# Is ZZ an objectively worse method than Roux and CFOP?



## genericcuber666 (Jul 12, 2017)

I've been using it for a while and it just seems to be a bad method, even ZZ-CT which was surposed to be amazing couldn't avoid the downside of being a ZZ variant.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 12, 2017)

I think it's a pretty fair thing to say that it is objectively worse than Roux and CFOP unless you know and use full ZBLL with ZZ. In that case I don't think it's obvious at all which is best/worst


----------



## pglewis (Jul 12, 2017)

> Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.



"... it just seems to be a bad method" is subjective.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 12, 2017)

As a CFOP user who had toyed with ZZ (and a little tiny bit with Roux and Petrus) I don't think it's objectively worse, if anything it's probably a little bit better. By orienting edges in inspection (essentially) you are vastly reducing the number of possible cases both for f2l and for LL, allowing for faster recognition. If you are fast enough that recognition is not an issue then it may be that allowing for more different moves during f2l makes for better ergonomics, and a higher ceiling for CFOP. 

Ultimately I don't think ZZ is worse, but I'd say that ZZ probably is better for getting to sub-10, CFOP is better for getting to sub-7. Since I'll never make either of those milestones, my learning priorities are:
1. M2
2. OLL (for CFOP with big cubes)
3. ZZ-CT.


----------



## FJT97 (Jul 12, 2017)

I use zz, i used to use cfop.

I think zz is not worse, maybe even slightly better than cfop. Reasons:
eoline and cross are pretty much the same thing. equal for moves, equal for look ahead.
zzf2l is way better than cfop f2l imo:
look ahead is easier, zzf2l can be more efficient, no cube rotations.
LL is way better with zz too as each new learnt alg is just a percentage of 1LLL (being arguably the fastest)

Only downside i see is that RUF for f2l might be generally fingertrickier than RUL

Well, i think Roux is objectively the best method. But that doesn't fit for, as i don't like <M>

What downsides do you see for zz?


----------



## Rcuber123 (Jul 12, 2017)

FJT97 said:


> I use zz, i used to use cfop.
> 
> I think zz is not worse, maybe even slightly better than cfop. Reasons:
> eoline and cross are pretty much the same thing. equal for moves, equal for look ahead.
> ...


EOline is objectively worse than cross in every single way IIRC:
Move count is slightly better
Ergonomics and look ahead are way better.
Also it's way easier to master.


----------



## EntireTV (Jul 12, 2017)

FJT97 said:


> I use zz, i used to use cfop.
> 
> I think zz is not worse, maybe even slightly better than cfop. Reasons:
> eoline and cross are pretty much the same thing. equal for moves, equal for look ahead.
> ...



Most people say too many people use CFOP and ZZ might not be able to catch up. And from what I've seen people who use it have a hard time having consistency.


----------



## pglewis (Jul 12, 2017)

Keeping in mind I'm just a 30 second CFOPer who has toyed with ZZ: among the few downsides I can see is it may be harder to preserve ready-made pairs spotted in inspection. Also, potentially an argument to be made that deeper inspection could be put towards XCross rather than working out edge orientation. 

EOLine being harder, ehn... you get to bury it in inspection. That's subjective anyway.


----------



## Y2k1 (Jul 12, 2017)

As a sub 13 zz-er, I honestly find it harder to plan an efficient cross than an eoline, and eoline imo is just as finger trick friendly as cross for a much easier f2l and ll


----------



## mDiPalma (Jul 12, 2017)

while zz may not be objectively worse, it is certainly alphabetically worse


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 12, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> while zz may not be objectively worse, it is certainly alphabetically worse



you know things about ZZ right? do you know QTM/HTM ratios for ZZ vs CFOP? To me, that would be the biggest indicators of ZZ's faults when compared to CFOP, what with all the U2s R2s and L2s and junk


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jul 12, 2017)

pglewis said:


> "... it just seems to be a bad method" is subjective.


Thats why I wanted some 'objective facts (opinions)'



FJT97 said:


> What downsides do you see for zz?


eoline is harder to plan out so you cant plan as far ahead as CF(l)OP some of the ergonomics arent nice in zz, if it was good people would use it



Rcuber123 said:


> Also it's way easier to master.


this is one of the things I think is true, although maybe its just that there's so many people using CF(l)OP the better people will end up all using it.



mDiPalma said:


> while zz may not be objectively worse, it is certainly alphabetically worse


 this is the best point I've read, guess I'm swiching methods to briggs2


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 12, 2017)

zz's movecount isn't really lower than CFOP's i think

CFOP allows you to plan more in inspection (in felik's 4.73 he already knew what his first 3 pairs were going to be) 
but in zz the best you can do is probably EOline and a square 

one thing i don't like about ZZF2L is that if your making blocks on the left it's annoying to have all your pieces on the right, since you have to do weird <RUL> stuff instead of just doing <RU> or <LU> really quickly like in CFOP. 

Also, orienting all the edges at the beginning isn't that great, because you can easily do it during your last 2 slots on CFOP without much effort. just by doing regular inserts and sledges, the probability of skipping EO is 1/8, you can also make that higher by solving your pairs in different ways or in a different order.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 12, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> what with all the U2s R2s and L2s and junk


I think these moves are just a preference thing. Like how some people don't like <M> moves and call Roux bad, people don't like <R2, L2> moves and call ZZ bad.

I switched to ZZ from CFOP because I really hated rotations during F2L, and ZZ had a really nice move set. Better LL helped too. IMO, alternating between R/L moves is better than doing rotations.

I don't think that EOLine is _so_ much more difficult than Cross, though definitely is. Looking ahead through EOLine is significantly more difficult, though I personally haven't put much effort into it yet. EOLine fingertricky-ness is as bad as Cross. As I said before, L moves are better than rotations and/or B moves. ZBLL is better than ZBLL+3.5k other algs/cases.

However, I do think that CFOP is a very good method, just not one that I personally like.
I also don't think that optimal stats will be able to tell us whether or not ZZ < CFOP and Roux, as fingertricks for optimal solutions are bad (?) and hard to find during a speedsolve.

Also, I don't get why these thread keep popping up. I've been on the forum for a bit over a year and have seen at least a dozen of these Roux vs CFOP vs ZZ threads.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 12, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> I think these moves are just a preference thing. Like how some people don't like <M> moves and call Roux bad, people don't like <R2, L2> moves and call ZZ bad.



I think U2, R2, and L2 would have to take longer to perform because the face simply has to rotate further in order to complete the move. I mean just time (R2 U2' R2' U2)*4 and then (R U' R' U')*4 and see how the times compare. 

It seems to me, therefore, that ZZ would be slightly slower because of this.


----------



## pglewis (Jul 12, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> I think U2, R2, and L2 would have to take longer to perform because the face simply has to rotate further in order to complete the move. I mean just time (R2 U2' R2' U2)*4 and then (R U' R' U')*4 and see how the times compare.
> 
> It seems to me, therefore, that ZZ would be slightly slower because of this.



And never having to do F, B, or a rotation after EOLine might easily nullify this? CFOP doesn't escape U2s and R2/L2 are hardly a key component of ZZ. This seems like far too simplistic a generalization to something that is much more complex IMO.


----------



## EmperorZant (Jul 12, 2017)

I've always liked ZZ, and thought it was a really neat idea for a method. I'm glad that many people have tried it (whether they liked it or not), because it's definitely an interesting concept for an "efficient" method.

The reason I don't use ZZ, and a possible reason that others don't as well, is because it's much more linear than CFOP. In ZZ, you do EOline, ZZF2L, and then you have a few options: WV, CLS, COLL, or ZBLL. (And CTLL, and probably some others that I'm missing.) And that's about as far as things tend to go, as learning and perfecting just those subsets (whether it be some or all of them) takes a lot of time and commitment.

But if you're solving with CFOP? You can start with a cross, or an X-cross; you can try your best to make a good cross out of a bad case and improvise your F2L, or if you have a decent case, track your first F2L pair in inspection. What? Your cross is easier than that? Consider an X-cross, or track more than one pair. Also remember that there are many different ways to approach cross building and a few different ways to approach X-crosses, so at the start of the solve, you have quite a few options.

Then there's F2L; if you don't mind rotations, CFOP F2L is pretty fast and efficient, _and_ you also have a lot of control over multiple pairs and empty slots, so you can preserve/force certain edge/corner orientations. This affects the pairs you are solving (multislotting), the pairs you are going to solve (which assists in lookahead and ergonomics), and your last layer itself. And that's another thing that you can take more advantage of in CFOP: Last Slot Last Layer. Whether it be VLS, MGLS, CLS, RLS... you can learn quite a few algs to deal with all kinds of cases depending on what you're comfortable with.

I want to point out that all of these options do not necessarily make CFOP better; in fact, it may make CFOP worse in some cases, as a more straightforward approach is sometimes much better than a more complicated (maybe even theoretically better) one. The point of both methods, initially, was to make a straightforward and efficient method, and both went in different directions. Simply due to ZZ's nature (edge orientation, optimized last layer, etc.), there is not much one can do to perfect upon the method other than learn ZBLS/ZBLL and _practice a lot_. To contrast, a lot of CFOP's steps can be interrupted or approached in different ways, which yields more diversity. This is exactly how I look at CFOP and ZZ: for better or for worse, CFOP is more compatible with a lot of alg sets and intuitive approaches that ZZ solvers will never have to worry about.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 12, 2017)

It is so hard to compare methods objectively because there is no agreed upon good metric.
If you want the most time proven method, then CFOP is the clear winner.
If you want a method that has shown capability to break the world record, then Roux or CFOP.
If you look at move count only, then everybody should be using a method like Heise.
If you look at which method requires the least intuition/blockbuilding(cause thinking is "slow"), then something like CFOP.
If you care a lot about rotations, then Roux or ZZ.
If you want a low alg count and high speed, then Roux or CFOP(Collin Burns not knowing full OLL)

The fastest video of someone solving with ZZ is of a solver that does EOline and then cross. This is considered bad ZZ, but Hyeon Kyo Kyoung is the fastest. I think that this can be looked at in 2 possible ways: 1) If someone as good as him learns propper ZZ, they would be even faster(especially with ZBLL). 2) ZZ is a bad method and doing it more like CFOP makes it better.

If a 10 year old(who has a natural knack for cubing) started learning ZZ and practised until they were 20, would they be able to set the WR? No one knows. I would bet yes(assuming the world record isn't way lower 10 years from now).

The move count and alg count statics have been on the speedsolving wiki for 5 years. Those are the objective numbers. I think the only good way to objectively compare the methods would be to build 2 robot hands that have to move like human hands but could perfectly execute every finger trick at a high tps. Use optimal ZZ, Roux, and CFOP solvers and compare the average time it takes to do the different solves. Because the robot hand would have the same limitations as a human hand, it would show the lower limit of human speed if you had perfect look ahead and had mastered the method.

I have been trying to answer this posts questions for a long time. All I can say is that I think(subjective), for 2 handed, ZZ is worse than both CFOP and Roux, but not by a lot. Maybe it could shine for oh or feet.


----------



## efattah (Jul 12, 2017)

While I don't have much experience with ZZ, I've been (trying) to develop new methods for the cube since the 80's, and I will say that after trying countless different approaches, I have found that methods that orient pieces first will eventually be defeated by methods that solve the pieces in one go.

Of course, methods that try to orient pieces first tend to have very fast recognition which makes them quick to learn (like CFOP OLL/PLL, very easy to learn, and fast recognition). But that is slowly being defeated by ZBLL which is the poor man's 1LLL, and only orients some of the pieces (edges) and solves the corners all at once.

Similarly when I was developing the LMCF method, I tried many approaches which oriented pieces first (when solving the edges) and they all eventually were defeated by 'all at once' solving which had harder recognition but ultimately ended up faster in the end. Yet another example is 2x2 solving (which is also the first step in LMCF), Ortega attempts to orient the corners then permute them, whereas EG attempts to solve them all at once, and EG takes much longer to learn and master but is unquestionably faster in the end.

The question of 'which is a better method' can never be answered unless you qualify the question with 'after X hours of practice.' Bindedsa has shown that CFOP 1LLL is possible and with enough practice will beat any other LL method, but has unrealistic practice time required for most people. If you ask for the fastest method within limited practice time, you get a much different answer than the fastest method with unlimited practice time.


----------



## Malkom (Jul 12, 2017)

I started writing a post here but 400 words in i realized it might be a little too long for a forum post. I'll save what I wrote and will probably use it if I ever need to write a debate article in school (I will of course share that with you here on the forum).

Here I'll quickly explain why I think ZZ is an objectively worse method.

EOline is less fingertrickfriendly than cross and makes it harder to plan ahead into F2L
The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse and forces a lot of regrips and lowers overall TPS, it also makes the F2L too restricted and makes multislotting almost impossible

The unsolved D edges make R2s and L2s possible and those are just horrible(if they aren't part of a nice alg like the Uperm), it also screwes up lookahead and overall flow of the solve.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 12, 2017)

EmperorZant said:


> In ZZ, you do EOline, ZZF2L, and then you have a few options: WV, CLS, COLL, or ZBLL. (And CTLL, and probably some others that I'm missing.)


https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ
There is a huge list of ZZ LL and LSLS variants.

In CFOP, you do Cross, F2L and then you have a few options: OLL/PLL, OLLCP/EPLL (and some more that I'm probably missing.), but that's usually as far as it goes.



EmperorZant said:


> But if you're solving with CFOP? You can start with a cross, or an X-cross; you can try your best to make a good cross out of a bad case and improvise your F2L, or if you have a decent case, track your first F2L pair in inspection. What? Your cross is easier than that? Consider an X-cross, or track more than one pair. Also remember that there are many different ways to approach cross building and a few different ways to approach X-crosses, so at the start of the solve, you have quite a few options.


While I think it is hard to expand EOLine to XEOLine, it is possible, and I have done it in several (albeit not many) speedsolves. I have preserved pairs and built them during EOLine, whether that be by doing EO and then building the blocks before my Line is done, or building the blocks before EO is done. There are plenty of options.



EmperorZant said:


> Then there's F2L; if you don't mind rotations, CFOP F2L is pretty fast and efficient, _and_ you also have a lot of control over multiple pairs and empty slots, so you can preserve/force certain edge/corner orientations. This affects the pairs you are solving (multislotting), the pairs you are going to solve (which assists in lookahead and ergonomics), and your last layer itself. And that's another thing that you can take more advantage of in CFOP: Last Slot Last Layer. Whether it be VLS, MGLS, CLS, RLS... you can learn quite a few algs to deal with all kinds of cases depending on what you're comfortable with. I want to point out that all of these options do not necessarily make CFOP better; in fact, it may make CFOP worse in some cases, as a more straightforward approach is sometimes much better than a more complicated (maybe even theoretically better) one. The point of both methods, initially, was to make a straightforward and efficient method, and both went in different directions. Simply due to ZZ's nature (edge orientation, optimized last layer, etc.), there is not much one can do to perfect upon the method other than learn ZBLS/ZBLL and _practice a lot_. To contrast, a lot of CFOP's steps can be interrupted or approached in different ways, which yields more diversity. This is exactly how I look at CFOP and ZZ: for better or for worse, CFOP is more compatible with a lot of alg sets and intuitive approaches that ZZ solvers will never have to worry about.


I think this describes ZZF2L pretty well, though you never have to mind rotations.
You have an incredible amount of flexibility when building squares and pairs, influencing other pieces. Multislotting is arguably better since edges are oriented and can slide into their place easily, without having to get oriented. This abundance of options is, as you mention, what actually slows ZZ down. You have to chose between a dozen different options that change with each turn. Phil wrote a post about this somewhere.
Some would say that because DR/DL are open for pieces to hide, lookahead is impaired.
My response is to ask how you can look ahead with you edges misoriented?
The same response: You get used to it. You lookahead before a piece disappears into the murky demensions of {DR/DL and and misorientation}.



bren077s said:


> Maybe it could shine for oh or feet.


Phil Yu peaked at #2 and NAR in OH average a few years ago. He's still ranked at 51, though his old NAR average would be only 58th now. Andrew Huang is ranked 37th, Andrew Nathenson is 66th, and Simon Kalhofer is 71st. While only 4/100 isn't big at all, the proportion of ZZ solvers in the top 100 in OH average is big. I wouldn't recon that more than 1k people solve using ZZ, and nearly everyelse uses CFOP/LBL.

I got 71st in Feet singe, and 108th in Feet mean. Now I'm 86th and 123rd respectively. I plan on improving those ranks.
I don't know of any other "good" ZZ/Feet solvers other than myself.

I would say that they already do shine.




Malkom said:


> EOline is less fingertrickfriendly than cross and makes it harder to plan ahead into F2L
> The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse and forces a lot of regrips and lowers overall TPS, it also makes the F2L too restricted and makes multislotting almost impossible
> 
> The unsolved D edges make R2s and L2s possible and those are just horrible(if they aren't part of a nice alg like the Uperm), it also screwes up lookahead and overall flow of the solve.


I disagree with everything here, except that EOLine is slightly less fingertricky than cross, though fingertrickyness doesn't impede lookahead.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 12, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> While I think it is hard to expand EOLine to XEOLine, it is possible


Don't forget EOCross.

Also, @GenTheThief you wrote the post I have been attempting to write in response to @EmperorZant 
It is great and I just want to agree that ZZ is much more intuitive than CFOP with more unique solves and more variants. That is why I initially decided to switch from CFOP to ZZ, it is more fun than cross, pair, pair, pair, pair, oll, pll.



efattah said:


> But that is slowly being defeated by ZBLL which is the poor man's 1LLL, and only orients some of the pieces (edges) and solves the corners all at once.


I don't think you mean ZBLL. ZBLL does everything in the last layer except for edge orientation.


----------



## Pyjam (Jul 12, 2017)

Malkom said:


> ...The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse and forces a lot of regrips and lowers overall TPS, it also makes the F2L too restricted *and makes multislotting almost impossible*...


I'm not sure:

Scramble: B D' B D L' D' L U2 L B2 U B2 U F2 U2 D F2 U2 L2 F2

U' D R2 F D F // (6) EOL
U' R U2 R2 U L' U L' U L R' U' R U' L' U' L2 U2 R U' L U' R // (23/29) F2L 4x multislotting
U' L R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U L' U' R U2 R' // (15/44) ZZBL Pi

Albeit, it wasn't done under speed condition.

I think there is a lot to discover about efficient blockbuilding but (almost) nobody is working on it. For me, this is the fun part with this method.


----------



## McubeS (Jul 12, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> I'm not sure:
> 
> Scramble: B D' B D L' D' L U2 L B2 U B2 U F2 U2 D F2 U2 L2 F2
> 
> ...



Could you break down the F2L in brackets?


----------



## Pyjam (Jul 12, 2017)

Not sure about what you meant.
U' R U2 R2 U L' U L' U L R' U' R U' L' // building 4 pairs
U' L2 U2 R U' L U' R // assembling 4 pairs


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 12, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> Also, orienting all the edges at the beginning isn't that great, because you can easily do it during your last 2 slots on CFOP without much effort. just by doing regular inserts and sledges, the probability of skipping EO is 1/8, you can also make that higher by solving your pairs in different ways or in a different order.


If you're orienting edges in the last two slots, you're losing (in my opinion) the biggest advantage you have with ZZ; its nice F2L cases


----------



## Malkom (Jul 12, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> I'm not sure:
> 
> Scramble: B D' B D L' D' L U2 L B2 U B2 U F2 U2 D F2 U2 L2 F2
> 
> ...


Yeah, as I said just my initial thoughts after starting to analyse ZZ. What I meant was that the lack of RUF makes it harder to influence your next pair or at least doing it efficiently (sledge for example) but since ZZ isn't isn't just pair, pair, pair, pair (aka CFOP bias) this is probably not as bad as I thought.


----------



## Pyjam (Jul 13, 2017)

To comment my example: I was building the 1st pair and saw how to build the 2nd pair for the same block (left). While trying to assemble them, I saw the 3rd pair. Then again, while trying to build the left block, the 4th pair was built by itself!
Honestly, during a speedsolve, it's often more confusing than anything else to try to keep everything intact.

I don't understand what you say about influencing the next pair. I do it everytime, I suppose. While making a pair, I try to separare glued pieces for the next pair. Also, very often, it's better to build two pairs, then a square, then a block, instead of pair 1 -> square -> pair 2 -> block. There's less bad surprises like that.

But, I really don't know a lot about CFOP, so I can't really compare.

What I observe is that there exist no advanced tutorial for experts for the ZZ method. But I think there exist a whole universe of possibilities regarding the blockbuilding during F2L. People should learn to recognize patterns and how to build blocks from these configurations.


----------



## CLL Smooth (Jul 13, 2017)

I'd like to say one thing: nope.


----------



## McubeS (Jul 13, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> Not sure about what you meant.
> U' R U2 R2 U L' U L' U L R' U' R U' L' // building 4 pairs
> U' L2 U2 R U' L U' R // assembling 4 pairs


That helps.
If this is how you did it, that's fine. Thanks.

I think ZZ definitely has potential. We just need our "Feliks Zemdegs".

One of the reasons why he's champion status is because of his unbeatable look-ahead.

That takes years of repetition to build.


----------



## Alex B71 (Jul 13, 2017)

I'm sub-12 with both ZZ and CFOP (I'm awful at roux so i can't weigh in there), to put it simply, they are all as good as one-another. I use ZZ for some solves and CFOP for others, whatever makes most sense at the time... I see it like this, sometimes it's best to use a COLL instead of an OLL and sometimes it's best to orient and block build. But the main thing, the most important thing, is what FEELS best to you? Do you love using the M slice? Do you love not rotating? Do you love the freedom to spam any and all layers to achieve an outcome?

If you want the ultimate method for speed then you're in luck because i know it. It's called the god method, it never takes over 20 moves and has billions of cases that are infinitely impossible to recognize... Or you could just learn whatever you want and mess around with every method? They all have advantages and disadvantages, take the best from them and adapt to the scramble at hand.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 13, 2017)

EntireTV said:


> Most people say too many people use CFOP and ZZ might not be able to catch up. And from what I've seen people who use it have a hard time having consistency.


I think this is a distortion in perception caused by ZZ-CT users (which is a variation that is inconsistent). If you look at people who use more traditional variations of ZZ, they tend to be more consistent. Andy Huang, Simon Kalhofer, and Sebastiano Tronto have all been quite consistent with their recent official averages.


----------



## EntireTV (Jul 13, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> I think this is a distortion in perception caused by ZZ-CT users (which is a variation that is inconsistent). If you look at people who use more traditional variations of ZZ, they tend to be more consistent. Andy Huang, Simon Kalhofer, and Sebastiano Tronto have all been quite consistent with their recent official averages.



Definitely. ZZ-CT is pretty inconsistent and I was referring to it


----------



## Malkom (Jul 13, 2017)

Alex B71 said:


> I'm sub-12 with both ZZ and CFOP (I'm awful at roux so i can't weigh in there), to put it simply, they are all as good as one-another. I use ZZ for some solves and CFOP for others, whatever makes most sense at the time... I see it like this, sometimes it's best to use a COLL instead of an OLL and sometimes it's best to orient and block build. But the main thing, the most important thing, is what FEELS best to you? Do you love using the M slice? Do you love not rotating? Do you love the freedom to spam any and all layers to achieve an outcome?
> 
> If you want the ultimate method for speed then you're in luck because i know it. It's called the god method, it never takes over 20 moves and has billions of cases that are infinitely impossible to recognize... Or you could just learn whatever you want and mess around with every method? They all have advantages and disadvantages, take the best from them and adapt to the scramble at hand.


All humans have the same hands and brains (kinda) and therefore have the same theoretical speed limit. Different methods have different advantages and disadvantages, but since people have roughly the same conditions there should be a method that is better suited for a human solver and/or is objectively superior.
God's method isn't a good method btw


----------



## FJT97 (Jul 14, 2017)

I posted the foööowing a ehile ago in the OA thread and didn't get an answer yet. I thought I might share It here, to fire the discussion:

Hi
A zzf2l question: I figured, that its more efficient to leave the f2l slot open after ive done a pair. But how many moves do I actually save on average? Is there a way to calculate that? To make the calculation easier, lets say that the next pair is always the pair of the same block and lets assume that I solve that pair optimally using <RUL>.

And is there a difference of saved moves whether its about the first or the second block?


----------



## bren077s (Jul 14, 2017)

FJT97 said:


> Hi
> A zzf2l question: I figured, that its more efficient to leave the f2l slot open after ive done a pair. But how many moves do I actually save on average? Is there a way to calculate that? To make the calculation easier, lets say that the next pair is always the pair of the same block and lets assume that I solve that pair optimally using <RUL>.



These numbers aren't perfect but should give you a good idea. If you optimally do the back left 2x2, followed by the front left pair, then the back right 2x2, and then the front right pair. Here are the statistics:
 

If instead, you build the optimal left block and then the optimal right block, here are the results:
 

This does not clearly show the affect of openslotting, but it shows that building the full block is much more efficient than building a sub block and then adding in the other pair. It should be noted that solving zz in the way recorded above would be slightly suboptimal because it always does the blocks/pairs in the same order.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 14, 2017)

bren077s said:


> These numbers aren't perfect but should give you a good idea. If you optimally do the back left 2x2, followed by the front left pair, then the back right 2x2, and then the front right pair. Here are the statistics:
> View attachment 8188
> 
> If instead, you build the optimal left block and then the optimal right block, here are the results:
> ...


This is pretty cool to see because I actually average about 32 moves for EOline+F2L. Although I don't have a completely fixed order, I do have a very strong preference. It's cool to know that what ever moves I waste by not being perfectly optimal are pretty much cancelled by doing a bit of openslotting and other F2L tricks.


----------



## DGCubes (Jul 15, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> this is the best point I've read, guess I'm swiching methods to briggs2



Nah man, beginner's method is where it's at.

Honestly though, I see very few reasons why ZZ would be objectively worse. For people who learn full ZBLL, I'd say doing EO line is more move efficient than ZBF2L. It's got some pretty good blockbuilding opportunities during F2L too.


----------



## JTcuber (Jul 16, 2017)

Malkom said:


> I started writing a post here but 400 words in i realized it might be a little too long for a forum post. I'll save what I wrote and will probably use it if I ever need to write a debate article in school (I will of course share that with you here on the forum).
> 
> Here I'll quickly explain why I think ZZ is an objectively worse method.
> 
> ...


First point: No, EOline is not objectively less fingertricky than cross. I can consistently sub 2 my EOlines, and about 80-85% of the time, sub 1.5 them. I can say with absolute certainty, they are often quite fingertrick friendly. If you were to do the completely optimal solution, they wouldn't be. But this is like comparing BH to 3-style for BLD. You sacrifice 1-2 moves on average for a vastly more fingertrick friendly EOline.

Second point: Again, this is completely false. If you switch directly from CFOP, maybe for the first week or two, it'll be worse. However, each method has a distinct turning style. Like CFOP users quickly regrip and can do RUF moves very quickly and Roux users are able to switch between R and r for 2nd block and typically turnslower and more fluidly, ZZ users have a distinct solving style as well. If you look at someone like Phil Yu, and watch his solves, you will see one of the best examples of a ZZ turning style out there. He shows how working with ZZ yields turning that utilizes both hands working independently, and turning with both hands at a very similar speed. If you master being able to use the left hand as fluidly as the right, saying "The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse" is totally untrue. As well, I would say regrips are vastly less common in ZZ than even CFOP, because you never have to rotate, so you only regrip if an alg depends on it. Also, because you are doing the 2 F2L pairs in the back from the front rather than rotating, that cuts out even more regrips because a ZZ user can fluidly go directly into the pairs, whereas a CFOP user would typically rotate to gain ergonomics that they otherwise lack due to the lack of EO. And the whole "it also makes the F2L too restricted" point is just totally insane. If anything, CFOP f2l is too restrictive because you always need to reverse any L or R move so as to not disturb the cross pieces, whereas with ZZ, the L and R layers are completely free to move. You don't do F or B moves because the best ways to do every case don't require it. Nearly all the cases that are best solved with F and B moves are the ones with a misoriented edge. I'm not going to cover the whole multislotting thing, because Pyjam already covered why ZZ has arguably better multislotting.

Third point: This is probably the point with the most legitimacy, but it matters far less than you make it out to be. I generally plan out a 3/4 cross to help with lookahead, which typically only adds 1-2 moves onto the EOline. This cuts the potential number of L2/R2s in half. And even with that, the few that I do are slightly worse than just an L or an R, but this is mainly seen as a major con by CFOP users simply because they aren't used to them. While rotations may not be a big deal to you, L2s and R2s aren't a big deal to me, and they tend to not really make the f2l any worse. The worst part about the unsolved D edges is typically the "blind spot" it creates, and if you either take note in inspection to see what that piece will be, it gets rid of the problem entirely. 

Now, I don't think ZZ is without its flaws. I think that it requires much more experience in ZZ than CFOP to be able to effectively look into F2L in inspection time. It took me 2 years to be able to do it fairly well. However, the amazing LL, and the rotationless and really ergonomic (once you get used to RUL) F2L makes up for any shortcomings that it has compared to CFOP, and imo, makes it have a slight edge. CFOP has maintained popularity due to how many people are fast with it, as well as its easy transition from LBL. When you look at the grand scheme of things, CFOP is incredibly old compared to ZZ. It has been around for less time than some top speedcubers, and it's been truly developed for even less time than that. CFOP was developed throughout the 80s and published officially in 95, whereas ZZ was first published in 2006, and was used almost solely by Polish speedcubers for a long time due to it being published in Polish. It was only when Conrad Rider popularized it with his English guide did it pick up any steam, and that was in 2009. When you compare 8 years vs 18 years, it's obvious that CFOP is more developed. Even Roux was developed in 2003, and there are still vastly fewer people using it. ZZ is still an incredibly new method, and it still needs more time and more users to catch up with CFOP.

(Final note about the opening sentences, that's awesome, you should totally use this in some type of school debate paper. Debate freaking rocks. Sorry this was so long btw, just wanted to get all my points across. In retrospect, like 900 words may have been a bit much)


----------



## Malkom (Jul 16, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> First point: No, EOline is not objectively less fingertricky than cross. I can consistently sub 2 my EOlines, and about 80-85% of the time, sub 1.5 them. I can say with absolute certainty, they are often quite fingertrick friendly. If you were to do the completely optimal solution, they wouldn't be. But this is like comparing BH to 3-style for BLD. You sacrifice 1-2 moves on average for a vastly more fingertrick friendly EOline.
> 
> Second point: Again, this is completely false. If you switch directly from CFOP, maybe for the first week or two, it'll be worse. However, each method has a distinct turning style. Like CFOP users quickly regrip and can do RUF moves very quickly and Roux users are able to switch between R and r for 2nd block and typically turnslower and more fluidly, ZZ users have a distinct solving style as well. If you look at someone like Phil Yu, and watch his solves, you will see one of the best examples of a ZZ turning style out there. He shows how working with ZZ yields turning that utilizes both hands working independently, and turning with both hands at a very similar speed. If you master being able to use the left hand as fluidly as the right, saying "The RUL moveset makes fingertricks way worse" is totally untrue. As well, I would say regrips are vastly less common in ZZ than even CFOP, because you never have to rotate, so you only regrip if an alg depends on it. Also, because you are doing the 2 F2L pairs in the back from the front rather than rotating, that cuts out even more regrips because a ZZ user can fluidly go directly into the pairs, whereas a CFOP user would typically rotate to gain ergonomics that they otherwise lack due to the lack of EO. And the whole "it also makes the F2L too restricted" point is just totally insane. If anything, CFOP f2l is too restrictive because you always need to reverse any L or R move so as to not disturb the cross pieces, whereas with ZZ, the L and R layers are completely free to move. You don't do F or B moves because the best ways to do every case don't require it. Nearly all the cases that are best solved with F and B moves are the ones with a misoriented edge. I'm not going to cover the whole multislotting thing, because Pyjam already covered why ZZ has arguably better multislotting.
> 
> ...


My wording was a little clumsy, when I said restrictive I meant that the EO gives fewer ways to insert and create pairs and because of that makes CFOP style multislotting harder and less move efficient. For example you can't set up your next pair by doing a sledge. Now I realize this is pretty insignificant since ZZF2L is way different than CFOPF2L and the fewer number of F2L cases also means it's easier to predict your next pairs.


----------



## JTcuber (Jul 16, 2017)

Malkom said:


> My wording was a little clumsy, when I said restrictive I meant that the EO gives fewer ways to insert and create pairs and because of that makes CFOP style multislotting harder and less move efficient. For example you can't set up your next pair by doing a sledge. Now I realize this is pretty insignificant since ZZF2L is way different than CFOPF2L and the fewer number of F2L cases also means it's easier to predict your next pairs.


Yeah. This is also just talking about pair-pair multislotting. It's often really easy to to a full 1x2x3 in 1 step. There's also just as many, if not more cases for slanting, which is probably the most common multislotting technique, and normal keyhole is a lot nicer because you never have to rotate. While CFOP multislotting may not be good in ZZ, ZZ multislotting can lead to lots of really easy and move efficient cases. I've had lots of cases that ended up taking only 3-4 moves for a full 1x2x3, and things like that are literally impossible in CFOP because of the cross restriction. Either way, the restrictions in ZZ very rarely lead to very bad cases, whereas the restrictions in CFOP force a much less efficient F2L because you need to undo any R and L move.


----------



## Ksh13 (Jul 18, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ
> There is a huge list of ZZ LL and LSLS variants.
> 
> *In CFOP, you do Cross, F2L and then you have a few options: OLL/PLL, OLLCP/EPLL (and some more that I'm probably missing.), but that's usually as far as it goes.*


VLS, HLS, OLS, 1LLL, ZBLL, VHLS/ZBLS, COLL. You rarely dedicate yourself to just one of these, but fast people using CFOP often use a little of every one of these, in addition to tons of F2L tricks/algs.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 18, 2017)

Ksh13 said:


> VLS, HLS, OLS, 1LLL, ZBLL, VHLS/ZBLS, COLL. You rarely dedicate yourself to just one of these, but fast people using CFOP often use a little of every one of these, in addition to tons of F2L tricks/algs.


You'll notice in the post where I said that, the post above me had also made a ridiculous claim about the lack of ZZ variants. I was mimicking the post, but swapping ZZ for CFOP, to point out how silly the point was.

I know that both methods have a large about of other subsets.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 19, 2017)

I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential. 

If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 19, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.
> 
> If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.



Can you plan EO in inspection, or just a block? I can see a lot of potential in EOBlock --> near-optimal 2-gen 1x2x3 block --> ZBLL --> ARF if inspection and recognition could be mastered.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 19, 2017)

@Tao Yu I don't think you can really claim the efficiency thing from HARCS that much. Petrus with ZBLL on average is 0.5 moves more efficient than ZZ with ZBLL. Also, in practice, humans are very inefficient compared to HARCS. On top of that, CFOP is an utter trash method in HARCS, but it is great for humans.

That being said, the rest of your points are all very good.


----------



## Micah Walker (Jul 19, 2017)

I don't think any method is objectively worse than another. You could be sub 8 with literally any method averaging less than ~70 moves (including zz, Roux, CFOP, Petrus Triangular Francisco, LLOB, corners first, ect). the real question is how long will it take for me to get that fast, and how fast will I be before I max out my speed.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 19, 2017)

Micah Walker said:


> the real question is how long will it take for me to get that fast, and how fast will I be before I max out my speed.


Isn't this a way of defining better/worse methods?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 19, 2017)

Micah Walker said:


> I don't think any method is objectively worse than another.


This is just completely false. There are definitely methods which are worse than other. LBL for example is objectively worse than CFOP. And you'd need to average around 55 moves at most to sub 8 consistently.


----------



## Pyjam (Jul 19, 2017)

Great evolution. 3-4 years ago, if you write here than a method is objectively worse than another you'll be puked on by half of the community and you'll risk a ban for being a troll...


----------



## bren077s (Jul 19, 2017)

People are considering Petrus starting with @Tao Yu in this post:


Tao Yu said:


> I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.
> 
> If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.





bren077s said:


> Petrus with ZBLL on average is 0.5 moves more efficient than ZZ with ZBLL. Also, in practice, humans are very inefficient compared to HARCS. On top of that, CFOP is an utter trash method in HARCS, but it is great for humans.
> 
> That being said, the rest of your points are all very good.





Micah Walker said:


> (including zz, Roux, CFOP, Petrus Triangular Francisco, LLOB, corners first, ect).


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 20, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> LBL for example is objectively worse than CFOP.



I think if you want to say something is _objectively_ worse, you have to state which objective metric you're using first. If LBL truly were _objectively_ worse, why do people learn it at all? Because it's easier to learn? Then it's not objectively worse for those people!

Or, if you take move count (in FTM? QTM? STM? SQTM? ETM?) as the metric, is it even still true that LBL is "bad"? I can get move count averages of about 53 moves in slow solves, which isn't super great (I get ~51 on CFOP, ~48 on Petrus and ZZ), but it's not a clear loser.

(I've spent a considerable amount of time Arguing on the Internet about objective vs subjective metrics on completely unrelated matters so the shitty clickbait title of this thread is extremely annoying, and then everyone is just latching on to the wording used by the OP because that's how conversations work.)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 20, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> I think if you want to say something is _objectively_ worse, you have to state which objective metric you're using first. If LBL truly were _objectively_ worse, why do people learn it at all? Because it's easier to learn? Then it's not objectively worse for those people!
> 
> Or, if you take move count (in FTM? QTM? STM? SQTM? ETM?) as the metric, is it even still true that LBL is "bad"? I can get move count averages of about 53 moves in slow solves, which isn't super great (I get ~51 on CFOP, ~48 on Petrus and ZZ), but it's not a clear loser.
> 
> (I've spent a considerable amount of time Arguing on the Internet about objective vs subjective metrics on completely unrelated matters so the shitty clickbait title of this thread is extremely annoying, and then everyone is just latching on to the wording used by the OP because that's how conversations work.)


Well if you take the comment in context you can clearly see that I'm referring to the times that are possible to achieve with LBL.

If you take things out of context you can't really call anything objectively worse than anything else. In fact, it you take your absolute strictest definition of "objective" then there is really no context in which you can say "objectively worse".

For the purpose of this conversation I feel it is fine to adopt the colloquial usage of "objective" and allowing people to infer meaning in context as this is not a formal academic text or similar. I was merely pointing out that the previous comment (which might be more in line with your criticism) is completely wrong as you can find many ways of showing a certain method is objectively worse (in many different metrics which are being debated in this conversation) than others.

Perhaps it would be more correct to say "objectively slower" in either my post or the title but as usage defines meaning, that most people use objective when referring to the metrics which are implied or indicated in the post itself and in context it is quite clear that the OP means worse=slower for the purposes of this thread I feel like this is splitting hairs more than really necessary.

In summary, I would agree with you if this was a formal or academic text or similar but as this is an informal internet forum I feel like your complaints are too pedantic as no issue in communication of meaning is caused and all understand what is being discussed- whether ZZ is_ not suitable for achieving faster or similar times when solving 3x3 speedcubes given the limitations of humans and restrictions set in place by WCA regulations_ when compared to either Roux or CFOP.


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 20, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Well if you take the comment in context you can clearly see that I'm referring to the times that are possible to achieve with LBL.
> 
> If you take things out of context you can't really call anything objectively worse than anything else. In fact, it you take your absolute strictest definition of "objective" then there is really no context in which you can say "objectively worse".



Yeah, that's pretty much my point. I'm really just railing at the OP for using the word "objectively" in a figurative sense for the purposes of clickbait, and (almost) everyone else for following suit. My pedantry might indeed be misplaced, though…


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 20, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> I feel like Petrus actually solves many of the "problems" of ZZ. You can plan out much more in inspection, you use your dominant hand more, there's no RUL weirdness, EO is easy and ergonomic, and the solve is overall more efficient according to HARCS. If 3x2x2 can be planned out in inspection (which I think it can be), then I think Petrus+ZBLL could have real potential.
> 
> If people like the idea of ZZ but don't like EOline, or ZZF2L, I'd really recommend trying Petrus. Personally, I love the method.



I think what really solves the 'problems' of ZZ is ZB, if we're mentioning other methods in here. But I guess that's another discussion...


----------



## bren077s (Jul 23, 2017)

@obelisk477 how so?


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 23, 2017)

bren077s said:


> @obelisk477 how so?



I guess I mean the corollary to what I said-- instead of 'solving problems', ZB combines strengths. If some of ZZ's strengths are it's efficiency and ability to one look the last layer, and CFOp's are it's fingertrickiness and ease of planning in inspection, then ZB is the best of both worlds. Plus with new and improved ZBLS sets having been generated recently, ZBLS is much nicer, faster, and easier to learn.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 23, 2017)

Is zbll worth the algs and can people recall them well enough? I am not even sure people can really master all of zzll well enough


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 24, 2017)

bren077s said:


> Is zbll worth the algs and can people recall them well enough? I am not even sure people can really master all of zzll well enough



I know of several people who know and use full ZBLL well enough that it's faster than COLL/EPLL or OLL/PLL. But it is admittedly more difficult to learn almost 3x the algs of ZZLL


----------



## bren077s (Jul 24, 2017)

Oh, that is cool.


----------



## _zoux (Jun 10, 2018)

Mostly all points here are honestly dumb anf fits category "I don't do zz, so let me call it bad".
When i was reading this thread first time, it was killing me inside, so let me break some points:
-L2/R2s are bad.
If so, then roux look at awkward roux transition beetwen CMLL and LSE.
If your CFOP is rotationless, or just less rotations, then look at your giant regrips with B/R/F/L moves.
If something doesn't fit your turn style, it doesn't mean that it's bad.
EOLine worse than cross/EOline less finger-friendly/EOline is hard to _inspecc._
*Why comparing steps, where one forces on 4 pieces, and other on 12.*
It's not less finger friendly, same as cross.
I can do Xeoline in most of my solves.
You can't be sure that any method is a bad method if you're not at 
least sub 30 with it.
ZZ is objectivly better than cfop, and on par with roux.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2018)

_zoux said:


> ZZ is objectivly better than cfop, and on par with roux.


Why bother saying objectively? You listed a load of subjective points of view so you can't really claim objectivity.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jun 12, 2018)

_zoux said:


> If so, then roux look at awkward roux transition beetwen CMLL and LSE


No, it is very easy actually if you know what edges are flipped during CMLL. You can then proceed to the EO case. Subjectively I thinks CMLL > LSE transition is very easy and to me by far the worst transitions are SB > CMLL and L/R > 4c.


----------



## UnknownCuber (Jun 12, 2018)

From a 20-second, ex-zz, cfop solver:
I don't see how zz and cfop are that different but I've noticed that for f2l, zz has (slightly) harder to execute f2l cases (talking about last pair here) that cfop has, such as the case which both corner and edge are connected and the colors facing up are the same, though they are not paired. In zz the moves are restricted to { L, R , U } so it cannot use the cfop alg (F' U F U2 R U R' ) to solve the case. For last layer cfop has significantly more algs (50 with partial edge control) to drill so zz would be better(7),unless you're using coll (42). So I would say that both are equal, though I prefer cfop.


----------



## _zoux (Jun 12, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> No, it is very easy actually if you know what edges are flipped during CMLL. You can then proceed to the EO case. Subjectively I thinks CMLL > LSE transition is very easy and to me by far the worst transitions are SB > CMLL and L/R > 4c.


yeah, i meant transition with SB and CMLL, CMLL and LSE, and those that are in LSE.



shadowslice e said:


> Why bother saying objectively? You listed a load of subjective points of view so you can't really claim objectivity.


Did I even say anything against CFOP, except, the last sentence?



turtwig said:


> hmm


Good job on taking my works out of context, and using it against me.
First sentence is *comparing*.
And last one didn't even tell the reasons so you cant judge it.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Jun 12, 2018)

_zoux said:


> Mostly all points here are honestly dumb anf fits category "I don't do zz, so let me call it bad".
> When i was reading this thread first time, it was killing me inside, so let me break some points:
> -L2/R2s are bad.
> If so, then roux look at awkward roux transition beetwen CMLL and LSE.
> ...


I agree with a few of your points, but I would not say that ZZ is better than CFOP (and I use ZZ).
And how do you do an XEOLine in most of your solves?

And when I used CFOP, I barely ever used B moves.



_zoux said:


> You can't be sure that any method is a bad method if you're not at
> least sub 30 with it.


This is just wrong. I know that LBL is a bad speedsolving method, and I was never sub-30 with it. Yes, it's better to judge a method if you are actually good with it, but it's easy to tell if some methods are bad. (I'm not saying that ZZ, CFOP, or Roux are bad.)


----------



## GenTheThief (Jun 12, 2018)

I'm not going to entangle myself back in this thread, as fun as it was when it started.

But please learn to multi-quote.


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 12, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> I know that LBL is a bad speedsolving method


LBL is good, actually. You just need to be _efficient_: do blockbuilding for the first layer, edge control and multislotting for the second layer, ZBLL for the last layer.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Jun 12, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> LBL is good, actually. You just need to be _efficient_: do blockbuilding for the first layer, edge control and multislotting for the second layer, ZBLL for the last layer.


True, but I was talking about standard LBL. But I get what you're saying, though.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 12, 2018)

_zoux said:


> Did I even say anything against CFOP, except, the last sentence?


So what does that have to do with objectivity?


----------



## _zoux (Jun 13, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> So what does that have to do with objectivity?


This is a ZZ thread and i didn't see that sence to talk about CFOP here, thats why i didn't even say any reasons.
If you want so, here they are:
-ZZ is more efficient:
I've seen people that doesn't even care about movecount, which is very wrong.
to get 15 second solve, for example, with ZZ you would need ~3.2-3.6 TPS, and with CFOP you would need ~3.7-4.0.
Small numbers, but theres still some additional effort.
-ZZ has less algorithms then CFOP, and still being more efficient:
like tbf, 7+21 vs ~54+21 + extra moves...
-ZZ is rotationless
-ZZ has better ergonomics:
Even a lot says that L2/R2 sucks, CFOP still having worse ergonomics, because of rotations, and other stuff.
ZZ has way more options:
Nothing much to say about this.
ZZ can give you better lookahead:
Rotationless ZZF2L allows you to track pieces easily, and EOL is pretty much the same as cross.
IMO, CFOP's + is only more resources.


WombatWarrior17 said:


> I agree with a few of your points, but I would not say that ZZ is better than CFOP (and I use ZZ).
> And how do you do an XEOLine in most of your solves?
> 
> And when I used CFOP, I barely ever used B moves.
> ...


I'm half CN, and back in time i liked EOL a lot, and was doing tons of solves with it, + experementing n stuff.
By sub 30 i was talking about speedsolving methods only, and by that i mean't that you have to be familiar with thing, that you're talking about.
Also i'm very sorry about spamming, i'm just new to the speedsolving forums, so sorry again, and bye.
Also sorry for being kinda mean in first post, i just got triggered.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 13, 2018)

_zoux said:


> This is a ZZ thread and i didn't see that sence to talk about CFOP here, thats why i didn't even say any reasons.


Do you know what objectivity means?


----------



## _zoux (Jun 13, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> Do you know what objectivity means?


Um, yes.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 13, 2018)

_zoux said:


> Um, yes.


Your posts don't seem to be convincing me of that.


----------



## TheVideoGamer (Jun 13, 2018)

I personally believe that it depends a lot on what you want to achieve, I've heard that ZZ is much much better than CFOP for events such as one handed for many people simply because of the way you move the cube however it is very dependent on how much you have practised also


----------



## adimare (Aug 11, 2018)

_zoux said:


> *Why comparing steps, where one forces on 4 pieces, and other on 12.*


It's funny how you use the verb "forces" to hide the fact that one method *solves* 4 pieces, while the other *orients* 12. There's a big difference between those two things. From my experience, having 4 pieces solved is a far better starting point than having 2 solved pieces and the remaining edges oriented. Lookahead is a lot easier since you know there won't be any edges you need to solve stuck in the bottom layer, and solving 4 pairs is a lot easier and can be done more automatically than 2 blocks, which again makes lookahead a lot easier.



_zoux said:


> *ZZ is objectivly better than cfop*, and on par with roux.


Where did that conclusion even come from?


----------



## _zoux (Aug 11, 2018)

adimare said:


> It's funny how you use the verb "forces" to hide the fact that one method *solves* 4 pieces, while the other *orients* 12. There's a big difference between those two things.From my experience, having 4 pieces solved is a far better starting point than having 2 solved pieces and the remaining edges oriented. Lookahead is a lot easier since you know there won't be any edges you need to solve stuck in the bottom layer, and solving 4 pairs is a lot easier and can be done more automatically than 2 blocks, which again makes lookahead a lot easier


not just orients 12, but also solves 2 of them. anyway, you check 12 pieces, find bad edges, and after orienting them, you don't care about them anymore, plus while this procces you just track 2 pieces which isn't that bad, and solve them. While with cross, you check 12 pieces too, and then solve 4 pieces, while tracking all of them. And "Solving pairs is easier" is just not right, since you don't rotate with zz, so looking at other pieces is so much easier lul


----------



## adimare (Aug 11, 2018)

_zoux said:


> not just orients 12, but also solves 2 of them. anyway, you check 12 pieces, find bad edges, and after orienting them, you don't care about them anymore, plus while this procces you just track 2 pieces which isn't that bad, and solve them. While with cross, you check 12 pieces too, and then solve 4 pieces, while tracking all of them.


Planning a cross is way easier than planning an EO line. For the cross you directly plan how to solve 4 pieces, and that's it. The EO line requires you to first plan EO, then re-run the moves in your head while tracking 2 pieces to figure out how to solve them. A lot of times the line edges end up in very uncomfortable spots and it's not easy to change EO to get them in nice positions.



_zoux said:


> And "Solving pairs is easier" is just not right, since you don't rotate with zz, so looking at other pieces is so much easier lul


In CFOP you solve 4 pairs. In ZZ you solve 3 pieces, then a pair, then 3 pieces, then another pair (or 3 pieces, then 3 pieces, then 2 pairs). Solving 3 pieces involves a lot more cases than just 2, which makes lookahead a lot harder in ZZ. Also, the fact that you don't need to rotate doesn't make it easier to locate pieces; the fact that in ZZ after the EO line you can have edges you need to solve stuck in the opposite side's bottom layer actually makes it harder to look for pieces.


----------



## _zoux (Aug 12, 2018)

adimare said:


> Planning a cross is way easier than planning an EO line. For the cross you directly plan how to solve 4 pieces, and that's it. The EO line requires you to first plan EO, then re-run the moves in your head while tracking 2 pieces to figure out how to solve them. A lot of times the line edges end up in very uncomfortable spots and it's not easy to change EO to get them in nice positions.
> 
> 
> In CFOP you solve 4 pairs. In ZZ you solve 3 pieces, then a pair, then 3 pieces, then another pair (or 3 pieces, then 3 pieces, then 2 pairs). Solving 3 pieces involves a lot more cases than just 2, which makes lookahead a lot harder in ZZ. Also, the fact that you don't need to rotate doesn't make it easier to locate pieces; the fact that in ZZ after the EO line you can have edges you need to solve stuck in the opposite side's bottom layer actually makes it harder to look for pieces.


Uh could you tell me please what do you average with zz, and with cfop


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 12, 2018)

@adimare I'm sorry to disagree, but lookhead is a lot easier in ZZ because the edges are oriented, and solving a 2x3 block required significantly less moves on average than solving two pairs (and you don't have to care about edge orientation and cube rotation). And as usual, you may influence the last layer case while solving the second block.


----------



## adimare (Aug 12, 2018)

_zoux said:


> Uh could you tell me please what do you average with zz, and with cfop


~12 sec with ZZ. It's hard to tell what I average with CFOP because I stopped using it years ago. I tried it a few days ago because I got the urge to stop sucking at 4x4 and was able to get consistent times with what I get with ZZ after a few solves even though I... wait, why am I answering this? What does this have to do with anything of what I said? Did you figure out you didn't have any good responses and decided to go full ad hominem? Is your plan to just go "oh well you're not sub-X yet so your opinion doesn't count"? Because I got bad news for you, I could be a honey badger that somehow learned how to type but is fully incapable of solving a Rubik's cube, you'd still have to disregard that and respond to my arguments.



Pyjam said:


> I'm sorry to disagree, but lookhead is a lot easier in ZZ because the edges are oriented, and solving a 2x3 block required significantly less moves on average than solving two pairs (and you don't have to care about edge orientation and cube rotation). And as usual, you may influence the last layer case while solving the second block.


Solving 5 pieces requires *significantly* less moves on average than solving 4? Can you prove that?

And I'm sorry, but pieces being oriented doesn't help lookahead that much (it's cool when you're solving the last pair and can't see the edge, but you can safely assume it's in the back and can pair it and insert it without having to figure out its orientation, but that's about it). On the other hand, having edges you're solving stuck in the bottom layer does affect lookahead negatively, so does the fact that after EO line the edge you're looking to solve can be in one of 10 locations vs one of 8 locations in CFOP, or that when you create an initial pair/block to solve a 2x2x1 the remaining edge is sometimes stuck with the pieces you just paired up (a problem that can be solved by either separating them, or planning how you pair up pieces more carefully to avoid it from happening, both of which take more time than the mindless stuff you can do for CFOP pairs and both of which force you to pay more attention to the block you're solving at the moment instead of paying attention to the next thing you're gonna solve). In summary, worse lookahead.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 12, 2018)

Lookahead is better because any edge on top that is not yellow is an edge for the F2L block, and it's very easy to see how to build a 2x2 block with what's visible on top, and while doing it it's very easy to spot where are the two remaining pieces to complete the 2x3 block.

The "ZZ Example Solve" Game!" thread contains many examples with very short blocks, and the theoretical superiority of blockbuilding in regards to the movecount has been proven.

That said, the transition from EO-line to left block isn't always easy, especially if the EO-line was hard and the DL edge has landed on the right side.

I would say, if there's an obvious disadvantage about ZZ is that you can barely take advantage of a prebuild block resulting from the scramble. Let's say, there's two good pairs already made, or even a 2x2 block. Any good CFOP user will likely see an XX-Cross during inspection, while a ZZ user will stupidly do an EO-line and break the two pairs. OTOH, if all edges are oriented after the scramble, any CFOP user will take advantage of it without even notice it, solving the F2L without any rotation and skipping EO during OLL, or even get an OLL-skip with (or w/o) Winter Variation.

That's why I think Leor is superior to ZZ. That, plus Leor has less L-moves, and it's often possible to combine EO-Middle and a 2x2 block on the right.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 12, 2018)

Oh my, this thread is a gem. I don't know how I missed it until now.

As someone who has used CFOP until about sub15, and now averages ~9.25 with ZZ ( ~12 onehanded), let me give you my perception of the pros and cons of the method, when compared with CFOP:

Cons:

-While EOLine by itself is just as easy as Cross, and only like 1 move longer, it is significantly harder to plan anything after EOLine (tracking pieces of a 1x2x2 through seemingly arbitrary moves that solve EO is harder than straight blockbuilding for XCross) HOWEVER: EOCross is extremely easy to plan every solve and only adds 1-2 moves on top.

-L2/R2 moves are bad, and blockbuilding is hard and awkward. While a bit overstated, this is true (though only for two-handed) and it is why I nowadays believe EOCross is superior to EOLine, only for two-handed. You sacrifice some movecount for better inspection, easy lookahead and crazy TPS spam in F2L.

-RUL moveset in F2L is bad due to frequent regrips and slow LU. This is true, but can be a) mostly alleviated by solving the left block first (it has much fewer moves then and you get an all-RU-block afterwards or b) completelely avoided by using z-Rotations. for example, one could sovle the right block first, rotate z and solve another right block, getting to LL on what was originally the left side. Alternatively, one could just solve EOLine on left and solve the left block first with RUD, then rotate z' and solve the right block with RU. Since I struggle recognizing ZBLL on different colours and never learned to start a solve from Z, I myself often solve the right block first if it's easy and then rotate z to have a completely RU left block.

-The last slot cases are long and awkward. Yeah, since you have to stay 2gen, they are longer in movecount, but because CFOP ones often include rotations, they are often just as fast to execute in reality. 2 or 3 of these cases really suck though, without question. This is also why I advocate not solving 1x2x2s on each side and then doing essentially 2 LS-inserts, but rather finishing one side completely with blockbuilding before starting the other one. This reduces regrips and movecount.

-ZZ is not very flexible for use with other puzzles/events. I cannot understate this. ZZ is absolutely, completely, utterly useless for 4x4, and I would advise noone who wants to get good at 4x4 to use it. I myself have tried many ZZ variants for 4x4 and none of them come close to Yau+CFOP, even though I don't even know full OLL. It is not useful for Megaminx, neither for 2x2 (even though COLLs work as CLLs, they are not very nice to execute, and you might struggle with colour neutrality when coming from ZZ). ZZ can work well on uneven big cubes like 5x5 and 7x7, but that's about it

Pros:

-Extremely Easy lookahead. Because you always solve in the same one or two orientations, you do not have to be aware of where your pairs go - the same colours go to the same place everytime. There are also just plain fewer F2L cases because the edges are already oriented - this makes keyhole-cases which solve two slots at once extremely easy - you do not have to be aware of how the edge is oriented, there is always only one possible case.

-Nice execution due to no rotations and a lot of 2-gen. While rotations aren't that bad for twohanded, it's still noticeable and the long streaks of 2-gen solving are a dream. For onehanded, this alone makes ZZ much, much better than CFOP could ever hope to be.

-Many possibilities for last layer. Every alg you learn for last layer is insanely useful. From OLL/PLL over COLL/EPLL, winter variation, 2gen reduction, phasing + ZZLL all the way to full ZBLL, everything is worth learning and isn't just one random trick you might use in one of a hundred solves. While with CFOP, you can learn all these things and they might prove useful, it is hard to have a reliable consistent LL system. Full ZBLL will not be used on every CFOP solve, making the method itself inconsistent. I have learned all of ZBLL and just having 1 look and 1 alg on every solve is great and has dropped my times significantly. This also makes ZZ very interesting and anti-boredom. There's honestly so much to learn.

-Efficiency. If you do EOCross and ZBLL you are still at around 50 movecount, lower than the average CFOP solve. If you do proper Blockbuilding and ZBLL, staying under 50 is very easy. This again is great for onehanded.

So, to conclude: in my opinion, ZZ has a lot of potential. I'm not sure if it is better than CFOP for twohanded, but it's surely just as good. It doesn't compare to the god method Roux, though. For onehanded, ZZ is vastly superior to CFOP in absolutely every aspect. How some people think CFOP could be better than ZZ for onehanded eludes me. I used to think it's better than Roux as well, but I misjudged just how fast people could get at table abusing M slices. So I would still crown Roux the overall King Method for 3x3. (If table abuse were prohibited, though..... )


----------



## adimare (Aug 12, 2018)

Petro Leum said:


> -Extremely Easy lookahead. Because you always solve in the same one or two orientations, you do not have to be aware of where your pairs go - the same colours go to the same place everytime.


I've been using ZZ for years now, yet whenever I do a random CFOP solve I seem to have no issues with this. Maybe a beginner in ZZ will spend less time figuring out where a pair goes than a beginner in CFOP does, but after a bit of practice I'm pretty sure the difference will either be negligible or non-existent.



Petro Leum said:


> There are also just plain fewer F2L cases because the edges are already oriented


That's debatable. Yes, objectively there are half as many cases for F2L pairs in ZZ, however:

1) You're ignoring the fact that in ZZ you're not just solving F2L pairs, you're building 3x2x1 blocks, which, if you're doing it right, require you to first connect corners with cross edges half the time, something you never have to do in CFOP F2L. That doubles the amount of corner+edge pairing cases you have to deal with in ZZ and puts it on par with CFOP.

2) At least to me, these two cases, for instance, are the same:









And even though the second one won't ever show up in ZZ, the fact that it does show up on CFOP doesn't really hinder lookahead. You don't recognize it based on the exact colors you're looking at, you recognize it based on the relationship between the position of the corner's white sticker with the edge.

ZZ vs CFOP lookahead could probably be its own topic with pros and cons for each one. Not having to deal with edges in the bottom layer at all is a huge pro for CFOP and a major con for ZZ lookahead during F2L, for instance.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 12, 2018)

For your 1st case, I know 6 different algs depending on the position of blocks on the top layer in order to influence the last layer case.

R' D' R U' R' D R U R U' R'
R U2' R' U R U R' U R U' R'
R U2' R' U L U' R U R' L'
U' R' U2 R' U R' U' R U2 R
U R U' R' U' R' F' R U R U' R' F
R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U' R'


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 12, 2018)

Petro Leum said:


> [ZZ] is not useful for Megaminx


I agree with most of your post but this gets me...
It can't work on F2L, but I use ZZ for my S2L and it's great. I'm essentially sub1 on megaminx with my ZZ adaption. I would consider that not amazing but definitely pretty good. And I'm still improving.

Also it's pretty good for Feet.
But yeah, nothing else.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 12, 2018)

You can get it to work on 4x4. I have a 4x4 method (4z4) which works pretty well. Also, one other thing: I do agree that it is definitely as good as CFOP with 2H (I’d be tempted to say that it’s better, due to lower movecount, better LL), but I’d disagree with Petro Leum about eocross. I’d say that 3/4 eocross is better, as it still allows the block building. And to all those CFOPers: yeah, L2/R2 sucks, but so does RUyLU. Also, on the topic of is eo worth it, ZZ averages much fewer moves than CFOP with fewer algs, so I’d say so (going on wiki stats). You only need 46 algs to be around 52 moves, compared to 78 for 55 with CFOP. If you say “alg number doesn’t matter”, you get 45 with 493 zbll, and 45 with either full zb (which is where I’d say CFOP is at its full) or 1lll, which are both a lot more algs than 493. Then you go to 1llsll, which is a lot more possible in zz than cfop (even if it’s impossible practically). Basically, zz is superior in terms of movecount, last layer and is (IMO) equal in movegroup. It isn’t as good in EoLine to F2L transition, but that can be practiced.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 12, 2018)

adimare said:


> I've been using ZZ for years now, yet whenever I do a random CFOP solve I seem to have no issues with this. Maybe a beginner in ZZ will spend less time figuring out where a pair goes than a beginner in CFOP does, but after a bit of practice I'm pretty sure the difference will either be negligible or non-existent.



Hmm.... I have been using ZZ for 6 years and I always struggle with this when I solve with CFOP. I can do it, no problem, but it does cost me cognitive capacity that could be used for looking ahead. I'm not sure whether this doesn't make a difference for advanced solvers too.



adimare said:


> I've been using ZZ for years now, yet whenever I do a random CFOP solve I seem to have no issues with this. Maybe a beginner in ZZ will spend less time figuring out where a pair goes than a beginner in CFOP does, but after a bit of practice I'm pretty sure the difference will either be negligible or non-existent.
> 
> 
> That's debatable. Yes, objectively there are half as many cases for F2L pairs in ZZ, however:
> ...



You are technically right in that it is the same number of cases, but if you say that, you ignore that there IS a difference in that you have to recognize the edge orientation (albeit indirectly, by checking where the pair is located relatively to the slot and then rotating/not rotating) which is something you just don't do in ZZ. Also keep in mind while these two cases appear equal from a CFOP solvers perspective, so do similar cases where you either pair a cross edge or a pair edge with a corner.

That said, I still believe EOCross for twohanded is superior, which is basically just easy mode CFOP F2L with no doubt.



GenTheThief said:


> I agree with most of your post but this gets me...
> It can't work on F2L, but I use ZZ for my S2L and it's great. I'm essentially sub1 on megaminx with my ZZ adaption. I would consider that not amazing but definitely pretty good. And I'm still improving.
> 
> Also it's pretty good for Feet.
> But yeah, nothing else.



Hmm, I don't know how that works for megaminx. Can you show me an example/ is there a tutorial of sorts?

And yeah, I totally forgot about feet, which might be ZZ's greatest potential. Shame so few people actually use the method!


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 12, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> ...I’d say that 3/4 eocross is better, as it still allows the block building. And to all those CFOPers: yeah, L2/R2 sucks, but so does RUyLU. ...



True, and I believe this is what I automatically do to preserve good movecount in actual solves. For me it's mostly a matter of inspection approach. I do always plan full eocross - but I don't always execute it for the benefit of abusing nice block building cases.

And about CFOPers: Keep in mind many of the good CFOPers actually only du RUy.... which is ugly, but surely higher TPS than RUyLU.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 12, 2018)

Good CFOPers use all moves when applicable, where they are good. Stuff like F' U F and f R f' really isn't that bad. You can also be super efficient(and avoid rotations!) in F2L with some really cool stuff that you can't do in ZZ, such as S R S' and R B' U' B R'.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 12, 2018)

Why not? In ZZ, you can do things such as :
u' R2 u
R S R2' S' R


----------



## CarterK (Aug 12, 2018)

Pyjam said:


> Why not? In ZZ, you can do things such as :
> u' R2 u
> R S R2' S' R


You can do that in CFOP too. I was mentioning that because people were talking about rotations/awkward moves in CFOP


----------



## tolgakantarci (Aug 13, 2018)

Roux's kinda out of this discussion


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

That's because it's harder to directly compare. With CFOP and ZZ, you can compare cross to eoline, f2l to f2l and ll to ll. With Roux, I guess you have to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the whole method than the steps. So, roux has a lot of gen regrips, so whole cube to RrUM to whole cube (potentially) to MU. ZZ has whole cube to RUL to whole cube (potentially). The obvious advantage of roux is that you need less algs. So even if you learn 2 cmlls for each case+eolr, you'll be learning about 1/4 of the algs as full zbll for the same (or maybe even less by about 2 moves) than ZZ-A. You have bling spots in both, so for roux you have (in second block) DB, DR and BR, while with zz you have DL, BL, DR and BR (although doing some form of eocross will remove one or two of these). I'd argue (from these points) that ZZ is as viable and is on par with roux, and CFOP from the above points.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's because it's harder to directly compare. With CFOP and ZZ, you can compare cross to eoline, f2l to f2l and ll to ll. With Roux, I guess you have to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the whole method than the steps. So, roux has a lot of gen regrips, so whole cube to RrUM to whole cube (potentially) to MU. ZZ has whole cube to RUL to whole cube (potentially). The obvious advantage of roux is that you need less algs. So even if you learn 2 cmlls for each case+eolr, you'll be learning about 1/4 of the algs as full zbll for the same (or maybe even less by about 2 moves) than ZZ-A. You have bling spots in both, so for roux you have (in second block) DB, DR and BR, while with zz you have DL, BL, DR and BR (although doing some form of eocross will remove one or two of these). I'd argue (from these points) that ZZ is as viable and is on par with roux, and CFOP from the above points.


You also forgot that Roux is 10+ moves more efficient than ZZ and CFOP.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ_method
Look at the movecount there. Probably 46 in practice. Kian averages about 45.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ_method
> Look at the movecount there. Probably 46 in practice. Kian averages about 45.


"average moves, 55"

45 + 10 = 55, simple math. Sure you can do ZBLL, but that slows it down.


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 13, 2018)

Petro Leum said:


> Hmm, I don't know how that works for megaminx. Can you show me an example/ is there a tutorial of sorts?
> 
> And yeah, I totally forgot about feet, which might be ZZ's greatest potential. Shame so few people actually use the method!


I came up with my method (ZZ-Spike) almost two years ago, and I made an example solve video year later.
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-spike-walk-through-solve-zz-on-megaminx.65029 (this is the same link as the one in my sig)
I never made a formal written tutorial and in the video I completely skip over S2L but it's the same as ZZ F2L but with an extra side. I still use that method and have gone officially sub 1--I also have a handful of sub 50s and a PB 53 ao5.
And yeah, I know that just because a method can achieve fast results doesn't mean that it's a fast method, but so far I haven't hit any barriers that indicate that it's a slower method than others so far.



CarterK said:


> Sure you can do ZBLL, but that slows it down.


?

At first sure, but ZBLL is ultimately faster than OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. I'm always like yes! a ZBLL I don't have to do another alg afterwards!
Unless I'm still learning the set and am like crud what is this case.


----------



## _zoux (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ_method
> Look at the movecount there. Probably 46 in practice. Kian averages about 45.


I think I remember kian average 50 moves kek


CarterK said:


> "average moves, 55"
> 
> 45 + 10 = 55, simple math. Sure you can do ZBLL, but that slows it down.


sorry but what


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

CarterK said:


> "average moves, 55"
> 
> 45 + 10 = 55, simple math. Sure you can do ZBLL, but that slows it down.


The whole solve is 45 moves with zbll...


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

Sorry, I mean that it would be more pauses, meaning decreased tps, not that it would be slower, and plus the fact that there are 500 algs. I asked Kian what his move counts were and he said 47 STM for 2H and 55 ETM for OH(U2 is 2 moves).


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

ZBLL gives one less pause. If you do that, you should be doing no pause F2L (if you plan well in inspection and look ahead), and only pause for zbll and auf, which isn’t that hard.

Roux you don’t pause until cmll, then you pause again for eolr. Yes, ideally these aren’t bad pauses, but if you’ve mastered zbll, the total pause time should be exactly the same as pause time for cmll and eolr adder togeter.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> ZBLL gives one less pause. If you do that, you should be doing no pause F2L (if you plan well in inspection and look ahead), and only pause for zbll and auf, which isn’t that hard.
> 
> Roux you don’t pause until cmll, then you pause again for eolr. Yes, ideally these aren’t bad pauses, but if you’ve mastered zbll, the total pause time should be exactly the same as pause time for cmll and eolr adder togeter.


If you are doing it right, there should be no pause between cmll and eolr, and maybe a small pause for cmll but in most cases you can predict it as your are inserting your last pair, so the pause for ZBLL will be a lot longer than the Roux pauses.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

If you know full 2sided zbll recog, you can predict coll in last pair, then just look at 2 edges, then the alg. Which isn’t that bad. And if you’re insane, you could learn to see the zbll case in last slot, but that’s probably impossible/impractical. But I would say that ZZ and roux are equal, not ZZ is better.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> If you know full 2sided zbll recog


The problem here is that you won't know this unless you are insane, since you need to learn all 493 algs and the recognition for them. Roux you don't need nearly as many algs, not even as many as OLL.


----------



## _zoux (Aug 13, 2018)

Wel advaned is roux actually aleast 150+ algs, and "you don't need 500 algs for roux" because it's unextendable


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

Tbh, 493 algs aren’t that bad. 21 are pll, the rest have good recog. You just have to learn it.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

_zoux said:


> Wel advaned is roux actually aleast 150+ algs, and "you don't need 500 algs for roux" because it's unextendable


Well that's just leaning different CMLLs to predict EO. It's definitely extendable, just not using algs, EOLR is an example of that.


I don't know about you, but I know most people don't want to learn 500 algs, especially if 3x3 isn't their only event. A lot of them definitely don't have good recognition, I'm not sure what you are talking about.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

Have you tried to learn zbll? They have good recog, you just have to learn. (Look at my sig, I have experience with this stuff). Also, ask someone like tao yu.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Have you tried to learn zbll? They have good recog, you just have to learn. (Look at my sig, I have experience with this stuff). Also, ask someone like tao yu.


Yes, I know about half of it. A lot of the recognition I wouldn't call good, especially compared to stuff like OLL and COLL. And as I said, most people don't want to learn 500 algs.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

But most people don’t bother to be world class. You can get sub 10 with zz and ocll/pll which is 28 algs, all with good recog. Similarly, csp has bad recog but people learn it to be faster. I know it’s not a direct comparison, but the principle carries. The recog can be learnt and made adequate enough to benefit. For example, you could probably sub 2.5 ll every time, quite often getting sub 2 ll if you got your execution and recog down, which is equivalent to lse. I would also say that F2L and blocks are comparable and cmll and EoLine are too. A sub 1.5 EoLine is entirely possible, easily possible. Similarly to cmll+recog by like maybe .1 to .3 seconds. Also, blocks are equivalent.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 13, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> But most people don’t bother to be world class. You can get sub 10 with zz and ocll/pll which is 28 algs, all with good recog. Similarly, csp has bad recog but people learn it to be faster. I know it’s not a direct comparison, but the principle carries. The recog can be learnt and made adequate enough to benefit. For example, you could probably sub 2.5 ll every time, quite often getting sub 2 ll if you got your execution and recog down, which is equivalent to lse. I would also say that F2L and blocks are comparable and cmll and EoLine are too. A sub 1.5 EoLine is entirely possible, easily possible. Similarly to cmll+recog by like maybe .1 to .3 seconds. Also, blocks are equivalent.



OK gonna go through each thing you said:

Yes, and without ZBLL, ZZ is on average 55 moves. 

Recognition for CSP doesn't matter as long as it's in inspection - it doesn't take up any solve time. I'm not saying ZBLL is bad, in fact I think it's better than ocll/pll, but it's very time consuming to get good with when you could be spending that time on something else that's much more worth it.

CMLL + Recog I'm not sure what the times usually are, but I think it's around what you said, probably a bit lower.

Blocks are most definitely NOT equivalent. FB is usually done in 8 moves or so and can be done regripless if you know what you are doing(and can be planned in inspection!) and second block has a lot more freedom with Rw/M moves.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2018)

Second block has a lot of regrips. And a lot of moves relatively. I get your point of FB being good, but second block isn’t brill, and there are also more moves in cmll. So I’d say that they’re mostly equal, but the more pieces you solve in algs makes up for that.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 14, 2018)

ZBLL is an investment for the long haul.

Sure, in the time you take to learn and drill 500 algs, you could e.g. work on lookahead, which is a lot more worthwile. However, as you become faster, working on lookahead/F2L solutions brings less and less to the table, and the small difference ZBLL makes becomes much more important and noticeable. And when you get to that point, you will wish you had learned ZBLL ages ago; as with every alg set, and especially because it is so large, the earlier you learn it, the better you get used to it.

ZBLL, while a lot of effort to learn and maintain, is very possible for anyone with the dedication, and I'm sure it will become one of the basics to learn for competitive speedcubers in the near future.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 14, 2018)

I think we should do something like this: FB=1 sec, SB=1.5 sec, CMLL=1.2 sec, LSE =2 sec. 5.7 theoretical average.
EoLine=1 sec, F2L=2.7 sec, ZBLL=2 sec. 5.7 theoretical average.
Please note that these numbers are pushing limits for both of the methods, so an extra .2 or 3 seconds will be expected for a non near perfect solver who is still world class.
CFOP would be something like 0.5, 3.7, 0.8, 1.2, probably .4 seconds faster with an x cross.

If you think that I’ve got something wrong, say.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I think we should do something like this: FB=1 sec, SB=1.5 sec, CMLL=1.2 sec, LSE =2 sec. 5.7 theoretical average.
> EoLine=1 sec, F2L=2.7 sec, ZBLL=2 sec. 5.7 theoretical average.
> Please note that these numbers are pushing limits for both of the methods, so an extra .2 or 3 seconds will be expected for a non near perfect solver who is still world class.
> CFOP would be something like 0.5, 3.7, 0.8, 1.2, probably .4 seconds faster with an x cross.
> ...


Where are you even getting those numbers from? Those are totally arbitrary. LSE should be a lot lower for sure, FB and CMLL should be about the same, and SB and LSE should be about the same. I'm not really sure about CFOP and ZZ though.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 14, 2018)

Tbf, the roux ones are kinda arbitrary, although I’m pretty sure cmll is about 1.2 including recog. If you have more accurate ones, go ahead. But I’d say that the zz ones are pretty good.
Better ones could be: 1.2, 1.8, 1.2, 1.5?


----------



## CarterK (Aug 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Tbf, the roux ones are kinda arbitrary, although I’m pretty sure cmll is about 1.2 including recog. If you have more accurate ones, go ahead. But I’d say that the zz ones are pretty good.
> Better ones could be: 1.2, 1.8, 1.2, 1.5?


Sure, go ahead and make the numbers whatever you want. You could just take numbers that add up to 5.7, or any other number. We can definitely do better than 5.7 with current methods.


----------



## adimare (Aug 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I think we should do something like this: FB=1 sec, SB=1.5 sec, CMLL=1.2 sec, LSE =2 sec. 5.7 theoretical average.
> EoLine=1 sec, F2L=2.7 sec, ZBLL=2 sec. 5.7 theoretical average.
> Please note that these numbers are pushing limits for both of the methods, so an extra .2 or 3 seconds will be expected for a non near perfect solver who is still world class.
> CFOP would be something like 0.5, 3.7, 0.8, 1.2, probably .4 seconds faster with an x cross.


Heise is the better method then:

4 squares: 1 sec
Orient edges: 1.2 sec
AB3C: 1.4 sec
Last 3 corners: 2 sec
5.6 sec theoretical average.

Brb switching to Heise. Am I doing it right?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 14, 2018)

I don’t think people like my logic... ok, you guys give me what you think for roux.


----------



## CarterK (Aug 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I don’t think people like my logic... ok, you guys give me what you think for roux.



Ok, I'm going to try and compare roux and zz:

Blocks: You have a lot more freedom with roux, and I'm pretty sure it has a bit less movecount, each block can be pretty much regripless.

EO: The difference here is that you either do EO on all edges at the start or you EO on some of the edges with M and U moves. The MU EO is faster but that makes sense as there are less edges to orient.

Corners: CMLL algs are about 10 moves, OCLL are a little less but you don't permute the corners.

Let me know if I forgot anything.


----------



## _zoux (Aug 14, 2018)

adimare said:


> Heise is the better method then:
> 
> 4 squares: 1 sec
> Orient edges: 1.2 sec
> ...


I don't get it


----------



## CarterK (Aug 14, 2018)

_zoux said:


> I don't get it


You can just make up any arbitrary numbers you want to get the "theoretical solve yime"


----------



## _zoux (Aug 14, 2018)

CarterK said:


> You can just make up any arbitrary numbers you want to get the "theoretical solve yime"


I think it was more about comparing roux and zz
Here's my roux and zz comparing:

EOLine = FB
duh

55% of zzf2l = SB 
start of zzf2l is very efficient and good, like ~8-11 moves for the FB/SQSQ or etc, and other for pair/DR 

CMLL = Finish ZZF2L
pretty self explanatory

ZBLL = LSE
Both are the same movecount, but even LSE has more looks than ZBLL and a bit slower on execution they still around the same stats since ZBLL takes more time to recognise


----------



## CarterK (Aug 14, 2018)

_zoux said:


> I think it was more about comparing roux and zz
> Here's my roux and zz comparing:
> 
> EOLine = FB
> ...



I don't get it, how do the first 3 comparisons work?

Also, can you tell me the average movecounts of each ZZ step?


----------



## _zoux (Aug 14, 2018)

CarterK said:


> I don't get it, how do the first 3 comparisons work?
> 
> Also, can you tell me the average movecounts of each ZZ step?


8/24/14


----------



## CarterK (Aug 14, 2018)

_zoux said:


> 8/24/14


Ok, Roux is like 9 16 10 13 I think. As for what you said:

EOline/FB

Very similar movecount, but FB is more fingertricky so That gets an edge

55% of zzf2l = SB 
Sure ok 

CMLL = Finish ZZF2L
CMLL is faster, as the algs can be drilled to be really fast.

ZBLL = LSE
Sure I guess, similar enough, No regrips or pauses for LSE but worse TPS than ZBLL for some cases.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 14, 2018)

From that, I’d say that they’re both as viable as each other. What roux gets in step 1, it loses in step 2, then whatnot gains in step 3, it loses in step 4.


----------



## Elo13 (Aug 15, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> From that, I’d say that they’re both as viable as each other. What roux gets in step 1, it loses in step 2, then whatnot gains in step 3, it loses in step 4.



I mostly agree, but I don't see ZBLL being faster than LSE.

According to some HARCS analysis by Teoidus and diPalma the average movecount of speed-optimal ZBLL is 14.5. When comparing to LSE, I think it's fair to compare to knowing at least a decent amount of EOLRb. Optimal EOLR+4b movecount is ~8.3 and EOLRb is ~7.8. With about half of EOLRb that would be around 8. Add 4.5 moves for 4c and you get 12.5 for LSE.

I don't know this for sure, but ZBLL most likely has a longer recognition pause. Without ever actively practicing it, I can predict EOLR maybe half the time. With practice it can most likely be done all the time, so the only pause you would have is recognizing the corners (actually that could possibly also be predicted). I'm sure ZBLL can also be partially predicted during LS, but it still will most likely require a longer pause.

ZBLL does have a higher max TPS. However, due to current hardware having very good slices and LSE being 100% regripless I don't think the difference is significant enough to make up for the longer pause and higher movecount. I don't really have any numbers for this though, so if someone could do that it would be nice.


----------



## Burrito (Nov 11, 2022)

EntireTV said:


> Most people say too many people use CFOP and ZZ might not be able to catch up. And from what I've seen people who use it have a hard time having consistency.


When I switched to ZZ, I went from getting 14 sec solves -- and then a 26 second one to getting mostly 17s and 18s, with the occasional 21 sec or 13-15 sec solve


----------



## Running for cube (Nov 11, 2022)

True, but part of that is probably from not as much practice and not using all possible techniques zz requires to reach a higher level. I think zz isn't quite as good as roux and cfop, but may be better than cfop for oh. Also Using zbll and other things would really help your speed.


----------

