# ZZ-CT Thread



## 4Chan (Jun 18, 2016)

EDIT (6-20-2016): Updated first post

Welcome to the ZZ-CT thread!

My original post with my first public debut is here, you'll find a lot of the information regarding the method there.

In this thread, you'll find general information and a beginner's guide, as well as my opinions regarding the method. I'm still developing it, and things are subject to change, but you'll be able to see and judge for yourself!


Should you learn ZZ-CT?
First ask yourself some questions:

Are you good at ZZ?
Are you a busy individual who lacks spare time?
Are you feelin' lucky, punk? (Do you want sick single times?)

If you answered yes to the above questions and you want the next step up from standard ZZ and are willing to put in the work, then ZZ-CT is for you.

If you have hundreds of hours to burn and like to learn algorithms, go with ZZ-A (ZBLL). ZZ-A ONLY works if you are dedicated. If you take half-measures, then just forget about it, you'll never become fast with it, and that's coming from years of experience.

So where should you start?
The first thing is learning TSLE. This is honestly the hardest, and most frustrating step. It took me two weeks to learn basic TSLE, and over a month to get them into muscle memory.

I suggest learning all of the 1 corner cases first, because you can easily reduce any case down to one corner intuitively. Then learn the two corner cases, three corner cases, and finally the four corner cases.

This is because any of the 3 or 4 corner cases can quickly be reduced down to a 1-2 corner case with R U R' or R' U' R' or R U2 R'.

Don't be afraid to push your limits.
You might stop at 10 algs per day because you think that's all you can humanly do. Those numbers are completely arbitrary, I'll tell you right now that if you truly wanted to, if you had to save your own life, you could probably learn this method in a few days. Just count to yourself how many breaks you're taking. What is the ratio of time spent between drilling algs and doing non-constructive things?

The best habit when it comes to learning algorithms is to push yourself and really make an effort.

As for TTLL, you should be able to memorise it in a few days. Since a lot of the algorithms are so easy, and a few of them are super short. My opinion is that TTLL is even easier than COLL because so many of the algs are related to eachother, and a bunch of them are conjugated PLLs.



Here's some TSLE tricks and advice!



So for TSLE, I put them into a few categories:

*1. Obvious/Irreducible Cases*
For a LOT of TSLE cases, the goal is to do some number of triggers to reduce the case into an irreducible case. Mr colourful pockets once made an analogy relating it to sq-1 cubeshape. You do moves and slices to reduce the case into a cubeshape case that you know, except instead of a slice move and things, you do a trigger. ezpz
*Example:* R U R'

*2. Insert + Sune*
A BUNCH of cases are optimally solved by simply inserting and doing a sune. also ezpz.
*Example: *_(R U' R')_ + U' + _(R' U' R U' R' U2 R)_

*3. Sune + Insert*
It's like the earlier case, but backwards.
*Example: *R' U2 R U R' U R + U2 + R U R'

*4. Pretend you're doing the F2L case.*
So for a LOT OF THESE cases, it's the same alg as the F2L case. The strength behind TSLE is that you get to reuse a lot of F2L algs and you don't have to learn anything new.
This might be confusing, but let's try some examples.

Set up the case with U2 L U' R F2 D2 R D2 F2 R' U F2 L' F2
Just pretend that you're going to make the F2L pair with the corner in FDR. Even though that's obviously not the corresponding corner, just pretend that it is, and do U' R U' R' to make the fake pair. Now insert it with U R U' R'. Wow, everything's oriented!
If that didn't make sense, do R U R' U' R U R' to set up the same case, observe the orientation of the corners, make the F2L pair and insert it.

*5. WV Cases*
You probably know some WV. Some of those WV cases are still pretty darn good.
*Example:* R2 D R' U' R D' R2

*6. Reflectional Cases*
When the edge is already placed, you can mirror those cases, but like, the mirror plane is um, diagonal? So you have to rotate and do the case on the left side. This isn't good in the long term, but when you're learning, it's okay as a stepping stone.
*Examples:* R U' R' U2 R U' R' and y L' U L U2 L' U L
*
7. Cases that could be done with triggers, but are better off with an alg.*
I know it sucks, but sometimes you just gotta learn the alg. It's better that way.
*Examples:* _U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' _*is better as*_ R' D' r U2 r' D R




_
Other advice and tips:

*Forcing PLL:*
So like, you can also learn easy and fast alternate cases to force PLL to happen, so you can predict things better. Since you know it's PLL, you can mentally prepare yourself to recognise it.

In this respect, TSLE is also a stepping stone to ZZ-C. However, my personal opinion is that ZZ-C has a LOT OF garbage cases, and TTLL is better. Only using obvious and fast alternate cases is worth it.

For example, these are my favourite to force a skip, because with the latter two, I have an extra split second to think about the case because they start the same way. They're also all decently fast and easy to recognise. Do the inverse to see the case and try it out!

U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' *(When the bad corner is in the back left)*
U' R' F' R U R U R' F *(When you don't see the bad corner)*
U' R' F R U R U' R' F' *(When there's a pair)
*

For rotationally symmetric cases, you can force the skip most of the time.
Whenever the 4 misoriented comes up, it's an 80% chance PLL. You just have to put the bad edge in the right place.
*Example: R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U2 R'*
Do the inverse, and see that like, no matter how many U moves you do, it's still the same orientation. That means if you put the bad corner in the back right position and do the alg, you'll always get OLL skip. If you put it in any other position, you'll get a TTLL.

*Another example: R U2 R' U R U R'*
This case is U2 rotationally symmetric. So that means you have double the chance for PLL. If the bad corner is misoriented, put it in back right (SAME AS EARLIER CASE), and then do the alg, you'll get PLL instead of TTLL.



Finally, some opinions:

I think that doing TSLE in one slot is better than being slot neutral.
You can train your brain to ignore the pieces in your slot while you blockbuild, and keep rotations to an absolute minimum. (No more than 1 rotation per solve)

However, with slot neutral TSLE, even though you may save 3-5 moves, there's a chance you'll have to do a rotation or ADF. With extra rotations and ADF, you'll introduce pauses and extra looks that puts you behind. I think that avoiding extra looks and rotations is worth 3-5 moves every 15% of the time.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 7, 2016)

Is there no replies? Im learning this.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 7, 2016)

@Shiv3r wern't you the one that was so hyped about learning ece/abc/adams-briggs/psuedo SSC? What happened there?
Don't get me wrong, I'm learning this too, I love ZZ and I think this has great potential.
But why not ece anymore?


----------



## sqAree (Jul 7, 2016)

Maybe he just wants to learn many methods? It's definitely a fun thing to do.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 8, 2016)

Oh hay, this thread got bumped.

There was some cool advice I wanted to share, but I forgot it.
For the time being, I got this average on video last month, it includes a sub-9 single.
This method has a lot of potential! My best average of 12 is high 12, and my best average of 500 is like, 14 something.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

sqAree said:


> Maybe he just wants to learn many methods? It's definitely a fun thing to do.


There hasn't been any developments with ECE recently.
also, I have never gotten sub-30 with ECE, which I have wih ZZ-CT(insert edge, orient corners, triple sledge insert corner, PLL), the 4LLS(4look last steps) version.



4Chan said:


> Oh hay, this thread got bumped.
> 
> There was some cool advice I wanted to share, but I forgot it.
> For the time being, I got this average on video last month, it includes a sub-9 single.
> This method has a lot of potential! My best average of 12 is high 12, and my best average of 500 is like, 14 something.


what cube is that?
I can definitely see this method being sub-9 consistently, given the short pauses during ZZF2L and the slow EOline(eoline is hard to get fast, I know, dont be hard on yourself)

Is it just me, or do you solve white on front?
that seems super wierd, but theres probably a reason behind it, so I wont judge


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> There hasn't been any developments with ECE recently.


Why do there have to be any developments with a method to use it? If it has been proven to be sub-10 or whatever, and you can't get sub-10 with it, that doesn't mean its not worth it.


Shiv3r said:


> I have never gotten sub-30 with ECE


The lowest I ever got with cfop was around 20s. And cfop was developed way before I started cubing. Just because I never got sub-15 with it and that it was completed a while ago doesn't mean that I should stop using it.
And if you don't think ECE isn't worth it, why do you still claim its "the future of speedcubing"? in you sig?
And if a method is fully developed, why would it need more developments? Does ECE need more developmets, and if it does, why don't you work on them yourself if you feel the method is so good?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 8, 2016)

Umm, my problem is blocks, not EOLine.

I appreciate criticism when it's valid, but seeing EOLine is easy peasy, and your comment, _"I know, don't be hard on yourself"_ is REALLY condescending.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Is it just me, or do you solve white on front?


@4Chan , green bottom y2 colour neutral, right?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 8, 2016)

Yep! You got it!


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

4Chan said:


> Umm, my problem is blocks, not EOLine.
> 
> I appreciate criticism when it's valid, but seeing EOLine is easy peasy, and your comment is REALLY condescending.


I apologize, Im not trying to be mean or anything.
#AutismAtItsFinest


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 8, 2016)

4Chan said:


> Just pretend that you're going to make the F2L pair with the corner in UDR


Should this be FDR?
kinda confusing when I first read the post.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

"nd if you don't think ECE isn't worth it, why do you still claim its "the future of speedcubing"? in you sig?"
because I havent gotten around to it yet. I probably should, huh?
EDIT: I did. sorry for the miscommunication.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 8, 2016)

Racing someone to learn this method. Are gyroninja'is Algs any good? TTLL Algs seem a bit long.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 8, 2016)

My comps are out of the way, and I won't have another for a couple of months. I've started learning TSLE. I've been trying to start organising the cases and figuring out a structured order in which to learn them. I like to learn cases in groups by concepts (e.g. if the case has x characteristic, then insert to setup sune) rather than brute force memorisation. This is the order I've been working on so far:

Obviously, most people already know the 7 OCLLs (although you can learn shorter algs that don't preserve DFR).

The logical next step is the three basic insertions, followed by the easy to recognise no twisted corner case: (R U' R') U2 (R U R').

Then there are the 2 trigger cases - 24 of them, but you'll already know three of them, so it's actually only 21 new cases.

There are 13 cases that can be reduced to Sune/Antisune with an 3 move insert, and 10 which reduce to a 3 move insert by doing Sune/Antisune first.

Thats the first 55 cases without even having to learn any actual algs - just recognition.

Of the remaining 45 cases, all but 4 can be reduced to one of the above with just a 3 move insert. I'm busy trying to figure out rules to know which insertion and AUF to use without brute force memorisation, but have not yet spent that much time on it.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 8, 2016)

I think that's a much better way of how I did it originally!


Mister Colourful Pockets has a VERY interesting and good way of simplifying the cases.

Y'know how in square-1, you do a slice and some move on U and D, and turn it into an irreducible form to get a cube shape?

He has them arranged so that there are cases that you do a trigger on, and it leads to a "simpler" case, and then another trigger to bring to an irreducible case. (I hope that makes sense, I'm bad at wording things!)



One piece of advice I can give to everyone is that like, when I was learning TSLE, I just scrambled 2-gen, and solved it from there. That way, I learned to ignore the corner in FDR when making blocks, and it was quick to get to LS.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 8, 2016)

4Chan said:


> I think that's a much better way of how I did it originally!


It's really just a minor reordering of what you had in your original post. 



4Chan said:


> That way, I learned to ignore the corner in FDR when making blocks, and it was quick to get to LS.



The funny thing is that as a beginner I used to have the bad habit of always solving F2L in a fixed order. It's surprisingly easy to move back into the habit of leaving DFR for last.


----------



## Isaac VM (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Is it just me, or do you solve white on front?
> that seems super wierd, but theres probably a reason behind it, so I wont judge



I also use Green/blue on bottom Yellow/ white on front, It's just an orientation.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

it would be interesting using japanese/old color scheme to solve ZZ, recognition might be good.
I think interesting color orientations have benefits, like gilles roux's yellow/white on left/right because it means finding the blocks faster.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 9, 2016)

Uh, I'm looking through the TSLE cases on the @gyroninja site, and I can't find an H case with the headlights facing R/L. However, I did find a (typo?) Pi case twice:








*U2 R U R' U' R U R' U2 R U R'*
*Left Sune ??? (Not sure what it means)*





*U2 R U R' U' R U R' U2 R U R'*
*U R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R*

They are next to right above the 4 oriented case.
I'm assuming one of them is supposed to be the H case.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 9, 2016)

Ahh, the bottom one is an H case.

However, you might want U2 R U R2 U2 R U R' U R.
Which is also written as U2 + R U R' (Insert) + R' U2 R U R' U R ( Back Anti-sune)


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 9, 2016)

Uh, also in the section where the edge is in the slot the case:

+ +
0 -

seems to be missing.
Where "+" is a clockwise twist, "-" is a counter clockwise twist and "0" is no twist. Sort of like a Pi case and the ULF corner is oriented.
Is this actually a discrepancy or am I just not seeing it?

Also @4Chan ,


4Chan said:


> it includes a sub-9 single.





4Chan said:


> My best average of 12 is high 12, and my best average of 500 is like, 14 something.



I've been meaning to ask, what is you PB single with ZZ-CT? Did it have any skips of any kind?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 9, 2016)

Ohh, for that case, I do an ADF + mirror

AUF: U'
ADF: D
TSLE: R2 U' R U' R' U2 R U' R
ADF: D'

Or: D R2 U' R U' R' U2 R U' R D'



As for PB single LOL, I don't actually know. Luckily, I've tracked my past 11.5k solves with ZZ-CT and Excel can tell me.

So far, I've had 4 recorded sub-9 solves, which were 8.265, 8.883, 8.942, and 8.972.
I think the 8.883 was a TSLE skip, and the other ones were full step.

My "true" LL-skips tend to be over 10 for some stupid reason.

EDIT: Looking at the excel data, I've had only 21 sub-10 solves, not counting the sub-9s.
Roughly half of those are from the past week alone. I think that means I'm improving. O__O


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 9, 2016)

There are only 95 algs on @gyroninja's site. Plus OCLL makes 102 out of the 104 cases, which means there are two missing. Comparing to my own really messy list of algs, I think I've found the two missing cases:

Edge in slot and DFR twisted CW:




R U R' U2 R U R'

and

Edge in slot and DFR twisted CCW



R U2 R' U R U' R' U R U R'


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 9, 2016)

Whoa, that looks like you put a ton of work into it, @AlphaSheep !
It looks pretty nice honestly!


Everyone's got fancy websites and spreadsheets, but all my algs are scribbled on paper, a bad habit from 2009 ):


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 11, 2016)

Speaking of Algs, what is the best alg list for this method so far? CurrentAly I'm using gyroninja's, but I don't want to go too far in and figure out later that they suck.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 11, 2016)

The thing with all methods is that they get optimized as they go along.

That's why I didn't share the algs immediately, even though I put the concept out there.
If multiple people make lists, then the best algs survive and it's like a darwinism thing, it promotes progress.

That list is honestly good enough to get sub-10 average.
There are only a few cases that I know that aren't on that list, but I'm pretty sure I can count those with my hands.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 11, 2016)

4Chan said:


> The thing with all methods is that they get optimized as they go along.
> 
> That's why I didn't share the algs immediately, even though I put the concept out there.
> If multiple people make lists, then the best algs survive and it's like a darwinism thing, it promotes progress.
> ...


Alright. The reason I ask is because I'm having a hard time understanding the TTLL setup (I'm doing that first for specific reasons). If I understand correctly, the F2L corner is at UUL (obviously) but the TSLE edge is at FR?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 11, 2016)

Oh, you completely ignore the F2L corner, and the edge is in UF.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 11, 2016)

4Chan said:


> Oh, you completely ignore the F2L corner, and the edge is in UF.


For TTLL? Wow, I'm way off.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 11, 2016)

OOPS, I thought you meant TSLE, haha.

Yes, you're right in your earlier post.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 11, 2016)

k


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 12, 2016)

Alright, one more question (I hope): 
How did you learn the Algs (or Algs in general)?
Did you do as many as you could at once or have music or what? I can't seem to get a good system going?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 12, 2016)

To be completely honest, I learned this method fairly quickly because I used a ton of ZBLL tricks for memorization and recognition.

Like, before I learned all 72 blocks, I used ZBLL recog for the cases, and I have them arranged by edge cycle, just like my ZBLLs.

For TSLE, I just learned all the one corner cases, then two corner, then three, then four.
For TTLL, I learned 2gen first, then I brute forced the rest all at once.

I think that, for anyone learning a new set of algorithms, they should use critical thinking and creativity to figure out what's best for them. 

I don't think my strategy would work for everyone, so I think the best option for you would be to figure out what's best for you, as long as you stick to it.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 12, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Alright, one more question (I hope):
> How did you learn the Algs (or Algs in general)?
> Did you do as many as you could at once or have music or what? I can't seem to get a good system going?


what I did for learning full PLL in two days was I carried my alg sheet printed out everywhere along with a cube, and whenever I had spare time(no matter where) I would plop down and try out learning the alg I was working on. I used music a lot too.
for CMLL in under a month, I learned the sune/antisune by learning about 4 algs then using mirrors and inverses to learn the whole cases.
I would write down the recognition for each set one set at a time, with my own recog systems I had come up with. when I was done learning one set and had it pretty much down, I would learn the next set.
of course, I learned the last 3 sets for CMLL in a few days, because of how easy the H set was. and it was a lot more casual than my full PLL-learning. but thats how I learn algorithms. not by individual algs, but sets. I also learned the PLLs in pairs whenever there was a mirror.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Jul 15, 2016)

Couldn't find this case: U R' L U' R2 U F2 R F2 U2 R' U2 L' B2 R2 B2 R2

Apologies if you already discussed this.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 15, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Couldn't find this case: U R' L U' R2 U F2 R F2 U2 R' U2 L' B2 R2 B2 R2
> 
> Apologies if you already discussed this.



You might want U2 R U R2 U2 R U R' U R.
Which is also written as U2 + R U R' (Insert) + R' U2 R U R' U R ( Back Anti-sune)

Hope that helps!


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 15, 2016)

ZZ-CT seems like It may be ultimate for OH.
I see the future where the fastest singles in OH are ZZ-CT. maaaybe the fastest averages, but ZZ_CT seems like due to all the skips the averages would be all over the place. thats just my opinion.
and wir3sandfir3, there is actually a secret ZZ-CT race going on.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 15, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> My comps are out of the way, and I won't have another for a couple of months. I've started learning TSLE. I've been trying to start organising the cases and figuring out a structured order in which to learn them. I like to learn cases in groups by concepts (e.g. if the case has x characteristic, then insert to setup sune) rather than brute force memorisation. This is the order I've been working on so far:
> 
> Obviously, most people already know the 7 OCLLs (although you can learn shorter algs that don't preserve DFR).
> 
> ...


Hey AlphaSheep do you have this organization somewhere so people can learn this set first?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 15, 2016)

Ah ha, I have done it! I figured out how to learn TTLL Algs and I'm now steam rolling through them,mthanks for your help 4Chan!


----------



## Turn n' burn (Jul 16, 2016)

4Chan said:


> my past *11.5k* solves


Did I just read that correctly?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 16, 2016)

Yeap, it's up to 12k something now, but I haven't been home for almost a week, otherwise it would be like, 13-14k


----------



## Turn n' burn (Jul 16, 2016)

I admire your dedication. It's hard for me to imagine doing 100+ solves in a single session given how much time that would consume (in my case @ around 29-34 sec.)


----------



## Cale S (Jul 17, 2016)

TTLL alg I found:
(y x) U2 R2 F R F' R U2 r' U r (x')


----------



## dwbrwn (Jul 17, 2016)

For TTLL i thought that 1/3 cases were supposed to be 2-gen, but looking at the ttll page it's only the no bar cases plus a couple of others, so just over 1/6th.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 17, 2016)

dwbrwn said:


> For TTLL i thought that 1/3 cases were supposed to be 2-gen, but looking at the ttll page it's only the no bar cases plus a couple of others, so just over 1/6th.


Just over a 6th are pure 2 gen, and just under a 6th are 2 gen after a y'. Add them together and you get exactly one 3rd.


----------



## dwbrwn (Jul 17, 2016)

ok, i guess the (2 gen after a y' algs) just aren't on the gyroninja page yet, unless I'm missing something.

edit: just realized that they are the "right opposite" cases. Looking forward to learning all of these.

Until I learn all of the algs, I think I'm going to use a 2LLL to force these 2 gen cases, which is why I'm going to learn them first.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Jul 17, 2016)

I don't like to put limits on things, but in my attempt to learn this I like to predict what I or others can reasonably expect to do speed-wise. If I could somehow get my EO + 1.5 blocks down to 7 seconds (which would be insane for me as I'm currently at 11 seconds) I could probably do TLSE+TTLL in at best 4 seconds which would give me 11ish average without skips. Although skips would happen more often with this method, I don't think they would happen often enough to make a significant difference in averages of 12 or less (correct me if you think I'm wrong). 

If someone could open qqtimer and do an average of 12 for 3x3 subsets: ZZ Last Slot + Last Layer and compare the averages of ZZ-ct LS+LL with regular slotting and COLL (or other versions of ZZ), I'd be interested in seeing the actual time differences. This is of course for someone who has mastered ZZct enough to do a consistent average with little pause. I'd predict maybe a OH time difference of 2 seconds at most, for top-level cubers. I imagine you could get your ZZCT LS+LL down to 3.5 seconds OH at fastest compared to a 5.5 second average for regular slotting and COLL. Again, for me, ZZ is still a work in progress and my best average of 12 OH is mid-15 seconds, so in order for this to be superlative for OH, I'd have to get my time for EO Line and first 1.5 slots down to 7 or 8 seconds at most. 

Does anyone who's really good at ZZ care to share their average time to get to LS+LL? OH or otherwise, I'd be interested to know. 

Another thing I thought about in terms of recognition is the added AUF needed between TLSE and TTLL for recognition. Unlike other variants of ZZ where you might be able to recognize from different angles, it seems with TTLL recognition is best learned with the white corner in UBL. What effect do you think this would have on the fluidity of the "1LLL"? How beneficial is that 1-look if it takes a second to AUF+recog? Just some thoughts.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 17, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Another thing I thought about in terms of recognition is the added AUF needed between TLSE and TTLL for recognition. Unlike other variants of ZZ where you might be able to recognize from different angles, it seems with TTLL recognition is best learned with the white corner in UBL. What effect do you think this would have on the fluidity of the "1LLL"? How beneficial is that 1-look if it takes a second to AUF+recog? Just some thoughts.


So far it's been fine for me, I have next to no pause and I have just started learning it.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 18, 2016)

Once I get home and situated, I can do some LSLL comparisons. Maybe even compare with some ZBLL.

For me, I know the block arrangement for the TTLL cases, so I can see hem from alternate angles. After a while, it begins to recognize same as PLL blocks


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 20, 2016)

idk if this is an alg already 
but I found R2 U R2' U R2 U2 R2'
and its mirror, inverse, and the inverse of the mirror


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 25, 2016)

Made some flashcards for TSLE and TTLL (algs from gyroninja, of course):

*Anki: *TSLE, TTLL
*Quizlet:* TSLE, TTLL

Nothing too fancy, setup on the front of the card, solutions on the back. Pretty much like the TTLL/TSLE scrambler on gyroninja's website, except you don't have to look up the alg every time, and you get spaced repetition if you use anki.

I think I will learn this. Anki makes the learning experience quite nice.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 25, 2016)

Tao Yu said:


> Made some flashcards for TSLE and TTLL (algs from gyroninja, of course):
> 
> *Anki: *TSLE, TTLL
> *Quizlet:* TSLE, TTLL
> ...


Nice  thanks. Too bad I already did this for myself, should've been lazy and waited...


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 25, 2016)

Does anyone know the ability for recognition?
Like, can TSLE be recognized from only two sides and the top, like OLL? 
And is there some form of 2-sided TTLL recognition, similar to PLL?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 25, 2016)

Yep, just like OLL/PLL

TSLE = Look at shapes like OLL
TTLL = Look at blocks like PLL


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 31, 2016)

Okay, I don't know how I haven't come across this method until now but sounds super cool!
Only 2 problems I have with it though:
1: I'd have to learn how to do an efficient EOLine 
2: It's still 4 steps
Like CFOP and other methods it is 4 steps. They may or may not be more efficient steps, but for someone who has already learned full OLL, PLL, and a bunch of other algs like I have, it seems like a lot of work to learn a whole new way of solving the LL when they have already learned recognition. It's still a promising method and I hope it progresses well, but most cubers who are decently fast already won't want to change their ways.

I'll still be checking out the algs out of curiosity, and if I decide it's not that hard I'll practice it for a bit and see how it goes from there.  
Keep doing what you're doing and maybe someday we'll all be using this method or something even better.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 31, 2016)

Cfop is 50-70 moves and is 7 steps. Cross slot slot slot slot oll pll.
ZZCT is 40-50 moves and is 6 steps. Eoline block block slot TSLE TTLL.

Apart from the 2gen and skip potentials, it's also the same recog skills.

I also don't think anyone will use it to fullest potential because of cfop vs ZZ. I honestly think nobody will choose to main this method into the sub-10 range.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 31, 2016)

SolveThatCube said:


> Okay, I don't know how I haven't come across this method until now but sounds super cool!
> Only 2 problems I have with it though:
> 1: I'd have to learn how to do an efficient EOLine
> 2: It's still 4 steps
> Like CFOP and other methods it is 4 steps. They may or may not be more efficient steps, but for someone who has already learned full OLL, PLL, and a bunch of other algs like I have, it seems like a lot of work to learn a whole new way of solving the LL when they have already learned recognition. It's still a promising method and I hope it progresses well, but most cubers who are decently fast already won't want to change their ways.



1. EOLine isn't the hard part. It should take a week of practice to get EOLine in under 10 moves if you've got a decent understanding of the cube. The hard part that takes months to get right is efficient block building for F2L. Believe it or not, it also works the other way. I've always put off learning CFOP because I'd have to learn how to do an efficient cross, and the thought of having to deal with unoriented F2L edges terrifies me.

2. The number of steps is arbitrary and meaningless. I personally see CFOP as having 7 steps, because each F2L pair could be counted as a separate step. In that sense, this has one less step than CFOP, because TSLE replaces the last slot step. You could also view CFOP as 3 steps: Cross, F2L, 2LLL. It just depends on how you choose to divide it up.

Regarding having to drop significant number of algs, that's not at all unique to ZZ-CT. In fact, the number of algs you stop using is the least of any ZZ variant, and far less than if you switched to Roux. PLL is still needed for ZZ-CT, not only because you have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a PLL case after TSLE, but also because any TTLL case with a line can be solved with an R2 setup and a PLL alg. Out of OLL, you can drop every case with unoriented edges as with any ZZ variant, but you can still keep the 7 OCLLs (although I've switched headlights out for triple sexy).

Even coming from ZZ, I'm in the same boat with having to drop algs. I have spent considerable time learning and practicing algs and recognition for around 80 ZBLL cases, which puts me in roughly the same place as someone who's learned the 78 algs for CFOP. It sometimes feels like a waste of effort to abandon two thirds of those and move over to a new method. I think this is the number one reason why CFOP is still the dominant method and so few people ever take the leap to move over to something new.

I can only imagine what it must be like for someone who knows hundreds of ZBLLs


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 31, 2016)

4Chan said:


> Cfop is 50-70 moves and is 7 steps. Cross slot slot slot slot oll pll.
> ZZCT is 40-50 moves and is 6 steps. Eoline block block slot TSLE TTLL.
> 
> Apart from the 2gen and skip potentials, it's also the same recog skills.
> ...


Okay, I guess I just consider F2L as one step: C*F*OP, and F2L-1, but your way makes sense. 

And I meant added recognition to the algs I already know. (I don't know how Jabari does it )

I think it's a really cool idea and I want to try it out. That's all I was saying.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 1, 2016)

Awesome seminar @4Chan






I think Super-Sune should refer to R2 U R2' U R2 U2 R2'


----------



## Sajwo (Aug 2, 2016)

does someone use this already?


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 2, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> does someone use this already?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 2, 2016)

1) Chris! Thanks for doing that seminar and thanks to the person who posted it, I unfortunately had to leave the venue early that day so I missed this seminar. I'll have to watch it later.

2) I've developed a beginners method for people who aren't beast alg learners like you. It involves just splitting the TTLL algs into COLL equivalents. So since this method is like a ZB substitute (like Splenda or, let's say Stevia), it makes sense for me to learn to recognize the COLL case first to train my eyes to TTLL more efficiently. That's how I recog a lot of ZBLL cases, in fortunately learned COLL first and it made a great stepping stone to learn some ZB algs. So there can be an intermediate step to TTLL where you just do an easy TTLL case to force an edge PLL. This can be referred to as COTTL (Corners Orient Tran Thomas Last Layer) and can be reduced to the 6 cases that you have to learn to recognize anyway. This will only add 1 to 2 seconds to your time and allow you to get a gauge on what to expect as you start learning to recog and execute the specific TTLL cases. To someone liker Mr. Tran who can learn this method in a day with a gun to his head, this may seem ridiculous or unnecessary. But to the masses that want to make this more doable, this could be a great stepping stone. I'll post my favorite TTLL algs for each case as a suggestion for COTTL algs (again, I'm learning for OH so these will have an OH bias in terms of executablity, except both opp).

Front Bar: y' **G PERM** (R U' R y R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2 F2)
Right Bar: U F2 **G PERM** (R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2 y L' U L')
All Bars: R **J2 PERM** U L' U2 R U' R' U2 L R U' R2
Both Opposite: U2 x (R' U R U')X4 x'
Front Opposite (2-gen): R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2
Right Opposite (2-gen): y' R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2

This makes it REALLY REALLY beginners friendly in terms of algs as it relies on PLL's most cubers already know. 

Again, this is not meant to be a suggestion for a better method, in fact you will be slower with this obviously, but with every new method or technique learned (like F2L) you should expect to be slower before becoming faster. 

Now that I'm done with the embarrassment that was US Nats 2016, I think I'm going to dedicate time to learning this method in full, because why the heck not?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 2, 2016)

Question from the seminar: could you explain why there's a 33% chance of TTLL being 2-gen?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 2, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Question from the seminar: could you explain why there's a 33% chance of TTLL being 2-gen?


It is because you can rotate the cube with a y', allowing there to be another chance of having to only use <R, U> Gen to solve the rest of the cube with TTLL.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 2, 2016)

Look at my COTTL cases in previous post. There are 6 types of TTLL cases to recognize. 2 of those types are labeled 2-gen. 2/6 is 1/3, which is 33%.


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 2, 2016)

--- Both Opp #8 ---- Both Opp #1 ---- All Bars #6 ---











BO #8: [U'] R2 U' F2 U' F2 R2 U2 R2 D R2 D' [U']

BO #1: R' F' R2 F R U2 R' F' R2 F R [U2]
Which I execute as: x' R' D' (l' R') F R U2 R' F' (l R) D l [D2]

AB #6: R' U R' F' U' F R U R' F R' F' R2 U2 R


----------



## JanW (Aug 2, 2016)

That's nice Phillip! I was about to ask about a 2-look version for TTLL yesterday, but as I was formulating the question, I came up with that solution you suggested and didn't bother... I haven't figured out yet how you would best split TSLE into smaller subsets for 2-look TSLE, in case you want to learn TTLL first.



PhillipEspinoza said:


> Both Opposite: U2 x (R' U R U')X4 x'


I think you mean U2 x (R' U R U')*X3* x'


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 2, 2016)

JanW said:


> I haven't figured out yet how you would best split TSLE into smaller subsets for 2-look TSLE



There are quite a few options for 2-look TSLE.

The easy way is to pick the easiest F2L case that combines the edge with any corner. This inserts the edge and an oriented corner on D in at most 2 triggers. Then you do OCLL. This is a really easy 2-look system that gets TSLE solved in at most 5 triggers.

The case where all corners are oriented and just the edge needs to be inserted is a good one to learn next: R U' R' U2 R U R'. If the bottom corner is oriented already, do OCLL followed by this.

Once you've got the hang of that, learn the 5 cases with one misoriented corner on top and the corner on D facing forward. You can solve the simple base case with R U R' U R U' R' (Do the inverse to see which case it solves). Three of the remaining cases can be reduced to this base case by putting the misoriented corner in UFR and performing either R U R', R U2 R', or R U' R' to move the F2L edge to UF. The one case that can't be reduced easily is where the corner and edge form a "false pair", in which case just use the WV alg: L' U2 R U R' U2 L.

After learning that, any case with DFR facing forward can be reduced to one twisted corner on top with just a sune or anti-sune.


----------



## JanW (Aug 2, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> The easy way is to pick the easiest F2L case that combines the edge with any corner. This inserts the edge and an oriented corner on D in at most 2 triggers. Then you do OCLL. This is a really easy 2-look system that gets TSLE solved in at most 5 triggers.


That's certainly an easy way to do it. I was thinking about inserting edge first, didn't see the obvious solution to pair it with any oriented corner. Thanks!


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 3, 2016)

lillod said:


> zz f2l-1 seems overlooked in everything I've seen. Could you explain the D move thing further? Does it just limit the 8 zz block options to 6? Cool method btw. I've been following it since colorful pocket's vlog and want to switch to it from cfop.



So, the idea behind adjusting the D layer.
After TSLE, you solve an edge into the FR position and your E-slice is solved, your U layer is unsolved and you D layer is unsolved by one corner piece.
In TTLL, you solve the missing corner into the DFR position and force an LL skip.

However, if you wanted to be slot neutral, you would mirror TSLE into the three other slots, and then Adjust D Face into the front right position. Then you wouldn't have to mirror your TTLL algs also.
But chris did say that in practice, it's easier to not be slot neutral and always leave the front right open.


----------



## sub20oneday (Aug 3, 2016)

i want to learn zz ct what order should i learn the algs


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 3, 2016)

sub20oneday said:


> i want to learn zz ct what order should i learn the algs


If you read a few posts up, @PhillipEspinoza posted an easy to learn 2-look TTLL and a couple posts later, I posted a 2-look TSLE. That's the best starting point. After that, it's best to figure out your own system. Go through the cases on http://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct-ttll.html and try grouping them by distinctive features. I find it easier to learn the ones that have short algs and/or distinctive blocks first.


Also, I found this TTLL alg today. I think it flows really nicely after a couple minutes of practice.




R F' r U R2 U' r' F R

and it's inverse is also decent (just switch the direction of the first and last R)




R' F' r U R2 U' r' F R'


----------



## sub20oneday (Aug 3, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> If you read a few posts up, @PhillipEspinoza posted an easy to learn 2-look TTLL and a couple posts later, I posted a 2-look TSLE. That's the best starting point. After that, it's best to figure out your own system. Go through the cases on http://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct-ttll.html and try grouping them by distinctive features. I find it easier to learn the ones that have short algs and/or distinctive blocks first.
> 
> 
> Also, I found this TTLL alg today. I think it flows really nicely after a couple minutes of practice.
> ...


thanks now i can burn through these algs in under a week


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 3, 2016)

@AlphaSheep That's a great TTLL or even COTTLL alg. I'll have to work that one into my base.

Average move count for:

TSLE: 10.37


Spoiler: THE DETAILS



12 + *3* + 8 + 7 + 11 + 11 + 7 + 8 + 8 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 8 + 8 + 12 + 11 + 4 + 8 + 8 + 11 + 11 + 9 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 8 + 8 + 7 + 12 + 12 + 11 + 7 + 11 + 12 + 11 + 15 + 12 + 11 + 9 + 4 + 12 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 11 + 7 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 8 + 11 + 12 + 12 + 11 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 12 + 8 + 10 + 8 + 12 + 11 + 7 + 9 + 11 + 12 + 8 + 7 + 10 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 11 + 8 + 12 + 11 + *16* + 8 + 11 + 8 + 11 + 8 + 12 + 16 + 15 + 12



TTLL: 15.21


Spoiler: THE DEETS



FRONT BAR:
8 + 20 + 16 + 19 + 18 + 15 + 17 + 19 + 13 + 15 + 17 + 13 = 190 / 12 = 15.83
RIGHT OPP:
16 + 16 + 12 + 20 + 18 + 11 + 12 + 14 + 10 + 16 + 13 + 12 = 170 / 12 = 14.16
BOTH OPP:
15 + 13 + 15 + 18 + 12 + 20 + 12 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 13 + 13 = 188 / 12 = 15.66
ALL BARS:
16 + 16 + 15 + 20 + 16 + 18 + 16 + 13 + 16 + 17 + 15 + 16 = 194 / 12 = 16.16
RIGHT BAR:
10 + 15 + 17 + 16 + 18 + 15 + 13 + 15 + 16 + 15 + 14 + 19 = 183 / 12 = 15.25
NO BARS:
14 + 20 + 12 + 15 + 14 + 12 + 8 + 19 + 7 + 16 + 15 + 19 = 171 / 12 = 14.25



25.5 average move count for ZZ-CT LL.

This is using the bolded algs provided on gyroninja.

So given the average move counts for ZZ as provided on the main ZZ website, here is the calculation for average move count one could expect for ZZ-CT in total:

6.127 (EO Line) + 11.44 (first 2x3x1 block any corner) + 6.61 (2nd 2x2x1 block fixed corner) = 24.177 average for everything up to last slot + last layer.

24.177 + 25.58 = *49.75 average move count.*
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, for those who are curious as to the move count comparison to MGLS:

ZZ + MGLS:
2 (ELS with cancelation estimate) + 9.5 (CLS) + 12 (PLL) = 23.5 average move count for LS+LL.

ZZ + WV:
6.34 (last pair, BS'd this average someone fact check please) + 8.02 (WV) + 12 = 26.36 average move count for LS+LL.

In order to make this method as strong as we want it to be, we shouldn't shy away from comparing it to other methods. I think the obvious strength in ZZ-CT comes from 1) 1 less look for LS+LL, 2 as opposed to 3 (I describe it this way as opposed to saying a 1 Look Last Layer because one could argue that MGLS could be seen as a 1LLL as well) and 2) the increased chance for an LL skip (though if you look at PLL as the LL step in MGLS, I imagine an LL skip for MGLS would happen as often as a PLL skip).

ELS for ZZ could almost be considered as trivial as phasing and the look could almost be considered negligible. Not all looks are created equal, therefore they shouldn't be seen as the same. When you get into it, what qualifies as a look anyhow? Would the positioning of the bad corner in TTLL count as a look? Convention says no, but you are taking a second to process that information however brief it is, and are oftentimes doing a move like U, U', U2, or U3 to allow you to move on to the next look. But it's so insignificant that we count is as part of the one look of TTLL. I say the ELS could be seen in the same way in ZZ and maybe all it takes is a shift in perspective to realize that maybe MGLS combined with ZZ was the original 1LLL method? (well, besides ZB of course).

Feel free to disregard this entire last ramble of a paragraph.


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 4, 2016)

I think that the alignment of the edgr/corner is the same as when people align PLL up to their preferred angle.

So that look is equal to other methods in my opinion.

For example, after identifying the T perm, you still have to AUF to put it in place. 

Alignment is only necessary for execution, not recognition.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 4, 2016)

Wow I'm slow. I've had a few ideas over the years about doing at most one alg for OLL/PLL parity on 4x4 (and 6x6), one of them in particular seemed cool but I didn't think it would work well. Now this thread exists and I only just made the connection.

[F': l' U2 l' U2 l U2 l' U2 r U2' l' U2 l U2' (r' l2') U2 l]
[z': (F2 x) l2' U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2' (B2 x2') r U2 r U2' (r' l') U2]

My weird algs for parity aside, someone please do this!


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

Some crazy Example Solve I made with ZZ-CT, turning out to be 25 STM Full Step with efficient Blockbuilding.
Really you can still get awesome singles without skips, but you just need lucky cases.

x2 y //Inspection
B R' U' F2 R' F D' //EOLine
(R' L) U' R U D2 L //2x2x3 Block + Square
D' R U' R' D //Cancel into TSLE
U2 R2 U R2 U R2 U //Cancel into TTLL


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Some crazy Example Solve I made with ZZ-CT, turning out to be 25 STM Full Step with efficient Blockbuilding.
> Really you can still get awesome singles without skips, but you just need lucky cases.
> 
> x2 y //Inspection
> ...



Woah.
How long did that take you to find(FMC PB?)?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Woah.
> How long did that take you to find(FMC PB?)?


Surprisingly that took me only about 5 minutes.
That might be a FMC PB, I know I have a bunch of other Sub-30 Movers.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 5, 2016)

So I've been thinking about this alot and the more I think about it, the more this seems like another version of MGLS. Now, now, hear me out. I know it's annoying af when someone says stuff like this, as it's along the lines of "...or you could just use _____" and it doesn't seem like constructive feedback at all. But listen:

ZZCT is essentially like MGLS but instead of requiring specific placement of both the final edge AND final corner for execution of the LS, it only worries about the permutation of the final edge, and works the permutation of the corner into the algs of the final algorithm, resulting in a larger alg pool than standard CFOP PLL.

It's basically forcing an OLL skip using mainly R U triggers into a larger PLL alg pool.

Why does that sound familiar?

Oh yeah, MGLS. I was thinking if there were any other methods that force an OLL skip, and MGLS kept coming to mind, but I kept batting it away as too simplistic of a comparison to be taken seriously.

But no, by all measures that we gauge the greatness of ZZ-CT, MGLS could be seen as equally as awesome if not better.

1) 2-Gen-ness of the CLS/TSLE steps and cool triggers good for OH/2H
2) 104 algs in CLS compared to 94? in TSLE, so comparable amount of algs for this step.
3) 72 algs to learn how to recognize, recall and react (execute quickly) for TTLL, compared to 21 PLL algs we already know that have proven to be all sub-1-able by elite cubers.
4) Greater chance for a LL skip in MGLS (1/72 or 1.38%) than a TTLL skip in ZZ-CT (1/360 or 0.22%).
5) Similar move counts for CLS and TSLE, combined with greater chance for skip allows for theoretically just as great of a potential for insane 30~ish move solves and insane times when done using ZZ.
6) The difference is one super trivial step of ELS which adds maybe 2-3 moves (translates to 0.25~ish seconds) to your solve. Sometimes ELS is skipped as the edge is already placed (20% chance) in which case ZZ-MGLS is definitely the superlative. If I told you that you could save maybe 0.25 seconds off of your average by learning 72+94 more algs, would you bother if speed is your main goal? Maybe, but most would see this as not worth the time.

I was thinking about how you kept describing TTLL as a bunch of conjugated PLLs, and how you are even working to force PLL during some TSLE cases by paying attention to the position of the bad corner and maybe learning more algs that pay attention to this corner placement to increase an LL skip by forcing PLL. But if your goal is to eventually learn all the algs required to force a PLL skip more often (which I imagine would be pretty dang high) why not just learn CLS and do the 2-3 extra moves it takes to insert the edge?

The entire method definitely sounds like an exciting prospect, but only because of the "LL skip" framing. The real thing that is being skipped is the ELS equivalent of this method and that's because of ZZ orienting all the edges. So ELS is reduced to a simple AUF to position the edge in the UF position. Another way to look at it is ELS is being combined with CLS (without permutation) in TSLE. But it seems like a bunch of alg learning when you can trivially insert an edge and save so much time that would be spent learning algs.

I feel like in fact this is so close to reinventing an alg dense MGLS that it comes across in the additional techniques notes of the OP. In fact to show this let me hypothetically propose a way to expand on the forcing PLL during TSLE idea in a way that would logically follow this progress: you mentioned the algs that have symmetry being easiest to force PLL because you can easily position the corner where it needs to be to force a PLL. An aspecf of those symmetrical algs is also that the edge is already in place, right? So instead of learning a bunch of different TSLE algs (500 more?) to force PLL, how about we just insert the edge and figure out all the algs necessary to force PLL for all the TSLE cases that have the edge in place? How many algs would that be? I think it would reduce it from 500ish to 104? Definitely doable, all it takes is one extra trivial step and we can force PLL during TSLE all the time. Imagine the skip potential!

In summary, I am 100% on team ZZ-CT. I think it's a great new method that provides a unique way to approach the LS+LL. But after thinking about this a lot, it seems like MGLS would make more sense to learn as you don't have to learn to recognize recall and react to 94 new algs and you would have a greater chance of skipping the last step.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 5, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> So I've been thinking about this alot and the more I think about it, the more this seems like another version of MGLS. Now, now, hear me out. I know it's annoying af when someone says stuff like this, as it's along the lines of "...or you could just use _____" and it doesn't seem like constructive feedback at all. But listen:
> 
> ZZCT is essentially like MGLS but instead of requiring specific placement of both the final edge AND final corner for execution of the LS, it only worries about the permutation of the final edge, and works the permutation of the corner into the algs of the final algorithm, resulting in a larger alg pool than standard CFOP PLL.
> 
> ...


That is a pretty name at perspective you have. For the TSLE that forces PLL's every time, there is already a subset for that, ZZ-C, where they explain it as Winter Variation from any F2L case.

I was thinking that it is best to use ZZ-CT when you get a 1 or 2 Trigger TSLE Case, so the Movecount is worth doing so.

Same thing with MGLS, sometimes the CLS cases aren't very good, so you might use some other Subset to solve the rest of the cube.

So, it really comes down to things that many other people say... Don't limit yourself to one Subset, try learning some of all of them so then you have multiple choices to choose from.


----------



## sub20oneday (Aug 5, 2016)

ive strted learning these algs but i dont understand when people are saying you can adjust he d face i understand this works with ttll but how do i do this for tsle or do i have to learn 4x the algs


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 5, 2016)

sub20oneday said:


> ive strted learning these algs but i dont understand when people are saying you can adjust he d face i understand this works with ttll but how do i do this for tsle or do i have to learn 4x the algs


It only works with TTLL. With TSLE you have two choices. Either you learn to always leave the last slot open, or you can learn to mirror the algs just like you mirror F2L algs.


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 5, 2016)

I don't think this is similar to MGLS for a few reasons:

1. MGLS is three look, even with skips, provides less benefit than ZZCT
2. CLS subsets have some rough cases, whereas TSLE is 100% 2-gen.

I feel that at the highest levels, the extra looks are what sets the two methods apart.


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 5, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> 1) Chris! Thanks for doing that seminar and thanks to the person who posted it, I unfortunately had to leave the venue early that day so I missed this seminar. I'll have to watch it later.
> 
> 2) I've developed a beginners method for people who aren't beast alg learners like you. It involves just splitting the TTLL algs into COLL equivalents. So since this method is like a ZB substitute (like Splenda or, let's say Stevia), it makes sense for me to learn to recognize the COLL case first to train my eyes to TTLL more efficiently. That's how I recog a lot of ZBLL cases, in fortunately learned COLL first and it made a great stepping stone to learn some ZB algs. So there can be an intermediate step to TTLL where you just do an easy TTLL case to force an edge PLL. This can be referred to as COTTL (Corners Orient Tran Thomas Last Layer) and can be reduced to the 6 cases that you have to learn to recognize anyway. This will only add 1 to 2 seconds to your time and allow you to get a gauge on what to expect as you start learning to recog and execute the specific TTLL cases. To someone liker Mr. Tran who can learn this method in a day with a gun to his head, this may seem ridiculous or unnecessary. But to the masses that want to make this more doable, this could be a great stepping stone. I'll post my favorite TTLL algs for each case as a suggestion for COTTL algs (again, I'm learning for OH so these will have an OH bias in terms of executablity, except both opp).
> 
> ...


The algs I recommend for this are

Front Bar: R U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' U' R' D' R U R' D R
Right Bar: [R2 U: A perm]
All Bar: [R2 U: T perm]
Both Opposite: U2 l' U R U' (R' U R U')2
Front Opposite: U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R'
Right Opposite: U' D R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2


----------



## Sajwo (Aug 5, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> *49.75 average move count.*



So basically you could just use cfop.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 5, 2016)

No? CFOP average movecount is 55 with a rather huge standard deviation. Literally just open up cubesolv.es and look at the first 20 solves:

56 44 52 39 53 57 47 64 68 59 47 38 61 64 61 72 52 47 73 55 STM

Mean: 55.45 STM
STD: 10.03


----------



## Sajwo (Aug 5, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> No? CFOP average movecount is 55 with a rather huge standard deviation. Literally just open up cubesolv.es and look at the first 20 solves:
> 
> 56 44 52 39 53 57 47 64 68 59 47 38 61 64 61 72 52 47 73 55 STM
> 
> ...



Yes, but
> Higher chance of skips
> ZZ-CT is heavy based on intuition and block-building -> lower tps
> Easier recognition of LL in CFOP
> Hundreds of possible LL and LS extensions -> lower movecount
> Easier
> And faster


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 5, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> Yes, but
> > Higher chance of skips
> > ZZ-CT is heavy based on intuition and block-building -> lower tps
> > Easier recognition of LL in CFOP
> ...


What do you mean 'Higher chance of skips', and Last Layer Recognition?

For ZZ Last Layer if you use OCLL/PLL, you don't have to worry about Edge Orientation, so there are only 7 cases instead of 57 to recognize.

Along with the Last Slot/Last Layer Extensions, what most of them do is they skip OLL by decreasing the overall movecount by 1-3 moves. ZZ also has lots of Extensions, Winter Variation is a common one used in both ZZ and CFOP, only thing is, it requires presolved EO.

Even though ZZ uses lots of Blockbuilding, it is mostly 3-Gen, so almost no F/B moves are going to be used in the solve excluding the first step. It just takes practice to get everything by muscle memory and quick recognition.

And... The two last things you said are mainly just bias...
But I do agree with you saying CFOP is easier. CFOP just requires memorization, so everything is automatic.

The reason I like ZZ is because you don't have to regrip/rotate nearly as much as you would in CFOP.


----------



## TDM (Aug 5, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> > Hundreds of possible LL and LS extensions -> lower movecount


Yeah, because CFOP is so much better for LSLL extensions than ZZ...


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 5, 2016)

Sajwo said:


> Yes, but
> > Higher chance of skips


This is literally false. CT is based on maximizing skip chances.



Sajwo said:


> > ZZ-CT is heavy based on intuition and block-building -> lower tps


Er, not quite. ZZF2L usually ends up being CFOP recog + learning to build pairs with "cross pieces." The only methods I can think of that are "heavily based on intuition and blockbuilding" are Petrus and Heise. Even roux SB becomes pretty mechanical after a while, and that's far more complex than ZZF2L.



Sajwo said:


> > Easier recognition of LL in CFOP


I don't see where you're getting this. Recog for ZZ-CT seems identical to OLL-PLL. Look at shapes, then look at blocks/color patterns.



Sajwo said:


> > Hundreds of possible LL and LS extensions -> lower movecount


Also false? ZZ has the most LL+LS extensions of any method.



Sajwo said:


> > Easier
> > And faster


Bias ftw.

Look man if you don't have anything to contribute to the method you're kind of wasting your time here.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 6, 2016)

4Chan said:


> I don't think this is similar to MGLS for a few reasons:
> 
> 1. MGLS is three look, even with skips, provides less benefit than ZZCT
> 2. CLS subsets have some rough cases, whereas TSLE is 100% 2-gen.
> ...


Yeah but what is that extra look? An R U' R'? Or maybe a U' R' in some cases. It could be considered an extension of the F2L-1 portion it's so trivial. If the lure of this method is the skip probability and the chances for great single times, then it seems like MGLS would give ZZ-CT a run for its money, at least on paper, with a PLL skip probability having a higher chance than a TTLL skip, am I right?

2-gen is awesome but it might be as overrated as low move count as clearly we could get 10 second averages OH using non-2-gen PLL. 

All this being said, I got my first low-16 second time using ZZ-CT for OH today. As I continue learning this, I really feel like the recognition for TSLE can become as intuitive and as quick as regular F2L. 






Found a new one for this:
Old alg: 
*R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U R'*
My alg: 
*U2 R U2 R' U2 R U R'*


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 6, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> I really feel like the recognition for TSLE can become as intuitive and as quick as regular F2L.


Definitely. I had found the same solution to that case just from playing around with that step.


----------



## ChrisCross (Aug 6, 2016)

How many Algs are there?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 6, 2016)

ChrisCross said:


> How many Algs are there?


There are 108 TSLE algorithms and 72 TTLL algroithms, according to the Speedsolving Wiki.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 6, 2016)

How does this method compare to ZZ-b?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 6, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> There are 108 TSLE algorithms and 72 TTLL algroithms, according to the Speedsolving Wiki.


104 tsle to be precise. 3(27) + 3(8) - 1


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> How does this method compare to ZZ-b?



ZZ-b requires you to learn lots of new skills, such as ZZLL recognition, memory tricks, and the ability to phase quickly. ZZ-b also requires one more look than ZZCT, and I think it's best as a stopgap to ZZ-A



@PhillipEspinoza : You do have a point there. The skip percentage is alluring indeed.
I think maybe it just needs someone to take it to it's fullest potential.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 6, 2016)

I think if you look at ZZ-CT as an alternative to ZZ-b or ZZ-a etc, it's so much better as it is the equivalent of forcing one specific cross case but instead of phasing for it you do maybe a less intuitive but arguably more speed adaptive LS step because of the recognizability of TSLE. It's just my opinion but yeah. I also think TTLL is very learnable.

Does anyone know the possibility of a TSLE skip? I had one recently and I think anecdotally it might be less likely than a LL skip. 

Also, would it be worth it to investigate a CFOP-friendly version of CT? I guess with ELS...? Or maybe another way to make it more CFOP-friendly?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 6, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> I think if you look at ZZ-CT as an alternative to ZZ-b or ZZ-a etc, it's so much better as it is the equivalent of forcing one specific cross case but instead of phasing for it you do maybe a less intuitive but arguably more speed adaptive LS step because of the recognizability of TSLE. It's just my opinion but yeah. I also think TTLL is very learnable.
> 
> Does anyone know the possibility of a TSLE skip? I had one recently and I think anecdotally it might be less likely than a LL skip.
> 
> Also, would it be worth it to investigate a CFOP-friendly version of CT? I guess with ELS...? Or maybe another way to make it more CFOP-friendly?


1/5 f2l edge permuted * 1/81 corners being oriented = 1/405

Assuming my maths are correct.


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 6, 2016)

Yep! 1/405

Also, I think CFOP friendly version is tough, because I think it's at least 1000% more cases because unoriented edges cause the cases to balloon in complexity. ):

Thank you everyone for all the attention you've given to my method, I really appreciate it!


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 6, 2016)

Perhaps you could try and orient edges two at a time so that everything's done by last slot?

Definitely not optimal for use with CFOP, but that could be one approach

Also, what do you think of trying to simultaneously reduce corners to a 2-gen group during TSLE?


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Perhaps you could try and orient edges two at a time so that everything's done by last slot?
> 
> Definitely not optimal for use with CFOP, but that could be one approach
> 
> Also, what do you think of trying to simultaneously reduce corners to a 2-gen group during TSLE?



I've experimented with alternate TSLE cases to force 2-gen and avoid certain subsets, but it's really hard to detect corner permutation sadly, due to the odd corner. ):


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 7, 2016)

I now know "full" TTLL: I know an alg for every case, but I will have to learn some alternate algs for mirror cases. Took me 12 days. Nothing to impress 4Chan of course, but I'm still pretty happy with myself because I've never learned algs at this rate before


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 7, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Perhaps you could try and orient edges two at a time so that everything's done by last slot?
> 
> Definitely not optimal for use with CFOP, but that could be one approach
> 
> Also, what do you think of trying to simultaneously reduce corners to a 2-gen group during TSLE?


I don't think it's as fast. Once you get to f2l-1 you hide both corners in the D layer and do porky v1 / alternate tsle alg after recognizing the cp like from porky v1.


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 7, 2016)

Tao Yu said:


> I now know "full" TTLL: I know an alg for every case, but I will have to learn some alternate algs for mirror cases. Took me 12 days. Nothing to impress 4Chan of course, but I'm still pretty happy with myself because I've never learned algs at this rate before



WOW NICE CONGRATS
YOU ARE COOL BTW


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 7, 2016)

Tao Yu said:


> I now know "full" TTLL: I know an alg for every case, but I will have to learn some alternate algs for mirror cases. Took me 12 days. Nothing to impress 4Chan of course, but I'm still pretty happy with myself because I've never learned algs at this rate before


Nice 
Beat me and JTWong71 to it tho... Lol


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 7, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Nice
> Beat me and JTWong71 to it tho... Lol


Yeah...

anyway, Congrats Tao.

I'm still trying to organize some of the algorithms.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 7, 2016)

What are the average movecounts for TSLE and the 2-gen subset of TTLL?

I wonder if TSLE + TTLL is more efficient than LS + 2GLL?


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 7, 2016)

I think the movecounts for the 2gen version are noticeably higher than 3 or even 4 gen TSLE, because I noticed a few long cases have simple RUD solutions. But am too lazy to figure out actual movecounts.

After thousands of hours, LS+2GLL is better, if 2-gen was guaranteed, and the person knows all the blocks for 2gll recog.
However, if someone only practices a few hours a day and has trouble balancing all the blocks in their head, I think TSLE and TTLL would be better


----------



## SaBReWulF (Aug 8, 2016)

I'm having difficulty with recognition for TTLL. I normally learn algs by grouping them by how I recognize them, but I can't come up with a coherent method based on examining the cases nor by looking at how their grouped on gyroninja's site. Any advice?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 8, 2016)

SaBReWulF said:


> I'm having difficulty with recognition for TTLL. I normally learn algs by grouping them by how I recognize them, but I can't come up with a coherent method based on examining the cases nor by looking at how their grouped on gyroninja's site. Any advice?


Perhaps group them by cp subset.


----------



## ijustreallylikenaruto (Aug 9, 2016)

SaBReWulF said:


> I'm having difficulty with recognition for TTLL. I normally learn algs by grouping them by how I recognize them, but I can't come up with a coherent method based on examining the cases nor by looking at how their grouped on gyroninja's site. Any advice?


The way they are grouped on his website is like this:
Look at the pair of corners on the F face, and then look at the pair of corners on the right face. For example, the 'front bar' cases are those where you have a colour match on the front face but no match on the right face. 'right opp' is where they have opposite colours on the right face but no match on the front face. After you recognise the corner case (which is how the algs are grouped), you recognise the edge permutation cycle by looking at blocks similar to in PLL. If you need more help with this, just ask and I'll expand further.

P.S. Mods are nazis


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 9, 2016)

SaBReWulF said:


> I'm having difficulty with recognition for TTLL. I normally learn algs by grouping them by how I recognize them, but I can't come up with a coherent method based on examining the cases nor by looking at how their grouped on gyroninja's site. Any advice?


If you know two sided PLL recognition, you can simply look at the two sides opposite the bad corner, and associate the TTLL alg with the PLL from that angle. This is really straightforward.

If you don't know two sided PLL recognition, then it's a little more work. With PLL, you would have learnt to identify PLLs by looking for three features - headlights, pairs and blocks. With two sided recognition, you also look at whether the two corner stickers on a side are opposite or adjacent colours. Then look at the edges between the corners. Do either or both of them match a corner sticker (i.e. form a pair), or are they the opposite colour to the corner, e.g. a green edge sticker next to a blue corner sticker? If you start paying attention to things like that, it makes recognition a lot easier.


----------



## SaBReWulF (Aug 9, 2016)

ijustreallylikenaruto said:


> The way they are grouped on his website is like this:
> Look at the pair of corners on the F face, and then look at the pair of corners on the right face. For example, the 'front bar' cases are those where you have a colour match on the front face but no match on the right face. 'right opp' is where they have opposite colours on the right face but no match on the front face. After you recognise the corner case (which is how the algs are grouped), you recognise the edge permutation cycle by looking at blocks similar to in PLL. If you need more help with this, just ask and I'll expand further.



Thanks for pointing out the arrangement of the algs on the website. Once I saw it, it was like a light bulb went on. I do know two sided PLL recognition, so all I need now is the practice. Thanks for the help!


----------



## AngryMelonCuber (Aug 9, 2016)

I still did not get the TTLL recog. system, is there any other way to recognize the other cases, other than seeing them as 'analogous' PLL cases? Is there a way to recognize them without knowing super-fast PLL recognition?

I have no problem learning TSLE but TTLL.....that is going a bit awkward......
Any help would be really appreciated


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 9, 2016)

AngryMelonCuber said:


> I still did not get the TTLL recog. system, is there any other way to recognize the other cases, other than seeing them as 'analogous' PLL cases? Is there a way to recognize them without knowing super-fast PLL recognition?
> 
> I have no problem learning TSLE but TTLL.....that is going a bit awkward......
> Any help would be really appreciated



Actually, yes.

I've been meaning to make a video, but there are at least three systems that I use.
It's tough to memorize 72 block patterns, so as a stop gap, I used to use a combination of baum-harris and edge cycle recognition.
In fact, for two cases in double opposite, there are no visible blocks from the front, so I straight up use baum-harris to see it.

For the cases with all corners correct, I just pick out the opposite edge location, and it proceeds straightforwardly.

I'll make a video eventually!


----------



## Leibniz (Aug 15, 2016)

This ADF thing seems to integrate really well with keyhole. Instead of making an F2L-1 you could also make an F2L minus one random edge and one random corner, then rotate the D layer to move the corner slot under the edge slot and then do TSLE. I don't know if other people are already doing this with last slot methods, but it definitely seems like a good option for ZZ-CT in particular, because people are already doing ADFs to

mirror cases, both TSLE and TTLL
be slot neutral for LS
Example solve

The main advantage I see to this is that, when you see an F2L slot with just a corner or an edge in it, you can consider it solved and move on to the next pair, knowing that another slot will only need an edge or corner. Now while this means you'll still have to solve three slots, one of those is just one piece and therefore trivial in terms of movecount and recognition time.

I don't know if this is of any use if you always do TSLE with the same slot, but it does add some more flexibility to your solves.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 15, 2016)

Leibniz said:


> This ADF thing seems to integrate really well with keyhole. Instead of making an F2L-1 you could also make an F2L minus one random edge and one random corner, then rotate the D layer to move the corner slot under the edge slot and then do TSLE. I don't know if other people are already doing this with last slot methods, but it definitely seems like a good option for ZZ-CT in particular, because people are already doing ADFs to
> 
> mirror cases, both TSLE and TTLL
> be slot neutral for LS
> ...


Yeah, I thought of that too, and the only problem I see with it is during a Speedsolve, if an F2L Corner and Edge aren't the only pieces missing, then it is hard to Lookahead and decide which pieces to solve during F2L.


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 15, 2016)

Well, my comp is over; I have no more excuses to not start learning ZZ-CT now.

General Plan:

1
a. Learn TSLEs where edge is solved
b. Learn that 2-look TTLL system proposed by Phillip, or some variation thereof

2
a. Expand TSLE to 1/2 corners wrong in the top layer, as previously suggested by Chris
b. Expand TTLL to a full set, probably front bar or something

3
a. Learn TSLE with all 3 corners wrong in the top layer
b. Learn another set of TTLL

4
Continue until fully learned, hopefully before the end of 2016

5
Drill algs and get back to sub-18 and beyond.

Let the 30s+ solves begin.


----------



## CxCxC (Aug 16, 2016)

I finally understood the naming used for TTLL and I had already decided to use the Tran-style system, so I will finally start learning TTLL 

BUT, I still did not get the TSLE heading names : {N, Cw, CCW} Cw is clockwise and CCW is counter clockwise but what is N? and what do they all mean?

Please can somebody explain?

Thanks in advance


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 16, 2016)

CxCxC said:


> I finally understood the naming used for TTLL and I had already decided to use the Tran-style system, so I will finally start learning TTLL
> 
> BUT, I still did not get the TSLE heading names : {N, Cw, CCW} Cw is clockwise and CCW is counter clockwise but what is N? and what do they all mean?
> 
> ...


TBH it would have been better to copy the cls names but...

The corner that's normal, clockwise, or counterclockwise is UFL.


----------



## CxCxC (Aug 16, 2016)

okay....I was again stupid enough to not understand....thanks.
And the method is really awesome.....I will just have to find some time to learn it, college is really time consuming......


----------



## Hammer (Aug 17, 2016)

Ok I'm new to this thread and I'm about to start learning the algs but one thing is bothering me:
I don't understand ADFs. Why would you ever need to adjust the bottom layer?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 17, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Ok I'm new to this thread and I'm about to start learning the algs but one thing is bothering me:
> I don't understand ADFs. Why would you ever need to adjust the bottom layer?


It's the same thing as doing a y rotation.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 17, 2016)

Ok but a y rotation is like doing a U' D right

And btw is this Chris Tran i'm speaking to?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 17, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Ok but a y rotation is like doing a U' D right
> 
> And btw is this Chris Tran i'm speaking to?


No


----------



## Hammer (Aug 17, 2016)

Then who is it?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 17, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Then who is it?


gyroninja


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 17, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Ok I'm new to this thread and I'm about to start learning the algs but one thing is bothering me:
> I don't understand ADFs. Why would you ever need to adjust the bottom layer?


Like gyroninja said, it is to substitute the y rotations so that you don't have to rotate at all, to stay within a rotationless method. Since the F2L-1 and the E-Slice are solved, TTLL is going to preserve that whole block, and when you rotate, the F2L Corner has a different relative position, and so you use a D-Move to act like a Pseudo F2L-1 if the algorithm requires a rotation.



Hammer said:


> Ok but a y rotation is like doing a U' D right


Yes, and most of the rotations are y', so those would be (U D').


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 17, 2016)

According to this comment on reddit, Hyeon Kyo Kyoung has switched to ZZ as his main method, and is planning to learn ZZ-CT! I think this great news for this method. It might be finally time for ZZ to have its Alex Lau!

Kinda sad because I wanted to become the first to sub 10 with ZZ-CT though lol.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 17, 2016)

Tao Yu said:


> According to this comment on reddit, Hyeon Kyo Kyoung has switched to ZZ as his main method, and is planning to learn ZZ-CT! I think this great news for this method. It might be finally time for ZZ to have its Alex Lau!
> 
> Kinda sad because I wanted to become the first to sub 10 with ZZ-CT though lol.


This is awesome! If he learns efficient blockbuilding instead of just doing EO then CFOP, his potential is mindblowing.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 17, 2016)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-ct-for-beginners-22-algs-and-zz-mgct.62066/

Made this so it would be easier to find for those wanting a beginners method 4 look bridge to ZZCT. ALSO take a look at my idea to phase TSLE down to 16 algs via insertion of LS edge during block building. For those just wanting to focus on TTLL this is a great way to do it and I really think it has merit as its own method.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 18, 2016)

I was just doing some solves with ZZ-CT looking at gyroninja's website and I found a TSLE case that I couldn't find.
So I used cube explorer, and you can come to that state by applying this sequence of moves:
F2 U L2 F2 U' L2 U F2 U' F2 U' F2 U L2 U2 
And here is the website:
http://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct-ttll.html
So please tell me which case it is!


----------



## Hammer (Aug 18, 2016)

If you set up your cube using F2 U L2 F2 U' L2 U F2 U' F2 U' F2 U L2 U2 
I cant find the alg for that TTLL case


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 18, 2016)

This one:





*R U' R U' R' U R' U R2 D' R U R' U' D R*

All Bars, Row 1, Column 2


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 18, 2016)

Hammer said:


> If you set up your cube using F2 U L2 F2 U' L2 U F2 U' F2 U' F2 U L2 U2
> I cant find the alg for that TTLL case



The colors needn't to be exactly the same, but have relative colors disregarding the F2L Corner.
In this case the 3 U-Layer Corners are correctly placed while the Edge at RU is the same color as the color of the corners at UF, and the color at UF is adjacent to the Corners next to it.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 18, 2016)

I'm beginning to be convinced that there's no need to learn full TSLE to get the most out of this method. If you make a little extra effort to insert the LSE during block building you benefit so much. It makes TSLE rotation symmetric and you only have to learn to recognize 16 TSLE algs.

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

EO Line: z2 R2 U' L D F' (5/5)
2x2x3: U' L U' L' U L2 R U R U L (11/16)
1x2x2 w/LSE: R U' R' U2 R2 U R (7/23)
TSLE: *TRIGGER* R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' (11/34)
TTLL: (U') y' U R2 U2 R' U R U' R U2 R2 U' R' U' R (15/49)



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

EO Line: z2 x' U r2 x' R U' x U' x' z2 U R U' (8/8)
2x2x3: z' U' R U2 R' U2 R' U (7/15)
1x2x2 w/LSE: R U' R' U' R2 U2 R' (7/22)
TSLE: U2 R U2 R' U' R U R' U R U R' (12/34)
PLL: (U') A-PERM (9/43)


U2 F2 U2 R L2 U' R' D R F2 U' F2 R' D B2 F U2 D' F' D B2 D F' D2 B2 

X-EO Line: z2 R' D' U' F z2 R2 U' L2 U2 (8/8)
1x2x2: z2 U L' U R U2 R' (6/14)
1x2x2 w/LSE: z R' U R U R U (6/20)
TSLE: x' z' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'(8/28)
TTLL: (U') R' D R D' R' U R D2 R' U' R D' R' D' R (16/44)


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 18, 2016)

For those of you who find TTLL recog tough:
On gyrnininja's sites, there are subsets of 12 which use corners to tell which subset it is. Then, recognize the block out of only 12 cases.
Works wonders for me. Just drill em on Anki.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 19, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> The colors needn't to be exactly the same, but have relative
> 
> colors disregarding the F2L Corner.
> In this case the 3 U-Layer Corners are correctly placed while the Edge at RU is the same color as the color of the corners at UF, and the color at UF is adjacent to the Corners next to it.



Oh thanks I never thought about that.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 19, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> For those of you who find TTLL recog tough:
> On gyrnininja's sites, there are subsets of 12 which use corners to tell which subset it is. Then, recognize the block out of only 12 cases.
> Works wonders for me. Just drill em on Anki.


While recognizing TTLL do you ever need to look at the top layer corner in the D layer?


----------



## ijustreallylikenaruto (Aug 19, 2016)

Hammer said:


> While recognizing TTLL do you ever need to look at the top layer corner in the D layer?


No, you only need to look at 3 of the corners


----------



## Hammer (Aug 19, 2016)

Thanks


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 21, 2016)

Nobody's jumping onto my idea, that's fine, all the better for me. I had a thought though: if TSLE is reduced down to 23 cases, how worth it would it be to learn TSLE+CP for these 23 cases? This would be to force a 2G TTLL. With edge inserted, recognition would be easier, but how many algs would that be? Or would it be more worthwhile to learn different algs for the positioning of the top layer corner to force PLL each time? That would be 92 algs, right?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 21, 2016)

I'm gonna go with the latter idea.. I think I'm onto something here...


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 21, 2016)

Wait, wouldn't forcing PLL every time be CLS?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 21, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Nobody's jumping onto my idea, that's fine, all the better for me. I had a thought though: if TSLE is reduced down to 23 cases, how worth it would it be to learn TSLE+CP for these 23 cases? This would be to force a 2G TTLL. With edge inserted, recognition would be easier, but how many algs would that be? Or would it be more worthwhile to learn different algs for the positioning of the top layer corner to force PLL each time? That would be 92 algs, right?


When you say this, do you mean solving Corner Permutation by solving the whole Slot and Corner Permutation, or setting up a TTLL that is 2-Gen? Note that if it's the TTLL part, rotating with a (y') will allow half the amount of cases for Corner Permutation TSLE's. Corner Permutation Recognition isn't the best when there are more than 4 Corners to be solved, without Corner Orientation. The problem with some of the Inserted Edge cases is that they sometimes require 4 Triggers for TSLE, which is usually when 0 Corners are Oriented.



Teoidus said:


> Wait, wouldn't forcing PLL every time be CLS?


If you just inserted the Corner for PLL by learning the algorithms, that is just CLS.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Aug 21, 2016)

im starting to learn this method and it is amazing but its not realy a last layer skip is it? more of a super optimized 1lll because the solve is 6 looks all together and thats the same as zbll...


----------



## Ksh13 (Aug 21, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> im starting to learn this method and it is amazing but its not realy a last layer skip is it? more of a super optimized 1lll because the solve is 6 looks all together and thats the same as zbll...


Techincally speaking you do skip the entire last layer, at the cost of using 2 algs during last slot.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 21, 2016)

Alright, here's why this method is good just to clear even more stuff up:
TSLE is basically as many moves and extremely similar to pairing up the last pair and inserting it. Then, TTLL solves the cube like ZBLL would normally, with way less algs (and better recog, I might add).
This took me a bit to realize. This actually is better than ZBLL theoretically and outclasses all other LS variants, so don't compare it to them.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Aug 21, 2016)

OK I understand it's better but the question is by how much does it outclass common ll systems especially coll/epll and ocll/pll zZll and zbll

The reason this actually matters is because it may be better more efficient and more "lucky" but for over 100 algs is it worth it

But how much faster if I'm learning 100+ algs I'd rather learn full eg twice


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 21, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> OK I understand it's better but the question is by how much does it outclass common ll systems especially coll/epll and ocll/pll zZll and zbll
> 
> The reason this actually matters is because it may be better more efficient and more "lucky" but for over 100 algs is it worth it


Let me say exactly what I just said again more clearly.
First, ZBLL + ZZ is thought to be the best method, but it has meh recog and tons of algs. CT is basically ZBLL with less algs and amazing recog. Here's why:
TSLE has the same average movecount, efficiency, speed etc as pairing up the last pair and inserting it. If you are using ZBLL, the next step would require nearly 500 algs and recog wouldn't be so smooth, but with CT, TTLL is next and it has about 70 algs and great recog. The algs are also super nice.
Hope this helps.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Aug 21, 2016)

Woah it just sunk in what you said tsle isn't a harder ls like wv but almost exactly the same as a normal insert and then you have a 70 alg 1lll this method is amazing!!!


----------



## Hammer (Aug 21, 2016)

I cant find the TSLE alg for this case!
Set ur cube up with this:
F' D2 B' L2 B D2 F U2 R2 F R2 U' R U' R F' U2 R2
What is the TSLE alg for this and where is it on gyroninja's website!!!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 21, 2016)

Hammer said:


> I cant find the TSLE alg for this case!
> Set ur cube up with this:
> F' D2 B' L2 B D2 F U2 R2 F R2 U' R U' R F' U2 R2
> What is the TSLE alg for this and where is it on gyroninja's website!!!


AlphaSheep has a TSLE google spreadsheet, you can find it in a post somewhere earlier on this thread.
Or ask him to post again.


----------



## PhoeNixian (Aug 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> However, you might want U2 R U R2 U2 R U R' U R.
> Which is also written as U2 + R U R' (Insert) + R' U2 R U R' U R ( Back Anti-sune)


4Chan also mentioned it earlier in the thread.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 21, 2016)

Hammer said:


> I cant find the TSLE alg for this case!
> Set ur cube up with this:
> F' D2 B' L2 B D2 F U2 R2 F R2 U' R U' R F' U2 R2
> What is the TSLE alg for this and where is it on gyroninja's website!!!





wir3sandfir3s said:


> AlphaSheep has a TSLE google spreadsheet, you can find it in a post somewhere earlier on this thread.
> Or ask him to post again.



For anyone to lazy to go back and find it... 

That reminds me. I had started adding notes to help with learning. I should do more of that. lol


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 21, 2016)

Hammer said:


> I cant find the TSLE alg for this case!
> Set ur cube up with this:
> F' D2 B' L2 B D2 F U2 R2 F R2 U' R U' R F' U2 R2
> What is the TSLE alg for this and where is it on gyroninja's website!!!


It's the fifth to last on the first section. It accidently has the same case image as the one above it.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Wait, wouldn't forcing PLL every time be CLS?



I guess this has been my point the whole time. TSLE is essentially a subset of CLS, where permutation of the corner is completely ignored and where the LSE is placed in UF instead of RF. This is similar to the difference between OLL and COLL. The confusing thing is the name of TSLE. While I am in favor of giving credit where credit is due, and naming of methods after their creators, it might be a little overkill to include the initials of the Co founders in each step of the method. Note that few other methods do this (it's not FF2L Fridrichs First 2 Layers or MGCLS). Usually when a step is named it describes the action being done, such as orienting the last layer. I think since we have already gotten used go the names TSLE and TTLL we're best to stick with them but I'm curious as to what the generic name would be. OCLL? OC-ELS? What about TTLL? LS-PLL?

I'm convinced that, as far as ZZ goes, this method holds as much potential as MGLS and is actually a re-incarnation of MGLS where the ELS step, unbothered by orientation of edges, worries itself with simultaneously orienting the corners and where the PLL step is expanded to include algs involving the LS corner. 

The real advantage would be someone who has mastered both so as to be able to recognize when really easy cases would come up for either method and is able to take advantage of the strengths of both methods.

Remember, there is no need to learn all TSLE algs. You only need the 16 where edge is inserted, and those algs have the same average move count as the rest of TSLE so you are seriously at no disadvantage, believe me, as Trump would say.

I know recog is hard but any one willing to bring back CPLS+2GLL?


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 22, 2016)

I highly disagree, by putting the edge in and doing those algs, you don't get any of the quick, short, easy cases, and then you force the difficult cases.
Not only are they more difficult, but it raises the probability of the "5 twisted corner with edge permuted" cases, which are difficult to recognize and execute. Because of that I don't believe that there is a shorter average move count, and I know for sure that recognition isn't as good.

I intentionally leave the edge in the top layer, so that I can get the nicer easier cases.
By combining this technique with third slot corner control, it forces short, easy to recognize cases more often.

Additionally, *neither* of them are subsets of eachother. They are both subsets of ZZ-C.
CLS isn't a subset, it's an option.

Also, in regards to CPLS+2GLL, I used to do that for OH, and recognition wasn't so bad:
1. Make pair and hover over DFR slot.
2. Pretend the DFR corner is in UFR.
3. Look at the corner swap.
4. Execute insert that solves CP.
5. 2GLL


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 22, 2016)

I guess I meant TSLE is a variation of CLS, not a subset of the CLS algs we know from MGLS. Or maybe it's a variation of ELS where you orient corners as well. That seems to be more fitting.

I have no numbers to back this up but I feel like TSLE skips are more likely if you force edge insertion during block building. I feel like common sense kinda verifies this as the edge is already inserted therefore you can TSLE skip more frequently. Kinda like doing 3rd slot corner control like you were talking about, but a little easier and sometimes the LSE is free and you don't have to work for it. Even if I give you the idea that move count is higher for those edge inserted algs, which I don't really agree with, the overall move count is reduced by the fact that you can start block building from any side and the LS is not fixed. In addition to that, you dont have to worry about learning to recognize the mirrors from all the different LS's.

Those edge inserted (OCLL) cases are still trigger friendly and I actually think the no-corners oriented cases are easier to recognize in this scenario because you only have a handful of cases that it could actually be. It's like recognizing OLL for the cross cases vs recognizing CLS. H and Pi are not hard to recognize for OLL.

Also, wouldn't those rare TSLE cases where simple insertion would be R U' R' be replaced with TSLE skips?

I feel like if you're going to learn to execute and recognize all these different corner orientation cases, you might as well learn CLS as it gives you a higher chance of an LL skip.

EDIT: Also, the CPLS I was referencing was Stachu's circa 2010 where you don't form a pair. It would be like CLS, after ELS, but just permutation of corner while inserting.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Aug 22, 2016)

if i learn tsle and im still using ttll this will still be faster than coll/eplll because the recognition for the first look of ttll is faster than coll recogniton right?

And is anyone else having problems win the tsle anki file?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 22, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> I guess I meant TSLE is a variation of CLS, not a subset of the CLS algs we know from MGLS. Or maybe it's a variation of ELS where you orient corners as well. That seems to be more fitting.
> 
> I have no numbers to back this up but I feel like TSLE skips are more likely if you force edge insertion during block building. I feel like common sense kinda verifies this as the edge is already inserted therefore you can TSLE skip more frequently. Kinda like doing 3rd slot corner control like you were talking about, but a little easier and sometimes the LSE is free and you don't have to work for it. Even if I give you the idea that move count is higher for those edge inserted algs, which I don't really agree with, the overall move count is reduced by the fact that you can start block building from any side and the LS is not fixed. In addition to that, you dont have to worry about learning to recognize the mirrors from all the different LS's.
> 
> ...


When you insert the F2L Edge in, it just becomes a more efficient EJLS (Or EJF2L), where the F2L Corner's Position isn't necessarily at DFR.

TSLE Skips are more likely, of course because the cases are reduced and AUF's don't count due to symmetry reasons. On the Algorithm site there are 3 algorithms requiring 4 Triggers to solve Corner Orientation when the Edge is inserted. Also, from Chris Tran's Seminar, he said that part of the thing with ZBLL Algorithms is that they just break up the F2L, and Restore it. What you're trying to do is Break up the Edge, and Restore it with Solved Corner Orientation.

There isn't really a more likely chance for the simple cases if you don't pay attention to Corner Orientation when placing the Edge. Part of the reason CLS isn't favored as much as TSLE is because the overall Movecount is lower on average, because only 1 piece is being solved, and when a CLS Case comes when there is an Edge and F2L Corner in the correct slot, you are just breaking up the Corner along with the Edge. The normal F2L Cases for those 2 without caring about Corner Orientation are one of the worst ones when EO is solved.

The Movecount from all angles really depends on how you Blockbuild, efficiency-wise, but you still get a ton of choices to choose from when Blockbuilding for ZZF2L. It's very unlikely that after you solve EOLine, Square to build are all bad cases *Except* only the Square at DFR. Even if that does happen, if you can see it in inspection, just solve EOLine with a (y2) beforehand so the good case is on BLD (Strange name for a Corner Position).

If you look carefully at Corner Orientation, all the cases are just repeated 5 times, with the F2L Edge in different positions in the U-Layer or in the slot.

Say you get the Scramble for TSLE as: (R U R' U2 R U2 R')
Doing it the way you suggested, you would do (R U' R').
The algorithm for that Edge inserted case is (R U' R' U2 R U' R'), making TSLE 10 Moves.
Standard TSLE would just be the inverse, which is only 7 moves compared to 10.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 22, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> if i learn tsle and im still using ttll this will still be faster than coll/eplll because the recognition for the first look of ttll is faster than coll recogniton right?
> 
> And is anyone else having problems win the tsle anki file?


We believe so partially because Last Slot, COLL, EPLL takes 3 Looks, opposed to TSLE, TTLL, requiring only 2 Looks.
I'm also pretty sure the average movecount for ZZ-CT is lower than COLL/EPLL.

There are times when you get bad cases, and so it is good to know another Subset so that it can back you up so that the movecount doesn't go crazy high.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 22, 2016)

Could alphasheep please post the tsle spreadsheet again?


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 22, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Could alphasheep please post the tsle spreadsheet again?





AlphaSheep said:


> For anyone to lazy to go back and find it...



Have we really gotten so lazy we cant look at the top of this page for it ourselves?
2nd page, 5th or so post from the top was where alphasheep originally posted his spreadsheet.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 22, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> When you insert the F2L Edge in, it just becomes a more efficient EJLS (Or EJF2L), where the F2L Corner's Position isn't necessarily at DFR.
> 
> TSLE Skips are more likely, of course because the cases are reduced and AUF's don't count due to symmetry reasons. On the Algorithm site there are 3 algorithms requiring 4 Triggers to solve Corner Orientation when the Edge is inserted. Also, from Chris Tran's Seminar, he said that part of the thing with ZBLL Algorithms is that they just break up the F2L, and Restore it. What you're trying to do is Break up the Edge, and Restore it with Solved Corner Orientation.
> 
> ...



Dunno if you know this but EJF2L where the corner isn't in DFR is called CLS. Just an fyi there. So it would be an efficient CLS sub set for TSLE cases where edge is inserted. It's not looking to connect that inserted edge piece with the specific corner piece in the DFR while orienting that corner, which is what EJF2L aims to do, it's looking to pair it up with any corner and insert while orienting all corners. This is why you could use a variety of different CLS cases for any one of the TSLE cases where edge is inserted. EJF2L is a subset of CLS where you have LS edge and corner permuted.

You're failing to understand what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting a beginners method insertion of LSE. In your example, my variation would require the 7 move TSLE alg you mentioned where edge is inserted and that's what you would see when you ended up at LS. The goal would be to insert edge while block building, making a 1x1x2 + edge block for either left or right block. Then you get 1/23 cases (remember we have the 7 cross cases which can be triggered pretty easily).

So here are the steps
1) EO Line
2) 1x2x3 block
3) 1x2x2 block + edge
4) CLS/TSLE (1/23 cases)
5) TTLL or PLL

Another way

1) EO Line
2) 1x1x2 block + edge
3) 1x2x3 block
4) CLS/TSLE (1/23 cases)
5) TTLL or PLL

There's no individual step for ELS, it's combined with block building. This will sometimes make the move count during block building lower as you just have to insert an edge as opposed to pairing it up with a corner.

If you combine this with learning to force PLL after TSLE, in other words if you learn CLS, you bring the LL skip probability down to 1/72 from 1/360.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 22, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Dunno if you know this but EJF2L where the corner isn't in DFR is called CLS. Just an fyi there. So it would be an efficient CLS sub set for TSLE cases where edge is inserted. It's not looking to connect that inserted edge piece with the specific corner piece in the DFR while orienting that corner, which is what EJF2L aims to do, it's looking to pair it up with any corner and insert while orienting all corners. This is why you could use a variety of different CLS cases for any one of the TSLE cases where edge is inserted. EJF2L is a subset of CLS where you have LS edge and corner permuted.
> 
> You're failing to understand what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting a beginners method insertion of LSE. In your example, my variation would require the 7 move TSLE alg you mentioned where edge is inserted and that's what you would see when you ended up at LS. The goal would be to insert edge while block building, making a 1x1x2 + edge block for either left or right block. Then you get 1/23 cases (remember we have the 7 cross cases which can be triggered pretty easily).
> 
> ...


I do know what the subsets are, I'm saying that a way to think about what you are doing is a more efficient EJF2L, by not caring about the DFR Corner's Permutation.

And about the skips you were talking about if you insert the Edge in the middle of the solve. If the Adjacent Corner from the Inserted Edge isn't Oriented, it isn't possible to skip TSLE unless you mess with the slot during some other part of F2L because the Corner will stay misoriented, until your Edge inserted TSLE. You really seem to want to keep the algorithm count very low, and really if you are going to insert the Edge in the middle of the solve, you might as well just use CLS so that you always get a PLL.


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 22, 2016)

Hammer said:


> Could alphasheep please post the tsle spreadsheet again?


All the algs are on my site.

http://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct-tsle.html


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 22, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I do know what the subsets are, I'm saying that a way to think about what you are doing is a more efficient EJF2L, by not caring about the DFR Corner's Permutation.
> 
> And about the skips you were talking about if you insert the Edge in the middle of the solve. If the Adjacent Corner from the Inserted Edge isn't Oriented, it isn't possible to skip TSLE unless you mess with the slot during some other part of F2L because the Corner will stay misoriented, until your Edge inserted TSLE. You really seem to want to keep the algorithm count very low, and really if you are going to insert the Edge in the middle of the solve, you might as well just use CLS so that you always get a PLL.



Wow that's actually a brilliant point. If you could do corner control while looking for that free edge, you'll not only increase your chances of a TSLE skip but you'll minimize the chances of the nasty cases and just have cross cases for TSLE right? That would bring your TSLE skip down to 1/27. Wow.

This would create a forced LL skip to happen 1/27 times?!


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 22, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Wow that's actually a brilliant point. If you could do corner control while looking for that free edge, you'll not only increase your chances of a TSLE skip but you'll minimize the chances of the nasty cases and just have cross cases for TSLE right? That would bring your TSLE skip down to 1/27. Wow.


If you put it that way, yes, but that just turns TSLE into OCLL, and then TTLL.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 23, 2016)

OK as crazy as it sounds I have just discovered a full LL skip method that only requires 72 TTLL algs and 28 CLS algs. Anyone interested in hearing it? It might be ridiculous but it's valid.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> OK as crazy as it sounds I have just discovered a full LL skip method that only requires 72 TTLL algs and 28 CLS algs. Anyone interested in hearing it? It might be ridiculous but it's valid.


Yes. Of course. Go.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 23, 2016)

Brief description and remember the disclaimer, might be ridiculous but it's legit.

1) EO Line
2) 1x2x3 block (either left or right)
3) L3E - Last 3 Edges (build block of edges paired with oriented bottom layer corners *4 times as many corners to choose from should make pairing easier*)
4) CLS - for back most slot, should be 1/28 cases to identify via position of white/top layer sticker combined with easy OCLL cases
5) TTLL

Steps 2 and 3 are chronologically interchangeable. You can build the L3E block first if it's easier.

The hardest and most controversial thing about this idea is the block building with bottom layer corners. I suck at block building but something tells me though hard to retrain your eye at first, there should be no reason you couldn't master this new way of block building. Thoughts or questions?

EDIT: Sometimes during building of L3E it will be most convenient to form a "true pair" in which case you will still do CLS in step 4 but step 5 will just be PLL.


----------



## Hammer (Aug 23, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> All the algs are on my site.
> 
> http://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct-tsle.html


Oh thanks


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 23, 2016)

Tip for people learning TTLL: Try reversing algs that you like and seeing what cases the reversed algs solve. You'll get some nice algs sometimes.

Some algs I found by reversing:

U' R U2' R' U R U2' R D R' U2 R D' R' U R' (mirror is good too)
R' D' R U' R' D R U R U' R' U R U R' U R U' R'
U' R' U' R' U R2 U2' R' U2' R' U' R U R

Some other algs I found by combining WV algs with TSLE algs

R U2' R' U2 R U2' R2' F R U R U' R' F'
F R U R' U' R' F' R2 U2' R' U2 R U2' R' (inverse of above)
U' R U' R' U R U' R2' F2 R2 U' R' U' R U R' F2


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Brief description and remember the disclaimer, might be ridiculous but it's legit.
> 
> 1) EO Line
> 2) 1x2x3 block (either left or right)
> ...



So is this what you mean?

Scramble: D2 R D2 R2 D2 R' D2 R' U2 L R2 U B' L D2 R D' B' F' U2

x2 //Inspection
R F' U R B' D' //EO + BL Square
L D' L' //XEOLine
F2 R' (U' D) R2 D' R2 //Oriented F2L + FR Square
U2 L' U L U2 L' U2 L U2 L' U L //Orient Corners + Permute 1 Corner
z R D2 L U2 L' D2 L U2 (L' R') //TTLL

36 STM


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Brief description and remember the disclaimer, might be ridiculous but it's legit.
> 
> 1) EO Line
> 2) 1x2x3 block (either left or right)
> ...


That's actually not too bad. I like it. Maybe do a D move so the back corner is in front? Or we can get Algs when the back corner we are inserting is in the front.
However, one might argue:
"If you are creating two pseudo pairs, why not just solve F2L-1 slot, create the pseudo pair and insert with wv?"
Only one less alg, but I think your idea is nicer. Plus, you have freedom to pick the slot you can do CLS on, and you can possibly avoid a bad case.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 23, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> That's actually not too bad. I like it. Maybe do a D move so the back corner is in front? Or we can get Algs when the back corner we are inserting is in the front.
> However, one might argue:
> "If you are creating two pseudo pairs, why not just solve F2L-1 slot, create the pseudo pair and insert with wv?"
> Only one less alg, but I think your idea is nicer.


So basically you don't have to build a 1x2x3 Block first, as it is likely that a random Corner is paired up nicely with an F2L Edge earlier in the solve, and it can be placed anywhere on the cube, and so yeah, you just offset the D-Layer to solve the Corner and Orientation. For me I think the only problem would be Look ahead because if you try to look for the most efficient solution between all the Corners, it'll take some time to check.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 23, 2016)

Algorithms: Link


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 23, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> So is this what you mean?



Yes, but I didn't once consider that the pseudo pairs could be diagonal, I thought to myself they had to be adjacent along L or R, I thought maybe they could be adjacent along F and B, but now I see they can be any 2 pairs. Wow cool!



wir3sandfir3s said:


> "F2L-1 slot, create the pseudo pair and insert with wv?"



That was where I originally started in this thought train, then I thought "what other methods could orient LL pieces while inserting a pair? What would CLS look like? That would be a lot of algs tho for one sub step... but wait, not if both of the L2S corners were oriented... that would narrow down CLS to the 7 OLL cross cases, with 4 different positionings of the LS corner...then TTLL"

EDIT: Wait would it be just 26 because of H case symmetry?

I suppose someone who learns full CLS could just orient pseudo pair and essentially get away with having a truer "Last 3 Edges" step.

BTW going through the posts of the original CT thread I realized Chris kinda had this idea of doing the L2S (in one alg as opposed to my 2 step) but quickly dismissed it realizing that you'd have to have the 2 U-layer corners on the LL in order to have a reasonable set of algs.

Maybe mine is a beginners method to Chris' dream method of doing L2S+LL in one alg?? Surely algs could be generated to orient and permute all LL pieces while inserting the last 2 corners, right?? Woah...

I like the idea of a LL skip method with 100 algs though!



JTWong71 said:


> Algorithms: Link



Wow did you just do that? Awesome man thanks!


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Wow did you just do that? Awesome man thanks!


Yep, they're not the best ones of course, I just took the not horrible algorithms that I generated.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 23, 2016)

Revisiting Chris' dream L2S+LL method:

For final block: It's possible to insert pseudo pair into DBR slot, then TSLE the LS leaving you with oriented LL and potential to do the L2S and LL in 1 alg. You would have 4 subsets of cases:

1) diagonal swap UFR and ULB
2) adjacent swap UFR and URB
3) TTLL-1 (the TTLL we know)
4) TTLL-2 (Where DFR belongs in DBR)

How many algs would this be? Anyone?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Revisiting Chris' dream L2S+LL method:
> 
> For final block: It's possible to insert pseudo pair into DBR slot, then TSLE the LS leaving you with oriented LL and potential to do the L2S and LL in 1 alg. You would have 4 subsets of cases:
> 
> ...


I don't understand that very well.
Do you mean we leave have an Oriented Right Block with not necessarily correct Corner Permutation but only Edge Permutation and Corner Orientation, then we just Orient the U-Layer and use one algorithm for the rest?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 23, 2016)

There might be no point in learning this entire method when you could just use ZZ-CT as I imagine a very high alg count and it would indeed be a long hike, like the PCT, even for a seasoned alg thru-hiker like Chris, but the idea is out there.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> There might be no point in learning this entire method when you could just use ZZ-CT as I imagine a very high alg count and it would indeed be a long hike, like the PCT, even for a season alg thru-hiker like Chris, but the idea is out there.


I'm pretty sure I saw Chris Tran talk about that idea somewhere else in the forums, where you do TTLL for 2 F2L Corners.
He said that the problem is that the skip rate is reduced drastically that it doesn't become worth learning.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 23, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I'm pretty sure I saw Chris Tran talk about that idea somewhere else in the forums, where you do TTLL for 2 F2L Corners.
> He said that the problem is that the skip rate is reduced drastically that it doesn't become worth learning.



Yeah he said the problem is the cases he was talking about were where the 2 F2L corners are in the top layer, which is rare, but not when you make false pairs. He was just thinking of inserting the L3E regardless of orientation and permutation of everything else. But yeah the skip rate goes down because LL is skipped entirely lol. I wouldn't learn it but the idea is out there. Nothing is impossible!

BRB I'm going to develop a method where you do both 2x2x3 blocks AND LL in one look LMAO


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 23, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> BRB I'm going to develop a method where you do both 2x2x3 blocks AND LL in one look LMAO


Lol dm me I wanna help with this xD


----------



## 4Chan (Aug 24, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I'm pretty sure I saw Chris Tran talk about that idea somewhere else in the forums, where you do TTLL for 2 F2L Corners.
> He said that the problem is that the skip rate is reduced drastically that it doesn't become worth learning.



Yeah, for the two corners in the top, it's around the same amount of algs as ZBLL.
However, the algs aren't nice, and recog for the cases when the corners are diagonal from each other is nearly impossible. That's why I dismissed that method.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yeah I think the most promising sub method of these spinoffs I started coming up with is just making one pseudo pair and using that as your LS which will give you CLS into PLL.

Would it be possible to do COLL with CLS to end up with an edge cycle for LL after LS? This would be how many algs? 6x26-12? 144? Recognition would be on point and LL skip probability would increase to 1/12. But can good algs be generated for something like this?


This is a random but good scramble used CT for solution, I imagine some good FMC people could do good with this but just thought I'd throw another example solve for CT.
(Do an x' rotation before scrambling for this one if you're not CN) 
D2 R2 L F B2 D2 R2 U' R B' L F B2 U F2 B' L B' F R' L D2 F B D' 

Double X-EO-Line: x y U' F' U2 l U' l r U r' (9/9)
1x2x2: d R U2 R (4/13)
TSLE: (U2) R U' R U' L' U R2 U' L (10/23)
PLL: (G PERM) U R' d' F R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2 U (14/37)


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 25, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> Yeah I think the most promising sub method of these spinoffs I started coming up with is just making one pseudo pair and using that as your LS which will give you CLS into PLL.
> 
> Would it be possible to do COLL with CLS to end up with an edge cycle for LL after LS? This would be how many algs? 6x26-12? 144? Recognition would be on point and LL skip probability would increase to 1/12. But can good algs be generated for something like this?


So would this be done at the 2 Pseudo Pairs state? Or when there's just a single Pseudo Slot, where it's basically CPLS?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> So would this be done at the 2 Pseudo Pairs state? Or when there's just a single Pseudo Slot, where it's basically CPLS?


 CPLS, though I'm not sure which CPLS you're referencing. The one I know doesn't orient the corners, though it would leave a 2gen ZBLL case which would be cool.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 25, 2016)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> CPLS, though I'm not sure which CPLS you're referencing. The one I know doesn't orient the corners, though it would leave a 2gen ZBLL case which would be cool.


So then I'm now guessing that this doesn't have to do with your Pseudo Slot idea, and that it very different then.

For FMC Solutions, the times that I think is best is when you get a case that 8- Moves for TSLE and or you get a TTLL Skip, or some sort of short algorithm for both steps.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> So then I'm now guessing that this doesn't have to do with your Pseudo Slot idea, and that it very different then.
> 
> For FMC Solutions, the times that I think is best is when you get a case that 8- Moves for TSLE and or you get a TTLL Skip, or some sort of short algorithm for both steps.



Yes it involves making a pseudo pair for the LS. From there you would easily recognize CP as you would for COLL. Sorry for the confusion but for the sake of not spamming this thread we can continue this convo via pm or I will make a separate thread about my pseudo pair idea, because it really has a lot of potential outcomes clearly.


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 25, 2016)

I think that you could try to do a speed-heise LS for FMC, with the psuedo-pair idea.
I call it ZZ-Snyder, where you do speed-heise so that you have a L3C last layer. you could force that with some kind of TSLE where you solve the F2L edge and permuting all the U edges, like LPELL but you don't need to create a pair. then you do comms to solve the last 5 corners.(best idea for FMC, especially if using this in comination with ZZ-NR)


----------



## genericcuber666 (Aug 27, 2016)

Unless I'm wrong for new cubers we should say tell has ~90 algs because all is still just a subset. Right?

Is there any sort of 2 side recognition system for ttll?

Once I finish 2 corners mis orientated for tsle should I skip 3 and 4 as I can use basic corner control to never get these cases or are they still worth knowing before ttll?

How are you doing ttll recognition do you do blocks or track edges


----------



## ijustreallylikenaruto (Aug 27, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> Unless I'm wrong for new cubers we should say tell has ~90 algs because all is still just a subset. Right?
> 
> Is there any sort of 2 side recognition system for ttll?
> 
> ...


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 10, 2016)

Whoaaa, two sub-10s in the same average of 5! 11.476 average of 5!
I'm practicing for New York Summer 2016 and I'm doing it on camera!

I mess up a lot because I just reduced tensions on this Prototype Valk3 by a whole 360 turn for each side.
It would've been a great average if I wasn't for the messups, I think maybe 11 average of 12!



Spoiler: Scramble and Times



Statistics for Mon Sep 05 2016 10:38:45 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Average of 12/12: 12.840
Standard deviation: 2.438
Number of DNFs: 0
Best time: 9.248
Worst time: 20.409

(9.248), 13.432, 11.548, 14.167, 9.448, 14.677, 11.303, (20.409), 11.936, 18.636, 10.892, 12.361 = 12.840 ave12

1. (9.248) F2 U2 R' F2 D2 F2 L B2 U2 L' F2 D F2 U' B' D B L2 F L'
2. 13.432 L2 U R2 D' B2 F2 U' L' D2 L F' L2 R2 F2 L' D2 L' U
3. 11.548 D' L2 D' B2 F2 R2 D' F2 L2 D' B' L' U2 F' U' B' L' D' R F' R'
4. 14.167 B2 U2 L2 F L2 D2 F' L B2 L' D R U2 B L F' R' B2
5. 9.448 R2 D' F2 D' L2 R2 D' F2 D2 L2 B L B2 R2 F' L2 R2 U F' R2
6. 14.677 L' B2 D2 L B2 R U2 R' U2 R2 U F' L' R2 D L2 D2 B' R'
7. 11.303 R2 D2 B2 L2 R U2 L' U2 F U F L' B' L2 F' D U' B2 L2
8. (20.409) R' D2 L' B2 R2 U2 R' D2 U2 B' D' F L' U F' L' R B' F2 L
9. 11.936 U2 R2 B L2 F' D2 F D2 B L D F' D' U L2 B2 D2 F R F'
10. 18.636 D U R2 D' F2 D' B2 F2 D2 B D' F' D2 R U B2 D' L' D
11. 10.892 L' B' R F L F' B R' U2 F L2 U D F2 R2 U F2 D2 R2 U'
12. 12.361 B' R U R' U R2 F2 R F U' L2 B2 U2 R2 D2 B'










I also got a bunch of sub-10 times today on video!
(Since people prefer to see fast things, not slow things LOL)


----------



## Rusca (Sep 11, 2016)

Hi! I'm new to this forum (I'll introduce myself or whatever later).

I just wanted to share a TSLE alg I just found that isn't on gyroninja's website (and solves a case that has a line of question marks on it, so maybe it helps with filling that sort of database).

It's a rather trivial one, but it seems it went unnoticed so here it is:
On the "edge in slot" subset, the second ccw case (corners point left and down), you can just do the inverse of the alg not in bold from the similar CW case. That is: (U) L U' R U L' U' R'.
I find it pretty ergonomic, and it's a lot shorter than the one in bold.


----------



## Cale S (Sep 17, 2016)

TTLL alg: R U' R' (R' F R F')3 R U R'


----------



## Dan Morris (Sep 17, 2016)

Some lower movecount solutions to of some of the edge in slot TSLE cases on gyroninjas site. Sorry if any of these are wrong/bad
1)
Old Alg: U R U R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 R'
My Alg: (R U' R' U') (R U' R' U) (R U2 R')

2)
Old Alg: (U R U R') (U' R U2 R') (U' R U' R') (U R U R')
My Alg: (U2 R U R') (U R U R') (U' R U2 R') 

3)
Old Alg: (R U2 R' U) (R U R' U) (R U2 R' U') (R U' R')
My Alg: (R U2 R2 U2) (R U R' U) (R2 U' R')

Also if you use cyothekings G perms, you'll find this TTLL alg i found easy to learn : R' U R' U' D R2 U' R U' R' U R' U R2 U D' R2


----------



## Rusca (Sep 17, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> Is there any sort of 2 side recognition system for ttll?



Hi, I was asking myself that same question some days ago, so I thought about it and ended recording some explanations. 

Maybe it helps with understanding all this recognition thing.


----------



## Dan Morris (Oct 6, 2016)

Found another alternative TSLE alg for this case that's long, but easy to remember and fingertrick friendly, might be useful for forcing pll.
Gyroninjas Alg: (U R U R') (U' R U2 R') (U' R U' R') (U R U R')
My Alg: (U2 R U R') (U R U R') (U' R U2 R')
Alternative alg: 3x(R U R' U2) R U R'
The inverse is also kinda cool 3x(R U' R' U2) R U' R'

Also if you get the headlights OLL case as your TSLE case and the D corner is in the top left (when headlights face forward) you can do this alg to force pll. It worked everytime for me so far.
U2 3(R U R' U')


----------



## phamtuanktdt (Oct 7, 2016)

I learn a lot from you guys. Thank you so much


----------



## Dan Morris (Oct 26, 2016)

TSLE: U2 F (R U R' U') R' F' R

Use left index for the F' and its pretty fast


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 26, 2016)

Dan Morris said:


> TSLE: U2 F (R U R' U') R' F' R
> 
> Use left index for the F' and its pretty fast



Ooooh, I'll use this case along with my other case to force skips, this is NICE THANKS


----------



## Dan Morris (Oct 27, 2016)

Is it possible to force PLL every time? learn multiple TSLE cases for every corner possible corner location, and you wouldn't need TTLL. must be like 400+ algs right?


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 27, 2016)

Yeaaap, that's ZZ-C.

It has some pretty gnarly cases for 4 and 5 corner misoriented, so that's why I think ZZ-CT is better on average.


----------



## JTWong71 (Oct 27, 2016)

Dan Morris said:


> Is it possible to force PLL every time? learn multiple TSLE cases for every corner possible corner location, and you wouldn't need TTLL. must be like 400+ algs right?


There is also the minor set back that after implementing some of those longer algorithms for ZZ-C, you will end up with a 15+ move PLL Diagonal Corner Swap, probably making Last Slot Layer Layer around 30+ Moves. I think the good thing would be to learn 3 different permutation algorithms for each TSLE case, allowing for an always 2-Gen TTLL (Including the y' rotation subset to make pseudo 2-Gen) and choices to transition to preferred cases like in 4Chan's Advance ZZ-CT Tricks video. The problem with this is of course algorithm count and recognition, possibly movecount, but not as much as ZZ-C in some cases.


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 8, 2016)

I came up with a new subset for ZZ-CT!
I call it TS3S or Tran Style 3rd Slot!

I've found that doing the backslots FIRST is better, because you won't have any pieces in your blind spot, leading to cleaner and faster solves.

So like, after your first two slots in back, what if the FL edge is already placed?
You have the following options with ZZ-CT:

1. Traditional: Finish 3rd LEFT slot and do TSLE and TTLL (3 steps)
2. Intermediate: Finish RIGHT slot, rotate and do one of the edge in place TSLE and TTLL (3 steps)

Option 1 is okay, but sometimes Option 2 has better lookahead and lower moves SOMETIMES.

So TS3S is an option that's only 2.5 steps!

TS3S involves just making the F2L pair for FR slot and then doing a special alg that inserts F2L and orients everything (includes FLD corner), skipping TSLE and going straight into TTLL!! Only 81 algs!

It is, however, super circumstantial, only for advanced ZZ-CT


----------



## Y2k1 (Nov 8, 2016)

So its tsle but doing it with the third pair when 4th edge is inserted? Sounds super cool, will learn after I finish tsle.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 8, 2016)

4chan stop making these super cool 200+ alg subsets and please make a more viable version of ct so that more people will start learning.
because most of us are to lazy to even learn full tsle...


----------



## Y2k1 (Nov 8, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> 4chan stop making these super cool 200+ alg subsets and please make a more viable version of ct so that more people will start learning.
> because most of us are to lazy to even learn full tsle...



This is only 81 algs, not a full 200+ subset, amking more viable than tsle itself for "lazier" people


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 14, 2016)

from another user in another thread:

tbh it's a mediocre, overhyped, & dishonest method

*1) they say your expected movecount is 40-50 htm.*

TSLE = 10.37
TTLL = 15.21
AUFS = 3*3/4

that means your LS & LL is 28 moves on average

that means you have to build your EOF2L-1 in 12-22 moves in order to meet their expected movecount of 40-50 moves listed on the wiki. that's especially bogus considering you're gonna leave your FR slot for last.

*2) they say you get a LL skip*

so do people in the roux method - this is a silly claim

in ZZ-ct you have

-tsle (1 look)
-ttll (1 look)

in a regular ZZ solve you have

-last pair (you should see this during your 2nd/3rd pair - it's doesn't even deserve it's own look)
-oll/coll (1 look)
-pll/epll (1 look)

you aren't skipping the LL - you are only skipping your 4th pair look-ahead lol

*3) they say it's better than WV/SV*

but for WV:

set up case = ~6
WV = 8
PLL = 11.8 moves
AUF = 4*3/4

even if you round up your LS & LL is only 30 moves, that's only 2 more than ZZ-CT.....
with 4x fewer algs (and everyone already knows them all)
better recognition



tl;dr in my opinion, it's not good at all


----------



## Cale S (Nov 15, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> from another user in another thread:
> 
> tbh it's a mediocre, overhyped, & dishonest method
> 
> ...



I agree with a lot of this, but in my opinion the purpose of ZZ-CT is to have a 2-look LSLL every time with as low of an alg count as possible while also having decent recognition. It also just looks cool


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 15, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> from another user in another thread:
> 
> tbh it's a mediocre, overhyped, & dishonest method
> 
> ...




Not really
1) it does have a low move count do some solves and check
2) ok youre Kinda right but after even if it's not a ll skip it's still a 1lll
3) it has higher skips and no setup so one less look


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 15, 2016)

1) i have done tens of thousands of ZZ solves, i have checked

consider, for example, ZZ-a's expected movecount: 44 moves
Last F2L pair = 6.7 moves
ZBLL = 12 moves
AUF = 2*3/4

that leaves 24 moves for f2l-1 (f2l with the freedom to do any slot at any time and do entire blocks at a time [1x1x3->1x2x3])

now explain to me how you plan to get 12-22 moves doing a restricted version of f2l-1? bogus lol



Spoiler: here's an actual zz-ct movecount approximation



assuming you're gonna leave FR for last (or BL and do a y2)

eoline = 6.13
full block = 11.44
square = 6.61
TSLE = 10.37
TTLL = 15.21
AUF = 3*3/4

*= 52 moves on average
*
for reference, CFOP is ~55 moves.



the only way you're gonna get 12 moves for EOF2L-1 is with premoves on the inverse scramble lol


3) You're right, WV has an extra step, but it has 4x fewer algs and is not many more moves. Also ZZ-ct actually has 5x lower skip chances than WV


I'm not here to debate - the variant is generally decent, but largely overrated. However, anytime hard work and dedication is put into something, good things are bound to happen. Good luck to whoever uses this variant.


----------



## Cale S (Nov 18, 2016)

this TSLE alg seems better than what's on the site

R U' R' U2 R2 D R' U' R D' R2 

alg listed is 
*U R U R' U' R U U R' U' R U' R' U R U R' *


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 18, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> I'm not here to debate - the variant is generally decent, but largely overrated.


I agree with this. It's just one more viable ZZ variant out of many. Honestly I even think it's advantage over simple ZZ+COLL+EPLL is marginal. I like the method because it looks cool, but the hype after the US Nats seminar caught me by surprise. 

I've learned about half of TSLE and about a third of TTLL. I don't know them well enough to speed solve yet (put off learning the rest to practice for back-to-back comps), but I've done tons of slow solves which I've reconstructed. The move count for a normal solve does seem to be about low to mid 50s (I average high 50s in slow solves with ZZ+COLL+EPLL, and about 3-5 moves more in speed solves). Sure, there are lucky solves with sub-40 move solutions, but they are balanced out by the nasty cases where theres an AUF, 12 move TSLE, AUF, ADF, 18 move TTLL, AUF, ADF for 35 moves for LS+LL alone...

I also think the idea of "skips" in ZZ-CT is a little exaggerated. A lot of skips are like a CFOP solver claiming an EP skip when they get an E perm. Sure, its a skip in a sense, but many of the best cases occur when there is no "skip". 

If the TTLL case is a PLL (1 in 5) then it feels like a skip because you're much more familiar with the PLL algs than the TTLL algs. If you practiced the TTLL algs until they become as natural as PLLs, I'm sure a V perm wouldn't feel at all like a skip.
Another example is that the TSLE case is an OCLL (1 in 15 chance), then that feels like a skip, even though 2/3 of those are cases I'd use a 12 move alg for (i.e the worst cases). Sure Sune and Antisune feel super fast, but there are another 20 something other 7 move TSLE algs the same length that are just as fast. So even Sune isn't that special. 
Genuine skip chances are:

1 in 405 for TSLE
1 in 360 for TTLL
Every other "skip" is not really a skip but just an easy case. 

That said, ZZ-CT is a cool method and it feels really fast (in a subjective sense). I don't think a person using ZZ-CT would be at any major disadvantage over users of other ZZ variants. I'm planning on finishing learning all of TTLL and TSLE over December, so I'll see if my opinion changes after that.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 18, 2016)

This is the problem...

I wish someone else could have "marketed" ct since as good as Chris is at basically everything now he really did mess this up.
At its simplest ct is a ~200 alg solution for a 1lll, this is what it should have been explained as.

If I invented it I would explain it like this.
1. imagine your last slot is the same length but just different moves
2. imagine doing easier pll instead of coll
3. now get epll
4. combine step 2 and 3 for effectively zbll with almost pll recognition

Then theirs those kids who say the algs are bad...
yes of course they are they were generated in a few months by 2 people but currently theirs not one horrible case and it will only get better.

No matter which way you spin it this method is better:
better recognition(than zbll and maybe coll)
16% less looks in your solve
a fairly small alg set
really nice skip and 2gen chances
and most importantly BRAGGING RIGHTS!


----------



## Y2k1 (Nov 18, 2016)

Random question: which is more efficient tsle + ttll or phasing (optimal with algs) + zzll?


----------



## Cale S (Nov 18, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> At its simplest ct is a ~200 alg solution for a 1lll, this is what it should have been explained as.
> 
> !



It's better described as a 2-look LSLL, since LL isn't a step or combination of steps (both steps of the method influence both part of LS and part of LL)


----------



## AreRouxAmused (Nov 24, 2016)

I don't know if this is the best place to ask this but only place I can find. On to the question on gyro ninjas website what do all the titles for the first two ttll sets mean? And what do the tsle section titles mean?


----------



## Cale S (Nov 25, 2016)

TTLL alg: R F' r U R2' U' r' F R


----------



## Cale S (Nov 25, 2016)

I came up with a way to reduce TSLE cases if you are just first learning them or something:

setup: B D2 B' R2 D2 L2 F' L2 D2 R' U2 R' D2 B' U'
U2 R // place pseudo oriented pair at UBR/UR
U' R U R' U R U2 R2 // alg

setup: U2 R2 D B2 D L2 B2 D2 R2 F2 U2 B U' F2 U B' F2 U2
U R // pseudo oriented pair
R2 U2 R' D' R U2 R' D R2 // alg

setup: R2 B2 L' D L B2 U' B2 U L2 U' F2 L2 D' B2 U 
U R // pair 
U2 R' U2 R U R' // alg


this takes a set of 77ish cases that occur about 80 percent of the time, and reduces it to 27 algs without being much less efficient (in the third example given the solution turns out to be the actual TSLE alg). Algs are here: http://bit.do/pseudoTSLE


----------



## Y2k1 (Nov 26, 2016)

Cale S said:


> I came up with a way to reduce TSLE cases if you are just first learning them or something:
> 
> setup: B D2 B' R2 D2 L2 F' L2 D2 R' U2 R' D2 B' U'
> U2 R // place pseudo oriented pair at UBR/UR
> ...


Wow noice


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 26, 2016)

im confused what are you reducing to?


----------



## Cale S (Nov 26, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> im confused what are you reducing to?



The 77ish cases that have an oriented pair in LL can be solved with 27 algs if you add just an extra move or two


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 27, 2016)

so are you reducing to wv?
what do you mean by 'oriented' pair on your spreadsheet alot of them dont seem to have pairs?


----------



## Cale S (Nov 27, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> so are you reducing to wv?
> what do you mean by 'oriented' pair on your spreadsheet alot of them dont seem to have pairs?



You look for a corner-edge pair in LL that has both pieces oriented (so really just the corner) and the edge clockwise of the corner (if you have any LL corners oriented this is likely to be true, it only isn't if the only oriented corner is counterclockwise of the F2L edge). You then place it at UBR/UR and do an R move, then use one of the 27 algs to finish. What you recognize in that step is the orientation of 3 corners after placing the F2L edge at UR. In the document the groups of 9 are separated by UFR orientation, the columns then show UBR orientation, and the row shows UFL orientation.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 27, 2016)

when you say the corner has to be oriented do you mean white/yellow facing up?
does the edge have to be an f2l edge? because in your first example the f2l edge is in ub not ur

could you make a video on it?


----------



## lillod (Nov 30, 2016)

Sorry for posting without reading the whole tread. Has anyone named the 16 new tsle corner orientations? There are 8 when the DFR twisted corner sticker is on the F face. And 8 when the sticker is on the R face. And obviously there's sune, L, Pi, etc. when the sticker is on the D face. If no one has I suggest using 8 greek letters followed by F or R


----------



## gateway cuber (Nov 30, 2016)

lillod said:


> Sorry for posting without reading the whole tread. Has anyone named the 16 new tsle corner orientations? There are 8 when the DFR twisted corner sticker is on the F face. And 8 when the sticker is on the R face. And obviously there's sune, L, Pi, etc. when the sticker is on the D face. If no one has I suggest using 8 greek letters followed by F or RView attachment 7208


officially the best debut ever.


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 30, 2016)

lillod said:


> Sorry for posting without reading the whole tread. Has anyone named the 16 new tsle corner orientations? There are 8 when the DFR twisted corner sticker is on the F face. And 8 when the sticker is on the R face. And obviously there's sune, L, Pi, etc. when the sticker is on the D face. If no one has I suggest using 8 greek letters followed by F or RView attachment 7208


I think these would follow the TCLL case names though.


----------



## lillod (Nov 30, 2016)

Ah yes the first row is hammer- and hammer+ then turtle, spaceship, stollery, two face, gun, pinwheel poser and pinwheel.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 1, 2016)

I call them, in increasing number of twisted corners: (1) left dot, front dot, (2) slash, backslash, left foot, right foot, (3) Y, bad Y, left dog, right dog, left ski, right ski, (4) left hand, right hand, clock wise, anti-clockwise.

I then add something to describe the location of the edge, so yes, I do call the one case dog's butt.


----------



## Dan Morris (Dec 1, 2016)

It's pretty hilarious hearing other peoples names for the cases. Some of my TSLE names include Taps, Ducks, Humanshaped etc.. lol

Dogs butt must be that unique case with only one unsolved edge? I see a luchador looking mask for that


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 18, 2016)

I had an idea, what if you combined TSLE with phasing to further increase the probabilities of a TTLL skip?

It'd be three times as many TSLE cases, but with many of cases being similar or directly related, i.e. doing R U R', then another TSLE to solve orientation, edge permutation, and last edge placement.

Also, unlike normal ZZ phasing, you don't have to do the half look after making the pair.
You can just go straight into one recognition after third slot.

I think I'm going to start making some cases in a few weeks and see what happens! I think I'm going to call it *PTSD* for *P*hased *T*ran *S*tyle (_edge_) *D*eployment. aka post traumatic stress disorder

I made ZZ-CT to get away from methods over 400 algs, but between alternate cases, random ZZ-C algs and PTSD, I might end up at that threshold again, LOL. But since so many of the algs are simple, PTSD hopefully should not give me PTSD, ezpz.


----------



## CubingGenius (Dec 18, 2016)

4Chan said:


> I had an idea, what if you combined TSLE with phasing to further increase the probabilities of a TTLL skip?
> 
> It'd be three times as many TSLE cases, but with many of cases being similar or directly related, i.e. doing R U R', then another TSLE to solve orientation, edge permutation, and last edge placement.
> 
> ...



PTSD sounds like it is relative to ZZ-CT as ZZ-b is relative to ZZ-a. But it has been good to see you making good LS+LL alternatives. Do you think solving generally worse pairs with LSLL would be a good idea?

Also, how would you rate ZZ-CT compared to ZZ-b? To me they look about equal.


----------



## lillod (Dec 20, 2016)

Hello. I am a cfop user and I would like to learn this method by nationals. I know full oll and pll along with being able to recognize the cube being one trigger from an oll skip and the 72 2-sided pll recognitions.

I was wondering about y axis neutrality. It seems like it would be harder to ignore the FR slot if it isn't the same color each time. I would greatly appreciate advice directed to someone just learning zz and am interested in what orientation neutrality that other people use.

btw PTSD seems like an interesting concept. Good luck with it


----------



## gateway cuber (Dec 20, 2016)

lillod said:


> Hello. I am a cfop user and I would like to learn this method by nationals. I know full oll and pll along with being able to recognize the cube being one trigger from an oll skip and the 72 2-sided pll recognitions.
> 
> I was wondering about y axis neutrality. It seems like it would be harder to ignore the FR slot if it isn't the same color each time. I would greatly appreciate advice directed to someone just learning zz and am interested in what orientation neutrality that other people use.
> 
> btw PTSD seems like an interesting concept. Good luck with it


My main method is also cfop, but I also know ZZ, and as far as y axis neutrality goes, when I was learning ZZ I decided I wanted to be y axis neutral on white and yellow, so what I did was I solved in different orientations every solve and now it doesn't really seem to bother me when my block colors are always different. As for how this would affect TTLL recognition, I wouldn't know cause I only know like 7 of them...


----------



## lillod (Dec 20, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> As for how this would affect TTLL recognition, I wouldn't know cause I only know like 7 of them...


It should be okay due to the fact that I can do 2-sided pll recognition on white and yellow without much trouble at all.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 25, 2016)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD5GhLv4V-CtbR7oAYMJYaZaPR8jy6rtmUPZqzZGCOY/edit?usp=sharing

this document has full ZZ OLS, which in terms of ZZ-CT would be forcing a PLL for TTLL during TSLE every solve


----------



## IQubic (Dec 26, 2016)

Cale S said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD5GhLv4V-CtbR7oAYMJYaZaPR8jy6rtmUPZqzZGCOY/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> this document has full ZZ OLS, which in terms of ZZ-CT would be forcing a PLL for TTLL during TSLE every solve


Actually, it wouldn't. See, in ZZ-CT we just solve the egde. The attached corner might be white, or it might be yellow. Either way TSLE is solved.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 26, 2016)

IQubic said:


> Actually, it wouldn't. See, in ZZ-CT we just solve the egde. The attached corner might be white, or it might be yellow. Either way TSLE is solved.



but if you wanted an advanced version of TSLE that made it so you got a PLL case for TTLL, you would use this set of algs (although it's separated by F2L case). F2L + OLL is the same as TSLE + corner, because they both solve corner + edge + OLL


----------



## IQubic (Dec 26, 2016)

Cale S said:


> but if you wanted an advanced version of TSLE that made it so you got a PLL case for TTLL, you would use this set of algs (although it's separated by F2L case). F2L + OLL is the same as TSLE + corner, because they both solve corner + edge + OLL


TSLE + Corner is different from ZZ OLS. ZZ OLS assumes that the pair is already made, which is fine, but requires an extra step + look. TSLE + Corner requires you to learn 5 variations for each TSLE (one for each possible position of the White corner). However, at this point, we're just reinventing ZZ-C. ZZ-C is Corner + Edge + OCLL.


----------



## CubingGenius (Dec 26, 2016)

IQubic said:


> TSLE + Corner is different from ZZ OLS. ZZ OLS assumes that the pair is already made, which is fine, but requires an extra step + look. TSLE + Corner requires you to learn 5 variations for each TSLE (one for each possible position of the White corner). However, at this point, we're just reinventing ZZ-C. ZZ-C is Corner + Edge + OCLL.



ZZ OLS is the first step of ZZ-c. You insert the last F2L edge and corner (they don't have to be a pair as you said) and orient the LL, leaving PLL.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 26, 2016)

Cale S said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD5GhLv4V-CtbR7oAYMJYaZaPR8jy6rtmUPZqzZGCOY/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> this document has full ZZ OLS, which in terms of ZZ-CT would be forcing a PLL for TTLL during TSLE every solve


Wait isn't ZZ OLS just WV? Or am I missing something here?


----------



## ExultantCarn (Dec 26, 2016)

If you're using ZZ, why don't you just learn winter variation and summer variation instead of ZZ-CT? You would have to use on algorithm for last slot + OLL, and then one more for PLL, which most of us already know. Beyond that, you would have a 1/72 chance for an last layer skip (I'm assuming there statistic since the chance for a PLL skip is that). It also requires 54 algorithms if you do the WV/SV on your front right slot


----------



## Rcuber123 (Dec 26, 2016)

ExultantCarn said:


> If you're using ZZ, why don't you just learn winter variation and summer variation instead of ZZ-CT? You would have to use on algorithm for last slot + OLL, and then one more for PLL, most of us already know. Beyond that, you would have a 1/72 chance for an last layer skip (I'm assuming there statistic since the chance for a PLL skip is that). It also requires 54 algorithms if you do the WV/SV on your front right slot


In ZZ-CT you don't need to pair the last F2l pair


----------



## ExultantCarn (Dec 26, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> In ZZ-CT you don't need to pair the last F2l pair


Even with SV you don't need to completely pair the last F2L pair up. And if the stats are what I think they are, then you can get some extremely fast singles. On another note, goes do you calculate the chance of an ll skip


----------



## Rcuber123 (Dec 26, 2016)

ExultantCarn said:


> Even with SV you don't need to completely pair the last F2L pair up. And if the stats are what I think they are, then you can get some extremely fast singles. On another note, goes do you calculate the chance of an ll skip


It doesn't matter if it's paired or not the last pair needs to be in a specific position


----------



## ExultantCarn (Dec 26, 2016)

Still, you've got a something like a 1/84 chance of ll skip instead of 1/500 or whatever ZZ-CT has


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 26, 2016)

The move expense for WV and SV (including making the pair) over ZZ-CT is only 2 moves, which can almost be recouped from the less restricted F2L configuration. The algorithm count, case recognition, and skip chances are also much better in WV/SV.

Speed-Heise also gives you a 1/27 chance of a LL skip at a lower alg and move expense than ZZ-CT. Or you could just solve the last 5 edges with simplified LPELL and insert the last corner with a commutator (completely intuitive) for the same effect. CT's approach is simply not an efficient means of reducing cubestates to generate a skip.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 26, 2016)

IQubic said:


> TSLE + Corner is different from ZZ OLS. ZZ OLS assumes that the pair is already made, which is fine, but requires an extra step + look. TSLE + Corner requires you to learn 5 variations for each TSLE (one for each possible position of the White corner). However, at this point, we're just reinventing ZZ-C. ZZ-C is Corner + Edge + OCLL.



OLS (like the document) covers all possible pair cases (and has the same algs as 5 per TSLE)


----------



## gateway cuber (Dec 27, 2016)

waaaat just used a TTLL in a cfop solve and got a 7.86 couldn't reconstruct but TTLL was y' R2 U' R2' U' R2 U2' R2'...
what are the odds of getting a TTLL LS in Cfop meaning do 3rd pair then EO and TSLE are already done just TTLL remaining?


----------



## lillod (Dec 29, 2016)

Chance of EO (1/2)^4
Chance of edge being in slot 1/5
Chance of coriented corners (1/3)^4
Chance that a last layer corner is in the slot 4/5
Multiply them to get .0123% or 1/8100
Interesting thing about the decimal is that it is (123456790) repeating. It skips the 8 for some reason.
EDIT the chance of skipping tsle or vls in zz is 1/405


----------



## gateway cuber (Dec 29, 2016)

lillod said:


> Chance of EO (1/2)^4
> Chance of edge being in slot 1/5
> Chance of coriented corners (1/3)^4
> Chance that a last layer corner is in the slot 4/5
> ...


wow and it was a good TTLL too not even a yucky one...


----------



## ExultantCarn (Jan 3, 2017)

This might sound stupid but does the orientation of the edge matter during TSLE?


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 3, 2017)

ExultantCarn said:


> This might sound stupid but does the orientation of the edge matter during TSLE?


Yes.
The edge in TSLE must always be oriented.
However, because the first step of ZZ, the method used in conjunction with *ZZ*-CT, orients all edges, you don't need to worry about it.


----------



## ExultantCarn (Jan 3, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> Yes.
> The edge in TSLE must always be oriented.
> However, because the first step of ZZ, the method used in conjunction with *ZZ*-CT, orients all edges, you don't need to worry about it.


What if you decide to insert the edge in the back right slot?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 3, 2017)

The algs must be mirrored across the S slice. You can't really rotate because as you say the edge would then be oriented badly

basically just look at the alg e.g. R U R' U R U2 R'

For each move, just do the inverse of it, so do R' U' R U' R' U2 R


----------



## lillod (Jan 3, 2017)

Let's start the zz-ct vs. cfop argument up again. For the sake of argument let's say that tsle=oll and ttll=pll in recognition and execution time. Now we have zz f2l-1 vs cfop f2l. Is there a clear winner in this ?


----------



## ExultantCarn (Jan 3, 2017)

ZZ F2L-1 would be faster because you're blockbuilding and you don't have to insert one slot


----------



## ExultantCarn (Jan 3, 2017)

Could you apply ZZ-CT to CFOP, BUT instead of the TSLE, you use VLS? Also, would you need vls from both the left and right angles or could you just use one


----------



## 4Chan (Jan 3, 2017)

ExultantCarn said:


> What if you decide to insert the edge in the back right slot?



Slot neutrality is possible if you practice it.

It's fun to do slowly, and you can ADF for the last step.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 3, 2017)

ExultantCarn said:


> Could you apply ZZ-CT to CFOP, BUT instead of the TSLE, you use VLS? Also, would you need vls from both the left and right angles or could you just use one



You would need about 6 times as many algs as VLS for CFOP TSLE 

This is because with VLS, you have one corner always oriented in a specific direction and an edge oriented


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 3, 2017)

ExultantCarn said:


> Could you apply ZZ-CT to CFOP, BUT instead of the TSLE, you use VLS? Also, would you need vls from both the left and right angles or could you just use one



You would have to use two different angles because of the two different orientations of the edge, which would come to 432 cases. However, you would have to make one corner oriented in a specific way to be able to use VLS which would make it quite impractical for speedsolving.

For 432 + 72(TTLL) = 504 cases, you could learn fast ZBLL subsets, learn fast ZBLS cases and fast OLS cases, which would probably be more practical for CFOP than ZZ-CT.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 3, 2017)

lillod said:


> Let's start the zz-ct vs. cfop argument up again. For the sake of argument let's say that tsle=oll and ttll=pll in recognition and execution time. Now we have zz f2l-1 vs cfop f2l. Is there a clear winner in this ?



I don't think so, CFOP is more qtm optimized and there's greater potential for xcrosses and CN, while ZZ is more htm optimized and has greater potential for lucky blocks. CFOP has y/y', ZZ has regrips and L2/R2. Also have to take into consideration that "cfop users" won't actually use oll/pll every time, so it's a bit of an iffy comparison


----------



## JTcuber (Jan 3, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I don't think so, CFOP is more qtm optimized and there's greater potential for xcrosses and CN, while ZZ is more htm optimized and has greater potential for lucky blocks. CFOP has y/y', ZZ has regrips and L2/R2. Also have to take into consideration that "cfop users" won't actually use oll/pll every time, so it's a bit of an iffy comparison


I would say that for ZZ F2L vs. CFOP F2L, ZZ is a definite winner. You aren't bound by the extra cross pieces, so you don't have to make moves that just fix the cross. Also, You said ZZ has "L2/R2 and regrips". Since when does CFOP not have any regrips?!


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 3, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> I would say that for ZZ F2L vs. CFOP F2L, ZZ is a definite winner. You aren't bound by the extra cross pieces, so you don't have to make moves that just fix the cross.



I believe analysis of movecounts in ZZF2L vs CFOP F2L show that they have comparable qtm, so I am not sure the efficiency gains given by ZZF2L are as much as you say. (QTM here because I think in this situation it's the best measure of how fast the F2L can be. I will also take insertions like R U' R' over R U R any day).



JTcuber said:


> Also, You said ZZ has "L2/R2 and regrips". Since when does CFOP not have any regrips?!



From what I've seen of CFOP reconstrutions, it's got rotations (aka regrips i guess but i mentioned rotations), then regripless tps spam per pair. Maybe 1 rotation in the middle of a pair, but again, that's rotations. Sure, CFOP sometimes switches between L and R but never in the way that ZZ will. L2/R2 as well still can't really be ignored; these are what make htm efficiency less relevant here, basically forcing regrips and disrupting flow


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 3, 2017)

if you don't like the L/R regrips, you have 2 options:

-solve eoline on the left 
-just use petrus


----------



## JTcuber (Jan 3, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I believe analysis of movecounts in ZZF2L vs CFOP F2L show that they have comparable qtm, so I am not sure the efficiency gains given by ZZF2L are as much as you say. (QTM here because I think in this situation it's the best measure of how fast the F2L can be. I will also take insertions like R U' R' over R U R any day).
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen of CFOP reconstrutions, it's got rotations (aka regrips i guess but i mentioned rotations), then regripless tps spam per pair. Maybe 1 rotation in the middle of a pair, but again, that's rotations. Sure, CFOP sometimes switches between L and R but never in the way that ZZ will. L2/R2 as well still can't really be ignored; these are what make htm efficiency less relevant here, basically forcing regrips and disrupting flow


I agree, but I tend to get very few L2/R2s in my solves, and there are also very few regrips compared to CFOP. While I do think I tend to slightly prioritize ergonimics over perfect efficiency, I do think that ZZF2L can flow at least as well as CFOP (and I think it flows better because there are no rotations), and the F2L is slightly more efficient, albeit by maybe only 5-7 moves.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 3, 2017)

Hm, I'm not sure it's 5-7. This was a long time ago but I remember looking at F2L stats on cubesolv.es and not seeing much of a difference between ZZ and CFOP. To me the comparison between the F2Ls has always boiled down to different tradeoffs in terms of ergonomics


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 3, 2017)

if the steps to cfop f2l are defined [cross->easiestpair->easiestpair->easiestpair->pair] and the steps to zz f2l are defined as [eoline->easiestsquare1->easiestsquare2->easiestblock1->block2] (doesn't account for openslotting) and optimal solutions are generated for each step.

cfop f2l : 6.5+23=29.5 htm
zz f2l : 6.2+24.4=30.6 htm

but keep in mind that eof2l is a more desirable state than f2l. the mistake that most people make when calculating the CFOP movecounts is they multiply the "average" 6.7 htm pair insertion by 4.

traditional cfop averages 55 htm, while zz-ct averages 52 htm (what a huge advantage for 2.5x as many algs...).

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-speedcubing-method.5180/page-6#post-69583


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 3, 2017)

Arguably wouldn't it also be easier to consistently choose the easiest pair for CFOP F2L compared to consistently choosing the easiest block for ZZF2L?


----------



## alwin5b (Jan 5, 2017)

Hi

I found about 50 TSLE algs which I like more than the ones from gyroninja/Chris Tran/Blake Thompson (and one OCLL alg that works for ZZ-CT but not for CFOP). All of my algs are shorter or of equal length (in ftm or qtm metric) and I think they are faster to execute.
Here are all the OCLL/PLL/TSLE that I use:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FeTnqZJLmA3CLEUby84CJIzdgO67rwuOle5eJJfYhhU/pub

I will also probably try to find better TTLL algs, but Cube Explorer is not really fast enough for that, because the algs are longer. Is Acube better to generate longer algs or which program should I use?

anyway, I hope you find some of my algs useful


----------



## JTcuber (Jan 6, 2017)

alwin5b said:


> Hi
> 
> I found about 50 TSLE algs which I like more than the ones from gyroninja/Chris Tran/Blake Thompson (and one OCLL alg that works for ZZ-CT but not for CFOP). All of my algs are shorter or of equal length (in ftm or qtm metric) and I think they are faster to execute.
> Here are all the OCLL/PLL/TSLE that I use:
> ...


Well, I think these algs are really good, and some are a bit faster than gyroninja's(especially the headlights OCLL case), but I think a big appeal of Chris's algs aren't that they're necessrily the most efficient, but that they're 2 gen, which makes them all insanely ergonomic.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 6, 2017)

alwin5b said:


> I will also probably try to find better TTLL algs, but Cube Explorer is not really fast enough for that, because the algs are longer. Is Acube better to generate longer algs or which program should I use?


Cube Explorer is heavily optimised compared to the other programs like Acube or Ksolve, so it is unfortunately the fastest. The problem is that the number of possible algs to search through gets very huge very quickly, and that's the nature of the cube, not a shortcoming of any particular program. 

If you're not already doing so, limit the moves you search. I generate algs in <RUF> <RUD> and <RUL> first, then generate <RUFD>, and <RUDL> <RUFB> algs (these algs are often nice with rotations/wide moves added in). I can usually generate algs in all of these sets in about 10-15 minutes. Usually I do something else while I wait like check the previous set while the next one is generating, so it's more than fast enough.


----------



## alwin5b (Jan 6, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> I think a big appeal of Chris's algs aren't that they're necessrily the most efficient, but that they're 2 gen, which makes them all insanely ergonomic.



I agree. Given the choice between two equally fast algs, I always choose the one with fewer moves (in any metric). That's just a personal preference of mine. Most of the new algs I found are <R, U, L> which is slightly worse than <R, U>, but since they are shorter it evens out. (also, I think its cool to complement the ZZ method, which was designed to solve the cube with <R,U,L> moves, with <R,U,L>-algs. But thats again personal preference)

I mistakenly wrote that my algs are faster, what I meant was that some of the algs are faster and most are about equally fast, but none are slower.



AlphaSheep said:


> If you're not already doing so, limit the moves you search. I generate algs in <RUF> <RUD> and <RUL> first, then generate <RUFD>, and <RUDL> <RUFB> algs (these algs are often nice with rotations/wide moves added in).



I generated first unlimited, then <R,U,L> if I got too many good algs; both for face turn metric and quarter turn metric. I will definetely use your strategy for the longer algs, thanks.


----------



## JTcuber (Jan 7, 2017)

Hey, does anyone know the approximate alg count if you were to look at CP in TSLE, so you could force a 2 gen case?(Right opp or front opp)


----------



## 4Chan (Jan 7, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> Hey, does anyone know the approximate alg count if you were to look at CP in TSLE, so you could force a 2 gen case?(Right opp or front opp)



It's around 650


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 7, 2017)

I think this method is going great places, but I really don't want to spend so much time learning TSLE... Maybe over the summer, I'll see. I keep seeing you all saying a bunch of cases are easy to reduce, but there are just so many... Anyway, my way of doing it for about 3 months now is just to insert the edge by itself during F2L, then I use CLS (I or Im) on the corner that happens to be with it in the slot. If it happens to be oriented correctly, I just use an OcLL. It's really nice, because if you're doing F2L and you don't see anything you can just insert the edge while looking for a block and then get back to it later. Any thoughts??


----------



## JTcuber (Jan 7, 2017)

4Chan said:


> It's around 650


Damn. There goes that idea.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 7, 2017)

You could force CP during left block instead, porky style

i think it just ends up adding moves tho


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> You could force CP during left block instead, porky style
> 
> i think it just ends up adding moves tho


If you do it after left block it's at most 5 moves, but recognition is always there.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 7, 2017)

Well it's still 5 moves on top of TSLE and TTLL, and I'm pretty sure 2gen TTLLs aren't any shorter than normal TTLLs

so the trade off is less algs and 2gen algs, but more moves and the recog as you said

Not sure if it's worth it


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Well it's still 5 moves on top of TSLE and TTLL, and I'm pretty sure 2gen TTLLs aren't any shorter than normal TTLLs
> 
> so the trade off is less algs and 2gen algs, but more moves and the recog as you said
> 
> Not sure if it's worth it


Yeah, I'd just stick to regular TTLL's. Besides, if you like mirroring, you can learn the subsets with headlights in front and opposites in front and mirror all of those so that you know 2/3 of TTLL. That's what I'm doing so far.

Also, instead of TSLE I've been doing a CLS approach where I just insert the edge then use I or Im CLS on whatever corner is in the slot with it. Any comments?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 7, 2017)

Well it's less algs and higher skip chance but more moves and more looks

Might be good as a stepping stone to ZZ-CT, but if you're thinking if making that your primary way of solving LS+LL it's probably better to just do LS then COLL/EPLL


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Well it's less algs and higher skip chance but more moves and more looks


Why is it more looks? Instead of TSLE+TTLL I do CLS+TTLL.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 7, 2017)

Also, I just realized that while I'm doing this, I could just insert the edge then learn the TSLE cases for when the edge is inserted. That's way more achievable for me, and keep a relatively low movecount compared to my CLS/OcLL approach.


----------



## JTcuber (Jan 8, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Also, I just realized that while I'm doing this, I could just insert the edge then learn the TSLE cases for when the edge is inserted. That's way more achievable for me, and keep a relatively low movecount compared to my CLS/OcLL approach.


Yeah, that's what I've done as a stepping stone to full TSLE. It's only 20ish algs


----------



## lillod (Jan 9, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> And is anyone else having problems win the tsle anki file?


Yes the tsle deck doesn't seem to import anything. The ttll deck works fine for me and I tagged the cards by corner permutation. I'm planning to use it to learn a set of ttll a week.


----------



## Allahjabark (Jan 9, 2017)

Hey Chris, I just found out about your method, as I just started cubing about a month ago. I know about half of winter variation and am wondering if it can replace tlse if I use a pretend corner.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 9, 2017)

Allahjabark said:


> Hey Chris, I just found out about your method, as I just started cubing about a month ago. I know about half of winter variation and am wondering if it can replace tlse if I use a pretend corner.


Yes it can. All of the really short winter variation cases (7 moves or less) make really good TSLE algs and I think most people use those. There are several other cases where a decent strategy is to do a single trigger (e.g. R U R') to reduce to a pseudo-winter variation case.

There are some bad winter variation cases though where it is not worth it. When picking TSLE algs, it helps to remember that every single TSLE case can be solved in 11 moves or less, even using only R and U moves.


----------



## lillod (Jan 15, 2017)

So when you scramble the cube <R,U> you will always get the front opposite 2 gen set of ttll when you solve it. I thought if you did something like D' R U R' D and then scrambled the cube 2 gen it would constrict the ttll to another set. Instead it seems that it can be any of the non 2 gen ttll. Why is this?


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 15, 2017)

Basically, it all depends on how the cube is scrambled before doing the moves and which pair you want to leave for TTLL. I'm assuming you always solve the back pair, then use the front right slot for TTLL. If you start from a solved state, you will get a case with headlights on the right. This is because the moves you do (D' R U R' D) swap the two corners at URF and URB on a solved cube. If you do a U2 before these moves and try a TTLL, you'll get a double headlights case because this time the ULF and ULB corners are swapped. A different AUF would give a different case because different corners are being swapped. I hope this helps, I know that was hard to follow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 15, 2017)

lillod said:


> So when you scramble the cube <R,U> you will always get the front opposite 2 gen set of ttll when you solve it. I thought if you did something like D' R U R' D and then scrambled the cube 2 gen it would constrict the ttll to another set. Instead it seems that it can be any of the non 2 gen ttll. Why is this?



Assuming you have the cube in scramble orientation (adjust the colours accordingly if you use another orientation for ZZ), the D' R U R' D effectively swaps the white-red-green and white-blue-red corners. Let's say you have a 2-gen TTLL (not counting PLL, for simplicity); where can the white-red-green and white-blue-red corners be? There are essentially four possible locations for these two corners, so you can get four out of five of the other TTLL sets by swapping those two. (Note that there's still a sixth set which you will _not_ encounter with a D' R U R' D setup, which I think is headlights-on-front.)

(also, ninja'd)


----------



## lillod (Jan 15, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Basically, it all depends on how the cube is scrambled before doing the moves and which pair you want to leave for TTLL. I'm assuming you always solve the back pair, then use the front right slot for TTLL. If you start from a solved state, you will get a case with headlights on the right. This is because the moves you do (D' R U R' D) swap the two corners at URF and URB on a solved cube. If you do a U2 before these moves and try a TTLL, you'll get a double headlights case because this time the ULF and ULB corners are swapped. A different AUF would give a different case because different corners are being swapped. I hope this helps, I know that was hard to follow.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What I was trying to say was that if you did the alg from the solved state you wont always get a ttll with headlights on right.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 16, 2017)

lillod said:


> What I was trying to say was that if you did the alg from the solved state you wont always get a ttll with headlights on right.



Can you send me a scramble starting with those moves in which you don't get one of those TTLL's? That doesn't sound right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lillod (Jan 16, 2017)

D' R U R' D \\ setup alg
U R' U R' U' R U R' U' R2 U R \\ back block
U' R U2 R' U R U2 R' U' R U' R' \\ tsle
H perm ttll


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 16, 2017)

I think @xyzzy has already explained it quite well but I'd like to add a little.

2-gen scrambles don't really preserve corner permutation. They actually only keep corner permutation into one of 3 groups that can be characterised by a swap of _last layer_ corners (either no swap, adjacent swap, or diagonal swap). Having an unsolved F2L corner makes things a little more complicated.

Do R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 on a solved cube, and look at the effect on corners. It swaps DFR and UFR, and swaps UBR and UBL. It does affect corner permutation, because it moves the F2L corner, but the corner permutation is still in the no-swap group.

TTLL isn't any different. All TTLL cases must fall into one of those three groups. We group them based on patterns that are easy to recognise (front headlights, right opposites, etc) because that's convenient, but that can't change the fact that there are still only 3 CP groups.

The three groups of TTLLs based on the CP groups are (assuming DFR corner is either solved or in UBL) :

No swap:

EPLLs
Opposites on front
Diagonal swap:

E, V, Y, N PLLs
Headlights on front
Adjacent swap

A, F, G, J, R, T PLLs
Headlights right
Opposites right
Headlights front and right
Opposites front and right
D' R U R' D introduces an adjacent swap in PLL, so you can get any of the TTLLs in the adjacent swap group. Do a Y-perm followed by any RU TTLL and you are guaranteed to get a TTLL in the diagonal swap group only.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 16, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> They actually only keep corner permutation into one of 3 groups that can be characterised by a swap of _last layer_ corners (either no swap, adjacent swap, or diagonal swap).



Not very relevant, but I feel like I should point out that while permutations can be divided into no, adj, and diagonal categories, there are 4 distinct adjacent swaps, and you can't "transmute" between them <R,U> (so technically there are 6 groups).

This is because the size of <R,U> is 120 but S6 is 720, so there must be 6 distinct sets of 120 that <R,U> can reach at a time.

though, i'm actually not sure why a diagonal swap case wouldn't be reachable with D' R U R' D as well....

EDIT: Wait, okay, wait.

If you're doing D' R U R' D first thing before anything else every time, you will only get a specific subset of the adj swap TTLLs. You will also never ever get any of the 2gen TTLLs. This is because it's "equivalent" to swapping URF and URB, but there's no way to get, say, a ULF-ULB swap (or any of the other 3 adjacent swaps) by doing the D' R U R' D before anything else.

If you're doing <R,U> stuffs before D' R U R' D, then you can get literally any non-2gen TTLL. It's not restricted to adj swaps. Example of a diagonal swap TTLL: R U2 R' *D' R U R' D* R U R2' U' R U2 R' U' R2 U R' U R U2 R'. Yperm!


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 16, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Not very relevant, but I feel like I should point out that while permutations can be divided into no, adj, and diagonal categories, there are 4 distinct adjacent swaps, and you can't "transmute" between them <R,U> (so technically there are 6 groups).
> 
> This is because the size of <R,U> is 120 but S6 is 720, so there must be 6 distinct sets of 120 that <R,U> can reach at a time.


Yes. I think what you're saying is very relevant. 

What's really cool is that the 5 adjacent swap sets I mentioned above actually correspond to which of the 5 corners is in the DFR slot.

Starting from a solved cube with white top and green front, then doing D' R U R' D, then 2-gen scramble and then solve to TTLL, etc, you will always get the same colour cases.

If it's a PLL, it will _always_ have orange headlights. 
If its the TTLL case with headlights on the right, the headlights will _always_ be green. 
If it's the TTLL case with headlights on both sides, they will _always_ be red in front and blue on the right.

You can obviously change the colours by choosing the AUF before the D' R U R' D. Adding an AUF switches which one of the 4 distinct adjacent swap groups you land up in.


----------



## gateway cuber (Jan 16, 2017)

lillod said:


> Let's start the zz-ct vs. cfop argument up again. For the sake of argument let's say that tsle=oll and ttll=pll in recognition and execution time. Now we have zz f2l-1 vs cfop f2l. Is there a clear winner in this ?


I will admit CT has more potential than CFOP, but nobody has mastered the method yet. You guys gotta get phil and andy in on this then there will be some faaaaassssst times.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 16, 2017)

lillod said:


> Let's start the zz-ct vs. cfop argument up again. For the sake of argument let's say that tsle=oll and ttll=pll in recognition and execution time. Now we have zz f2l-1 vs cfop f2l. Is there a clear winner in this ?



Both of them are solving eight pieces, the main differences are that ZZ doesn't have rotations and that piece recognition is easier since edges are oriented. As far as CFOP F2L vs ZZ F2L-1, ZZ is the clear winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zanaso (Jan 16, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Both of them are solving eight pieces, the main differences are that ZZ doesn't have rotations and that piece recognition is easier since edges are oriented. As far as CFOP F2L vs ZZ F2L-1, ZZ is the clear winner.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This doesn't really consider the fact that CFOP F2L is capable of higher TPS. Also, the recognition thing isn't really significant, CFOP F2L recognition is fine lol. Another thing you didn't consider is that unless you want to mirror TSLE and do ADF (which is going to add time to you solve) you have to restrict your F2L to solving the FR slot last which will probably add time to your solve. Also I'm not quite convinced TTLL is as good as PLL tbh (I could definitely be wrong tho).

I personally don't think ZZ-CT is better than CFOP; they're probably about equal. I also don't really think ZZ-CT is better than ZZ-b.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 16, 2017)

Zanaso said:


> This doesn't really consider the fact that CFOP F2L is capable of higher TPS. Also, the recognition thing isn't really significant, CFOP F2L recognition is fine lol. Another thing you didn't consider is that unless you want to mirror TSLE and do ADF (which is going to add time to you solve) you have to restrict your F2L to solving the FR slot last which will probably add time to your solve. Also I'm not quite convinced TTLL is as good as PLL tbh (I could definitely be wrong tho).
> 
> I personally don't think ZZ-CT is better than CFOP; they're probably about equal. I also don't really think ZZ-CT is better than ZZ-b.



I don't see why CFOP F2L would have any better TPS than ZZ. I do think that recognition is faster in ZZ because you only have to look at the top sticker to know if it's an F2L edge or belongs to the last layer, it's at least faster than CFOP, especially when checking the UB edge. I do agree about the last slot, but if you learn TSLE in terms of what it does rather than muscle memory it's not too bad to mirror it, and one rotation for TTLL is better than multiple rotations during F2L in my opinion. I do agree about the difference between ZZ-CT and ZZ-b, the only differences are alg count and recognition.


----------



## Zanaso (Jan 16, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I don't see why CFOP F2L would have any better TPS than ZZ. I do think that recognition is faster in ZZ because you only have to look at the top sticker to know if it's an F2L edge or belongs to the last layer, it's at least faster than CFOP, especially when checking the UB edge. I do agree about the last slot, but if you learn TSLE in terms of what it does rather than muscle memory it's not too bad to mirror it, and one rotation for TTLL is better than multiple rotations during F2L in my opinion. I do agree about the difference between ZZ-CT and ZZ-b, the only differences are alg count and recognition.


CFOP has better TPS than ZZ because ZZF2L has way more regrips due to awkward insertions like R U R or switching between L and R moves. The recognition thing doesn't really matter because it's not like you pause for recognition; you do the recog while you're already solving pieces so it's not time wasted. 

Also, the rotations in CFOP aren't that bad at all. y and y' are hardly worse than the regrips you will have to do for ZZF2L anyway.


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 17, 2017)

Zanaso said:


> CFOP has better TPS than ZZ because ZZF2L has way more regrips due to awkward insertions like R U R or switching between L and R moves. The recognition thing doesn't really matter because it's not like you pause for recognition; you do the recog while you're already solving pieces so it's not time wasted.
> 
> Also, the rotations in CFOP aren't that bad at all. y and y' are hardly worse than the regrips you will have to do for ZZF2L anyway.



You forgot that CFOP also has regrips just like ZZ. Switching between L and R moves also happens in CFOP as well. You also F moves and especially rotations affect the TPS in a bad way.

I understand what you mean about the recognition. You don't have to worry about EO for ZZ, but you have to work out the permutation of the DL and DR edges, so it's kind of hard to tell which one is better.

Rotations are a lot worse than regrips. I'm not sure why you're trying to say regrips are so bad compared to rotations. They happen all the time in CFOP anyway, so it's like regrips vs regrips & rotations.

I think CFOP's move count is lower than ZZ's, but the TPS in ZZF2L would be faster than that of CFOP's F2L.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 17, 2017)

Zanaso said:


> awkward insertions like R U R


I'm sorry, but I really have to nitpick here because I think this is one of the best F2L inserts... Maybe it's because you've developed sloppy fingertrick habits from always having to waste moves to restore the cross edge, but I do this as an R2 with a flick for the U in the middle. No regrip needed. I'm pretty sure I can do it faster than having to reverse direction half way through like in R U R'. 



Zanaso said:


> switching between L and R moves


But surely this happens in CFOP too? Or do you only solve slots on one side of the cube? 

Anyway, many ZZ users work on one side first then the other unless there's a really obvious easy block, so the second half of F2L is pure 2-gen and practically regripless with really high TPS. During the first half, I typically minimize switching, so regrips are minimised. There are also plenty of ways to switch from R to L without a regrip, eg. Anti-slice moves (R L and R' L') rarely need a regrip.

There are valid weaknesses of ZZ F2L, but regrips and low TPS are definitely not one of them. ZZ is built specifically for ergonomics, and those ergonomics lead directly to a higher TPS.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 17, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> I'm sorry, but I really have to nitpick here because I think this is one of the best F2L inserts... Maybe it's because you've developed sloppy fingertrick habits from always having to waste moves to restore the cross edge, but I do this as an R2 with a flick for the U in the middle. No regrip needed. I'm pretty sure I can do it faster than having to reverse direction half way through like in R U R'.



I don't think the issue is with the R U R itself but what comes before and after. An R2 is not easy to transition into and out of, as your wrist is forced into a more extreme position. This is where a regrip is often needed. Imagine R U R , and then U? What about an R U R U R U R' right block? Not exactly friendly..



AlphaSheep said:


> But surely this happens in CFOP too? Or do you only solve slots on one side of the cube?


Yeah, I think the L/R regrip thing is overplayed a bit. There's an interesting thing that I see in videos of fast ZZ solvers, where in between switching between <R,U> and <L,U>, for example, the first couple <L,U> moves will actually be executed as <r,U/F> before the left hand becomes fully activated, easing transition between sides.

There's an argument to be made for things like L2 U2 R' U' R' never happening in CFOP, but an experienced ZZ user will force cross pieces to be in favorable positions during EOLine.



AlphaSheep said:


> There are also plenty of ways to switch from R to L without a regrip, eg. Anti-slice moves (R L and R' L') rarely need a regrip.



Would you mind showing a video of you executing something that involves RL or R'L' and not having to regrip afterwards? I find this stuff awkward personally.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 18, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Would you mind showing a video of you executing something that involves RL or R'L' and not having to regrip afterwards? I find this stuff awkward personally.


I think it has a lot to do with grip. I tend to keep my thumbs on the FR and FL edges, at least during F2L, and I stabilise the M slice with my ring fingers on BU. It's fairly symmetrical and makes switching began L and R easier. 

I will hopefully have a few spare minutes to film something tomorrow. Please remind me if I haven't done it by Friday.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 19, 2017)

Oh, I completely forgot to mention this, but ZZ-CT has a lower movecount than CFOP with 2LLL. Also, doing LSLL means there are less intuitive pieces to solve, so more of the solve is straight recognition and spamming TPS on algs, and TSLE is purely 2-gen save a few cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 19, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Would you mind showing a video of you executing something that involves RL or R'L' and not having to regrip afterwards?






Moves:
R U' (L'R') U (L2'R) U' (L'R') U (LR) U R2' U R 
U' R U R' U R U2' R'
There is a minor regrip needed after the L2


----------



## Hammer (Jan 19, 2017)

Hey I think this method has great potential for me (cuz my tps is not that great and I use cfop) and I sorta know zz but im wondering whether i should stick to solving from one angle (so that I know which pieces to ignore) or i should be y axis color neutral, where there'll be more thinking involved about which pieces to avoid and secondly, should i finish the complete l block and then do the rb pair, or should i just do whatever pops up?

Thanks!


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

y neutral is nice, since it'll let you avoid bad cases more often. Most very fast people are y neutral I think.

Do whatever pops up, as long as you're leaving FR for last


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 20, 2017)

Hammer said:


> Hey I think this method has great potential for me (cuz my tps is not that great and I use cfop) and I sorta know zz but im wondering whether i should stick to solving from one angle (so that I know which pieces to ignore) or i should be y axis color neutral, where there'll be more thinking involved about which pieces to avoid and secondly, should i finish the complete l block and then do the rb pair, or should i just do whatever pops up?
> 
> Thanks!



Take a look at other things like CPLS/2GLL and especially ZZ-b before deciding.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 26, 2017)

CubingGenius said:


> Take a look at other things like CPLS/2GLL and especially ZZ-b before deciding.


please dont do this cpls is horrible


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 26, 2017)

What's horrible about it?


----------



## CubingGenius (Jan 26, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> please dont do this cpls is horrible



It's very good for OH. And you can also look at ZZ-orbit if you want.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 30, 2017)

CubingGenius said:


> It's very good for OH. And you can also look at ZZ-orbit if you want.


isn't ZZ-orbit phasing + CP so you get a phased subset of 2GLL?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 30, 2017)

Nah ZZ-orbit is just one guy's random way of "solving" the missing link 

Here's the original post: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/at-last-zz-d-method-has-been-completed.34994/

It's literally just CPLS but with a pair instead of with FR in slot


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 30, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Nah ZZ-orbit is just one guy's random way of "solving" the missing link
> 
> Here's the original post: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/at-last-zz-d-method-has-been-completed.34994/
> 
> It's literally just CPLS but with a pair instead of with FR in slot


ok. when I first thought of CPLS, I thought immediately of a method where you permuted corners while inserting the last pair, but I realized what it really was a little while ago. I think that CPLs was originally supposed to be an alternative to CLS for MGLS, which may actually be decent.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 31, 2017)

While we're discussing variants that do CP before LL, I use a method for OH where you do CP after your first block, leaving you with a 2-gen second block and 2GLL. Does anyone know what this is called?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 31, 2017)

ZZ-d


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 31, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> While we're discussing variants that do CP before LL, I use a method for OH where you do CP after your first block, leaving you with a 2-gen second block and 2GLL. Does anyone know what this is called?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Depends on how you do it. If you do it as a step right after your first block idk how you do it you r god please teach us. If you so it while while inserting last FB pair, it's probably ZZ-porky V1 or V2, which are each "missing links" for ZZ-d. ZZ-porky2 is what I use for ZZ-D, and it definitely has OH potential, I don't know why more people don't use it.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 31, 2017)

It's not really content for this thread, but I've used all the ZZ-d variants extensively (at least 500 solves on each, >1000 on a few), and I will attest that CPLS, ZZ-Orbit (as well as the R U R' inserts), "Freestyle Porky" v1 (using any adjacent U layer corners AUF'd to UL), and "Half-Porky" v1 (putting a single D corner in D and using CPLS recog and shorter algs to solve CP) are the the most promising variants. Other methods just take too long at recognize or aren't efficient enough. Maybe you could plan a 3x2x2+cp in inspection and then use slice moves to orient the edges, but that's just too hard for me.

I know those two last ones weren't methods truly proposed by Porkynator, but they are derivatives of his work.

And I wouldn't say that these ZZ-d variants have better OH potential than regular COLL/EPLL. Both of these approaches have similar proportions of <RU> to <URDLF>. You are just sacrificing recognition to move the L/D/F moves earlier in the solve, while getting only a slight movecount advantage, if any at all.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 31, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Depends on how you do it. If you do it as a step right after your first block idk how you do it you r god please teach us.



I complete my left block then do CP. The way I do it is I place the remaining D-layer corners in the D-layer (can be swapped, orientation doesn't matter) then recognize permutation. The algs are just an AUF and either L' U R U' L or L' U R2 U' L. I can go more in depth on recognition if you want.


----------



## gyroninja (Feb 6, 2017)

I made a visualization of the TSLE algs on my website. You can find it in this thread.

It's kind of interesting how you can see the bias of algs that are good / I like personally. (The chart is heavily biased on the left side) It's also the first time I've worked with LaTeX before.


----------



## lillod (Feb 14, 2017)

Cool! I just finished my project as well. It's ttll-trainer.us. This was my first time working in HTML and Javascript. I was inspired by the EGtrainer site and decided to replicate it to aid my learning of TTLL. The main feature over the qqtimer scrambler is that you can constrain the set(s) that will be generated. Hopefully, someone can find it useful.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 15, 2017)

@4Chan

i threw together a custom input file for ZZ-CT in HARCS. it finds stepwise optimal solutions to eoline/lb/rs+tsle/ttll in that order.

you can shift it to use your preferred orientation. it also doesn't use any of your tsle/ttll algorithms, but it generates optimal RUD solutions each time - you can load your own algs if you want.



Spoiler: custom.txt



step eoline
movegroup 1
prunedepth 5
searchdepth 5
epmask 0x00000000f0f0
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0x00000000
comask 0x00000000
cnmask 0xfff

step lb
movegroup 5
prunedepth 6
searchdepth 6
epmask 0x0000f00ff0ff
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0x0000f00f
comask 0x0000f00f
cnmask 0xfff

step rs+tsle
movegroup 4
prunedepth 7
searchdepth 7
epmask 0x0000ffffffff
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0x0000ff0f
comask 0xffffffff
cnmask 0xfff

step ttll
movegroup 4
prunedepth 8
searchdepth 9
epmask 0xffffffffffff
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0xffffffff
comask 0xffffffff
cnmask 0xfff

all eoline lb rs+tsle ttll



here are the first 5 solves that it generated:

38 htm
44 htm
39 htm
39 htm
39 htm

that's a pretty good movecount - only slightly worse than stepwise optimal ZZ-a , and I'm sure there is something valuable to be learned concerning how it optimally solves rs+tsle.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 15, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> @4Chan
> 
> i threw together a custom input file for ZZ-CT in HARCS. it finds stepwise optimal solutions to eoline/lb/rs+tsle/ttll in that order.
> 
> ...



Have you tried slot neutral? I wonder what the difference would be.
ColourfulPockets has some degree of neutrality when he uses ZZ-CT

EDIT: I read into HARCS, and I see you specify steps, so asking for slot neutral sounds not so straightforward, oops.


----------



## gyroninja (Feb 15, 2017)

lillod said:


> Cool! I just finished my project as well. It's ttll-trainer.us. This was my first time working in HTML and Javascript. I was inspired by the EGtrainer site and decided to replicate it to aid my learning of TTLL. The main feature over the qqtimer scrambler is that you can constrain the set(s) that will be generated. Hopefully, someone can find it useful.


Nice. My timer can also do that but it's a little more complicated (it doesn't have nice check boxes for everything)



4Chan said:


> Have you tried slot neutral? I wonder what the difference would be.
> ColourfulPockets has some degree of neutrality when he uses ZZ-CT
> 
> EDIT: I read into HARCS, and I see you specify steps, so asking for slot neutral sounds not so straightforward, oops.



Wouldn't the move count be like the same over all possible starting states due to symmetry? (I've also used slot neutral tsle since nats and it's not too hard since it's just triggers)


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 16, 2017)

gyroninja said:


> Wouldn't the move count be like the same over all possible starting states due to symmetry? (I've also used slot neutral tsle since nats and it's not too hard since it's just triggers)



it would be slightly less because it could pick the shortest between lb first or rb first and which square to solve along with tsle. but that is an evaluation a human will not be able to make in a speedsolve. 

i just thought it was interesting that you could solve rs+tsle in ~11 htm <RU> on average


----------



## gyroninja (Feb 16, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> it would be slightly less because it could pick the shortest between lb first or rb first and which square to solve along with tsle. but that is an evaluation a human will not be able to make in a speedsolve.
> 
> i just thought it was interesting that you could solve rs+tsle in ~11 htm <RU> on average


11 HTM sounds about right. If you take a look at the chart I made of the algs from my website you'll notice that the majority of the chart is made of three triggers.

(3 triggers * 3 move each) + 3 AUF (one before each trigger) = 12 HTM

If you didn't know most of the tsle algs on my site are qtm move optimal.

*EDIT*: whoops, didn't notice you said it also did the block


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 16, 2017)

Interesting, but a shame.
If only a human could do rb+tsle that low. ):


----------



## lillod (Feb 16, 2017)

Has anyone thought of Roux-CT? All you would need to do is tsle during second block and a loose subset of ttll for cmll. Since the edge of tsle isn't necessarily oriented and could be in DF or DB, there would be a lot more cases if you wanted to do it in one look. But if you immediately inserted the edge to DF, you could do change the corner orientation without needing to juggle where the edge is. The goal is to get the corner orientation to match a 1 trigger tsle. This should be able to be done with one trigger. Then you insert the edge back into the top layer with an M' or M2 and do one trigger to solve tsle. After writing this I realize that it is essentially making them all a 4 trigger case that alternate between <M,U> and <R,U> but 1. It's pretty intuitive even compared to normal tsle 2. it can be mirrored to the back slot and would only be 48 cases after the edge is taken out and 3. there's lot of tricks you can do to make cases mor efficient eg. you could insert the edge right away to reduce it to a 2 trigger tsle case.
Then ttll is simple you just generate some algs that disregard eo and the M slice but solve the corner permutation. You could also generate a few more that swap DBR with UBL without needing to do an ADF at the beginning and end. The result is raising the skip chance of cmll from 1/162 to 1/30 and making the recognition of cmll easier.
If anyone has a better idea to do tsle during SB let me know.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 16, 2017)

lillod said:


> Has anyone thought of Roux-CT? All you would need to do is tsle during second block and a loose subset of ttll for cmll. Since the edge of tsle isn't necessarily oriented and could be in DF or DB, there would be a lot more cases if you wanted to do it in one look. But if you immediately inserted the edge to DF, you could do change the corner orientation without needing to juggle where the edge is. The goal is to get the corner orientation to match a 1 trigger tsle. This should be able to be done with one trigger. Then you insert the edge back into the top layer with an M' or M2 and do one trigger to solve tsle. After writing this I realize that it is essentially making them all a 4 trigger case that alternate between <M,U> and <R,U> but 1. It's pretty intuitive even compared to normal tsle 2. it can be mirrored to the back slot and would only be 48 cases after the edge is taken out and 3. there's lot of tricks you can do to make cases mor efficient eg. you could insert the edge right away to reduce it to a 2 trigger tsle case.
> Then ttll is simple you just generate some algs that disregard eo and the M slice but solve the corner permutation. You could also generate a few more that swap DBR with UBL without needing to do an ADF at the beginning and end. The result is raising the skip chance of cmll from 1/162 to 1/30 and making the recognition of cmll easier.
> If anyone has a better idea to do tsle during SB let me know.



Creative thinking is always great 

I think it's not as good as normal roux, because it's the same amount of steps as doing the slot, and then the CMLL.
):


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 16, 2017)

I was going to bump this thread, then I realized the last post was earlier today, sooo... Ill just say What I was going to say. 
what would the best beginner's variation of ZZ-CT? I have heard of the post here, but I don't completely like it. 
Here is what I propose for people just trying to learn the method:
-ZZF2L-1
-intuitive TSLE(try to reduce the case down to one of the 1-trigger inserts)
-TTLL algs to solve corners
-EPLL.

Also, which set of TTLL should I learn first? This is coming from an (almost) purely OH perspective, so I am saying like which TTLL's pop up the most, so I can learn those first?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 16, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I was going to bump this thread, then I realized the last post was earlier today, sooo... Ill just say What I was going to say.
> what would the best beginner's variation of ZZ-CT? I have heard of the post here, but I don't completely like it.
> Here is what I propose for people just trying to learn the method:
> -ZZF2L-1
> ...


Also what would the TTLL count be if I permuted corners beforehand with a ZZ-d missing link method like ZZ-porky1 or v2 or something like that? I do ZZ-porky often and I want to reduce the amount of cases I would have to learn. a quick look at the algs looks like it could be either 12 or 24, depending if I am reading it correctly or not.


----------



## 4Chan (Feb 17, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Also what would the TTLL count be if I permuted corners beforehand with a ZZ-d missing link method like ZZ-porky1 or v2 or something like that? I do ZZ-porky often and I want to reduce the amount of cases I would have to learn. a quick look at the algs looks like it could be either 12 or 24, depending if I am reading it correctly or not.



Permuted corners means only 12 possible TTLL cases


----------



## AlphaSheep (Feb 17, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> -intuitive TSLE(try to reduce the case down to one of the 1-trigger inserts)


If you don't know which cases follow which, this can be really difficult to do intuitively because you can go round and round in circles. I say the best beginner TSLE is to try insert the edge with any oriented corner to get an OCLL case. This can be done in at most 2 extra triggers, has near instant recognition, and requires very little thought.


----------



## Hammer (Mar 5, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> If you don't know which cases follow which, this can be really difficult to do intuitively because you can go round and round in circles. I say the best beginner TSLE is to try insert the edge with any oriented corner to get an OCLL case. This can be done in at most 2 extra triggers, has near instant recognition, and requires very little thought.


That's exactly what I thought of earlier; easier recognition, faster algs (for the most part), and not much slower.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 23, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> If you don't know which cases follow which, this can be really difficult to do intuitively because you can go round and round in circles. I say the best beginner TSLE is to try insert the edge with any oriented corner to get an OCLL case. This can be done in at most 2 extra triggers, has near instant recognition, and requires very little thought.



Do you think it is better to do this or to insert the edge with a random corner and do one of the inserted edge TSLEs(like PhillipEspinoza suggested on page 5)?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 24, 2017)

bren077s said:


> Do you think it is better to do this or to insert the edge with a random corner and do one of the inserted edge TSLEs(like PhillipEspinoza suggested on page 5)?



I think the two complement each other. OCLL is a good starting point because you can start doing it straight away without learning anything new.

Obviously OCLL you want to start expanding toward full TSLE, so you need to decide which of the 97 remaining algs to learn first. Learning the ones with edge already in place is not a bad place to start. There are lots of cases to learn though, so it's not like you can just dive straight into it.

For what it's worth, the path I followed is the one I described on page 4.



AlphaSheep said:


> There are quite a few options for 2-look TSLE.
> 
> The easy way is to pick the easiest F2L case that combines the edge with any corner. This inserts the edge and an oriented corner on D in at most 2 triggers. Then you do OCLL. This is a really easy 2-look system that gets TSLE solved in at most 5 triggers.
> 
> ...


I didn't mention the three 1 trigger cases. Obviously you should learn to recognise them straight away.

After that, I recommend learning the 5 cases with one twisted corner on top and the corner on DFR facing the side. Only once you've done then should you start learning the remaining cases with ones with the edge in place.

Lastly, you should learn the pseudo-WV cases that you don't already know (cases where the edge is connected to a corner forming a pseudo pair).

This gives a steady progression up until you know about 60 cases. After that you're passed half way and it just becomes a matter of filling in the cases you don't know. With that, it's best to start on the cases that look similar to cases you do know to avoid confusion.


----------



## IQubic (Mar 26, 2017)

Speaking of the right order to learn cases. What's the correct, and simplest way to learn TTLL? I am ambidextrous, so I'll be using all the mirrors. I will then proceed onto learning TSLE. I want to learn ZZ-CT in as painless a way as possible.

Can I also get a list of all the TTLLs that are PLL conjugates and what that conjugate is?


----------



## Runnerboy1008 (May 23, 2017)

I just started learning tsle from gyroninja's site. This method looks so freakin' awesome!


----------



## mDiPalma (May 29, 2017)

Hi @4Chan

I spent 5 minutes and ran 100k stepwise optimal ZZ-CT solves with the latest version of HARCS.


```
SOLVES: 100000

   LEAST MOVES:    20
   MOST MOVES:     54

   STEP            MEAN            BEST            WORST
   eoline          6.12488         1               8
   lb              9.02099         2               12
   rs+tsle         11.2751         2               14
   ttll            15.5684         0               23
   TOTAL           41.9894         5               57
```

I know it's not how you guys do it (RS+TSLE at the same time), but these are pretty neat statistics for ZZ-CT "in the limit" of human experience. You can edit the code below (and add your TSLE algs to the TTLL.txt file, using it as an "algset" for both) to more closely match your techniques.



Spoiler: code





```
step eoline
movegroup 1
prunedepth 5
searchdepth 5
epmask 0x00000000f0f0
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0x00000000
comask 0x00000000
cnmask 0xfff

step lb
movegroup 5
prunedepth 6
searchdepth 6
epmask 0x0000f00ff0ff
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0x0000f00f
comask 0x0000f00f
cnmask 0xfff

step rs+tsle
movegroup 4
prunedepth 7
searchdepth 7
epmask 0x0000ffffffff
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0x0000ff0f
comask 0xffffffff
cnmask 0xfff

step ttll
algset TTLL.txt
epmask 0xffffffffffff
eomask 0xffffffffffff
cpmask 0xffffffff
comask 0xffffffff
cnmask 0xfff

all eoline lb rs+tsle ttll
```






Spoiler: TTLL.txt





```
R' D' R U' R2 D' R U' R' D R U D R
R U R' U R U R' U R U' R' U R U R' U R U R'
R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R'
R U' R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U R U R'
R2 U2 R U' R' U R' U2 R2 U R U R'
R U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R
R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2
R' U' R' U R U2 R U2 R2 U' R U R
R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2
R U' R' U R2 U R' U R' U' R2 U' R' U2 R'
R' U2 R U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U' R' U2 R
R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U R U2 R'
R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' L U' R U L' U R'
R U' R D R' U R U D' R D R' U' R D' R
D R' U R U' R' U2 R U R' U' R D'
R U R' U' R U' R D R' U2 R D' R' U R' U R U' R'
R U R' U' R U R' U2 R U2 R2 U L U' R U L'
D R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 D'
F' U2 F U F U2 F2 U' F2 U' F'
R U' R' U' R U' R' L U' R U L' U R' U R U' R'
D R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2 D'
R U2 L U L' U R' U2 L U R U2 R' L'
R2 U2 R U2 R' U R' U' R U R' D R' U R D'
F U F2 U F2 U2 F' U' F' U2 F
R' D R D' R' U R D2 R' U' R D' R' D' R
R' F R F' R' F R F' R' F R F'
R' U' R' U R2 D' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' D R'
R U R' U' R U2 R D R' U R' U' R U R2 D' R
R2 D R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2 U2 D' R2
R' U R D' R U R' D R' U' R U' R2 U R U' R' U R'
R2 D U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 D' R2
R U D' R U' R' U R U' R' U R2 U R' U' R' U' R' U D R'
R U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R' U' R' U L U' R U L'
R2 U R' U R U' R' U' D R2 U' R' U R2 U' D' R'
R U R' U' R U' L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U' R U' R'
R2 U R2 D U R2 D' R2 U2 R2 D R2 D'
R' U R U' R U' R U' R U R' L' U R' U' L
R U' R U' R' U R' U R2 D' R U R' U' D R
R U R' U' R U R' L' U2 R U R' U2 R L U' R'
R U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R D R' U' R D' R' U R'
R U F R U R' U' F' R2 F R F' R U' R'
R' U' R U' R2 U D R' U' R D' R2 U R2 U R
R2 U R2 D R2 U' R D' R D R' U R U' R D'
R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2 U' R2 U R2 D'
R U2 R U2 D R2 U' R' U R2 D' R' U' R' U' R2
R U' R' D R' U R U' R' U' R D' R2 U R U' R2
R2 U F R U' R' U R U R2 F' U' R' U R'
R' U2 R' U R U' D' R U2 R U R U' R2 D R
R' U2 D R D' R' U' R D R' U' D' R
R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R2 D R' U2 R D' R2
R U2 R2 U D' R U R' D R2 U' R U' R' U R2
L' U2 R U R' U' R U' L U' R' U R U' R'
R2 U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 L R U R2
R U2 R' D R U R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 R' U R' D'
R' U R U2 D R' U' R U2 D' R' U' R U' R' U R
R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 D R2 U' R2 U R2 D'
R' U' R D R' U' R D' R' D' R U R' U D R
R U' R D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' U' R U2 R'
R' L U' R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 L' U R
R U2 R' U R U' R U R' U D' R U R' D R U R2
R' U D R D' R' U R D R' U2 D' R
R' D R2 D' R' U2 R D R2 D' R U' R' D R U' R' D' R
R U R' U' R U L' U R' U R U' R' U2 L
R U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' U' R' D' R U R' D R
R' U' D' R U' R' D R D R' U R D' R' U R U
R' U2 R D R' U' D2 R U R' U2 D2 R D'
R U2 R' U R U R' U' L U' R U L' U' R'
D R U R' D' R U R' D R D R' U' R U' D' R' D'
D R2 U' R2 U R2 U2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2
R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 L' U R U' L U2 R'
R U2 R U D' R U' R' U2 D R2 U' R
D R' U R' U2 R D' R U R2 U D R2 D' R'
l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 x'
x R2 D2 R U R' D2 R U' R x'
x' R U' R' D R U R' D' R U R' D R U' R' D' x
M' U2 L F' R U2 r' U r' R2 U2 R2 x
R2 D B' U B' U' B D' R2 F' U F
F' U' F R2 D B' U B U' B D' R2
R2 D' F U' F U F' D R2 B U' B'
B U B' R2 D' F U' F' U F' D R2
M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2
R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L
R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L
L U' R U2 L' U R' L U' R U2 L' U R'
R' U L' U2 R U' L R' U L' U2 R U' L
L U2 L' U2 L F' L' U' L U L F L2
R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2
F2 D R2 U' R2 F2 D' L2 U L2 U'
M2 U M' U2 M U M2
M2 U' M' U2 M U' M2
F' U F' U' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F
R2 U' R2 U' R2 U R' F' R U R2 U' R' F R
M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M'
```


----------



## 4Chan (May 29, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Hi @4Chan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's pretty cool
(hahaha 5 move best????)


----------



## mDiPalma (May 29, 2017)

4Chan said:


> That's pretty cool
> (hahaha 5 move best????)



Yeah, the lowest movecount solve was 20 htm, but the total "best from each field" was only 5 XD


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jun 4, 2017)

do you prefer to adf or only use the front right slot?


----------



## lillod (Jul 5, 2017)

I'm close to meeting my compromise goal of learning tll by nats. I should be able to recognize most of the case and if not I could get them with a glance at how they start. My plans for after nationals are to switch my edge in slot 2 look tsle to a move optimal 2 look and spam solves to improve. Hope to see some of you guys there


----------



## Hazel (Jul 7, 2017)

What's the best variant of ZZ-CT for CFOP users?


----------



## JTay (Jul 8, 2017)

@Aerma I've developed the Ribbon method as a means of ending a solve with TTLL for CFOP users. It has about 47-50 moves on average, does not hinder color neutrality in any way, and can be applied just as well to big cubes as normal CFOP. I have the general outline of the method in the first document and the updated algorithms in the next.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzm7fHMKOwCBb201b29RaUlHYms/view?usp=sharing - General Outline

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D26FLNRhHs5RBXswyfjaKzL_5bboleo6YxYKq3osYGQ/edit?usp=sharing - Printable Algorithm Sheets


----------



## TyeDye (Jul 21, 2017)

Alright, I'm gonna start off by saying that I know that this has already been brought up a few times and I apologize for bringing it up again but: TTLL recognition. I understand that they are split into the 6 subsets with the corners and that part is incredibly simple but I can't find easy recognition with the edges. In the TTLL recognition video, Baum-Harris recognition was mentioned, but I can't find information on what this is. Could someone explain specifically what Baum-Harris recognition is, please? And also, just another quick question. Is every TTLL case recognizable by the 2-sided recognition of the front and right sides of the top layer or do you have to see the back/left sides at any point?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 21, 2017)

TyeDye said:


> Alright, I'm gonna start off by saying that I know that this has already been brought up a few times and I apologize for bringing it up again but: TTLL recognition. I understand that they are split into the 6 subsets with the corners and that part is incredibly simple but I can't find easy recognition with the edges. In the TTLL recognition video, Baum-Harris recognition was mentioned, but I can't find information on what this is. Could someone explain specifically what Baum-Harris recognition is, please? And also, just another quick question. Is every TTLL case recognizable by the 2-sided recognition of the front and right sides of the top layer or do you have to see the back/left sides at any point?


Assuming the D corner is in back left, yes, every case can be recognised from just the front and right sides (actually, any two sides and the top will do, but it's easiest to do from the same angle every time) 

First recognise the corner permutation group.

To recognise which case you have in the group, look at the front edge and compare colour to the front sticker of the front right corner. Either you have it adjacent, opposite, or matching the corner sticker. If it is an adjacent colour, then look at the right sticker on the corner, it could be opposite or match that sticker. That gives 4 possible sets.

Then look at the sticker on the right edge and compare it to the right sticker of the front right corner. It can be opposite, matching or adjacent, and again.

Then you have to manually associate somehow each case with the alg. This is the hard part, and just takes rote memorization.

So you look at CP, front edge, and right edge, then try associate the alg for that case.

In practice, it's best to spot other patterns such as pairs or edges matching stickers on corners other than the front right sticker as often these are more noticeable.


----------



## TyeDye (Jul 30, 2017)

The website appears to not be there anymore. Is there anywhere else for the algs?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 31, 2017)

TyeDye said:


> The website appears to not be there anymore. Is there anywhere else for the algs?


Not sure what happened to the website... @gyroninja? 

In the mean time you can just use the archived pages, although images don't work properly.


----------



## ECSCubed (Aug 13, 2017)

4Chan said:


> EDIT (6-20-2016): Updated first post
> 
> Welcome to the ZZ-CT thread!
> 
> ...


Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?


----------



## Doing Cubing (Aug 14, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> Not sure what happened to the website... @gyroninja?
> 
> In the mean time you can just use the archived pages, although images don't work properly.


The website is now back online, I checked this morning.


----------



## bren077s (Aug 20, 2017)

ECSCubed said:


> Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?



ZZ-CT is a higher move count than all of the previous stated methods. This means that you will need to turn faster than people who know the other methods in order to get the same solve times. I think that any method that you enjoy and dedicate yourself to can lead to high speeds, but I do not think you will easily beat Roux, Petrus, or ZZ(okay, maybe petrus).


----------



## ypermcuber (Sep 6, 2017)

Does anyone have a good system for recognizing TTLLs?


----------



## Hazel (Sep 6, 2017)

ypermcuber said:


> Does anyone have a good system for recognizing TTLLs?


Recognize them just as you would a PLL case


----------



## TyeDye (Sep 11, 2017)

bren077s said:


> ZZ-CT is a higher move count than all of the previous stated methods. This means that you will need to turn faster than people who know the other methods in order to get the same solve times. I think that any method that you enjoy and dedicate yourself to can lead to high speeds, but I do not think you will easily beat Roux, Petrus, or ZZ(okay, maybe petrus).




Alright, so I disagree with you because the only thing that you mentioned was move count, which a lot of people will tell you, means almost nothing if you can execute it faster. The two major things that make up a fast solve are TPS (knowing your algs and executing them fast) and fluidity (good lookahead with no pauses). Having good algs does also factor in a bit but I find that it falls under TPS because the algs that you're most comfortable with, you'll turn faster. Move count really doesn't matter unless it's associated with a step skip (which luckily ZZ-CT has, I believe, the highest chances of a skip that any other method).


Now, just going off of ZZ, I think it's a great method. It uses mainly <R,U,L> moves after the first step, which are much more ergonomic than F or B moves. I know that I can perform a R U R' U' faster than a U F R or some other similar move. It also uses no rotations since everything is already oriented into that position and you can use process of elimination to track edges that you can't see both sides of. This, for me, was a god send after using CFOP for years. I never really got around to learning full OLL, so I was still using 2 look. So there was no problem with getting used to OLL with ZZ and PLL is the exact same. The only thing was getting used to EOLine which isn't even hard after you've done like 100-200 solves. Blockbuilding is also very simple after you start recognizing the cross edge as a block edge instead. 


Now, this is where the ZZ-CT comes in. You have one less pair to do, which Tran already said, you get used to not solving after you've been doing CT for a while. So, with one less pair, this is technically a skip. And that comes with the benefit of saved time. You just jump straight into TSLE.


And of course with TSLE, it's 100% R and U moves, which as I mentioned earlier, are wonderful and ergonomic. And they can be as short as one trigger and only as long as four. And it reduces down with each trigger which makes learning the entirety, fairly straighforward.


Then, there are the ridiculously high chances of skips for TSLE and TTLL. This is a welcome change for a CFOP solver. ZZ solvers may also be surprised at how often they get skips as well.


And that brings me to my last point of TTLL recognition which is possible by only looking at the front and right sides. 72 cases! By only looking at two sides! That's amazing!


So, do I think that ZZ-CT could beat Petrus, Roux, or CT? Honestly, I think that it could. The skips and ergonomics alone make it a good candidate. Petrus is already beaten, honestly. I know no one off the top of my head that really cares about Petrus or is very good at it. ZZ, I will say is disqualified since this is ZZ, just a subset. Roux is more difficult since it is an entirely different method in almost every sense. I believe that for now, Roux does beat it. If I'm not wrong, Roux doesn't require rotations and is very good with ergonomics with the slices moves and extremely intuitive which, I think, is a good quality. However, I do think that if enough people got behind CT, it could beat Roux. Lots of practice and some time. It has a good shot.


----------



## Pyjam (Sep 11, 2017)

How do you think the chances of a skip are ridiculously high when ZZ-CT has 197 algorithms for 2 steps?

Ignore Sune and AntiSune cases, there are 328 ZBLL remaining. If you learn 159 of them (less than 197 so), your chances to skip EPLL is 1/2*. I wonder how ZZ-CT can beat that.

(*) Even if you count Sune/AS cases as non-skip cases, 159/493 is close to 1/3, still way better thant the chances to skip TSLE or TTLL.


----------



## TyeDye (Sep 11, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> How do you think the chances of a skip are ridiculously high when ZZ-CT has 197 algorithms for 2 steps?
> 
> Ignore Sune and AntiSune cases, there are 328 ZBLL remaining. If you learn 159 of them (less than 197 so), your chances to skip EPLL is 1/2*. I wonder how ZZ-CT can beat that.
> 
> (*) Even if you count Sune/AS cases as non-skip cases, 159/493 is close to 1/3, still way better thant the chances to skip TSLE or TTLL.




The problem with that is that you are learning 159 individual unique algorithms to have the 1/2 chance. With TSLE, you are learning 104 cases which all reduce into each other. Which means that it is much faster to learn and execute.


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 11, 2017)

TyeDye said:


> The problem with that is that you are learning 159 individual unique algorithms to have the 1/2 chance. With TSLE, you are learning 104 cases which all reduce into each other. Which means that it is much faster to learn and execute.



If you really want to count "learning cases which reduce into each other", fish and chips (or SIMPLE) has higher skip rates, fewer algs, _and_ lower average move count than ZZ-CT. (It's not really a fair comparison because fish and chips is essentially 2-look ZBLL, which is one more look than the 2-look LSLL you get with ZZ-CT, but it still fares better in terms of move count in spite of requiring one more look.)


----------



## TyeDye (Sep 11, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> If you really want to count "learning cases which reduce into each other", fish and chips (or SIMPLE) has higher skip rates, fewer algs, _and_ lower average move count than ZZ-CT. (It's not really a fair comparison because fish and chips is essentially 2-look ZBLL, which is one more look than the 2-look LSLL you get with ZZ-CT, but it still fares better in terms of move count in spite of requiring one more look.)




Sounds interesting, I'll look into it


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 11, 2017)

I feel like people here don't realize that ZZ-CT isn't the best subset of ZZ. ZZ-a is. If ZZ is going to beat Roux or CFOP, CT is not the variant that's going to give it it's best chance. 

Even Chris Tran says this in this first post of this thread. 



4Chan said:


> If you have hundreds of hours to burn and like to learn algorithms, go with ZZ-A (ZBLL). ZZ-A ONLY works if you are dedicated. If you take half-measures, then just forget about it, you'll never become fast with it, and that's coming from years of experience.



ZBLL has many advantages: Lower movecount, you can finish the F2L with any slot, no rotations before doing the alg, easier to recognise from multiple angles, and algs that are just as good if not better. 

The only "problem" is that there are 472 algs, but honestly this shouldn't be a problem for the type of person who is going to put in the practise to get sub 7 with ZZ. It's also easier than it has ever been before to learn the algs, with trainers such as Roman's and mine available.

It's still a lot of work, sure, but I would hope that the "Alex Lau of ZZ" would push the method to the absolute limit, rather than be too lazy to learn the best subset - I would be very disappointed if they used ZZ-CT.


----------



## Pyjam (Sep 12, 2017)

It is often recommended not to learn Sune cases for ZBLL, so there are 328 cases remaining (not counting PLL), of which 28 are COLL that people likely already know at this level. So, actually, ZBLL has _only_ *300 new cases*, and some of them are already known because they are easy 1-LLL (8-11 moves long).

From my point of view, I prefer to learn some additional cases from the CLS subset to solve the last pair for the hard cases.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 2, 2017)

TyeDye said:


> Alright, so I disagree with you because the only thing that you mentioned was move count, which a lot of people will tell you, means almost nothing if you can execute it faster. The two major things that make up a fast solve are TPS (knowing your algs and executing them fast) and fluidity (good lookahead with no pauses). Having good algs does also factor in a bit but I find that it falls under TPS because the algs that you're most comfortable with, you'll turn faster. Move count really doesn't matter unless it's associated with a step skip (which luckily ZZ-CT has, I believe, the highest chances of a skip that any other method).
> 
> 
> Now, just going off of ZZ, I think it's a great method. It uses mainly <R,U,L> moves after the first step, which are much more ergonomic than F or B moves. I know that I can perform a R U R' U' faster than a U F R or some other similar move. It also uses no rotations since everything is already oriented into that position and you can use process of elimination to track edges that you can't see both sides of. This, for me, was a god send after using CFOP for years. I never really got around to learning full OLL, so I was still using 2 look. So there was no problem with getting used to OLL with ZZ and PLL is the exact same. The only thing was getting used to EOLine which isn't even hard after you've done like 100-200 solves. Blockbuilding is also very simple after you start recognizing the cross edge as a block edge instead.
> ...


Do you think that ZZ-CT could beat CFOP? How many algs are needed for ZZ-CT, Is there any shortcuts(like 2 look oll in cfop). Thanks


----------



## ypermcuber (Oct 4, 2017)

You can learn “intuitive” TSLE, which cuts the alg count down from about 200 to about 110. As for TTLL, I don’t think there is any shortcuts.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Oct 4, 2017)

Duncan Bannon said:


> How many algs are needed for ZZ-CT, Is there any shortcuts(like 2 look oll in cfop). Thanks


2-step TSLE:
- put in the edge
- do an "alg" (its more like a tree of triggers)

2-step TTLL:
- solve corners
- solve edges


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 4, 2017)

And how many algs would that be? Thanks


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 4, 2017)

And how fast could you be with that? Sub 20? Thanks again.


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 5, 2017)

theawesomecuber said:


> 2-step TSLE:
> - put in the edge
> - do an "alg" (its more like a tree of triggers)
> 
> ...


Before you just put the edge in, you can also attach a corner to it. This leaves you with only 7 OCLLs that everyone should already know.


Duncan Bannon said:


> And how many algs would that be? Thanks


Not counting D-layer corner skip->PLL cases, I believe that there are 12 CP groups after OCLL. Each group only requires 1 alg, with EPLL which is only 4 algs.
7 OCLLs + 12 CP + 4 EPLL + 17 PLL = 40 algorithms for a beginner ZZ-CT.


Duncan Bannon said:


> And how fast could you be with that? Sub 20? Thanks again.


With a decent (~10) F2L you should be able to hit sub 15 pretty easily. If your F2L was good (6-7) then sub-10 shouldn't be to hard. But if you're that fast you should have moved onto full ZZ-CT or, better yet, full ZZ-a.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 5, 2017)

Okay, Thank You. Ill consider CT as an option. I average around 33 seconds with CFOP. 4LLL and Cross+F2l takes me about 19 sec.


----------



## Peter Jiang (Feb 14, 2018)

I'm wanting to learn zz-ct, after learning normal ZZ with PLL + OCLL, but all the images on the main page for algorithms is gone. What happened, and are there any alternative alg sheets available?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Feb 14, 2018)

Peter Jiang said:


> I'm wanting to learn zz-ct, after learning normal ZZ with PLL + OCLL, but all the images on the main page for algorithms is gone. What happened, and are there any alternative alg sheets available?


The images used to be generated by http://stachu.cubing.net/v/visualcube.php which also used to generate the images for algdb. It seems that's not up at the moment. The easiest alternative is to paste the algorithms into alg.cubing.net to see which case they solve. I had an alg sheet, but it has worse algs than gyroninja's and also uses stachu's version of visual cube, so it's not much use at the moment either.


----------



## Tao Yu (Feb 14, 2018)

Peter Jiang said:


> I'm wanting to learn zz-ct, after learning normal ZZ with PLL + OCLL, but all the images on the main page for algorithms is gone. What happened, and are there any alternative alg sheets available?



TTLL is available here (these algs are much better than gyroninja's). 

I don't know of a TSLE doc in pdf form though 

Hopefully Stachu gets his server running again soon.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 16, 2018)

Just out of curiosity, who is using CT as their main method?


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 16, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> Just out of curiosity, who is using CT as their main method?




Just in case you didn’t know Colorful Pockets stopped using CT and uses normal ZZ.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 16, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Just in case you didn’t know Colorful Pockets stopped using CT and uses normal ZZ.


Do you know why?


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 16, 2018)

I posted in his Cuble Home vid. “How is ZZ CT going for you? Sweet video too!!!”

He said “I dont really do CT anymore. Decided it just wasn’t worth it, because it’s not optimized yet”


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 16, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> I posted in his Cuble Home vid. “How is ZZ CT going for you? Sweet video too!!!”
> 
> He said “I dont really do CT anymore. Decided it just wasn’t worth it, because it’s not optimized yet”


Ah, ok. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## Rusca (Apr 24, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> Just out of curiosity, who is using CT as their main method?



I (still) do! And I think I was the first at using it in a world champ, actually, since I used it in Paris (with quite an epic fail result, because it was my first time using it in a competition). 






I've gotten better though. Not as good as I'm with CFOP, but still kept using it in comps ever since (now I usually average around 19").

Like, it's a lot more fun than CFOP, so yeah let's keep it. Also it helped me switch to ZZ (standard, not CT) for OH, which already made me better in the event than I was with CFOP.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 24, 2018)

Rusca said:


> I (still) do! And I think I was the first at using it in a world champ, actually, since I used it in Paris (with quite an epic fail result, because it was my first time using it in a competition).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cool! How long did it take you to learn full TSLE and TTLL?


----------



## Rusca (May 1, 2018)

Well, these things are more about being constant than about difficulty, but if you commit, learning one TTLL per day is really affordable (I almost know all of them by now, though still lack like 4 or so. Which is ridiculous but yeah). 

Also it helps if you can do symmetrical cases (I just used to check both right-handed and left-handed cases and kept the best algorithm among them, just mirroring it for the other hand), so it's not like I've learned 90 cases, but more like I can do everything having learned maybe 50? I'm not sure.

Oh, and it's easier if you leave the right opposed (+front opposed, cause again, I see that as the same thing) for the end of the learning process, since those can be solved epic quickly with a supersune + EPLL, and thus is not that bad if you don't know them for a while.

And well, I don't really know much algorithms for TSLE (I approach it more like you'd approach intuitive F2L). I know the ones with just one wrong corner, and the ones with the edge already placed, and everything else is mostly just having gained intuitive understanding of how corners work when doing triggers (plus some old Winter Variation/OCLL knowledge).

It's worth noting, though, that you can learn almost only half of the "edge in place" cases if you realize you can convert them into one another by adjusting the D face.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (May 1, 2018)

Rusca said:


> Well, these things are more about being constant than about difficulty, but if you commit, learning one TTLL per day is really affordable (I almost know all of them by now, though still lack like 4 or so. Which is ridiculous but yeah).
> 
> Also it helps if you can do symmetrical cases (I just used to check both right-handed and left-handed cases and kept the best algorithm among them, just mirroring it for the other hand), so it's not like I've learned 90 cases, but more like I can do everything having learned maybe 50? I'm not sure.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the help! I have been approaching TSLE in the same way.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 27, 2020)

For those uninitiated, ZZCT was a somewhat recently developed variant to ZZ where once you hit last slot, you perform an algorithm that inserts the F2L edge while orienting the remaining corner pieces

From there you do an algorithm from the subset known as TTLL where you insert the final corner and solve PLL at the same time 

I've had a few people reach out to me in the past asking for advice on how to improve TTLL algorithms, since a lot of the early algorithms are very double turn heavy rather than being optimized for QTM, let alone reduced regrips and raw speed

For ZZCT to even have a chance to be relevant at the highest level of cubing, TTLL being optimized for speed is an absolute must

I don't know how quickly this will happen, because it's going to take someone who's both interested in ZZCT AND is already competent with genning and refining algorithms with things like Cube Explorer, but maybe my recent finding will give someone enough hope to believe in the viability of ZZCT

Over the past few days, I've been experimenting with the CLS case that's just a simple 7 move RUD comm which can be performed 3 different ways along with the "Zeroing" technique 

If you have absolutely NO idea what I'm talking about, I have an old video which you can find here that explains it (though it definitely needs an update which I'll get to at some point)

anyway, I realized that because the edge solved Zeroing cases are all super nice (only 2 cases have "iffy" recognition) and that PLL setups like the BLD Yperm are possible, there's clearly a lot of hidden gold in the hypothetical subset where it's essentially a TTLL case, but the F2L corner is flipped

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of these cases were a lot faster than TTLL cases on average

One of the best things about this is it opens the door for a more optimized 2nd to last step in a ZZ context, since you can ignore the orientation of the F2L corner as well as one of the 4 LL corners of your choosing

I don't necessarily think this technique would work super well in a CFOP context when things like VLS/ZBLS/ZBLL etc are available, but if TTLL + the TTLL twisted sets are optimized heavily, I think it's certainly possible that it could work very nicely with distinct OLS cases that turn into one of those 3 sets in 4-8 moves

All in all, developing this would buff ZZCT big time, and as far as I'm concerned it's the #1 place to start looking if you're serious about ZZCT


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

ottozing said:


> For those uninitiated, ZZCT was a somewhat recently developed variant to ZZ where once you hit last slot, you perform an algorithm that inserts the F2L edge while orienting the remaining corner pieces
> 
> From there you do an algorithm from the subset known as TTLL where you insert the final corner and solve PLL at the same time
> 
> ...



Wouldn't doing WV/SV then PLL be better?


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Wouldn't doing WV/SV then PLL be better?


Wouldn't doing LS then ZBLL be better?


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> Wouldn't doing LS then ZBLL be better?



Alg count would be similar for WV/SV+PLL and ZZCT


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Alg count would be similar for WV/SV+PLL and ZZCT


ZZ-CT is much better. You don't have to pair up your last slot. However, ZZ-b, wich has around the same amount of algs, is much better than both of those.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 28, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> ZZ-CT is much better. You don't have to pair up your last slot.


Not really...
Overall with ZZ-CT you save about half a move but there are a good 150 extra algs.



Pyjam said:


> ZZ-CT ? Is it this method with Winter Variation but with 81 cases instead of 27, then PLL but with one hundred cases instead of 21?


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 28, 2020)

Because you've quoted me, I'll answer. I was half serious. I haven't tried ZZ-CT. It could be good. Maybe.
If the goal is to avoid learning 493 ZBLL by only learning 180 algs, why not.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 28, 2020)

To be honest, I think sticking with one variant of ZZ is a horrible idea

Minimizing alg count might make sense in the short term, but long term the goal is to be competent with doing everything (this obviously requires learning the most amount of algs)

EDIT:



ProStar said:


> Wouldn't doing WV/SV then PLL be better?



TTLL twisted cases have a lot of algs that I think are clearly faster than any PLL, namely R' D' R U/U'/U2 R' D R

There's also potential for a lot of cases being equal to PLL like F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' & R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' (These are like Jperm speed for me, and they're still way slower than all of those CLS cases)

EDIT 2: Just found F R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2' F' by hand OK there's sooo much gold here good golly


----------



## Joe Archibald (Jul 4, 2020)

Does anyone know of any tsle algorithms because I am unable to get onto gyroninja's website


----------



## N's-cvt (Jul 4, 2020)

I have a google doc that I think has some good algs for all the cases, however I do not have any images to go with them.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 4, 2020)

Just do ZBLL with some modifications. CT isn't great when compared with it and yes 493 algs is a lot, but it's easily manageable by anyone who can learn algs properly (which includes you, person reading this).


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 4, 2020)

I found a 2look version of ttll or begginers version if you want to call it that i found it 9n reddit and I will attach the regular document and close up shots as well see if you could optimize them


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 4, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> I found a 2look version of ttll or begginers version if you want to call it that i found it 9n reddit and I will attach the regular document and close up shots as well see if you could optimize them


Beginner algs are beginner algs, they aren't meant to be optimized, if you want, see Gyroninja's algs here: https://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct.html#page, but those algs can be optimized as well.
(lol optimizing meant genning new algs, not really pumping up existing algs, I could probably gen some algs)


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 4, 2020)

Generating and getting good algs takes time just asking someone isnt gonna get it done. They have to be motivated lol!


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 4, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> Generating and getting good algs takes time just asking someone isnt gonna get it done. They have to be motivated lol!


_@kubesolver has joined the chat_


----------



## kubesolver (Aug 4, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> @kubesolver has joined the chat


not sure what you mean  yes, the kubesolver can gen algs.
But in the process of "Generating and getting good algs" *generating* is like <1% and *getting the good ones *is >99% work.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 5, 2020)

These are my bar cases! Exchange algs anyone? so i can get a very up to date list! If you look at any of them specifically the ones i generated are ok but the last one in the right bar list is WAYY better then anyones ive seen and its 14 moves. The list goes with Justin taylors ttll list.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

About to start TSLE, wish me luck. I would also like to know what N, Cw and Ccw stand for, since the website that i'm using to learn the algorithms splits the cases up into those 3.


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> About to start TSLE, wish me luck. I would also like to know what N, Cw and Ccw stand for, since the website that i'm using to learn the algorithms splits the cases up into those 3.


"Cw" and "Ccw" stand for "*C*lock*w*ise" and "*C*ounter *C*lock*w*ise". Those terms usually apply to the direction of the edge cycles, but it could also refer to the direction of the corner cycles. However, given that this is TSLE and there aren't edge or corner cycles to worry about, I think they mean the direction of the corner twists. If you read through the earlier parts of this thread, there are examples of people using "+" and "-" to show twist direction, and "o" to show that the corner isn't twisted (which I think was how the algs on gyroninja's site were organized and labeled). I would assume that in this case "N" means that the corner has not been twisted.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

I use C++


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

thanks. do you know a way to put tsle and tell into cfop? Just because I'm no good at eo steps


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> thanks. do you know a way to put tsle and tell into cfop? Just because I'm no good at eo steps


if that's what u want then do ribbon method


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

It would be way less efficient to be honest


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> thanks. do you know a way to put tsle and tell into cfop? Just because I'm no good at eo steps


TSLE is irrelevant IMO. Instead just make one of the F2L pairs using either the correct corner or pick one of the four last layer corners and treat the yellow sticker as if it was the white sticker of the correct corner and form the pair with it instead. When done right, it should give you a normal OLL case when F2L is complete, only with a LL corner in the F2L and an F2L corner in the LL. You can then do OLL and TTLL. This gives you more choices during your F2L and avoids the need to learn anything new besides TTLL.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> TSLE is irrelevant IMO. Instead just make one of the F2L pairs using either the correct corner or pick one of the four last layer corners and treat the yellow sticker as if it was the white sticker of the correct corner and form the pair with it instead. When done right, it should give you a normal OLL case when F2L is complete, only with a LL corner in the F2L and an F2L corner in the LL. You can then do OLL and TTLL. This gives you more choices during your F2L and avoids the need to learn anything new besides TTLL.


Thats wasted moves


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> Thats wasted moves


How is it wasted moves? There are many times where you can do a 3-4 move solution to solve an F2L edge plus a LL corner oriented correctly.

Plus Execution Speed > Movecount
Need proof? Just a simple example is how the standard U perm went from 9 to 11 moves, because the 11 move solution is faster.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> How is it wasted moves? There are many times where you can do a 3-4 move solution to solve an F2L edge plus a LL corner oriented correctly.
> 
> Plus Execution Speed > Movecount
> Need proof? Just a simple example is how the standard U perm went from 9 to 11 moves, because the 11 move solution is faster.


Inserting the corner with the edge and doing oll and pll/ttll is a waste of 3 moves when you can just orient all the corners and insert at the same time


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

Also the S slice U perm is gawd tier if you can do it right


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> Inserting the corner with the edge and doing oll and pll/ttll is a waste of 3 moves when you can just orient all the corners and insert at the same time


3 moves is insignificant in comparison to the time it takes to do TSLE. You have to do a 3-4 move insert just to randomly insert the edge into the slot, then take time to recognize and execute on the TSLE case, taking far more time. Plus you have less options this way as you lowkey have to insert in the FR slot unless you want to do mirroring, which would be a lot of annoying work for little benefit. 

Also I know about the U perms. I use three different kinds of algs, just depending on the AUF.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 15, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> 3 moves is insignificant in comparison to the time it takes to do TSLE. You have to do a 3-4 move insert just to randomly insert the edge into the slot, then take time to recognize and execute on the TSLE case, taking far more time. Plus you have less options this way as you lowkey have to insert in the FR slot unless you want to do mirroring, which would be a lot of annoying work for little benefit.
> 
> Also I know about the U perms. I use three different kinds of algs, just depending on the AUF.


i do BR FR slot neutral. also tsle is comparable to oll recog time


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> i do BR FR slot neutral. also tsle is comparable to oll recog time


Okay so if the recognition time is the same, and because TSLE is mostly triggers vs optimized OLL algs, execution is the same, that means the only other thing to compare is the 3-4 move insert step which is the same.

Therefore, my technique is no worse than TSLE. I think that is pretty obvious at this point. The whole point of my technique is that it gives CFOP solvers more F2L options, with the only new thing needed to be learned is TTLL. As a result, since TSLE and Free Slotting are pretty much equal in moves and speed, for most people just doing free slotting is going to be better because you don't have to take the time learning TSLE since both will accomplish the same thing.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Okay so if the recognition time is the same, and because TSLE is mostly triggers vs optimized OLL algs, execution is the same, that means the only other thing to compare is the 3-4 move insert step which is the same.
> 
> Therefore, my technique is no worse than TSLE. I think that is pretty obvious at this point. The whole point of my technique is that it gives CFOP solvers more F2L options, with the only new thing needed to be learned is TTLL. As a result, since TSLE and Free Slotting are pretty much equal in moves and speed, for most people just doing free slotting is going to be better because you don't have to take the time learning TSLE since both will accomplish the same thing.


Tsle is a good step lol


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 16, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> Tsle is a good step lol


There's nothing wrong with it no. But, there is an alternative that is no worse, that doesn't require you to learn anything new, and really gives more options when you think about it.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> There's nothing wrong with it no. But, there is an alternative that is no worse, that doesn't require you to learn anything new, and really gives more options when you think about it.


Not really. Theres several things you can do with CT. Learn C and combine to make C++, learn the other twisted corner ttlls. Lots of things can be applied to save wvwn more moves making the movecount the same as A.


----------



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

zzcuberman said:


> Not really. Theres several things you can do with CT. Learn C and combine to make C++, learn the other twisted corner ttlls. Lots of things can be applied to save wvwn more moves making the movecount the same as A.


The same as ZZ-A? but at _what cost? _


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> The same as ZZ-A? but at _what cost? _


Nothing. Different way of solving the cube with similar alg count


----------



## N's-cvt (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> About to start TSLE, wish me luck. I would also like to know what N, Cw and Ccw stand for, since the website that i'm using to learn the algorithms splits the cases up into those 3.



What website are you using to learn TSLE from?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

I was learning, but gave up after 3 algs. I was using gyroninja


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I was learning, but gave up after 3 algs. I was using gyroninja


Good try lol


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 17, 2020)

ZZ-A>ZZ-CT and ZZ-C++ (because movecount in the case of CT and slot neutrality in the case of both), so that's a positive I guess.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 17, 2020)

Zz-a is not better then zzc++


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 17, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Zz-a is not better then zzc++


I hope you realize you are telling that to one of the fastest ZZ and most experienced ZZ users on the forums. Meanwhile you are a fairly new, uninformed person on the forums, so you better have some GOOD evidence to back up your claims. I would bet money you don't use either versions of ZZ, and if that's the case, I would suggest you not make those kinds of claims.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 17, 2020)

I have friends who use them


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 17, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> I have friends who use them


1. That isn't good evidence whatsoever. I have friends who use CFOP to solve a cube maybe once or twice and year and take a few minutes. That anecdotal evidence doesn't hold any weight. There is also a very high chance neither of them use the full methods either. Plus you gave no info about them at all. Who are they? How fast are they? How long have they been cubing?
2. You really should be providing YOUR OWN evidence when you make a claim on a topic, and provide a detailed explanation of your reasons and thoughts, not more vague BS that adds nothing to the conversation.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 17, 2020)

In my personal experience i believe the potential for C++ is about as good as A. Obviously slot N is a big deal but not to bad to deal with.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 17, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> In my personal experience i believe the potential for C++ is about as good as A. Obviously slot N is a big deal but not to bad to deal with.


I think that in the long term, ZZ CAT(C++ and A) would be best. 
1. You can have a ZZ variant named after cats lol
2. There are cases where TTLL, OLL PLL, and ZBLL are the best and where they aren't so optimal, so eventually you would be able to build a network of what to do for each scenario


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 17, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I think that in the long term, ZZ CAT(C++ and A) would be best.
> 1. You can have a ZZ variant named after cats lol
> 2. There are cases where TTLL, OLL PLL, and ZBLL are the best and where they aren't so optimal, so eventually you would be able to build a network of what to do for each scenario


yes i agree. i even have the other TTLL sets genned(+,-,i, im, and the standard is o) but that would take basically full time dedication something most people dont have i feel like.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 17, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> yes i agree. i even have the other TTLL sets genned(+,-,i, im, and the standard is o) but that would take basically full time dedication something most people dont have i feel like.


Yeah definitely. How many algs is it in total compared to ZBLL? I’d be interested to see what would be more work to learn all of haha.
Also let me know whenever you compile your updated list of TTLL algs. I’m finally going to have more free time this semester since all my upper level math classes are with a professor who gives pretty much no homework.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 17, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Yeah definitely. How many algs is it in total compared to ZBLL? I’d be interested to see what would be more work to learn all of haha.
> Also let me know whenever you compile your updated list of TTLL algs. I’m finally going to have more free time this semester since all my upper level math classes are with a professor who gives pretty much no homework.


I have the bar cases done and im like halfway with the opp cases. I dont work on them alot. 72×5 for full TTLL plus OLS basically. Lol lottts of algs. The ols is basically 90% RU,9% RUD, and 1% short 7 move RUL( either that or a nasty 15 move alg). So yeah a ton of algs but from what im messed with the move count is great.


----------



## Joe Archibald (Aug 17, 2020)

does anyone have any tips for learning tsle i was thinking of trying to grind 'solves' and learn it intuitively


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 17, 2020)

Learn ZBLL, but if you are going to learn TSLE, you could either do it intuitively, or you could do the tree thing. I don't have a link, but on the ZZ method site in my signature there is a doc on the external resources page.


----------



## Joe Archibald (Aug 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Learn ZBLL, but if you are going to learn TSLE, you could either do it intuitively, or you could do the tree thing. I don't have a link, but on the ZZ method site in my signature there is a doc on the external resources page.


thank you


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 18, 2020)

Joe Archibald said:


> does anyone have any tips for learning tsle i was thinking of trying to grind 'solves' and learn it intuitively


It's about 4 years since I learned TSLE, and I don't use it any more, but I think the approach I used made it one of the easiest alg sets I've learned. Here's a spreadsheet with my algs. I started making notes on most of them, but unfortunately stopped adding my notes to the spreadsheet halfway through.

I practiced using 2-gen scrambles on qqtimer.net. Under scramble type, scroll down to the speciality scrambles and pick 3x3 subsets, and then choose the 2-gen <R,U> scrambles. Sure, you have to solve a block, but I found it more fair and useful to drill recognition while finishing the block rather than have the case already there immediately after scrambling. It also lets you practice slot neutrality (I was neutral between the FR and BR slots)

The order I recommend learning them is this:

You should already know the 7 OCLLs, but I suggest replacing the headlights alg with just triple sexy.
Learn the all oriented case, R U' R' U2 R U R'. You can also easily force this in solves - just insert any corner oriented but don't insert the edge, then do an OCLL, then you get this case.
Learn the 3 one-trigger cases. Every OCLL ends in a trigger, so to learn them, just pause and check what it looks like before your last 3 moves and you'll be able to recognise the cases in no time.
Next, learn the 10 single corner twisted cases when DFR is twisted to the front. Start with R U R' U R U' R', then learn the WV alg for the case with the pseudo pair L' U2 R U' R' U2 L, then learn how the remaining 3 cases reduce to the first. When DFR is twisted to the right, some of the cases aren't great, so I was using a y' rotation and mirroring and using the mirrors from the back for those at first. ( 
Learn the 21 remaining cases where the edge is in place. The only bad case is the 4 clockwise corners case. For that, I do a y' rotation and mirror the counter-clockwise alg. You can then switch your 2-look method to a single trigger to insert the edge, and then do the edge-in place case.
Go through and learn the remaining two-trigger cases.
Next, there 23 cases that I called Sune reductions. You already know 3 (all single twist). These are cases where either a single trigger reduces to a Sune or Anti-sune OCLL (there are 13 of these), or an Sune or Anti-Sune reduces to a single trigger (there are 10 of these, including the 3 you already know. If you're using a y' rotation for any of them, now's a good time to fix those)
There are 4 "bad" cases that can't be solved in 3 triggers or less. You already know one (the 4 clockwise corners case). Now's a good time to learn decent algs for the other 3 cases. R U R D R' U R D' R' U' R', R2 D R' U' R D' R2 and F' R U R' U' R' F R.
You're about 60% of the way there. To finish off, start with the OCLLs that have the edge in the top layer (the DFR oriented cases)
Finally, learn the rest in order of number of twists - start with the 2 twists, then the 3 twists, then finally, the 4 twist cases.
Once you've got TSLE down, you can start learning TTLL. Then, if you're anything like me, you'll find that most of the algs just don't flow well at all, despite the considerable effort I put in over several months trying to generate decent algs, and you'll eventually give up on ZZ-CT altogether and just learn ZBLL like all the sensible people.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 18, 2020)

AlphaSheep said:


> It's about 4 years since I learned TSLE, and I don't use it any more, but I think the approach I used made it one of the easiest alg sets I've learned. Here's a spreadsheet with my algs. I started making notes on most of them, but unfortunately stopped adding my notes to the spreadsheet halfway through.
> 
> I practiced using 2-gen scrambles on qqtimer.net. Under scramble type, scroll down to the speciality scrambles and pick 3x3 subsets, and then choose the 2-gen <R,U> scrambles. Sure, you have to solve a block, but I found it more fair and useful to drill recognition while finishing the block rather than have the case already there immediately after scrambling. It also lets you practice slot neutrality (I was neutral between the FR and BR slots)
> 
> ...


ive generated pretty good TTLLs sooo lol


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 18, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> ive generated pretty good TTLLs sooo lol



Depends what you mean by "pretty good" and what you're comparing them to. You'll notice I didn't say the algs were bad, I said they didn't flow well. People complain about N perms. There are about 30 TTLL cases that have the best algs are on a par with or slightly longer than N perms and flow similarly. That makes up about 40% of the set. To compare, for ZBLL my experience after learning 240+ of them is that only 15% or so are annoying like that. I have no doubt you can generate pretty good algs for the majority of TTLL cases. I did too. The rest of the cases are just meh. They're not terrible, they're just a little too long (17+ moves) or have one too many regrips, or things like that. I looked at every alg Cube Explorer gave in RUD, RUF and RUL, and most algs in RUFD, and used some scripts of my own to filter through cases to find all RrUF and RrUD algs of 13 moves or less. What are you doing differently to find algs?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 18, 2020)

AlphaSheep said:


> Depends what you mean by "pretty good" and what you're comparing them to. You'll notice I didn't say the algs were bad, I said they didn't flow well. People complain about N perms. There are about 30 TTLL cases that have the best algs are on a par with or slightly longer than N perms and flow similarly. That makes up about 40% of the set. To compare, for ZBLL my experience after learning 240+ of them is that only 15% or so are annoying like that. I have no doubt you can generate pretty good algs for the majority of TTLL cases. I did too. The rest of the cases are just meh. They're not terrible, they're just a little too long (17+ moves) or have one too many regrips, or things like that. I looked at every alg Cube Explorer gave in RUD, RUF and RUL, and most algs in RUFD, and used some scripts of my own to filter through cases to find all RrUF and RrUD algs of 13 moves or less. What are you doing differently to find algs?


I can’t speak for all the algs, but I tried a few and his algs are actually not bad. Way better than some of Justin’s.


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 19, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> I can’t speak for all the algs, but I tried a few and his algs are actually not bad. Way better than some of Justin’s.


ive actually messed with them more. no algs i use for the bar cases have mid-regrips except one


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

I'm gonna start learning TSLE again (yay!) but I would like to know, what are the advantages of ZZ-CT over ZZ-a and CFOP?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I'm gonna start learning TSLE again (yay!) but I would like to know, what are the advantages of ZZ-CT over ZZ-a and CFOP?


Well, ZZ CT is kinda not better than ZZ-A, it's basically just OCLL + PLL plus one corner. And against, CFOP, well I think optimized algs of TSLE and TTLL is pretty competitive against OLL and PLL (all other advantages of ZZ-A besides the LL apply with ZZ-CT with ZZ-CT having one handicap, slot neutrality, you'll have to pretty much force FR everytime unless you mirror TSLE/TTLL algs and the ergonomics become ew and slot neutrality is pretty important, for example, if you have a really nice third pair case that is in FR, you'll have to ignore that cause you need to solve the other pair first to get FR as your last slot.)


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

if i did learn ZZ-CT, I could also learn ZZ-c to make ZZC++. What the flipping heck is ZZ-c?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> if i did learn ZZ-CT, I could also learn ZZ-c to make ZZC++. What the flipping heck is ZZ-c?


ZZ-C is basically just OLS on ZZ, OLS cases which has the edges oriented.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> ZZ-C is basically just OLS on ZZ, OLS cases which has the edges oriented.



And how can i tell which alg is better for each case?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> And how can i tell which alg is better for each case?


ZZ-C++ is what you're talking about, if you have a bad C case for example, the TSLE case for it could be pretty nice, or the other way around when you have a bad TSLE case, you have a pretty nice C case.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> ZZ-C++ is what you're talking about, if you have a bad C case for example, the TSLE case for it could be pretty nice, or the other way around when you have a bad TSLE case, you have a pretty nice C case.



Noice. For ZZ-C++, is there a list of which algs to use?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Noice. For ZZ-C++, is there a list of which algs to use?


I think some people are still developing them.


----------



## Cuber Lang (Oct 13, 2020)

Does anyone know if Chris Tran still uses EOline or if he switched to EOcross or some other variation?


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 13, 2020)

This is random but what from i've seen:
Fish and chips/Speed-heise are more efficient also two look and have WAY less algs, learning ZZ-ct for some cases doesn't make sense,
because those two variants have very simular good cases, so its not even good for that.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 13, 2020)

PTCuber said:


> Does anyone know if Chris Tran still uses EOline or if he switched to EOcross or some other variation?


No idea. He's stopped cubing seriously though. I would recommend EOCross though.


----------



## Cuber Lang (Nov 7, 2020)

I never really understood how TSLE could be done intuitively. Could someone help to clear my doubts?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 7, 2020)

It's intuitive, but you have to understand how CO works, so the best way to do it is by just messing about.


----------



## Swagrid (Nov 8, 2020)

PTCuber said:


> I never really understood how TSLE could be done intuitively. Could someone help to clear my doubts?


You learn how each trigger effects the pieces on the cube, and learn/figure out which triggers you need to do to reduce the cases. Like you learn all the 1 trigger cases, then figure out/learn how to turn all the 2 trigger cases into 1 trigger cases. Then 3 to 2.


----------



## Burrito (Nov 23, 2022)

ECSCubed said:


> Do you think that if someone learned and could execute all of the algorithms very fast, that this method could easily beat Roux, or Petrus, or it's succesor ZZ?


Yes. 100% The movecount is is similar to roux but turning faster = gangster 

Also, I think you mean predecessor.


----------



## Burrito (Nov 23, 2022)

ypermcuber said:


> You can learn “intuitive” TSLE, which cuts the alg count down from about 200 to about 110. As for TTLL, I don’t think there is any shortcuts.


Any tutorials?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 23, 2022)

We know that ZZ-CT is objectively worse than ZZ-A, and then there's a proper debate to be had whether ZZ-A or Roux are better (or equal). So no, ZZ-CT couldn't beat the big 3 (or Petrus maybe).


----------



## Burrito (Nov 23, 2022)

PapaSmurf said:


> We know that ZZ-CT is objectively worse than ZZ-A, and then there's a proper debate to be had whether ZZ-A or Roux are better (or equal). So no, ZZ-CT couldn't beat the big 3 (or Petrus maybe).


Is it because of the alg count? Or something else? (I want to learn CT because I like the luck and I want something spicier than boring OCLL and PLL.)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 24, 2022)

Burrito said:


> Is it because of the alg count? Or something else? (I want to learn CT because I like the luck and I want something spicier than boring OCLL and PLL.)


Nope, it's the movecount mainly, also the fact that you can be (should be) slot neutral. The luck isn't a great factor to learn it and it's overhyped how useful it is.


----------



## Burrito (Nov 24, 2022)

PapaSmurf said:


> Nope, it's the movecount mainly, also the fact that you can be (should be) slot neutral. The luck isn't a great factor to learn it and it's overhyped how useful it is.


Isnt the movecount similar to Roux? (idk i just watched the seminar and the colorfulpockets vid)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 24, 2022)

Burrito said:


> Isnt the movecount similar to Roux? (idk i just watched the seminar and the colorfulpockets vid)


Siimilar being about 8-10 moves, then yes. But because of that, no.


----------

