHAR ZZ NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB isn't helping anybody. So like I said, I will go more in depth and make a video on which method is "objectively better". It takes me more than ten minutes to type an argument usually and I'm really busy today so that's why I'm not doing that rn lol. Idk, might copy paste some comments I've previously made here instead but it's really hard to convince people without giving evidence cuz I don't really mention the regular argument of "RUL has bad ergonomics so ZZ is bad" as the main flaw.


Yeah I completely understand! Let me know when you post your vid! I’m personally working on sub 10 with CFOP, Roux, and EOCross because I want to form my own opinions from my personal experience. I have some ideas based on what I’ve noticed with EOCross that maybe could boost its viability, but I’ll do more tests first. I think EOCross can probably end up roughly equal to CFOP


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Oct 20, 2020)

u Cube said:


> Do not use ZZ, roux is objectively better and has been proven many times.


we are not in a dictatorship


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 20, 2020)

coming from someone who is fast at ZZ (im the person in the videos papasmurf linked) I think LSE is objectively better than ZBLL, because the recognition is not as hard, it's 0 algs vs 500 algs, it's entirely MU gen which is extremely fast, and it's also just straight up faster in general at a top level

as far as which method is better, it's kinda hard to prove it objectively but I'd say the lower movecount of roux combined with its great ergonomics give it more potential than ZZ, although I'm still going to use ZZ because I don't want to put time into getting to the same level with roux.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 20, 2020)

in OH is it best to do EOCross or EOArrow?


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Oct 20, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> in OH is it best to do EOCross or EOArrow?


EOline


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 20, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> coming from someone who is fast at ZZ (im the person in the videos papasmurf linked) I think LSE is objectively better than ZBLL, because the recognition is not as hard, it's 0 algs vs 500 algs, it's entirely MU gen which is extremely fast, and it's also just straight up faster in general at a top level
> 
> as far as which method is better, it's kinda hard to prove it objectively but I'd say the lower movecount of roux combined with its great ergonomics give it more potential than ZZ, although I'm still going to use ZZ because I don't want to put time into getting to the same level with roux.


And last pair and a bit is better than CMLL.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 21, 2020)

The question of if ZZ with eocross or crop is better comes down too is the time added in eocross saved by zzs f2l and LL as compared to cfop. 

Eocross is objectively slower than cross you are doing more than solving cross. Is doing EO worth the cost of a slower start to the solve.

LL is easier to quantify. Both have the same minimum but cfop has a wider spread.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

You do about 3-4 extra moves with EOCross to save that and some later on, with a better F2L and LL.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You do about 3-4 extra moves with EOCross to save that and some later on, with a better F2L and LL.


Is the F2L better? RUL is a little akward. You must master RU and LU turning. For cfop you have a bit more freedom. And while f2l is techinall RULFB-gen when do you use a 4-gen f2l pair. That is about the limit and only for non fr slots. The difference seems small. Modern hardware allows for a lot of fancy fingertricks. So it makes F turns a lot better relative to old hardware and other turns. 

Those 3-4 moves add a lot since you'll end up inspecting less. 


Honestly I think ZZ is worse but if you want to prove me wrong go ahead. Use this as motivation if you need it. Someone has to explore it to know it is viable I could be wrong. I think sometimes doing eocross could work but only when it only affects cross a little but that seems rare.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 21, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Is the F2L better? RUL is a little akward. You must master RU and LU turning. For cfop you have a bit more freedom. And while f2l is techinall RULFB-gen when do you use a 4-gen f2l pair. That is about the limit and only for non fr slots. The difference seems small. Modern hardware allows for a lot of fancy fingertricks. So it makes F turns a lot better relative to old hardware and other turns.
> 
> Those 3-4 moves add a lot since you'll end up inspecting less.
> 
> ...


I’ve never really gotten why LU turning being a bit awkward is such a big deal. You can fudge the LU turning via wide r, which lowers the amount of times actual LU turning is needed. Of course there are times where some awkward turning is unavoidable but I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world, especially when you consider how some people still don’t do basic things like double flicks, proper slice moves, etc.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 21, 2020)

as the great alexander lau once said, "methods dont have speeds."


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Is the F2L better? RUL is a little akward. You must master RU and LU turning. For cfop you have a bit more freedom. And while f2l is techinall RULFB-gen when do you use a 4-gen f2l pair. That is about the limit and only for non fr slots. The difference seems small. Modern hardware allows for a lot of fancy fingertricks. So it makes F turns a lot better relative to old hardware and other turns.
> 
> Those 3-4 moves add a lot since you'll end up inspecting less.
> 
> ...


Saying the F2L is <RUL> is slightly misleading. It's more accurately <RU LU>. It also isn't a problem when you have to "master RU and LU turning" as this is the case in CFOP too. In fact, with CFOP you have to master RUFD turning and LUFD turning and rotating whereas in ZZ it's RUD and LUD. No one is saying F moves are bad, just as no one is saying that F moves are slow. Simply, the lack of F moves doesn't hurt and the lack of rotations only improves the solve. In CFOP F2L you don't (conventionally) use M moves. That doesn't mean M moves are bad, it just simply means that you don't use M moves and it simplifies the solve slightly. 

On the inspection, you don't necessarily end up inspecting less. To see EOCross+1 you need to be able to track a pair through about 9 moves of inspection which is definitely harder than the 5 of normal cross but it is still 100% doable (Rouxers can consistently see FB+DR which is 8 moves into inspection plus an extra move to solve DR). You also get the advantage of first pair and EO, which is, imo, a much bigger advantage than first pair plus maybe an edge of the second. 

On your last point of it being worth it "when it affects cross", that's more times than it isn't. There are quite a few examples of CFOP solvers getting EO skips and doing ZZ by accident for a super amazing solve and doing ZZ basically guarentees that for 4 extra moves. Anyway, there are people who are very fast and there are several sub 10 solvers now. Hopefully that keeps on growing and ZZ can finally reach the top (way too late, but it will happen).


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> On the inspection, you don't necessarily end up inspecting less. To see EOCross+1 you need to be able to track a pair through about 9 moves of inspection which is definitely harder than the 5 of normal cross but it is still 100% doable (Rouxers can consistently see FB+DR which is 8 moves into inspection plus an extra move to solve DR). You also get the advantage of first pair and EO, which is, imo, a much bigger advantage than first pair plus maybe an edge of the second.


No one (Maybe 1 person) Can consistently see EOCross+1. Cross+2 is the same difficulty if not easier. imo, cross+2 is a much bigger advantage than EOCross+1.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Saying the F2L is <RUL> is slightly misleading. It's more accurately <RU LU>. It also isn't a problem when you have to "master RU and LU turning" as this is the case in CFOP too. In fact, with CFOP you have to master RUFD turning and LUFD turning and rotating whereas in ZZ it's RUD and LUD. No one is saying F moves are bad, just as no one is saying that F moves are slow. Simply, the lack of F moves doesn't hurt and the lack of rotations only improves the solve. In CFOP F2L you don't (conventionally) use M moves. That doesn't mean M moves are bad, it just simply means that you don't use M moves and it simplifies the solve slightly.
> 
> On the inspection, you don't necessarily end up inspecting less. To see EOCross+1 you need to be able to track a pair through about 9 moves of inspection which is definitely harder than the 5 of normal cross but it is still 100% doable (Rouxers can consistently see FB+DR which is 8 moves into inspection plus an extra move to solve DR). You also get the advantage of first pair and EO, which is, imo, a much bigger advantage than first pair plus maybe an edge of the second.
> 
> On your last point of it being worth it "when it affects cross", that's more times than it isn't. There are quite a few examples of CFOP solvers getting EO skips and doing ZZ by accident for a super amazing solve and doing ZZ basically guarentees that for 4 extra moves. Anyway, there are people who are very fast and there are several sub 10 solvers now. Hopefully that keeps on growing and ZZ can finally reach the top (way too late, but it will happen).


Eocross+1 is a lot longer than cross so I find it difficult to believe it is equivalent to regular cross+1. Cn crosses typically range from 4-6. 7 is incredibly rare (but then that is assuming you always use move opitmal which you shouldn't be). You spend more time with awkward cross type ergonomics too. 

How colour neutral are zz solvers? Cfop has more and more world class solvers who are cn. But zz is fixed orientation. I know some people use yx2. But you could be z neutral too. Z rotations doesn't change the number of bad edges. 


Eocross has a significantly greater spread and the fastest typical is still 50% slowe than cross.

So all I am saying is the question of comparison is does adding time to cross save more time in F2L. LL should save a little bit.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 21, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> No one (Maybe 1 person) Can consistently see EOCross+1. Cross+2 is the same difficulty if not easier. imo, cross+2 is a much bigger advantage than EOCross+1.


I think EOCross+1 is way better than cross+2 and here’s why. At the top level, which is where you would see each inspection level come up, the solvers obviously have excellent planning and look ahead. Because of this, if a solver can plan cross+1, they should be able to execute the moves and just watch for the second pair. Planning cross+2 will be a bit faster, but then they still have to look ahead to pairs 3 and 4, which may or may not be awkward cases. With EOCross+1, you should still be able to execute the solution and focus on looking ahead to the second pair, but because of EO, look ahead is easier, possible cases are reduced, and you can do ZBLL every solve if you wanted


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Eocross+1 is a lot longer than cross so I find it difficult to believe it is equivalent to regular cross+1. Cn crosses typically range from 4-6. 7 is incredibly rare (but then that is assuming you always use move opitmal which you shouldn't be). You spend more time with awkward cross type ergonomics too.
> 
> How colour neutral are zz solvers? Cfop has more and more world class solvers who are cn. But zz is fixed orientation. I know some people use yx2. But you could be z neutral too. Z rotations doesn't change the number of bad edges.
> 
> ...


I never claimed it was equal, but just that EOCross+1 is definitely feasible most of the time.

ZZ solvers are (should be) x2y, so white or yellow on D, any colour on F. This gives you 4 EOCrosses to choose from. You can instead be neutral on any 2 F/B combinations (so you can solve with any colour on D, blue/green or red/orange on F for example) which gives 8 options, although this isn't really necessary imo.

EOCross distribution for fixed orientation looks like this: .
As you can see, almost every case is between 5 and 9 moves, so the spread is not much greater than 4-6 of CN cross and if you were x2y, that spread would decrease and shift lower.

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I would argue that it definitely does make up for it. It's close, but the faster pairs (from not having most of the bad CFOP cases or rotations) and faster LL make up for the 3-4 extra moves spent during EOCross.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 21, 2020)

I can do EOCross from 6 orientations x2y or zy2 so in normal color scheme with white or yellow on top, and front, or with green or blue front, yellow or red top. The red/yellow EOCross is a relatively recent thing I learned but once I get it up to par, I plan on working on green or blue top. Idk how practical fully CN EOCross is, but I think it would be cool just to be able to do it


----------



## tx789 (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I never claimed it was equal, but just that EOCross+1 is definitely feasible most of the time.
> 
> ZZ solvers are (should be) x2y, so white or yellow on D, any colour on F. This gives you 4 EOCrosses to choose from. You can instead be neutral on any 2 F/B combinations (so you can solve with any colour on D, blue/green or red/orange on F for example) which gives 8 options, although this isn't really necessary imo.
> 
> ...


 That is closer than I expected maybe it is better but that is hard to prove can it even if be diffintively the done beyond informed opiniomms. Devolping certain "useless" skills is still useful. Defining useless as slower. 

If I ever did eocross I would want to be fully cn but obviously that is jrd since there are 24.

How many more moves does speed otimised eocross take compared to move optimal. I imagine eocross is hard to be efficient at and beginners suck at it.

I would be interested to see how x2y, z and fully neutral compare in move counts. I wonder if it saves more than fixed cross vs cn cross.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

tx789 said:


> That is closer than I expected maybe it is better but that is hard to prove can it even if be diffintively the done beyond informed opiniomms. Devolping certain "useless" skills is still useful. Defining useless as slower.
> 
> If I ever did eocross I would want to be fully cn but obviously that is jrd since there are 24.
> 
> ...


There are 12 EOCrosses for full CN (not 24) as each EO has 4 different ones and there are 3 EOs. It’s still not easy to do though.

It takes about 9-10 whereas move optimal is about 7-8 (as you can see from the data).

Me too. Please could someone who can do that kinda thing look into this?


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 22, 2020)

tx789 said:


> How many more moves does speed otimised eocross take compared to move optimal.



my speed optimized eocrosses in solves usually take 8 or 9 moves, compared to 7 avg moves for optimal



Owen Morrison said:


> No one (Maybe 1 person) Can consistently see EOCross+1. Cross+2 is the same difficulty if not easier. imo, cross+2 is a much bigger advantage than EOCross+1.



as one of the people who can plan eocross+1, i can tell you that cross+2 is straight up harder


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 22, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> my speed optimized eocrosses in solves usually take 8 or 9 moves, compared to 7 avg moves for optimal
> 
> 
> 
> as one of the people who can plan eocross+1, i can tell you that cross+2 is straight up harder


Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 22, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.


cross+2 is more moves, its that simple.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 22, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> cross+2 is more moves, its that simple.


You can need to track pieces threw f2l+1.l and there are less places those pieces can be too. It isn't that simple.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 22, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.


That's a really demeaning and kinda disrespectful way to put things. You really should work on not coming across as standoffish all the time. Also, I assure you that anyone who does EOCross can do CFOP just fine.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 23, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> That's a really demeaning and kinda disrespectful way to put things. You really should work on not coming across as standoffish all the time. Also, I assure you that anyone who does EOCross can do CFOP just fine.


Agreed, Thats like saying a petrus user couldn't do Xcrosses well
Also I just saw that original post and that was my gut reaction, so sorry about that.


tx789 said:


> You can need to track pieces threw f2l+1.l and there are less places those pieces can be too. It isn't that simple.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 23, 2020)

tx789 said:


> You can need to track pieces threw f2l+1.l and there are less places those pieces can be too. It isn't that simple.


You don't have EO though and it's more moves. It's all circular.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 23, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Well of course they are for you since you don't use CFOP.


Well, I don't use CFOP as my main method, but I'm still sub 10 with it. I may not be as advanced with CFOP but Cross+2 is simply more pieces to solve, and takes more moves, thus it's harder to plan in inspection. It's that simple.


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 23, 2020)

I think becoming method neutral is the best approach for the future. Taking all the best things of each method, and being able to judge which method to use in inspection time will be good.

Currently, I use CFOP and Roux.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 23, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> I think becoming method neutral is the best approach for the future. Taking all the best things of each method, and being able to judge which method to use in inspection time will be good.
> 
> Currently, I use CFOP and Roux.



This would be good if you could be equally fast with each method. I'm currently avging mid 7 with zz, high 8 with roux, and low 9 with cfop so maybe I'll try to get to the same speed with all 3.


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 23, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> I think becoming method neutral is the best approach for the future. Taking all the best things of each method, and being able to judge which method to use in inspection time will be good.
> 
> Currently, I use CFOP and Roux.


It is probably a huge disadvantage as you waste a TON of inspection just to even pick a method, you also waste many hours of practice that makes you sub 10 with ZZ and CFOP instead of sub 9 with Roux. (heh)


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 23, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> It is probably a huge disadvantage as you waste a TON of inspection just to even pick a method, you also waste many hours of practice that makes you sub 10 with ZZ and CFOP instead of sub 9 with Roux. (heh)



Yea i'd say maybe best to be method neutral with ZZ and Roux or CFOP and Roux. All 3 bad.


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 23, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Yea i'd say maybe best to be method neutral with ZZ and Roux or CFOP and Roux. All 3 bad.


Dual method neutral at least has potential but not all 3, yep.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 23, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Dual method neutral at least has potential but not all 3, yep.



I think being CFOP and ZZ method neutral would also be bad since it'd be harder to decide a method, so you waste a lot of inspection


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 23, 2020)

ZZ/CFOP method neutrality is the easiest of the combos as they're quite similar. The problem is that you could very easily tend to do more solves with one than the other depending on your approach. Roux/ZZ or Roux/CFOP is probably the best combination as you can exploit both blocks and cross/EO.


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 23, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I think being CFOP and ZZ method neutral would also be bad since it'd be harder to decide a method, so you waste a lot of inspection


Inspecting EOCross is not that hard and it's ez


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 23, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Inspecting EOCross is not that hard and it's ez



But deciding to go for EOCross or XCross would be harder than deciding to go for FB/Eocross or FB/Xcross


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 23, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> But deciding to go for EOCross or XCross would be harder than deciding to go for FB/Eocross or FB/Xcross


Why EOCross = XCross anyway. In my opinion, EOCross would be easier to inspect than XCross since you're just tracking edges instead of making pair which has a corner and it makes it harder to inspect.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 23, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Why EOCross = XCross anyway. In my opinion, EOCross would be easier to inspect than XCross since you're just tracking edges instead of making pair which has a corner and it makes it harder to inspect.



I'm thinking Eocross is closer to the same difficulty as Xcross then Eocross is to regular cross


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 23, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Why EOCross = XCross anyway. In my opinion, EOCross would be easier to inspect than XCross since you're just tracking edges instead of making pair which has a corner and it makes it harder to inspect.


I dont think EOCross is good cause it has a higher move count and that just ruine the concept of eo. i think EOArrow is the best cause its a mix of eoline and eo cross


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 23, 2020)

Good method nuetral combos imo are
CFOP-ZZ
CFOP-Petrus
ZZ-Petrus(my personal favorite)
Roux-? (roux is hard to duel method with as its so diffrent from the other 4,
but id say probably Roux-Cfop is best because usually if you get a bad Roux case its a decent Cfop case.


RiceMan_ said:


> I dont think EOCross is good cause it has a higher move count and that just ruine the concept of eo. i think EOArrow is the best cause its a mix of eoline and eo cross


???????????????????????????????????????????????? what???????????????????????????? how would EOArrow be better than cross when you inspect one less piece?


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 23, 2020)

Are there any good ¨EOCross¨ trainers?
like a scarmbler were it only gave you 8/10/12 flips?
It would be really helpful for me because currently my brain gives up if i get a 10 or 12 flip lol.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 23, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Are there any good ¨EOCross¨ trainers?
> like a scarmbler were it only gave you 8/10/12 flips?
> It would be really helpful for me because currently my brain gives up if i get a 10 or 12 flip lol.


8 is just practice. 12 is an alg. And you can do 10 with a simple pattern too. I usually put the two correct edges on UL and DL. Then I do F B’ U F R F. I’ve memorized how this moves the pieces. I need to start doing 10 edges in new ways though, but it’s a good place to start.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 24, 2020)

also you can try zztimer if you want scrambles with a specific amount of flipped edges http://stachudotnet.github.io/zzTimer/


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 24, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Good method nuetral combos imo are
> CFOP-ZZ
> CFOP-Petrus
> ZZ-Petrus(my personal favorite)
> ...


its cuz with eoline f2l is more efficient and you have the freedom like in roux but the ergonomics are bad and look ahead is harder. eocross has better ergonomics and better look ahead but its less efficient cause you no longer have the freedom that you would have with eoline. thats why i use eocross cuz its a mix of both, f2l is more efficient than eocross, look ahead is better tham eoline and the ergonomics is better than eoline.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 24, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> its cuz with eoline f2l is more efficient and you have the freedom like in roux but the ergonomics are bad and look ahead is harder. eocross has better ergonomics and better look ahead but its less efficient cause you no longer have the freedom that you would have with eoline. thats why i use eocross cuz its a mix of both, f2l is more efficient than eocross, look ahead is better tham eoline and the ergonomics is better than eoline.



bruh eocross is better in every way


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 24, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ/CFOP method neutrality is the easiest of the combos as they're quite similar. The problem is that you could very easily tend to do more solves with one than the other depending on your approach. Roux/ZZ or Roux/CFOP is probably the best combination as you can exploit both blocks and cross/EO.


The real best combo is Petrus/Roux


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 25, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> The real best combo is Petrus/Roux


I dont really think so,
Both methods have similar "good" scambles which means there's less of an advantage,
also the methods are not as similar as you think because the way of blockbuilding is completely different,and petrus LL v. L10P
i personally think the best combo
is petrus-ZZ
because if you don;t see an obvious block you can just do a ZZ solve instead, which isn't dependent on the same factors.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I dont really think so,
> Both methods have similar "good" scambles which means there's less of an advantage,
> also the methods are not as similar as you think because the way of blockbuilding is completely different,and petrus LL v. L10P
> i personally think the best combo
> ...


The nice thing about that combo is that you can use ZBLL for both methods


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 25, 2020)

usually with zz I do eo + cross, but now I'm trying to Plan EOLine (not too hard.) still not used to the zz f2l, any good videos about that?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 25, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> usually with zz I do eo + cross, but now I'm trying to Plan EOLine (not too hard.) still not used to the zz f2l, any good videos about that?


Your best bet would be to just look up some Roux blockbuilding guides since you'll be doing a lot of similar blocks if you're doing EOLine. Things like making a square, then inserting a pair to finish the side, or making lines, etc.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 25, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Your best bet would be to just look up some Roux blockbuilding guides since you'll be doing a lot of similar blocks if you're doing EOLine. Things like making a square, then inserting a pair to finish the side, or making lines, etc.



ok. would you say it's better to finish one side before doing the other or just doing whatever's easiest?


also is full Coll better than leaving some bed cases and just doing pll


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 25, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> ok. would you say it's better to finish one side before doing the other or just doing whatever's easiest?
> 
> 
> also is full Coll better than leaving some bed cases and just doing pll


Whatever is easiest since that's what will be faster, and usually more efficient.

I'm not sure what you meant by the later question. I'm gonna assume you're asking if full COLL is worth it and the answer is no. You should learn full COLL recognition, but not use all of it, such as sune/as since there are a lot of cases where it will usually just be faster to do normal OLL plus PLL. You can choose to time out each case though and see if it is worth it for you though. You can then use the recognition skill to learn ZBLLs later.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 25, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Whatever is easiest since that's what will be faster, and usually more efficient.
> 
> I'm not sure what you meant by the later question. I'm gonna assume you're asking if full COLL is worth it and the answer is no. You should learn full COLL recognition, but not use all of it, such as sune/as since there are a lot of cases where it will usually just be faster to do normal OLL plus PLL. You can choose to time out each case though and see if it is worth it for you though. You can then use the recognition skill to learn ZBLLs later.



what subsets are not worth learning? I think I heard Pi and Antisune?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 25, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> what subsets are not worth learning? I think I heard Pi and Antisune?


It is easier to just link a doc with what is worth it:









Teri's COLL


OO COLL OO algsheets made by Teri <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zFnQbFs-YTF0ipi4flYaCJ1vYVXhmcXDqmYnnkF9XP8/edit?usp=sharing">Follow this link to see the rest of the OO sheets</a> ,If a case isn't listed, OCLL->PLL is faster R U R' U R U2 R' R U' L' U R' U' L L' U' L U' L' U2 ...




docs.google.com


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 25, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> It is easier to just link a doc with what is worth it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



damn thats not a lot of viable cases. thought there'd be more


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 25, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> damn thats not a lot of viable cases. thought there'd be more


Those are the ones that are 100% worth learning thus OO(Objectively Optimal)

Any other case that isn't sune/as can be worth it depending on the person.
Generally Sune/AS isn't worth using since their algs are fast. I personally will occasionally use it to skip diag but usually other than the couple S/AS algs in that doc it won't be worth it until getting into ZBLL, which is then a hotly debated zone still. The algs aren't bad for the ZBLLs but it's still up for debate on whether or not it's faster to to OLL/PLL or the S/AS ZBLLs. IIRC, Diag sune/as is probably worth, especially if better algs are found.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I dont really think so,
> Both methods have similar "good" scambles which means there's less of an advantage,
> also the methods are not as similar as you think because the way of blockbuilding is completely different,and petrus LL v. L10P
> i personally think the best combo
> ...


The thing I find when using that combo is, when I can find a good square, but the last edge for the 2x2x2 is in a bad position, I can just go into a Roux solve, and if I get a good first square, but bad finish for FB, I can just go into a 2x2x2.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 25, 2020)

I think that ZZ and Roux are the big 2 and CFOP is just bad heres why:

Move Count: ZZ > CFOP
Ergonomics
- Moveset: ZZ = CFOP
- Cube Rotations: ZZ > CFOP
- Regrips: ZZ = CFOP
Look Ahead: ZZ > CFOP


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 25, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> I think that ZZ and Roux are the big 2 and CFOP is just bad heres why:
> 
> Move Count: ZZ > CFOP
> Ergonomics
> ...


CFOP should still belong in the big 4 (you forgot Petrus D:<) because of how bad EOCross is and how simple CFOP is to pick up, it doesn't require much experience or much advanced stuff to get fast.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 25, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> CFOP should still belong in the big 4 (you forgot Petrus D:<) because of how bad EOCross is and how simple CFOP is to pick up, it doesn't require much experience or much advanced stuff to get fast.


yes petrus and CFOP is still in the big 4 but i think ZZ and roux are better than CFOP and petrus.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 25, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> yes petrus and CFOP is still in the big 4 but i think ZZ and roux are better than CFOP and petrus.


Honestly, Petrus should be equal to ZZ and Roux. Petrus is mostly RUF for 223, then EO is algorithmic RULFyM then RU for RB and LL. Also very efficient.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 25, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> Honestly, Petrus should be equal to ZZ and Roux. Petrus is mostly RUF for 223, then EO is algorithmic RULFyM then RU for RB and LL. Also very efficient.


yeah maybe cuz it has a low move count and also used EO.

btw what do you think about CFOP


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 25, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> yeah maybe cuz it has a low move count and also used EO.
> 
> btw what do you think about CFOP


CFOP is worse than the other 3, but not enough to matter. All 4 of the big 4 methods are good, and while one might be better than the other, the difference is quite insignificant.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 25, 2020)

people talking about big 4 not realizing that the big 1 with only roux is OO


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 25, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> people talking about big 4 not realizing that the big 1 with only roux is OO


We all know the best method is Rouxduced.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 26, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> I think that ZZ and Roux are the big 2 and CFOP is just bad heres why:
> 
> Move Count: ZZ > CFOP
> Ergonomics
> ...


-Moveset: ZZ < CFOP
-Movecount: ZZ > CFOP (with full ZBLL)
-Cube rotations: ZZ > CFOP
-Regrips: ZZ < CFOP
-Lookahead: ZZ < CFOP


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

I don't know how you think ZZ moveset is worse than CFOP. It's literally a subset so it can only be at least equal. Similarly, on regrips it can at a minimum be equal for the same reasoning. Lookahead is again debatable as ZZ has EO solved which means that, with a bit of smartness, you can know where all the necessary pieces are. Also, you don't get any of the worst edge flipped in slot cases for F2L.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 26, 2020)

is ZZ-b better or worse than ZZ-CT? I know ZZ-a is objectively the best in terms of efficiency, and that ZZ-b uses a subset of ZBLL, but how does it stack up to CT?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

They're pretty much equal.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 26, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> They're pretty much equal.


which would you recommend


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

Learn TUL ZBLL instead then do OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL for the rest of them.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 26, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Learn TUL ZBLL instead then do OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL for the rest of them.



what about H? heard they were good


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

Ideally you'd learn H and Pi 2GLL and diag too, but TUL is a relatively low alg option.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 26, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Ideally you'd learn H and Pi 2GLL and diag too, but TUL is a relatively low alg option.



would it be good to learn zzll just to use zz-b?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

If you really want to use ZZ-B, ZZLL is the way to go, but why learn ZZLL when learning TUL is better in the long run?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 26, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> If you really want to use ZZ-B, ZZLL is the way to go, but why learn ZZLL when learning TUL is better in the long run?


is there anywhere i can go to get my zz solves critiqued?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

On speedsolving, the ZZ/ZB home thread is a good place.


----------



## sqAree (Oct 26, 2020)

To add to the ZZ vs CFOP discussion:

Of course ZZ has better look-ahead (for the reason that was mentioned), and the moveset itself can't be worse than CFOP, but I want to point out that non-EO F2L cases are often really great if you know what you're doing and you get a lot more freedom (cause you don't have to preserve EO), so I'd argue that CFOP F2L (from cross to LL) is better than ZZ F2L (let's say from EOcross to LL).
And yes, being a CFOP user is sufficient to make this judgement because the ZZ F2L cases are a subset of the CFOP F2L cases so I know all of them.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 26, 2020)

sqAree said:


> Of course ZZ has better look-ahead (for the reason that was mentioned)


The reason I don't think it has better lookahead is because you are solving less total pieces at the beginning than CFOP which means you have more blind spots and more places you need to look for pieces.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> The reason I don't think it has better lookahead is because you are solving less total pieces at the beginning than CFOP which means you have more blind spots and more places you need to look for pieces.


I would put lookahead at = not worse imo,
since you inspect to less but possible cases are simplified and no rotating
From my personal experience this seems to be the case(I lookahead to cross+1((tracking not planning))) and when i lookahead to EOcross


----------



## sqAree (Oct 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> The reason I don't think it has better lookahead is because you are solving less total pieces at the beginning than CFOP which means you have more blind spots and more places you need to look for pieces.


I get what you're saying, in fact I find it quite difficult to compare for example an xcross done in BL to an EOcross without a slot done.
Of course an xcross gives better look-ahead than a regular cross, but an EOcross does the same thing, just a bit more subtly.
We can think of solving EO as solving "half the information" the edges hold, in a way, so a naive measure would be xcross equates to 3 stickers solved, EOcross equates to 6 stickers solved, additionally (of course not the ultimate metric).


----------



## sqAree (Oct 26, 2020)

I'm stupid, messed up the calculation. Of course it's meant to be 4 additional stickers for the EOcross, sorry.


----------



## PizzaCuber (Oct 26, 2020)

I love how I made this thread a year ago and it’s still going.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 26, 2020)

moveset is worse but i dont know if ZZ has more regrips,
Try this
Do R U R' L' U L, Left sexy right sexy From home grip
For both of these(and alot of others) you dont leave Homegrip
The only finger that really needs to "rigrip" in most situations is your U hand
If you were talking about R2 L2 stuff ya but that barely ever happens in EOcross.
Im not saying R U L is not bad im saying it doesnt have more regrips(or atleast not MUCH more)


----------



## sqAree (Oct 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> moveset is worse but i dont know if ZZ has more regrips,
> Try this
> Do R U R' L' U L, Left sexy right sexy From home grip
> For both of these(and alot of others) you dont leave Homegrip
> ...


That's one of the reasons EOcross is considered to be the better ZZ variant (at least for 2H) these days. It takes away a lot of the regrips you'd have with blockbuilding ZZ. There might still be some regrips, but CFOP has some regrips too because you might get 1-2 rotations in a solve.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

sqAree said:


> To add to the ZZ vs CFOP discussion:
> 
> Of course ZZ has better look-ahead (for the reason that was mentioned), and the moveset itself can't be worse than CFOP, but I want to point out that non-EO F2L cases are often really great if you know what you're doing and you get a lot more freedom (cause you don't have to preserve EO), so I'd argue that CFOP F2L (from cross to LL) is better than ZZ F2L (let's say from EOcross to LL).
> And yes, being a CFOP user is sufficient to make this judgement because the ZZ F2L cases are a subset of the CFOP F2L cases so I know all of them.


I agree that non EO cases can be great, but they can also be terrible. For example, edge flipped in slot, corner solved is worse than any ZZ case. So to say that because a couple of flipped edge cases are good all the cases are good isn't the best logic. Instead, we can pick the best set of cases on average (EO solved) and have them.


----------



## sqAree (Oct 26, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I agree that non EO cases can be great, but they can also be terrible. For example, edge flipped in slot, corner solved is worse than any ZZ case. So to say that because a couple of flipped edge cases are good all the cases are good isn't the best logic. Instead, we can pick the best set of cases on average (EO solved) and have them.


I didn't say that, we'd just have to average all the cases and compare. But there might be more great flip cases than you think.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Do R U R' L' U L, Left sexy right sexy From home grip


You have to do a significant grip shift.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> You have to do a significant grip shift.


....no?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> You have to do a significant grip shift.


Nope. If you are having to shift your grip significantly then you are just executing it improperly. Not to mention the fact that since you know the L moves are coming after the R moves you can adjust for it by doing R' L' in a similar fashion to an r move, making it very smooth.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> -Moveset: ZZ < CFOP
> -Movecount: ZZ > CFOP (with full ZBLL)
> -Cube rotations: ZZ > CFOP
> -Regrips: ZZ < CFOP
> -Lookahead: ZZ < CFOP


you know that EOCross is a thing right, if you use EOCross ZZ is superior, and how idk why moveset would be superior with CFOP its should be equal or maybe ZZ would be superior cuz it you dont use F or F' during F2L


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> You have to do a significant grip shift.


Let's say you do. Well guess what? You do in CFOP too. Any criticism of ZZ against CFOP can't be used in the F2L department except for maybe a couple of edge flipped cases being nice (such as sledge insert), but even then there are many not nice edge flipped cases. You have to instead prove that EOCross+pair+ZBLL is worse than XCross+OLL/PLL by a significant enough margin to make up for the faster ZZ F2L, unless you want to contend that somehow ZZ F2L is worse than CFOP's.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 27, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> you know that EOCross is a thing right, if you use EOCross ZZ is superior, and how idk why moveset would be superior with CFOP its should be equal.





Owen Morrison said:


> The reason I don't think it has better lookahead is because you are solving less total pieces at the beginning than CFOP which means you have more blind spots and more places you need to look for pieces.


Idk if you've ever heard of a thing called EOCross


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 27, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> Idk if you've ever heard of a thing called EOCross


I have. EOCross is as hard to plan as cross+1 is. Cross+1 solves 2 more pieces and gets rid of a blind spot.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I have. EOCross is as hard to plan as cross+1 is. Cross+1 solves 2 more pieces and gets rid of a blind spot.


Its harder to plan EOCross than Cross but its still possible


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I have. EOCross is as hard to plan as cross+1 is. Cross+1 solves 2 more pieces and gets rid of a blind spot.


The issue with the blind spot argument is that because of EO, you can solve around the blind spots, and as you reduce possible locations of pieces, the extra knowledge you have because of EO makes it where you don't have to see what is in a back slot to know what case it is due to having EO.


----------



## codes&cubes (Oct 27, 2020)

cfop


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 27, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> Its harder to plan EOCross than Cross but its still possible


I know EOCross is possible to plan. Read my message again.


----------



## sqAree (Oct 27, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Let's say you do. Well guess what? You do in CFOP too. Any criticism of ZZ against CFOP can't be used in the F2L department except for maybe a couple of edge flipped cases being nice (such as sledge insert), but even then there are many not nice edge flipped cases. You have to instead prove that EOCross+pair+ZBLL is worse than XCross+OLL/PLL by a significant enough margin to make up for the faster ZZ F2L, unless you want to contend that somehow ZZ F2L is worse than CFOP's.


I can't give a proof but as I already said I think you underestimate the number of great flipped edge cases in CFOP.
There are already a lot of 5-movers such as R B' U' B R' or F' R' U' R F (and many more) just to give a few examples.
Then, for the F2L cases with EO solved, CFOP can have better solutions than ZZ too (and obviously never worse solutions). For example like this alg: R' F R F' U R U R' or R' F R F' R U R'. Not so significant especially for the first case, but the point is just that CFOP F2L is probably better than ZZ F2L.
If that makes CFOP better than ZZ in total? No idea. Of course ZBLL is better than OLL+PLL.
When 1LLL for CFOP becomes viable, CFOP has certainly the edge. Without 1LLL it looks pretty good for ZZ at the moment, but it's not as definite and obvious as you make it sound.

^imo


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 27, 2020)

sqAree said:


> I can't give a proof but as I already said I think you underestimate the number of great flipped edge cases in CFOP.
> There are already a lot of 5-movers such as R B' U' B R' or F' R' U' R F (and many more) just to give a few examples.
> Then, for the F2L cases with EO solved, CFOP can have better solutions than ZZ too (and obviously never worse solutions). For example like this alg: R' F R F' U R U R' or R' F R F' R U R'. Not so significant especially for the first case, but the point is just that CFOP F2L is probably better than ZZ F2L.
> If that makes CFOP better than ZZ in total? No idea. Of course ZBLL is better than OLL+PLL.
> ...


I’m not a fan of that 1LLL for CFOP viability argument. Otherwise you can argue into a corner like this:

“1LLL will never be practical for the average person to use, it’s just too much for most people.

“okay, but the people who would learn it would be people at the top. Outliers”

“Exactly. Outliers. Because of this you can expect there to be people who are outliers that can consistently plan EOCross+1, negating the look ahead and inspection argument against EOCross. Likewise, they will have mastery of RUL turning, which is a subset of CFOP turning, making it no worse than CFOP turning. Then, if we assume 1LLL even is viable for CFOP, then ZBLL, which is a subset, must also be viable. So the amount of cases needed to be learned for 1LLL. Is reduced by nearly 10 times just by doing EOCross” 

or Something like that.
I personally suspect the real innovation in methods now is going to be techniques that allow people to inspect further into the solve, like free-slotting(shameless plug lol).


----------



## sqAree (Oct 27, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I’m not a fan of that 1LLL for CFOP viability argument. Otherwise you can argue into a corner like this:
> 
> “1LLL will never be practical for the average person to use, it’s just too much for most people.
> 
> ...


I'm just saying that IF 1LLL for CFOP is viable at some point (use whatever definition of viable that you like, for example that it's accessible for practically everyone), then CFOP probably wins against ZZ.
Fewer algs to learn is not a scaling advantage, rather a "threshold" advantage, like as long as the number of algs to learn is below a certain threshold the methods are equal by comparison in that specific aspect.
But yeah, as I said even its current form (OLL+PLL) it's hard to argue that CFOP is not viable. ZZ isn't just strictly better, there are some parts in which it does better and some in which it does not. At this point it seems not possible to weight those particular aspects accurately.

EDIT: Sure, fewer algs to learn means also fewer algs to maintain and drill, but the threshold argument still applies to a certain degree, because at some point you have drilled enough such that more drilling wouldn't necessarily help your times further.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 27, 2020)

sqAree said:


> I'm just saying that IF 1LLL for CFOP is viable at some point (use whatever definition of viable that you like, for example that it's accessible for practically everyone), then CFOP probably wins against ZZ.
> Fewer algs to learn is not a scaling advantage, rather a "threshold" advantage, like as long as the number of algs to learn is below a certain threshold the methods are equal by comparison in that specific aspect.
> But yeah, as I said even its current form (OLL+PLL) it's hard to argue that CFOP is not viable. ZZ isn't just strictly better, there are some parts in which it does better and some in which it does not. At this point it seems not possible to weight those particular aspects accurately.
> 
> EDIT: Sure, fewer algs to learn means also fewer algs to maintain and drill, but the threshold argument still applies to a certain degree, because at some point you have drilled enough such that more drilling wouldn't necessarily help your times further.


The thing is is that ZB and most likely 1L as a whole has cases where OLL PLL is faster so no only would you need to learn, drill, and maintain it, but you would also need to sort through which is faster for each case.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 27, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> The thing is is that ZB and most likely 1L as a whole has cases where OLL PLL is faster so no only would you need to learn, drill, and maintain it, but you would also need to sort through which is faster for each case.


you got a point. Only some 1lll cases would be good, depending on the fingertricks and how many moves it takes


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 28, 2020)

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

Here is a scramble for a very easy EOCross if anyone wants an easy scramble, yellow top green/blue front


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Feb 22, 2021)

hello everyone
since im officially sub 25 with vanilla zz so im thinking about a variant 
im considering zz-b,zz tripod and zz reduction
so can anyone help me if this forum is still alive?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 22, 2021)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> hello everyone
> since im officially sub 25 with vanilla zz so im thinking about a variant
> im considering zz-b,zz tripod and zz reduction
> so can anyone help me if this forum is still alive?


I use Tripod. There’s only like 46-47 ZBs you need to know full ZZ-Tripod LL. And then maybe 40 something last slot algs. I should learn them at some point but you can get around weird cases by inserting either an edge or corner and using a commutator to solve the other piece. Another tip is to take advantage of lots of multislotting tricks to build an F2L pair and part of the tripod block. 
If you are going for speed, I wouldn’t recommend Tripod but it’s a pretty rarely used method so you would be a unique method user. I’m working on learning full Tripod so I’d say go for it.


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Feb 22, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> I use Tripod. There’s only like 46-47 ZBs you need to know full ZZ-Tripod LL. And then maybe 40 something last slot algs. I should learn them at some point but you can get around weird cases by inserting either an edge or corner and using a commutator to solve the other piece. Another tip is to take advantage of lots of multislotting tricks to build an F2L pair and part of the tripod block.
> If you are going for speed, I wouldn’t recommend Tripod but it’s a pretty rarely used method so you would be a unique method user. I’m working on learning full Tripod so I’d say go for it.



what about zzb and zz reduction?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 22, 2021)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> what about zzb and zz reduction?


Eh. ZZ-B is bad and should only maybe used as a stepping stone towards ZZ-A. If you are gonna take the time to do influencing on LL just do Tripod and reduce the LL to 46 ZBs instead of 167. Similarly, redux is also bad. Worse tbh because you go through the trouble of phasing and remove some of the best PLLs and increase the probability of getting the trash Z perm.


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Feb 22, 2021)

alg sheets for nls?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 22, 2021)

I wouldn't recommend tripod (or anything that isn't mostly A).
You're better off just sticking with OCLL/PLL for a while (until you're sub 12 or faster really) while learning OLS tricks (mainly from experience), random ZBLLs and COLL recognition but not algs. The best 'redux' method for LL is probably forcing TULO ZBLL (O=PLL), which is 216 algs+PLL, but you're always gonna be better off not doing that and just waiting for a while. I know it's kinda boring, but if you only care about speed it's the way to go.


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Feb 24, 2021)

i actually alrdy know full coll so im using that


----------



## Cubing Forever (Feb 25, 2021)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> i actually alrdy know full coll so im using that


If you know when the COLL alg skips PLL, then it might be useful otherwise, knowing only full COLL isn't of any use other than recognition.

I'm planning to switch to ZZ for OH. I'm confused as to whether I should use vanilla ZZ or EOcross.

Can anyone tell me how to solve 2 bad edges efficiently?
(I set up to F R U R' U' F' usually which is highly inefficient, especially when I get 6 or 10 bad edges)

Also, is doing 4-2 efficient for 6 bad edges?(suggest me a better way if it's inefficient)


----------



## Yoruba (Feb 25, 2021)

For ZZ OH use EOLine
For 6 bad edges 3-3 is on average better. You put 3 edges on F/B face so that when you do F or B, You orient 3 edges but misorient 1. From here you have 4 bad edges. 4-2 is sometimes better though, for example when there are already 4 bad edges on F/B.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 25, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> If you know when the COLL alg skips PLL, then it might be useful otherwise, knowing only full COLL isn't of any use other than recognition.
> 
> I'm planning to switch to ZZ for OH. I'm confused as to whether I should use vanilla ZZ or EOcross.
> 
> ...



For 2 bad edges, make 1 good and 3 bad then you have 4 bad. So something like F R F will flip 2 edges. Otherwise what Yoruba said.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Feb 25, 2021)

After using CFOP for a whole year, I finally decided to switch to ZZ! I am somewhat inefficient at EO, do you have any tips?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 25, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> After using CFOP for a whole year, I finally decided to switch to ZZ! I am somewhat inefficient at EO, do you have any tips?


Really, the best option is just to watch example solves. Maybe from GenTheThief or PapaSmurf.
Also, are you using EOLine or EOCross?


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Feb 25, 2021)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Really, the best option is just to watch example solves. Maybe from GenTheThief or PapaSmurf.
> Also, are you using EOLine or EOCross?


I use Eocross 90% of the time, but sometimes Eoarrow or Eoline


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 26, 2021)

Cool to see another ZZ user! It's definitely just a case of doing more and more solves until you kinda get the hang of it. If you want to accelarate the process, this is a good drill (from @Yoruba ): 

Choose a target movecount (let's say, for now, 11 for EOCross - you'll want 9 eventually).
Open a session in CSTimer and set input to typing.
Do a set number of scrambles (let's say 12) where you inspect (unlimited inspection) and count the number of moves you do for EOCross. Type that number in instead of a time. Then, if you're not lazy, do the rest of the solve slowly but trying to do good solutions.
Once you've done the 12 solves, go back and if you have a solve with 14 or more (3 over 11), redo the scramble and try to find a better solution. There is an EOLine tool in CSTimer that should help.
You can do the same thing to improve speed, but instead of movecount, record the time EOCross takes. Alternating days doing this however many times per day will mean that your EOCross will improve quickly. A nice addition at the end is to time the PLL you get on a separate timer so that you're improving your LL too.

Hope this helps!


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Feb 26, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> @Yoruba ):
> 
> Choose a target movecount (let's say, for now, 11 for EOCross - you'll want 9 eventually).
> Open a session in CSTimer and set input to typing.
> ...



you mean nine moves is efficient for eoline? i get faster solutions and i thought it was inefficient.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 26, 2021)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> you mean nine moves is efficient for eoline? i get faster solutions and i thought it was inefficient.


No, speed optimal EOCross is around 9 moves on average.


----------



## ME MYSELF AND I (Feb 26, 2021)

oh ok
how many for eoarrow and eoline?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 26, 2021)

ME MYSELF AND I said:


> oh ok
> how many for eoarrow and eoline?


I have no idea. I would guess around 7-9 speed optimally?


----------



## Yoruba (Feb 26, 2021)

EOLine is 7, EOArrow is 8
Radmac says his EOCross movecount is 8, so these numbers may be lower


----------

