# The Limits of Solving the Cube



## Dane man (Jul 11, 2014)

After looking into many methods, and even making a few, I have been thinking about the limits of methods when it comes to the ratios of move count vs number of algorithms in use. Not only that, but the "human" limits when it comes to intuition, recognition, and memorization.

It appears that each method has it's own pros and cons, each is a balancing act. 

The general tendency is to increase the number of algorithms in order to decrease the number of moves. If you want to decrease the number of algorithms, you generally have to increase the number of moves or even the number of substeps. 

If you want to increase the chance of quick recognition and recall(memorization success), you generally have to reduce the number of algs. If you want to reduce the number of moves and substeps, you generally have to increase the amount recognition and recall required of the cuber.

And there are different issues based on your goal. For example, for _speedcubing_, sometimes a larger algorithm needs to be chosen to achieve faster fingertricks and thus execution. While in _FMC_, it's all about the fewest moves, and so shorter algs can be chosen regardless of fingertrick ability. 

When it comes to methods, speedcubing tends to use methods with swift recognition and a logical step by step progression at the sacrifice of the number of moves in order to benefit from the speed of execution. While in FMC, some methods require more complex thinking and abstract concepts for the benefit of reducing the number of moves, at the sacrifice of swift recognition and execution time. And yet in both, every benefit counts, even the time used in FMC.

These appear to be a constant battle, and I've been wondering recently, what are the limits of these balances? How can we go about finding an optimal balance? What sorts of undiscovered methods are out there that might be much more efficient than what we are using right now? What sorts of extremes can be explored? For example, at the expense of alg count, what kind of methods can be found that solve the cube logically with as few steps as possible? (the most extreme being 43 quintillion algorithms for 1-Look solved from all orientations.) OR at the sacrifice of steps, using as few algorithms as possible, how intuitive can a method be made? What would be the most intuitive?

From everything I've seen, there's always a trade off, and the trade off isn't always equal (For example: If reducing the number of moves by 10 only increases the number of algs by 1, then that is a good (unbalanced) trade off). And so, we explore these trade offs until we are able to "juice" a method or it's substeps, until we achieve the most efficient method when it comes to ratios of algs vs moves, efficiency vs human brain power. It's the problem we are still looking to solve.

What do you guys think of the ways we go about this? What are your preferences and priorities in regards to the balances? How does this influence your cubing style and efficiency? Any other comments/thoughts?


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 11, 2014)

Well Heise is most intuitive because you need 0 algs... 

Also just solving only with commutators (like in BLD) is entirely intuitive and doesn't need any algs (except for parity, but that also can be solved intuitively. Just do U-move(or any quarter turn) and fix with commutators)


----------



## Tempus (Jul 11, 2014)

Dane man said:


> For example, at the expense of alg count, what kind of methods can be found that solve the cube logically with as few steps as possible? (the most extreme being 43 quintillion algorithms for 1-Look solved from all orientations.) OR at the sacrifice of steps, using as few algorithms as possible, how intuitive can a method be made? What would be the most intuitive?


The opposite extreme of your 1-Look solution system would be a solution system based on the Bogosort sorting algorithm. It would have the longest runtime and the fewest algorithms, which is to say zero. Here's how it would work:
Step 1: You close your eyes and start scrambling the cube until you feel that it's good and mixed.
Step 2: You then open your eyes and check to see if it's fully solved. It if is, you're done. If it isn't, you start back at step 1.
I believe that this method is the most intuitive, so much so that people have probably used it in the past without ever knowing that it was a solution system.

I hereby name this system Bogosolve.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jul 11, 2014)

There already is a method with perfect balance, that's why I chose it.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 11, 2014)

I was thinking recently that CFOP substeps with high alg counts (ZBLL, OLLCP, RV) could be made a _lot _more useful if we could somehow highlight all of the nice cases. Like, a wiki page with only easy-to-recognise ZBLL cases would be really really useful. So instead, of learning all of the algs, we just learn the nice ones. So you can save moves without learning _all _of the algorithms.

Btw, here's a nice WV case that everyone should know: link

someone make this pls


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 11, 2014)

I think that this has been explored several times already, and I personally think that the perfect method is entirely dependent on the person using it. You could do FMC for your solves, do 25 moves and turn at 2.5 TPS, and average 10 seconds, and likewise you could use the sexy method and turn at 10 TPS for a 100 move solve, and average 10 seconds. But for comparisons like Roux vs CFOP vs ZZ vs Petrus, CFOP and Roux work best for most people because the so called "balances" work the best for the people who use them. The reason why ZZ works best for Phil Yu and why Petrus works best for Erik Johnson is the same. You will never have an ideal balance, because some people will always be wired differently than others. Plus there are lots of other factors.


----------



## stoic (Jul 11, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> I was thinking recently that CFOP substeps with high alg counts (ZBLL, OLLCP, RV) could be made a _lot _more useful if we could somehow highlight all of the nice cases. Like, a wiki page with only easy-to-recognise ZBLL cases would be really really useful. So instead, of learning all of the algs, we just learn the nice ones. So you can save moves without learning _all _of the algorithms.


This is a VERY good idea.
I remember asking a while back on somebody's video how they managed to 1-look the LL and was told "it's an easy case, you should know it". Which left me thinking: fair point, but how?


----------



## Hypocrism (Jul 11, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> I was thinking recently that CFOP substeps with high alg counts (ZBLL, OLLCP, RV) could be made a _lot _more useful if we could somehow highlight all of the nice cases. Like, a wiki page with only easy-to-recognise ZBLL cases would be really really useful. So instead, of learning all of the algs, we just learn the nice ones. So you can save moves without learning _all _of the algorithms.
> 
> Btw, here's a nice WV case that everyone should know: link
> 
> someone make this pls



I don't think so. If you only learn a subset of an algorithm-based step, you need to first check if you know the 1LLL and then recall and execute, but if you don't know it you need to check, then switch and recognise the different algorithm. That's why you can't, for example, really just learn say half of the cases for each COLL set, because it just adds an extra recognition step.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 11, 2014)

Hypocrism said:


> I don't think so. If you only learn a subset of an algorithm-based step, you need to first check if you know the 1LLL and then recall and execute, but if you don't know it you need to check, then switch and recognise the different algorithm. That's why you can't, for example, really just learn say half of the cases for each COLL set, because it just adds an extra recognition step.



It's not that hard. People people like Feliks make use of easy ZBLL cases all the time. I just taking about an easier way to find easy cases.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 11, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I think that this has been explored several times already, and I personally think that the perfect method is entirely dependent on the person using it. You could do FMC for your solves, do 25 moves and turn at 2.5 TPS, and average 10 seconds, and likewise you could use the sexy method and turn at 10 TPS for a 100 move solve, and average 10 seconds. But for comparisons like Roux vs CFOP vs ZZ vs Petrus, CFOP and Roux work best for most people because the so called "balances" work the best for the people who use them. The reason why ZZ works best for Phil Yu and why Petrus works best for Erik Johnson is the same. You will never have an ideal balance, because some people will always be wired differently than others. Plus there are lots of other factors.


This is true, which is why I asked about preferences and priorities. For example, someone who has a low TPS but good memory might want a method with more algs and less moves, while someone with bad memory but quick reflexes might want a method with more moves and less algs. The methods that can be useful because of this have more variety, and I'm willing to bet that there are few if any cubers who use exactly the same method and exactly the same algorithms these days. And when it comes to fingertricks, I think the variety in style is even greater.



ellwd said:


> Tao Yu said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking recently that CFOP substeps with high alg counts (ZBLL, OLLCP, RV) could be made a _lot _more useful if we could somehow highlight all of the nice cases. Like, a wiki page with only easy-to-recognise ZBLL cases would be really really useful. So instead, of learning all of the algs, we just learn the nice ones. So you can save moves without learning _all _of the algorithms.
> ...


This makes a lot of sense. I've thought of it long long ago, but then forgot. I really want to do it.



Hypocrism said:


> I don't think so. If you only learn a subset of an algorithm-based step, you need to first check if you know the 1LLL and then recall and execute, but if you don't know it you need to check, then switch and recognise the different algorithm. That's why you can't, for example, really just learn say half of the cases for each COLL set, because it just adds an extra recognition step.


Actually there are ways to mentally organize it efficiently. Where recognition of the 1LLL will be a separate case from the other cases. For example, 1LLL will look one way, and a normal case will appear another, and so you separate them in your mind so that they can't be considered as both at the same time, thus making it just as efficient as any other set of memorized algs.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jul 11, 2014)

Dane man said:


> For example, someone who has a low TPS but good memory might want a method with more algs and less moves, while someone with bad memory but quick reflexes might want a method with more moves and less algs..



What about roux? It's low on algs and moves.

edit: or any highly intuitive method for that matter.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 11, 2014)

pewpewrawr said:


> What about roux? It's low on algs and moves.
> 
> edit: or any highly intuitive method for that matter.


Roux is slower for those who can't do slice move fingertricks as well as they can do face move fingertricks. And because of it's great intuitiveness, the recog for the construction of blocks and the orientation/permutation of edges only comes through a decent amount of time practicing, and a memory good enough to sustain the habit. Some only have the memory capabilities (or simply the determination) enough to do LBL, on piece at a time with only 4 simple algorithms for the last layer. The ability to intuit and build the habit of intuition isn't a super common gift (hence the reason for so few speedcubers in the world).

The trade off is low algs, low moves (which I personally love), but at the sacrifice of the slice moves and higher intuition required.


----------



## Hypocrism (Jul 11, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Actually there are ways to mentally organize it efficiently. Where recognition of the 1LLL will be a separate case from the other cases. For example, 1LLL will look one way, and a normal case will appear another, and so you separate them in your mind so that they can't be considered as both at the same time, thus making it just as efficient as any other set of memorized algs.



It still sounds dodgy to me, at least, that kind of strategy hasn't worked for me in the past. It might work for others, but I am skeptical as to whether it is worthwhile. Say you know COLL and you're learning ZB: you know some ZB cases for one of the COLLs but not others. If a case of this COLL comes up that you don't know the ZBLL for, you need to check to see if it's one you know, and then revert to your fastest alg for that COLL case. That's just what I found when I started to learn COLL and didn't keep going with it: until I finished the entire set of COLLs for one OCLL case, or dropped COLL for that OCLL case, I would falter on that case. In the same way you might get a fast LL when you know the ZBLL that comes up, but on average, your time for edges-oriented LL will drop due to that miniscule faltering. I value the consistency more than the occasional faster solve.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 11, 2014)

Hypocrism said:


> I value the consistency more than the occasional faster solve.


And that's where personal preference comes in. One can do as you do and prefer to be consistent. Or there might be someone who like to be and has the capability to be dynamic in their methodology. As an example, say there are all the COLL cases and your memorized ZB cases. The overlapping cases you can look at and say (alright, now these are ZB cases, and not COLL cases). If you practice looking at the cases as a whole instead of as individual steps in a progression, then you can recognize the ZB cases as if they were separate from and independent of the COLL cases, coexistent as individual cases and algorithms for the same moment in the solve. It's kind of tricky to train the mind that way, but if one knows how to make themselves look at something differently (looking at the last layer as a whole instead of in parts like corners, edges, orientation, permutation, etc), then one can have great success in using this method. But do as you feel best. Each of us works and thinks differently.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jul 11, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Roux is slower for those who can't do slice move fingertricks as well as they can do face move fingertricks. And because of it's great intuitiveness, the recog for the construction of blocks and the orientation/permutation of edges only comes through a decent amount of time practicing, and a memory good enough to sustain the habit. Some only have the memory capabilities (or simply the determination) enough to do LBL, on piece at a time with only 4 simple algorithms for the last layer. The ability to intuit and build the habit of intuition isn't a super common gift (hence the reason for so few speedcubers in the world).
> 
> The trade off is low algs, low moves (which I personally) love, but at the sacrifice of slice moves and higher intuition required.



Fair enough, I was just trying to make the point that alg count and move count aren't always relative. I didn't really take determination/practice-time into consideration as a factor, but I suppose for some people that could be an issue. I guess you may be right in saying that there is always a trade off of some sort, but as far as I'm concerned roux is without a doubt the most balanced method for speed.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 11, 2014)

pewpewrawr said:


> Fair enough, I was just trying to make the point that alg count and move count aren't always relative. I didn't really take determination/practice-time into consideration as a factor, but I suppose for some people that could be an issue. I guess you may be right in saying that there is always a trade off of some sort, but as far as I'm concerned roux is without a doubt the most balanced method for speed.


I agree. That's also what I was saying when I said the trade off isn't always equal. If reducing the number of moves by 10 only increases the number of algs by 1, then that is a good (unbalanced) trade off. And I love to do roux solves because of their incredible intuitiveness, but I don't use them in speedsolving because I don't have the slice move speed that some do. I could probably try to practice it and get it pretty fast, but it's still akward for my fingers given the way I hold the cube. There are a lot of factors that go into choosing a method.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 11, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Roux is slower for those who can't do slice move fingertricks as well as they can do face move fingertricks. And because of it's great intuitiveness, the recog for the construction of blocks and the orientation/permutation of edges only comes through a decent amount of time practicing, and a memory good enough to sustain the habit. Some only have the memory capabilities (or simply the determination) enough to do LBL, on piece at a time with only 4 simple algorithms for the last layer. The ability to intuit and build the habit of intuition isn't a super common gift (hence the reason for so few speedcubers in the world).
> 
> The trade off is low algs, low moves (which I personally love), but at the sacrifice of the slice moves and higher intuition required.



sometimes the slice move is not a sacrifice, and the intuition is not much more than cfop in my opinion.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 11, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> sometimes the slice move is not a sacrifice, and the intuition is not much more than cfop in my opinion.



I agree.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Jul 12, 2014)

I couldn't help but interpret the first post as calculus.









because











It should be apparent without calculus, but, in other words, I don't think there ever will be an agreement between everyone of an optimal balance because people's opinion on what matters to them differs. As shown in the calculus example, we can evaluate one sided opinion limits, but we cannot evaluate a limit which takes opinions from all sides (maybe I should have used a multivariate limit instead to describe more than two options) because not all opinions are the same.




Dane man said:


> For example, at the expense of alg count, what kind of methods can be found that solve the cube logically with as few steps as possible? (the most extreme being 43 quintillion algorithms for 1-Look solved from all orientations.) OR at the sacrifice of steps, using as few algorithms as possible, how intuitive can a method be made? What would be the most intuitive?


I'm curious as to what you and others consider to be "1-look". Is it solving a cube in such a way that no portion of the cube is permanently solved (so that we do not mess up what we solved previously and then solve it back by solving more of the puzzle) until the last moves?

Even if we do in the future find such a method (if it doesn't exist already and it is _just not publicly known *yet*_), I don't think everyone will agree that it is what they consider to be 1-look (I believe I have found such a method which is not the "Bogosolve" method, but I actually consider it to be 2-look or 3-look, depending on if some slices have an odd permutation) because the nature of our problem-solving minds is to break big problems into several smaller ones (for example, the 3x3x3 is solved optimally in 2 phases, which to me sounds like 2-look), and therefore even if it is theoretically possible to solve the cube in 1-look from some people's perspective (and it is not the "Bogosolve" method), some people will come along and claim that this "1-look" can be broken into several substeps.

For example, back to calculus, we can technically find the area under a curve in one step (evaluate a definite integral from _a_ to _b_), but the definition of the integral says that we find the area under a curve by taking the limit of the sum of an infinite number of sub-intervals.

As another example, if you see the link to the number of OLLs in my signature, I created a formula from cuBerBruce's vector function, which iteratively calculates the number of OLLs, whereas my formula, which is nothing other than an *interpretation* of cuBerBruce's vector function, technically calculates the number of OLLs in a single step. How can we say (if you see my derivation of my formula) that I am not summing numbers in several steps when using my formula?

Also, we have to agree on what is considered to be an "algorithm". Obviously some people believe that commutators are not algorithms because they are "intuitive", but clearly they are referring to certain 3-cycle commutators.

If we can't agree on the above two concepts, then how can we say that it's possible to solve the cube in 1-look or n-look or determine how many algorithms a method requires?...which brings me back to the first calculus example.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 12, 2014)

cmowla said:


> I couldn't help but interpret the first post as calculus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i always considered solving blindfold as one looking since you only look once. if you predict your pll before you do your oll, then that's one look. one looking doesn't matter how many algs, moves, or commutators, just that you can solve the whole thing without looking again. and i would say the limit does exist because truth is not bent by what people's opinions are. i would like to think we would get close to the "limit" sooner or later. and most of the time, in any sport or game, there will develop a strong general consensus on what is "best," not always the "limit," despite there being people preaching "no best ... or depends on the person's ..."


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

pewpewrawr said:


> What about roux? It's low on algs and moves.
> 
> edit: or any highly intuitive method for that matter.


IMO I hate Roux because of the M slices and the block building. BTW CFOP is as intuituve as Roux because of Cross and F2L. Honestly though due to algs the execution speed of CFOP is faster than intuitive Roux. Think of it this way -CFOP is a luckier method than Roux because the chance of getting an easy cross or F2L or any OLL/PLL skips is more than getting an easy block or CMLL skip. IMO this is the main reason that most people are faster with CFOP. I know CFOP and Roux too. I am sub 25 with CFOP but barely sub 40 with Roux and I have practiced them about the same. Sorry If I am harsh, but for a person who wants to do big cubes also, CFOP is easier and IMO better.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> IMO I hate Roux because of the M slices and the block building. BTW CFOP is as intuituve as Roux because of Cross and F2L. Honestly though due to algs the execution speed of CFOP is faster than intuitive Roux. Think of it this way -CFOP is a luckier method than Roux because the chance of getting an easy cross or F2L or any OLL/PLL skips is more than getting an easy block or CMLL skip. IMO this is the main reason that most people are faster with CFOP. I know CFOP and Roux too. I am sub 25 with CFOP but barely sub 40 with Roux and I have practiced them about the same. Sorry If I am harsh, but for a person who wants to do big cubes also, CFOP is easier and IMO better.



personally, i don't believe you when you say you've practice them equally. but even if you did, that doesn't prove much. if you are just starting cubing and spend a week with beginner's method vs cfop, you will be far better with beginner's. furthermore, the time you spent with beginner's method translates well into cfop but badly with roux. i'm not so sure which method is luckier, that's up for debate. as for big cubes you're probably right. cfop may be easier to move but it does have 5-10 more moves, more time recognizing cases for algs, and a couple of cube rotations.



PJKCuber said:


> IMO I hate Roux because of the M slices and the block building. BTW CFOP is as intuituve as Roux because of Cross and F2L. Honestly though due to algs the execution speed of CFOP is faster than intuitive Roux. Think of it this way -CFOP is a luckier method than Roux because the chance of getting an easy cross or F2L or any OLL/PLL skips is more than getting an easy block or CMLL skip. IMO this is the main reason that most people are faster with CFOP. I know CFOP and Roux too. I am sub 25 with CFOP but barely sub 40 with Roux and I have practiced them about the same. Sorry If I am harsh, but for a person who wants to do big cubes also, CFOP is easier and IMO better.



personally, i don't believe you when you say you've practice them equally. but even if you did, that doesn't prove much. if you are just starting cubing and spend a week with beginner's method vs cfop, you will be far better with beginner's. furthermore, the time you spent with beginner's method translates well into cfop but badly with roux. i'm not so sure which method is luckier, that's up for debate. as for big cubes you're probably right. cfop may be easier to move but it does have 5-10 more moves, more time recognizing cases for algs, and a couple of cube rotations.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> personally, i don't believe you when you say you've practice them equally. but even if you did, that doesn't prove much. if you are just starting cubing and spend a week with beginner's method vs cfop, you will be far better with beginner's. furthermore, the time you spent with beginner's method translates well into cfop but badly with roux. i'm not so sure which method is luckier, that's up for debate. as for big cubes you're probably right. cfop may be easier to move but it does have 5-10 more moves, more time recognizing cases for algs, and a couple of cube rotations.


Even if that may be true, LL recognition isn't that hard and LL is faster than LSE IMO (Around 2.5 seconds for the fastest solvers). A couple of cube rotations is okay opposed to weird and uncomfortable fingertricks in Roux. I like CFOP more because you don't have to look at the bottom for pieces. As for Roux, you need great lookahead to do F2B quickly. About the fact that CFOP has 10 more moves, LL takes up about 20 moves of CFOP. And these 20 moves can be executed in less than 2 seconds. F2L is much easier to lookahead in. One advantage that Roux has is that a high tps isn't needed to get sub 10.


----------



## FailCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> Even if that may be true, LL recognition isn't that hard and LL is faster than LSE IMO (Around 2.5 seconds for the fastest solvers). A couple of cube rotations is okay opposed to weird and uncomfortable fingertricks in Roux. I like CFOP more because you don't have to look at the bottom for pieces. As for Roux, you need great lookahead to do F2B quickly. About the fact that CFOP has 10 more moves, LL takes up about 20 moves of CFOP. And these 20 moves can be executed in less than 2 seconds. F2L is much easier to lookahead in. One advantage that Roux has is that a high tps isn't needed to get sub 10.


Roux's CMLL and LSE takes about two seconds.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

FailCuber said:


> Roux's CMLL and LSE takes about two seconds.


Both or each one?


----------



## FailCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> Both or each one?



Both. You can really get fast with roux too. It's just that there's not too much of them.


----------



## elrog (Jul 12, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> I was thinking recently that CFOP substeps with high alg counts (ZBLL, OLLCP, RV) could be made a _lot _more useful if we could somehow highlight all of the nice cases. Like, a wiki page with only easy-to-recognise ZBLL cases would be really really useful. So instead, of learning all of the algs, we just learn the nice ones. So you can save moves without learning _all _of the algorithms.
> 
> Btw, here's a nice WV case that everyone should know: link
> 
> someone make this pls



I found the hidden message .

I would like to point out that mathematically CFOP and Roux (or any other method) are not equal. They are just so close and there are so many factors that we cannot know which is best. This really bugs me because I am a little bit of a perfectionist.

For FMC solving, there isn't really any method to use to improve intuition besides just solving intuitively and that only gets you so far. It would be possible to improve at FMC by memorizing massive numbers of algorithms. It is very possible that someone could remember every Last Layer case if they went through every one every day for a year.

For advancements in speedsolving, I think we may be on to something with a LL system like the one Kirjava has been working on. Also, big cube direct solving has not been fully explored. There are also great ideas out there (such as RoFL) that nobody has generated good algs for yet.

While there are improvements to be made, they are nearly negligible unless you are near world class already.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 12, 2014)

FailCuber said:


> Both. You can really get fast with roux too. It's just that there's not too much of them.



i don't think anyone can cmll and lse in 2 seconds. i think for lau, it's about 1 for cmll and 2 for lse.



PJKCuber said:


> Even if that may be true, LL recognition isn't that hard and LL is faster than LSE IMO (Around 2.5 seconds for the fastest solvers). A couple of cube rotations is okay opposed to weird and uncomfortable fingertricks in Roux. I like CFOP more because you don't have to look at the bottom for pieces. As for Roux, you need great lookahead to do F2B quickly. About the fact that CFOP has 10 more moves, LL takes up about 20 moves of CFOP. And these 20 moves can be executed in less than 2 seconds. F2L is much easier to lookahead in. One advantage that Roux has is that a high tps isn't needed to get sub 10.



for lau, i think the cmll and lse take about 3 seconds. roux's first two blocks take about ten less moves than cfop's f2l. i don't know what you mean by weird and uncomfortable fingertricks. even at my level i never look at the bottom for pieces. lookahead might even be easier in roux since you are always only looking on one side of the cube. you will never have to look at both sides of the cube to see a pair as occasionally in cfop.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> for lau, i think the cmll and lse take about 3 seconds. roux's first two blocks take about ten less moves than cfop's f2l. i don't know what you mean by weird and uncomfortable fingertricks. even at my level i never look at the bottom for pieces. lookahead might even be easier in roux since you are always only looking on one side of the cube. you will never have to look at both sides of the cube to see a pair as occasionally in cfop.



If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record? By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves. Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds. The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux? This is becoming a fiery debate so please forgive my arrogance.


----------



## TDM (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100?


He doesn't though? Alex Lau has sub-7 Ao100s (or at least one), and he has the UWR as far as I know.
And r/M moves aren't weird if you've practised them. They may be to you, but to an experienced Roux solved M moves are normal.
And CMLL skip is 1/324, only ~1.5 times as rare as an OLL skip. And nothing is stopping you using WV/SV in Roux to make it 1/6 too.
And yeah what pewpew said.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record? By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves. Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds. The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux? This is becoming a fiery debate so please forgive my arrogance.



You're obviously extremely uninformed, so please stop spewing **** about a method that you know absolutely nothing about.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

pewpewrawr said:


> You're obviously extremely uninformed, so please stop spewing **** about a method that you know absolutely nothing about.


I'm not uninformed. Everybody is just biased towards their own methods. We are just debating on which one is better.



TDM said:


> He doesn't though? Alex Lau has sub-7 Ao100s (or at least one), and he has the UWR as far as I know.
> And r/M moves aren't weird if you've practised them. They may be to you, but to an experienced Roux solved M moves are normal.
> And CMLL skip is 1/324, only ~1.5 times as rare as an OLL skip. And nothing is stopping you using WV/SV in Roux to make it 1/6 too.
> And yeah what pewpew said.



Ok sure, but Feliks Zemdegs does hold the UWR for 3x3 avg of 100. http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_UWR


----------



## Renslay (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record?





pewpewrawr said:


> You're obviously extremely uninformed, so please stop spewing **** about a method that you know absolutely nothing about.



I have to agree on this. You have little knowledge in either cubing or statistics.



PJKCuber said:


> By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves.



Weird? How so?



PJKCuber said:


> Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds.



Again, lack of statistical knowledge and being closed-minded.



PJKCuber said:


> The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux?



How about the chance of getting square-skip, EO skip, X-cross skip, JJ-LSE1 skip, WV-skip, L5E skip, and so on? You cannot consider all the possible "skips" to compare the "luck" in methods. If so, LBL is better then CFOP because the chance of a skip of a step is higher.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record? By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves. Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds. The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux? This is becoming a fiery debate so please forgive my arrogance.



it takes a while to get extremely good at the rubik's cube no matter what method you are using. it's not really about how popular roux is right now but how popular it was 2-4 years ago, since that's how long it takes. probably more than two thirds of the cubers in the top 100 have been cubing longer than lau, feliks with two extra years. you can't expect a method with such a small popularity in the recent past to generate a large number of world class cubers. the fact that lau somehow made it up there is mindboggling, considering unpopularity and especially if roux actually is worse.


----------



## thatboyahcubah (Jul 12, 2014)

This really shouldn't be a debate about which method is "better". As a few people have mentioned, Roux and CFOP have their advantages and disadvatages, just like every other solving method. Each is fairly balanced, because Roux definitely takes more practice while CFOP sacrifices moves for quick learnability.


----------



## TDM (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I'm not uninformed. Everybody is just biased towards their own methods. We are just debating on which one is better.


Neither is noticably better. It makes no difference which method you use.


PJKCuber said:


> Ok sure, but Feliks Zemdegs does hold the UWR for 3x3 avg of 100. http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_UWR


Yeah... that page is wrong. Someone posted that on here (although I can't find the thread), but iirc Alex Lau has a 6.8x Ao100, if not then something faster than faz's average.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

Okay then, I'll stop debating about which method is better, but CFOP is better for me because I like learning algs. 



Renslay said:


> I have to agree on this. You have little knowledge in either cubing or statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How can LBL be faster? It has way more moves than CFOP.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> Okay then, I'll stop debating about which method is better, but CFOP is better for me because I like learning algs.



Now that is a more rational thought. 

EDIT:


PJKCuber said:


> How can LBL be faster? It has way more moves than CFOP.



That was just a silly example for showing that the chance for a skip means very little when you want to compare methods.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Now that is a more rational thought.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...


 I need to practice Roux more then. I love the appearance of the method.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I need to practice Roux more then.



And ZZ. That is also a method worth practicing.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 12, 2014)

Renslay said:


> And ZZ. That is also a method worth practicing.



What for?


----------



## Renslay (Jul 12, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> What for?



Surprising, but practicing another method can help to improve in your own method. Blockbuilding can improve intuitive F2L (and vice versa), which is true for ZZ blocks too.


----------



## TDM (Jul 12, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Surprising, but practicing another method can help to improve in your own method. Blockbuilding can improve intuitive F2L (and vice versa), which is true for ZZ blocks too.


Also, once you get used to EOLines, ZZ is very good for OH; no y rotations and all LUR (or RUz with a couple of z rotations; you don't need many though).


----------

