# The method debate thread



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 15, 2020)

This is a thread to debate on which method is best and if methods are equal and stuff like that. @Owen Morrison @Micah Morrison


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Mar 15, 2020)

leor is best I cba to explain why but I am going to make a video on it at some point


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 15, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> leor is best I cba to explain why but I am going to make a video on it at some point


Prove it.
EoLine is about FB, same moves, etc.
LB is better then EoStripe, it's RUL (3-gen) instead of like RrUMF (5-gen)
RB = RB
ZBLL = ZBLL

There.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 15, 2020)

Hawaiian Kociemba is the best method cuz Michael Humuhumunukunukuapua’a uses it and cuz he’s from Hawaii, so are pineapples, and pineapples are delicious.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 15, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Hawaiian Kociemba is the best method cuz Michael Humuhumunukunukuapua’a uses it and cuz he’s from Hawaii, so are pineapples, and pineapples are delicious.


Apples are superior.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 15, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> LB is better then EoStripe, it's RUL (3-gen) instead of like RrUMF (5-gen)


EOStripe is as much 5-gen as Roux second block is.
You can use F and M moves, but generally only <RrU> is required and LEOR is still pretty good with that pseudo 2-gen moveset.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 15, 2020)

*Please take a bit of time out of your day to read this.

I think Petrus is a lot better than people say it is.*
2x2: Even a beginner can almost always plan it during inspection. Also, less moves then cross.
2x2x3: 3-gen, so relatively quick. Additionally, *you can expand three ways on 2x2, while all other methods can be continued in 1 way*, meaning less moves in Petrus.
EO. Can be easily recognized and influenced during 2x2x3. For around 6 moves that are quicker than alg, you open up ZBLL and take *OLL algs from 57 to 7*.
LL. 2L OLL works like 1L, and ZBLL can be used.

Ontop of all of this, it can easily be done rotationless. It's all 3-gen or 2-gen, meaning easier high TPS. Speaking of TPS, if you have an average TPS of 10, which is reasonable to achieve, *you will average five seconds*. If you're thinking, well, Petrus is too intuitive for 10 TPS, think about loopover or piano. In both of those there is nothing to memorize (I'm talking about playing a piece from sheet music, bit memorized); It's entirely intuitive, yet you reach a point where you can do it without thinking. If you average around 20 seconds in loopover, you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 15, 2020)

CFOP has all the world records

so its the best


----------



## Hazel (Mar 15, 2020)

*I'm just going to put what I have to say here, and then I'll probably never post here again.*

I don't think CFOP is the best just because most pros use it. I think most pros use it because it's just an easier transition from LBL, so naturally more people use it—and if more people use it, then it's only natural for the majority of the pros to use it too.
I think Roux as just as much, if not more potential, and if more beginners gave it a chance then we could see that potential fulfilled.
I think that ZZ is very good too, but has its flaws. ZZ-a is definitely better than pure ZZ, but I don't know where it stands in relation to CFOP/Roux. I'd guess that it's either slightly worse, or just as good.
Petrus is better than people give it credit for, but like ZZ, I can't say for sure where it stands compared to CFOP/Roux.
For OH, I think CFOP and Roux are about equal, perhaps with an edge to Roux.
Other methods with less development such as ZBRoux, Leor, LMCF, or Hexagonal Francisco, might also be very good, but only time and exploration can tell. 

*However:* regardless of which method is best (if any), I think that the most important thing is having fun. If someone likes a random, mostly unknown method more than any of the above, then they should use that method. I'm personally very likely going to switch to either ZBRoux or Leor soon, because I think using one of those methods with full ZBLL would just be more fun for me than keeping with CFOP. As Chris Tran once said, "Cubing is fun, let's just have fun."
And if a beginner doesn't care about which method is most fun and just wants to be fast, one shouldn't say "just use CFOP", because again—Roux is likely just as good if not better, and other methods have potential too. Those beginners should be directed to the Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method thread, and they can choose for themselves which method is best for them.
We haven't explored any method enough to know for sure which one is best. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the best human method for 3x3 hasn't been found yet, and likely won't for some time. Whether it's more similar to CFOP or Roux or Petrus, or something else entirely, I do not know.

There's no point in me saying any more in future posts, because the above is all of my thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 15, 2020)

I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 15, 2020)

cfop it about TPS and look ahead, roux is about intuitive problem solving, and ZZ is a variation of cfop with EO line


----------



## kubesolver (Mar 15, 2020)

Given how similar zz and cfop are I can't believe that top speed beasts wouldn't try it out. 
I think they did and decided it's not worth it. 
For me this is strong indication that cfop > zz.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 15, 2020)

kubesolver said:


> Given how similar zz and cfop are I can't believe that top speed beasts wouldn't try it out.
> I think they did and decided it's not worth it.
> For me this is strong indication that cfop > zz.


No. Feliks once stated he never checked out Roux or ZZ


----------



## Josh_ (Mar 15, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.


If you use Redux for 5-7 how would CFOF be any faster than Roux?


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 15, 2020)

Josh_ said:


> If you use Redux for 5-7 how would CFOF be any faster than Roux?


M slices are tricky on big cubes, and Roux is harder with no inspection.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.



I think a big problem is that you just say "Use CFOP its great don't use others" without giving any reasons. That's why the beginners speedsolving guide thread is great, it compares pros and cons instead of just stating random things. Knowing that CFOP is better for big cubes is important, but so is the other pros of different methods.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I think a big problem is that you just say "Use CFOP its great don't use others" without giving any reasons. That's why the beginners speedsolving guide thread is great, it compares pros and cons instead of just stating random things. Knowing that CFOP is better for big cubes is important, but so is the other pros of different methods.


I don't think I ever say it like that but I agree with you.


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I don't think I ever say it like that but I agree with you.


You pretty much always say it that way.


----------



## mukerflap (Mar 16, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> cfop it about TPS and look ahead, roux is about intuitive problem solving, and ZZ is a variation of cfop with EO line


Roux isnt like that it's not really that intuitive


----------



## Hazel (Mar 16, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Roux isnt like that it's not really that intuitive


Excluding CMLL, Roux is completely intuitive. Why do you say this?


----------



## mukerflap (Mar 16, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Excluding CMLL, Roux is completely intuitive. Why do you say this?


it's as intuitive as cfop f2l


----------



## brododragon (Mar 16, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Roux isnt like that it's not really that intuitive


Roux mixes things up:
1. M slice the LL (mostly) and most flexible layer
2. Multiple layers to be solved in the last step
3 Putting a large amount of time in the first step (or two, if you count LB and RB seperately)


----------



## Hazel (Mar 16, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> it's as intuitive as cfop f2l


Half of the CFOP steps are algorithmic, while only 1/4 of Roux steps are.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 16, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Half of the CFOP steps are algorithmic, while only 1/4 of Roux steps are.


3/4 if you use algorithmic F2L.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I don't think I ever say it like that but I agree with you.


Ok, well when you're trying to convince people to use CFOP say :
I would recommend CFOP, as it can be used if you are willing to be serious about 4x4 and up and megaminx.
(BTW I would never say this so YOU use it, I don't mean the words above.)


----------



## MJS Cubing (Mar 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.


I agree. With something like Roux, M slices get hard on big cubes.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 17, 2020)

Aerma said:


> the most important thing is having fun.


You say there is no point in saying more, but I disagree. This point should be repeated often.


----------



## mukerflap (Mar 17, 2020)

MJS Cubing said:


> I agree. With something like Roux, M slices get hard on big cubes.


Only on 6x6 and up, I can sub 4 lse on 5x5


----------



## Chris_Cube (Mar 17, 2020)

I for example appreciate Corners First Methods because we all forgot about the Ideas in the 80s like Corners First oder Waterman, Salvia etc. Corners First are really fast because of the ergonomic <U,M> Group. So in addition to that some won't even need cube rotations. Especially Waterman was back then highly evolved. Roux is a bit of corners First, which makes it a cool method. CFOP can be replaced by CFCE. I think we forgot the intuitive Side of cubing. It makes more fun to think about the cube as an object in respect of logical thinking. People back then didn't have computers to create algorithms. Corners First is something incredible and intuitive and its like cubing back to the roots


----------



## Billabob (Mar 17, 2020)

A neglected reason for CFOP's dominance is that it can take a decade to become world-class. Even if Roux were to spike in popularity and become the most popular method today the top solvers would still be almost entirely CFOP, simply due to them having 10 years of practice and experience behind them.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 17, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> I for example appreciate Corners First Methods because we all forgot about the Ideas in the 80s like Corners First oder Waterman, Salvia etc. Corners First are really fast because of the ergonomic <U,M> Group. So in addition to that some won't even need cube rotations. Especially Waterman was back then highly evolved. Roux is a bit of corners First, which makes it a cool method. CFOP can be replaced by CFCE. I think we forgot the intuitive Side of cubing. It makes more fun to think about the cube as an object in respect of logical thinking. People back then didn't have computers to create algorithms. Corners First is something incredible and intuitive and its like cubing back to the roots


I've had a lot of fun with SSC and PCMS lately. I'm an intuitive cuber, and it's great fun to understand different methods, and to work out my own solutions to their steps. One of the best things about cubes and other twisty puzzles is that there are so many different ways to solve them. I use many different methods for different purposes:
I actually started with Heise. I love how elegant it is - and it also makes it easy to solve shape mods, including cubes that need center orientation.
For 4x4 and 5x5, I use a method I made up, which is a variation on Sandwich/Lewis and avoids parity. I had to develop a new way to solve corners, since Heise can't solve odd parity corners on 4x4.
Once I did that, I was able to start using Roux for speedcubing. I'm down to about 35 seconds, using a permute-first corners method based on Petrus corners.
I also do a lot of cubing on the subway, and for that I either do one-handed linear FMC, or a one-handed mix of ZZ and Heise (i.e. F2L-1 with ZZ and finishing with Heise).
I've also recently started experimenting with 3-style, since I already use commutators a lot.
All of which is to say that there are a whole lot of really fun methods, and speed isn't everything. I'm 37 so I will never achieve any significant speed anyhow. I just like learning, and cubing is great for that.


----------



## Micah Morrison (Mar 17, 2020)

Aerma said:


> *I'm just going to put what I have to say here, and then I'll probably never post here again.*
> 
> Those beginners should be directed to the Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method thread, and they can choose for themselves which method is best for them.


I read the CFOP section of that thread and the "Quotes from the best" seemed to be very selected quotes from a CFOP user saying why Roux is better than CFOP. I think this thread is biased and is not the best resource for beginners


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 17, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> I read the CFOP section of that thread and the "Quotes from the best" seemed to be very selected quotes from a CFOP user slower than me saying why Roux is better than CFOP. I think this thread is biased and is not the best resource for beginners


Antoine Cantin is faster then you now.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 17, 2020)

what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 17, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux


Lewis method does this. I also use this technique in my 4x4 method. These are both direct solving methods, not reduction methods. Sandwich method also ends up in this state, but it starts with corners first so it's not really like building blocks in Roux.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 17, 2020)

cool, i tried to do it by my self and im on the last wings, i plan to use bld algs to swap the wings


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 17, 2020)

and i did it


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 17, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> cool, i tried to do it by my self and im on the last wings, i plan to use bld algs to swap the wings


Did you use Lewis method? I'm guessing yes, since you're using commutators to solve the last edges. I prefer to solve the edges before solving the last centers with commutators, since you can avoid parity completely that way. Always cool to see people experimenting with new methods. 

How did you like it compared to your main 4x4 method?


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 17, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux





curiousity2575 said:


> and i did it


User dbeyer is also working on a Roux-based 4x4 method. See this video: 



And this thread:








4x4x4 Method


Greetings, I am going to start this thread here as I have refined the method since my original proposal. I want to talk about a Roux-centric method that allows you to quickly solve in a fluid Roux manner. It is interesting because I question all CFOP preconceived notions that 4x4x4 has to be...




www.speedsolving.com





I think there is a lot of potential for more development in these types of methods.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 17, 2020)

what i did is that i 2 centers, then made it 2 blocks, then finished wings and used 4x4 bld center commutators to finished to make it a 3x3 stage


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 17, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> what i did is that i 2 centers, then made it 2 blocks, then finished wings and used 4x4 bld center commutators to finished to make it a 3x3 stage


Okay, that’s like dbeyer’s method. Do you use Roux for 3x3?


----------



## Chris_Cube (Mar 17, 2020)

On 4x4 I use advanced Waterman described in Cubism for Fun. A very tough but fast method for sure


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 17, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Okay, that’s like dbeyer’s method. Do you use Roux for 3x3?



no i use cfop but i know roux


----------



## Micah Morrison (Mar 17, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Antoine Cantin is faster then you now.


yeah that actually is true. The thread said he averaged 10 seconds but that was in 2011


----------



## Hazel (Mar 17, 2020)

I actually have a question:
What do you all think is better, ZBRoux or Leor?
I've been told Leor before, but I want to get the opinions of more people. I'm planning on switching to one of the two soon, and I haven't decided on which one.
(I might consider Petrus as well)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 17, 2020)

Aerma said:


> I actually have a question:
> What do you all think is better, ZBRoux or Leor?
> I've been told Leor before, but I want to get the opinions of more people. I'm planning on switching to one of the two soon, and I haven't decided on which one.
> (I might consider Petrus as well)


Leor is best, and petrus is funnest.
ZBroux is really just roux but worst.
There's also ZZ


----------



## efattah (Mar 17, 2020)

The big advantage that corners first methods offer is the ability to use the inspection time to choose from a big algorithm set-- one looking EG1 (130 algs) during inspection (the only method I know of that allows using the inspection time to 'fetch' a large algorithm set from memory). Beyond that, it ends up having worse ergonomics and having a hard time matching the TPS of other methods. With another 10 years of development corners first might catch up to other methods.


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 18, 2020)

watch kian mansours video about cfop vs roux the one he did a lecture on he basically proves cfop and roux are even and you should pick on preference. I think that the other methods cannot get you as far as CFOP and Roux but you can still be fast and if you really enjoy it you should use it however i do not think you can be top 5 in the world with any method but CFOP and Roux.

this is all my opinion i could be totally wrong


----------



## brododragon (Mar 18, 2020)

I think another reason to pick your most fun method is that you'll practice more. Have you ever gotten a new cube and then practiced way more because of it? It's the same logic. This is kind of counterintuitive but you'll be faster in the long run with your favorite method.


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 18, 2020)

i agree unless your very determined to get faster because you will practise more anyway.
personally i am on a goal to be world class because i feel i have started young enough to do that i think that if i want to complete that goal CFOP is my best bet


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (Mar 18, 2020)

what if there was like zbls and u could 1 look a 3x3 solve


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 18, 2020)

pretty sure one looking a 3x3 in 15 secs using standard methods is impossible


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 18, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> what if there was like zbls and u could 1 look a 3x3 solve


This is turning into the "New Method/Dubstep Thread." Sounds like you would enjoy reading through that one.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 18, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Dubstep


Best music is in this thread.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 18, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> what if there was like zbls and u could 1 look a 3x3 solve


That's called blind.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

Ok. Cfop is the best period. Reason 1. Easiest lookahead. Look ahead is easily on of the most important factors. It is even more important than efficiency. 2. Cfop has best finger tricks. ZZ has awkward moves, and roux uses m moves which are good, but, they are slower than other moves. 3. I think that Roux is almost as good as cfop, but not as good, and zz is the worst. Hardly anyone that is top100 in the world for 3x3 uses zz. Majority uses Cfop, which proves that it is the best. Also zz is terrible cause Zbll and coll is useful, but it is so hard to learn them all, and at the beginning, you do a bunch of moves so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

Oh yeah and I forgot to mention, that cfop is really alg based, so you can execute those moves 5x faster than something intuitive like roux.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> ZZ has awkward moves, and roux uses m moves which are good, but, they are slower than other moves.


How is <RUL> worse than <RULFBD>? Also, how do you know M moves are worse?


cringeycuber101 said:


> Easiest lookahead. Look ahead is easily on of the most important factors. It is even more important than efficiency.


Evidence?


cringeycuber101 said:


> Also zz is terrible cause Zbll and coll is useful


Have you ever heard of OCLL/PLL?


----------



## efattah (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> Ok. Cfop is the best period. Reason 1. Easiest lookahead. Look ahead is easily on of the most important factors. It is even more important than efficiency. 2. Cfop has best finger tricks. ZZ has awkward moves, and roux uses m moves which are good, but, they are slower than other moves. 3. I think that Roux is almost as good as cfop, but not as good, and zz is the worst. Hardly anyone that is top100 in the world for 3x3 uses zz. Majority uses Cfop, which proves that it is the best. Also zz is terrible cause Zbll and coll is useful, but it is so hard to learn them all, and at the beginning, you do a bunch of moves so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.



Interesting arguments. However based on your logic then ZBRoux should be the best method, since it has better lookahead than any other method, with all the advantages you mention including almost no M-moves, and way fewer total moves than CFOP...


----------



## Username: Username: (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> Ok. Cfop is the best period. Reason 1. Easiest lookahead. Look ahead is easily on of the most important factors. It is even more important than efficiency. 2. Cfop has best finger tricks. ZZ has awkward moves, and roux uses m moves which are good, but, they are slower than other moves. 3. I think that Roux is almost as good as cfop, but not as good, and zz is the worst. Hardly anyone that is top100 in the world for 3x3 uses zz. Majority uses Cfop, which proves that it is the best. Also zz is terrible cause Zbll and coll is useful, but it is so hard to learn them all, and at the beginning, you do a bunch of moves so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.



I don't know man your depiction of ZZ is kind of cringey..


----------



## Etotheipi (May 20, 2020)

People on the forums should take debate/logic classes.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

efattah said:


> Interesting arguments. However based on your logic then ZBRoux should be the best method, since it has better lookahead than any other method, with all the advantages you mention including almost no M-moves, and way fewer total moves than CFOP...


yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.



That's a sample size issue, no one uses it



Etotheipi said:


> People on the forums should take debate/logic classes.



What do you expect from a bunch of 8-13 year olds?


----------



## BenChristman1 (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What do you expect from a bunch of 8-13 year olds?


I'm 14.


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.


roux isnt really blockbuilding


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> Ok. Cfop is the best period. Reason 1. Easiest lookahead. Look ahead is easily on of the most important factors. It is even more important than efficiency. 2. Cfop has best finger tricks. ZZ has awkward moves, and roux uses m moves which are good, but, they are slower than other moves. 3. I think that Roux is almost as good as cfop, but not as good, and zz is the worst. Hardly anyone that is top100 in the world for 3x3 uses zz. Majority uses Cfop, which proves that it is the best. Also zz is terrible cause Zbll and coll is useful, but it is so hard to learn them all, and at the beginning, you do a bunch of moves so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.


ok, I believe that CFOP is either the best method or is equal to Roux, but some of your arguments are kind of flawed. #1 and #2 I agree with you, but there's not really a way to prove them, first part of #3 is an opinion. I don't think anyone top 100 in the world uses zz (lol). The Majority use CFOP because it's been out longer, it's more developed, and it's easier to learn from LBL, but, considering how few people use Roux, and the good times that those people have put up, it's likely just as good. COLL has less algs than full OLL but it's likely harder to learn because the algs are longer and don't have the similarities that many OLL's have in common, but, if you don't ;earn the sune/antisune cases, which aren't worth learning anyway, it's probably just as difficult or easier to learn than full OLL. I have to agree about the first step of zz that using inspection and how ever many moves it takes to solve 2 pieces is kind of wasteful and makes lookahead harder and fingertricks more awkward. I know eocross is a thing which fixes those problems and if it can be planned in inspection it might make ZZ a viable method, but then it takes out the blockbuilding so then it's just CFOP but more inefficient and no rotations.


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> ok, I believe that CFOP is either the best method or is equal to Roux, but some of your arguments are kind of flawed. #1 and #2 I agree with you, but there's not really a way to prove them, first part of #3 is an opinion. I don't think anyone top 100 in the world uses zz (lol). The Majority use CFOP because it's been out longer, it's more developed, and it's easier to learn from LBL, but, considering how few people use Roux, and the good times that those people have put up, it's likely just as good. COLL has less algs than full OLL but it's likely harder to learn because the algs are longer and don't have the similarities that many OLL's have in common, but, if you don't ;earn the sune/antisune cases, which aren't worth learning anyway, it's probably just as difficult or easier to learn than full OLL. I have to agree about the first step of zz that using inspection and how ever many moves it takes to solve 2 pieces is kind of wasteful and makes lookahead harder and fingertricks more awkward. I know eocross is a thing which fixes those problems and if it can be planned in inspection it might make ZZ a viable method, but then it takes out the blockbuilding so then it's just CFOP but more inefficient and no rotations.


people can already plan EOcross in inspection, and some can do XEOcross, and even with eo cross its still more efficient than cfop if you include zbll


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> ok, I believe that CFOP is either the best method or is equal to Roux, but some of your arguments are kind of flawed. #1 and #2 I agree with you, but there's not really a way to prove them, first part of #3 is an opinion. I don't think anyone top 100 in the world uses zz (lol). The Majority use CFOP because it's been out longer, it's more developed, and it's easier to learn from LBL, but, considering how few people use Roux, and the good times that those people have put up, it's likely just as good. COLL has less algs than full OLL but it's likely harder to learn because the algs are longer and don't have the similarities that many OLL's have in common, but, if you don't ;earn the sune/antisune cases, which aren't worth learning anyway, it's probably just as difficult or easier to learn than full OLL. I have to agree about the first step of zz that using inspection and how ever many moves it takes to solve 2 pieces is kind of wasteful and makes lookahead harder and fingertricks more awkward. I know eocross is a thing which fixes those problems and if it can be planned in inspection it might make ZZ a viable method, but then it takes out the blockbuilding so then it's just CFOP but more inefficient and no rotations.


Some of you arguments are flawed as well. EOcross is just a little more efficient than CFOP, but the reason that it is worse is because the extra moves at the beginning solve nothing which makes lookahead harder.

Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> if you include zbll


Ahh am I the only one who thinks it’s difficult to learn algs?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Ahh am I the only one who thinks it’s difficult to learn algs?


yes, very sad, and the only main thing difficult about learning new algs is recognition, ZBLL is around 400 cases which makes many of its cases so similar.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Some of you arguments are flawed as well. EOcross is just a little more efficient than CFOP, but the reason that it is worse is because the extra moves at the beginning solve nothing which makes lookahead harder.
> 
> Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ





mukerflap said:


> people can already plan EOcross in inspection, and some can do XEOcross, and even with eo cross its still more efficient than cfop if you include zbll


I wasn't including ZBLL, I was just including COLL and EPLL


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> I wasn't including ZBLL, I was just including COLL and EPLL


why not include zbll? so many people have learnt it already


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> why not include zbll? so many people have learnt it already


idk, it seems like it would 0.5 seconds faster at the most than COLL and EPLL because of recognition time.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 20, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> idk, it seems like it would 0.5 seconds faster at the most than COLL and EPLL because of recognition time.



Well, it saves 9 moves, on average and that is a lot


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> I'm 14.



I was speaking generally of the age of most of the forum members


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ


398th place for average, Dale Stephen M. Palmares


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> 398th place for average, Dale Stephen M. Palmares


whoops.

1 person in the top 1000 uses ZZ.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.


Just because noone in the top 100 uses it means it sucks?


----------



## sqAree (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Some of you arguments are flawed as well. EOcross is just a little more efficient than CFOP, but the reason that it is worse is because the extra moves at the beginning solve nothing which makes lookahead harder.
> 
> Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ


There are probably plenty of people in the top 1000 who use ZZ. I know of at least 2012KALH01, but there must be more. ^^


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> whoops.
> 
> 1 person in the top 1000 uses ZZ.


Simon Kalhofer?
Andy Huang?


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 20, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> people can already plan EOcross in inspection, and some can do XEOcross, and even with eo cross its still more efficient than cfop if you include zbll


yeah but it's not like you know full zbll.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yeah but it's not like you know full zbll.



World class ZZ solvers use ZBLL, and it's currently the best form of ZZ. There's no reason not to include it


----------



## mukerflap (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yeah but it's not like you know full zbll.


i dont use zz but there are plently of zz users who have learnt full zbll, its very possible


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 20, 2020)

Why ZZ>CFOP:


Spoiler: Movecount



CFOP:
Cross=5
F2L=28 (7 per pair)
OLL=10.02
PLL=12.95
Rotations=2
Total=57.97 SETM
With XCross:
XCross=9
F2L=21 (7 per pair)
OLL=10.02
PLL=12.95
Rotations=2
Total=54.97 SETM

ZZ:
EOCross=9
F2L=28 (7 per pair)
ZBLL=15.30
Rotations=0
Total=52.30 SETM
With XEOCross:
XEOCross=14
F2L=21 (7 per pair)
ZBLL=15.30
Rotations=0
Total=50.3 SETM
From this we can see that ZZ is slightly more efficient CFOP in terms of movecount. Tricks can be used in both to lower that and pretty much cancel out.
Sources for alg movecount is from Train Yu.





Spoiler: Ergonomics



CFOP has RUFD and LUFD pairs with about 60% to 40% right to left. ZZ has RUD and LUD pairs with a 50/50 split. 
All of ZZ F2L cases can be found in CFOP but not vice versa. You don't have most of the bad cases (none of the edge flipped in slot with corner in slot cases) and almost all of the good cases (including keyhole inserts, 2 gen spam etc.) You can't say that you have regrips with ZZ because EOCross almost completely removes them.





Spoiler: Misc.



CFOP has many extensions, but then so does ZZ. They cancel out.
ZBLL is too many algs, but it isn't. You can definitely learn all minus sunes and anti sunes in a year.
XEOCross/EOCross+1 is amazing but pretty difficult and is slightly less work than seeing cross+2, but when done it is amazing. It is also possible about 50% of solves imo.
Blind spots in ZZ are a thing but not really because EO is solved. This means that you already know half the information of any edge on the cube. You also get blind spots in CFOP, so again, it cancels out.
With EO being solved, it's even easier to optimise F2L because you have half the number of cases. This means that tps can be even higher.
ZZ hasn't got a lot of users because it's bad is the wrong way of looking at it. ZZ is currently slow because it doesn't have a lot of users. I know of 2 other ZZ users in my country. That's compared to the several hundred CFOP users and around 10 Rouxers. ZZ has little to no chance of being picked up by some fast kid compared to CFOP.
The argument about why haven't fast people switched has 2 solutions: 

They are already sub 8 with CFOP so why put in loads of effor for something that would mean that they might get faster instead of definitely getting faster by doing some CFOP thing better?
They think that ZZ is worse because everyone is telling them that it's worse, especially if they're using EOLine.
Also, ZZ with EOCross is as much CFOP as CFOP with XCross is Petrus. Ie. It's not.





Spoiler: Conclusion



ZZ is beter than CFOP because it has a slightly lower movecount and better ergonomics, plus other factors. Of course the difference isn't vey large, but I do think that the position that they are equal is much more tenable than CFOP is better than ZZ (which is absurd given the above evidence).


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.


Yes, everyone knows that less moves, <RUL> gen, and no rotations is worse than <RLFBUD>, more moves, and rotations.


brododragon said:


> How is <RUL> worse than <RULFBD>? Also, how do you know M moves are worse?
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Have you ever heard of OCLL/PLL?


So @cringycuber101 you're just not going to respond to valid arguments?


Etotheipi said:


> People on the forums should take debate/logic classes.


Yes PLEASE also some common sense and a bit of sense in math would help


cringeycuber101 said:


> yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.


*HAS NO ONE HEARD OF SAMPLE SIZE ISSUES???*


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Why ZZ>CFOP:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Movecount
> ...


These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.


EO is really similar gen to CFOP.


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.



Doing EO doesn't just "solve nothing". While it doesn't directly solve any pieces, it makes the rest of the solve easier and improves F2L


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Doing EO doesn't just "solve nothing". While it doesn't directly solve any pieces, it makes the rest of the solve easier and improves F2L


But it means that after you have done everything you have planned in inspection less pieces on the cube are in their correct spots, this makes lookahead slightly worse. But the fact that every solve you can use ZBLL cancels this out and makes the methods equal (if you know full ZBLL)


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Why ZZ>CFOP:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Movecount
> ...


I think lookahead is also an important factor, and I think CFOP with ZBF2L and ZBLL would likely have the same or similar movecount as ZZ. Also I think the ZBLL recognition probably cancels out the same amount of time as the extra moves in OLL and PLL take


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 20, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> if you know full ZBLL


So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call


This is true but most advanced CFOPers know at least a couple of hundred algs.


Micah Morrison said:


> I think lookahead is also an important factor, and I think CFOP with ZBF2L and ZBLL would likely have the same or similar movecount as ZZ. Also I think the ZBLL recognition probably cancels out the same amount of time as the extra moves in OLL and PLL take


If ZBLL recog takes up that much time you're recognising ZBLL incorrectly.


Owen Morrison said:


> These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.


I mean you use about 3 extra moves to know half the information about every edge at any time, so there's a big advantage there and I agree that ZBLL is, in most cases, necessary.


----------



## efattah (May 20, 2020)

Just to be clear you can't (ever) use the argument that a method is best because the top cubers use it. Or that a method is best because most of the top cubers use it. Or that a method is bad because no one uses it.

Imagine hypothetically that tomorrow, a supercomputer invented an insane method that was so clearly and obviously WAY better than anything ever before created. How many people use that method? Zero. Any method always starts with zero users. The day that CFOP was invented by Jessica Friedrich (and possible others), no one used it. The day that Waterman invented his method, no one used it. The day that Roux was invented, no one used it.

Using the argument that a method sucks because no one uses it means that CFOP sucks because there was a day when no one used it.
In the 80's when cubing was dominated by Minh Thai and Marc Waterman, both corners first solvers, who beat CFOP solvers, you could say that CFOP sucked because no top cubers used it. But CFOP doesn't suck, it is an excellent method. But there was a time when no top cubers used it.


----------



## tasguitar7 (May 20, 2020)

efattah said:


> Just to be clear you can't (ever) use the argument that a method is best because the top cubers use it. Or that a method is best because most of the top cubers use it. Or that a method is bad because no one uses it.
> 
> Imagine hypothetically that tomorrow, a supercomputer invented an insane method that was so clearly and obviously WAY better than anything ever before created. How many people use that method? Zero. Any method always starts with zero users. The day that CFOP was invented by Jessica Friedrich (and possible others), no one used it. The day that Waterman invented his method, no one used it. The day that Roux was invented, no one used it.
> 
> ...



This is the key point. The density of CFOP among top solvers is not evidence CFOP is the best method, just that it is the most popular method and that it is good enough that the significantly smaller sample sizes of users of other methods are not big enough to overpower it. The most popular alternatives to CFOP are only used by a few percent of cubers. It only makes sense to use number of top solvers using a method as a way to compare methods when those methods have approximately an equal number of users. It is especially ridiculous to claim that CFOP is the "best" or "fastest" method when they are solvers of alternate methods (SPV with Roux) who are just as fast officially (sub-6 average, sub-5 single, in SPV's case) as the fastest CFOP solvers. 

The fact is, CFOP has the most research done into it and the most users of it. It is impossible to know how fast Petrus would be if an equal number of people had invest the time and effort into it that CFOP had. (I believe Petrus or a subtle variant of is entirely capable of achieving current world class times and is probably as good as CFOP. Yes Petrus has glaring flaws; so does every method.)


----------



## ProStar (May 20, 2020)

efattah said:


> Just to be clear you can't (ever) use the argument that a method is best because the top cubers use it. Or that a method is best because most of the top cubers use it. Or that a method is bad because no one uses it.
> 
> Imagine hypothetically that tomorrow, a supercomputer invented an insane method that was so clearly and obviously WAY better than anything ever before created. How many people use that method? Zero. Any method always starts with zero users. The day that CFOP was invented by Jessica Friedrich (and possible others), no one used it. The day that Waterman invented his method, no one used it. The day that Roux was invented, no one used it.
> 
> ...



I've literally been saying this for forever


----------



## tasguitar7 (May 20, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call



If your argument is that the best method is the one with the fewest algs needed to be fast, then CFOP certainly loses to Roux. If you work hard you could even get fast with just a variant of Petrus/speed Heise where you just block build, do EO during LS, EP+2C, then a comm for L3C for a total of 0 algs.


----------



## maticuber (May 20, 2020)

I'm pasting my response to another thread because it is relevant to the conversation:

...cfop has been optimized and perfected over the last 40 years and most of the world-class speedsolvers have put years into cubing using cfop.

Back in 2009 for example fingetricks, algs and turning style were different, I remember the first person to upload a video with all the PLLs under 1s (Breandan Vallance), that year the WR avg was just above 10s. Feliks got a sub 10 avg the next year, that was a long long time ago and he's still rank 1 in the world, after 10 years practicing the same method, adding more stuff to it, optimizing his solutions, etc.

In order to find a method better than roux/cfop you'll need a lot of people willing to spend many many year optimizing a method, finding the best algs for it, adjusting turning styles, creating a recognition system, etc. Just think about all the people that have worked in cfop over the years to make it a "good" method, we needed a lot of people creating good algs, good recognition methods, finding different ways of solving the last pair to skip OLL, finding different ways of solving OLL to skip PLL, finding hundreds of 1LLL solutions, etc, the list goes on and on.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (May 21, 2020)

brododragon said:


> That's called blind.



bld solve 1-2 pieces at a once, ZBLS would solve 10 pieces at once


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 21, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> bld solve 1-2 pieces at a once, ZBLS would solve 10 pieces at once


That’s not what ZBLS does


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> bld solve 1-2 pieces at a once, ZBLS would solve 10 pieces at once



Do you know what ZBLS is?


----------



## brododragon (May 21, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> bld solve 1-2 pieces at a once, ZBLS would solve 10 pieces at once


You wanted 1-look, I delivered.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (May 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Do you know what ZBLS is?


no


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> no



ZBLS is where you make and insert the final F2L pair while orienting the LL edges. It sets you up to ZBLL in CFOP(or anything that doesn't already do EO)


----------



## efattah (May 22, 2020)

I would also comment that most cubers consider ZBLS a failure, in that (if you plan on using ZBLL) you are supposed to solve F2L with different F2L algorithms to gradually orient edges throughout each slot until the edges are automatically oriented by the time you get to last layer.


----------



## maticuber (May 22, 2020)

tbh "the best method" is just a combination of a bunch of methods.

The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method, but if you add more stuff to it, like COLL, 2GLL, winter variation, OLLCP, ZBLL, 1LLL, keyhole, x-cross, multi-slotting, edge control, etc it gets a lot better.

No other method has that many variations, so maybe roux can be extended, or maybe a new, crazier methods gets invented, who knows.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 22, 2020)

maticuber said:


> The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method


Evidence? I don't even know full OLL and I still have a sub-10 avg at home.


----------



## maticuber (May 22, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Evidence? I don't even know full OLL and I still have a sub-10 avg at home.



Of course you can sub-10 without full OLL, people have done 11s avg with LBL and 4LLL, that makes beginners a good method?


----------



## BlindNerd (May 22, 2020)

yes


----------



## maticuber (May 22, 2020)

by that logic a rubik's brand 3x3 is a good cube, because people have done WR with them, and you can absolutely sub 10 with them.


----------



## BlindNerd (May 22, 2020)

well it is good under some criteria


----------



## BlindNerd (May 22, 2020)

btw i think zz has more variations than cfop


----------



## maticuber (May 22, 2020)

I come from a point in time were rubik's brand 3x3 were used in comps non ironically, and I can absolutely tell you that those cubes are bad.


----------



## xcross (May 22, 2020)

I'm going to on record and say that I have tried Roux, Petrus, ZZ, and CFOP for a week each when I began cubing. Here's what I have to say,
CFOP- More algorithmic steps. Algs are obviously faster than intuitive, and honestly that removes alot of time from your solve. CFOP also has the fastest intuitive steps (F2L: 8 pieces, Cross 4 pieces. RB: 5, LB: 5, LSE: 6. EOLine (this is debatable): 2 ZZ-F2L-1: 5 ZZ-F2L-2: 5) What I really dislike about CFOP is the move count.

Roux- More intuitive, more flexibility. Roux's plethora of intuitive steps are a blessing. It's extremely simple to do creative things and come up with super efficient solutions. What I really dislike about Roux is the uselessness of skips. It will be hard to get CRAZY WR's with Roux simply because of the amount of steps. In CFOP getting a skip accounts for majority of the solve, but with Roux, 1 skip barely changes the solve. In order to shave off the amount of time on a Roux solve it would take skipping CMLL, and LSE. Two steps with alot of pieces.

ZZ- Efficient CFOP. ZZ is a lot like CFOP for me, so the algorithmic part carries over. Another good thing about ZZ is the customizations. By orienting all the edges you open up loads of LS, LL, and even F2L solutions. This means that if you learn the good things for every case, you will always be prepared. ZZ is like the Swiss Army Knife. What I really dislike about ZZ is the time it takes. For ZZ to be like a Swiss Army Knife, you have to spend ages learning algs, and learning more algs than CFOP and Roux. 

Petrus- Nothing much I can say about this. Petrus is like if you put all the methods in a stew, (CFOP Algs, Roux Block Building, ZZ EO) and then watered it down to a really, really really mediocre bit of each. So ultimately, you take the best part of each method, water it down, put it all together and you get Petrus. Petrus does what every other method does just worse... That being said, it still has potential and if there was a way to improve upon each step to reach CFOP, ZZ, and Roux levels, it would be a god method.

But that's just my take, I'm Sub-30 so I have much more to learn.


----------



## mukerflap (May 22, 2020)

xcross said:


> I'm going to on record and say that I have tried Roux, Petrus, ZZ, and CFOP for a week each when I began cubing. Here's what I have to say,
> CFOP- More algorithmic steps. Algs are obviously faster than intuitive, and honestly that removes alot of time from your solve. CFOP also has the fastest intuitive steps (F2L: 8 pieces, Cross 4 pieces. RB: 5, LB: 5, LSE: 6. EOLine (this is debatable): 2 ZZ-F2L-1: 5 ZZ-F2L-2: 5) What I really dislike about CFOP is the move count.
> 
> Roux- More intuitive, more flexibility. Roux's plethora of intuitive steps are a blessing. It's extremely simple to do creative things and come up with super efficient solutions. What I really dislike about Roux is the uselessness of skips. It will be hard to get CRAZY WR's with Roux simply because of the amount of steps. In CFOP getting a skip accounts for majority of the solve, but with Roux, 1 skip barely changes the solve. In order to shave off the amount of time on a Roux solve it would take skipping CMLL, and LSE. Two steps with alot of pieces.
> ...


roux skips are like 10 move blocks, cmll skips, mini skips in LSE


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 22, 2020)

maticuber said:


> tbh "the best method" is just a combination of a bunch of methods.
> 
> The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method, but if you add more stuff to it, like COLL, 2GLL, winter variation, OLLCP, ZBLL, 1LLL, keyhole, x-cross, multi-slotting, edge control, etc it gets a lot better.
> 
> No other method has that many variations, so maybe roux can be extended, or maybe a new, crazier methods gets invented, who knows.


ZZ has many variations too. Some of them are redundant when you know ZBLL, but some (such as ZZ-C) can be applicable and all can be used to optimise LSLL. Anyway, you get a better F2L with more keyhole/pseudoslotting and at least the same amount of multislottting.


xcross said:


> I'm going to on record and say that I have tried Roux, Petrus, ZZ, and CFOP for a week each when I began cubing.


Well done. A lot of people don't do that but it's definitely the way to go.


xcross said:


> Here's what I have to say,
> CFOP- More algorithmic steps. Algs are obviously faster than intuitive, and honestly that removes alot of time from your solve. CFOP also has the fastest intuitive steps (F2L: 8 pieces, Cross 4 pieces. RB: 5, LB: 5, LSE: 6. EOLine (this is debatable): 2 ZZ-F2L-1: 5 ZZ-F2L-2: 5) What I really dislike about CFOP is the move count.


That's if you count F2L as intuitive (and it's even more algorithmic in ZZ).


xcross said:


> Roux- More intuitive, more flexibility. Roux's plethora of intuitive steps are a blessing. It's extremely simple to do creative things and come up with super efficient solutions. What I really dislike about Roux is the uselessness of skips. It will be hard to get CRAZY WR's with Roux simply because of the amount of steps. In CFOP getting a skip accounts for majority of the solve, but with Roux, 1 skip barely changes the solve. In order to shave off the amount of time on a Roux solve it would take skipping CMLL, and LSE. Two steps with alot of pieces.


Skips in Roux, as said, are normally smaller, but when you do skip CMLL or LSE you save so much time and you really don't need to skip both to save at least 1.5 seconds.


xcross said:


> ZZ- Efficient CFOP. ZZ is a lot like CFOP for me, so the algorithmic part carries over. Another good thing about ZZ is the customizations. By orienting all the edges you open up loads of LS, LL, and even F2L solutions. This means that if you learn the good things for every case, you will always be prepared. ZZ is like the Swiss Army Knife. What I really dislike about ZZ is the time it takes. For ZZ to be like a Swiss Army Knife, you have to spend ages learning algs, and learning more algs than CFOP and Roux.


Algs take time to learn, yeah, but in the long run it is better. Also, to be world class at CFOP you need to know a load of algs and to be world class at roux you need to be able to reognise a load of cases and be able to predict where things go after CMLL etc. You also only need to learn about 350 ish including PLL to be pretty much reaping all the benefits of full ZBLL. It's also a long term project - you don't need to learn them all in 6 weeks.


xcross said:


> Petrus- Nothing much I can say about this. Petrus is like if you put all the methods in a stew, (CFOP Algs, Roux Block Building, ZZ EO) and then watered it down to a really, really really mediocre bit of each. So ultimately, you take the best part of each method, water it down, put it all together and you get Petrus. Petrus does what every other method does just worse... That being said, it still has potential and if there was a way to improve upon each step to reach CFOP, ZZ, and Roux levels, it would be a god method.
> 
> But that's just my take, I'm Sub-30 so I have much more to learn.


Petrus kinda does that, but kinda not. The only major flaw with Petrus is the expansion step IMO but that can be done fine. Otherwise, everything step by itself is a good step but the question is in how well it flows (kinda like with SSC).


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (May 22, 2020)

ProStar said:


> ZBLS is where you make and insert the final F2L pair while orienting the LL edges. It sets you up to ZBLL in CFOP(or anything that doesn't already do EO)


i thought that was ZB F2L


----------



## ProStar (May 22, 2020)

curiousity2575 said:


> i thought that was ZB F2L



It used to be called ZBF2L(Zborowski Bruchem F2L) but the name was changed to ZBLS(Zborowski Bruchem Last Slot) because it's an LS method, not F2L


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 22, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Also, to be world class at CFOP you need to know a load of algs


Ummm, ever heard of Max Park?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 22, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Ummm, ever heard of Max Park?


The exception confirms the rule


----------



## ProStar (May 22, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Ummm, ever heard of Max Park?



Max Park still knows a decent chunk of algs, although it's true he doesn't know nearly as many as most solvers his speed


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 22, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Ummm, ever heard of Max Park?


I have. But he's an exception; he doesn't use double flicks so you shouldn't either according to that logic. Also, he still knows more algs than just OLL/PLL.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 22, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I have. But he's an exception; he doesn't use double flicks so you shouldn't either according to that logic. Also, he still knows more algs than just OLL/PLL.


Yeah he knows more, but he doesn't use them. He only uses oll and pll in actual speedsolves.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (May 22, 2020)

ProStar said:


> World class ZZ solvers use ZBLL, and it's currently the best form of ZZ. There's no reason not to include it


yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.


----------



## ProStar (May 22, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.



You're recognizing wrong if it takes more time than OCLL->PLL


----------



## efattah (May 22, 2020)

In terms of getting fast singles from skips, CFOP variants are hard to beat as PLL skips save a ton of moves. Probably the second best type of skip is a corners first solve where you get a 2-3 move solve on the corners. In this fashion, during the inspection, you can look ahead well into the edge solving phase. This is big, if you consider that a PLL skip in CFOP does not allow additional lookahead beyond that step. In my case all my fastest LMCF solves were with 2-4 move CLL solves and looking ahead well into the edge solving phase. Still, I think CFOP is the best in terms of fast singles with the PLL skip (or VLS and a type of LL skip).


----------



## maticuber (May 22, 2020)

Don't use Max Park as an example for good methods, not sure about now, but he used to use his 2H algorithms for OH, and we all know that OH specific algorithms are faster than 2H algorithms for OH.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 22, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.


This is just wrong it’s not that hard to learn zbll which is why lots of people have done it and many more people are learning right now. The algs can easily be executed quickly and there are multiple trainers to help you recognise it quicker. I guarantee Tao yu’s ll is quicker than yours.


----------



## maticuber (May 22, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> This is just wrong it’s not that hard to learn zbll which is why lots of people have done it and many more people are learning right now. The algs can easily be executed quickly and there are multiple trainers to help you recognise it quicker. I guarantee Tao yu’s ll is quicker than yours.



I've heard from a lot of people that sticking to one LL method is a bad idea. A better method is to learn as many different LL methods as possible, but only drill the easy cases and use them if you happen to get them. For example COLL, is worth to learn them but you don't necessarily use all of them, most people don't learn sune/antisune just because sune/antisune+PLL is faster than COLL+EPLL. OLLCP is another great example, you can learn only a handful of algs to avoid bad PLLs and try to force PLL skip. At the end of the day you'll know a bunch of algs, probably more than full ZBLL, but you'll know a lot of methods and ways of solving the cube, and you'll get "lucky" more often. We are at a point were forcing skips and "luck" is the ultimate method.

I have a PDF with 170 1LLL cases that are really easy to recognize and really fast to execute, the NR in my country is 5s, it was done by a dude that avgs 9ish seconds and he happened to get one of those 1LLL cases and solved the LL in 9 moves, others used the std OLL and got a Y-perm.


----------



## brododragon (May 23, 2020)

maticuber said:


> tbh "the best method" is just a combination of a bunch of methods.
> 
> The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method, but if you add more stuff to it, like COLL, 2GLL, winter variation, OLLCP, ZBLL, 1LLL, keyhole, x-cross, multi-slotting, edge control, etc it gets a lot better.
> 
> No other method has that many variations, so maybe roux can be extended, or maybe a new, crazier methods gets invented, who knows.


Max Park averaged very fast times on pure CFOP.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 23, 2020)

maticuber said:


> I have a PDF with 170 1LLL cases that are really easy to recognize and really fast to execute


Can you send a link to this pdf?


----------



## maticuber (May 23, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Can you send a link to this pdf?



Google "1LLL algs root cube"


----------



## brododragon (May 23, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times


*Actual physical pain*
Not all cases have equal likely-hood, as with any set.


----------



## kirbzcitkatz (May 24, 2020)

ProStar said:


> It used to be called ZBF2L(Zborowski Bruchem F2L) but the name was changed to ZBLS(Zborowski Bruchem Last Slot) because it's an LS method, not F2L


mk


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Roux and Hawaiian Kociemba are better than CFOP here are my arguments for now.

for HK:

HK has EOArrow which makes F2L completely rotationless and more fun that Cross

HK is far more efficient than CFOP, averaging around -40 to 50.
HK is more intuitive than CFOP, the user can choose what to do and what not to do.

HK's last layer (or last step) is more algorithmic than CFOP, and algs are sometimes faster than thinking

HK's solve can be rotationless.

HK's LL is heavy on MU gen which makes it debatably faster

for Roux:

First block and second block is flexible

MU gen is debatably faster

Roux is more intuitive and the solver can do all kinds of tricks in SB and LSE.

Roux has less algorithm than CFOP making it easier to learn.

Roux's first block and second block are rotationless and so is CMLL and LSE.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 26, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> yeah well it is insanely difficult to learn, and once you learn all of it, it still wouldn't be faster than oll and pll because recognition takes much longer. in theory you could get it faster, but here is the thing. It would take tons and tons of practice. and there are about 500 zbll cases, and you average about getting one new zbll every 500 times, soooo, since there are about 70 something, so you get to practice one 35 times because you always use each in every solve. For zbll, you only use each once in every solve, and you have to do 10 times the practice to get just as good. so yeah, cfop is better.


It's not insanely difficult to learn. The recog+execution is not slower than OLL/PLL, it's around 2 seconds compared to about 2.5-3 in most cases. Also, it takes tons of practice to get fast with any method, so I don't see the problem with that. Also, have you heard of alg trainers? They completely bypass the problem of 'this only comes up once every 500 solves'. Anyway, I seem to know over 50% of them comfortably, so that's not an issue I have.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Roux and Hawaiian Kociemba are better than CFOP here are my arguments for now.
> 
> for HK:
> 
> ...



Sorry, but these are some of the worst arguments I have ever seen. First, you say that HK is better because it is intuitive, and then you say it i better because it is algorithmic...

And then you say that HK CAN be rotationless. Same with CFOP. the only thing that matters if it is rotationless 100% of the time.

Also, MU is not faster than RU, it isn't a bad moveset, but there is no way that MU is faster.


Username: Username: said:


> for Roux:
> 
> First block and second block is flexible
> 
> ...


Honestly the only things bad about these arguments is that MU is not faster than RU, and that you are arguing for Roux's intuitiveness while in your argument for HK you said it was better because it is algorithmic. 

Also the fact that Roux has less algorithms just means that there aren't as many ways to improve.


----------



## EliteCuber (May 26, 2020)

I use CFOP, but i think Petrus is the best method


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Sorry, but these are some of the worst arguments I have ever seen. First, you say that HK is better because it is intuitive, and then you say it i better because it is algorithmic...
> 
> And then you say that HK CAN be rotationless. Same with CFOP. the only thing that matters if it is rotationless 100% of the time.
> 
> ...


the pro of HK's intuitiveness is that you can make it more efficient by what you see, for example, if you see the edges oriented, you can take advantage of it. and I didn't say that the whole HK method is algorithmic and only the last step is important to be algorithmic because there are only so few cases to solve but Roux is an exception because intuitiveness benefit Roux last step, LSE.

I say MU is *debatable *faster because my MU turning TPS is personally faster than my RU turning TPS.

sorry I meant if you want a method that is rotationless 100% of the time, use HK because EO makes only the F2L oriented so F2L is rotationless. During EO you don't need to rotate since it's just a single F or B moves.

There are many ways to improve with intuitiveness, you can get creative with intuitive solving which leads to efficient solutions, algorithmic step just restricts you to what case it is and recognition is worse than an intuitive step if you have lots of cases, OLL has 57 cases. and there's no way to make the FB and SB step algorithmic.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I say MU is debatable faster because my MU turning TPS is personally faster than my RU turning TPS.


Your RU turning must be atrocious.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Your RU turning must be atrocious.


MU can be as fast as RU


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I say MU is *debatable *faster because my MU turning TPS is personally faster than my RU turning TPS.


There is no opinion on whether MU is faster or slower than RU or especially RUF or RUD. I can do a Jb Perm in 0.61 seconds(13/0.61=21.3 TPS) and I can do an MU Ua Perm in 0.59 seconds (7/0.59 = 11.8 TPS). We can see that almost twice the TPS is achievable with RUF than MU.



> MU can be as fast as RU



again, there is no opinion. Again, I can do the MU Ua Perm in 0.59 seconds (7/0.59=11.8 TPS) and I can do the double sune in 0.58 seconds (11/0.58=19 TPS)


----------



## brododragon (May 26, 2020)

EliteCuber said:


> I use CFOP, but i think Petrus is the best method


I can tell if you're being serious.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> There is no opinion on whether MU is faster or slower than RU or especially RUF or RUD. I can do a Jb Perm in 0.61 seconds(13/0.61=21.3 TPS) and I can do an MU Ua Perm in 0.59 seconds (7/0.59 = 11.8 TPS). We can see that almost twice the TPS is achievable with RUF than MU.


but that TPS is just wasted in high movecount, in HK you could be having similar times with the one who turns way faster than you in CFOP.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 26, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> There is no opinion on whether MU is faster or slower than RU or especially RUF or RUD. I can do a Jb Perm in 0.61 seconds(13/0.61=21.3 TPS) and I can do an MU Ua Perm in 0.59 seconds (7/0.59 = 11.8 TPS). We can see that almost twice the TPS is achievable with RUF than MU.


look at it in qtm which is more accurate for this sort of thing jperm is 15 so TPS is 24.59 and the u perm is 10 so TPS is 16.94 which is less of a difference take into account that you are a cfop solver and bad at M moves and suddenly the TPS difference looks much smaller


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> but that TPS is just wasted in high movecount, in HK you could be having similar times with the one who turns way faster than you in CFOP.


this is the stupidest argument ever. You can't choose what case you get in a solve. I chose algorithms that I believe are the fastest achievable TPS for both sets


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> you are a cfop solver and bad at M moves and suddenly the TPS difference looks much smaller


not true. Why don't you do an MU Ua Perm and see how fast you can get it? Also, if you do it in QTM, that just proves that M2's are much slower than R2's


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> this is the stupidest argument ever. You can't choose what case you get in a solve. I chose algorithms that I believe are the fastest achievable TPS for both sets


CFOP's average movecount : 50-60 HK's average move count : ~40-50.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> CFOP's average movecount : 50-60 HK's average move count : ~40-50.


how many average MU moves in HK?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> how many average MU moves in HK?


they are heavy in HKOLL, I didn't know how much M moves in HKOLL.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> they are heavy in HKOLL, I didn't know how much M moves in HKOLL.


so the 10 fewer moves saved would be balanced out by the low achievable TPS of MU moves.


----------



## EliteCuber (May 26, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I can tell if you're being serious.


im being serious


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Do this to your cube : M' U' M U' M' U' M what you see on the cube is an HKOLL case the algorithm for it is M' U M U M' U M and that algorithm is hand generated meaning it is not better than computer genned fingertricky alg but watch when I load it to cube explorer, now the algorithm is U F U D' L' U L U' D F' U and it's shorter plus its more fingertricky, what do you think was CFOP's OLL algs when they were hand generated, awful right? I'm a bit wrong on HK's reliance on m moves, that was before the HKOLL's algs was generated by a computer.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

@Username: Username: If HK is more efficient than CFOP even without HKOLL and HKPLL, post a reconstruction here. I know that you won't though, because it is going to be above 60 moves.

PS this belongs in the method debate thread, let's move there.

EDIT: I am absolutely stupid, we are in the Method debate thread...


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> @Username: Username: If HK is more efficient than CFOP even without HKOLL and HKPLL, post a reconstruction here. I know that you won't though, because it is going to be above 60 moves.
> 
> PS this belongs in the method debate thread, let's move there.



lol COLL and L5E isn't going to take more than 50 moves, let alone 60.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> lol COLL and L5E isn't going to take more than 50 moves, let alone 60.


POST A RECONSTRUCTION THEN!


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> POST A RECONSTRUCTION THEN!


Do you think I could make a reconstruction in a second?


----------



## EliteCuber (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Do you think I could make a reconstruction in a second?


MAYYYYYYBE


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Do you think I could make a reconstruction in a second?


POST ONE IN 10 MINUTES THEN.

Prove that you can get under 50 moves without HKOLL or HKPLL.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> POST ONE IN 10 MINUTES THEN.
> 
> Prove that you can get under 50 moves without HKOLL or HKPLL.



Chill bro, you sound like me


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Chill bro, you sound like me


Yeah imma chill now and practice some YruRU, it's pretty obvious that @Username: Username: can't get under 50 moves with HK.


----------



## brododragon (May 26, 2020)

EliteCuber said:


> im being serious


Then why don't you use Petrus?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Ok sorry I'll admit I can't get sub-50 with the COLL L5E variant in 10 minutes but with regular HKOLL and HKPLL you can get to sub 50 and even sub 40 in 10 minutes. that doesn't mean the average movecount of CFOP is better than regular HK. you're basically putting me in so much disadvantages, can't use regular HK, can't do it in more than ten minute and I'm using a beginner HK variant which is equivalent to CFOP 3LLL which is inefficient.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Ok sorry I'll admit I can't get sub-50 with the COLL L5E variant in 10 minutes but with regular HKOLL and HKPLL you can get to sub 50 and even sub 40 in 10 minutes. that doesn't mean the average movecount of CFOP is better than regular HK.


Thank you for admitting that. But I can get sub 50 or sub 45 with CFOP in 10 minutes


----------



## brododragon (May 26, 2020)

@WoowyBaby


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Thank you for admitting that. But I can get sub 50 or sub 45 with CFOP in 10 minutes


oh actually I got a sub 50 move solution with OLL and PLL in less than 30 seconds with the first scramble I saw in CS timer(so no skipping around for easy scrambles)


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Thank you for admitting that. But I can get sub 50 or sub 45 with CFOP in 10 minutes


regular CFOP or CFOP will full pll and 2 look last layer which is inefficient?


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> regular CFOP or CFOP will full pll and 2 look last layer which is inefficient?


I used 2 look last layer and I did not get an EPLL and my edges were not oriented.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I used 2 look last layer and I did not get an EPLL and my edges were not oriented.


I'm just saying that you used regular CFOP while I used beginner HK.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I'm just saying that you used regular CFOP while I used beginner HK.


That is besides the point, you said CFOP can't get under 50 moves, but my normal solution does. If you don't believe me I will reconstruct it.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> That is besides the point, you said CFOP can't get under 50 moves, but my normal solution does. If you don't believe me I will reconstruct it.


I don't need you to reconstruct it. also the wiki is lying to me. it says the average movecount of CFOP is 50-60 moves.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I don't need you to reconstruct it. also the wiki is lying to me. it says the average movecount of CFOP is 50-60 moves.


The average is 50-60 moves, but CFOP can get solutions under 50 if you use multislotting, force low movecount F2L pairs, and make X crosses.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

he


Owen Morrison said:


> The average is 50-60 moves, but CFOP can get solutions under 50 if you use multislotting, force low movecount F2L pairs, and make X crosses.


Hey! I didn't use tricks in my HK solves, I don't know any tricks in HK because I'm a beginner with a beginner varient and average around sub - 60 moves.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

I don't really understand HK so I think I did it badly(like do you orient all edges or just F2L ones?), but here's 47 STM solution with COLL/L5EP. Nothing super advanced, and the first WCA 3x3 scramble I pulled from csTimer.

Also averaging sub-40 is ridiculous, even using HKOLL and HKPLL instead of COLL L5EP


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I don't really understand HK so I think I did it badly(like do you orient all edges or just F2L ones?), but here's 47 STM solution with COLL/L5EP. Nothing super advanced, and the first WCA 3x3 scramble I pulled from csTimer.
> 
> Also averaging sub-40 is ridiculous, even using HKOLL and HKPLL instead of COLL L5EP


"even sub-40" watch the wording here, sometimes with decently lucky scrambles. just the F2L ones.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> "even sub-40" watch the wording here, sometimes with decently lucky scrambles.



Dude I had a 8 move XEOArrow and a good F2L with the easiest L5EP case and got 47

Edit: I did the same solve with HKOLL and HKPLL and got a 54. Of course, I got a pretty good COLL+L5EP combination, and generally HKLL is lower movecount


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Dude I had a 8 move XEOArrow and a good F2L with the easiest L5EP case and got 47


You are using HK beginner variant, if you use HKOLL and HKPLL it will be better.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 26, 2020)

Hawaiian Kociemba without a doubt averages above 50 moves, and there is no method that can consistently get sub 40 moves in speedsolves.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> You are using HK beginner variant, if you use HKOLL and HKPLL it will be better.


Dude I said in the beginning that without full HKOLL and HKPLL you can't average 40 moves, and you said you could. I guess you finally are realizing that you can't.

And honestly even with full HKOLL and HKPLL you might not even average sub 50 moves.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Hawaiian Kociemba without a doubt averages above 50 moves, and there is no method that can consistently get sub 40 moves in speedsolves.


I meant not in speedsolves, with regular HK variant , and in speedsolves, HK can average high 40s, the wiki is lying to me again? https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba From this point on, I am just going to believe in what I experienced.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> You are using HK beginner variant, if you use HKOLL and HKPLL it will be better.



I got 54 on that same solve with HKLL



Username: Username: said:


> I meant not in speedsolves, with regular HK variant , and in speedsolves, HK can average high 40s, the wiki is lying to me again? https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba



You could _maybe_ average high 40s, but that'd be elite level. You could expect probably low-mid 50s on average


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

Cfop has a high move count in the wiki because it asumes that the solver uses cross, f2l, oll and pll. 

You can lower the number if you do xcross, multi slotting, keyhole and some advanced LSLL.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 26, 2020)

The wiki doesn't even show a functioning method. The first step is EOArrow, which orients all edges, yet later you have to do HKOLL?? Which doesn't make sense as your edges are already oriented, so the number of algorithms would just be 7, just like OCLL. This confuses me. What really are the steps of originial Hawaiian Kociemba??


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

maticuber said:


> Cfop has a high move count in the wiki because it asumes that the solver uses cross, f2l, oll and pll.
> 
> You can lower the number if you do xcross, multi slotting, keyhole and some advanced LSLL.


then in HK, you could also use tricks to lower that average movecount am I right? in my solve I don't do any tricks and I averaged around 49-high 50s with HK.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> The wiki doesn't even show a functioning method. The first step is EOArrow, which orients all edges, yet later you have to do HKOLL?? Which doesn't make sense as your edges are already oriented, so the number of algorithms would just be 7, just like OCLL. This confuses me. What really are the steps of originial Hawaiian Kociemba??


@Cubingcubecuber says that the EOArrow only orients the F2L edges. see the HK tutorial thread that is linked in the wiki.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

@Username: Username: let's do a training exercise. Pick a random scramble, and we will each do an example solve with it. I'll do CFOP and you do HK(with HKOLL and HKPLL if you want). I'm not as good as Owen, so it's fair. If you want you can try to get @Cubingcubecuber to do it since he's faster than me. Let's see if HK really has a much lower movecount than CFOP.




Username: Username: said:


> then in HK, you could also use tricks to lower that average movecount am I right?



In my solve I did an *8 move XEOArrow*. I also did full EO to make COLL->L5EP possible.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> @Username: Username: let's do a training exercise. Pick a random scramble, and we will each do an example solve with it. I'll do CFOP and you do HK(with HKOLL and HKPLL if you want). I'm not as good as Owen, so it's fair. If you want you can try to get @Cubingcubecuber to do it since he's faster than me. Let's see if HK really has a much lower movecount than CFOP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about I do CFOP and @Cubingcubecuber does HK?


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> @Username: Username: let's do a training exercise. Pick a random scramble, and we will each do an example solve with it. I'll do CFOP and you do HK(with HKOLL and HKPLL if you want). I'm not as good as Owen, so it's fair. If you want you can try to get @Cubingcubecuber to do it since he's faster than me. Let's see if HK really has a much lower movecount than CFOP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will soon, gotta eat lunch


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> In my solve I did an *8 move XEOArrow*. I also did full EO to make COLL->L5EP possible.



And you also got the easiest L5EP case possible!
But still 47 movecount?
If I got an 8-move XCross and the easiest LL case possible I would most certainly, even in a real speedsolve where I could make mistakes, get under 47.
I'm starting to believe that HK averages atleast 55 moves.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I will soon, gotta eat lunch


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

here is the scramble from CS Timer.


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> then in HK, you could also use tricks to lower that average movecount am I right?



Technically you can do that with any method, the question is if that's really true to the method itself and to what a speedsolver does in a solve. 

You can say, for example, that 1LLL is possible, and XXCross is doable in every solve.

It has happened, there has been official "cfop" solves with 11 moves to F2L-1, or with 1LLL. 

Thing is, no method has been explored as deep as cfop, no other method has more extension, subsets, tricks, etc.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> How about I do CFOP and @Cubingcubecuber does HK?



This is to make it as fair as possible; CCC averages 12 with HK and I average 15-16 with CFOP. That way they can't complain it's since you're so much better at cubing.



Cubingcubecuber said:


> I will soon, gotta eat lunch



Ok. We will use Owen's scramble to both do an example solve. Also you can use HKOLL and HKPLL if you want since that's what pure HK is


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> How about I do CFOP and @Cubingcubecuber does HK?


In CFOP I average around high 50 moves, so clearly I'm not the best person to choose from.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This is to make it as fair as possible; CCC averages 12 with HK and I average 15-16 with CFOP. That way they can't complain it's since you're so much better at cubing.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Just pick the first scramble from whatever timer and post it here. Also you can use HKOLL and HKPLL if you want since that's what pure HK is


I think it should be me and @Cubingcubecuber because the time difference is much less. Although it wouldn't make a lot of difference because your solves are usually pretty efficient.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

maticuber said:


> Technically you can do that with any method, the question is if that's really true to the method itself and to what a speedsolver does in a solve.
> 
> You can say, for example, that 1LLL is possible, and XXCross is doable in every solve.
> 
> ...


If only the same thing was done to HK, more people researching HK, we already beat CFOP then. that's why we need more people using HK. Join the pineappleution.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

@Cubingcubecuber let me know when you are done eating lunch, someone will find a new scramble so it will be more fair.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

*cough* *cough* sub-40 *cough* *cough* first try *cough* *cough*


----------



## fun at the joy (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> *Ok sorry I'll admit I can't get sub-50 with the COLL L5E variant in 10 minutes* but with regular HKOLL and HKPLL you can get to sub 50 and even sub 40 in 10 minutes. that doesn't mean the average movecount of CFOP is better than regular HK. you're basically putting me in so much disadvantages, can't use regular HK, can't do it in more than ten minute and I'm using a beginner HK variant which is equivalent to CFOP 3LLL which is inefficient.





Username: Username: said:


> then in HK, you could also use tricks to lower that average movecount am I right? *in my solve I don't do any tricks and I averaged around 49-high 50s with HK.*


wait what?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> wait what?


not in speedsolves, and there was a time limit on me.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> @Cubingcubecuber let me know when you are done eating lunch, someone will find a new scramble so it will be more fair.


What’s the scramble?


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> What’s the scramble?



*AHEM*




ProStar said:


> *cough* *cough* sub-40 *cough* *cough* first try *cough* *cough*



With Owen's scramble. I mean it was a stupid scramble, 3 free pairs and a PLL skip, but hey, I got an easy XEOArrow, good COLL and a 4 move L5EP when I did HK


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *AHEM*


*Cough**Cough*Lucky*cough**cfop scramble*cough*cough*


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 26, 2020)

HK isn't that great of a method. It's definitely not bad but it's really not great. EOArrow is a fine step, just like most first steps - completely average.
The F2L is pretty good and is identical to EOCross F2L minus the fact DR isn't solved. HKOLL will probably be ok due to the fact that OLL is good and you can probably insert an r instead of R to flip DF. HKPLL will be awful, especially for diags because any diag corner swap with 5 edges is automatically bad. That's a cubing fact. A better approach would be to use CLL then L5E. An even better approach would be Zipper, which has the edge in FR instead of DF and those L5E algs are generally better from looking at a few. 

TL;DR check out the Zipper method instead (Zipper-b more specifically) if you want a method that's better than HK and actually does average sub 50 moves.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> *Cough**Cough*Lucky*cough**cfop scramble*cough*cough*



My HK scramble was lucky for HK. Also that scramble is also amazing for HK, you can easily make two pairs.


----------



## fun at the joy (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> not in speedsolves, and there was a time limit on me.


Then why are you even mentioning that you average 49-high 50s doing slow solves, they don't matter. I can do that with CFOP easily.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> My HK scramble was lucky for HK. Also that scramble is also amazing for HK, you can easily make two pairs.


that HK solve was not counted for this.



fun at the joy said:


> Then why are you even mentioning that you average 49-high 50s doing slow solves, they don't matter. I can do that with CFOP easily.


Ok then, I average around 5-62 in HK speedsolves, I've used it for like a day.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> HK isn't that great of a method. It's definitely not bad but it's really not great. EOArrow is a fine step, just like most first steps - completely average.
> The F2L is pretty good and is identical to EOCross F2L minus the fact DR isn't solved. HKOLL will probably be ok due to the fact that OLL is good and you can probably insert an r instead of R to flip DF. HKPLL will be awful, especially for diags because any diag corner swap with 5 edges is automatically bad. That's a cubing fact. A better approach would be to use CLL then L5E. An even better approach would be Zipper, which has the edge in FR instead of DF and those L5E algs are generally better from looking at a few.
> 
> TL;DR check out the Zipper method instead (Zipper-b more specifically) if you want a method that's better than HK and actually does average sub 50 moves.


if it's that case, I'll try out Zipper-b and make up my mind, still trying to be sub-10 HK though.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

I'm surprised to see you switching methods after having possibly the fastest improvement rate of any cuber(weren't you avg 13.5 after 4 months?) You could have easily gotten sub 10 in 4-6 months but now you it will take you much longer


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> not in speedsolves, and there was a time limit on me.



If you give me 60 minutes I can find sub-35 solutions with basically all methods.

And if you give me 60 minutes to simply find the shortest solution I can find (regardless of method), then I average 25 moves. Yes,* 25* moves.

But that is not relevant here, we're talking about real time speedsolves.


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

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

Just for the memes, here's a 43 move "cfop" solution, I couldn't find an alg for that 1LLL case.

U R B L F2 // Xcross
U L' U' L U' L' U L // 2nd pair
R U R' U R' U2 R2 U' R' // 3rd+4th pair
E M2 E' M2 // fix centers
y' r U' r' U' r U r' y' R' U R // OLL
M2' U M2' U2 M2' U M2' // PLL


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> I'm surprised to see you switching methods after having possibly the fastest improvement rate of any cuber(weren't you avg 13.5 after 4 months?) You could have easily gotten sub 10 in 4-6 months but now you it will take you much longer


CFOP is my second wheel method, I'm still practicing and trying to be sub 10 with it and HK.



WoowyBaby said:


> If you give me 60 minutes I can find sub-35 solutions with basically all methods.
> 
> And if you give me 60 minutes to simply find the shortest solution I can find (regardless of method), then I average 25 moves. Yes,* 25* moves.
> 
> But that is not relevant here, we're talking about real time speedsolves.



ok then...


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> CFOP is my second wheel method, I'm still practicing and trying to be sub 10 with it and HK.


Just curious, do you want to be a world class cuber someday? Because if you do, you are going to need to stick with one method.

And by the way you totally could be world class if you keep practicing with CFOP, you were improving insanely fast.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> CFOP is my second wheel method, I'm still practicing and trying to be sub 10 with it and HK.
> 
> 
> 
> ok then...


you're still slowing down you improvement rate for most likely no long-term benefit or a long-term disadvantage


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> If you give me 60 minutes I can find sub-35 solutions with basically all methods.
> 
> And if you give me 60 minutes to simply find the shortest solution I can find (regardless of method), then I average 25 moves. Yes,* 25* moves.
> 
> But that is not relevant here, we're talking about real time speedsolves.



25 moves is literally top 30 FMC average in the world.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 26, 2020)

51, That COLL took up 15 Moves


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

maticuber said:


> 25 moves is literally top 30 FMC average in the world.


have you seen his reconstructions in the 3x3x3 Example Solve Game? He's legit.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

ok I'm really conflicted here. I'll maybe use CFOP as my main method but some dedication to HK.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

maticuber said:


> 25 moves is literally top 30 FMC average in the world.


@WoowyBaby is absolutely insane at FMC.


----------



## Micah Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> 51, That COLL took up 15 Moves View attachment 12327


let's say that coll took 10 moves instead. That's 46 moves, which is about 10 moves worse than CFOP. But you have truckloads of M moves (and even a few E moves, eww) which require regrips (or at least adjusting your hands) and are slower and would definitely make up for more than 9 moves


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> I'm surprised to see you switching methods after having possibly the fastest improvement rate of any cuber(weren't you avg 13.5 after 4 months?) You could have easily gotten sub 10 in 4-6 months but now you it will take you much longer



The amount of time it takes you to get to some speed doesn't really show how much you improve, it's more how many solves it takes to reach a speed. For example, I've gotten to around 15 seconds in 9 months(starting from when I first learned to solve the cube), but it took about 1.5k solves(including my ZZ & OH solves, not just my CFOP solves)



Micah Morrison said:


> let's say that coll took 10 moves instead. That's 46 moves, which is about 10 moves worse than CFOP. But you have truckloads of M moves (and even a few E moves, eww) which require regrips (or at least adjusting your hands) and are slower and would definitely make up for more than 9 moves



To be fair, that scramble was stupid. Although it did take some skill, it was a pretty obvious cross+2, and then a free pair into PLL skip.


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> The amount of time it takes you to get to some speed doesn't really show how much you improve, it's more how many solves it takes to reach a speed. For example, I've gotten to around 15 seconds in 9 months(starting from when I first learned to solve the cube), but it took about 1.5k solves(including my ZZ & OH solves, not just my CFOP solves)
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, that scramble was stupid. Although it did take some skill, it was a pretty obvious cross+2, and then a free pair into PLL skip.



Still really impressive, 9 months to 15s is way better than avg. It took me more than a year to be consistently sub 18.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> ok I'm really conflicted here. I'll maybe use CFOP as my main method but some dedication to HK.


No. Choose the method you like best and find funnest, whether it's HK or CFOP, and stick to it.


----------



## fun at the joy (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> The amount of time it takes you to get to some speed doesn't really show how much you improve, it's more how many solves it takes to reach a speed. For example, I've gotten to around 15 seconds in 9 months(starting from when I first learned to solve the cube), but it took about 1.5k solves(including my ZZ & OH solves, not just my CFOP solves)
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, that scramble was stupid. Although it did take some skill, it was a pretty obvious cross+2, and then a free pair into PLL skip.


 Only ~1.5k solves INCLUDING OH is REALLY impressive.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> Only ~1.5k solves INCLUDING OH is REALLY impressive.


The reason is that @ProStar learned how to be efficient during F2L early so really all he needs to do is solves and some lookahead practice and sub 10 shouldn't be very hard for him.


----------



## fun at the joy (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> The reason is that @ProStar learned how to be efficient during F2L early so really all he needs to do is solves and some lookahead practice and sub 10 shouldn't be very hard for him.


I just wanted to point out that 1.5k is an extremely low amount of solves for 9 months, he probably is off by a couple 1000 solves


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> The reason is that @ProStar learned how to be efficient during F2L early so really all he needs to do is solves and some lookahead practice and sub 10 shouldn't be very hard for him.



Also there are a lot of good tutorials nowadays, and when the overall times are faster people tend to progress a lot faster because they don't have any mental barriers like "being sub 10 is impossible because nobody is sub 10". New cubers have it easier and easier and that's a good thing. I'm not saying that what he did is not impressive because it is, don't get me wrong.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> I just wanted to point out that 1.5k is an extremely low amount of solves for 9 months, he probably is off by a couple 1000 solves



CFOP Session - 1,180 solves
ZZ Session - 222 solves
OH Session - 83 solves
ZZ OH Session - 146 solves
Previous 3x3 sessions - 300ish solves

I used Ruwix timer back from when I started to around 25ish seconds. the most I ever had in one session was around 120, the rest never had more than 20, and based on the time it took, I can make a good estimate that I never did more than 300 solves using Ruwix


Ok so I guess I was off, it was a rough estimate before. A better number(including ZZ and OH) would be 2k at most


----------



## fun at the joy (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> CFOP Session - 1,180 solves
> ZZ Session - 222 solves
> OH Session - 83 solves
> ZZ OH Session - 146 solves
> ...


Ok. Then you hardly did any 3x3 or OH in your cubing career, <10 solves a day.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> Ok. Then you hardly did any 3x3 or OH in your cubing career, <10 solves a day.



Yeah, I don't do that many solves, but I'm starting to do more, trying to do an Ao100 a day when I can


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 26, 2020)

You can be good at multiple methods in fact I think its much to be as it gives you a better understanding of the cube and some skills carry over.

one day I want to be sub 20 with every method that someone uses.


----------



## ProStar (May 26, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> You can be good at multiple methods in fact I think its much to be as it gives you a better understanding of the cube and some skills carry over.
> 
> one day I want to be sub 20 with every method that someone uses.



Sounds like you want to be a lame version of Tao Yu


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Sounds like you want to be a lame version of Tao Yu


yes exactly


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 27, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> one day I want to be sub 20 with every method that someone uses.


Try being sub-20 with niss


----------



## mukerflap (May 27, 2020)

maticuber said:


> Cfop has a high move count in the wiki because it asumes that the solver uses cross, f2l, oll and pll.
> 
> You can lower the number if you do xcross, multi slotting, keyhole and some advanced LSLL.


if you use that argument it applies to every method as well. also on cubesolves feliks 5.91 ao5 movecounts: 63, 56, 57, 49, 58


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 27, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Try being sub-20 with niss


Moves or seconds?


----------



## mukerflap (May 27, 2020)

maticuber said:


> U2 L F2 D' F2 D' F2 R2 U2 B2 L2 U R2 D' L' B U' L R2 F' L'
> 
> Just for the memes, here's a 43 move "cfop" solution, I couldn't find an alg for that 1LLL case.
> 
> ...


x' M2 F U' F U' F 6/6
U2 R2 U r U r' U r U' R' u' M2 u 13/19
y' F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' y 10/29
M2 U' M' U2 M' U' M2 U2 M U2 M 11/40


----------



## Username: Username: (May 27, 2020)

sorry for my stupid arguments yesterday, clearly I've overlooked HK too much. that doesn't mean HK isn't a decent method, you definitely can get fast times with it, I'm sticking to CFOP, but still going to occasionally use HK for fun


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 27, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> sorry for my stupid arguments yesterday, clearly I've overlooked HK too much. that doesn't mean HK isn't a decent method, you definitely can get fast times with it, I'm sticking to CFOP, but still going to occasionally use HK for fun


Would you rather be kicked out of the HK discord server, be banned, or given the disgrace role


----------



## Username: Username: (May 27, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Would you rather be kicked out of the HK discord server, be banned, or given the disgrace role


in the server, you don't need to use it as a main method right? 2-3 people in there don't use it as their main method but actively using it. I am going to use it for fun


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 27, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> sorry for my stupid arguments yesterday, clearly I've overlooked HK too much. that doesn't mean HK isn't a decent method, you definitely can get fast times with it, I'm sticking to CFOP, but still going to occasionally use HK for fun


Sorry for being a little bit too harsh when arguing.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 27, 2020)

Move some of these discussions to the FMC thread lol, most of these talk only about the movecounts.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 27, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> in the server, you don't need to use it as a main method right? 2-3 people in there don't use it as their main method but actively using it. I am going to use it for fun


You chose the disgrace role


----------



## maticuber (May 27, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> if you use that argument it applies to every method as well. also on cubesolves feliks 5.91 ao5 movecounts: 63, 56, 57, 49, 58



No it doesn't because only a few methods are as developed as cfop (and only cfop can break the rules and still be called cfop). Also you don't have to have a sub 40 moves solution every time, you just need to get lucky.

Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP


> z y // inspection
> U R2 U' F' L F' U' L' // xxcross
> U' R U R2 U R // 3rd pair
> U2 R' U R // 4th pair
> ...



Feliks' 4.16s solution was 41 moves


> z y2 // Inspection
> U' R' Rw’ L' // Cross
> F' U F // 1st Pair
> R' U' R U R' U' R // 2nd Pair
> ...



Patrick Ponce's 4.24 solve is 38 moves


> x y’ // Inspection
> R D F R’ D’ U // Cross
> R U R’ U R U’ R’ Dw // 1st Pair
> U R U R’ y’ U’ L’ U’ L // 2nd Pair
> ...


----------



## ProStar (May 27, 2020)

maticuber said:


> Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP



ZBLL, not OLLCP. Although what he did was just normal OLL and he happened to skip PLL


----------



## mukerflap (May 27, 2020)

maticuber said:


> No it doesn't because only a few methods are as developed as cfop (and only cfop can break the rules and still be called cfop). Also you don't have to have a sub 40 moves solution every time, you just need to get lucky.
> 
> Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP
> 
> ...


you cant seriosuly be using WR solves as examples those are all very lucky solves feliks, patrick, yusheng do not get sub 40 solves normally in comp


----------



## PetraPine (May 27, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> MU can be as fast as RU


i mean it can? but it isnt if you have good tps
i mean i got some amazing M U tps from when i used roux and my R U is still slightly" faster.



mukerflap said:


> you cant seriosuly be using WR solves as examples those are all very lucky solves feliks, patrick, yusheng do not get sub 40 solves normally in comp


He was literally agreeing dude...


----------



## mukerflap (May 27, 2020)

maticuber said:


> No it doesn't because only a few methods are as developed as cfop (and only cfop can break the rules and still be called cfop). Also you don't have to have a sub 40 moves solution every time, you just need to get lucky.
> 
> Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP
> 
> ...


also other methods are developed (zz and roux) but you just dont have experience with them


----------



## brododragon (May 27, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> also other methods are developed (zz and roux) but you just dont have experience with them


Coughity cough Cough Cough


ObscureCuber said:


> He was literally agreeing dude...


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 27, 2020)

The WR was actually Petrus. It was also LEOR. It was also Roux. It was also ZZ. It was also corners first. What he did would've made sense in all these methods, so it's super super lucky. And can we all agree that using WRs as your average solve is a terrible idea please?


----------



## xcross (May 27, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> HK is more intuitive than CFOP, the user can choose what to do and what not to do.



Isn't this _worse_? Intuitive means thinking, and thinking is slower than just doing.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 27, 2020)

xcross said:


> Isn't this _worse_? Intuitive means thinking, and thinking is slower than just doing.


No. It really isn't worst. Plus, all intuitive steps become algorithmic with some time.


----------



## tasguitar7 (May 27, 2020)

xcross said:


> Isn't this _worse_? Intuitive means thinking, and thinking is slower than just doing.



It isn't that simple. The steps to solving a situation intuitively are 1. Identifying the state of the situation. 2. Calculating a solution to the state. 3. Executing that solution. The steps to solving a situation algorithmically are 2. Identifying the case of the state. 2. Recalling the solution to that case. 3. Executing that solution. Whether an intuitive or algorithmic solution is faster depends not just on the time for any of the above substeps but the total time taken across them.

The "thinking" you mention would refer to "Calculating a solution to the state". The "doing" you mention would refer to "Executing that solution". As you can see from the step breakdown, these aren't even the corresponding steps to compare. The more correct comparison would be between "Calculating a solution to the state" and "Recalling the solution to that case". Certainly when calculating a solution for the first time (doing something intuitively but not being super experienced) it is much slower than recalling a recently memorized algorithm. So, _when you are new to a method_ algorithmic is faster than intuitive. But, as WarriorCatCuber said:



WarriorCatCuber said:


> No. It really isn't worst. Plus, all intuitive steps become algorithmic with some time.



*As you become experienced with intuitive steps you can recall your past solutions rather than recalculate them and so it becomes just as fast as recalling an algorithm. *In this way, intuitive steps actually have an advantage over algorithmic steps because not only can you recall your exact solutions but you can make on the fly modifications to them to adapt for the particular situation in which you find yourself. So, while step 2 is faster for algorithmic approaches at first it does not necessarily retain that advantage after sufficient practice.

The other steps to be compared are 1 and 3. 1 generally gives a bit of advantage to algorithmic approaches because they are typically quick recognition rules for cases that only require you check a few stickers. As well, you can often standardize where you have to look to recognize cases. For intuitive steps you often have to look around a bit more. This can of course can be mitigated and maybe reversed by developing good look ahead but the advantage would tend to go toward algorithmic approaches at first. When working intuitively with good lookahead, you are doing step 2 as you are finding pieces for step 1, reducing the total time significantly. When working algorithmically, you can get good at tracking pieces and case predict early as well, to blend steps 1 and 2.

3 could go either way, depending on the step. The factor which favors algorithmic approaches is tps due to the ability to drill algs repeatedly. The factor which favors intuitive approaches is move count because intuitive solutions are typically much more efficient. Which effect is bigger depends on what scenario you are actually solving. 

So, each step is essentially comparable for skilled solvers using either approach and there is no clear consistent advantage to either. It is not as simple as thinking being slow if you actually practice the method.


----------



## PetraPine (May 27, 2020)

tasguitar7 said:


> It isn't that simple. The steps to solving a situation intuitively are 1. Identifying the state of the situation. 2. Calculating a solution to the state. 3. Executing that solution. The steps to solving a situation algorithmically are 2. Identifying the case of the state. 2. Recalling the solution to that case. 3. Executing that solution. Whether an intuitive or algorithmic solution is faster depends not just on the time for any of the above substeps but the total time taken across them.
> 
> The "thinking" you mention would refer to "Calculating a solution to the state". The "doing" you mention would refer to "Executing that solution". As you can see from the step breakdown, these aren't even the corresponding steps to compare. The more correct comparison would be between "Calculating a solution to the state" and "Recalling the solution to that case". Certainly when calculating a solution for the first time (doing something intuitively but not being super experienced) it is much slower than recalling a recently memorized algorithm. So, _when you are new to a method_ algorithmic is faster than intuitive. But, as WarriorCatCuber said:
> 
> ...


This is why Roux and cfop are basically even if roux is much more efficient.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.


That's what I have been trying to say!


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.


I wouldn't call ZZ-spike meyer and 4z4 absolute garbage and terrible. They're decent methods, just not quite as good as yau and other CFOP-based methods.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I wouldn't call ZZ-spike meyer and 4z4 absolute garbage and terrible. They're decent methods, just not quite as good as yau and other CFOP-based methods.


If you know they aren't as good, then why do you use them?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> If you know they aren't as good, then why do you use them?


I don't. I use CFOP based methods for 4x4 and mega

EDIT: and even if I did use them, they might be faster for ME because I use ZZ on 3x3.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

also, people say roux is great because it is intuitive. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS BETTER! You can turn 10x faster with algs then intuitive solving, and it is way worse. Also people say intuitive is better for some people, but in general anyone can learn algs, and algs can be drilled way faster.



WarriorCatCuber said:


> I don't. I use CFOP based methods for 4x4 and mega
> 
> EDIT: and even if I did use them, they might be faster for ME because I use ZZ on 3x3.


Why do you use zz on 3x3?

I think it is also way harder to improve with zz on 3x3, because there are less than half the resources there are on 3x3!


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> also, people say roux is great because it is intuitive. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS BETTER! You can turn 10x faster with algs then intuitive solving, and it is way worse. Also people say intuitive is better for some people, but in general anyone can learn algs, and algs can be drilled way faster.


1. Roux blocks and LSE are about as intuitive as F2L
2. Roux CMLL is as algorithmic as OLL and PLL


cringeycuber101 said:


> Why do you use zz on 3x3?


Because I like the method, find it funner, and better than CFOP.


cringeycuber101 said:


> I think it is also way harder to improve with zz on 3x3, because there are less than half the resources there are on 3x3!


CFOP resources can easily be translated into ZZ resources. CFOP F2L and ZZF2L are very similar


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> Why do you use zz on 3x3?


BECAUSE HE WANTS TO


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I don't. I use CFOP based methods for 4x4 and mega
> 
> EDIT: and even if I did use them, they might be faster for ME because I use ZZ on 3x3.


YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 3, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> 1. Roux blocks and LSE are about as intuitive as F2L
> 2. Roux CMLL is as algorithmic as OLL and PLL


I agree with this, but often the same people who say this are the people who say Roux is better because it is more intuitive.

@cringeycuber101 I somewhat agree with what you are saying but I think you are exaggerating everything a little too much. Also, please don't triple post, you can edit your previous message if you have something more to say or you can wait until someone else posts.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.


I don't bloody care about anything other than clock and 3x3. I did no timed mega or 4x4 solves since the beginning of 2020.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

another thing is m moves are actually so much slower than people say they are. What is faster? M U M? Or R U R?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.


But if CFOP isn't fun for him then he shouldn't use it. The whole point of cubing is to have fun, and it doesn't make sense to use a method that isn't fun for you just so you can be faster, (which won't actually make him faster because if it isn't fun for him then he won't practice).


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> another thing is m moves are actually so much slower than people say they are. What is faster? M U M? Or R U R?


The amount of times you will use either of those triggers is low lol


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> also, people say roux is great because it is intuitive. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS BETTER! You can turn 10x faster with algs then intuitive solving, and it is way worse. Also people say intuitive is better for some people, but in general anyone can learn algs, and algs can be drilled way faster.


I find an issue with this statement that "Algorithmic is faster". I have not learned a single F2L alg in my entire 2+ years of cubing and my F2L Split is 4-5 seconds. ALGORITHMIC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BETTER. Especially for F2L since it makes lookahead harder and case influencing nearly impossible. Not to mention that you said 10x faster turning with algorithms is kind of rediculous at face value but I get your point even though its wrong. Patrick ponce said he never learned an F2L alg and never planned to and his tps is insane, same with Max Park. So if Patrick switched to algorithmic F2L he will have 100 TPS?


----------



## xcross (Jun 3, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> 1. Roux blocks and LSE are about as intuitive as F2L
> 2. Roux CMLL is as algorithmic as OLL and PLL


But thats more intuitive pieces, too
Roux: 10 pieces for blocks, 6 pieces for edges
CFOP: 8 pieces for F2L, 4 pieces for cross.
which generally will make the solve slower, not to mention less algorithmic pieces (meaning algs save less time)
Roux: 4, CMLL
CFOP: 14, OLL, PLL (this is arguable, you could say that it is more or less pieces depending on the case, but for arguments sake we will take the average and use 14)



Sub1Hour said:


> I find an issue with this statement that "Algorithmic is faster". I have not learned a single F2L alg in my entire 2+ years of cubing and my F2L Split is 4-5 seconds. ALGORITHMIC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BETTER. Especially for F2L since it makes lookahead harder and case influencing nearly impossible. Not to mention that you said 10x faster turning with algorithms is kind of rediculous at face value but I get your point even though its wrong. Patrick ponce said he never learned an F2L alg and never planned to and his tps is insane, same with Max Park. So if Patrick switched to algorithmic F2L he will have 100 TPS?


Turning intuitive steps in to algs does not make it faster, but steps that have always been algorithmic are faster than if they were intuitive.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 3, 2020)

xcross said:


> But thats more intuitive pieces, too
> Roux: 10 pieces for blocks, 6 pieces for edges
> CFOP: 8 pieces for F2L, 4 pieces for cross.
> which generally will make the solve slower, not to mention less algorithmic pieces (meaning algs save less time)
> ...



OLL and PLL solves 9 pieces at most


----------



## brododragon (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.


Why can't he do what is fun? That's the point of cubing. Please stop being such a CFOP supremacist.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.


Thats not an argument for why cfop is the best for 3x3 which is what this thread is about


----------



## ProStar (Jun 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Thats not an argument for why cfop is the best for 3x3 which is what this thread is about



Wow! That's completely wrong!



WarriorCatCuber said:


> This is a thread to debate on which method is best and if methods are equal and stuff like that.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 3, 2020)

xcross said:


> But thats more intuitive pieces, too
> Roux: 10 pieces for blocks, 6 pieces for edges
> CFOP: 8 pieces for F2L, 4 pieces for cross.
> which generally will make the solve slower, not to mention less algorithmic pieces (meaning algs save less time)
> ...


Is a step really "intuitive" if you plan it in inspection?


----------



## Etotheipi (Jun 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Thats not an argument for why cfop is the best for 3x3 which is what this thread is about


If I know how to read correctly, the title is "the Method Debate Thread" not "the 3x3 Method Debate Thread", so yes that does belong here.


mukerflap said:


> Is a step really "intuitive" if you plan it in inspection?


Why would it make it not?


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 3, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> If I know how to read correctly, the title is "the Method Debate Thread" not "the 3x3 Method Debate Thread", so yes that does belong here.
> 
> Why would it make it not?





ProStar said:


> Wow! That's completely wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events " is what he said. He is saying cfop is the best 3x3 method because it goes well with other events


----------



## ProStar (Jun 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> "one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events " is what he said. He is saying cfop is the best 3x3 method because it goes well with other events



He said you should use CFOP for 3x3 because it raises your skill ceiling in other events


I think that's an awful argument, but it does belong in this thread


----------



## Etotheipi (Jun 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> "one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events " is what he said. He is saying cfop is the best 3x3 method because it goes well with other events


Just because its not the best argument in the world doesn't mean its off topic.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 3, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Just because its not the best argument in the world doesn't mean its off topic.





ProStar said:


> He said you should use CFOP for 3x3 because it raises your skill ceiling in other events
> 
> 
> I think that's an awful argument, but it does belong in this thread


its not that far to assume its a 3x3 method debate thread when all the tags are 3x3 methods, there is no other discussion of any other event


----------



## ProStar (Jun 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> its not that far to assume its a 3x3 method debate thread when all the tags are 3x3 methods, there is no other discussion of any other event



Just because people don't often post 2x2 methods in the new method thread doesn't mean it can't be used for 2x2. And tags are never accurate


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 3, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Just because people don't often post 2x2 methods in the new method thread doesn't mean it can't be used for 2x2. And tags are never accurate


Except the difference is there has not been a single message about other events in this thread as opposed to the new method thread. And how am i supposed to know that tags arent accurate


----------



## ProStar (Jun 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Except the difference is there has not been a single message about other events in this thread as opposed to the new method thread. And how am i supposed to know that tags arent accurate



You're really desperate to be right. Too bad you're wrong


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

This thread was made to discuss what method is best. I was focusing mainly on 3x3, *but when I created it was meant to be a debate for all events.* However, if a conversation is about 3x3 methods, you must keep to 3x3 and not start saying other people are dumb because their method is bad for 4x4.


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I find an issue with this statement that "Algorithmic is faster". I have not learned a single F2L alg in my entire 2+ years of cubing and my F2L Split is 4-5 seconds. ALGORITHMIC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BETTER. Especially for F2L since it makes lookahead harder and case influencing nearly impossible. Not to mention that you said 10x faster turning with algorithms is kind of rediculous at face value but I get your point even though its wrong. Patrick ponce said he never learned an F2L alg and never planned to and his tps is insane, same with Max Park. So if Patrick switched to algorithmic F2L he will have 100 TPS?


No because no one really thinks they are using algorithmic, but overtime with muscle memory it starts to become that. It is more tricks then algs. And I was talking about OLL and PLL


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

Hey, changing the topic a bit, what are your opinions for 3-2-3 vs 6-2 on 4x4? I think 3-2-3 is better, but I wanna hear your arguments.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> No because no one really thinks they are using algorithmic, but overtime with muscle memory it starts to become that. It is more tricks then algs. And I was talking about OLL and PLL


LSE and Roux blocks also become muscle memory overtime.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> No because no one really thinks they are using algorithmic, but overtime with muscle memory it starts to become that. It is more tricks then algs. And I was talking about OLL and PLL


There is a difference between solving a case with an alg and with a setup to an insert. Muscle memory is only triggers and your brain plans out how to solve the case and therefore it does not hinder your tps and it only boosts your lookahead.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 3, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> LSE and Roux blocks also become muscle memory overtime.



Roux blocks never become muscle memory, it's not like there's the 42 different cases. LSE does become mm though


----------



## cringeycuber101 (Jun 3, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> LSE and Roux blocks also become muscle memory overtime.


that is a good point.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> that is a good point.


Not really, see post here


ProStar said:


> Roux blocks never become muscle memory, it's not like there's the 42 different cases. LSE does become mm though


The actual cases dont become muscle memory, Technically doing a L move is muscle memory but intuitive thinking is still required for things like FB+SB and F2L


----------



## Micah Morrison (Jun 3, 2020)

cringeycuber101 said:


> Hey, changing the topic a bit, what are your opinions for 3-2-3 vs 6-2 on 4x4? I think 3-2-3 is better, but I wanna hear your arguments.











[Help Thread] - 4x4 Discussion and Help


honestly just doing solves should get you to sub 2:00 pretty quick. Then you can learn Yau, and go from there. he knows Yau my man




www.speedsolving.com





only thing I'm going to say here is 3-2-3 is better, just do it.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jun 3, 2020)

I think first block you definitely don't get muscle memory for, since to do it in a case by case way is impractical and bad, but SB is more done by case, and done with muscle memory by fast Rouxers I think, though nice block building cases would still be taken advantage of intuitively.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> I think first block you definitely don't get muscle memory for, since to do it in a case by case way is impractical and bad, but SB is more done by case, and done with muscle memory by fast Rouxers I think, though nice block building cases would still be taken advantage of intuitively.


Yeah. FB is more like cross, SB is more like F2L


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 3, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Why ZZ>CFOP:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Movecount
> ...


May I point the recent debate about ZZ and CFOP to this post.
On the topic of ZZ is bad for other events: odd big cubes (especially 7x7) with redux are actually great for ZZ. You save 10 moves if you're good over CFOP and the inspection thing doesn't really matter that much. I can inspect EO in less than 2 seconds if you were wondering. Megaminx has a completely different solving style and ZZ and CFOP transfer almost equally to S2L. Also UK NR holder uses Roux and he's not switching any time soon, despite not doing Roux on mega, so that's a bad comparison. The only places where it slightly matters a little bit are 6x6 and 4x4. Yau might be a little bit faster than Meyer or LEOR (better than 4z4) on 4x4 but if you really cared about 4x4 and thought that Yau was faster you would just use Yau on 4x4 and ZZ on 3x3. On 6x6, you have the slight disadvantage of having an odd number of bad edges every other solve but that can be an advantage as it's much easier to force OLL skips with parity with 3 orientated edges instead of 1. You also have the advantage of being able to do COLL then EPLL+parity instead of OLL, PLL pairty, PLL or OLL, PLL, PLL parity. Tl;dr: the argument that ZZ is worse because fewer events is a bad one.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 3, 2020)

how can meyer be so much worse than yau when its practicaly the same method, the only difference is solving 2 corners with first 3 edges.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 4, 2020)

Mini-rant incoming:

I just gonna plug in here that methods don’t matter until the highest level of cubing, which most people will never reach. I average 12.5 seconds with Hawaiian Kociemba, and have gotten numerous sub 10 singles. Some methods way be more optimized, but none are explicitly “better.” Hawaiian Kociemba was though to be a joke. I’ve put effort into optimizing it, and now I’m a joke too. Also certain move sets are not objectively “better” either. It depends on what you are used to, what your turn style is, what cube you’re using, etc.

Whew, that was hard to type on a phone


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 4, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> how can meyer be so much worse than yau when its practicaly the same method, the only difference is solving 2 corners with first 3 edges.


Because after making centers it's weird to pair edges while preserving corners and I'm pretty sure that 3-2-3 is impossible with Meyer, not to mention that roux in general is worse for big cubes since the hardware is more limiting than 3x3 although now that we have magnets M slices on 4x4 are easier. If hardware was perfect then on 5-7 redux then roux would be feasible for bigger cubes but Meyer as a whole is like you, but without the parts that make it good due to the lack of freedom while edge paring due to the required preservation of corners. I think that if you just did yau and then put the corners in for FB would be equally as fast if not faster due to time saves on edge pairing thanks to the lack of corners that need preservation. If there are any roux users willing to try this on a big cube let me know how it goes.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Because after making centers it's weird to pair edges while preserving corners and I'm pretty sure that 3-2-3 is impossible with Meyer, not to mention that roux in general is worse for big cubes since the hardware is more limiting than 3x3 although now that we have magnets M slices on 4x4 are easier. If hardware was perfect then on 5-7 redux then roux would be feasible for bigger cubes but Meyer as a whole is like you, but without the parts that make it good due to the lack of freedom while edge paring due to the required preservation of corners. I think that if you just did yau and then put the corners in for FB would be equally as fast if not faster due to time saves on edge pairing thanks to the lack of corners that need preservation. If there are any roux users willing to try this on a big cube let me know how it goes.


3-2-3 is 100% possible. You just turn D so that you don't destroy the block. On 4x4 M moves are fine. Also I mean you could do the corner thing, but you save nothing and you would be more efficient by a few moves solving them with FB. Btw, all these points also apply to LEOR on 4x4.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Because after making centers it's weird to pair edges while preserving corners and I'm pretty sure that 3-2-3 is impossible with Meyer, not to mention that roux in general is worse for big cubes since the hardware is more limiting than 3x3 although now that we have magnets M slices on 4x4 are easier. If hardware was perfect then on 5-7 redux then roux would be feasible for bigger cubes but Meyer as a whole is like you, but without the parts that make it good due to the lack of freedom while edge paring due to the required preservation of corners. I think that if you just did yau and then put the corners in for FB would be equally as fast if not faster due to time saves on edge pairing thanks to the lack of corners that need preservation. If there are any roux users willing to try this on a big cube let me know how it goes.






M slices are easy on 3-7


----------



## ProStar (Jun 4, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> M slices are easy on 3-7



M slices are easy 3-4, doable on 5, and suck on 6+. I know they can be done, but it's very annoying to do M slices on 6x6+


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> M slices are easy 3-4, doable on 5, and suck on 6+. I know they can be done, but it's very annoying to do M slices on 6x6+


proof


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 4, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> M slices are easy on 3-7


They are doable but easy is a stretch, not to mention the lack of corner cutting on big cubes making roux harder, don’t people say that roux is much more hardware dependent? If that’s the case then it’s inferior in big cubes


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> They are doable but easy is a stretch, not to mention the lack of corner cutting on big cubes making roux harder, don’t people say that roux is much more hardware dependent? If that’s the case then it’s inferior in big cubes


you can make the exact same argument for cfop


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> They are doable but easy is a stretch, not to mention the lack of corner cutting on big cubes making roux harder, don’t people say that roux is much more hardware dependent? If that’s the case then it’s inferior in big cubes


M moves are easy on 4 and 5 and in 6 and 7 they aren’t that bad with magnets and practice, doing a more efficient method also helps with the worse hardware as you don’t need as high TPS. Im also pretty sure that max would still be 1st in the world for 6 and 7 with a 20 second 3x3 stage and that it really doesn’t matter what method you use for those.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 4, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> you can make the exact same argument for cfop


No, you cant. CFOP doesn't require high cornercutting limits due to a lack of slice moves. Slice moves require reverse and forward cornercutting so if only one of them sucks you will lock up, and we all know that cornercutting is pretty bad on big cubes, not to mention pops are very common while doing extreme cornercutting which is again, much more common while using slice moves. Not to mention it's much harder to keep the layers of the cube stable and in proper alignment, especially on bigger puzzles, when doing MU moves compared to RU or LU or even RUF/RUD


AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> M moves are easy on 4 and 5 and in 6 and 7 they aren’t that bad with magnets and practice, doing a more efficient method also helps with the worse hardware as you don’t need as high TPS. Im also pretty sure that max would still be 1st in the world for 6 and 7 with a 20 second 3x3 stage and that it really doesn’t matter what method you use for those.


Not sure where you are going with this but the issue with your argument is that there is only 1 max park. Everyone else out there still needs a half-decent 3x3 stage and with the limitations of roux on big cubes, 9/10 times CFOP will be the better option. I'm not saying that M moves are impossible on 5-7, I'm saying they are much harder than regular moves done in a CFOP, ZZ, or Petrus solve. Not to mention that M moves are very risky on big cubes and I got a 5x5 DNF that was going to be a PR due to an MU U perm that was an r off from being solved.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Not sure where you are going with this but the issue with your argument is that there is only 1 max park. Everyone else out there still needs a half-decent 3x3 stage and with the limitations of roux on big cubes, 9/10 times CFOP will be the better option. I'm not saying that M moves are impossible on 5-7, I'm saying they are much harder than regular moves done in a CFOP, ZZ, or Petrus solve. Not to mention that M moves are very risky on big cubes and I got a 5x5 DNF that was going to be a PR due to an MU U perm that was an r off from being solved.


my point is that your 3x3 stage isn’t limiting you in your big cube progression also people can do M moves very well on Big cubes with practice as proven by the video sent earlier. They aren’t much harder you just do them much less and haven’t got accurate enough turning. And you clearly don’t have a PR DNF because an r move off is a plus 2 which is just as likely with CFOP.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 4, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> because an r move off is a plus 2 which is just as likely with CFOP.



r Is a slice move, and the WCA is on OBTM, so an r move is 2 moves, which is a DNF.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 4, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> my point is that your 3x3 stage isn’t limiting you in your big cube progression also people can do M moves very well on Big cubes with practice as proven by the video sent earlier. They aren’t much harder you just do them much less and haven’t got accurate enough turning. And you clearly don’t have a PR DNF because an r move off is a plus 2 which is just as likely with CFOP.


See what @ProStar said and check your facts before you say something clearly incorrect.


ProStar said:


> r Is a slice move, and the WCA is on OBTM, so an r move is 2 moves, which is a DNF.











alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net




This is what I mean by r, I dont mean R, I dont mean Rw, I mean r.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> See what @ProStar said and check your facts before you say something clearly incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My bad


----------



## brododragon (Jun 4, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Why would it make it not?


It's easier to drill those intuitive F2B algs.


mukerflap said:


> Except the difference is there has not been a single message about other events in this thread as opposed to the new method thread. And how am i supposed to know that tags arent accurate


I'm pretty sure @ProStar talked about fringing for 15 puzzle.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jul 7, 2020)

Join the Method Debate and Development Discord Server!


Check out the Method Debate and Development community on Discord - hang out with 109 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.




discord.gg


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Jul 9, 2020)

yruru more like briggs

get it, because yruru is just briggs


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 12, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> No. Feliks once stated he never checked out Roux or ZZ


this is not true feliks averages 15 with roux


----------



## MichaelZRC (Jul 12, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> yruru more like briggs
> 
> get it, because yruru is just briggs


YruRU is just briggs with a different cp style. It’s the facts


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jul 12, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> this is not true feliks averages 15 with roux


Source?


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 12, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Source?


In one of his live streams he did an ao5 with roux and got 15 sec


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 12, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> In one of his live streams he did an ao5 with roux and got 15 sec


yeah we get it, but which livestream???


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 12, 2020)

ill try and find it


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 12, 2020)

https://www.cubeskills.com/tutorials/2018-livestreams/december-2018-livestream 
22:47 you need to make a cube skills account but you dont need to be premium


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jul 24, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> https://www.cubeskills.com/tutorials/2018-livestreams/december-2018-livestream
> 22:47 you need to make a cube skills account but you dont need to be premium


I went there, and sorry dude, that really isn't roux at all


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 24, 2020)

21:57 "lets do some roux solves"


----------



## ProStar (Jul 24, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> https://www.cubeskills.com/tutorials/2018-livestreams/december-2018-livestream
> 22:47 you need to make a cube skills account but you dont need to be premium



That's not Roux. That's CFOP with F2B to start



ketchupcuber said:


> 21:57 "lets do some roux solves"



So If I say "I'm gonna do ZZ solves" and do Cross->F2L-1->EOLS->ZBLL it's ZZ?


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 24, 2020)

no but he was clearly doing roux and anyway it is clear that he has tried other methods unlike what warriorcatcuber said also he did more thn one solve
also if he was doing cfop why did he get a 13 second average


----------



## ProStar (Jul 24, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> no but he was clearly doing roux and anyway it is clear that he has tried other methods unlike what warriorcatcuber said also he did more thn one solve
> also if he was doing cfop why did he get a 13 second average




Watch the video closely, reconstruct the solves. It's not Roux. Saying that's Roux is like saying that my speed solving method is DR cause the last move is a DR. He does F2B then solves LL and the M-Slice. He ends all his solves with a PLL, which is impossible for Roux. He also has never seriously tried other methods, as you can clearly see by his "Roux" solves. And he got a 13 second average because like I said, it was CFOP with a couple lateral moves


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jul 24, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> no but he was clearly doing roux and anyway it is clear that he has tried other methods unlike what warriorcatcuber said also he did more thn one solve
> also if he was doing cfop why did he get a 13 second average


Did you see the amount of F moves he did during LSE?


----------



## ProStar (Jul 24, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Did you see the amount of F moves he did during LSE?



PLL*


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 24, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Did you see the amount of F moves he did during LSE?


i’m not saying he’s good just that he has tried roux


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jul 24, 2020)

But that isn't roux.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 24, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> i’m not saying he’s good just that he has tried roux



So if I start doing EO before LS then I can say I've tried ZZ and that it sucks?


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 24, 2020)

did i ever say that feliks says that roux sucks i personally think that roux and cfop are equal and that zz is slightly worse


----------



## hummus__ (Jul 24, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Excluding CMLL, Roux is completely intuitive. Why do you say this?


Completely off-topic but nice Futaba profile pic


----------



## ProStar (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> did i ever say that feliks says that roux sucks i personally think that roux and cfop are equal and that zz is slightly worse



What you said is that the video you posted proves Feliks has tried Roux, which is false


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 25, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What you said is that the video you posted proves Feliks has tried Roux, which is false


so you really think that he knows how to do a method that closely resembles roux without ever trying roux. you actually think that he invented a totally random method and then said let’s do roux and did a that method hmmmmm


----------



## ProStar (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> so you really think that he knows how to do a method that closely resembles roux without ever trying roux. you actually think that he invented a totally random method and then said let’s do roux and did a that method hmmmmm



"A whole new method"? No, he did F2B then did some combination of inserting DF+DB and CFOP LL, which is NOT Roux but is still popular among CFOP users. Feliks is clearly uninformed as to what Roux actually is


You're also yet to say clearly that the solves he did were the Roux method. Look at them and see if they're actually Roux.


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 25, 2020)

ProStar said:


> "A whole new method"? No, he did F2B then did some combination of inserting DF+DB and CFOP LL, which is NOT Roux but is still popular among CFOP users. Feliks is clearly uninformed as to what Roux actually is
> 
> 
> You're also yet to say clearly that the solves he did were the Roux method. Look at them and see if they're actually Roux.


So if someone was doing CFOP and then messed up and it ended up being not CFOP that means that they have no idea what CFOP is and have never tried it i’m sorry but your not making any sense
Edit Also if you were interested in cfop but could not be bothered to learn full oll does that mean you have never tried it.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> So if someone was doing CFOP and then messed up and it ended up being not CFOP that means that they have no idea what CFOP is and have never tried it i’m sorry but your not making any sense.



If someone were to do LBL multiple times in a row and say it was CFOP it means they don't know what CFOP is. Take a logic class and come back and say I'm the one not making sense, I'll be waiting


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 25, 2020)

ProStar said:


> If someone were to do LBL multiple times in a row and say it was CFOP it means they don't know what CFOP is. Take a logic class and come back and say I'm the one not making sense, I'll be waiting


The point is that feliks has tried roux if he had never tried it how could he possibly no what F2B was if you have tried something doesn’t mean you have mastered it. Your point about LBL isn’t valid because LBL isn’t a mixture of CFOP and something else it is a method in its own right whereas Feliks was doing a mixture of CFOP and Roux means he has watched a tutorial on roux and attempted it meaning he has tried it.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> The point is that feliks has tried roux if he had never tried it how could he possibly no what F2B was if you have tried something doesn’t mean you have mastered it. Your point about LBL isn’t valid because LBL isn’t a mixture of CFOP and something else it is a method in its own right whereas Feliks was doing a mixture of CFOP and Roux means he has watched a tutorial on roux and attempted it meaning he has tried it.


It's simple. If he think what he is doing is roux, which it isn't, then he hasn't tried roux. If he had tried roux, then he would know the correct way to do it.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> The point is that feliks has tried roux if he had never tried it how could he possibly no what F2B was if you have tried something doesn’t mean you have mastered it. Your point about LBL isn’t valid because LBL isn’t a mixture of CFOP and something else it is a method in its own right whereas Feliks was doing a mixture of CFOP and Roux means he has watched a tutorial on roux and attempted it meaning he has tried it.



Approximently 1% of that statement makes sense. That's a record!

He doesn't know how Roux works, because if he did then he wouldn't do this weird CFOP-Roux mix and call it Roux


----------



## ketchupcuber (Jul 25, 2020)

Answer the question has he tried roux
I watched J perms zz tutorial a few days ago I learnt about EO and how ZZ works but in a solve I would not be able to perform perfect ZZ have I tried ZZ yes am I good at it obviously not but trying something is very different to mastering something a concept you seem unable to wrap your head around.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> Answer the question has he tried roux



I'm not stalking him so I can't say anything as a confirmed fact, but I can say that based on the video you linked he doesn't know how proper Roux works



ketchupcuber said:


> I watched J perms zz tutorial a few days ago I learnt about EO and how ZZ works but in a solve I would not be able to perform perfect ZZ have I tried ZZ yes am I good at it obviously not but trying something is very different to mastering something a concept you seem unable to wrap your head around.



But if you say you're going to do ZZ but then do CFOP with EO before LS then does that count as doing ZZ?


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> no but he was clearly doing roux



Roux is different from what Feliks did

Roux steps are 1. F2B 2. CMLL 3. L6E
What Feliks did (according to what has been said on this thread) is 1. F2B 2. Finish F2L by solving the M slice cross edges 3. OLL 4. PLL 2. some unknown step 3. PLL

THIS IS NOT ROUX, YOU ARE WRONG, STOP TRYING TO PULL THINGS OUT OF NOWHERE AND ACCEPT YOU ARE WRONG


----------



## ProStar (Jul 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> What Feliks did (according to what has been said on this thread) is 1. F2B 2. Finish F2L by solving the M slice cross edges 3. OLL 4. PLL



Didn't reconstruct his solves, but he started with F2B and ended with PLL for every solve


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jul 25, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> Answer the question has he tried roux
> I watched J perms zz tutorial a few days ago I learnt about EO and how ZZ works but in a solve I would not be able to perform perfect ZZ have I tried ZZ yes am I good at it obviously not but trying something is very different to mastering something a concept you seem unable to wrap your head around.


There is a big difference between messing up something that you know how to do versus literally not knowing how to do something. Feliks legitimately thinks (or thought) that what he was doing was roux, which it isn't.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Jul 25, 2020)

After watching the video, it seemed like he was doing f2b, ocll, eo+dfdb, pll


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

I did some Averaging of pros and cons of methods..
i started with ZZ v EOcross v Petrus
ZZ:14Cfop:14EOcross:10Petrus:10
i now think petrus can deffinitly be sub 8
I than Did Leor v Petrus
and leor got 7 petrus got 8
(it was just two so it was diff numbers.)
Catagories i looked into for this
Rotations
Movecount
inspection
regrips
pausing(lookahaed.
it was pretty basic but i just wanted an overview and i'm glad i chose petrus because it seems to have slightly more potential than ZZ
im not trying to start a method debate and this is not fact, its just what i've observed possible.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I did some Averaging of pros and cons of methods..
> i started with ZZ v EOcross v Petrus
> ZZ:14Cfop:14EOcross:10Petrus:10
> i now think petrus can deffinitly be
> ...


You've not started a debate, you've started a war


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

"the same potential as ZZ(cross)
cfop is acc prob better than base zz because a couple rotations dont matter as much as the stupid amount of regrips.
Also ZB(CFZB) petrus+ZBLL and ZZ(cross)+ZBLL are prob very even.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> "the same potential as ZZ(cross)
> cfop is acc prob better than base zz because a couple rotations dont matter as much as the stupid amount of regrips.
> Also ZB(CFZB) petrus+ZBLL and ZZ(cross)+ZBLL are prob very even.


stupid amount of regrips huh, EOCross is practically no regrips.


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

Bro i said BASE ZZ
(EOline)


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Bro i said BASE ZZ
> (EOline)


That's an obsolete ZZ variant, only good for OH, you're comparing a ZZ variant that is rarely used anymore.


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

thats why i also separately graded eo cross if you read my post that was...


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I did some Averaging of pros and cons of methods..
> i started with ZZ v EOcross v Petrus
> ZZ:14Cfop:14EOcross:10Petrus:10
> i now think petrus can deffinitly be sub 8
> ...


Please can I have the actual reasoning? I am extremely confused to how you got Petrus better than ZZ, even better than EOLine (although as mentioned, it's obselete).


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I did some Averaging of pros and cons of methods..
> i started with ZZ v EOcross v Petrus
> ZZ:14Cfop:14EOcross:10Petrus:10
> i now think petrus can deffinitly be sub 8
> ...


Oh my goodness


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

dude i didnt put it in this thread for a reason,
i didnt want to debate i put it in the sub 8 petrus thread because its about petrus,
i dont want it to be here.
also i just said it was better theoretically than eoline, not eocross or other variants.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> i dont want it to be here.


Uh then why did you post it in this thread?!


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 3, 2020)

I'd find ZZ to be much faster than petrus becuz even though petrus has fewer moves to solve whole F2L, ZZ influences last layer with EO and can be done with one whole alg with ZBLL. Just doing OLL and PLL on petrus could be fine, but ZZ has so many tricks up its sleeves that its just super efficient to solve. It may seem like petrus can just finish F2L faster than ZZ, but becuz ZZ has way much better fingertricks, ZZF2L is faster. And geez, if a ZZ user cant do ZBLL, that user can do phasing and then ZZLL which is just solving the whole last layer with only 170 something algs, or just use OLS->PLL or COLL->EPLL. There's so much flexibility with ZZ and I really think petrus doesn't really have much but just more freedom. The only downside about ZZ is that it is super difficult (and I mean VERY DIFFICULT) to get fast with becuz theres so much an average human can comprehend. You'd have to be very committed to become sub-8 or sub-7 with ZZ and experience/practice all the tricks to perfect your solutions and strategies.


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

i didn't the mods put it here cause its about methods.
or it was an accident, i seriosly dont know lol
you also could use zbll with LL,
i think eo cross and Petrus are near even,
one having amazing fingertricks and lookahead
and the other bieng insanely iffecient.


----------



## mukerflap (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> i didn't the mods put it here cause its about methods.
> or it was an accident, i seriosly dont know lol
> you also could use zbll with LL,
> i think eo cross and Petrus are near even,
> ...


petrus is not that efficient


----------



## Sub1Hour (Aug 3, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> petrus is not that efficient


????

What do you mean, the move count could easily be sub-50 HTM for most of your solves if you're smart with block building


----------



## ProStar (Aug 3, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> ????
> 
> What do you mean, the move count could easily be sub-50 HTM for most of your solves if you're smart with block building



This is mukerflap we're talking about


----------



## Sub1Hour (Aug 3, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This is mukerflap we're talking about


*method isn't a roux variant*


_*method bad*_


----------



## ProStar (Aug 3, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> *method isn't a roux variant*
> 
> 
> _*method bad*_



Wiki: Roux is a CF variant

*cf woohoo*


----------



## sqAree (Aug 3, 2020)

Average movecounts of popular methods according to the wiki:
CFOP: 55
Petrus: 50
Roux: 48
ZZ: 44 (with ZBLL)

Those numbers might be off, but I can understand why someone says Petrus is not that efficient.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 3, 2020)

Not very fair to include ZBLL for ZZ and not Petrus. I get that using ZBLL is one of the variants of ZZ, but still, that is a bit unfair.


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 3, 2020)

Average eo cross without ZBLL 54
average petrus without ZBLL 50,
so i am pretty sure petrus is more efficient
that was prob eo line


----------



## mukerflap (Aug 3, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> ????
> 
> What do you mean, the move count could easily be sub-50 HTM for most of your solves if you're smart with block building





ProStar said:


> This is mukerflap we're talking about






movecount of first 5 solves:
64
49 (got a f2l square skip)
50
61
42
and this is when hes very slow solving not going at 10 tps


----------



## ProStar (Aug 3, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Average eo cross without ZBLL 54
> average petrus without ZBLL 50,
> so i am pretty sure petrus is more efficient
> that was prob eo line



Because you're inefficient. I average sub-50 with Petrus and ZZ (both cross and line)



mukerflap said:


> movecount of first 5 solves:
> 64
> 49 (got a f2l square skip)
> 61
> ...



Tao relies on TPS to be good. Again, I'm easily sub-50 with Petrus & ZBLL


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 4, 2020)

I'm pretty sure petrus has the fewest move count. But you have to understand that when doing awkward blockbuilding moves is very difficult to fingertrick. This could either make us rotate, lockup on a cube, or hesitate when speedsolving. ZZ blockbuilding is not as fewer as petrus (but still pretty low move count), but it's definitely fingertrickable and rotationless (plus very good lookahead will definitely be damn fast). 
Method with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 4, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> Method with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.


Duh. That’s why cfop is the best, even though it has a higher move count
/s


----------



## PetraPine (Aug 4, 2020)

it said that on the wiki sorry if its wrong, i am personally av 48 moves w coll on petrus so the wiki is prob wrong.
also i said it was even,
and if you know what youre doing you can spam tps pretty well even with the bad fingertricks and anyway its just a tradeoff,
more efficient worse fingertricks
kinda simular to how roux is a great method bc it is very efficient even though the ergonomics are pretty bad.
==


----------



## Sub1Hour (Aug 4, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> movecount of first 5 solves:
> 64
> 49 (got a f2l square skip)
> 50
> ...


Man, I wonder if 3/5 solves fit my critera

Man, I wonder if the definition of most of the time is more than 50%

Man, I wonder if 60% > 50%

Man, I wonder if you cherry-picked example solves from someone that is better at TPS than efficiency

Man, I wonder if Petrus is actually the most efficient big-4 speedsolving method if you know how to do it properly

Man, I wonder if you read your posts before posting them to look if there is any kind of common sense strewn throughout them, just in case something actually makes sense for more than 3 sentences


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 4, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> I'm pretty sure petrus has the fewest move count.


Dude, you forgot Heise.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Dude, you forgot Heise.



Oh yea for sure Heise is the fewest out of all methods, but I'm only comparing CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus.


----------



## mukerflap (Aug 4, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Man, I wonder if 3/5 solves fit my critera
> 
> Man, I wonder if the definition of most of the time is more than 50%
> 
> ...


how can i cherry pick example solves when there are barely any petrus example solves are on youtube

and only 2 solves were sub 50 so its not 50%


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 4, 2020)

Here are more realistic movecounts:
CFOP: 55-60
Roux: 45-50
Petrus (ZBLL): 45-50
ZZ (EOCross+ZBLL): 50-55

Here's why I think ZZ>Petrus IMO (as this was the context of the discussion): TPS. The ergonomics of Petruz, while not being bad, aren't as good as the ergonomics of ZZF2L because you have the problem of overturning and the extension as a step, is, as most Petrus solvers would agree upon, the most awkward step of the method. With ZZ the most awkward step is the first step, same with Roux and CFOP which means that some awkwardness can be negated by planning it properly. This is harder in Petrus. You also have worse ergonomics for EO in the middle of the solve than the a pair in a ZZ solve. 

Anyway, why was it moved? It was doing perfectly fine in the other thread.


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 4, 2020)

In my defense, I didn't use ZBLL for a number of those solves. Also my solves could be improved a lot. My solves shouldn't be used as if they are some kind of gold standard - if you look at things objectively I'm really no more than a slow and inefficient Petrus solver whose solves don't prove a lot.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 4, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> Method with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.


rip LMCF


----------



## Silky (Aug 4, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Here are more realistic movecounts:
> CFOP: 55-60
> Roux: 45-50
> Petrus (ZBLL): 45-50
> ...



But consider the fact that ZZ has more blind spots. Because Petrus uses direct solving at the beginning of the solve you don't end up with BL and BR blind spots. If you build 2x2x3 on BD the EO step becomes much easier. Plus even though finger tricks are harder because you plan block build at the start this helps to circumvent that problem. Even so, slower turning means that you theoretically have more time to look ahead, increasing the ability to be efficient. On a side note because Petrus always solves right block during Petrus F2L so you can make more consistent use of last slots algorithms (WV, Phasing, etc.). I'd say Petrus and ZZ are on equal footing, it just really depends if you prefer efficiency or TPS.

Edit: I forgot to mention that of the big 4 Petrus makes the best use of colour neutrality.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 4, 2020)

Silky said:


> But consider the fact that ZZ has more blind spots. Because Petrus uses direct solving at the beginning of the solve you don't end up with BL and BR blind spots. If you build 2x2x3 on BD the EO step becomes much easier. Plus even though finger tricks are harder because you plan block build at the start this helps to circumvent that problem. Even so, slower turning means that you theoretically have more time to look ahead, increasing the ability to be efficient. On a side note because Petrus always solves right block during Petrus F2L so you can make more consistent use of last slots algorithms (WV, Phasing, etc.). I'd say Petrus and ZZ are on equal footing, it just really depends if you prefer efficiency or TPS.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to mention that of the big 4 Petrus makes the best use of colour neutrality.


About the blind spots.
I do think this could be eliminated with practice, people (including myself) has practiced to the extent that blind spots don't bother.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 4, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> I'd find ZZ to be much faster than petrus becuz even though petrus has fewer moves to solve whole F2L, ZZ influences last layer with EO and can be done with one whole alg with ZBLL. Just doing OLL and PLL on petrus could be fine, but ZZ has so many tricks up its sleeves that its just super efficient to solve. It may seem like petrus can just finish F2L faster than ZZ, but becuz ZZ has way much better fingertricks, ZZF2L is faster. And geez, if a ZZ user cant do ZBLL, that user can do phasing and then ZZLL which is just solving the whole last layer with only 170 something algs, or just use OLS->PLL or COLL->EPLL. There's so much flexibility with ZZ and I really think petrus doesn't really have much but just more freedom. The only downside about ZZ is that it is super difficult (and I mean VERY DIFFICULT) to get fast with becuz theres so much an average human can comprehend. You'd have to be very committed to become sub-8 or sub-7 with ZZ and experience/practice all the tricks to perfect your solutions and strategies.


You know you orient LL edges for Petrus too and can use the aforementioned subsets with Petus...


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I did some Averaging of pros and cons of methods..
> i started with ZZ v EOcross v Petrus
> ZZ:14Cfop:14EOcross:10Petrus:10
> i now think petrus can deffinitly be sub 8
> ...


You may not have tried to start a debate but others did so anyway.
I’m not going to enter into this since it seems kind of pointless. All methods realistically have the same potential until WR standards, and even then we have not reached method limits. And I doubt most people will be WR standard by the end of their cubing career, so you should be picking methods based on how much you enjoy solving with it


----------



## Silky (Aug 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> About the blind spots.
> I do think this could be eliminated with practice, people (including myself) has practiced to the extent that blind spots don't bother.


Fair. Just something to consider.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 4, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> You know you orient LL edges for Petrus too and can use the aforementioned subsets with Petus...



Oh dang that's right, I forgot about that. I dont use EO when I do petrus, the EO is solved for me 50% of the time.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Aug 4, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> Oh dang that's right, I forgot about that. I dont use EO when I do petrus, the EO is solved for me 50% of the time.


That's not petrus then...


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 4, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> That's not petrus then...


It's still considered petrus. There's just different styles and variants.


----------



## Josh_ (Aug 4, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> It's still considered petrus. There's just different styles and variants.


If you don’t do eo isn’t that just FreeFop except you limit yourself to starting with a 2x2x3?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 4, 2020)

Yeah, that’s FreeFOP, not Petrus.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 4, 2020)

I never really consider it FreeFOP becuz I call this method FreeFOP:


----------



## fun at the joy (Aug 4, 2020)

This is what the wiki says:

FreeF - Solve the first two layers F2L however you wish.
O - Solve OLL
P - Solve PLL
This guy doesn't even know what the abbreviation FreeF O P stands for.
As other people said, what you do is FreeFOP and is very different to Petrus.
Also EO done 50% of the time is very unlikely, the probability is actually a lot lower than that.
I really liked how you compared ZZ and Petrus without knowing what Petrus is. GENIUS
It makes your post completely worthless but nice try anyway.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 12, 2020)

Umm, well imo I think Roux, you can get faster with it quickly, but as you get faster, it becomes super hard to go forward, and with CFOP, your improvement is slow, but you can go further past sub 10 until the hard barrier comes.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 12, 2020)

You can get faster with quickly’ - @Spacey10 2020


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 12, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> You can get faster with quickly’ - @Spacey10 2020


Adding to my sig lol
Also changed it


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 13, 2020)

Roux vs cfop vs petrus vs zb vs zz vs freefop vs waterman vs leor vs heise/speedheise vs ribbon vs zipper which one is better


Im a freefoper sub 50 so close to sub 40 and, with cfop I couldn't get anywhere near sub 40. was still sub 50 but high sub 50. freefop has really helped my times


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Aug 13, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Roux vs cfop vs petrus vs zb vs zz vs freefop vs waterman vs leor vs heise/speedheise vs ribbon vs zipper which one is better
> 
> 
> Im a freefoper sub 50 so close to sub 40 and, with cfop I couldn't get anywhere near sub 40. was still sub 50 but high sub 50. freefop has really helped my times


Imo, Waterman is the best of all those. Just my opinion.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 14, 2020)

ZZ or Roux. https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-method-debate-thread.76665/post-1372453 for a defense of why ZZ≥CFOP.


----------



## zslane (Aug 14, 2020)

Is there a consensus on the function to use to sort the methods from worst to best? If not, then this debate is over before it even begins.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 15, 2020)

You can make a very good case for the effectiveness of a method from movecount and ergonomics. The problem arises when ergonomics become a bit subjective.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Aug 16, 2020)

While ZZ F2L has great ergonomics, EOCross ergonomics are quite bad


----------



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

RadicalMacaroni said:


> While ZZ F2L has great ergonomics, EOCross ergonomics are quite bad


Well, you can compensate by doing EOCross fast or git gud at turning.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Aug 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Well, you can compensate by doing EOCross fast or git gud at turning.



Yeah, but eocross's poor ergonomics prevent zz from being objectively better than any other method for 2h


----------



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

RadicalMacaroni said:


> Yeah, but eocross's poor ergonomics prevent zz from being objectively better than any other method for 2h


EOCross' ergonomics are not that bad, like at least only 2 F moves per solve


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Aug 16, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Roux vs cfop vs petrus vs zb vs zz vs freefop vs waterman vs leor vs heise/speedheise vs ribbon vs zipper which one is better
> 
> 
> Im a freefoper sub 50 so close to sub 40 and, with cfop I couldn't get anywhere near sub 40. was still sub 50 but high sub 50. freefop has really helped my times


Firstly different methods will suit different people and secondly are you talking 2h or OH?


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 16, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> Firstly different methods will suit different people and secondly are you talking 2h or OH?


2h


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Aug 16, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> 2h


If you average 40, a few seconds isn't at all a big difference.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 17, 2020)

I originally posted this in The ZZvolution but I'm moving the debate here. Here are my points in case someone didn't see it


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 17, 2020)

TerryD said:


> I originally posted this in The ZZvolution but I'm moving the debate here. Here are my points in case someone didn't see it
> 
> 
> I think it's obvious that ZZ with EOCross is better than CFOP lol, it has better ergonomics, lower movecount, and easier lookahead.
> ...


I would like to point out that your CFOP move count is totally incorrect. ZZ still has a better move count though.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 17, 2020)

With EOCross, ZZ is 50-57, CFOP is 55-62. In practice. Either way, ZZ has a lower movecount and better ergonomics. 
@RadicalMacaroni EOCross ergonomics are the same as XCross. <RULDBF> vs <RULDBF> for 9 moves.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Aug 17, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> I would like to point out that your CFOP move count is totally incorrect. ZZ still has a better move count though.



His ZZ movecount is also incorrect. Even on solves where I don't know the ZBLL, I rarely get 60+ moves unless I'm extremely unlucky.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 30, 2020)

did people abandon this thread?
Aww man


----------



## Sub1Hour (Oct 30, 2020)

ZZ is still viable change my mind

HOWEVER: CFOP will be at the top for at least another 50 years


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 30, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> ZZ is still viable change my mind


ZZ is good for F...



ast cubers.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 30, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> ZZ is still viable change my mind
> 
> HOWEVER: CFOP will be at the top for at least another 50 years


I don't need to change your mind for the first statement. Read my posts earlier in the thread. 
I would need to change your mind on the second. No one at the top who uses CFOP actually uses CFOP, rather some form of CF-option select. If you say "well that's still CFOP", let's go with it and I'm gonna point you to a few things: ZZ, Roux and the potential of finding other methods. I mean CFOP might be at the top, but the probability of that is lower than that of other method being at the top combined.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 30, 2020)

idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.

Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
Ergonomics
- Moveset: ZZ = CFOP 
- Cube Rotations: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ has no cube rotations)
- Regrips: ZZ > CFOP (If you use EOCross ZZ has better regrips cuz CFOP has Cube Rotations)
Look Ahead
- Pieces Solved: ZZ = CFOP (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)
- Blind Spots = (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)

If you still think that CFOP is better than ZZ then you're just ignorant.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 30, 2020)

ZZ v Petrus(I think ZZ is better just want to post comparisons)
Regrips:ZZ>Petrus(might be equal if you consider more R U L regrips)((im counting rotations here))
Movecount petrus>>ZZ(petrus is the most efficient of the big 4)
Lookahead petrus=ZZ(this could also be changed but i cant really tell which is better since you can lookahead to 223 for petrus and lookahead to last side during EO, But ZZ has less piece info and you can do cross+1)
"Step switching"Petrus<ZZ
Tps Petrus<ZZ?idk about this for sure alot of 223 is like R2 R D F or sometimes just R U D and EO is R U F or R U M which is nice, and R U last side, i feel if you get a good 223 its better if you get an average/worse 223 its worse)
ConsistencyZZ=Petrus(I wouldve put petrus more consistent but sometimes you can get really bad 223 cases)((ZZ has 12 flips/10 flips, while petrus only has 6 flips(which are really fast anyway).
OH Petrus<<ZZ(ZZ smacks petrus for OH)
LL/LS Petrus>ZZ(this is only SLIGHTLY because last slot is always either R F or R B slot which means algoritmization could be easier and only R U is better than R U L U.)


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Oct 30, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ZZ v Petrus(I think ZZ is better just want to post comparisons)
> Regrips:ZZ>Petrus(might be equal if you consider more R U L regrips)((im counting rotations here))
> Movecount petrus>>ZZ(petrus is the most efficient of the big 4)
> Lookahead petrus=ZZ(this could also be changed but i cant really tell which is better since you can lookahead to 223 for petrus and lookahead to last side during EO, But ZZ has less piece info and you can do cross+1)
> ...


Is petrus more efficient than roux?


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 30, 2020)

yes


Kaneki Uchiha said:


> Is petrus more efficient than roux?


if you are good with blockbuilding+ZBLL average movecount could be around ~45 or 44
I did some splits myself were i did slowsolves(since i cant lookahead to 223) and did what would be realistic to solves,
and got a 27 F2L move average,
27+16
43 MC average (but I add one-2 because i might have been slightly to efficient)


----------



## tx789 (Oct 30, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.
> 
> Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
> Ergonomics
> ...


Cfop may have cube rotations but only 2-3. Cube rotations aren't that bad. If you have more then your bad. 

Honestly I don't think either beats the other for regrips since that depends on your turning. ZZ requires switching between LU and RU turning and cfop has a rotation or two. 

one issue with ZZ beyond eocross is being able to turn LU and RU equally. Being ambidextrous is need for ZZ. You could turn the L turns to Rw but that could be awkward in places. 



Lastly can people stop saying a method is better because there are less algs. Honestly most cubers hate learning algs so much it is not that bad. It gets easier the most you learn. OLL is a small alg set but so many people don't bother. I know algs are hard at first but they get easier.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 30, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Cfop may have cube rotations but only 2-3. Cube rotations aren't that bad. If you have more then your bad.
> 
> Honestly I don't think either beats the other for regrips since that depends on your turning. ZZ requires switching between LU and RU turning and cfop has a rotation or two.
> 
> ...


I agree that more algs is bad cuz its more cases to recognise but I disagree that CFOP has to much algs, CFOP was actually my first speedcubing method and it only took me 2 week to learn full OLL.


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Oct 31, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> yes
> 
> if you are good with blockbuilding+ZBLL average movecount could be around ~45 or 44
> I did some splits myself were i did slowsolves(since i cant lookahead to 223) and did what would be realistic to solves,
> ...


Looking at kians solves in cubesolv.es most of his averages have 44-46 stm movecount. Even if petrus is slightly more efficient. Having to learn zbll is a con. And it has cube rotations unlike roux


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> Looking at kians solves in cubesolv.es most of his averages have 44-46 stm movecount. Even if petrus is slightly more efficient. Having to learn zbll is a con. And it has cube rotations unlike roux


Did i say that petrus was better than roux? no I said it was more efficient
also @Kaneki Uchiha no they arnt there like ~49 average stm
if you look at his solves maybe your talking about singles?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Oct 31, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.
> 
> Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
> Ergonomics
> ...


I'm sorry but this is so messed up.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 31, 2020)

My top 3 methods in order

1. CFOP
2. ZB
3. Russo


Yes I think ZB and Russo is better that Roux and ZZ.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.
> 
> Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
> Ergonomics
> ...


ZZ is not 44 moves with ZBLL that is straight false(unless you use EOLINE)((than its maybe ~46)) its more like 50~
both methods are not R U L lol CFOP is R U x for most cases 
also you dont seem to mention anything about actual steps,
EOcross(not the method just the step)((the method is better than line)) is really bad.
pieces solved are not equal you can lookahead farther into cfop(this is more complicated but that statement is false if you are talking about direct pieces)
the method isnt even that efficient
roux is more efficient, petrus is also more efficient(about you saying the method bieng so efficient)



LukasCubes said:


> My top 3 methods in order
> 
> 1. CFOP
> 2. ZB
> ...


The reason Russo is bad
-advantage(russo has L5E instead of L6E((L5E can be algoritmized))((but so can L6))
-disadvantages:
The blockbuilding for russo is much more awkward since it is more similar to that of petrus which has less ergonomic blocks,
it is less efficient,lookahead is harder imo because 223+extension+2 pairs is the only thing that is somewhat efficient((doing fb sb cmll back edge is just worse lse)
and compared to doing FB,SB its overly complicated and there are more blind spots.
for ZB
ZB is kinda hard to understand why its worse but heres my explanation:
Doing LS LL while you do OLL PLL(or ZBLL if you get it) is faster
its the same reason we dont use VHLS very much,recognition is not worth the amount of efficiency gained, if you look at like tao yus ZB solves there is a huge pause in the middle due to this.
My list:
Roux
Cfop+ZBLL/good 1lll cases
ZZ-A
Petrus
ZB
LeoR
HK
Russo


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 31, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> The reason Russo is bad
> -advantage(russo has L5E instead of L6E((L5E can be algoritmized))((but so can L6))
> -disadvantages:
> The blockbuilding for russo is much more awkward since it is more similar to that of petrus which has less ergonomic blocks,
> ...


i understand what you are saying. CFOP, ZB, and Russo is just my opinion for the top 3.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i understand what you are saying. CFOP, ZB, and Russo is just my opinion for the top 3.


how can you have an "opinion" on a top 3 best methods if you have no evidence supporting them bieng the fastest?


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 31, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ZZ is not 44 moves with ZBLL that is straight false(unless you use EOLINE)((than its maybe ~46)) its more like 50~
> both methods are not R U L lol CFOP is R U x for most cases
> also you dont seem to mention anything about actual steps,
> EOcross(not the method just the step)((the method is better than line)) is really bad.
> ...


When did I say ZZ is efficient, I said roux is efficient and I even said roux is the best method and I only use ZZ to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> When did I say ZZ is efficient, I said roux is efficient not ZZ.


you said with ZBLL it was 44 moves AND called roux more efficient? both of those are wrong 
roux is like ~49 and ZZ-A is like ~51


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 31, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> you said with ZBLL it was 44 moves AND called roux more efficient? both of those are wrong
> roux is like ~49 and ZZ-A is like ~51


Go on speedsolving wiki and look at the move count of ZZ its 44 with ZBLL you even said yourself that roux is more efficient than ZZ so idk what you mean.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> Go on speedsolving wiki and look at the move count of ZZ its 44 with ZBLL you even said yourself that roux is more efficient than ZZ so idk what you mean.


speedsolving wiki is a bad source and is wrong
ask people who actually use ZZ
it say Petrus is 50 moves which is totally off,
if you ACTUALLY do splits for yourself you will undestand this fact,
with ZBLL
ZZ is ~51 and petrus is around ~45-44
@RadicalMacaroni help


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 31, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> speedsolving wiki is a bad source and is wrong
> ask people who actually use ZZ
> it say Petrus is 50 moves which is totally off,
> if you ACTUALLY do splits for yourself you will undestand this fact,
> ...


You don't even use ZZ and you probably don't even know a thing about the method so idk why you're even arguing about the movecount. With ZBLL ZZ HAS LESS THAN 50 MOVE GO CHECK PAPASMURF'S VIDEO.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> You don't even use ZZ and you probably don't even know a thing about the method so idk why you're even arguing about the movecount.


I know people that do lol,
and they've said that
litterally the fastest ZZ user said that
also i do use the method,
im sub 11 with it



RiceMan_ said:


> You don't even use ZZ and you probably don't even know a thing about the method so idk why you're even arguing about the movecount. With ZBLL ZZ HAS LESS THAN 50 MOVE GO CHECK PAPASMURF'S VIDEO.


what video,also i was talking about radical macoroni not papasmurf(rad is faster)((no offense to papasmurf btw he's really fast))
edit: @RiceMan_ IT LITTERALLY SAYS EOCROSS VARIANT IS 53.5 MOVES IN HIS VIDEO AND XEOCROSS IS 50.5 SO YOU ARE WRONG UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LINE WHICH IS NO


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 31, 2020)

This entire conversation is messed up


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 31, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I know people that do lol,
> and they've said that
> litterally the fastest ZZ user said that
> also i do use the method,
> ...


its 44 moves with EOLine with EOCross it would be more.
And if you watch Jperm's video (CFOP, ROUX, ZZ comparison) he sais that ZZ has a movecount of 45-55 moves.


Edit: whether its 44 or 50 moves ZZ still has a lower mouve count than CFOP.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 31, 2020)

Calm down everyone. 
ZZ with EOCross is about 50-55 moves. The stats on the wiki are for EOLine.
If you want to reread my post about ZZ>CFOP (but it's quite close), follow this link: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-method-debate-thread.76665/post-1372453


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 31, 2020)

I think method neutrality for the 3x3 can end the debate. No need to go for one method when you can adapt and do some of them simulataneously.

I do Roux+CFOP.


----------



## RiceMan_ (Oct 31, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> I think method neutrality for the 3x3 can end the debate. No need to go for one method when you can adapt and do some of them simulataneously.
> 
> I do Roux+CFOP.


maybe ill do roux+zz


----------



## Spacey10 (Nov 1, 2020)

What about TPS dr CFOP? I guess you can get high tps with ZZ, but CFOP can get 7 consistently.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Nov 1, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> This entire conversation is messed up


What does this have to do with the topic at hand?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 1, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> What about TPS dr CFOP? I guess you can get high tps with ZZ, but CFOP can get 7 consistently.


You can do that with ZZ too.


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 1, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> What about TPS dr CFOP? I guess you can get high tps with ZZ, but CFOP can get 7 consistently.


you could consistently get like 9+ tps if you are inneficient with either actually.
acounting for everything i think the methods have very simular TPS limits


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 2, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> I'm switching to roux


what does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 2, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> maybe ill do roux+zz


Roux + ZZ sounds cool tbh.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 2, 2020)

You could parody some songs with "only Roux" instead of "only you". For example, only you by Cheat Codes and Little Mix. 

I didn't know it existed until now, no, I don't like Little Mix and I don't even know who Cheat Codes are.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 2, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> Roux + ZZ sounds cool tbh.


i would name it RouZZ.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

changed my mind you cant get really fast on big cubes with roux
isnt part of the thread but i dont know where to post this.
but that doesnt mean its worse in 3x3.

im bumping this thread i think again so sorry about that.


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 15, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> changed my mind you cant get really fast on big cubes with roux
> isnt part of the thread but i dont know where to post this.
> but that doesnt mean its worse in 3x3.
> 
> im bumping this thread i think again so sorry about that.


Dwayne ramos uses roux and does meyer on 5x5, is in the top 100 for 5x5 and is still improving


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 15, 2020)

Roux on big cubes is limited by hardware and that's improving all the time. Even if it isn't viable now (I think it is), it will be in the future.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 15, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> Dwayne ramos uses roux and does meyer on 5x5, is in the top 100 for 5x5 and is still improving


noice.
but tell that to @Owen Morrison cause he thinks roux is not good for big cubes 
roux still deserves a chance even if it isnt good.



PapaSmurf said:


> Roux on big cubes is limited by hardware and that's improving all the time. Even if it isn't viable now (I think it is), it will be in the future.


guess this kinda proves it.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Nov 17, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> noice.
> but tell that to @Owen Morrison cause he thinks roux is not good for big cubes
> roux still deserves a chance even if it isnt good.
> 
> ...


Good is used in a different context here. Objectively, due to the turns that are needed to be made, Roux isn't "Good" compared to ZZ Petrus or CFOP, however, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just not great compared to the alternative.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 17, 2020)

Top 3 methods

CFOP
ZB
Roux

CFOP can easily go 10+TPS
ZB is CFOP but you only get a cross case for OLL allowing for 1LLL reducig the alg number from 3916 to 493. This happens EVERY solve using ZB.
Roux has under 50 moves on average. Its pretty good.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Good is used in a different context here. Objectively, due to the turns that are needed to be made, Roux isn't "Good" compared to ZZ Petrus or CFOP, however, that doesn't mean it's bad. It's just not great compared to the alternative.





Kaneki Uchiha said:


> Dwayne ramos uses roux and does meyer on 5x5, is in the top 100 for 5x5 and is still improving



if it isnt "good" then how does Dwayne ramos in the top 100?
He is pretty fast.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Nov 17, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> if it isnt "good" then how does Dwayne ramos in the top 100?
> He is pretty fast.


I don't think that you understand what I'm saying
Roux isn't good as a METHOD for big cubes. That doesn't mean that people cant get fast with it. That's like comparing CFOP to DR and saying CFOP is bad, because comparing it to DR, it is. Roux, as a method, isn't AS good as CFOP, ZZ, or Petrus, but that doesn't mean you can't get good times with it. It just means you could get better times using something else.


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 17, 2020)

Cfop is better for big cubes fue to RUF 3x3 stage being so much more easier than rRUM with roux. But I think as hardware gets better roux might almost be as good as cfop. But even if hardware gets good enough to do m slices properly. Roux without inspection just isn't as good as cfop without inspection.
roux is the best for oh tho


----------



## Owen Morrison (Nov 17, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> Cfop is better for big cubes fue to RUF 3x3 stage being so much more easier than rRUM with roux. But I think as hardware gets better roux might almost be as good as cfop. But even if hardware gets good enough to do m slices properly. Roux without inspection just isn't as good as cfop without inspection.
> roux is the best for oh tho


Also Roux doesn't work with Yau and Meyer is garbage compared to Yau.


----------



## Silky (Nov 17, 2020)

Why do people think that Meyer is so much worse than Yau. It's literally the Yau variant for Roux.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Nov 17, 2020)

Silky said:


> Why do people think that Meyer is so much worse than Yau. It's literally the Yau variant for Roux.


It is a worse version of Yau made for Roux.


----------



## Silky (Nov 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> It is a worse version of Yau made for Roux.


How?

Also to preface: I'm thinking more in terms of 4x4 and 5x5. For 6x6 and 7x7 its pretty clearly worse due to hardware. For 4x4 it's totally viable. 5x5 is debatable but I don't think that it's bad enough to be inferior. It get's complex since redux is really good and Roux with redux has clear problems. But Yau/Meyer seem to be just as viable as redux (maybe I'm wrong here).


----------



## Owen Morrison (Nov 17, 2020)

Silky said:


> How?
> 
> Also to preface: I'm thinking more in terms of 4x4 and 5x5. For 6x6 and 7x7 its pretty clearly worse due to hardware. For 4x4 it's totally viable. 5x5 is debatable but I don't think that it's bad enough to be inferior.


Solving L8E on the M slice is significantly less ergonomic than doing it on the E slice. Also, inserting the 2 corners onto the 3 solved edges makes less freedom available during L8E.


----------



## Silky (Nov 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Solving L8E on the M slice is significantly less ergonomic than doing it on the E slice. Also, inserting the 2 corners onto the 3 solved edges makes less freedom available during L8E.


You can use E-slice with Meyer, this is exactly how Kian teaches it. And for L8E you can just use U-wides/D moves to compensate.


----------



## Spacey10 (Nov 17, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> if it isnt "good" then how does Dwayne ramos in the top 100?
> He is pretty fast.


And about 90% of the top 100 are CFOP users


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I don't think that you understand what I'm saying
> Roux isn't good as a METHOD for big cubes. That doesn't mean that people cant get fast with it. That's like comparing CFOP to DR and saying CFOP is bad, because comparing it to DR, it is. Roux, as a method, isn't AS good as CFOP, ZZ, or Petrus, but that doesn't mean you can't get good times with it. It just means you could get better times using something else.





Owen Morrison said:


> It is a worse version of Yau made for Roux.


yea i guess its not the best for big cubes. If only m slices were easier on big cubes. Its still good tho.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Nov 17, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> And about 90% of the top 100 are CFOP users


Way more than that if you are talking about 5x5.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Way more than that if you are talking about 5x5.


man, all cfop.

1 percent other?


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 17, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> It is a worse version of Yau made for Roux.


meyer was made first. So yau is a better meyer for cfop


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 17, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Top 3 methods
> 
> CFOP
> ZB
> ...


ZZ exists. https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-method-debate-thread.76665/post-1372453


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Nov 17, 2020)

ZZ, I think is kinda bad for 2h cause it is cfop with useless EO. For OH though, ZZ is probably better than cfop and easier to master than roux, but not as good as roux in the long run. I use ZZ for OH and I can get close to my 3x3 tps on RB and LB.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 17, 2020)

EO is not useless. You use fewer moves (50-55 instead of 55-60), you don't rotate, you don't have the worst F2L cases etc. If you haven't, read the linked post in my previous post.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 17, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> ZZ, I think is kinda bad for 2h cause it is cfop with useless EO. For OH though, ZZ is probably better than cfop and easier to master than roux, but not as good as roux in the long run. I use ZZ for OH and I can get close to my 3x3 tps on RB and LB.


hmm which is better: Roux or ZZ?

also theoretically in the speedsolving wiki, it says that a person who knows full ZB could theoretically be faster than a CFOP solver because the movecount is lower. Is that really true?


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Nov 17, 2020)

Roux for 2h and oh. I think zz is better for oh and the same for 2h as CFOP, though



Nir1213 said:


> also theoretically in the speedsolving wiki, it says that a person who knows full ZB could theoretically be faster than a CFOP solver because the movecount is lower. Is that really true?


 If they have the same recognition time as the CFOP solver yes


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 17, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> hmm which is better: Roux or ZZ?


Roux


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 17, 2020)

For OH, Roux. For TH, equal.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 17, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> Roux


oh sorry i meant OH, but 2H was noice to know i guess.



PapaSmurf said:


> For OH, Roux. For TH, equal.


i thought ZZ and Roux might be tied for OH but ok, but for TH i thought roux was going to be a *biiitt *better imo.


----------



## Deleted member 54663 (Nov 17, 2020)

It is quite useful to know different methods. I know cfop and roux(better with cfop), and If I mess up something like an h perm, I can fix it with roux. Also, switching up methods is quite fun sometimes.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 17, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ exists. https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-method-debate-thread.76665/post-1372453


I know it exists but i like ZB CFOP and Roux much better and I am faster with the methods tha ZZ


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Nov 18, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> oh sorry i meant OH, but 2H was noice to know i guess.
> 
> 
> i thought ZZ and Roux might be tied for OH but ok, but for TH i thought roux was going to be a *biiitt *better imo.


I meant oh roux is easily the best because rRUM is such a god moveset


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 18, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I know it exists but i like ZB CFOP and Roux much better and I am faster with the methods tha ZZ


I mean I'm much faster with ZZ than the others. It all depends on what you've practiced, so if we're talking objectively, you can't judge it purely off a subjective experience of 1 person.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Nov 29, 2020)

Isn't the wr single basically with ZZ? I know cfop is his main method, but it was a EOxxcross(actually CPEOxxcross  ) he built, effectively reducing it to RU gen. Is it known if he intentionally oriented all edges?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Nov 29, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Isn't the wr single basically with ZZ? I know cfop is his main method, but it was a EOxxcross(actually CPEOxxcross  ) he built, effectively reducing it to RU gen. Is it known if he intentionally oriented all edges?


You could also make an argument that it’s Petrus. (I would assume) he meant to do CFOP, it just turned out how it did.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 29, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> You could also make an argument that it’s Petrus. (I would assume) he meant to do CFOP, it just turned out how it did.





DNF_Cuber said:


> Isn't the wr single basically with ZZ? I know cfop is his main method, but it was a EOxxcross(actually CPEOxxcross  ) he built, effectively reducing it to RU gen. Is it known if he intentionally oriented all edges?


WHAT DA SCRAMBLE!?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Nov 29, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> WHAT DA SCRAMBLE!?


Look it up, I don’t have it readily available.


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 29, 2020)

Im just gonna put this here:
2H: Roux>ZZ=CFOP>Petrus=LEOR?(Or, Leor is worse because not being able to predict stripe makes it not as efficient for EO 223)
Oh: Roux>ZZ<LEOR>PETRUS>CFOP
(my opinions)


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Nov 29, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Im just gonna put this here:
> 2H: Roux<ZZ=CFOP<Petrus=LEOR?(Or, Leor is worse because not being able to predict stripe makes it not as efficient for EO 223)
> Oh: Roux<ZZ<LEOR<PETRUS<CFOP
> (my opinions)


I think you have those < symbols backwards. The alligator eats the big snack


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 30, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> I think you have those < symbols backwards. The alligator eats the big snack


ya they are didnt mean to put it that way


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 1, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> I think you have those < symbols backwards. The alligator eats the big snack


 The alligator is the best way to remember which sign to use lol.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 1, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> The alligator is the best way to remember which sign to use lol.


nom nom nom


----------



## ProStar (Dec 1, 2020)

*p o t a t o 

best method*


----------



## ZB2op (Dec 1, 2020)

2H: 
1)CFOP
2)Roux
3)ZZ
OH:
1)Roux
2)CFOP
3)ZZ


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 1, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> OH:





ZB2op said:


> 2)CFOP
> 3)ZZ


ZZ is better than CFOP OH IMO


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 1, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *p o t a t o
> 
> best method*


just wire the potato to the rubiks cube and the potato will transfer its energy to the cube so the cube has enough power to solve itself




this is what i call efficiency


----------



## MichaelZRC (Dec 1, 2020)

Optimal list:
1). Petrus 
2). ZZ
3). Rouxduced


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 1, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> 2H:
> 1)CFOP
> 2)Roux
> 3)ZZ
> ...


nah roux and cfop are tied. In oh cfop and zz are tied too, IMO.


MichaelZRC said:


> Optimal list:
> 1). Petrus
> 2). ZZ
> 3). Rouxduced


no wonder why everyone says "or you can use petrus"
petrus is nice


----------



## Scollier (Dec 1, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> Optimal list:
> 1). Petrus
> 2). ZZ
> 3). Rouxduced



CFOP is so much better than Petrus bc there is less thinking. You can't get fast enough TPS to get good times if you use Petrus over CFOP.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 1, 2020)

Scollier said:


> CFOP is so much better than Petrus bc there is less thinking. You can't get fast enough TPS to get good times if you use Petrus over CFOP.


i feel like petrus has much more possibilities tho. If you are a fast thin*cc*er you can do Petrus pretty fast.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 1, 2020)

Ya know @MichaelZRC was talking movecount, right?


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 1, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Ya know @MichaelZRC was talking movecount, right?


no?


----------



## MichaelZRC (Dec 2, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Ya know @MichaelZRC was talking movecount, right?


I wasn't?


Scollier said:


> CFOP is so much better than Petrus bc there is less thinking. You can't get fast enough TPS to get good times if you use Petrus over CFOP.


Although CFOP requires less thinking, petrus is much more efficient, and still doesn't need too much thinking, with 223 planned in inspection, and EO being algorithmic.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> I wasn't?
> 
> Although CFOP requires less thinking, petrus is much more efficient, and still doesn't need too much thinking, with 223 planned in inspection, and EO being algorithmic.


Okay I thought you meant movecount since you said things like


MichaelZRC said:


> Optimal


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 2, 2020)

If you use bottom edge f2l pairs for Last side than the only step that requires a decent amount of thinking is 223 and because it can be done in inspect that doesn't really matter, the real issue with petrus is does the efficiency make up for ergo and make petrus have higher ((total)) tps capability.
this is the only factor that really matters if you are comparing methods potential because it shows how far methods can go in comparison because most methods comparing pros and cons gets you nowhere.
A solve with 45 moves that is 6 seconds takes 7.5 moves,
A solve with 55 moves that is 6 seconds takes ~9.17 moves.
So you have to say is that amount of tps possible with petrus? what is petruses limit?
If you think lets say you can have 45 move efficiency and 8.5 tps you can average 5.29, so I think with ZBLL petrus has alot of potential if you can increase overall tps to its near max with the method.
(223 in inspect, Algorithmic EO and very good EO recog, ZBLL)
((Im not saying petrus is better than CFOP here btw this is just me saying why I think petrus is good))


----------



## the dnf master (Dec 2, 2020)

3-style is the best


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 2, 2020)

the dnf master said:


> 3-style is the best


lol no
(not nearly as efficient as normal speed-solving methods and to inspection reliant)


----------



## ProStar (Dec 2, 2020)

Disclaimer: 100% my opinion, based on almost no facts.

3x3: CFOP = Roux > ZZ
OH: Roux > ZZ > CFOP
4x4: Yau > Hoya
5x5: Yau5 > Redux > Yau
Pyraminx: L4E > Top-First


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Disclaimer: 100% my opinion, based on almost no facts.
> 
> 3x3: CFOP = Roux > ZZ
> OH: Roux > ZZ > CFOP
> ...


I completely agree EXCEPT that I think top first is king


----------



## Owen Morrison (Dec 2, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Disclaimer: 100% my opinion, based on almost no facts.
> 
> 3x3: CFOP = Roux > ZZ
> OH: Roux > ZZ > CFOP
> ...


Yau5 is garbage, normal Yau is much better.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 2, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Yau5 is garbage, normal Yau is much better.



*me who uses yau5*


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *me who uses yau5*


what's the difference?
EDIT:I figured it out on the wiki, turns out I use normal yau


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 2, 2020)

Facts:
TH - ZZ=Roux=>CFOP (depends on how many algs you know)>LEOR=>Petrus (not sure how confident I am on this one). 
OH - Roux>LEOR=>ZZ>CFOP=Petrus
4x4 -Yau=>my direct solving method=Meyer=LEOR>Redux
5x5+ - Redux>other methods


----------



## Scollier (Dec 2, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Facts:
> TH - ZZ=Roux=>CFOP (depends on how many algs you know)>LEOR=>Petrus (not sure how confident I am on this one).



The Facts:

For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented *before *ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 2, 2020)

Scollier said:


> The Facts:
> 
> For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented *before *ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.


Cfop is just a ripoff of lbl which is a ripoff of corners first so obviously corners first is the best using your stupid logic,
also I didnt know you could combine every bad argument and put it into one post hmm...


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

Scollier said:


> The Facts:
> 
> For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented *before *ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.


that is trash logic. I agree with you but I mean what did you have going on in your head there


----------



## fun at the joy (Dec 2, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Cfop is just a ripoff of lbl which is a ripoff of corners first so obviously corners first is the best using your stupid logic,
> also I didnt know you could combine every bad argument and put it into one post hmm...


How is lbl a corners first ripoff?


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 2, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> How is lbl a corners first ripoff?


because corners first was before it(also im saying by his logic)
which would make it a ripoff of cf
(which is what he was saying about ZZ)


----------



## fun at the joy (Dec 2, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> because corners first was before it(also im saying by his logic)
> which would make it a ripoff of cf
> (which is what he was saying about ZZ)


Yeah but Corners First and LBL aren't similar besides being solving methods.
Obviously Scollier's argument doesn't really make sense but your logic was even worse.


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 2, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> Yeah but Corners First and LBL aren't similar besides being solving methods.
> Obviously Scollier's argument doesn't really make sense but your logic was even worse.


Im making fun of his logic explaining the falisy it isnt MY logic im showing why HIS logic doesnt make since,
he said ZZ was a ripoff of cfop because Cfop was OLDER,
so by that logic LBL is a ripoff of CF because CF is OLDER


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 2, 2020)

isnt corners first solving the corners, then the edges?
LBL is about solving the edges, then corners, then do the edges for the second layer, and do the edge on the last layer, then fix the corners.
These are different steps, so no, LBL is not a ripoff of corners first.



Scollier said:


> The Facts:
> 
> For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented *before *ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.


what the heck, i guess your right about zz being a ripoff of cfop, as it took cfops idea, and decided to make it so it has less to no rotations. But the wr stuff is dumb. That argument is not really good, you can make a better argument by saying that zz has many regrips or something.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> what the heck, i guess your right about zz being a ripoff of cfop, as it took cfops idea, and decided to make it so it has less to no rotations. But the wr stuff is dumb. That argument is not really good, you can make a better argument by saying that zz has many regrips or something.


Well by that logic we should use room-size computers from the early 60's since our modern ones are rip offs


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 2, 2020)

My opinions on popular methods for each event

2x2
EG is best. CLL is a good subset of EG that is almost as good, and it has less algs.

3x3:
- CFOP is good, it emphasizes TPS and has great lookahead. Its main weakness is efficiency.
- Roux is at least as good as CFOP, if not better. I am switching to Roux because I think it has more potential. Blockbuilding in Roux is much more efficient than CFOP F2L, and CMLL+LSE is more efficient than OLL/PLL (although it's usually slower because of the M moves).
- Pure ZZ is objectively worse than CFOP, however ZZ-cross might have potential, but I don't know enough about it to say much.
- Petrus is good for FMC. But for speedsolving it's simply worse compared to CFOP, Roux or ZZ. Efficiency is remarkable but there's too much thinking required.

4x4:
Yau is best for CFOP users, Meyer for Roux users

5x5:
For CFOP users, redux and yau are about as good as each other. Yau has better lookahead for edges, redux has more efficient centers
For Roux users just use redux, meyer on 5x5 sucks imo

6x6+:
redux

pyra:
L4E and top-first methods are equally good

mega:
westlund and da-hyun methods are the same basically. balint is more efficient than westlund, but lookahead is harder

square-1:
vandenbergh has easier lookahead and is algorithmic, lin is more efficient and has more blockbuilding

skewb:
skewb is dumb bc it's just spamming sledge and hedge smh.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> L4E is probably the best, I never tried top-first methods though


argghh learn oka or one flip, it is like so easy


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 2, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> argghh learn oka or one flip, it is like so easy


i don't really do pyra. maybe oka is better idk


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> i don't really do pyra. maybe oka is better idk


Yeah, one flip is really probably the best, I think that most top pyra-ers use it


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 2, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Yeah, one flip is really probably the best, I think that most top pyra-ers use it


There's lots of top pyarminxers who use l4e too, i guess l4e and top-first methods are equal


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 2, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Well by that logic we should use room-size computers from the early 60's since our modern ones are rip offs


your right.. Didnt think about that.

anyway the maker of ZZ wanted to make cfop better, by making sure that you dont have to rotate at ZZ at all, it made it worse for TH, but for OH it is pretty amazing since you dont have to rotate, and rotating in OH takes time.



ProStar said:


> Disclaimer: 100% my opinion, based on almost no facts.
> 
> 3x3: CFOP = Roux > ZZ
> OH: Roux > ZZ > CFOP
> ...


i completely agree except i think ZZ is better than roux in OH, and roux is the same with Cfop, maybe a bit better.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 2, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i completely agree except i think ZZ is better than roux in OH, and roux is the same with Cfop, maybe a bit better.


Do you even know how roux works?


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 2, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Do you even know how roux works?


no. Your right


----------



## Silky (Dec 2, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> vandenbergh has easier lookahead and is algorithmic, lin is more efficient and has more blockbuilding


Lin is actually less efficient than Vandenburgh ( unless you use PLL+1 in which case it should be as efficient ) and ( Lin ) has better lookahead ( imo but I've never really used Vandenburgh. I seems with Lin tracing pieces is much easier ).


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 2, 2020)

Silky said:


> Lin is actually less efficient than Vandenburgh ( unless you use PLL+1 in which case it should be as efficient ) and ( Lin ) has better lookahead ( imo but I've never really used Vandenburgh. I seems with Lin tracing pieces is much easier ).


interesting, I always thought lin was more efficient and had worse lookahead

BTW Yau5 is worse than Yau for 5x5


----------



## Silky (Dec 2, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> interesting, I always thought lin was more efficient and had worse lookahead


I used to think the same about efficiency, drawing parallels to 3x3 where blockbuilding is almost always more efficient, but Vandenburgh algorithms are just more optimized than Lin blockbuilding. You'd have to ask @Sub1Hour about lookahead because I'm not entirely sure but with Lin it's really easy to trace pieces for FB making it almost free after cubeshape and SB isn't really that bad. In general with Lin you're not tracing nearly as many pieces between steps, where in Vandenburgh you need to trace 8 pieces for EO, EP, and CP respectively ( obviously not all pieces but definitely more than Lin ).


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 3, 2020)

Scollier said:


> The Facts:
> 
> For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented *before *ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.


As everyone has pointed out, this is flawed logic. 

The point of ZZ wasn't for an improved CFOP, the point of ZZ is to reduce the cube. <RULDBF> to <RUL> to <RU>. Unfortunately, reduction to <RU> is pretty difficult to do, especially mid solve, as well as bad recog, so instead you settle with reduction to <RUL> for F2L. So it isn't copying CFOP.

Get to 2017, ZZ isn't doing great, so people start optimising blocks for TH by using EOCross, not to copy CFOP, but because it happens to be the fastest way of doing blocks normally (unless you get good blockbuilding solutions). In CFOP, people have been doing XCrosses for a while, not to copy Petrus, but because it is faster. Remember, in ZZ you orientate all the edges - that's a significant thing to do, so not very copying. 

Now, let's look at the amount of improvement with each method.

CFOP has been around for ~40 years (give and take), ZZ ~15. The fastest CFOP solvers after 15 years were not sub 8. Therefore, due to the rate of improvement, ZZ is better. 'Bad logic' I hear you cry. I agree. The thing is, stats outside the method itself are pretty useless as there are so many factors outside of the method that they dominate. Instead, I would recommend you check this post out. Read it and give good consideration to the argument, then decide what you think about ZZ properly.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Dec 3, 2020)

hexacuber said:


> interesting, I always thought lin was more efficient and had worse lookahead


The algorithmic nature of Vandenburgh makes it super easy to look ahead if you know what your algs do to each piece. Theoretically after doing CO you wouldn’t have to look at the cube again if you knew what pieces would go where during your algs for the last 3 steps


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 5, 2020)

This might be controversial... but I think these are the best methods for the events I do. (I use the methods that are bolded)
2x2: EG > *CLL*
3x3: *CFOP* = Roux > ZZ
4x4: *Yau* > Redux
5x5: *Yau* = Redux > Yau5
3x3 OH: Roux > *CFOP* = ZZ (I'm planning on switching to Roux)
3x3 BLD: 3-style > *M2/OP* > OP/OP
Megaminx: *Westlund* = Yu Da-hyun > Balint
Pyraminx: *L4E* = top-first methods
Skewb: Sarah's advanced > *Sarah's intermediate* > Sarah's beginner
Square-1: *Vandenbergh* = Lin

edit: Some of my opinions have changed


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 5, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> This might be controversial... but I think these are the best methods for the events I do.
> 2x2 (i use CLL): EG
> 3x3 (i use CFOP): CFOP = Roux < ZZ
> 4x4 (i use Yau): Yau < Redux
> ...


this is mainly pretty standard but for OH roux is definitely better and ~probably(opinion) better than ZZ, most people agree on this.


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Dec 5, 2020)

how is roux equal to cfop in oh
lmao


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 5, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> how is roux equal to cfop in oh
> lmao


Roux might actually be better than CFOP for OH. It's insanely efficient, and efficiency is arguably the most important thing for OH. Have you ever seen a Roux OH solver? Kian is almost sub 10 OH with Roux.


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 5, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> Roux might actually be better than CFOP for OH. It's insanely efficient, and efficiency is arguably the most important thing for OH. Have you ever seen a Roux OH solver? Kian is almost sub 10 OH with Roux.


its not might,it is
if quarantine wasnt happening the records for OH would be being set by roux solvers rn


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Dec 6, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> Roux might actually be better than CFOP for OH. It's insanely efficient, and efficiency is arguably the most important thing for OH. Have you ever seen a Roux OH solver? Kian is almost sub 10 OH with Roux.


I meant that roux is way better than cfop for oh.
You saying that cfop=roux is stupid because roux is way better


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 6, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> I meant that roux is way better than cfop for oh.
> You saying that cfop=roux is stupid because roux is way better


Oh lol sorry my bad


----------



## RiceMan_ (Dec 6, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> Roux might actually be better than CFOP for OH. It's insanely efficient, and efficiency is arguably the most important thing for OH. Have you ever seen a Roux OH solver? Kian is almost sub 10 OH with Roux.


kian quit cubing lol


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 6, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> kian quit cubing lol


noooooo why



ObscureCuber said:


> this is mainly pretty standard but for OH roux is definitely better and ~probably(opinion) better than ZZ, most people agree on this.


Ok i'm convinced that roux > cfop for OH. I might switch


----------



## carcass (Dec 6, 2020)

I use Ortega/lbl on 2x2, on 3x3 cfop, on 4x4 and 5x5 i use yau, NOT YAU5, and on 6x6 and 7x7 I use Hoya. Does anyone think I should change one of the methods?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 6, 2020)

carcass said:


> I use Ortega/lbl on 2x2, on 3x3 cfop, on 4x4 and 5x5 i use yau, NOT YAU5, and on 6x6 and 7x7 I use Hoya. Does anyone think I should change one of the methods?


I would learn all of the Ortega algs on 2x2 if you haven’t already, and switch to either Redux or Yau for 6 and 7.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 6, 2020)

carcass said:


> I use Ortega/lbl on 2x2, on 3x3 cfop, on 4x4 and 5x5 i use yau, NOT YAU5, and on 6x6 and 7x7 I use Hoya. Does anyone think I should change one of the methods?


On 2x2 if you are willing to learn algs, CLL or even full EG would be better than ortega/lbl. Other than that I think redux is best on 7x7, but you could use either yau or redux on 6x6


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 7, 2020)

I think the main methods for 3x3 are CFOP and Roux. Of course there are many other methods (ZZ, Petrus, etc.) all which might even be equal to CFOP/Roux, but for sake of simplicity I made this post so that it's only CFOP and Roux.



Spoiler: CFOP



Pros:
- Excellent lookahead
- Mostly 2-gen (RU)
- Little thinking is required
- High TPS because of the previous points
Cons:
- Inefficient
- Rotations
- Primarily alg-based, which can get boring





Spoiler: Roux



Pros:
- Efficient
- Intuitive
- Very few algs needed
- Rotationless (but rotations can be used if desired)
Cons:
- Lookahead is harder
- More thinking
- MU moves are slower than RU



Personally I think:
CFOP = Roux for 3x3
CFOP < Roux for OH
CFOP > Roux for big cubes


----------



## Scollier (Dec 7, 2020)

I don't think I will engage in this debate because I will be destroyed for my logic


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Dec 7, 2020)

Well, as more people use CFOP than Roux, there have been more developments in CFOP, things like multislotting and countless tutorials on all things CFOP. We haven’t seen that as much with roux because less people use it. So I think that currently CFOP is better (for standard 3x3), but if you are talking about potential for the method I would say they are equal or even give roux the advantage


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 7, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> On 2x2 if you are willing to learn algs, CLL or even full EG would be better than ortega/lbl. Other than that I think redux is best on 7x7, but you could use either yau or redux on 6x6


I think Redux > Yau for 6x6 too
Don't take my opinion seriously though, I don't really do 6x6.


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 7, 2020)

I have been method neutral since 2018, using both CFOP and Roux in my official 3x3 and OH solves. I am global 10 seconds with both the methods.


----------



## ZB2op (Dec 7, 2020)

My thoughts on all the NxNs
2x2: EG. No debate here
3x3: CFOP. Roux isn't far off
4x4: Yau. No debate here
5x5-7x7: Redux. On 5x5 Yau isn't much worse but 6x6 and 7x7 there is no debate.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 7, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> 5x5-7x7: Redux. On 5x5 Yau isn't much worse but 6x6 and 7x7 there is no debate.


I don't know about that, Ciaran Beahan uses yau on big cubes and he is extremely fast.


----------



## ZB2op (Dec 7, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> I don't know about that, Ciaran Beahan uses yau on big cubes and he is extremely fast.


But then there's Max Park.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 7, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> I don't know about that, Ciaran Beahan uses yau on big cubes and he is extremely fast.


6x6 and 7x7 Yau i think *could* be equal to redux, but it's extremely annoying to do yau on 6x6+ because the centers are difficult and having to preserve cross edges makes it a nightmare


----------



## Eamon (Dec 7, 2020)

i use yau for all big cubes


----------



## ZB2op (Dec 7, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> Pros:
> - Excellent lookahead
> - Mostly 2-gen (RU)


It's not mostly 2 gen because f2l is RUL gen and LL is RUF or RUL



Alex Davison said:


> MU moves are slower than RU


If your point here is that Roux has slow turning, the best roux solvers can easily get well over 10 tps on LSE which is the bit that is all MU.

All other points are valid.


----------



## the dnf master (Dec 7, 2020)

Well there isn't exactly a beginner's variation for roux, so it would be a lot harder to learn


----------



## MJS Cubing (Dec 7, 2020)

There’s already a method debate thread for things like this.


----------



## MJS Cubing (Dec 7, 2020)

the dnf master said:


> Well there isn't exactly a beginner's variation for roux, so it would be a lot harder to learn


There isn’t many algs in Roux though. Not that I’m advocating for Roux, because beginners method is a lot easier to learn than CFOP or Roux. However, I think the reason most people use CFOP is because once you learn the beginners method, it is not really different. Intuitive f2l+4lll=like 10 or 20 algs, so it’s not too hard to start CFOP from beginners. Roux from beginners is a whole new method, and therefore is harder to learn. Also, M moves are not really finger tricks you would expect a beginner to know.


----------



## U_Turn_Cuber (Dec 7, 2020)

What I like so much about Roux is that the only few limitations that you have sre just the steps. For example you can go ahead and do the first edge of the second block than the first pair of the first block insert the first edge of the first block and so one. The only algs that you need is 2x2 OLL and a J and Y Perm. So the most important skill that you have to learn before you can get deeply into Roux is understanding how the cube works and after that it's really easy.


----------



## Garf (Dec 7, 2020)

CFOP. Useful for Yau on big cubes, such as 4x4, 5x5, etc.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 8, 2020)

@DNF_Cuber I figured I could move it to this thread, so that we don’t clog the other one.


DNF_Cuber said:


> and people say this is more efficient than roux


I don’t think it’s more efficient, I think it’s about 5-10 moves more, but some people (including myself) suck at blockbuilding. I think it can be around 45 moves with ZBLL (which is obviously ideal).


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 8, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> @DNF_Cuber I figured I could move it to this thread, so that we don’t clog the other one.
> 
> I don’t think it’s more efficient, I think it’s about 5-10 moves more, but some people (including myself) suck at blockbuilding. I think it can be around 45 moves with ZBLL (which is obviously ideal).


Yeah, I find Roux blockbuilding way easier, plus with beginner alg load roux L10p is way easier than petrus LL movecount wise


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 9, 2020)

wait if roux is better than cfop in oh then why is cfop used in oh WR?? doesnt make sense

im not saying cfop is better than roux its totally the other way


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> wait if roux is better than cfop in oh then why is cfop used in oh WR?? doesnt make sense
> 
> im not saying cfop is better than roux its totally the other way


kian doesn't practice OH anymore


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 9, 2020)

Eamon said:


> kian doesn't practice OH anymore


there must be other people who are good at oh roux right?


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 9, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> there must be other people who are good at oh roux right?


 It isn't all that popular, with the overwhelming use of CFOP it is amazing that roux had the OH WR even once, which I think shows that Roux OH is better. Luri Grangerio and Tudor Lin have the 4th and 6th best OH averages with Roux though


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> there must be other people who are good at oh roux right?


yeah....there are only a few fast cubers who uses roux, like sean, kian, alex(he pretty much quit cubing). sean doesn't practice OH that much(he's not sub 15 lol). and kian doesn't practice OH much recently, so max park.....


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 9, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> there must be other people who are good at oh roux right?


I think there's a lot of people who are really good at Roux OH, but no one knows about them yet because all comps were cancelled recently


----------



## Garf (Dec 9, 2020)

Here's my opinion:
2x2: Ortega, but cll when bottom layer is fully solved.
3x3: Cfop, but roux when necessary.
4x4: Yau
5x5: Redux.
Sq-1: Screw
Pyraminx: KeyHole
Megaminx: Star, F2l, S2l, 2-look Oll, 2-look Pll.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> 2x2: Ortega, but cll when bottom layer is fully solved.



No.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> 2x2: Ortega, but cll when bottom layer is fully solved.



Assuming you don't know EG (which is best), Ortega shouldn't be used often if you know CLL. You can force cases where bottom layer is solved so that you can use CLL, which is better than doing Ortega



TheEpicCuber said:


> Sq-1: Screw



Screw is bad. Vandenbergh and Lin are objectively better



TheEpicCuber said:


> Megaminx: Star, F2l, S2l, 2-look Oll, 2-look Pll.



That's called Westlund


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> Here's my opinion:
> 2x2: Ortega, but cll when bottom layer is fully solved.
> 3x3: Cfop, but roux when necessary.
> 4x4: Yau
> ...


EG for 2x2 is objectively the best
5x5, yau or redux are the best
1-flip for pyraminx is the best imo


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> 2x2: Ortega, but cll when bottom layer is fully solved.


Just no. EG+CLL is miles ahead of Ortega.


TheEpicCuber said:


> 3x3: Cfop, but roux when necessary.


I'm not going to get into this debate, but I use CFOP. And are you saying that you should be method neutral with CFOP and Roux? If so, that's not true at all.


TheEpicCuber said:


> 4x4: Yau


Yes


TheEpicCuber said:


> 5x5: Redux.


I think Yau is better, but a lot of people will disagree.


TheEpicCuber said:


> Sq-1: Screw


Just no again. Vandenbergh is way better, and Lin is about the same, although I would say it's slightly worse.


TheEpicCuber said:


> Pyraminx: KeyHole


I'm not even sure what this is on pyraminx, but no again. L4E or Top First are way better.


TheEpicCuber said:


> Megaminx: Star, F2l, S2l, 2-look Oll, 2-look Pll.


Obviously Westlund with 2LLL is optimal, but a lot of people aren't going to go through the work of learning 1-look PLL and 1-look OLL for megaminx.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 9, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> I think Yau is better, but a lot of people will disagree.



I think Yau = Redux for 5x5


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> Pyraminx: KeyHole


Key hole is like beginner top first, it is greatly improved on with Oka and One Flip


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

Oka is a great intermidiate method, but it's not as good as keyhole imo


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 9, 2020)

I think top-first methods (keyhole, oka, 1-flip, etc) are equal to L4E. But L4E is more straightforward imo


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 9, 2020)

Eamon said:


> Oka is a great intermidiate method, but it's not as good as keyhole imo


Oka is higher level than keyhole actually. Yohei Oka set many world records back in the day


----------



## Seth1448 (Dec 9, 2020)

I think yau is best for 4x4 and redux is great for 5x5


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 9, 2020)

Seth1448 said:


> I think yau is best for 4x4 and redux is great for 5x5


Wow, I wonder if Yau has been the only 4x4 method to set WRs for several years.Oh, it has


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Oka is higher level than keyhole actually. Yohei Oka set many world records back in the day


ok, i am faster with keyhole than with oka


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 9, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Yeah, I find Roux blockbuilding way easier, plus with beginner alg load roux L10p is way easier than petrus LL movecount wise


petrus with oll/pll/coll/pll is still more efficient than roux


----------



## Garf (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> 3x3: Cfop, but roux when necessary.


When I first got into speedcubing and was learning CFOP, I stumbled across Roux. A few days ago, I learned LSE. That's why I say to be method neutral. You may not agree.

Although, now to think of it, I'd rather stick to one method of the other. Roux or CFOP? CMLL or OLL and PLL?


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> Although, now to think of it, I'd rather stick to one method of the other. Roux or CFOP? CMLL or OLL and PLL?


It depends on you and how you like to solve. Do you like intuitive solving and making your solves as efficient as possible? Or do you like more straightforward solving and spamming TPS?


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

i don't think it's worth it to be MN, sticking with one method might be better as you don't have to think about what method are you gonna use for this solve, if you only use 1 method, you can go into what you are going to do for this method.


----------



## Garf (Dec 9, 2020)

I want to have better tps, but also I want to be efficient. Besides, I almost know full Oll and Pll and just need 2 dot cases.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> I want to have better tps, but also I want to be efficient. Besides, I almost know full Oll and Pll and just need 2 dot cases.


Do you care about events other than 3x3? Roux is good for 3x3 OH, being good at CFOP is helpful for big cubes and megaminx


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> I want to have better tps, but also I want to be efficient. Besides, I almost know full Oll and Pll and just need 2 dot cases.


work on eficiency first. i am sub 8.4, and i only have ABOUT 5 tps, being efficient is very imporant if you want to improve


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 9, 2020)

TheEpicCuber said:


> Although, now to think of it, I'd rather stick to one method of the other. Roux or CFOP? CMLL or OLL and PLL?


honestly I would recommend Roux as I think its easier to improve, and just overall a better method
It also teaches you more about the cube


----------



## fun at the joy (Dec 9, 2020)

Eamon said:


> and i only have 5 tps


except you don't


----------



## ProStar (Dec 9, 2020)

Eamon said:


> work on eficiency first. *i am sub 8.4*, and* i only have 5 tps*, being efficient is very imporant if you want to improve



Wanna teach Max how to get ~42 moves per solve?


----------



## Garf (Dec 9, 2020)

> Do you care about events other than 3x3? Roux is good for 3x3 OH, being good at CFOP is helpful for big cubes and megaminx


I do other event, like big cubes and megaminx, but I get 1 minute in OH.


> work on eficiency first. i am sub 8.4, and i only have 5 tps, being efficient is very imporant if you want to improve


I'll try that.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 9, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Wanna teach Max how to get ~42 moves per solve?


IKR, like at that point the only speedsolving methods that can get that efficiency are 42(duh) and Petrus


----------



## Eamon (Dec 9, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Wanna teach Max how to get ~42 moves per solve?


sure! how am i gonna contact him?


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 10, 2020)

Eamon said:


> sure! how am i gonna contact him?


non cuber videos be like "OMG I CALLED MAX PARK AT 3 AM *GONE WRONG*
jk but i dont think anyone knows his phone number except his friends probably.


DNF_Cuber said:


> IKR, like at that point the only speedsolving methods that can get that efficiency are 42(duh) and Petrus


you forgot Roux.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 10, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> you forgot Roux.


Roux averages 48


----------



## Deleted member 54663 (Dec 10, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Roux averages 48


if you have 1 hour and you can do as many rotations as you want, you can easily get below 45 with roux.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 10, 2020)

JP cubing said:


> if you have 1 hour and you can do as many rotations as you want, you can easily get below 45 with roux.


I am talking about in an actual speedsolve. Eamon was saying he had 42 movecount with CFOP and 5 tps


----------



## ProStar (Dec 10, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> I am talking about in an actual speedsolve. Eamon was saying he had 42 movecount with CFOP and 5 tps



Which is BS


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 10, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Which is BS


I know, I was arguing that that would be virtually impossible


----------



## Owen Morrison (Dec 10, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> That's called Westlund


That is also called Yu Da Hyun, Balint, and a bunch of other methods.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 10, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> That is also called Yu Da Hyun, Balint, and a bunch of other methods.


Balint is different I think


----------



## Owen Morrison (Dec 10, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> Balint is different I think


Balint is still the same thing as what he said "Star, F2L, S2L, 2 Look OLL, 2 Look PLL."


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 10, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Balint is still the same thing as what he said "Star, F2L, S2L, 2 Look OLL, 2 Look PLL."


Oh yeah ig


----------



## ProStar (Dec 10, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> Balint is different I think



The different main methods are mostly just S2L style differences


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 10, 2020)

ProStar said:


> The different main methods are mostly just S2L style differences


ik


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Dec 11, 2020)

some people avg 42-45 moves with roux


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 11, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> some people avg 42-45 moves with roux


In TH, turning quickly, no one averages under 45 moves with Roux. Speedsolving, most people who are fast average about 47-48, with a few who average over 50 (Sean for example).


----------



## RiceMan_ (Dec 11, 2020)

Eamon said:


> work on eficiency first. i am sub 8.4, and i only have 5 tps, being efficient is very imporant if you want to improve


Are you sure you past your math class cuz 8.4 x 5 = 42 and CFOP has a average of 60 moves per solves.


----------



## Eamon (Dec 11, 2020)

i'm not sure about the tps thing, it's an estimate, but i do average low 8


----------



## JakeCanSolve (Dec 13, 2020)

im new to cubing, im still using the biginners method, I want to know what speedcubing method should I use?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 13, 2020)

JakeCanSolve said:


> im new to cubing, im still using the biginners method, I want to know what speedcubing method should I use?



I'd recommend looking at the three main Speedcubing methods: CFOP, Roux, and ZZ. CFOP is the most popular and easiest to switch to, but Roux and ZZ are just as good. You should look at all of them and decide what you like best


----------



## JakeCanSolve (Dec 13, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'd recommend looking at the three main Speedcubing methods: CFOP, Roux, and ZZ. CFOP is the most popular and easiest to switch to, but Roux and ZZ are just as good. You should look at all of them and decide what you like best


I think i'm gonna learn roux.


----------



## NarcolepticFlarp (Dec 16, 2020)

Hello All,
I've been solving twisty puzzles for years, but I never cared about speed. However, now I am flirting with the idea of trying to get vaguely fast (lets say sub 30 seconds). I know around five (often slow) methods to solve 3x3, but I haven't dug deep into any of the big three. Of the three I would definitely go for ZZ, purely because I find it to be the most interesting. But after watching stuff and reading about ZZ I started wondering, why is ZZ significantly faster than Petrus? It seems to me like F2L for both methods is pretty similar, just in a different order. And in both you get EOLL for free. I know with ZZ there are things like Phasing and WV, but is that the only gain you get from doing ZZ?

Sorry if this is really obvious and I'm just missed something. Thanks!


----------



## Scollier (Dec 16, 2020)

Is ZZ obviously actually faster than Petrus though? That is highly arguable.

Also, congrats on your first post!


----------



## NarcolepticFlarp (Dec 16, 2020)

Scollier said:


> Is ZZ obviously actually faster than Petrus though? That is highly arguable.
> 
> Also, congrats on your first post!


Interesting, that is good to know. Any idea why ZZ is considered viable for speedcubing whereas Petrus is regarded as antiquated?

And thanks


----------



## Silky (Dec 16, 2020)

NarcolepticFlarp said:


> Interesting, that is good to know. Any idea why ZZ is considered viable for speedcubing whereas Petrus is regarded as antiquated?
> 
> And thanks


To preface, I think that Petrus is at least as good as ZZ given that they are tangentially related methods. Generally, ZZ is considered better than Petrus because it has a higher TPS cap and is more ergonomic with <R,U,L> reduction during F2L. The other part of it is that Petrus had very little development since 2003 where ZZ has blossomed in the last few years. That being said, People like @petrus have make great efforts to revamp the method and up until recently there Petrus had very similar unofficial averages to ZZ. Hopefully we will see further advancement in Petrus in the years to come..

Also Petrus has rotation where ZZ doesn't.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 17, 2020)

Silky said:


> Also Petrus has rotation where ZZ doesn't.



to counteract with that, ZZ has more regrips than Petrus.


----------



## carcass (Dec 17, 2020)

Balint, Westlund, or Yu Da Hyun on Megaminx? I use Balint


----------



## Silky (Dec 17, 2020)

Does anyone have thoughts on VDW method? It looks like it have very good potential but only if you can consistently plan bars + CLL. If not, it seems like a worse version of LMCF/Roux


----------



## Tao Yu (Dec 17, 2020)

Silky said:


> Does anyone have thoughts on VDW method? It looks like it have very good potential but only if you can consistently plan bars + CLL. If not, it seems like a worse version of LMCF/Roux



LR looks like a terrible step. I can see no way how the supposed advantages gained in other steps could come close to making up for it.

This looks like such a Roux wannabe method, it's like Roux is a great idea, and we can't think of a way to make it better so instead, let's just make a totally illogical version and call it a method. 

Frankly, the fact that method development is like this these days is why I find it totally uninteresting. It's literally just solve EO EP CO CP in a random order.


----------



## Silky (Dec 17, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> LR looks like a terrible step. I can see no way how the supposed advantages gained in other steps could come close to making up for it.
> 
> This looks like such a Roux wannabe method, it's like Roux is a great idea, and we can't think of a way to make it better so instead, let's just make a totally illogical version and call it a method.
> 
> Frankly, the fact that method development is like this these days is why I find it totally uninteresting. It's literally just solve EO EP CO CP in a random order.


Well heck. an you go more into your opinion on method development
?


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 17, 2020)

carcass said:


> Balint, Westlund, or Yu Da Hyun on Megaminx? I use Balint


Most use westlund, but Yu Da Hyun is similar and it has proven itself to be fast. I used to use balint, but I couldn't blockbuild very well, so unless you can do that excellently, then switch.


----------



## efattah (Dec 17, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> LR looks like a terrible step. I can see no way how the supposed advantages gained in other steps could come close to making up for it.



Indeed LR does look like a bad step. However, recently I was re-generating certain 'bad cases' of LMCF algorithms, and cube explorer spit out something that looked awful, but ended up pretty good, I call it the sexE move:
U' L E' L' U' L E L'
This is basically the sexy move except some of the U moves are replaced with E moves. I thought it would be crap. But on a properly tuned cube, after some drilling, I can consistently do it in 0.90 seconds (8.88tps) and I'm a very slow turner (3-4 tps average on full solves). I think an expert could do this in 0.50 seconds. The same mirror exists on the R/U/E set. This weird trigger opens up a large number of possibilities for move reduction in LMCF and also (possibly) makes certain methods like Mehta that require E moves somewhat more practical. I'm curious if a fast turner here can try this trigger, try timing 10 repetitions of the sexE move and then divide by 10 to see how long it takes you. Personally I find the ULEL version easier than the URER version.


----------



## G2013 (Dec 17, 2020)

efattah said:


> However, recently I was re-generating certain 'bad cases' of LMCF algorithms, and cube explorer spit out something that looked awful, but ended up pretty good, I call it the sexE move



Expanded Cell Ver. of Max's Algs


----------



## Tao Yu (Dec 17, 2020)

Silky said:


> Well heck. an you go more into your opinion on method development
> ?



I feel like it's just the same story over and over again. Before I open up any method description I know it will just be solving things in some random order. And methods just never go anywhere, it always just ends up with the creator sticking with it and having like a 14 second average. I just think there are more interesting things in cubing. I have nothing against other people being interested it though.



efattah said:


> Indeed LR does look like a bad step. However, recently I was re-generating certain 'bad cases' of LMCF algorithms, and cube explorer spit out something that looked awful, but ended up pretty good, I call it the sexE move:
> U' L E' L' U' L E L'
> This is basically the sexy move except some of the U moves are replaced with E moves. I thought it would be crap. But on a properly tuned cube, after some drilling, I can consistently do it in 0.90 seconds (8.88tps) and I'm a very slow turner (3-4 tps average on full solves). I think an expert could do this in 0.50 seconds. The same mirror exists on the R/U/E set. This weird trigger opens up a large number of possibilities for move reduction in LMCF and also (possibly) makes certain methods like Mehta that require E moves somewhat more practical. I'm curious if a fast turner here can try this trigger, try timing 10 repetitions of the sexE move and then divide by 10 to see how long it takes you. Personally I find the ULEL version easier than the URER version.



As someone developing a corners first method, you really need to have a good look into the commutators used in 3-style. BLD solvers have been using algs like this for years. Your analysis of the speed is correct, in fact it's probably even sub 0.4 consistently.

I think the problem with many of these algs for sighted speedsolving is that they don't move enough pieces. It's pretty difficult to use 3-cycles like the one you gave to move more than one or two pieces in a way that you would want. Moving one or two pieces at a time just isn't good enough for sighted solving.

Edit: For your own sake, I wouldn't recommend calling it the sexE move. BLD solvers will never stop making fun of you since it's one of the most common algs in BLD solving.

Edit2: To clarify my point about not moving enough pieces at a time. F2L also solves two pieces at a time, but I think it's different for the following reason:

You can solve two edges (FR and FL) in one alg using L' U L E' L' U' L E. However, this only works if one of the edges you need to solve is in the middle layer at the very start. If it's not there already, you have to put it there first.

F2L, on the hand, solves two pieces, while allowing them to start from any position at the very start.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 17, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> I feel like it's just the same story over and over again. Before I open up any method description I know it will just be solving things in some random order. And methods just never go anywhere, it always just ends up with the creator sticking with it and having like a 14 second average. I just think there are more interesting things in cubing. I have nothing against other people being interested it though.



With a few exceptions of course.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2020)

With method development, I agree mostly with Tao's take. If your aim is a meme, make stupid methods. If your aim is an equal-or-better-than-big-3 method, you're gonna have to come up with something better than "let's do cross but using any mismatched corners and call it BeltFOP" or similar. Mehta is a method which I think has at least some potential (and is almost certainly the best method to be developed in the past year), but even that has gone through a lot of refinement and definitely isn't better than the big 3, only equal at best. It's frustrating, but most good method ideas have gone already and the mediocre ones aren't far behind. Even then, unless it's for method science, mediocre ones aren't really worth it. Read the "New Method/Substep/Concept" thread from start to finish (if you can be bothered). What you'll find is a lot of repeats of the same (bad) ideas and a few almost good ideas that were dropped because they weren't as good as the big three and therefore their value is lost instantly. It shows you how fruitless the search for better methods has been. It's not to no avail though. More significant ideas include WaterRoux (an almost good method that could be pushed a bit further) and LMCF (an almost good method that could be pushed a bit further) and Zipper (an actually good method that not enough people know about). The only method that I can think of that has been criminally underdeveloped is 42. If people learnt the algs and the recog, I reckon there would be a potential minor increase in Roux speed. Taking these ideas could help slightly change the path of speedsolving, but not create a whole new meta.

Taking all this into account, the method that averages 35 moves and 10 TPS is, unfortunately, probably not going to come. Techniques such as L3C reduction for ZZ (which will potentially come with an automised cycle union programme), 42 for Roux and people noticing Zipper for CFOP are where the next breaks lie, and they most likely won't be large enough to give anyone who uses them a significant (>0.5) competitive advantage.

The only bit of hope I see is if someone could break down what makes a method good to the most fundamental level, then optimise using a computer programme to get a truly objectively optimal method. Even then, it's a two-edged sword, as once the most optimal method is found, the whole idea of method development dies, although it would be a fun project for anyone who wants to attempt it. Even if it didn't find the most optimal method, rather a more optimal method, it would put the barrier of making new methods so high as you'd need to understand machine learning, speedsolving in depth, etc. 

TL;DR method development is unfortunately probably not going to progress much past minor optimisations, which is a shame. The best chance of a better method is machine learning/AI. Even then, that would either kill the whole of method development or make the barrier of entry so high it would be pointless anyway.

If you couldn't tell, I've thought about it a lot. There are only so many ways to solve 20 pieces and to find novel and (more) speed and move efficient ways is very difficult.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> With method development, I agree mostly with Tao's take. If your aim is a meme, make stupid methods. If your aim is an equal-or-better-than-big-3 method, you're gonna have to come up with something better than "let's do cross but using any mismatched corners and call it BeltFOP" or similar. Mehta is a method which I think has at least some potential (and is almost certainly the best method to be developed in the past year), but even that has gone through a lot of refinement and definitely isn't better than the big 3, only equal at best. It's frustrating, but most good method ideas have gone already and the mediocre ones aren't far behind. Even then, unless it's for method science, mediocre ones aren't really worth it. Read the "New Method/Substep/Concept" thread from start to finish (if you can be bothered). What you'll find is a lot of repeats of the same (bad) ideas and a few almost good ideas that were dropped because they weren't as good as the big three and therefore their value is lost instantly. It shows you how fruitless the search for better methods has been. It's not to no avail though. More significant ideas include WaterRoux (an almost good method that could be pushed a bit further) and LMCF (an almost good method that could be pushed a bit further) and Zipper (an actually good method that not enough people know about). The only method that I can think of that has been criminally underdeveloped is 42. If people learnt the algs and the recog, I reckon there would be a potential minor increase in Roux speed. Taking these ideas could help slightly change the path of speedsolving, but not create a whole new meta.
> 
> Taking all this into account, the method that averages 35 moves and 10 TPS is, unfortunately, probably not going to come. Techniques such as L3C reduction for ZZ (which will potentially come with an automised cycle union programme), 42 for Roux and people noticing Zipper for CFOP are where the next breaks lie, and they most likely won't be large enough to give anyone who uses them a significant (>0.5) competitive advantage.
> 
> ...


Maybe if we cant really think of good methods that can surpass the big 3 anymore, what about improving one of the big 3 methods? If that doesnt work, then i dont know really.


----------



## Tao Yu (Dec 18, 2020)

I still haven't given up on the idea that there might be stuff out there that we haven't discovered yet, but I just don't find most approaches these days interesting enough to follow in any detail. Even stuff that is potentially good just ends up nowhere. 

I'm with @PapaSmurf that I think software is the way ahead. I'd be a lot more interested in method development if we had some of the following programs:


A machine learning model for choosing the best alg for a case. In particular, I would like to know if we could use a ton of smart cube data to figure out what sequences of moves on a cube can be performed quickly or get an idea of the ideal way to transform algs to make them as fast as possible.
A general algset generator, which can generate algs from one step to another automatically. HARCs may be good enough for this already, but I'm not too familiar with it. In any case, things can probably always be improved, and combining this with better models for determining whether an algorithm is good would be interesting.
A smart cube program which can help you test methods without knowing all the algs. e.g. if you were testing ZB, the smart cube would keep track of what step you are on so that when you get to last slot, the program would show you the ZBLS alg, and when you get to ZBLL, it would automatically show you the ZBLL alg


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> I still haven't given up on the idea that there might be stuff out there that we haven't discovered yet, but I just don't find most approaches these days interesting enough to follow in any detail. Even stuff that is potentially good just ends up nowhere.
> 
> I'm with @PapaSmurf that I think software is the way ahead. I'd be a lot more interested in method development if we had some of the following programs:
> 
> ...


Smart cubes do give a lot of potential for data collection. Can someone do a PhD on speedsolving and smart cubes etc.? Please and thanks.

The best way to find the best alg is to somehow model human hands perfectly with some sort of biomechanics simulator engine, then run tons of algs through it using already existing alg genorators. There will probably be some funky algs, but they would be good. Data from smartcubes would be helpful to show what kinda moves are worse or better, although that could lead to stagnant finger tricks (if we did this 5 years ago there would be even fewer LUE comms or algs with Bs). 

I think HARCS can do it, but I'm the same with my knowledge.

That's a good idea which I don't think would be that difficult to implement. Would also make learning algs in context easier.

I know my last post was a bit defeatist, but I am hopeful that a better method is out there, just not very optimistic about it.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Dec 18, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> Before I open up any method description I know it will just be solving things in some random order.


I always wanted to make a random method generator which would take basic steps, jumble them up, and give you a method to try on your next solve just for a fun challenge. You'd get something like:

Orient corners
Solve a 2x2x3 block
Solve columns
Orient edges
Solve remaining F2L edges
PLL

Anyhow, I really like trying different methods because I'm not focused on speed. New steps can be a lot of fun to mess around with, especially if you just read the steps and figure out how to solve them yourself instead of looking up the algs. SSC is one of my favorites for this. And of course Heise is tons of fun. I just love that there are so many ways to think about solving.

But of course, if your goal is speed then none of that matters and you're not really going to beat the top methods. I don't even think machine learning and robots would get us very far, since human brain recognition is the real bottleneck. We already have thousands of humans running aggressive optimization routines on themselves.


----------



## Silky (Dec 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> With method development, I agree mostly with Tao's take. If your aim is a meme, make stupid methods. If your aim is an equal-or-better-than-big-3 method, you're gonna have to come up with something better than "let's do cross but using any mismatched corners and call it BeltFOP" or similar. Mehta is a method which I think has at least some potential (and is almost certainly the best method to be developed in the past year), but even that has gone through a lot of refinement and definitely isn't better than the big 3, only equal at best. It's frustrating, but most good method ideas have gone already and the mediocre ones aren't far behind. Even then, unless it's for method science, mediocre ones aren't really worth it. Read the "New Method/Substep/Concept" thread from start to finish (if you can be bothered). What you'll find is a lot of repeats of the same (bad) ideas and a few almost good ideas that were dropped because they weren't as good as the big three and therefore their value is lost instantly. It shows you how fruitless the search for better methods has been. It's not to no avail though. More significant ideas include WaterRoux (an almost good method that could be pushed a bit further) and LMCF (an almost good method that could be pushed a bit further) and Zipper (an actually good method that not enough people know about). The only method that I can think of that has been criminally underdeveloped is 42. If people learnt the algs and the recog, I reckon there would be a potential minor increase in Roux speed. Taking these ideas could help slightly change the path of speedsolving, but not create a whole new meta.
> 
> Taking all this into account, the method that averages 35 moves and 10 TPS is, unfortunately, probably not going to come. Techniques such as L3C reduction for ZZ (which will potentially come with an automised cycle union programme), 42 for Roux and people noticing Zipper for CFOP are where the next breaks lie, and they most likely won't be large enough to give anyone who uses them a significant (>0.5) competitive advantage.
> 
> ...


Any specific thoughts on methods that are worth developing/ methods which you'd consider to be as good as the Big4 ?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2020)

Mehta, LEOR, Zipper and 42 are the ones that come to mind and I don't think any others are that great or bring anything new.


----------



## Silky (Dec 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Mehta, LEOR, Zipper and 42 are the ones that come to mind and I don't think any others are that great or bring anything new.


I think that LMCF has huge potential. It seems to be a pretty underrated/overlooked method. One significant advantage that LMCF has is it's flexibility. The fact that you can adjust the method to a scramble relatively easily seems like it could be very useful ( switching between LMCF, Waterman, Roux, WaterRoux(?) ).


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2020)

LMCF is a method that will occasionally give crazy singles, otherwise meh. Roux is most likely as optimised as corners first will get, although if someone could fix WaterRoux L7E, then that could be equally good from what I know, although I don't know a lot about it.


----------



## carcass (Jan 3, 2021)

I just finished learning Oll and Pll, I know the algs pretty well, too. I was looking at other sets, but which is the best to learn? WV, BLE, or COLL minus sune and antisune?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 3, 2021)

This isn't the place for it, but just get OLL and PLL down. Don't distract yourself from the rest of the solve with LL for now.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Jan 3, 2021)

carcass said:


> I just finished learning Oll and Pll, I know the algs pretty well, too. I was looking at other sets, but which is the best to learn? WV, BLE, or COLL minus sune and antisune?


Optimize OLL and PLL recognition, algs, and fingertricks


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Sep 6, 2022)

*ZB* method (short for _Zborowski-Bruchem_ after its proponents, Zbigniew Zborowski and Ron van Bruchem) is a very efficient but algorithm-intensive method. 

There are three steps in ZB:
- F2L-1 (F2L without last pair)
- ZBLS (Zborowski-Bruchem Last Slot)
- ZBLL (Zborowski-Bruchem Last Layer)

There are 306 ZBLS algorithms (for inserting the last slot while orienting last layer edges) and 472 ZBLL algorithms (for orienting the last layer corners and permuting whole LL).

ZB is 45.43 moves on average. Roux is 48 and CFOP is 55. That is a huge difference.
You are not restricted to doing cross and then F2L pairs. You can solve F2L-1 however you like, including blockbuilding, pseudoslotting, keyhole etc.
You can minimize the amount of ZBLS needed by learning efficient edge-control. You can also expand by learning VH, RLS, VLS and many more.
Once you know full ZBLL you are already an animal in learning new algs. You can now continue your path and learn new exciting stuff.

This method was originally proposed in 2002. Twenty years have passed and new generation of speedcubers with people like Tymon are constantly proving that ZBLL is essential at the higher level. He can one-look in inspection whole F2L-1 stage and solve the rest of the cube in one or two more looks in a fast and efficient manner.


----------



## Eli Apperson (Sep 6, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> *ZB* method (short for _Zborowski-Bruchem_ after its proponents, Zbigniew Zborowski and Ron van Bruchem) is a very efficient but algorithm-intensive method.
> 
> There are three steps in ZB:
> - F2L-1 (F2L without last pair)
> ...


For a method to be "better", there are a lot more factors then just speed. "Faster" might be a better word, though I don't know that that is even true. ZB is very algorithm intensive, making it harder to learn the vanilla cfop oll+pll, and this worse in the aspect of how quickly you can learn and progress. Second, recognition time for zb is quite a bit worse then cfop, and takes a lot more practice. I don't think there is a significant difference in OLL+PLL average times compared to ZBLS+ZBLL. I could be wrong, if I am someone please correct me.


----------



## Mattecuber (Sep 6, 2022)

I have a question, wouldn't be easier to do ONLY VHLS on last slot? It's only 15 algs when you have a pair ready to be inserted and 15 algs when you have a three mover.


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 6, 2022)

Eli Apperson said:


> For a method to be "better", there are a lot more factors then just speed. "Faster" might be a better word, though I don't know that that is even true. ZB is very algorithm intensive, making it harder to learn the vanilla cfop oll+pll, and this worse in the aspect of how quickly you can learn and progress. Second, recognition time for zb is quite a bit worse then cfop, and takes a lot more practice. I don't think there is a significant difference in OLL+PLL average times compared to ZBLS+ZBLL. I could be wrong, if I am someone please correct me.


With the zbls you can predict what case it'll be on 3rd pair pretty easy



Mattecuber said:


> I have a question, wouldn't be easier to do ONLY VHLS on last slot? It's only 15 algs when you have a pair ready to be inserted and 15 algs when you have a three move





Mattecuber said:


> I have a question, wouldn't be easier to do ONLY VHLS on last slot? It's only 15 algs when you have a pair ready to be inserted and 15 algs when you have a three mover.


Wastes way to many moves. Zbls is far superior


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 6, 2022)

Funny, you said the exact opposite last week.


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 6, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> ZB is 45.43 moves on average


Going to copy paste this from the methods for all events thread. 

5 moves for cross, and about 15 odd for ZBLL. F2L pair average should be somewhere 7-8 so I'll use 7.5. This gives us 41. Do you mean to tell me that ZBLS averages 4 moves? 

And furthermore





Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> CFOP is 55



Only top solver to be able to get these movecount on average in real solves Is Tymon Kolasinski, the pseudoslotting, blockbuilding, eo-forcing, borderline-freefop machine. And that's based off of just his reconstructed solves, which will most likely be weighted into his faster solves, which will probably use less moves. 

To call CFOP's movecount 55 because one person who does a lot of freefop and a lot of ZB already averages 54 on his better solves is just straight up disingenuous. 

Stop the cap. 

(side note, funny to be so sure of ZB when up until 6 days ago you were hardcore on cfop)


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 6, 2022)

Ah yes, because you can't use blockbuilding and other tricks in CFOP, so restricted ahhhhhh


----------



## SuperDuperSir (Sep 6, 2022)

If zbls solve has 45
Then roux has 30
And mehta really does have 40


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 6, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> Funny, you said the exact opposite last week.


me? im not an advocate for vhls at all. never said i was


----------



## LBr (Sep 7, 2022)

This is rather a childish way of saying ‘oh look at this, it’s 10 fewer moves than cfop so it’s automatically better! Wow’.

Theoretically speaking, it is better due to the lower movecount, but practically speaking, recognition is significantly worse, increasing ls and ll pauses. And with top cubers constantly hitting 10 tps the Zb method means that technically if you have a second or more in pauses than it is not better. It is also 700 algs, so no thanks


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

With enough practice, recognition of ZBLL is instant. Tymon can often look-ahead into ZBLL during last slot. EDMARTER can easily recognise 1LLL.
High algorithm count is not a drawback, most of the top cubers eventually end up learning big sets of algs.

ZB is indeed strong but for me CFOP is and always will be superior.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 7, 2022)

Swagrid said:


> To call CFOP's movecount 55 because one person who does a lot of freefop and a lot of ZB already averages 54 on his better solves is just straight up disingenuous.


When I started cubing, CFOP had an agreeable movecount of 65+ with 65 being what the top cubers average. Now, of course I don't say that this couldn't get down over time as cubers got better but what makes me still angry is that in 2018, someone changed the number to 55 and it's been quoted ever since.
New F2L, OLL and PLL algs that use S Mobes and the like that popped up 2 years ago maybe brought that down a bit but nothing just makes a method that exists since the 80s and has been tested thoroughly be 10 moves more efficient.

What I am trying to say is(not specially to you) that be vary of movecount.


----------



## Imsoosm (Sep 7, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> You can minimize the amount of ZBLS needed by learning efficient edge-control


lol and you can just use ZZ


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> EDMARTER can easily recognise 1LLL.


Usually takes him a few seconds, sometimes takes a lot longer... like two minutes longer


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> lol and you can just use ZZ



Edge control is really easy even for intermediate solvers. ZZ is straight up garbage.


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> Edge control is really easy even for intermediate solvers. ZZ is straight up garbage.


Zz is just as fast as cfop and roux lol


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> Edge control is really easy even for intermediate solvers.


Curious, define intermediate. Edge control isn't most complex thing in the world but it's not free either. 
Also



the_chad said:


> ZZ is straight up garbage


state your case.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> Edge control is really easy even for intermediate solvers. ZZ is straight up garbage.


Garbage, huh?

This seems to be an incredibly common remark that is made by countless young members. It has no validity and is an impulsive statement with no logical reasoning behind. If you ponder upon it any critically thinking being can obviously see that this type of thing is my bologna.

First, let's define garbage. When used as a derogatory insult this is a very strong word. It is never used to mean "not as good" or "slightly worse/inferior. It means so bad that it makes one question its existence. So bad that it deserves to be shoved into a pit of disposal so that it may be destroyed. So bad that it is so objectively and immeasurably worse that the very thought of thinking otherwise is just silly.

"Straight up" implies that there is no way this can be deflected because it is so objectively true.

Now, let's address why this statement is silly.

Something that could make a method bad would be taking an incredible amount of moves to reach a simple goal. The Chad method is garbage. It uses a ton of algorithms to do something that can be achieved more efficiently with other methods. The Chad method was created as a meme method though so it's purposely bad and a lazy point for me to make. The truth is is that it's very hard to find a method that is truly garbage because it's just too strong of a word. Even the "Sexy method" isn't garbage. For speed, maybe. But straight up? Not at all. It has taught millions of people how to solve the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube. That's a pretty reputable claim.

Now how is ZZ worse? Let's say somebody counters points made by reputable ZZ users. In theory many of their claims might seem to be obvious and they should theoretically be correct but the thing is is that not all their claims are true in practice. In reality CFOP has potential for greater creativity in a speedsolving environment. RUF really isn't that bad. Why are so many ZBLLS RUF while fewer are RUL? Why do OO cubers spam RUF and not RU? Why are top CFOP solvers so fluid while ZZers have tons of regrips and seem to suffer in transitioning? Yes, the ZZ community is a lot smaller than the CFOP community and also the Roux community but it is also full of knowledgeable people that should be incorporating the strengths of ZZ into their solve. Yet the ZZ usership remains small and we have never seen an Alex or a Sean, nor a Kian or Fahmi.

That's not to say that ZZ is worse than CFOP. I think it's a very interesting method, but we cannot write it off as straight up garbage simply because it doesn't get the same results. Very few cubers become sub-10. Even fewer become sub-8. A microscopic percentage is sub-7. Getting the right cuber to use ZZ with how unpopular it is would be a miracle and that has not been achieved yet. Most people brush off ZZ as inferior because they simply lack the knowledge. A very common error is that cubers don't like it because others don't This is true with ZZ and Petrus. Jperm has a video which I don't recommend anyone watch other than to cringe on what the best method is. He starts off by completely disregarding Petrus as a viable method which leads many cubers to believe that it is not worth studying. I have had a friend that believed Petrus was bad for that simple reason. Dylan than goes on listing a bunch of cons to ZZ but the thing is is that he's so broad and his points are either flawed, ignorant or straight up wrong. That same friend I mentioned also believed ZZ was bad. What makes this ridicules is that he had no original material to back his opinion up. He was basing his opinion of another method based solely on someone else's. He had nothing to prove. He was unprepared to discuss with someone who had a different opinion.

This problem doesn't just apply to cubing. The truth is is that opinion is just that. An opinion. what you say is not objective and you can't truthfully go around saying something is straight up garbage. Because it isn't. Even is ZZ is slightly worse that doesn't make it irrelevant and deserving to burn in hellfire for all eternity. That's just a stupid statement. Your opinion isn't better than others. You need to acknowledge that there are people pushing to get ZZ more recognition. Telling them they are pursuing a lost cause because it is invalid is not okay. One day we will get a sub-6 average officially with ZZ and what will you say? You'll have to retract your opinion because you have just been proven wrong. Your opinion is now "garbage". It doesn't hold up to truth. Even now without super great ZZ results I think a method getting sub-10 averages is good enough that is at least decent. That's more than can be said for APB and Nautilus.

No, ZZ isn't garbage, that is ridiculous claim. Any material you can garner on why ZZ is theoretically worse than ZZ will not make it a fact. It can't be proven. ZZ isn't bad, much less is it garbage.

Quack!


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> ZZers have tons of regrips and seem to suffer in transitioning?


With eocross you rarely regrip and transitioning is actually a lot easier with reduced cases and deduction


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 7, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> Garbage, huh?
> 
> This seems to be an incredibly common remark that is made by countless young members. It has no validity and is an impulsive statement with no logical reasoning behind. If you ponder upon it any critically thinking being can obviously see that this type of thing is my bologna.
> 
> ...


I applaud your efforts, fellow duck.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> With eocross you rarely regrip and transitioning is actually a lot easier with reduced cases and deduction


The thing is, that wasn't my question. The full context was me asking "Why". I assume you are a ZZ solver so tell me, why do ZZers struggle with this. Yes, I know that ZZ theoretically should rarely have regrips and it makes sense that it would have better transitions, I do not deny that. My question was, why aren't you, as a ZZ solver applying that. Why can't ZZers prove their claims? Is it because it isn't actually true. It seems like it should be true to me. Instead of replying to my sentence that asked ZZ users a question with a question of your own why don't you just tell me?

You say that ZZ with eocross rarely has regrips like it is a fact but is it really? What is you definition of rare because I certainly see ZZ solvers regripping regularly.


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> The thing is, that wasn't my question. The full context was me asking "Why". I assume you are a ZZ solver so tell me, why do ZZers struggle with this. Yes, I know that ZZ theoretically should rarely have regrips and it makes sense that it would have better transitions, I do not deny that. My question was, why aren't you, as a ZZ solver applying that. Why can't ZZers prove their claims? Is it because it isn't actually true. It seems like it should be true to me. Instead of replying to my sentence that asked ZZ users a question with a question of your own why don't you just tell me?
> 
> You say that ZZ with eocross rarely has regrips like it is a fact but is it really? What is you definition of rare because I certainly see ZZ solvers regripping regularly.


They probably arent x2y neutral and use eoline


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 7, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> I certainly see ZZ solvers regripping regularly.


Good EOcross solvers dont regrip very often. It is quite easy to avoid regrips in practice, but of course there are many who dont bother.


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> Spoiler: quote
> 
> 
> 
> ...



by the time you wrote that message you could have watch the whole video


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> by the time you wrote that message you could have watch the whole video


Yeh the whole video is about eoline and no zbll. Great reference. You have your own opinion or no?


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> Yeh the whole video is about eoline and no zbll. Great reference. You have your own opinion or no?


zblls were used in many world record solves, what else you need to know?


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> zblls were used in many world record solves, what else you need to know?


You didn't even understand my question lol.... you just joined like 8 days ago. Your misinformed or you can't wrap your head around eo. Don't bash it because of that


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> You didn't even understand my question lol.... you just joined like 8 days ago. Your misinformed or you can't wrap your head around eo. Don't bash it because of that



yes, in eo you make additional moves to solve 0 additional pieces, but instead don't have to rotate. you could invest that time into extending to xcross.


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> yes, in eo you make additional moves to solve 0 additional pieces, but instead don't have to rotate. you could invest that time into extending to xcross.


You can solve pieces at the same time...it's not just about the rotations. It halves the cases. Improves look ahead and deduction. It also can let you spam tps like crazy. No you don't understand lol


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> You can solve pieces at the same time...it's not just about the rotations. It halves the cases. Improves look ahead and deduction. It also can let you spam tps like crazy. No you don't understand lol



you don't understand.what else should i expect from person whose nickname starts with zz. do you have better look ahead than max park? or do you spam tps like ruihang? eoline, eocross etc take extra moves to orient the edges. those moves could be used to solve additional pieces at the cost of rotations.


----------



## Eli Apperson (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> you don't understand.what else should i expect from person whose nickname starts with zz. do you have better look ahead than max park? or do you spam tps like ruihang? eoline, eocross etc take extra moves to orient the edges. those moves could be used to solve additional pieces at the cost of rotations.


Do you have to be the best in the world for a method to work well for you? No, of course not. It's stupid to say because Max uses CFOP and has better look ahead then you, zz must be not worth it for lookahead. Sure, EOcross takes 3-4 more moves, but there is no reason to say those extra few moves can't be beneficial and made up during rotationless F2L and LL.


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Eli Apperson said:


> Do you have to be the best in the world for a method to work well for you? No, of course not. It's stupid to say because Max uses CFOP and has better look ahead then you, zz must be not worth it for lookahead. Sure, EOcross takes 3-4 more moves, but there is no reason to say those extra few moves can't be beneficial and made up during rotationless F2L and LL.



i agree. but 3x3 is short event where 3-4 moves is already a lot. in 4x4 and 5x5 you can make such sacrifices with yau and it will be beneficial every time.


----------



## Eli Apperson (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> i agree. but 3x3 is short event where 3-4 moves is already a lot. in 4x4 and 5x5 you can make such sacrifices with yau and it will be beneficial every time.


3-4 moves isn't that much if it saves you moves in LL and time on rotations. Move count isn't everything.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> you don't understand.what else should i expect from person whose nickname starts with zz. do you have better look ahead than max park? or do you spam tps like ruihang? eoline, eocross etc take extra moves to orient the edges. those moves could be used to solve additional pieces at the cost of rotations.


And in CFOP you use those same moves to Orient the Edges during OLL. Or you really use ZB and use those moves to orient edges during ZBLS. Or you use Roux and Orient Edges during 4a. Or you could orient Edges during EO in Petrus.
Face it, you orient Edges in every popular method. If you want an objective view on it, doing it at the beginning of the solve it actually more efficient because of the freedom you can get 2-3 move EO Cases pretty often. The shortest OLL is 6 moves and you get that rarely. Or Sledge, the shortest ZBLS at 4 moves, you can force it MOST of the time, if you do Edge Control during 3rd slot, again adding moves.
So 70% of CFOP development that I've seen the last 10 years is about reducing rotations during F2L. But now you come along and tell us that no, rotations are good, as long as you don't do a little move at the start of your solve.
If you ask if I'm as fast as Ruihang, no. Not since the accident I have not been able to regain fast fingers. Doesn't stop me from knowing that a baseless claim is just stupid and you made one. 

On another note, I've looked at your profile yesterday and every post except maybe two is completely idiotic. Why are you actively trying to troll?


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> And in CFOP you use those same moves to Orient the Edges during OLL. Or you really use ZB and use those moves to orient edges during ZBLS. Or you use Roux and Orient Edges during 4a. Or you could orient Edges during EO in Petrus.
> Face it, you orient Edges in every popular method. If you want an objective view on it, doing it at the beginning of the solve it actually more efficient because of the freedom you can get 2-3 move EO Cases pretty often. The shortest OLL is 6 moves and you get that rarely. Or Sledge, the shortest ZBLS at 4 moves, you can force it MOST of the time, if you do Edge Control during 3rd slot, again adding moves.
> So 70% of CFOP development that I've seen the last 10 years is about reducing rotations during F2L. But now you come along and tell us that no, rotations are good, as long as you don't do a little move at the start of your solve.
> If you ask if I'm as fast as Ruihang, no. Not since the accident I have not been able to regain fast fingers. Doesn't stop me from knowing that a baseless claim is just stupid and you made one.
> ...



funny how you think I am the troll here, when it's you trying to convince the whole world that zz is equally as fast as cfop. just watch the video of almighty Jayden McNeill.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2022)

I have put the cookies on a shelf out of his reach. Please do not feed the troll.


----------



## Silky (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> i agree. but 3x3 is short event where 3-4 moves is already a lot


Doesn't ZZ average less moves than CFOP, like by 5-10 moves? Feel like that may be relevant here.


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Silky said:


> Doesn't ZZ average less moves than CFOP, like by 5-10 moves? Feel like that may be relevant here.



roux also has low movecount but is equally bad as zz. the strenght of cfop is not movecount but other aspects


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> funny how you think I am the troll here, when it's you trying to convince the whole world that zz is equally as fast as cfop. just watch the video of almighty Jayden McNeill.


Go get your own opinion not someone else's



the_chad said:


> roux also has low movecount but is equally bad as zz. the strenght of cfop is not within movecount but other aspects


Roux is great


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> roux also has low movecount but is equally bad as zz. the strenght of cfop is not movecount but other aspects


ZZ is bad because you do 3 extra moves except that you do less moves in total but that's bad still because its not about movecount


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Swagrid said:


> ZZ is bad because you do 3 extra moves except that you do less moves in total but that's bad still because its not about movecount



exactly. thank you


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> Roux is great


No man, Roux is trash.


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> exactly. thank you


Just a little tip, short closed ended messages like this leave no room to continue or to run more circles so if you want to continue trolling on the forums then avoid these.


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Swagrid said:


> Just a little tip, short closed ended messages like this leave no room to continue or to run more circles so if you want to continue trolling on the forums then avoid these.



my point is zz is bad no matter the circumstances. as a method enthusiast and theoretist you should be aware of that. i don't know why we are arguing here about the obvious. it was well agreed inside community a few years ago that zz must exit big3


----------



## Silky (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> my point is zz is bad no matter the circumstances. as a method enthusiast and theoretist you should be aware of that. i don't know why we are arguing here about the obvious. it was well agreed inside community a few years ago that zz must exit big3


Tell me more about what happened in the cubing community a few years ago 1 week member.


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> it was well agreed inside community a few years ago that zz must exit big3


I doubt you'll get anything from this message but for anyone else who might be reading 

It was also well agreed a few years before that, that Roux was terrible for OH. People can be wrong. Opinion can change. 

I've also put off making a video about the Jayden/Kian/Dylan ZZ stuff for a while now, ought to get around to that.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> yes, in eo you make additional moves to solve 0 additional pieces, but instead don't have to rotate. you could invest that time into extending to xcross.


i use one look last layer


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Swagrid said:


> I doubt you'll get anything from this message but for anyone else who might be reading
> 
> It was also well agreed a few years before that, that Roux was terrible for OH. People can be wrong. Opinion can change.
> 
> I've also put off making a video about the Jayden/Kian/Dylan ZZ stuff for a while now, ought to get around to that.



But Jayden is well respected member that can back up his knowledge with results and titles. You are just a theorist. Why would I trust you more than him?


----------



## Swagrid (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> But Jayden is well respected member that can back up his knowledge with results and titles.


1) Being successful does not mean you know why you are successful. This is a general thing though, as I do believe Jayden knows why he is successful etc. He takes a very scientific and measured approach to cubing that I do admire.

2) my rebuttal falls on three fallacies in his video. The first, being that the entire video is about a type of ZZ that doesn't get used for two handed (eoline). The second, is the disregarding of ZBLL. The third, is the disregarding of eocross entirely.

Jayden might know more than me about cubing but I know more than him about ZZ.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> But Jayden is well respected member that can back up his knowledge with results and titles. You are just a theorist. Why would I trust you more than him?


because I use 1 look last layer


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

Swagrid said:


> 1) Being successful does not mean you know why you are successful. This is a general thing though, as I do believe Jayden knows why he is successful etc. He takes a very scientific and measured approach to cubing that I do admire.
> 
> 2) my rebuttal falls on three fallacies in his video. The first, being that the entire video is about a type of ZZ that doesn't get used for two handed (eoline). The second, is the disregarding of ZBLL. The third, is the disregarding of eocross entirely.
> 
> Jayden might know more about me than cubing but I know more than him about ZZ.



You are just biased because you use zz. He is objective. That is the real difference


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 7, 2022)

S1neWav_ said:


> because I use 1 look last layer


sine on his way to one up "the_chad" in chadness


----------



## S1neWav_ (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> You are just biased because you use zz. He is objective. That is the real difference


he is not objective because he admitted to not knowing full 1 look last layer for his method, unlike me, who knows one look last layer for his method


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> You are just biased because you use zz. He is objective. That is the real difference


Bur your biased one lol


----------



## the_chad (Sep 7, 2022)

The best method for ZBLL is CFOP and then ZB. I thought that was general knowledge.


----------



## zzcuberman (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> The best method for ZBLL is CFOP and then ZB. I thought that was general knowledge.


In your 8 days of knowledge sure


----------



## Silky (Sep 7, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> In your 8 days of knowledge sure



He was into this since the very beginning.
He has seen the rise and fall of all the speedcubing legends you can name.
He burst into tears when the NWO banned Haiyan Zhuang.
He told Zbigniew Zborowski that his new method was a bad idea, he (Zbigniew Zborowski) didn't listened.

He is.. The Chad


----------



## S1neWav_ (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> The best method for ZBLL is CFOP and then ZB. I thought that was general knowledge.


yeah but zbll on cfop isn't 1look last layer unlike zz which is 1 look last layer (i use zz if you didn't notice)


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> But Jayden is well respected member that can back up his knowledge with results and titles. You are just a theorist. Why would I trust you more than him?


In a conversation I had with Jay last year, they stated and I quote, "with the zz discord, has there been much discussion about ways to solve F2L that minimize awkward RUL turning? i feel like that's legitimately the thing that will make me acknowledge it as a "big x" method if it gets resolved." (9/14/2021)

In case you missed it, most of ZZ is RU/LU gen. Not many solutions will have actual RUL turning. Build pair RU or LU gen, then insert RU or LU gen. So voila, problem solved. ZZ is part of the the big x.


----------



## TheKravCuber (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> You are just biased because you use zz. He is objective. That is the real difference


Hmm yes. The Zz user is biased towards ZZ so his opinion must be invalid. But the person who only specialises in cfop and at that point in time hadn't put enough effort into even considering eocross for his video has to be correct.

What, are you gonna link Jperms video next? Are you so much of a sheep that you see some big name say that "x thing is bad" so it has to be true?
Your main source of argument has literally basically changed his mind on the matter as Ore just pointed out. How about for the future of this argument you actually make your own opinions as well as, now I know this is gonna be hard, actually provide concrete evidence.

Doing this will lead to enjoyable debates which will a) not leave people in negative moods
and b) actually make your presence on these forums enjoyable to others

Have a great day!


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Sep 7, 2022)

That debate was all about ZB, not ZZ  Some of you guys act like a savages


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 7, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> That debate was all about ZB, not ZZ


ok but zb is clearly a waste of time to talk about considering it's just cfop with a top hat


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 7, 2022)

the_chad said:


> funny how you think I am the troll here, when it's you trying to convince the whole world that zz is equally as fast as cfop. just watch the video of almighty Jayden McNeill.


You put words in my mouth. I never try to convince anyone that a method of the big 4 is better than the others because they are all equally better, but sure, let's shine the light to you. Why do I think ZZ is better than CFOP based on the posts I wrote on this forum?

Jayden is a fast cuber indeed. But, if you would have been on the forums for longer you would know they are not well respected. Jayden rarely posts and asks about probabilities in the probability and FMC thread that nobody cares about. Many don't even know Jayden posts here at all.

Oh and one thing. The minimum age to make an account here is 13. You might have missed that.


----------



## ender9994 (Sep 8, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> You put words in my mouth. I never try to convince anyone that a method of the big 4 is better than the others because they are all equally better, but sure, let's shine the light to you. Why do I think ZZ is better than CFOP based on the posts I wrote on this forum?
> 
> Jayden is a fast cuber indeed. But, if you would have been on the forums for longer you would know they are not well respected. Jayden rarely posts and asks about probabilities in the probability and FMC thread that nobody cares about. Many don't even know Jayden posts here at all.
> 
> Oh and one thing. The minimum age to make an account here is 13. You might have missed that.


----------



## SuperDuperSir (Sep 8, 2022)

the_chad said:


> you don't understand.what else should i expect from person whose nickname starts with zz. do you have better look ahead than max park? or do you spam tps like ruihang? eoline, eocross etc take extra moves to orient the edges. those moves could be used to solve additional pieces at the cost of rotations.


Ruffleduck has many pll former ytwbs
So yes some zzers can have ruihang tps


----------



## SuperDuperSir (Sep 8, 2022)

Swagrid said:


> 1) Being successful does not mean you know why you are successful. This is a general thing though, as I do believe Jayden knows why he is successful etc. He takes a very scientific and measured approach to cubing that I do admire.
> 
> 2) my rebuttal falls on three fallacies in his video. The first, being that the entire video is about a type of ZZ that doesn't get used for two handed (eoline). The second, is the disregarding of ZBLL. The third, is the disregarding of eocross entirely.
> 
> Jayden might know more about me than cubing but I know more than him about ZZ.


You know more swag


----------



## Imsoosm (Sep 8, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> That debate was all about ZB, not ZZ  Some of you guys act like a savages


Lol I went to school, came back, and over 60 new messages in this thread appeared. It appears I started this war lol



Imsoosm said:


> lol and you can just use ZZ


----------



## Sevilzww (Sep 20, 2022)

the_chad said:


> You are just biased because you use zz. He is objective. That is the real difference


i dont do 3x3 therefore im more objective cope


----------

