# An analysis of cubing methods and times...



## Artic (Jan 12, 2015)

A few thoughts I had the other day:

*Scenario 1:* Two users have the same average of 100. Their time breakdowns are also the same. In other words, their times for cross, F2L and LL are also the same. The only difference is that one is opposite color neutral while the other cuber is completely color neutral.

My analysis: *The cuber who is only opposite color neutral is better* Why? Because despite his limitation to two cross colors, he is still able to post equal times compared with the other cuber. The cuber who is completely color neutral has a much larger range of easier crosses to make. The disadvantaged cuber has more difficult cross cases, yet he is still able to compensate for this and post equal cross times.

*Scenario 2:* Two users have the same average of 100. One cuber uses Roux and the other uses CFOP. 
My analysis: *The CFOP cuber is better.* Why? Because Roux is known to have a much lower movecount. And yet despite his move count advantage, the Roux cuber can still only post times equal to his CFOP counterpart. 

So for example, Bill Wang should be considered a better cuber than Alex Lau, at least from their official times list. The interesting aspect is that both Bill and Alex had extremely high TPS, and yet, even with this, they still have approximately equal official times. Clearly, there is something difficult or inefficient with Roux, something that limits its efficacy. I suspect the use of M-slices is a permanent impediment and obstacle that offsets their lower movecount advantage. This will forever hinder Roux in my opinion, since it's so M-slice dependent.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 12, 2015)

Artic said:


> A few thoughts I had the other day:
> 
> *Scenario 1:* Two users have the same average of 100. Their time breakdowns are also the same. In other words, their times for cross, F2L and LL are also the same. The only difference is that one is opposite color neutral while the other cuber is completely color neutral.
> 
> ...



You define "better cuber" in a very weird way... Better cuber for me means the one who can complete the event in question (here 3x3 speedsolve) faster. I don't know why you want to overcomplicate this and I also don't think you analysis of those 2 scenarios makes any sense at all because obviously if they have same times they are just as good...

They just are better at different things.


> My analysis: The cuber who is only opposite color neutral is better Why? Because despite his limitation to two cross colors, he is still able to post equal times compared with the other cuber.


Well this could as well be said like: 
My analysis: The cuber who is full color neutral is better Why? Because even if he isn't as good cross-planner than the other guy he can still post equal times because he has the ability to pick the easier cross most of the time. He has a disadvantage because he doesn't plan as optimal crosses as the other guy but he is still able to compensate for this by choosing the easiest color cross every time.

And for scenario 2 this:


> My analysis: The CFOP cuber is better. Why? Because Roux is known to have a much lower movecount. And yet despite his move count advantage, the Roux cuber can still only post times equal to his CFOP counterpart.


Could as well be this:
My analysis: The roux cuber is better. Why? Because Roux has harder lookahead than CFOP (you need to always know what piece is in the DB slot since you can't see it) and roux uses M-moves that are not necessarily as fast as RUF-moves mostly used in CFOP. And yet despite these disadvantages, the Roux cuber can still post times equal to his CFOP counterpart.


See what I did there?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 12, 2015)

Artic said:


> A few thoughts I had the other day:
> 
> *Scenario 1:* Two users have the same average of 100. Their time breakdowns are also the same. In other words, their times for cross, F2L and LL are also the same. The only difference is that one is opposite color neutral while the other cuber is completely color neutral.
> 
> My analysis: *The cuber who is only opposite color neutral is better* Why? Because despite his limitation to two cross colors, he is still able to post equal times compared with the other cuber. The cuber who is completely color neutral has a much larger range of easier crosses to make. The disadvantaged cuber has more difficult cross cases, yet he is still able to compensate for this and post equal cross times.


I disagree. I think they are the same. I think being better or worse is identical to being faster or slower. 

Yes, the opposite neutral solver has fewer crosses to choose from, but he has easier recognition due to always having the same two colors on U and D. But even if I hadn't made that observation, I'd still think all the evidence points to neither of them being "better," because being good or bad is synonymous to being fast or slow, in this context.

If anything, I'd say that the CN guy is better because he has more potential to be better in the future, simply because he has a higher ceiling for how fast he can get. If you assume that both cubers can improve their recognition to the point where they almost never pause, the CN guy will be faster because of the lower movecount. There are no bounds to how much skill can improve, but only having 2 colors to choose from instead of all 6 is a limiting factor that no amount of practice can counterbalance. 

I don't think the assessments you're making can't be useful, I just think you need more specific and less subjective descriptors than "better" and "worse" for it to work. 


Artic said:


> *Scenario 2:* Two users have the same average of 100. One cuber uses Roux and the other uses CFOP.
> My analysis: *The CFOP cuber is better.* Why? Because Roux is known to have a much lower movecount. And yet despite his move count advantage, the Roux cuber can still only post times equal to his CFOP counterpart.


My analysis: The Roux solver is better. Why? Because Roux is known to have much more difficult recognition. And yet despite the advantage that a method with easier recognition gives, the CFOP cuber can only post times equal to his Roux counterpart.

See? 

You seem to cite movecount as a thing that make a method or a cuber better or worse, but not recognition. I think that's a mistake. I can understand why; movecount is much more measurable than recognition is, and therefore easier to make comparisons about. That doesn't make it more deterministic of the skill of a cuber or the efficiency of a method, though.

As I did with the previous scenario, I would argue that the Roux solver has more potential to be faster in the future, as lowering the movecount of a method is less doable than improving your lookahead. 


Artic said:


> So for example, Bill Wang should be considered a better cuber than Alex Lau, at least from their official times list. The interesting aspect is that both Bill and Alex had extremely high TPS, and yet, even with this, they still have approximately equal official times. Clearly, there is something difficult or inefficient with Roux, something that limits its efficacy. I suspect the use of M-slices is a permanent impediment and obstacle that offsets their lower movecount advantage. This will forever hinder Roux in my opinion, since it's so M-slice dependent.


I'm pretty sure Bill has higher TPS than Alex at the times they're equal speeds. 

I had thought the LSE was actually the best step in the method. So many pieces are solved 2gen, and M slices are really nice to fingertrick. Can you explain more why you think of it as an impediment?

EDIT: tseitsei said similar things... partially ninja'd


----------



## rjcaste (Jan 12, 2015)

Artic said:


> A few thoughts I had the other day:
> 
> *Scenario 1:* Two users have the same average of 100. Their time breakdowns are also the same. In other words, their times for cross, F2L and LL are also the same. The only difference is that one is opposite color neutral while the other cuber is completely color neutral.
> 
> ...



I roughly understand what you're trying to say. Although two cubers may have equal times, one cuber is "better" than the other because he has the harder method/subset to use or has a disadvantage outside of something they control and still gets equal times. Such as if someone were to be using beginner's method and getting equal times with someone using CFOP. Obviously, the cuber using the beginner's method would have superior skill since it is difficult to get fast with the beginner's method yet he is as fast as a cuber using CFOP.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 12, 2015)

look, it's easy.

how *"good"* a cuber is equals how *"fast"* they are.

there are 3 factors that determine your speed

*1. Turning speed* (includes raw potential turning speed, but also ability to execute certain moves and algorithms properly)
*2. Lookahead* (includes lookahead midsolve, recognition times and planning out during inspection, with the shared goal of avoiding pauses)
*3. Efficiency* (includes Movecount and ergonomy; 50 moves can be better than 45 moves, when the moveset of the solution is better)

now, you can either just measure *speed* of a cuber and determine who is "better" by just checking who is *faster*

OR

you could compare the specific *factors* of the cubers, for example:

Cuber A and Cuber B both have an equally fast average of 100.

Cuber A spends 1.2 per solve not turning any layers, Cuber B spends 1.8 seconds per solve. Cuber B has *more and/or longer pauses* and therefore *worse lookahead* than cuber A

you can also compare the efficiency of the two Cubers or the turning speed, but you can never compare two *different factors*.

In your first example, it comes to mind that the completely color neutral cuber has *better efficiency*, because his cross solutions are *shorter*. However, he must then have *inferior turning speed or lookahead*, because although the opposite-neutral cuber has longer cross solutions, he can achieve *equal times*.

BUT in the end, both cubers are still *equally fast*!

get the point?


EDIT: if anyone has something to add to my 3 factor system or any additional thoughts, please post them!


----------



## MWilson (Jan 12, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> ...
> 
> if anyone has something to add to my 3 factor system or any additional thoughts, please post them!



Maybe focus.

Consider two solvers that are equal in turning speed, look ahead, and efficiency at the same competition. They both make the same mistake at the same point in the same scramble, after the same time has passed in the solve. The one that loses focus will likely start turning faster in an attempt to make up for the mistake, and may make another mistake or at least have worse performance one or more of the other three factors. This results in a worse time than the other solver, who is otherwise identical, making focus another factor in speed.

There could be many other examples than just making mistakes, such as being better at focusing while solving in front of a crowd.

Maybe nerves is a better term.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 12, 2015)

I agree with your general point, Petro, but I think instead of "Lookahead" we should just call it "Pauses". And then we can simply write:
Solve time = Pauses + Movecount / TPS
You mention ergonomy as part of efficiency, but I'd consider it a tradeoff; using more ergonomic moves is a tradeoff giving you high efficiency at the cost of high tps, whereas using less ergonomic moves is a tradeoff in the other direction.

So yeah, the Roux and Color Neutral solvers are probably more efficient, but to have the same time as the Fridrich and Opposite Color Neutral solvers they must either have less TPS or more pauses.


----------



## Smiles (Jan 12, 2015)

Maybe OP didnt word things the exact way for people to understand it, but I totally understand what OP means...
and it makes perfect sense too (at least scenario 1 makes perfect sense).

Better cuber *in this context* doesn't mean faster in times, but just who can *do better given the same circumstances of method*.
It's almost like *better potential cuber*.
So if A uses CFOP and B uses a beginner method, and both average 10 seconds, then B is "the better cuber" or the "better potential cuber" because B obviously can perform just as well on a cube given a disadvantage. The *theory* is that if B switches to CFOP, B will be faster and therefore B is a better cuber. This is all theoretical, obviously everyone has preferences but that is not taken into account here.

I think the logic can be seen in your scenario 2 but I think the reality of it breaks down here. Just because Roux is more move efficient in *STM*, that doesn't mean it's more efficient in HTM or QTM or SQTM.
These are important metrics too because Roux does have a lot of M2 and U2 moves, which can each be counted as 2 moves (slower). CFOP doesn't have so many.
Also, M moves cannot be performed as fast as algorithms used in CFOP that seem like they're made to be done fast.
Example: H perm vs T perm = 7 STM vs 14 STM yet H perm usually isn't twice as fast.

I guess my point is yes Roux users have a move count advantage (in STM) but methods can't be compared on the basis of just that. Doing 60 moves in CFOP obviously is faster than doing 60 moves in Heise; CFOP isn't designed to be move-efficient, it's just fast cause people have fast fingers and PLL doesn't require look ahead like Roux LSE does.


----------



## Artic (Jan 12, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> And for scenario 2 this:
> 
> Could as well be this:
> My analysis: The roux cuber is better. Why? Because Roux has *harder lookahead* than CFOP (you need to always know what piece is in the DB slot since you can't see it) and roux uses M-moves that are not necessarily as fast as RUF-moves mostly used in CFOP. And yet despite these disadvantages, the Roux cuber can still post times equal to his CFOP counterpart.



This is a completely wrong and irrational statement. I was comparing indisputable known facts between methods, lower move count for Roux vs higher for CFOP, while you are trying to argue using a baselessopinion. Difficulty of lookahead is subjective and cannot be argued one way or another. Many people think CFOP has extremely hard and tricky lookahead. In fact, there's a new thread on F2L lookahead every week! Some people might think Roux had harder lookahead, and many others might say CFOP. That is debatable. But what cannot be disputed is move count. So in that regard, you argument holds no water.



IRNjuggle28 said:


> I disagree. I think they are the same. I think being better or worse is identical to being faster or slower.
> 
> I don't think the assessments you're making can't be useful, I just think you need more specific and less subjective descriptors than "better" and "worse" for it to work.
> 
> ...


Again, an argument based on subjective factors and not on facts. F2L lookahead is just as difficult if not more so than Roux. Ask the hundreds of new cubers who post F2L help threads.



rjcaste said:


> I roughly understand what you're trying to say. Although two cubers may have equal times, one cuber is "better" than the other because he has the harder method/subset to use or has a disadvantage outside of something they control and still gets equal times. Such as if someone were to be using beginner's method and getting equal times with someone using CFOP. Obviously, the cuber using the beginner's method would have superior skill since it is difficult to get fast with the beginner's method yet he is as fast as a cuber using CFOP.



Thanks. That's an extreme example, but it does get the point across. I don't think anyone would argue that if a cuber averaged 6 seconds using the beginners method, then he should without a doubt be considered the best cuber.



Smiles said:


> Maybe OP didnt word things the exact way for people to understand it, but I totally understand what OP means...
> and it makes perfect sense too



thanks


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 12, 2015)

Artic said:


> Again, an argument based on *subjective factors and not on facts.* F2L lookahead is just as difficult if not more so than Roux. Ask the hundreds of new cubers who post F2L help threads.


I can point out some objective facts that make F2B recognition more difficult than F2L. When you solve a cross, you have all centers in the correct place, and can use them to judge where corner/edge pairs belong. But during Roux blocks, the M layer edges and centers are not solved, and I have to memorize my color scheme to know where things belong. Furthermore, edges can only be in the U layer or E layer during F2L. During F2B, edges can be in the D layer, where they are more difficult to track than during CFOP. Both of these things make finding pieces as well as knowing what slot those pieces belong in more difficult.

The other (obvious) objective way of measuring is speed. There are many CFOP solvers that average sub 6 for F2L, and as far as I know, only Alex Lau is that fast at F2B, even though F2B solves less pieces than F2L, and has a lower movecount. All of this seems to point towards Roux having more difficult recognition.


----------



## adimare (Jan 12, 2015)

You're basically saying that you can determine that cuber A is better than cuber B based solely on their TPS. That is a very subjective statement.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 12, 2015)

Does it really matter how efficient someone is?

If Person A averages sub-7 but averages 70 moves, is he really not as good as a person who averages sub-7 and gets 30 moves on average?


----------



## TDM (Jan 12, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Does it really matter how efficient someone is?
> 
> If Person A averages sub-7 but averages 70 moves, is he really not as good as a person who averages sub-7 and gets 30 moves on average?


Tbh, I would be more impressed by someone who averaged 30 moves in a speedsolve. We've seen people do 10+ TPS in solves before, but if someone averaged 30 moves in a speedsolve, I'd like to see them do FMC


----------



## ottozing (Jan 12, 2015)

Artic said:


> while you are trying to argue using a baselessopinion.



I wouldn't exactly call it baseless, although maybe worse look ahead wasn't the right way to put it. The way I see it, there's very good reason to believe Roux has harder recognition than CFOP does, which *results* in worse look ahead. Aside from everything IRN said about colour scheme stuff and edge placement, second block solutions aren't really done anywhere near as algorithmically as CFOP pair solutions are (More specifically the first 1x2x2 of the second block). This results in harder look ahead because with CFOP, it's just lookahead, see pair, spam short alg. With Roux it seems like you need to look ahead, come up with a solution on the fly, and while doing moves that aren't 100% ingrained into your muscle memory, do that solution while looking ahead to what you have to solve next. That seems a lot harder to do than spamming F2L pairs, and I can definitely see that being a downfall.



Artic said:


> Many people think CFOP has extremely hard and tricky lookahead. In fact, there's a new thread on F2L lookahead every week!



Maybe you should refrain from using baseless opinions yourself. I mean geez that's pretty bad reasoning, considering the fact that the majority of new cubes on this website go for CFOP as their main method instead of Roux, so obviously there will be more of them asking about look ahead since they don't grasp the concept.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 12, 2015)

Artic said:


> This is a completely wrong and irrational statement. I was comparing indisputable known facts between methods, lower move count for Roux vs higher for CFOP, while you are trying to argue using a *baselessopinion*. Difficulty of lookahead is subjective and cannot be argued one way or another. Many people think CFOP has extremely hard and tricky lookahead. In fact, there's a new thread on F2L lookahead every week! Some people might think Roux had harder lookahead, and many others might say CFOP. That is debatable. But what cannot be disputed is move count. So in that regard, you argument holds no water.



watwatwat? Baseless opinion?! I even wrote this right after that lookahead part of my post:


> (you need to always know what piece is in the DB slot since you can't see it)


Also the edges you need to look for can be in other D-layer slots (DF and DR) while in CFOP during F2L they can only be in U or E layers making them a lot easier to find/track. And on top of that you need to only track 2 pieces to make a CFOP pair but you have to track 3 pieces to make a Roux square (1x2x2 square)...

What you are saying is basically that we can only measure movecount of a method but not recognition/lookahead/some other stuff like that.
Well if that's the case then I suppose Heise method is the most awesome speedsolving method ever 
But clearly that is not the case because it's too complicated to be used in speedsolve. 
Similarly I would say that CFOP is good speedsolving method because it's so damn simple... Roux is also a good speedsolving method. A bit more complicated than CFOP, but makes up for that with it's lower movecount.

Now please understand that there needs to be more variables involved while comparing methods than just simple movecount.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 12, 2015)

qqwref said:


> I agree with your general point, Petro, but I think instead of "Lookahead" we should just call it "Pauses". And then we can simply write:
> Solve time = Pauses + Movecount / TPS
> You mention ergonomy as part of efficiency, but I'd consider it a tradeoff; using more ergonomic moves is a tradeoff giving you high efficiency at the cost of high tps, whereas using less ergonomic moves is a tradeoff in the other direction.
> 
> So yeah, the Roux and Color Neutral solvers are probably more efficient, but to have the same time as the Fridrich and Opposite Color Neutral solvers they must either have less TPS or more pauses.



Good point, plus that formula really sums up what my 3 factors are about. 

About the ergonomy and Movecount tradeoff; that is also directly connected with my point from the factor Turning speed "being able to execute certain moves properly " - if you are able to execute a lower Movecount solution with a perceived inferior 
Moveset equally fast, a more ergonomic higher Movecount solution wouldn't be a tradeoff in your favor.

@mwilson:

I like your idea of focus. 
It certainly is important for speedcubing, but I'm not sure how to incorporate it.... 
It certainly doesn't work as a fourth factor, since it influences the other 3 factors.


----------



## Escher (Jan 12, 2015)

Looking at cubers recorded official solves doesn't tell you anything about 'better' unless you wish the word to be interchangeable with 'faster'. 

Roux is better than CFOP because the approach of the method allows the trade-off for lower movecount so much better than other non-CFOP methods with lower movecounts. For an example, the Roux approach towards L6E is so well designed that most optimal solutions 'use' the method, just a move-cancelled version. 

CN is better than single/dual because there is no reason why there should be a trade-off, unless there is something about the brains pattern recognition system we don't fully understand yet. And EVEN IF there is something inhibiting towards CN, it would still be better simply because movecount isn't the only metric that is improved by CN, 'solvability' is far far better once you get to higher levels. One gets so many more awesome options presented to them with 4/5 additional starts to choose from.

Single or dual colour CFOP is mega popular because it builds upon the method pretty much everyone learns, and colour neutrality (or lack thereof) appears to be a set in stone thing from very early on.

We have such little data on Roux and CN that it's somewhat unreasonable to make such claims based on data rather than reasoning, and the reasoning suggests that CNCFOP>CFOP and Roux>CFOP. Sorry I can't write much right now, but I'll return to the thread later on.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jan 12, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Solve time = Pauses + Movecount / TPS



But isn't TPS taken over the whole solve? Even if you can do short bursts of 10 TPS the pauses already factor into TPS for a full solve. (A 10-second solve at 60 moves means 6 TPS.) So unless you have a different way of defining TPS,
Solve time = Movecount / TPS


----------



## Bindedsa (Jan 12, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> But isn't TPS taken over the whole solve? Even if you can do short bursts of 10 TPS the pauses already factor into TPS for a full solve. (A 10-second solve at 60 moves means 6 TPS.) So unless you have a different way of defining TPS,
> Solve time = Movecount / TPS



The point is it's how fast you can turn when you are _actually_ turning. It's not how TPS is generally defined, but in the context of comparing the turning speed of solvers, it's the better metric, IMO.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 12, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I can point out some objective facts that make F2B recognition more difficult than F2L. When you solve a cross, you have all centers in the correct place, and can use them to judge where corner/edge pairs belong. But during Roux blocks, the M layer edges and centers are not solved, and I have to memorize my color scheme to know where things belong. Furthermore, edges can only be in the U layer or E layer during F2L. During F2B, edges can be in the D layer, where they are more difficult to track than during CFOP. Both of these things make finding pieces as well as knowing what slot those pieces belong in more difficult.
> 
> The other (obvious) objective way of measuring is speed. There are many CFOP solvers that average sub 6 for F2L, and as far as I know, only Alex Lau is that fast at F2B, even though F2B solves less pieces than F2L, and has a lower movecount. All of this seems to point towards Roux having more difficult recognition.



i average 5 for first two blocks. probably by the time a rouxer gets to sub 12 they will have sub 6 f2b.


----------



## Hypocrism (Jan 12, 2015)

Perhaps they are better at X than somebody else is at Y. But that's comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jan 12, 2015)

One thing that must be addressed is your definition of the word "better." From what I've gathered from your post, you define "better" as the ability to achieve low times while overcoming disadvantages. 

Working with this definition I find, fault in your condemnation of the Roux user when compared to the CFOP user. 
You say that a roux user is worse than a CFOP user with equal times because the Rouxer is incapable of making use of his move count advantage. While this is logical according to your definition, it is contradicted by one of your later claims. When you say that, "there is [clearly] something difficult or inefficient with Roux," you are putting the aforementioned roux user in a disadvantaged position. This supposed disadvantage cancels out the movecount advantage, thus putting the CFOPer and the Rouxer on equal grounds. Indeed, you state this yourself! "... is a permanent impediment and obstacle that offsets their lower movecount advantage." 
According to your definition of better, the Roux user must be considered equally good as the CFOPer. With that I disprove your analysis to scenario 2 (well, actually, you did that for yourself, I just drew the connections). 
This also applies to your main conclusion that roux is forever hindered. If the obstacle of M-slices truly does offset the advantage of movecount, the logical conclusion is that there is no net increase or decrease in method potential. (you did not give any weight to the factors of efficiency or movecount, so one is expected to assume they are of equal importance)

Now I would like to take the time to propose some amendments -or at the very least pose some questions relating to- your definition of "Better." 
Your reasoning seems to indicate that the overcoming of adversity must be judged on a solve by solve basis. I see this in your comparison of the opposite CN solver and the full CN solver. You take into consideration the disadvantages of the opposite CN solver's limited cross possibilities, but why do you not notice the adversity faced by the full CN solver? You did not do so because his disadvantage is of the _past_. It is quit difficult to become colour neutral - if you switch midway through your cubing career, you need to break the habits and become accustom to the new outlook on the cube; if you start out neutral, you need to learn ropes of cubing while at the same time being bombarded with the sensory overload of six faces, while the fixed color beginner gets to clear up his mind by specializing each piece as a cross piece, a f2lpiece, etc. I strongly believe that this is an overcomeance worth considering. 
So I think that ones judgment of cubing ability should not only based off of the current disadvantages overcome, but on the cumulative disadvantages faced throughout the solvers time spent cubing. 
"But, Ross, if the opposite CN solver cubes for long enough, wont the disadvantages he faces each solve eventually add up and outweigh those once faced by the full CN solver in the past??" Of course not young/old question asker! To say such a thing, one must assume that the CN solver becomes stagnant once he reaches neutrality. This could not be further from the truth! The neutral solver must learn to optimize his inspection time as he has six crosses to consider. The fixed/opposite cross solver only has two faces with which to occupy his time. I wonder who has the disadvantage here... 

But in all, I think the idea of grading a cuber based on his ability to deal with disadvantages is just silly. It reminds me of a comedian i once saw who did a bit involving "ghetto kids" and how they were always trying to out poor, if you will, each other. (note, this is not a commentary on urban youth, merely a recollection of a comedians likely hyperbolized opinion)


Edit: I guess it would also be worth while to provide some evidence against your claim that M/M' is inefficient. You used Alex as an example so I shall do the same. In his 8.02 average of 5 at the European Championships 2014, his average F2B tps was 6.31. His L6E tps was 6.81. 0.5tps *faster* than the -for the most part- Mless steps. 

and why do you always seem to single out alex for your criticism? you do this even when discussing the method as a whole. do you have some sort of vendetta against the man?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i average 5 for first two blocks. probably by the time a rouxer gets to sub 12 they will have sub 6 f2b.



Hmm... well almost there. i do have sub 7 f2b and occasional 5s. And Im sub 13 so... gettin there I guess. 2-4-2.5-3.5. obviously my probkem here is lse and cmll.


----------



## Artic (Jan 13, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> One thing that must be addressed is your definition of the word "better." From what I've gathered from your post, you define "better" as the ability to achieve low times while overcoming disadvantages.
> 
> Working with this definition I find, fault in your condemnation of the Roux user when compared to the CFOP user.
> You say that a roux user is worse than a CFOP user with equal times because the Rouxer is incapable of making use of his move count advantage. While this is logical according to your definition, it is contradicted by one of your later claims. When you say that, "there is [clearly] something difficult or inefficient with Roux," you are putting the aforementioned roux user in a disadvantaged position. *This supposed disadvantage cancels out the movecount advantage, thus putting the CFOPer and the Rouxer on equal grounds.* Indeed, you state this yourself! "... is a permanent impediment and obstacle that offsets their lower movecount advantage."
> ...



Pretty good analysis, and your arguments seem logical. But I only made mention of the M-slice impediment in Roux as a possible explanation for it's inefficiency. It was not so much a cause, but an effect. I was trying as best I could to avoid using subjective factors in determining which cuber is *better*. That is why I limited my arguments to solve time and move count, two factors that are indisputable and determinable. 

And your European Championship example only confirms my analysis. If his tps was indeed faster, then coupled with the lower move count for Roux, his times should be much faster! But they're not! In fact, in the end he was only 0.20 seconds ahead of Philip, and he didn't even place top 3 in the semi finals. Again, Roux is supposed to be this great super efficient method, but it's users have a hard time out performing CFOP-ers. Doesn't that strike you as illogical and strange? Clearly there are huge impediments to the method that limit it's usability. Of course, Roux solvers will never admit it. 

Also, I have nothing against Alex. He is the fastest Roux solver, so it seems only natural to use him as an example. I also use Feliks a lot as well


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 13, 2015)

Artic said:


> Pretty good analysis, and your arguments seem logical. But I only made mention of the M-slice impediment in Roux as a possible explanation for it's inefficiency. It was not so much a cause, but an effect. I was trying as best I could to avoid using subjective factors in determining which cuber is *better*. That is why I limited my arguments to solve time and move count, two factors that are indisputable and determinable.
> 
> And your European Championship example only confirms my analysis. If his tps was indeed faster, then coupled with the lower move count for Roux, his times should be much faster! But they're not! In fact, in the end he was only 0.20 seconds ahead of Philip, and he didn't even place top 3 in the semi finals. Again, Roux is supposed to be this great super efficient method, but it's users have a hard time out performing CFOP-ers. Doesn't that strike you as illogical and strange? Clearly there are huge impediments to the method that limit it's usability. Of course, Roux solvers will never admit it.
> 
> Also, I have nothing against Alex. He is the fastest Roux solver, so it seems only natural to use him as an example. I also use Feliks a lot as well



Methods dont have limitations. Humans do. Do you even use roux? You seem to be almost picking a fight with every roux solver and even every cfop solver who understands that roux and zz are also viable sub 8 methods. The 'huge impediment' you mention is the fact that roux is less explored, less popular, and has harder lookahead.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 13, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Methods dont have limitations. Humans do. Do you even use roux? You seem to be almost picking a fight with every roux solver and even every cfop solver who understands that roux and zz are also viable sub 8 methods. The 'huge impediment' you mention is the fact that roux is less explored, less popular, and has harder lookahead.



is roux lookahead really that hard? you only have to focus on one side of the cube and look for far less pieces. granted DB is hidden, it usually can be deduced as you solve if it is a SB piece. and if you can't, you can just look at it while you solve the other pieces.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> is roux lookahead really that hard? you only have to focus on one side of the cube and look for far less pieces. granted DB is hidden, it usually can be deduced as you solve if it is a SB piece. and if you can't, you can just look at it while you solve the other pieces.



Harder than cfop or zz lookahead where you can put pairs in back slots ar restrict all locations of f2l pieces to the R and U layer.


----------



## Artic (Jan 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> is roux lookahead really that hard? you only have to focus on one side of the cube and look for far less pieces. granted DB is hidden, it usually can be deduced as you solve if it is a SB piece. and if you can't, you can just look at it while you solve the other pieces.



Agree with this. 



PenguinsDontFly said:


> Harder than cfop or zz lookahead where you can put pairs in back slots ar restrict all locations of f2l pieces to the R and U layer.



Nope, I disagree. I think CFOP lookahead is just as hard. Many people struggle with F2L lookahead and post new threads on it every week. And it makes sense, you have to rotate around the cube searching for edges and corners and it takes enormous practice and vision to nail it down to a decent level. Furthermore, Roux is rotationless, yet another advantage over CFOP. And yet despite this, Roux times still aren't as good in general, when in fact...they should be better given all of its supposed advantages(lower move count, rotationless etc)

So we have a method: Roux, which claims advantages over CFOP, and yet in general cannot deliver the times of CFOP solvers. Yet despite the evidence, Roux solvers won't admit anything


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 13, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Harder than cfop or zz lookahead where you can put pairs in back slots ar restrict all locations of f2l pieces to the R and U layer.



if it is actually easier, then it is not by much. i think one of the main advantages to roux lookahead is that you only have to focus on the right side and that there are fewer pieces to track and differentiate. it is hard to compare though since f2l involves more lookahead because it must be done 4 times versus roux's 2 times for square and pair.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 13, 2015)

Artic said:


> Again, Roux is supposed to be this great super efficient method, but it's users have a hard time out performing CFOP-ers. Doesn't that strike you as illogical and strange? Clearly there are huge impediments to the method that limit it's usability.



Ok, you still don't seem to understand that there is more to a method than simple move count. "The huge impediment" is very simple and logical. Let me try to explain it to you:

The brainpower and thinking needed for a solve tends to increase when method efficiency is increased (=movecount is decreased). The best methods are those that have best possible compromise between those 2 factors.
Obviously beginners method isn't good but people can easily achieve insane TPS with that method because lookahead is so easy. You only need to track 1 piece at a time and the number of possible cases is very small also.
Also as obviously Heise method is not that good speedsolving method even though it's very very efficient and move count is very low. This is because the recognition and lookahead is too hard for a human to do at full speed.

Now if we compare roux I would say they are about equally capable methods (I think roux has even more potential but that's just my personal opinion). However Roux has better efficiency and move count BUT CFOP has easier lookahead for most of the solve.
So the "huge impediment" for roux is its comlexness compared to CFOP and CFOPs "huge impediment" is its high move count compared to Roux...



GuRoux said:


> is roux lookahead really that hard? you only have to focus on one side of the cube and *look for far less pieces*. granted DB is hidden, it usually can be deduced as you solve if it is a SB piece. and if you can't, you can just look at it while you solve the other pieces.



The bloded part isn't true IMO. Since in CFOP I only have to track 2 pieces (corner and edge pair) at a time but in roux I need to track 3 pieces (1 corner and 2 edges that make a 1x2x2 square) at a time. That makes roux lookahead hard(er than CFOP). + the fact that edges can be hiding in the D-layer...


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 13, 2015)

From what I can tell, OP's definition of "better" can just be replaced with "highest TPS". Sure, a CFOP solver with the same times as a Roux solver will probably have higher TPS. What does that tell us about the cubers in question? We can't assume that the CFOP solver will keep his CFOP TPS if he switches over to Roux.

You can argue, given how Roux solvers tend to have lower TPS, that the Roux method has disadvantages that counteract the lower move count. This isn't exactly news, and once again still means nothing when it comes to the cubers in question. It seems that OP is starting from the assumption that Roux is a better method, given the average move count, and using that to say that Alex isn't that good. Then, he points out that Rouxers tend not to be very good by this metric, and suggests that this is due to deficiencies in the Roux method, which directly contradicts the initial assumption. This makes no sense.

The only metric we ultimately care about is solve time, anyway. Trying to define some people as "better" by using any other metric is just pointless. Not only that, but it is especially pointless if we insist on adding one metric (move count) and ignore the other aspects of solving that can be just as important. If you ask me, if cuber A and cuber B have the same solve times, they are equally as good. I don't need to know anything about their methods to say that.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 13, 2015)

Artic said:


> And your European Championship example only confirms my analysis. If his tps was indeed faster, then coupled with the lower move count for Roux, his times should be much faster! But they're not! In fact, in the end he was only 0.20 seconds ahead of Philip, and he didn't even place top 3 in the semi finals. Again, Roux is supposed to be this great super efficient method, but it's users have a hard time out performing CFOP-ers. Doesn't that strike you as illogical and strange? Clearly there are huge impediments to the method that limit it's usability. Of course, Roux solvers will never admit it.



lau did place 1st in 3 out of 4 of the rounds, that's pretty impressive considering there were 260 other competitors, most of which were using cfop. despite this stellar and unlikely performance, i do not think most rouxers would consider roux to be blatantly superior to cfop as you imply. i think it is general consensus that the method are close in potential and perhaps impossible to confidently say one method is better than the other.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 13, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Ok, you still don't seem to understand that there is more to a method than simple move count. "The huge impediment" is very simple and logical. Let me try to explain it to you:
> 
> The brainpower and thinking needed for a solve tends to increase when method efficiency is increased (=movecount is decreased). The best methods are those that have best possible compromise between those 2 factors.
> Obviously beginners method isn't good but people can easily achieve insane TPS with that method because lookahead is so easy. You only need to track 1 piece at a time and the number of possible cases is very small also.
> ...



this is true depending on your style for roux. i usually solve DR edge first unless it is very obvious to blockbuild the 1x2x2. by the time i insert that edge i will half the time know where the rest of the pieces are. so for the way i do roux, it is easy to lookahead. if you have to do three pieces, then it will be harder. but i think if you ask any sub 10 cfop user, they will see many corner edge pairs by the time they finish the cross, so it is also manageable in roux.


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> this is true depending on your style for roux. i usually solve DR edge first unless it is very obvious to blockbuild the 1x2x2. by the time i insert that edge i will half the time know where the rest of the pieces are. so for the way i do roux, it is easy to lookahead. if you have to do three pieces, then it will be harder. but i think if you ask any sub 10 cfop user, they will see many corner edge pairs by the time they finish the cross, so it is also manageable in roux.



The way you do Roux is less efficient, so that basically agrees with his broader point. In general, efficiency comes with a trade off for lookahead.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> The way you do Roux is less efficient, so that basically agrees with his broader point. In general, efficiency comes with a trade off for lookahead.



what would be most efficient is to use both the appropriate amount. it isn't really known how often putting in DR edge first is best versus how often "blockbuilding" the 1x2x2 is better. in a speed solve i average about 16 moves the way i do it, which is still pretty good.


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> what would be most efficient is to use both the appropriate amount. it isn't really known how often putting in DR edge first is best versus how often "blockbuilding" the 1x2x2 is better. in a speed solve i average about 16 moves the way i do it, which is still pretty good.



I'm sure if you found the most efficient (in terms of move count) ways to do every possible second block, only a small (though probably not insignificant) fraction would start with putting in the DR edge first. I'm not saying it is the wrong approach. We sacrifice move efficiency for simplicity or ergonomics all the time, and you've obviously found an approach that works for you.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 13, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> I'm sure if you found the most efficient (in terms of move count) ways to do every possible second block, only a small (though probably not insignificant) fraction would start with putting in the DR edge first. I'm not saying it is the wrong approach. We sacrifice move efficiency for simplicity or ergonomics all the time, and you've obviously found an approach that works for you.



well i didn't mean just putting in the DR edge. i almost always influence the next pair and sometimes cancel into and insert while simultaneously solving the DR edge.


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 14, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> well i didn't mean just putting in the DR edge. i almost always influence the next pair and sometimes cancel into and insert while simultaneously solving the DR edge.



Yes, and that requires good lookahead, right? I'm not trying to find fault in your approach, since you obviously know what you're doing. I'm just trying to highlight the tradeoff between lookahead and move efficiency.

From my experience, anything that improves efficiency also increases the need for lookahead. Last slot methods require looking into the last layer. Multislotting requires seeing multiple pairs at once. Blockbuilding requires tracking more pieces on more areas of the cube than CFOP pairs.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 14, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> Yes, and that requires good lookahead, right? I'm not trying to find fault in your approach, since you obviously know what you're doing. I'm just trying to highlight the tradeoff between lookahead and move efficiency.
> 
> From my experience, anything that improves efficiency also increases the need for lookahead. Last slot methods require looking into the last layer. Multislotting requires seeing multiple pairs at once. Blockbuilding requires tracking more pieces on more areas of the cube than CFOP pairs.



it does require good lookahead. but i'm sure cfop users do the same thing. they decide which pair to insert and how to insert their first pair to affect later pairs.


----------



## CDcuber (Jan 14, 2015)

does better here = better tps?


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> Roux is supposed to be this great super efficient method, but it's users have a hard time out performing CFOP-ers.



but the problem here is that an efficient method does not mean 'good' method. to be efficient one must be able to accomplish something without doing more work than needed. the fact that rouxers get the same time as cfopers without doing as many moves means that their method is more efficient. that doesnt mean that its better. that does not mean that it is worse either. (generally) cfop sacrifices some move count efficiency for a more efficient recognition/execution efficiency; (generally) roux sacrifices some recognition/execution efficiency for a more efficient move count. see, it all balances out in the end. 
and when you say that rouxers have a hard time out preforming cfopers i started scratching my head a bit. if rouxers have are getting a certain time while cfopers are getting the same time and using more moves, i would say that it is the cfoper who is struggling to keep up as he is doing more work. but im just playing off of your flawed logic here.



> Of course, Roux solvers will never admit it.



why would admit we admit something that is incorrect? there is no point in both of us being wrong.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> Roux is supposed to be this great super efficient method, but it's users have a hard time out performing CFOP-ers. Doesn't that strike you as illogical and strange? Clearly there are huge impediments to the method that limit it's usability. Of course, Roux solvers will never admit it.



You seem to be under the impression that Roux has been pushed as far as CFOP has. Roux has only ever had one sub 8 user to this day (Alex Lau), who has also happened to post averages of 100 damn close to what the fastest CFOP user gets. CFOP however has had a fair few sub 8 users, including Feliks who averages low/maybe sub 7, and iirc Philipp Weyer is also low 7 at home. CFOP also has a lot of people who average low/mid 8 seconds with the method, and when I say a lot I really mean a lot. Aside from Alex Lau, Roux had maybe one person who got close to averaging that fast, which was Austin Moore who I think was low/maybe sub 9 or something.

All in all, you shouldn't act like it's already been proven that Roux has problems just because the one guy who's gotten super fast with it sucks at turning fast.



Artic said:


> If his tps was indeed faster, then coupled with the lower move count for Roux, his times should be much faster! But they're not! In fact, in the end he was only 0.20 seconds ahead of Philip, and he didn't even place top 3 in the semi finals.



Oh look another baseless argument. I like how you don't mention Alex winning the other 2 rounds (by .3x first round and over half a second the second round). As I've said before, stop.


----------



## cashis (Jan 14, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> but the problem here is that *an efficient method does not mean 'good' method*. to be efficient one must be able to accomplish something without doing more work than needed. the fact that rouxers get the same time as cfopers without doing as many moves means that their method is more efficient. that doesnt mean that its better. that does not mean that it is worse either. (generally) cfop sacrifices some move count efficiency for a more efficient recognition/execution efficiency; (generally) roux sacrifices some recognition/execution efficiency for a more efficient move count. see, it all balances out in the end. ...



This thread has basically turned into an argument about what OP's definition of "good" is.
The thing is, no single method is better than another. There are no superior methods. I'm sure if someone truly wanted to, they could be at least sub 12 with beginner's method, and better with Petrus, and probably even faster with Heise, with enough practice. Each method has its advantages, and each method appeals to every person differently. Speaking extremely vaguely, Roux is more efficient, but slightly more difficult to achieve higher tps, due to the intuition and M slices required. CFOP trades efficiency for speed, and (arguably) easier lookahead. CFOP, however, is easier to transition into from beginner's method, and far easier to learn from beginner's method than (any?) other speed methods. ZZ has a more difficult and longer first step, but makes up for it in the second step, which requires no rotations, like Roux, but has the same fast, if not faster, lookahead as CFOP. 
Another thing to consider is the availability of resources methods have. CFOP by far has more resources available, and is more widely used, simply because it's an easier transition from beginner's, and as a result has more users. Chances are, if you choose a random person at a comp, and ask them what method they use, they'll say CFOP. On the flipside, Roux has not nearly as many users and not as many resources, and only one sub 8 solver (that I know of). ZZ is not nearly as used as the other two, however it has just as much potential to be fast. 
and that brings me to another thought, which is back to what I was saying at the beginning, about what "better" means in general. I think the OP means better as in more potential to be better.
Using this definition, there is no superior method. All have the potential to be fast. 
I'm probably rambling, but I think the part about resources needs to be said.
Edit: ninja'd @ ottozing


----------



## Artic (Jan 14, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> but the problem here is that an efficient method does not mean 'good' method. to be efficient one must be able to accomplish something without doing more work than needed. *the fact that rouxers get the same time as cfopers without doing as many moves means that their method is more efficient.* that doesnt mean that its better. that does not mean that it is worse either. (generally) cfop sacrifices some move count efficiency for a more efficient recognition/execution efficiency; (generally) roux sacrifices some recognition/execution efficiency for a more efficient move count. see, it all balances out in the end.
> and when you say that rouxers have a hard time out preforming cfopers i started scratching my head a bit. if rouxers have are getting a certain time while cfopers are getting the same time and using more moves, i would say that it is the *cfoper who is struggling to keep up as he is doing more work*. but im just playing off of your flawed logic here.



You've just proved my point. If a CFOP-er and Rouxer get the same time, even with the advantages of Roux(rotationless and lower move count), then it is the Roux-er that is inefficient! Otherwise he would be faster. 

And the CFOP-er is not keeping up. In fact, Roux-ers are the ones struggling to keep up since all the best current and past posted times have been performed by CFOP-ers. The onus is on the Roux-er to demonstrate he can keep up, and so far, only one guy out of many has been able to show that. Meanwhile, CFOP-ers continue climbing the ranks.



ottozing said:


> You seem to be under the impression that Roux has been pushed as far as CFOP has. Roux has only ever had one sub 8 user to this day (Alex Lau), who has also happened to post averages of 100 damn close to what the fastest CFOP user gets. CFOP however has had a fair few sub 8 users, including Feliks who averages low/maybe sub 7, and iirc Philipp Weyer is also low 7 at home. CFOP also has a lot of people who average low/mid 8 seconds with the method, and when I say a lot I really mean a lot. Aside from Alex Lau, Roux had maybe one person who got close to averaging that fast, which was Austin Moore who I think was low/maybe sub 9 or something.
> 
> All in all, *you shouldn't act like it's already been proven that Roux has problems* just because the one guy who's gotten super fast with it sucks at turning fast.



This is how science works. You look at empirical evidence and draw conclusions from it. The overwhelming evidence so far points to CFOP being faster. The onus is on Roux-ers to show the contrary, but they have almost nothing to present.


----------



## cashis (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> You've just proved my point. If a CFOP-er and Rouxer get the same time, even with the advantages of Roux(rotationless and lower move count), then it is the Roux-er that is inefficient! Otherwise he would be faster.
> 
> And the CFOP-er is not keeping up. In fact, Roux-ers are the ones struggling to keep up since all the best current and past posted times have been performed by CFOP-ers. The onus is on the Roux-er to demonstrate he can keep up, and so far, only one guy out of many has been able to show that. Meanwhile, CFOP-ers continue climbing the ranks.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point. Roux isn't as old as CFOP, doesn't have nearly as many users or resources, and therefore has less chance for people to get fast because lest people use it at all. Just because CFOP is ahead, doesn't mean it's superior to Roux.
No method is better than another.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 14, 2015)

if user experience and hardware awesomeness goes to infinity, then efficiency is the only criteria on which to evaluate a method.

that means FMC freestyle (with insertions embedded) will eventually be the objectively best speedsolving method.

c u then


----------



## cashis (Jan 14, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> if user experience and hardware awesomeness goes to infinity, then efficiency is the only criteria on which to evaluate a method.
> 
> that means FMC freestyle (with insertions embedded) will eventually be the objectively best speedsolving method.
> 
> c u then



That's where human ability comes in as a factor.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> You've just proved my point. If a CFOP-er and Rouxer get the same time, even with the advantages of Roux(rotationless and lower move count), then it is the Roux-er that is inefficient! Otherwise he would be faster.
> 
> And the CFOP-er is not keeping up. In fact, Roux-ers are the ones struggling to keep up since all the best current and past posted times have been performed by CFOP-ers. The onus is on the Roux-er to demonstrate he can keep up, and so far, only one guy out of many has been able to show that. Meanwhile, CFOP-ers continue climbing the ranks.
> 
> ...



not really. it takes usually takes around 4+ years to become world class at the rubik's cube. i think if you take the average of years cubing of the top 100 it will be 5+ years. the number of cfop users who have been cubing 5+ years is probably a couple 100 times that of roux users. despite this, roux has 2 people in the top 100, one of which who is only worse than two others who both probably have been cubing and improving for 2-3+ years. if it is so easily deduced that roux is a worse method than cfop, then the success of roux as we see today would be extremely unlikely. In fact, given this empirical evidence and your scientific logic, roux is better than cfop.


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> This is how science works. You look at empirical evidence and draw conclusions from it. The overwhelming evidence so far points to CFOP being faster. The onus is on Roux-ers to show the contrary, but they have almost nothing to present.



Science doesn't work by picking out the evidence that suits you. You point out that the majority of top cubers use CFOP, but completely ignore the fact that it has been around longer, has more available resources, and a _much_ larger user base. Back in the '80s, the "overwhelming evidence" would have pointed to corners first methods being the fastest.

By the way, has this whole thread just been a thinly veiled attack on the Roux method? That's what it seems like. You "invented" a metric for evaluating how good a cuber is (basically just TPS), which is inherently unfair to Roux users. Then seemingly every one of your later posts has pretty much ignored your original point and just been overt attacks against the Roux method.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 14, 2015)

cashis said:


> That's where human ability comes in as a factor.



humans with computers implanted in their brains and high dexterity prosthetic hands to calculate and execute the most efficient solution every time in under 1 second


i think the biggest factors at that point will probably be the venue lighting and the radial distance from the center of the earth, but that's just me


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> You've just proved my point. If a CFOP-er and Rouxer get the same time, even with the advantages of Roux(rotationless and lower move count), then it is the Roux-er that is inefficient! Otherwise he would be faster.



that word your using (efficient)... i dont think it means what you think it means. what you just "proved" is not inefficiency, but inability to make use of efficiency. and read the rest of my paragraph, there is more than one area of efficiency thta should be considered. 



Artic said:


> And the CFOP-er is not keeping up. In fact,* Roux-ers are the ones struggling to keep up since all the best current and past posted times have been performed by CFOP-ers*. ...



are you a religious apologist, because youre great at taking quotes out of context. the firs half of the sentence you bolded said, "if rouxers have are [lol typo] getting a certain time while cfopers are getting the same time..." there was no need to make reference to posted times like you did.


EDIT: somebody mentioned something about all methods having equal potential. i disagree. you should take human physiology into consideration. i do not think that it would be physically possible to turn the cube fast enough to achieve record times with beginners method. even if it was, someone with such good lookahead would beat those times with cfop or something like it with less moves.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> This is how science works. You look at empirical evidence and draw conclusions from it.



It'd be nice if you used this approach while actually taking into account what everyone else has said instead of what you feel like replying to. You also seem to use a lot of baseless (good golly I love that word) points to back up certain aspects of your arguments. You can't just switch between the two willy nilly.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> This is how science works. You look at empirical evidence and draw conclusions from it. The overwhelming evidence so far points to CFOP being faster. The onus is on Roux-ers to show the contrary, but they have almost nothing to present.



Sure, science is based on observation. However, if you weren't so adamantly against Alex and Roux, you'd probably notice that you're only using _one data point_. You're stating that Roux is worse than CFOP because the _one_ guy who's gotten fast with the method has a lower movecount at similar speeds as the best in the world.

How could you possibly make sweeping conclusions about methods based on Alex Lau? How could you possibly assume that a method is inferior to another just because Alex Lau doesn't meet your extremely high, unreasonable standards for a Roux user?

Let's also not forget the fact that you're talking about F2L lookahead threads as if sub10 solvers are posting them. There are thousands more CFOP solvers than Roux solvers, _of course_ there are going to be more threads and questions about CFOP.

Get your head out of your @zz and stop trying to beat down on Roux so much.


----------



## Artic (Jan 14, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> that word your using (efficient)... i dont think it means what you think it means. what you just "proved" is not inefficiency, *but inability to make use of efficiency.* and read the rest of my paragraph, there is more than one area of efficiency thta should be considered.
> 
> EDIT: somebody mentioned something about all methods having equal potential. i disagree. you should take human physiology into consideration. i do not think that it would be physically possible to turn the cube fast enough to achieve record times with beginners method. even if it was, someone with such good lookahead would beat those times with cfop or something like it with less moves.



This is probably very true. And it's perhaps related to your last point about human physiology, which I also agree with. I was simply trying to include only deterministic factors. But the fact remains that the records speak in an overwhelming clear direction, and until something else appears, then it is what it is.

To be fair, I do think ZZ is the future. So if I had to place any bets, it would be on that.



ottozing said:


> It'd be nice if you used this approach while actually taking into account what everyone else has said instead of what you feel like replying to. You also seem to use a lot of baseless (good golly I love that word) points to back up certain aspects of your arguments. You can't just switch between the two willy nilly.



That is a nice word isn't it?  And I have responded to the counter arguments. It's just that no one can adequately explain why a method with so many advantages isn't killing it at comps.



Ninja Storm said:


> Sure, science is based on observation. However, if you weren't so adamantly against Alex and Roux, you'd probably notice that you're only using _one data point_. You're stating that Roux is worse than CFOP because the _one_ guy who's gotten fast with the method has a lower movecount at similar speeds as the best in the world.
> 
> How could you possibly make sweeping conclusions about methods based on Alex Lau? How could you possibly assume that a method is inferior to another just because Alex Lau doesn't meet your extremely high, unreasonable standards for a Roux user?
> 
> ...



LOL...you got your panties in a bunch. Didn't know it would ruffle your feathers so much lol lol And my observations are based on multiple data points. It's just that the other Roux data points are averaging ~10 seconds, and I was using the best they currently have for their benefit. But even that is insufficient.

In any case, go drink some soda, eat some doritos and relax lol. You're always so uptight these days lol


----------



## 5BLD (Jan 14, 2015)

I figured you aren't worth my time but I want to comment on three important things.
-Efficiency is the *reason* I got fast. I'd always practice slowly and save moves everywhere. Quite simply the opportunity cost of this was training turn speed. This is just a matter of different skill sets. 
-Do not insult someone for thinking carefully and *thoroughly* about this issue; perhaps it's something you should do from time to time, just an idea. You say you respond to counter arguments, sure I can't fault that- but I'm worried because you both don't respond *well* and don't know it. 
-Your counter argument to using only one data point is you use multiple points- yet there are very few of these. The argument still holds; there is a huge difference between the number of data points. It's simply silly to conclude that Roux is worse for being slightly slower than CFOP records wise when I'm the only person going for it, and I go to so few competitions. The method is relatively young, as are the years of my cubing career- and I can certainly see ways of getting faster if I had the time to practise. It's not like I'm "pushing" it- yet.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jan 14, 2015)

You use pseudoscience to make claims. You have an idea then skew anything and everything to match that idea, and I can prove it in your opening post:



Artic said:


> *Scenario 2:* Two users have the same average of 100. One cuber uses Roux and the other uses CFOP.
> My analysis: *The CFOP cuber is better.* Why? Because Roux is known to have a much lower movecount. And yet despite his move count advantage, the Roux cuber can still only post times equal to his CFOP counterpart.
> 
> _So for example, Bill Wang should be considered a better cuber than Alex Lau, at least from their official times list._



Ok, 

So, in this case Bill Wang is a better cuber than Alex Lau (NOT CFOP vs. Roux this is cuber vs. cuber). Because he uses a method with a higher move count, and overcomes that to reach similar times to Alex.

If that's you're point, then fine. I don't care how you personally define which cuber is better. But the message is clear. People who use CFOP should be considered better than people who use Roux, because they OVERCOME the higher movecount to post similar times.

But then you go on to say this:



Artic said:


> The interesting aspect is that both Bill and Alex had extremely high TPS, and yet, even with this, they still have approximately equal official times. *Clearly, there is something difficult or inefficient with Roux, something that limits its efficacy.* I suspect the use of M-slices is a permanent impediment and obstacle that offsets their lower movecount advantage. This will forever hinder Roux in my opinion, since it's so M-slice dependent.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?



So, now Alex is using the less efficient method, and he's the one overcoming it to post similar times to Bill Wang... wouldn't this, by your original definition, mean that ALEX is the better cuber? You so clearly and openly contradicted yourself simply to put down Alex and Roux. 

Your claim of what makes a better (i'm assuming you mean 'more skilled' cuber) is that their method should also factor in along with their times.

I don't agree with your silly premise. To me the better cuber is the one that posts the faster times. If they choose to use a less efficient method and hinder their times, then they worse because they aren't doing everything they can to improve their solves. If I'm the fastest guy in the world to use a Rubik's Brand and solve with my teeth, it doesn't mean I'm a great cuber. It means I'm being very inefficient and not doing anything to change that.

However, going with your original idea, you can break down your opening argument into a formula.

The formula would look something like this:

S x E = T

S = skill of the cuber
E = efficiency of the method
T = time to solve



Since Bill Wang and Alex Lau have posted similar times, the T will be equal. If Bill's S is higher than Alex, then the E of CFOP MUST BE LOWER than the E of Roux. If CFOP has a higher E than Roux, then Alex's S MUST be higher than Bill's.

Either Roux is worse and Alex is better, or Alex is worse and Roux is better. You can't have it both ways.




Artic said:


> Any thoughts on this?



Yeah, join the Roux facebook group, and compete with us every week. I want to see where YOUR CFOP times fall in with OUR Roux times. There's about 20 or so of us that compete, so it would be a 20:1 ratio of Roux Solvers to CFOP solvers. Your 5% representation of CFOP will be compared to our 95% Roux Representation (much the same way you're comparing CFOP worldwide to Roux solvers worldwide, which is much much higher than 20:1), and when you fail to beat Alex, GuRoux, Waffo, RyanP, Ross, and several others we can say that CFOP is far inferior to Roux.

And if you don't understand the points I'm trying to make (especially that last paragraph), it's ok. I'm not writing it for you. You are clearly a lost cause.

And Alex said what I wanted to say much faster and more efficiently... even Roux-style in his response.


----------



## Berd (Jan 14, 2015)

ZZ anyone?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 14, 2015)

well, I'll put it this way. I don't care about what you think about any methods to be honest. It's subjective, to each their own, etc. Personally I think CFOP is a great method with great strengths, I have nothing against it, I just find it boring to solve with.

What bothers me is that people continue to pursue arguing over meaningless things like objectifying the value of a method or person, rather than advancing a method or self to it's fullest. Cubing is supposed to be fun but to be honest half the people here are just trying to make themselves feel better by making people feel inferior to them. If that's what is fun to you, that's just sad.


----------



## LarsN (Jan 14, 2015)

I see where this is going ... -2 second handicap for people using inefficient methods during competitions.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jan 14, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> well, I'll put it this way. I don't care about what you think about any methods to be honest. It's subjective, to each their own, etc. Personally I think CFOP is a great method with great strengths, I have nothing against it, I just find it boring to solve with.
> 
> What bothers me is that people continue to pursue arguing over meaningless things like objectifying the value of a method or person, rather than advancing a method or self to it's fullest. Cubing is supposed to be fun but to be honest half the people here are just trying to make themselves feel better by making people feel inferior to them. If that's what is fun to you, that's just sad.



+1 on this...

We are all cubers. I live half a world from where I was born, but I was accepted with open arms by the entire cubing community here in Korea. I visited Japan last week and they also took me in. This is the only community I've seen where people get called lesser cubers simply because of the method they choose to use.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 14, 2015)

Well quite obviously this Artic guy has some personal hatred towards roux method so debating with him will get us nowhere since he clearly can't look at things objectively in this matter...


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 14, 2015)

What I don't get is that you (Artic) are constantly asking (in other places) for F2L algs that are rotationless and M-slice. I've seen you ask that question at least 15 times for random cases. Well if you like no rotation and M-slicing so much, why hate on Roux?


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 14, 2015)

sure, they're better if that's how you want to define better

other people think better can mean other things

come on Artic, this is worse than the time you tried to scare people by implying that cubes were toxic and could kill us


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic, you are in contention for the most hated person currently on the forums.

As someone who averages mid-12 with a history of using very move-inefficient algorithms (by choice) and mid-range tps, how would you compare my skills with that of a CFOP solver with the same times?

Your arguments cannot hold without operational definitions of efficiency, skill, and net worth. Trying to take merit from Roux users (or any cubers simply because of their method) is unacceptable.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 14, 2015)

I think everything that had to be said about this topic has been told by page 3...



Berd said:


> ZZ anyone?



I think the World just isn't ready for us yet


----------



## Artic (Jan 14, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> I think everything that had to be said about this topic has been told by page 3...
> 
> 
> 
> I think the World just isn't ready for us yet



No, they aren't. But I'm definitely a fan. ZZ will take over some day 

And I'm not trying to take merits away from any cuber. All I wanted to point out is that all methods are not created equal, and it is silly for cubers to continue saying that. How can Petrus, Roux, ZZ, CFOP etc be *exactly* equal??, and why do people continue to insist that they are?? Is it because users of a method don't want to accept that their method might be inferior? 

Pretty much all of us started with the beginners method. Is that method just as good as ZZ or Roux? Of course not, and yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.



The reason they're unwilling isn't because of presumptions of equality, but because no one is arrogant enough to say (except for you) that they know for sure which method is better. There just isn't enough data, and to claim that there is reveals an underlying ignorance of basic statistics, confidence intervals, sample sizes, etc.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> No, they aren't. But I'm definitely a fan. ZZ will take over some day
> 
> And I'm not trying to take merits away from any cuber. All I wanted to point out is that all methods are not created equal, and it is silly for cubers to continue saying that. How can Petrus, Roux, ZZ, CFOP etc be *exactly* equal??, and why do people continue to insist that they are?? Is it because users of a method don't want to accept that their method might be inferior?
> 
> Pretty much all of us started with the beginners method. Is that method just as good as ZZ or Roux? Of course not, and yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.



Its the cuber, not the method, the big 4 are all equal in potential to one another, doesn't mean just because one person can or can't get sub10 with such method, its not on par with the others. People continue to insist that they are because *they are.*

Of course the beginners method is not as good as speedcubing method, why, it has more simplified steps than say CFOP, a derivative from it, combining first and second layers into F2L, leading to faster times because of the more complicated fast steps rather than the slower, really simplified LBL.


----------



## Artic (Jan 14, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> The reason they're unwilling isn't because of presumptions of equality, but because no one is arrogant enough to say (except for you) that they know for sure which method is better. There just isn't enough data, and to claim that there is reveals an underlying ignorance of basic statistics, confidence intervals, sample sizes, etc.



So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.



the thing is that every cuber uses a method somehow differently, and with more experience, they start to develop tricks and adjustments to the "basic" method that help them achieve better times. I bet my ZZ is ALOT different from your ZZ, as well as Felks' CFOP isnt just standard CFOP anymore most of the times, and alot different to lets say Mats' CFOP.

also, several methods have several pros and cons. when you compared roux and cfop, you kinda left out the cons of roux...

it just doesnt make any sense to compare stuff like that. you can compare cubers, but not different aspects of them with another.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.



You are the only one ignorant in this thread. 

I use CFOP and have used it for several years already but I have no problem admitting that "my" method is not necessarily the best. 

Neither do I believe that all methods (or even the big four methods) have exactly the same potential. 

I would rank them as follows (but this is only my personal opinion. So feel free to disagree...): petrus < zz < cfop < roux...
Obvously someone would place them to another order. And it is subjective after all. Someone with good lookahead might want to use different method than someone who can spam insane tps with simpler lookahead...


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 14, 2015)

Artic said:


> So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.



Lol, straw man fallacy -- you're flailing pretty hard. You know I wasn't talking about comparing beginners to CFOP or corners first to ZZ. I was talking about comparing the 3 main methods, CFOP Roux and ZZ. Good try though. My point still stands


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 14, 2015)

Funny how Arctic hates on Roux for not having success in the rankings but calls ZZ "the future of cubing". Maybe he should check the rankings again because that "evidence" points to ZZ being the worst of the three. Of course that doesn't actually say anything about the method- I just find the logical inconsistency amusing.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 14, 2015)

BaMiao said:


> Funny how Arctic hates on Roux for not having success in the rankings but calls ZZ "the future of cubing". Maybe he should check the rankings again because that "evidence" points to ZZ being the worst of the three. Of course that doesn't actually say anything about the method- *I just find the logical inconsistency amusing*.



Me too. Of all his posts, not just that one point.


----------



## STOCKY7 (Jan 15, 2015)

Artic said:


> No, they aren't. But I'm definitely a fan. ZZ will take over some day
> 
> And I'm not trying to take merits away from any cuber. All I wanted to point out is that all methods are not created equal, and it is silly for cubers to continue saying that. How can Petrus, Roux, ZZ, CFOP etc be *exactly* equal??, and why do people continue to insist that they are?? Is it because users of a method don't want to accept that their method might be inferior?
> 
> Pretty much all of us started with the beginners method. Is that method just as good as ZZ or Roux? Of course not, and yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.



Tbh, I agree with Artic here, I can't see how all of the 4 main methods can be exactly equal in speed or potential or whatever. Maybe the difference is so small, it isn't too noticeable, but I mean surely there MUST be some difference between the methods.


----------



## supercavitation (Jan 15, 2015)

STOCKY7 said:


> Tbh, I agree with Artic here, I can't see how all of the 4 main methods can be exactly equal in speed or potential or whatever. Maybe the difference is so small, it isn't too noticeable, but I mean surely there MUST be some difference between the methods.



Someone addressed this earlier. Most people agree that the methods are not all equal, but most of us aren't arrogant enough to say that we know for a fact which is objectively the best.


----------



## Artic (Jan 15, 2015)

STOCKY7 said:


> Tbh, I agree with Artic here, I can't see how all of the 4 main methods can be exactly equal in speed or potential or whatever. Maybe the difference is so small, it isn't too noticeable, but I mean surely there MUST be some difference between the methods.



Thanks for your support! I honestly appreciate it. It's almost cult-ish the way some people stand behind a method. I understand that though. No one wants to be told that the method they've invested so much energy and time could possibly be inferior. But thanks again for your support! 



supercavitation said:


> Someone addressed this earlier. Most people agree that the methods are not all equal, but most of us aren't arrogant enough to say that we know for a fact which is objectively the best.



I never once made a complete, certain, undeniable claim regarding one method or another. All I said is that *the evidence today currently points in a certain direction.*


----------



## BaMiao (Jan 15, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Someone addressed this earlier. Most people agree that the methods are not all equal, but most of us aren't arrogant enough to say that we know for a fact which is objectively the best.



Not only that, but you can't say that any one method can be called best _for everyone_. People have different strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 15, 2015)

Artic said:


> All I said is that *the evidence today currently points in a certain direction.*



And all I'm saying (as I'm sure others have too) is that the evidence is pointing that way because literally no one but Alex has taken Roux beyond high 8 second averages. Also quit trying to play psychologist and tell everyone that they just don't want to admit they're using an inferior method because that makes you look like a ****. The reason they don't agree with you is because they're able to see past the very very few criteria needed in your definition for a method to be better than another method. Don't even bother replying to this post if you're not going to acknowledge and respond to everything in it.


----------



## Artic (Jan 15, 2015)

ottozing said:


> And all I'm saying (as I'm sure others have too) is that the evidence is pointing that way because literally no one but Alex has taken Roux beyond high 8 second averages. Also quit trying to play psychologist and tell everyone that they just don't want to admit they're using an inferior method because that makes you look* like a *****. The reason they don't agree with you is because they're able to see past the very very few criteria needed in your definition for a method to be better than another method. Don't even bother replying to this post if you're not going to acknowledge and respond to everything in it.



Insult. The last resort of the ignorant and the intolerant. I expected better from you.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 15, 2015)

Artic said:


> \ No one wants to be told that the method they've invested so much energy and time could possibly be inferior. But thanks again for your support



As an early adopter of Roux, I grew up in the cubing community with this "inferiority complex" but it doesn't stop me because I don't care about someone's opinion unlike a lot of people here. 

Like Kirjava said, if that's how you define better so be it. Because it's a rather subjective word. This isn't an argument of methods per se. Rather is an argument of the definition of better. 

That being said, I motion to move this to off topic because it has nothing to do with methods rather just the definition of "better"


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 15, 2015)

Artic said:


> Insult. The last resort of the ignorant and the intolerant. I expected better from you.



Not an insult: he is letting you know that you are displaying yourself in a manner that other people might think you are that, and that you should be more aware of how you come across to people.


----------



## Escher (Jan 15, 2015)

5 pages of non-arguments and pissed off people since I last posted and still no reply...

Speedsolving.com users are epic trollbait it seems.


----------



## Artic (Jan 15, 2015)

thankfully, the undesirable posts were dealt with, and now we can get back on topic.

I've reconsidered some excellent points people have brought up, namely, my definition of the word "better". Perhaps that was too strong and subjective a word to use. Additionally, despite trying to remain as objective as possible by including only move count, rotation-less, and time into account, it's clear now that other "subjective" criteria must be taken into account when defining a global metric for "better". These include lookahead and move ergonomics to name a few. 

Can we instead use the word *"favorable"*, meaning that certain methods create conditions more favorable to producing faster times. Taken from the dictionary, "favorable" here means *"encouraging, inclined to help or support"*. In this context, since CFOP is more heavily researched than other methods, would it be fair to say that *CFOP is more favorable than ZZ, Petrus, or Roux?*


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 15, 2015)

> In this context, since CFOP is more heavily researched than other methods, would it be fair to say that *CFOP is more favorable than ZZ, Petrus, or Roux?*



That's more like it :tu 

I agree that it's "easier" to learn cfop and be fast at cfop since it is the most developed and explored method. Altough I still think that roux has equal (or even greater) potential to be fast. People just haven't developed/researched it that much yet...


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 15, 2015)

End the thread here before someone disagrees. We seem to have found a solution that cfop is easier/favourable not better than roux zz because it is more popular and easier to get help with.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 16, 2015)

Artic said:


> Insult. The last resort of the ignorant and the intolerant. I expected better from you.



Insult. The last resort of the ignorant and the intolerant. I didn't expect better from you.


----------



## Artic (Jan 16, 2015)

So an often mentioned issue people have brought up in discussion over methods has been "research", and the abundance of research that has been put into CFOP. Therefore, I'm curious, what is the state of the art research being performed on the other methods? 

1) In CFOP we have things like WV, SV, ZBLL etc that have added additional performance value over the standard CFOP. Using these new improvements or strategies, decreases in time have been achieved, and indeed, getting below an average of 10 seconds seems to require them.

2) In ZZ, the latest research that I'm aware of is the ZZ-Edges First method mentioned here: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?50964-ZZ-Edges-First-discussion&p=1046130#post1046130 From the discussion, it seems that it might prove to be an improvement over the standard ZZ, and thus provide some speed benefit.

3) For Roux, I'm not aware of any research being currently performed for this method. I read the Roux discussion thread regularly, and I've also tried to investigate if anything new or worthwhile has been proposed, but there does seem to be anything. No real growth in the method has occurred, and the standard, F2B, CMLL, LSE is what people have continued to use. 

Is there any new research being performed for Roux? Or has the research for Roux been maxed out?


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jan 16, 2015)

roux is already perfect so we don't have to research anything


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 16, 2015)

Artic said:


> Is there any new research being performed for Roux? Or has the research for Roux been maxed out?



there's not any real good way to add huge "alg sets" apart from kcll, and affecting lse with different cmll. other than that is optimizing intuitive parts. of course getting better at blockbuilding first two blocks. 4a and 4b optimization. nmblocks and nmcmll. misorientated centers. UF and UB instead of UR and UL. 4b and 4c at the same time.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jan 16, 2015)

Artic said:


> 3) For Roux, I'm not aware of any research being currently performed for this method. I read the Roux discussion thread regularly, and I've also tried to investigate if anything new or worthwhile has been proposed, but there does seem to be anything. No real growth in the method has occurred, and the standard, F2B, CMLL, LSE is what people have continued to use.
> 
> Is there any new research being performed for Roux? Or has the research for Roux been maxed out?



There's a lot of new stuff that can be worked on. Not many people are though. If Roux had a CFOP-size base, i think there definitely would be people focusing on some new things. Here's some examples where we can still grow.

For first two blocks:

So much of Roux block building is intuitive, so it's a little hard to expand block building research on a global level. What is happening now is a lot of collective sharing. GuRoux, Waffo, myself, and others are putting together walkthrough solve videos to help expand our own knowledge and others as well.

CN discussion is also a big element of Roux because the benefit of x/y2 or y/x2 CN vs. a fixed block makes quite a big difference. My average first block went from 14 moves or so with fixed blocks to 8-10 with y/x2 CN.

For CMLL:

Knowing multiple CMLL algs for cases is something that very few really do, but it's something that I believe could have a big benefit. Knowing one alg that preserves EO and another alg that disturbs it would help you predict and control the first part of L6E. There's something there.

There's also NonMatching CMLL, where you have two different x rotations of your left and right blocks. This could help you reduce your second block move count drastically, but making recognition on CMLL very difficult. I don't think many people have fully invested in this yet.

For L6E:

It may be possible to learn algorithms to control and even place UR/UL edges while doing EO. I know Alex knows many of these intuitively, but I'm not sure if anything has been compiled yet.

Misoriented centers is another thing that some people are playing with, where you build around the wrong centers to save moves and fix it at the end.



Another thing I would like to see if people investing in block building methods for 4x4 and up, such as K4 and Meyer.

So I do believe Roux has a TON of growing to do. It's not perfect, and it isn't even close to being fully pursued.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 16, 2015)

There's plenty of potential steps in Roux that can be combined and therefore improved. Over the years plenty of ideas popped up, most are dismissed because they are sub-par to a "standard" Roux solve. 

I remember at one point there was a discussion about doing WV to orient the corners. Then using PLLs permute corners and UL/UR. But it was dismissed because all we were doing was applying what we knew from CFOP onto Roux. It had nothing to do with Roux. In order for the method to advance we needed something that was intrinsic to Roux, which is why researching potentially new ways to improve Roux is hard. Application is easy, new concepts are not.

Take KCLL for example. It is CMLL while doing EO or changing it to something easier. No other method uses CMLL or LSE. This is intrinsic to Roux, this alg set is advances the method in terms of potentially new ways of improvement. It is not sub-par to standard and therefore not easily dismissed. "How come no one is using it or published algs?" one might ask. It's really not hard to derive these types of algs if you're clever enough. So instead of straight up just telling people, we'd rather encourage people to figure it out on their own. Documentation is nice, but really dumbs people down. For the clever ones, KCLL is assimilated into regular solves so you don't even notice it. No one talks because there's no need. 

I'd rather be asked about concepts rather than just saying the alg for this case is x. 

So to answer the question has the research for Roux been maxed out? The answer is no, because it's stupid to yell out ideas that doesn't make sense. Revelations that are intrinsic to Roux aren't as common and will take more users and even more time.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 16, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> There's a lot of new stuff that can be worked on. Not many people are though. If Roux had a CFOP-size base, i think there definitely would be people focusing on some new things. Here's some examples where we can still grow.
> 
> For first two blocks:
> 
> ...



Nice post. I use meyer y neutral but I suck lol


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 16, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> ...it was dismissed because all we were doing was applying what we knew from CFOP onto Roux. It had nothing to do with Roux. In order for the method to advance we needed something that was intrinsic to Roux


Why is it a problem to take things from CFOP and apply them to Roux, if they are beneficial? That's purist to the point of being self-defeating.



waffle=ijm said:


> "How come no one is using it or published algs?" one might ask. It's really not hard to derive these types of algs if you're clever enough. So instead of straight up just telling people, we'd rather encourage people to figure it out on their own. Documentation is nice, but really dumbs people down.


Perhaps if you share your innovations it would promote interest in the method as well as encouraging other innovations. That clever guy could be working on something new, or just practising and getting faster, instead of reinventing the wheel by rediscovering your secret algs.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 16, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Perhaps if you share your innovations it would promote interest in the method as well as encouraging other innovations. That clever guy could be working on something new, or just practising and getting faster, instead of reinventing the wheel by rediscovering your secret algs.



People like being spoonfed.
People don't always make proper associations when they are spoonfed.
People don't ask why enough.

I hate it.


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 16, 2015)

Ranzha said:


> People like being spoonfed.
> People don't always make proper associations when they are spoonfed.
> People don't ask why enough.


That's their problem, and of course not everyone is like that. I can't see how withholding a useful alg set is the best option for the community or the development of the method.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 16, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Why is it a problem to take things from CFOP and apply them to Roux, if they are beneficial? That's purist to the point of being self-defeating.



Maybe intrinsic came off too strongly (apologizes if it did). Let me rephrase it, if I may. 

I don't have a problem if they are beneficial. It's just CFOP algs are not optimized for Roux and to me will never be. Simply put, CFOP has pieces to preserve and Roux does not. It is for the same reason Roux users use CMLL rather than COLL and Build blocks rather than F2L our F2B. We can easily do it. Like I said Application is easy. It's not purist rather a pursuit of optimization, both in speed and in move count. Non optimized concepts and algs hardly seem on par with what is already "standard."

If one were to optimize CFOP algs to Roux, then it would no long be usable on CFOP and rather intrinsic to Roux. Concepts are another thing but share the same sentiment as algs.

I'll talk about the WV to PLL, I mentioned. In short, if you go the new substeps/method thread, it's like weeding out what's good and what's bad ideas before they have time to grow. It goes back to the pursuit of optimization for a specific method. 

WV alg preserve LL edge orientation. Why would I need that in roux? It's more moves than needed
Then I would have to EO.
Then I would have to use PLL if I didn't get CLL skip. Again more moves.

It's takes like at most 20 moves to complete "last slot" in second block and CMLL where as WV to PLL is probably more. But that's move count, what about speed. 2-gen CFOP stuff is fast, right?

Sure they are. But you have to account for setups in this case. for the WV part, we have to make a pair, place that LL, all while making sure 1x2x2 is also oriented properly (F2L style). Then you'd have to do the alg. Then you'd have to do EO, then You'd still have to position UL and UR pieces onto LL to use the PLL. It's fast to execute, but not fast when it comes to setup.

To me, WV to PLL in Roux is bad. Even worse than 2-Look CMLL. From my experience (and I hope I have some as I've been using the method for a really long time), any concept that deals with Last Slot, ends poorly if trying to applying to Roux.



mark49152 said:


> Perhaps if you share your innovations it would promote interest in the method as well as encouraging other innovations. That clever guy could be working on something new, or just practising and getting faster, instead of reinventing the wheel by rediscovering your secret algs.



The thing is, it's not Secret. KCLL is documented (with some algs at that) and shared with everyone, conveniently on this link and if you haven't found it you're not trying hard enough. If you're not trying hard enough you shouldn't even consider learning KCLL. I'm not trying to conceal algs from people when I say clever people can figure it out. Quote from KCLL "it can be approached by learning 300+ algorithms, or next to none." In other words, if you're clever enough, you land on the second category. 

Maybe you misunderstand when I say no one talks. It's because it's been *out for 4 years*. Some people have completely assimilated the concept of KCLL in their solves so it looks normal. It's like how CFOPers use ZBLLs in their solves (keeping in mind that full algorithmic KCLL is around 370 something algs). The concept is there, the algs are there. When I say no one talks its to avoid times like when a nub gets a PLL skip and goes "ZBLL ZBLL ZBLL" It cheapens the method, don't you think?

EDIT - When a new discovery is made, we post, we discuss, we deem if it's feasible. But right now the hard part is discovery. Not many people try to go that route. Making something out of nothing is hard.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jan 16, 2015)

A lot of the time no new CMLL algs need be learned to influence EO (and by that i mean looking up different algs online). You can experiment on certain cases by doing something like r instead of R, or counter slicing into your usual algorithm (e.g. R'+M' done in one fluid movement). Sure, there are times when it would be nice to know an extra alg or two for EO, but a lot of them can be written into muscle memory through repeated intuitive modifications to your normal alg. that -along with many other things- is what im trying to do right now.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 17, 2015)

I feel like I'm pretty full disclosure, you have no argument with "secret algs".

To accentuate waffle's suggestion, I've long felt embarrassed about putting my name towards that system because of how trivial it is to derive. I like to call it CLLEO now.


----------

