# Roux, fridrich, or zz



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Which do you think is best? And remember, no flaming kids.
Ok cuz some people were going off topic here are the rule (all electricdooie fault, blame him)-
NO OFF-TOPIC...ness
Post a reason for each for each response
DONT QOUTE SUPER LONG QUOTES, i hate when people do this.
And thats it.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

all equal.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

Roux for when I use Roux. Fridrich for when I use Fridrich. And I learned ZZ for when I used ZZ. Apparently nobody likes petrus, but I learned that for when I use petrus too.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> all equal.



Well, that wont get a discussion started.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > all equal.
> ...



but it's true. Anyone who says that one method is better than the other is just annoying and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2010)

I think ZZ is slightly inferior to the other two. No reason you can't still get sub-10 with it, though.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

My bet is on some new, extremely move efficient but still fast and fingertrick friendly method to come out. I'm turnin' blue.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Which do you think is best?



This is a pointless thread, which seems to be only here to start a flame war.

None is better than the other. The only difference is what people prefer to use/learn, depending on their own learning style/way their brains work.

There is no "one method is the best method."
There is no best method.

Methods depend on the person learning it.
Whatever is best for you, is best for you.


----------



## ChrisBird (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Which do you think is best?



I like Fridrich 'cause it looks cool.
I like Roux 'cause the last step looks cool.
I like ZZ 'cause the name sounds cool.

Apart from that, I'm going with Waffle on this one.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you think is best?
> ...


This is indeed pointless but im interested and other people might come here out of interest too. I am not a troll.


waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


Im looking for people's opinions of which is best, im sure im not the only person that perfers a certain method.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Preference is different from the "best"


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Preference is different from the "best"



Sigh. I said which you think is the best. Not which is the best.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Preference is different from the "best"
> ...



Then it becomes a "What's your favorite method?" thread. Not really needed, as it's pretty easy to find most peoples favorite method. It's usually their main method.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Preference is different from the "best"
> ...



Then this forum will instantly be biased towards Fridrich since the majority uses it. Not a lot of people use ZZ and Roux but they both have extreme potential to be fast.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


As I said before Im just interested.


waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


Like, wtf? A lot of people use zz, roux, or something else.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

In comparison in numbers 

CFOP>Roux, ZZ, or something else

Out of the active members (which is a lot), I'm thinking at most 30 (overestimation) of them use roux. I'm a Roux user and I don't think it's the best method, because new developments happen everyday.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> In comparison in numbers
> 
> CFOP>Roux, ZZ, or something else
> 
> Out of the active members (which is a lot), I'm thinking at most 30 of them use roux. I'm a Roux user and I don't think it's the best method, because new developments happen everyday.



Whats cfop? And why dont you switch if you dont like roux.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > In comparison in numbers
> ...



CFOP is an alternative name for Fridrich. I didn't say I didn't like roux, I said I think it's not the best method. As cubing progresses, each of these methods will keep developing.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


okays.


----------



## ariasamie (Sep 7, 2010)

it's the cuber, not the cube. not the lube. not the method.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 7, 2010)

Do you guys even read these threads before you post? This is clearly a legitimate thread that is intended to start a *coughflamewarcough* debate about which method has the most potential.  

Oh, also


qqwref said:


> I think ZZ is slightly inferior to the other two. No reason you can't still get sub-10 with it, though.





So, if you didn't just say that to make people mad, can you tell us why it's inferior? I'd like to know why I should switch back to Fridrich.


----------



## CubeNoobie (Sep 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Do you guys even read these threads before you post? This is clearly a legitimate thread that is intended to start a *coughflamewarcough* debate about which method has the most potential.
> 
> Oh, also
> 
> ...



lol the day I get sub 10 with it I **** on these sentences... It is still a fast method, even If nobody is crazy fast with it, but the Day will come and anybody will make sub 10 with it.

@topic: As many others said: there´s not the method. You just should choose the method which fits your preference the best .


----------



## BC1997 (Sep 7, 2010)

i personally use fridrich since im not into blockbuilding but if ur gud at that than fridrich doesnt suit u


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 7, 2010)

I personally prefer ZZ because I find it to be the most fun. I'm okay with choosing my methods this way because, as everyone has reiterated, they're pretty much all equal.


----------



## supercuber86 (Sep 7, 2010)

Fridrich because it seems to suit me and its pretty easy to learn


----------



## XXGeneration (Sep 7, 2010)

I wanna switch to ZZ, but the block building just doesn't work for me.
I think they all have pretty ridiculous potential.
For CFOP, it's just based on your execution speed and how long your delays are.
I'm sure there are similar things for Roux, ZZ, and Petrus.


----------



## RCTACameron (Sep 7, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> it's the cuber, not the cube. not the lube. not the method.



True. My opinion:

Cuber>Method>Cube>Lube. But, with the method thing, I use fridrich. However, I use my own adaptation for the method, which I guess is kind of Petrus-ish. Here it is:

Usually, an F2L pair is already solved, so I put that it place before I even start the cross. Then, I put in the two cross arms next to the F2L pair, and solve the rest of the cross, then do the rest like normal fridrich.

I would recommend learning fridrich, and practicing with it, because it is fairly easy to get very fast with it. Then, if you feel that you want to try something new, try another method.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> all equal.



i don't see how people can keep saying this with a straight face. do you honestly believe they are "all equal"? and i'm not sure if people agreeing with the insistent (mostly roux) users actually feel that way or just don't feel like stepping on any toes.

if you look at it one way, i think it's absolutely clear that fridrich is far beyond other methods right now. fridrich can be isolated into blocks of algorithms that hundreds of people have spent time optimizing over several years. there are many different algorithms that make themselves known through common use so as a cuber, you have different options to choose from that are all very good.

from an adaptable/ease of learning point of view - fridrich is a very natural transition from layer by layer method, and a lot of sites that teach a layer by layer also teach the transition to fridrich. this simply doesn't happen as well with other methods. there simply aren't as many resources out there on roux or whatever other methods people want to promote. yes, this may be because historically, fridrich came much earlier, but i think because of that, fridrich is the much more mature, developed, and _better_ method right now. people can go from not knowing how to solve a cube to sub-20 in two months. i don't know of another method that can reasonably allow that to happen in such a short period of time. also, yes, a vast majority of the fastest people in the world do use fridrich, and that certainly counts for something.

looking at it from another point of view, you may say that - "sure, it's better now, but in the future, if more people were to use other methods, there could be a potentially better method." this is absolutely meaningless unless you can guess which one you think will end up better. if there's an inherent reason that one method, after a lot of work, will end up faster than other methods, then sure, you may have a point. for example, if you strongly believed that ZBF2L has the potential to be faster than fridrich, then sure, you may have an argument to make. but if you don't strongly believe that one method is theoretically better than others in the long run, this kind of argument is kind of pointless. it's like saying "sure, fridrich is the fastest method now, but WHO knows what developments can happen in the next ten years". almost nobody cares about what'll happen in the future, if they're picking a method, they want what's fastest now.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Sep 7, 2010)

I personally use fridrich, it has a gentle learning curve that worked quite easily for me since I don't have a problem memorizing algorithms. That is why I prefer it, although since I'm kinda new to the game and I haven't put much effort into attempting ZZ or Roux I can't definitely say which one is "best".


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 7, 2010)

Forgetting Petrus?

Anyway, I average 14 with CFOP, 20 with Roux, 22 with Petrus, and 25 with ZZ. I really only practice CFOP and occasionally Petrus for OH. I think all of these methods could become sub 10 given time and dedication.


----------



## nck (Sep 7, 2010)

IMO fridrich focuses more on algs and execution speed while petrus really needs efficiency (and look ahead). To me Roux is like a 'hybrid' between these two, in terms of advantages and stuff. Although they all can be fast, Fridrich will be easier to learn for most people.

I was using ZZ for a while and got ~25 averages with it before I decided I had enough of spamming long algs for LL. Although it's fast, it is not efficient and I feel like I'm wasting moves..


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > all equal.
> ...




There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.



incessantcheese said:


> and i'm not sure if people agreeing with the insistent (mostly roux) users actually feel that way or just don't feel like stepping on any toes.




This is an absurd thing to say.



incessantcheese said:


> if you look at it one way, i think it's absolutely clear that fridrich is far beyond other methods right now. fridrich can be isolated into blocks of algorithms that hundreds of people have spent time optimizing over several years. there are many different algorithms that make themselves known through common use so as a cuber, you have different options to choose from that are all very good.




How does this make it "absolutely clear that fridrich is far beyond other methods right now". It's simply an aspect of the method. Of course more documentation exists, it's more popular (most of it redundant). This does not make it a 'better' method.

If less documentation was available for CFOP, it wouldn't make the method any different.



incessantcheese said:


> from an adaptable/ease of learning point of view - fridrich is a very natural transition from layer by layer method, and a lot of sites that teach a layer by layer also teach the transition to fridrich. this simply doesn't happen as well with other methods. there simply aren't as many resources out there on roux or whatever other methods people want to promote.




A multitude of resources are not required for successful implementation of a method.



incessantcheese said:


> yes, this may be because historically, fridrich came much earlier, but i think because of that, fridrich is the much more mature, developed, and _better_ method right now.




You seem to have invented the non-existant issue of "lack of developments". ZOMG METHODS HAVE TO HAVE COLL AND VH AND WV AND CEPOLL AND MULTISLOTTING AND CLS AND ZB AND 2GLL AND CLLEF BECAUSE YOU CANT BE FAST BY JUST MAKING A CROSS AND THEN DOING FOUR F2L SLOTS AND THEN FIXING THE ORIENTATION OF THE LAST LAYER AND THEN PERMUTING THE PIECES IN THE LAST LAYER LOL NO ONE DOES THAT ANYMORE.



incessantcheese said:


> people can go from not knowing how to solve a cube to sub-20 in two months. i don't know of another method that can reasonably allow that to happen in such a short period of time.




Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It has. I'd rather you stopped displaying ignorant assumptions.



incessantcheese said:


> also, yes, a vast majority of the fastest people in the world do use fridrich, and that certainly counts for something.




You can use statistics to say a lot of things. I could bring up the fact that the average Roux user is faster than the average Fridrich user. But really, these all mean nothing in saying if one method is objectively better than another.



incessantcheese said:


> looking at it from another point of view, you may say that - "sure, it's better now, but in the future, if more people were to use other methods, there could be a potentially better method." this is absolutely meaningless unless you can guess which one you think will end up better.




I can and did.



incessantcheese said:


> if there's an inherent reason that one method, after a lot of work, will end up faster than other methods, then sure, you may have a point. for example, if you strongly believed that ZBF2L has the potential to be faster than fridrich, then sure, you may have an argument to make. but if you don't strongly believe that one method is theoretically better than others in the long run, this kind of argument is kind of pointless. it's like saying "sure, fridrich is the fastest method now, but WHO knows what developments can happen in the next ten years".




I'm at the point where reading this is giving me a headache.



incessantcheese said:


> almost nobody cares about what'll happen in the future, if they're picking a method, they want what's fastest now.




No method can be faster than any other. I advise you to think before you reply to this sentence.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

okay, yikes. 
okay first:


Kirjava said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > and i'm not sure if people agreeing with the insistent (mostly roux) users actually feel that way or just don't feel like stepping on any toes.
> ...



well, you think this is absurd to say, but i felt it was a valid question to ask. maybe it's absurd that i think it's a valid question, but that's how i feel.

moving on...
so you agree with those that say that a lot of methods are equal, and that there's no way to tell right now if one is better than another. but at the same time, i think it's easy to say that some methods are worse than others. clearly, a beginner's method is slower than full fridrich. by this same logic, i think it's strange to say that an arbitrary number of methods are "equal". i doubt they are equal, even if we have difficulty ranking them right now.

my point with documentation and development and all that wasn't the idea of coll or vh or all that, i was thinking more along the lines of last layer algorithms (and to some extent f2l algorithms). if there was less documentation available for cfop, i do strongly feel that it would be a worse method. there are a pretty large number of algorithms for the fridrich method, and the availability of very fast algorithms is a lot of what makes it a fast method. if nobody shared their pll and oll algorithms with each other, it would without a doubt be a slower method. for this reason, less popular variants of the last layer are going to be handicapped, because not as many people are interested in them and bettering the method.

for the sub-20 in two months thing, if it has happened, then sorry. i've just heard of people getting amazingly fast with fridrich in a short amount of time, but was under the impression roux had a much steeper learning curve.

you say that it's possible to misrepresent things with statistics, but i think that if the fastest, i dunno, 100 or so records in the world are done with cfop, it is much, much easier for someone to claim that cfop is the fastest method in the world than for someone else to claim that it is not. in my eyes, the burden of proof most definitely falls on that second person to back up his claim.

again, i disagree with the claim that no method can be faster than any other. there are undeniably some methods that are slower than other methods. trying to apply fmc methods to a speedsolve or doing layer by layer is definitely slower. similarly, i think few people will argue that petrus is slower than fridrich. of course, more people will argue if i were to say zz is slower than fridrich, and even more if i were to say roux is slower than fridrich. how is it that no method can be faster than any other? please explain this sentence. i don't understand it.

finally, i apologize that my post gave you a headache. i certainly didn't mean to cause physical pain to anyone with it.


----------



## nck (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > all equal.
> ...



By "equal" I will assume you are referring to the alg count.
And no, CFOP is inferior in this aspect.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

nck said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



huh? lol
i don't think we were ever talking about alg count, unless i missed something >_>


----------



## nck (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> nck said:
> 
> 
> > incessantcheese said:
> ...



What exactly do you mean by equal? Execution? Speed? Potential? Alg count?

I don't see how a method is superior than another other than the no. of algs you have to learn.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

no, well i assumed we were talking about speed/potential for speed, since that's all that matters in the end, right?

if you were going by alg count, then beginners methods and blindfold methods are both better than full fridrich, which doesn't really make any sense.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 7, 2010)

What are you guys talking about? This alg count thing doesn't make any sense. Are algs bad or good?


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

oh. maybe he means that if you learn more algs then it's a better method. well, going by this method, zbf2l wins hands down, doesn't it? lol. i already addressed this in one of my apparently too long posts earlier in the thread.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

rickcube said:


> What are you guys talking about? This alg count thing doesn't make any sense. Are algs bad or good?



Theyre talking about how many algrithoms aare needed for each method. The less the better basically.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> okay, yikes.
> okay first:
> 
> 
> ...




Please note that I'm not writing this post for you, it is for the entertainment of others. That is why I shall let this segment stand on it's own.



incessantcheese said:


> moving on...
> so you agree with those that say that a lot of methods are equal, and that there's no way to tell right now if one is better than another. but at the same time, i think it's easy to say that some methods are worse than others. clearly, a beginner's method is slower than full fridrich. by this same logic, i think it's strange to say that an arbitrary number of methods are "equal". i doubt they are equal, even if we have difficulty ranking them right now.




I'd like to see you prove that a beginners method is slower than CFOP. Regular viewers will note that I've had this exact conversation before and it ended with much lulz.



incessantcheese said:


> my point with documentation and development and all that wasn't the idea of coll or vh or all that, i was thinking more along the lines of last layer algorithms (and to some extent f2l algorithms).




The algorithms have had to be developed a lot because speedcubing as a community has matured. It was a lot harder to find good algs a while ago. Roux algs were discovered at a time when good algorithm generation was easy - is it not possible that they are already good enough?



incessantcheese said:


> if there was less documentation available for cfop, i do strongly feel that it would be a worse method. there are a pretty large number of algorithms for the fridrich method, and the availability of very fast algorithms is a lot of what makes it a fast method. if nobody shared their pll and oll algorithms with each other, it would without a doubt be a slower method.




The point is that multiple resources are not required for something to be good. 

There is a reason why there is only one real Roux method tutorial. That's because it's really good.



incessantcheese said:


> for this reason, less popular variants of the last layer are going to be handicapped, because not as many people are interested in them and bettering the method.




I remember a time when people were happy to do their own research. This allowed an individual to tailor their algorithms and techniques closer to their own style.



incessantcheese said:


> for the sub-20 in two months thing, if it has happened, then sorry. i've just heard of people getting amazingly fast with fridrich in a short amount of time, but was under the impression roux had a much steeper learning curve.




Why are you telling people this if you have no knowledge to back it up?



incessantcheese said:


> you say that it's possible to misrepresent things with statistics, but i think that if the fastest, i dunno, 100 or so records in the world are done with cfop, it is much, much easier for someone to claim that cfop is the fastest method in the world than for someone else to claim that it is not. in my eyes, the burden of proof most definitely falls on that second person to back up his claim.




If everyone used LBL and the top 100 results were done with LBL, would this imply that it was a better method than CFOP? Not only are statistics meaningless in this argument, a good statistical analysis is impossible due to lack of sample data.



incessantcheese said:


> again, i disagree with the claim that no method can be faster than any other. there are undeniably some methods that are slower than other methods. trying to apply fmc methods to a speedsolve or doing layer by layer is definitely slower.




Please prove this.



incessantcheese said:


> similarly, i think few people will argue that petrus is slower than fridrich. of course, more people will argue if i were to say zz is slower than fridrich, and even more if i were to say roux is slower than fridrich. how is it that no method can be faster than any other? please explain this sentence. i don't understand it.




You're completely ignoring the human element. This applys to nearly all of the points you're trying to make.



incessantcheese said:


> finally, i apologize that my post gave you a headache. i certainly didn't mean to cause physical pain to anyone with it.




I said this because your stupid ramblings were not worth replying to properly so it was easier and funnier to just insult them.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > What are you guys talking about? This alg count thing doesn't make any sense. Are algs bad or good?
> ...



yeah nobody knows what he/we are talking about. i don't even know anymore.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

I think by equal he means "equally able to produce fast times".


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> rickcube said:
> 
> 
> > What are you guys talking about? This alg count thing doesn't make any sense. Are algs bad or good?
> ...


I'm staying mostly out of the thread, but this is wrong. The more algs, the better.
As long as you can keep them all in your head (and they're not redundant), more algs = more power.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I think by equal he means "equally able to produce fast times".



I'm glad I slept through all of this. It made me lol. 

By equal, I mean
-All the methods have pros and cons. This allows for balance between the 3 methods.
-All have the potential to produce fast times

EDIT - @Lucas - I do agree that if you can recognize the case instantly and recall the algs quickly, you have more power in solving. People who learned ZB will need time to work on that 

EDIT -I can honestly keep a straight face saying this because there is nothing wrong with the statement.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Oh, also
> 
> 
> qqwref said:
> ...


I have a few reasons for thinking this (and keep in mind I'm talking two-handed here, ZZ isn't necessarily worse for OH or big cubes):
- EOline is more difficult to plan than cross, and solves fewer pieces. This means that any color neutrality more complex than opposite F/B and U/D colors is very difficult for a ZZ user to do in 15 seconds. You have to rush. Color neutrality is way easier in Fridrich because you can quickly scan the cube for good starts. Keep in mind that a shorter first step means fewer wristy turns and also better lookahead to the next step.
- Comparing ZZ F2L to an experienced Fridrich user's F2L, unless you use blockbuilding your efficiency in ZZ will be no better than in Fridrich (and even slightly worse, perhaps, since a few cases take more moves to do 2gen). Of course, the same is worse because you used more moves to get there. But blockbuilding has its own set of problems: lookahead to a blockbuilding setup is more difficult; you spend more time thinking while you turn; there are too many cases to practice the turning on each one. So I think that in ZZ you have a tradeoff between more thinking than Fridrich (but possibly fewer moves) and more moves than Fridrich (but just as much thinking). As for the rotations, I don't think they're as slow as people think once you consider how few are used, and switching from doing right-handed 2gen moves to left-handed ones takes about as much time for me as a fast rotation.
- I don't think there's much LL benefit if any. I'm going to ignore the ZBLL/phasing+ZZLL approaches for now because I haven't yet seen anyone get nearly as fast with those (in terms of recognition and tps) as with OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. For most people, those are the two options. COLL/EPLL doesn't give much benefit if any because many Fridrich users already use it (an experienced Fridrich user can get LL edges oriented much more than 1/8 of the time). OCLL/PLL sounds like it should definitely be faster than OLL/PLL, but if you can avoid four flipped edges almost all the time the difference is minimal because there are many good OLL cases that have two flipped edges.

So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.


PS: Hi Kirjava, claiming that no method can be proven to be faster than any other method is silly. I can demonstrate to you a method that is impossible to get under 15 seconds on because the best tps ever recorded cannot even come close. Of course, you have to make more statistical assumptions to compare methods that are more similar, which is why I don't claim that any of my feelings about method comparisons are objective facts, but rather hunches and opinions.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

kirjava: ugh, okay well, first i'm not trying to attack you or roux or whatever, i put time and some amount of energy into the posts so i'd appreciate if you didn't just respond by calling me an idiot every time, even if you really strongly do feel this way. 

i didn't read any previous arguments about cfop vs beginner's method, so if i repeat something that was already covered, sorry. a beginner's method on average can take as much as twice as many moves as cfop, and is not by any means optimized for quick execution. i don't even know why this is a point of argument, unless you have some deeper meaning behind arguing over this. trying to use methods designed for fmc that are meant to take up time to think is certainly going to be slower than a cfop method designed to be done in as few as ten seconds or less.

i agree that speedcubing as a community matured and there is a lot shared information right now. for that same reason, the cfop that exists today is i feel undeniably faster than the cfop method that existed when i first got interested in cubing back in 2005. 

it's certainly possible roux has matured enough or caught up fast enough because of technology or the current community. this doesn't necessarily apply to other methods that involve a large number of algorithms. there could very well be a great method that would take an intensive amount of work to develop before it is as fast or faster than current methods. however, the fact that nobody has put forth the effort to learn that method or develop the method for others to learn means it's not really a viable method.

as for the sub-20 thing, i've been around for a while and have heard of people using fridrich get fast amazingly quickly, but haven't heard of it happening with other methods, so i said so. you have heard of it happening, so you pointed it out to me, and the point is dropped. i wasn't telling people that it's impossible, just that i had never heard of it.

individual research is great and all, but it certainly isn't as good as a collective effort of research. the reason times are as fast as they are now as a whole is because people have put energy into sharing what they've learned and discovered with other people. there are clearly still people looking into algs themselves (and then willing to share their findings) or cubing wouldn't be moving forward.

my point with saying almost all of the top 100 is made with cfop is that it is the current fact that the fastest people in the world use cfop. if the fastest 100 people in the world were using layer by layer, and someone was to claim that layer by layer was the fastest in the world, then i feel it would be very difficult to dispute this fact unless someone were to demonstrate otherwise. the fact is, lbl does not hold the fastest time in the world, and for good reason.

i don't think i'm "ignoring the human element" i think i'm trying very hard to acknowledge the human element in every point i make. i'm framing everything in the present and with the current tools we have as a group.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, also
> ...



what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> PS: Hi Kirjava, claiming that no method can be proven to be faster than any other method is silly. I can demonstrate to you a method that is impossible to get under 15 seconds on because the best tps ever recorded cannot even come close.




Of course, I don't include the Devil's Algorithm and similar.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 7, 2010)

I'd assume ZZ last layer is COLL/PLL or EPLL


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 7, 2010)

> So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.



I am a ZZ user and I kind of feel the same way. I am curious though, about your thoughts on ZZ's OH potential. I've been using ZZ for OH for around 10-11 months now and I've been able to consistently get sub 20 (while still making a considerable amount of mistakes during f2l lol).



> I'd assume ZZ last layer is COLL/PLL or EPLL



ZZLL refers to a one look last layer after phasing. Since the edges are already oriented, a further step is taken to reduce the number of last layer possibilities.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> kirjava: ugh, okay well, first i'm not trying to attack you or roux or whatever, i put time and some amount of energy into the posts so i'd appreciate if you didn't just respond by calling me an idiot every time, even if you really strongly do feel this way.




I too put effort into my posts. I make valid points, and when I read something as frustrating as some of the things you have posted, I call it as I see it.



incessantcheese said:


> i didn't read any previous arguments about cfop vs beginner's method, so if i repeat something that was already covered, sorry. a beginner's method on average can take as much as twice as many moves as cfop, and is not by any means optimized for quick execution.




There are more elements than these two to take into consideration. Some cannot even be quantified.



incessantcheese said:


> there could very well be a great method that would take an intensive amount of work to develop before it is as fast or faster than current methods. however, the fact that nobody has put forth the effort to learn that method or develop the method for others to learn means it's not really a viable method.




This is simply wrong.



incessantcheese said:


> individual research is great and all, but it certainly isn't as good as a collective effort of research. the reason times are as fast as they are now as a whole is because people have put energy into sharing what they've learned and discovered with other people. there are clearly still people looking into algs themselves (and then willing to share their findings) or cubing wouldn't be moving forward.




This is correct, and I never disagreed with anything like it. It's also somewhat irrelevant.



incessantcheese said:


> if the fastest 100 people in the world were using layer by layer, and someone was to claim that layer by layer was the fastest in the world, then i feel it would be very difficult to dispute this fact unless someone were to demonstrate otherwise.




I'd dispute it the same way I'm doing now, and tell him that the statistics are meaningless for deciding which method is better.



incessantcheese said:


> i don't think i'm "ignoring the human element" i think i'm trying very hard to acknowledge the human element in every point i make. i'm framing everything in the present and with the current tools we have as a group.




You haven't even considered that certain people may be suited to certain methods better than others. This alone renders your entire point null.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

just because you're frustrated with a post doesn't mean you should just go ahead and be completely discourteous, especially if you plan on actually discussing it afterwards.



Kirjava said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > i didn't read any previous arguments about cfop vs beginner's method, so if i repeat something that was already covered, sorry. a beginner's method on average can take as much as twice as many moves as cfop, and is not by any means optimized for quick execution.
> ...



how are there non-quantifiable elements? lookahead? as qqwref said it is entirely possible to make a method that will be impossible for a human to execute in less than 7 seconds, which is the current world record. it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.

my wording for the second part was a bit off. of course, a method that hasn't been developed is still viable. but if someone is asking, "what's a good method to learn to be among the fastest in the world?", i'm certainly not going to recommend it, and i don't know many that would. you're free to use any method you want, but you can't make a comparison between a hypothetical method and a current method that's already in use.

anyway, the other stuff is basically you disagreeing with me, not much to argue about anymore. 

and, uh, you argue that the fact that certain people may be better suited for some methods than others. i don't see how this "renders my entire point null". except in extreme cases, i can't see how someone can be so much better suited to one method than another. for the most part, anybody of average intelligence and memory seems to be able to use most methods proficiently. why should one person be so much more suited to one method than another?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.



pretty sure that's what you did to start this argument in the first place


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

But guys, young Jimmy in 30 years will fall off of a cliff using the perfect cube, and knowing the best method. Let's save all of this until then ;-;


----------



## Cride5 (Sep 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> - EOline ... solves fewer pieces.


This is like arguing that OLL solves fewer pieces than COLL. Orientation is an aspect of the solve. EOLine solves the orientation of 10 edges and the permutation of 2. You are correct that it's more moves, CN or otherwise.



qqwref said:


> - Comparing ZZ F2L to an experienced Fridrich user's F2L, unless you use blockbuilding your efficiency in ZZ will be no better than in Fridrich (and even slightly worse, perhaps, since a few cases take more moves to do 2gen). Of course, the same is worse because you used more moves to get there.


Doing EOCross+Slots is not ZZ. ZZF2L is always done with blockbuilding, if you're not doing that then you're not doing ZZ.



qqwref said:


> But blockbuilding has its own set of problems: lookahead to a blockbuilding setup is more difficult; you spend more time thinking while you turn; there are too many cases to practice the turning on each one. So I think that in ZZ you have a tradeoff between more thinking than Fridrich (but possibly fewer moves) and more moves than Fridrich (but just as much thinking).


ZZ blockbuilding takes time to get good at, but it really isn't _that_ hard. Speaking from experience, the level of thought during ZZF2L becomes pretty minimal. I don't believe ZZF2L lookahead is any worse than Fridrich. Consider that completed 1x2x2's can always be placed in the back positions, and that EO often allows any other hidden edges to be worked out.



qqwref said:


> As for the rotations, I don't think they're as slow as people think once you consider how few are used, and switching from doing right-handed 2gen moves to left-handed ones takes about as much time for me as a fast rotation.


If you're strongly right handed or don't like switching, z/z' rotations are easily quicker than y rotations, and it means everything is R/U gen. Aside from ergonomics, the other problem with rotations is tracking pieces.



qqwref said:


> I don't think there's much LL benefit if any. I'm going to ignore the ZBLL/phasing+ZZLL approaches for now because I haven't yet seen anyone get nearly as fast with those (in terms of recognition and tps) as with OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. For most people, those are the two options. COLL/EPLL doesn't give much benefit if any because many Fridrich users already use it (an experienced Fridrich user can get LL edges oriented much more than 1/8 of the time).


And what of the extra thought/effort required to do EO during F2L? With the time a serious CFOP'er takes to learn this sort of stuff, a serious ZZ'er can easily learn ZZLL. ZZ himself uses ZZLL. I have my doubts about ZBLL, but ZZLL is definitely realistic. 167 cases and a min of 80 algs is easily dooable by a serious speedcuber.




qqwref said:


> OCLL/PLL sounds like it should definitely be faster than OLL/PLL, but if you can avoid four flipped edges almost all the time the difference is minimal because there are many good OLL cases that have two flipped edges.


And what about COLL? Avoiding diagonal swap PLLs is deffo a plus. My slower OCLLs are substituted for COLLs, which makes a greater proportion of my PLLs edges only. OCLL is the 'beginner' way to do the LL in ZZ. It would be more fair to compare that with 2-look OLL/PLL in Fridrich, as they both take about the same level of effort to learn.




qqwref said:


> So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.



EOLine - Probably
F2L - I believe ZZF2L is faster: move count is similar, ergonomics better.
LL - 100% disagree!


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> just because you're frustrated with a post doesn't mean you should just go ahead and be completely discourteous, especially if you plan on actually discussing it afterwards.




it doesn't, but I did.



incessantcheese said:


> how are there non-quantifiable elements? lookahead?




That's one of them, sure. Why are you asking if you already know?



incessantcheese said:


> as qqwref said it is entirely possible to make a method that will be impossible for a human to execute in less than 7 seconds, which is the current world record. it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.




k. You cannot argue that any of Roux/CFOP/ZZ are faster than each other.



incessantcheese said:


> you can't make a comparison between a hypothetical method and a current method that's already in use.




Of course you can - we do it all the time in the Random Cubing Discussion thread.



incessantcheese said:


> and, uh, you argue that the fact that certain people may be better suited for some methods than others. i don't see how this "renders my entire point null".




Because you cannot say for sure that a specific method is better for everyone.



incessantcheese said:


> for the most part, anybody of average intelligence and memory seems to be able to use most methods proficiently. why should one person be so much more suited to one method than another?




Anybody can learn to drive manual or automatic, and people generally prefer one or the other. ZOMG CAR ANALOGY


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.
> ...



huh? lol okay well i got stuff to do! argue with you guys later, don't hate me for my opinions :<

edit: well since kirjava posted as i was leaving and i can't resist - my original point was that since different methods are clearly faster or not faster than others, it's silly to say that roux, cfop, or zz are equal. just because they're hard to compare doesn't mean you can just say they're the same speed. some methods are clearly faster than others and the chance that three arbitrary methods are "equal" doesn't really work for me. qqwref already stated he doesn't think zz is as fast as the others, and i think it's totally okay to argue that fridrich is currently faster than roux. you don't, but that doesn't mean they're equal. 

you can make a hypothetical comparison between a not-yet existing method and a current one, but that doesn't have any bearing on which one is currently better/worse/whatever. 

car analogy aside, i don't see why anybody would be suited to one method better than another. sure, they can like a method more, but that doesn't mean that it's faster for them. people can prefer driving manual, but that doesn't mean it's the most efficient thing for them to do.

AH i gotta go: and to waffo below, i simply didn't (and don't) understand what you were referring to; i wasn't dismissing your point. i try not to dismiss points, as you can probably tell if you look at the past three pages. i apologize that you don't like lols. i do them a lot. okay bye.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

putting "lol" in a sentence doesn't absolve that some of your points aren't entirely correct nor does it help support your arguments. You can't say that method _x_ > method _y_ on the grounds of user statistics.

EDIT to above - I like "lols" but in a serious argument they really don't help. Again your argument that CFOP> Roux is just annoying.


----------



## Owen (Sep 7, 2010)

My favorite is Corners first, because it's fun, has great algorithms, and makes you look like you're cubing fast, even when you're not.


----------



## mr6768 (Sep 7, 2010)

Fridrich anyway . why to go learn ZZ with hell of algorithms when still records with Fridrich are faster than ZZ ?!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Simple. It's called preference and ZZ isn't a hell of algorithms.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.



OCLL/PLL is one option; you can also try COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. ZZLL (phasing) is where you make sure to solve two opposite edges while you put in the last F2L pair, and then solve the LL in one look - it's more cases than COLL but much less than ZBLL.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.
> ...



ahh i see, then i might learn zbll or zzll.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



Way easier said than done :I


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...




nah, im good at memorizing stuff.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



I think most of here would be considered good at memorizing things.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> putting "lol" in a sentence doesn't absolve that some of your points aren't entirely correct nor does it help support your arguments. You can't say that method _x_ > method _y_ on the grounds of user statistics.
> 
> EDIT to above - I like "lols" but in a serious argument they really don't help. Again your argument that CFOP> Roux is just annoying.



yes, i know the argument is annoying for you, but i've never seen what i felt was an adequate explanation for why they're equal. i've only ever seen a lot of different people get immediately ridiculed for saying that fridrich is the fastest method, always by people who use roux. 

i posted what i thought on the matter, and apparently, about halfway through that post i gave kirjava a headache -_-. i'm not trying to intentionally annoy you guys, i just don't get why it isn't okay to say that right now, cfop is faster than roux. 

if the top 100 professional tennis players used two-handed backhands instead of one, i'd be willing to say that two-handed backhands are the way to go. if you were then to claim that one-handed is just as good, simply different, i'd say that you would have to make quite an astounding argument to convince me.


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 7, 2010)

> nah, im good at memorizing stuff.



I guarantee that you'll quit in a few days. It takes a lot of work to be able to use that many algs fluently. As Mr. Edward said, it's much easier said than done. 



> Fridrich anyway . why to go learn ZZ with hell of algorithms when still records with Fridrich are faster than ZZ ?!



I'm faster than you. Why are you still cubing? 

A world record was set in the 80s with a corners first method. Why did people bother to explore other methods when that method held the record?


----------



## iasimp1997 (Sep 7, 2010)

ZZ.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 7, 2010)

I wish I had started with ZZ or Roux.

However, Roux had a very small community, and ZZ wasn't introduced into the non-Polish community until later on, afaik.

Right now, just try a bit of everything - maybe you'll fall in love with one method and just go on it.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

Oh, incessantcheese is back.

I was going to ask him to reply to my last post, but I dislike reiterating myself to someone who refuses to listen to me.

He just doesn't get it.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

i replied to your last post quickly before i left.

i'm reading what you're saying, i'm just not convinced.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> i replied to your last post quickly before i left.
> 
> i'm reading what you're saying, i'm just not convinced.




Oh, you edited it after. 

You are frustratingly stupid.



incessantcheese said:


> edit: well since kirjava posted as i was leaving and i can't resist - my original point was that since different methods are clearly faster or not faster than others, it's silly to say that roux, cfop, or zz are equal. just because they're hard to compare doesn't mean you can just say they're the same speed. some methods are clearly faster than others and the chance that three arbitrary methods are "equal" doesn't really work for me. qqwref already stated he doesn't think zz is as fast as the others, and i think it's totally okay to argue that fridrich is currently faster than roux. you don't, but that doesn't mean they're equal.




You missed this;



Kirjava said:


> I think by equal he means "equally able to produce fast times".




murrrr



incessantcheese said:


> car analogy aside, i don't see why anybody would be suited to one method better than another. sure, they can like a method more, but that doesn't mean that it's faster for them. people can prefer driving manual, but that doesn't mean it's the most efficient thing for them to do.




MAYBE SOME PEOPLE ARE REALLY GOOD AT SLICE MOVES AND SOME ARE REALLY BAD AT THEM. I DO NOT KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE THIS ANY SIMPLER FOR YOU.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You are frustratingly stupid.


lol

well, i'm not sure what you're getting at by bringing up "equally able to produce fast times". we already talked about this - we agree now that not all methods can produce the same times, so it doesn't make sense to say that cfop, zz, and roux are all equal.

i'm not really sure if i see how it's possible for someone to be better at slices than other people. it's pretty much a matter of practice... unless they have like, really fat fingers or something. obviously, the people who practice slices more are going to be faster at them, but i don't see how there could be something inherent from one person to the next that would render them incapable of slicing quickly.
i had no idea you were even thinking in this direction. i assumed you were going for the "spatially intelligent people would be better at block-building" angle or something.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

We're talking the 3 methods Roux, ZZ, and CFOP. All of them are capable of producing fast times. We're not extending that to, for example, the devil's algorithm. Yes not all methods can produce same times. But those 3 are capable.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

no no my point was - if slower methods are slower, and faster methods are faster, how are you able to pinpoint these three methods and say that it is impossible to rank them against each other? it doesn't make any sense. 

anyway, i have to go for real now, see ya.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> we agree now that not all methods can produce the same times, so it doesn't make sense to say that cfop, zz, and roux are all equal.




All those methods you named are capable of getting equally fast times.



incessantcheese said:


> i'm not really sure if i see how it's possible for someone to be better at slices than other people.




...


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

ChrisBird said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you think is best?
> ...



Yeah I'll have to go with Chris with this one cause he's cool.
It just depends how good you get with each method.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

you know what I just realized. methods can't be fast since they are systems of solving and by no way are capable of physically solving the cube. 

people can be fast though.

So lets put it this way. Lets say a "Faz" existed for each of the 3 methods. This Faz is completely color neutral and recognizes cases (this would include blocks and bad edges) instantly. His TPS is off the charts and lets give him the perfect cube too. One that doesn't lock and pop like it was a night club. 

Now what?


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> you know what I just realized. methods can't be fast since they are systems of solving and by no way are capable of physically solving the cube.
> 
> people can be fast though.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't that leave it up to movecount? Assuming all 3 Faz's are turning at the same speed.


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > you know what I just realized. methods can't be fast since they are systems of solving and by no way are capable of physically solving the cube.
> ...



Recognition counts.
And some moves (fingertricks) are faster than others.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

Joker said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



>Recognizes cases instantly
You're assuming that this applies to our perfect Faz.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Joker said:


> And some moves (fingertricks) are faster than others.



What I was looking for! =)

now lets say that these Faz's can preform everything smoothly

example 
Roux - <M U>
ZZ - <R U L> etc.
CFOP - well...



Edward said:


> Wouldn't that leave it up to movecount? Assuming all 3 Faz's are turning at the same speed.



Another good point. 

Can you still say which is better?


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Not all cases can be recognized that instantly no matter who you are >_>
And perfect Faz? Well still, some fingertricks are just more natural than others


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Ok, this faz can instantly recognize cases, so what? Maybe he turns super slow.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

I mentioned his TPS is off the charts.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Joker said:
> ...



>His TPS is off the charts and let's give him the perfect cube too.

Whop: Ninja'd


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > And some moves (fingertricks) are faster than others.
> ...



Unfortunately, there is no Raz or Zaz. All the "Faz's" out there chose Fridrich. I guess we'll have to encourage everyone to try these methods to truly see.


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



Ik his TPS is off the charts. But some fingertricks are naturally faster to execute than others.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Joker said:


> Not all cases can be recognized that instantly no matter who you are >_>



Have you seen faz's transition from OLL to PLL? It's too fast to be seen so you haven't. 



Joker said:


> Well still, some fingertricks are just more natural than others



I'm saying each Faz is fluent in their respective methods. 

Roux - <M U>
ZZ - <R U L> etc.
CFOP - well...


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

a small kitten said:


> > nah, im good at memorizing stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dont even give a care if its a lot of algrithoms, ill still memorize them.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Joker said:
> ...



your point is completely invalid to this argument and I love Sarah more than you do.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> a small kitten said:
> 
> 
> > > nah, im good at memorizing stuff.
> ...



Can you? Let's see! Prove your words! Get goin!


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > Not all cases can be recognized that instantly no matter who you are >_>
> ...



What if one faz has an arm cut off, another cant remember algrithoms, and the third turns super slow and is lazy so he peels the stickers usually.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > a small kitten said:
> ...



Kk, where can i find these algrithoms for zbll?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Joker said:
> ...



this is also beyond the argument. You said that we were "kids." Yeah. Right.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Joker said:
> ...


Honestly 


Spoiler












I'd like to know what exactly you're talking about. What does that have to with the discussion of these methods .-..


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


lolwut


waffle=ijm said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > Not all cases can be recognized that instantly no matter who you are >_>
> ...



eh good point...but I'm still standing by what I said before lol.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



And... none of them are into cubing.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Children.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



1.) Yes it is valid because you are arguing about something that has no real answer or an answer foreseeable to the near future.

2.) You are probably right.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> long quote



The point I'm making is that each method *if* given a "faz" would just be as fast as each other. Also the cuber>method.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> a small kitten said:
> 
> 
> > > nah, im good at memorizing stuff.
> ...



I loled.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > long quote
> ...



SILENCE! I KILL YOU!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...



I'd like to see your ****ing face try.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Go check whats under you bed.


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...



Off topic fail...or win idk


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



It's your mom.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > long quote
> ...



And you have been right all along. Yet for some reason it turned into an 11 page war of pointless arguing.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Now, look behind you.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...



my point exactly.



waffle=ijm said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > Now, look behind you.
> ...


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...



It could've been a nice discussion ;-;.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



And it still is.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Now, look out the window and see whos peeing on your cubes.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Edward said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



I lol'd.


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...



Wtf...this is getting _just a little_ offtopic :fp


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 7, 2010)

Joker said:


> Wtf...this is getting _just a little_ offtopic :fp



Dude! This is hilarious! Let them continue!

There's no limit to forum space.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Joker said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



totally on topic wtf are you talking about?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

nah i don't want to be banned. so I'll stop and apologize to the mods for my unruly behavior.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> nah i don't want to be banned. so I'll stop and apologize to the mods for my unruly behavior.



we were just kidding, lol.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 7, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you think is best?
> ...



I guess I was right.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > nah i don't want to be banned. so I'll stop and apologize to the mods for my unruly behavior.
> ...



No man, there is no excuse >:d. I'm done man. Football practice. You can keep it going if you wish, but erm, it will be your head. Oi! You should start on those ZB algs.


----------



## Joker (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Joker said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



Sry sry I guess I read the name wrong


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> ElectricDoodie said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



No one was offended, really. But yeah, ill stop, dont wanna get banned either.

And where can i find those zbll algs?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> your point is completely invalid to this argument and I love Sarah more than you do.


how...relevant...


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > your point is completely invalid to this argument and I love Sarah more than you do.
> ...



but it's true?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Probably true.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Whos sarah?


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 7, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Stachuk1992 said:
> ...



Miss Sarah Strong.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Sep 7, 2010)

I like Petrus.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

ROUX IS THE BEST METHOD


----------



## Ditto64 (Sep 7, 2010)

I use ZZ.


----------



## Jukuren (Sep 7, 2010)

ZZ


----------



## Chapuunka (Sep 7, 2010)

I think this thread would be better if it had a title more like "Roux vs. Fridrich vs. ZZ", made so we could discuss their pros and cons against each other.

But it became very amusing, especially near the end.  I'm off to learn ZZ... looks more fun.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> So lets put it this way. Lets say a "Faz" existed for each of the 3 methods. This Faz is completely color neutral and recognizes cases (this would include blocks and bad edges) instantly. His TPS is off the charts and lets give him the perfect cube too. One that doesn't lock and pop like it was a night club.
> 
> Now what?



last post of the night:
no, see this is exactly what i mean. if you had someone like faz who mastered all three methods in three different parallel universes, the chance of him getting the _exact same average time_ with all three methods is astronomically low. just as using beginner's method will give you a different time, using roux or fridrich will give you different average times. just because the difference may be small, say - half a second or one second, doesn't mean they're the same. it is extremely unlikely that all there methods are "equal". do you get what i'm trying to say now?


----------



## Tyjet66 (Sep 7, 2010)

Wow, interesting read after coming home from school... Can anyone say "flame wars FTW?" lol. Still, Fridrich.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> last post of the night:
> no, see this is exactly what i mean. if you had someone like faz who mastered all three methods in three different parallel universes, the chance of him getting the _exact same average time_ with all three methods is astronomically low. just as using beginner's method will give you a different time, using roux or fridrich will give you different average times. just because the difference may be small, say - half a second or one second, doesn't mean they're the same. it is extremely unlikely that all there methods are "equal". do you get what i'm trying to say now?



also depends on the scramble which is another quality that cannot be accounted for when considering the method.


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 7, 2010)

TICT for myself.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > last post of the night:
> ...



the scramble has nothing to do with this. do you see my point, though? if super parallel world fazs all do an average of 10,000, they're going to end up with different average times. we don't know what those averages are, but it doesn't make sense to say that they'll be the same.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

Tyjet66 said:


> Wow, interesting read after coming home from school... Can anyone say "flame wars FTW?" lol. Still, Fridrich.



argh. i'm not FLAMING, i'm trying to have a discussion while being called an idiot by kirjava over and over -_-


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

That's because you're an idiot.

You'll have trouble finding someone that disagrees with me.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > incessantcheese said:
> ...



and then? sure it doesn't make sense that they'll all be the same. The OP asked which is the best. There is no best method between the 3 so I said they're all equal since they have the potential to be fast. Then you drag this down to the last ****ing millisecond. And we still say there are non-accountable values that don't work for the every last ****ing decimal of the second. Overall however, you still end up with 3 potentially fast methods. Argument over why CFOP>Roux? Hell no. The idea with the multi-universal faz's was that it's the cuber, not the method. You'll still end up deviations between times. Yes, I agree. But I said they're equal in potential speed not in actual times and definitely not down to the last decimal of the second.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> the scramble has nothing to do with this. do you see my point, though? if super parallel world fazs all do an average of 10,000, they're going to end up with different average times. we don't know what those averages are, but it doesn't make sense to say that they'll be the same.



The point that is trying to be made is that no one knows what those averages would be, and therefore your choice in method should be solely on which you feel you enjoy more. There's no evidence any method is faster than any other method, nor will we ever accurately be able to measure 'which method is faster'.

Obviously the current faster method is Fridrich, but that's mainly because more people are taught the LBL beginner's method in which there is an easy segway to full Fridrich(note that a "beginner's method" doesn't always mean LBL, as you assumed before).

ie. there's no argument to have.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2010)

Patrick raises his knee in satisfaction.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Sep 7, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> That's because you're an idiot.
> 
> You'll have trouble finding someone that disagrees with me.



Kirjava, I see both you and incessantcheese making both valid points and points that are completely irrelevant, I both agree and disagree with both of you. I'm not going to elaborate or argue anything previously said; just thought I should let you know.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> And we still say there are non-accountable values that don't work for the every last ****ing decimal of the second. Overall however, you still end up with 3 potentially fast methods. Argument over why CFOP>Roux? Hell no. The idea with the multi-universal faz's was that it's the cuber, not the method. You'll still end up deviations between times. Yes, I agree. But I said they're equal in potential speed not in actual times and definitely not down to the last decimal of the second.



wait no see this is my point. it's impossible to ever do what we just suggested with faz or someone else, which is why it's impossible to prove one method is faster than another, but it doesn't make any sense at all to say that they'll be almost the same time.

i'm saying the deviations in time will most likely be as large as half a second or a second, not .001 seconds as you suggest. if you pick any random methods and have the same person master them, the spread of times could be huge, say, 3 seconds between one and another. the spread between roux and fridrich could easily be as big as half a second or one second. statistically, it is highly unlikely that zz, fridrich, and roux match up even to within .1 seconds from each other, just as it is unlikely three cubers of the same age will end up with the same average times if they all practiced for two years.

i agree with patrick's point in that it is impossible to prove one method is intrinsically faster than another, but i think it is just as valid to say that the fastest current method is, in fact fridrich. in fact, patrick refers to fridrich as "the current faster method" because it is not incorrect to call it that. the vast majority of fast cubers are using fridrich, and about the top 100 fastest cubers all use fridrich. in all practical terms, this means that right now, cfop = fastest method. arguing anything else without someone's average to back it up is about as useful as arguing that zbf2l is faster than cfop. maybe it is, but nobody's gotten it to be faster than cfop yet. 

essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.




I'm ridiculing you for other things you have said, tyvm.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 7, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.
> ...



okay, sure, but i've seen lots of instances where people were ridiculed for saying that fridrich is faster. i don't think there's anything wrong with saying that it is. i'm assuming you still don't want to agree with the point i'm trying to make? -_-


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 7, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > incessantcheese said:
> ...




Show me.



incessantcheese said:


> i don't think there's anything wrong with saying that it is. i'm assuming you still don't want to agree with the point i'm trying to make? -_-




You've not listened to what I've said. If you have - you refuse to take it onboard. I really don't want to talk to you anymore.


----------



## Vincents (Sep 7, 2010)

...Close this thread please.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Sep 7, 2010)

Vincents said:


> ...Close this thread please.



+1


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 7, 2010)

Tyjet66 said:


> Vincents said:
> 
> 
> > ...Close this thread please.
> ...



why? and how?


----------



## riffz (Sep 8, 2010)

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZB

Start memorizing.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 8, 2010)

Tyjet66 said:


> Vincents said:
> 
> 
> > ...Close this thread please.
> ...



+1

Flame thread has gone on for a while.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Sep 8, 2010)

riffz said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZB
> 
> Start memorizing.



Or check my sig.

Roux and ZZ and Petrus haven't had the speed showing the Fridrich has had because Fridrich has more users. Simple enough. I personally think that a really great ZZer has the most potential and I also think of Roux as having more potential than Fridrich. Petrus has been around a long time and I believe it has peaked, just as I believe Fridrich will peak around a 7 second average.


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2010)

@people saying to close this thread.

This discussion isn't that bad! I'm enjoying following it. It's only getting stale because people are being afraid to take risks! Got something to say? Well put it out there. The worst you can get back is a few harsh words :O.


----------



## nitrocan (Sep 8, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> ElectricDoodie said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up. Otherwise I would have assumed the exact opposite.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 8, 2010)

i actually just read all 16 pages of this thread. very entertaining. Certain people should just not bother trying to argue with kirjava...especially when they are that wrong


----------



## Escher (Sep 8, 2010)

Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.


----------



## oprah62 (Sep 8, 2010)

Escher said:


> Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.



I agree. Seriously anyone can be fast with any method. You just need to work at it.


----------



## XXGeneration (Sep 8, 2010)

Hard work > Method, generally.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 8, 2010)

Okay. I have an idea.

1. Orient all edges. It's like EOLine minus the... line.
2. Make a roux style 3x2x1 on the bottom left.
3. Make a matching block on the right CFOP style.
4. COLL
5. LSE

I call it RooZrich.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 8, 2010)

somewhat off-topic:
The title really should be:
Fridrich vs. Roux vs. ZZ and where the hell is Petrus?

On-topic: Incesstuff can you really say that one method is faster than the other?


Spoiler



(so others dont have to load the vids each time they load the page)
Fridrich:




Roux:




Petrus: (oh there it is)




ZZ:







so what is the difference between these videos besides the times and methods?

Also no one ever answered Waffos question.

Also @waffo loving sela more. GTFO theanoncuber D:<


----------



## rubiknewbie (Sep 8, 2010)

Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.

It's like Microsoft, Mac or Linux OS. Most of the time you choose Microsoft. If you want to be cool a bit, go ZZ (Mac). If you want to be unique, try Roux (Linux). But most of the time, just Microsoft.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 8, 2010)

rubiknewbie said:


> Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.
> 
> It's like Microsoft, Mac or Linux OS. Most of the time you choose Microsoft. If you want to be cool a bit, go ZZ (Mac). If you want to be unique, try Roux (Linux). But most of the time, just Microsoft.



Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
as far as unique goes everyones unique (lol oxymoron) no one solves the same, even if they do use the same method.

and why exactly do you think that Fridrice is better than Roux or ZZ or petrus (oh there it is again)?


----------



## Innocence (Sep 8, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
> as far as unique goes everyones unique (lol oxymoron) no one solves the same, even if they do use the same method.
> 
> and why exactly do you think that Fri*e*drice is better than Roux or ZZ or petrus (oh there it is again)?



Fixed it for you. And he NEVER ever said that Fridrich is better than ZZ or Roux or...that other one that has a funny name. Don't you like EO after HALF of F2L in it? Weird.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 8, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> rubiknewbie said:
> 
> 
> > Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.
> ...



When did he say Fridrich was better than Roux or ZZ or Petrus?
Oh, right, he didn't.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 8, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Okay. I have an idea.
> 
> 1. Orient all edges. It's like EOLine minus the... line.
> 2. Make a roux style 3x2x1 on the bottom left.
> ...




The first two steps work better the other way around.

Me and a bunch of other people generated algs and tested the feasability of this method and concluded that it wasn't great.

Feel free to do your own research and decide for yourself though.


----------



## Cride5 (Sep 8, 2010)

@jms, my ZZ isn't nearly as quick as some of the new kids on the block. Here are some nicer examples:


Spoiler


----------



## nck (Sep 8, 2010)

I'm wondering if anyone is averaging ~10 right now for ZZ.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 8, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > rubiknewbie said:
> ...



Ninja'd by about an hour. C'mon, dude, why?

Oh and ZZ is a gud method lulz and im not takin no for an answer

This is an interesting debate thread though, it may have some merits in figuring out some actual pros and cons of the methods.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 8, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.
> ...



really? the fact that i wanted to discuss this made you lose faith in the community? what's wrong with talking about it, even if you think i'm completely wrong? for the most part while i've been here, i haven't been rude to anyone, i've simply asserted my view of things. this is a forum, isn't it? despite kirjava's constant belittling of me, i am reading what he has to say and trying to respond to it. 

my point was several things. first, i honestly don't feel like there's anything wrong with claiming cfop is the fastest method. i felt way this much stronger at the beginning of this discussion but i still think there isn't anything wrong with this statement. this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.

another point was that it is somewhat ridiculous to say that all the methods are "equal". sure, they are all fast, that is pretty obvious, i've seen sub-10 averages from BigGreen for a while now. however, it is highly unlikely that they are "equal", especially the way kirjava was going about arguing it. different methods will have different optimal speeds and it's simply unlikely that three randomly chosen methods - zz, cfop, and roux are going to be equal in speed. 

at no point did i say you can't be fast with roux, or zz, or you can't be faster than cfop with roux or zz.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> my point was several things. first, i honestly don't feel like there's anything wrong with claiming cfop is the fastest method. i felt way this much stronger at the beginning of this discussion but i still think there isn't anything wrong with this statement. this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.




I wish you'd stop saying **** that isn't true.



incessantcheese said:


> however, it is highly unlikely that they are "equal", especially the way kirjava was going about arguing it.




Oh really?


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 8, 2010)

that was quick... 

oh, now i get why you keep quoting that. right, by that definition, that's fine. sure, i agree with that, they can all reach sub-10, without a doubt.
HOWEVER, earlier in the debate we were clearly arguing a different definition, since you were trying to get me to prove that layer by layer isn't slower than cfop. also, when waffle was talking about having a "faz" he said:


waffle=ijm said:


> Then you drag this down to the last ****ing millisecond. And we still say there are non-accountable values that don't work for the every last ****ing decimal of the second.


and


waffle=ijm said:


> You'll still end up deviations between times. Yes, I agree. But I said they're equal in potential speed not in actual times and definitely not down to the last decimal of the second.


which leads me to believe that when he says "equally fast" he means they're down to about .01 or .001 second apart, which i find unlikely, and i have explained why i find this unlikely. when i say they are not going to be equal, i'm talking about margins as big as .5 seconds or 1 second. yes, the methods are still fast, but .5 seconds or 1 second isn't a trivial margin, either. obviously, i can't prove that the margin is this big, but i think it's very likely, and nobody has disagreed with me on that point yet.



Kirjava said:


> I wish you'd stop saying **** that isn't true.


i don't think it's a "true or false" statement. i just think that claiming cfop is faster isn't wrong given the current community. on the other hand, claiming that roux is faster would probably be wrong, as there's nothing supporting that statement (save maybe a move count break-down with possible tps or something). there's a clear difference in my mind between claiming cfop is the fastest method out there and claiming that another method is.


----------



## Escher (Sep 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> oprah62 said:
> 
> 
> > Escher said:
> ...



Actually the thread title and OP question (i.e. which do you _think_ is best?) is perfectly reasonable. 

I was more just disappointed with the quality of posts and the number of ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up. Kirjava, Cride and qq were the only ones with clear points and arguments. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, btw.

This argument is based on both quantifiable and completely unquantifiable elements (and I'm not even including personal preference). You can make as many points as you like comparing the several main methods there are with average move counts between 35-55 and list as many dis/advantages as you want. You are still never going to solve the problem.

It makes sense to compare these method steps and overall features in order to better understand each in the context of others, but it makes little sense to claim any is categorically better than another.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> when waffle was talking about having a "faz" he said:




zomg I'm not waffle



incessantcheese said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > I wish you'd stop saying **** that isn't true.
> ...




This is what I was referring to;



incessantcheese said:


> this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.




You must know me better than I do!

Also,



incessantcheese said:


> i've seen lots of instances where people were ridiculed for saying that fridrich is faster.




Care to back this up?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 8, 2010)

This thread makes me giggle.




PatrickJameson said:


> The point that is trying to be made is that no one knows what those averages would be, and therefore your choice in method should be solely on which you feel you enjoy more. There's no evidence any method is faster than any other method, nor will we ever accurately be able to measure 'which method is faster'.
> 
> Obviously the current faster method is Fridrich, but that's mainly because more people are taught the LBL beginner's method in which there is an easy segway to full Fridrich(_note that a "beginner's method" doesn't always mean LBL, as you assumed before_).
> 
> ie. there's no argument to have.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 8, 2010)

Escher said:


> I was more just disappointed with the quality of posts and the number of ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up.



okay, well, if this is the case and most people feel this way, i'm going to step out of the thread (probably overdue considering the length of this thread and amount of anger in it). i was trying to have a discussion, and i certainly wasn't trying to anger people, but if this is how a lot of people feel, there isn't much point for me to stick around, is there? some of the people ridiculing me i do feel didn't take the time to read all my points, but seeing as i am me, it's entirely possible i'm being biased.

i did stop arguing that cfop is better after my second or third post, i believe. my argument as it stands now is that although no method can be proven to be better, it is just as wrong to say they are equal in speed. i also don't think people are necessarily wrong when they say "cfop is the fastest method available now" depending on the context. i still do believe that.

and to kirjava, yes, you're not waffle, but we were arguing over waffle's words. if i find an example, i'll pm you, maybe, but i'm not sure if i want to start a whole pm'ing thing with you at this point.

edit: didn't realize 'pee' was a disallowed word


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 8, 2010)

Escher said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > oprah62 said:
> ...



Well, you see, the problem is that that was not the original post.

The OP was "Which one is best."

After everyone started saying that he was starting a flame war, and after the flame war had already started, he decided to go back, and change it to "think."

So, the problem is that the OP made an error in starting the thread, asking people which one is best, as if it were a fact. Now, he's changed it to an opinion, which is OK. But, all these posts and rants started before the OP edited his post, to make it an opinion, and not a fact of which one is "best."


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> it's entirely possible i'm being biased.



This one made me giggle. 

Anywho it's pretty clear that a lot of us do read your post. Kirjava obviously reads all your post if he pretty much quotes each on of your sentences. Personally, I'm liking the discussions.

EDIT - thanks to post above for clearing up the original question.


----------



## incessantcheese (Sep 8, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> incessantcheese said:
> 
> 
> > it's entirely possible i'm being biased.
> ...



a lot of you do read the posts, i agree, but some people step in for one or two sentences and leave, i think you know what i mean.

i like discussions, too, but if i'm making people lose faith in the community, i think it's better if i stop :<


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> and to kirjava, yes, you're not waffle, but we were arguing over waffle's words.




I never once commented on the imaginary 'faz' waffle was talking about.


----------



## Escher (Sep 8, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > I was more just disappointed with the quality of posts and the number of ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up.
> ...



Oh gosh don't take it personally.

It's not like you are the worst (if most prominent) at all, and it's not you that's made me lose any faith in the community. It was supposed to be a comment on general attitudes and behaviours of others.

Discussions like this do have utility in that they are a good tool for everyone to learn from, don't feel like you want to stop cubing because of one little thread.

After threads like this people quickly learn that it's a bad idea to make general statements, badly worded arguments or use undefined concepts as evidence.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 8, 2010)

Innocence said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
> ...





ElectricDoodie said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > rubiknewbie said:
> ...



yes he did?

The original post asked which method was better, and then the topic changed to which one do you think is better. How is the statement:


> Fridrich for sure.


Not saying Fridrich is better, when its obviously an answer to the OP's question?



EDIT-Cride thats just insane :Q


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 8, 2010)

Can we maybe start over in a new thread? People keep saying that this discussion has potential, but with all the kind of pointless side-arguments already going on, I don't think that it's possible for this to be useful...


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Sep 8, 2010)

Let's follow Waffo's statement about the three faz's - for simplicity's sake, I'll call them Faz, Raz and Zaz.

Faz does CFOP. OLL and PLL uses up a lot of moves, but it's all compensated by fingertrick-friendliness - RUF algs or RUL, whichever is best for him.

Raz follow's Roux's words accurately, that is, he only has about 4 different blocks to choose from when starting a solve. This means he knows what pieces he is looking for, and can thus find them faster. Movecount lower than Faz, but the fingertrick-friendliness is still there with M and U (except for M. Everybody I know hates that move)

Zaz does ZZ-b, which is phasing + 1lll. RUL F2L make him extremely fast at that, but recog for LL and executing the appropriate alg slow him down a bit (imagine executing an alg full of Bs and stuff. Hard. You could also pick the longer, but more fingertrick-friendly alg, but that would be about the same amount of time.)

Thus, Faz has a high movecount, Zaz has a lower movecount, but slows down during LL, and Raz ends up with <M, U> LSE. 

Now, if you like wasting moves, as long as you get it done, you belong with Faz. If you like sparing moves, you follow Zaz's words, and if you just like having fun, Raz is the man.

My $0.02.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 8, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > incessantcheese said:
> ...



WTF, it was one do you *THINK* is best from the beginning, kid.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 8, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > all equal.
> ...




I just looked back and ****ing lol'd at this.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Sep 8, 2010)

I don't want to start an argument but I do want to give my input. (ambitious right?)


The way I see it theres no way that any two method can be "equal". I'm sure there is one method that is faster for a lot of people. However other people with different strengths may do better with other methods.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 8, 2010)

JeffDelucia said:


> I don't want to start an argument but I do want to give my input. (ambitious right?)
> 
> 
> The way I see it theres no way that any two method can be "equal". I'm sure there is one method that is faster for a lot of people. However other people with different strengths may do better with other methods.



gotta remember i said which you think is best, not necessarily quickest.


----------



## Owen (Sep 8, 2010)

They're all good in their own specials ways.


----------



## Vincents (Sep 9, 2010)

Maybe someone should define best...
If after 10 years of practice, 
Method A gives you a 10.00 second average, with a standard deviation of 1.00 seconds,
and
Method B gives you a 9.50 second average, with a standard deviation of 0.1 seconds,

Which one is better? You get more sub-8 solves with method A, but more sub-10 solves with method B.

Assume normal distribution for both.


----------



## ArcticxWolf (Sep 9, 2010)

What's roux? 

CH CH CHHH CHHHHH CHHCHCHCHCHCH


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 9, 2010)

ArcticxWolf said:


> What's roux?
> 
> CH CH CHHH CHHHHH CHHCHCHCHCHCH



I'm so glad someone remembers that.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

ArcticxWolf said:


> What's roux?
> 
> CH CH CHHH CHHHHH CHHCHCHCHCHCH


someone's surname.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 9, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> Also @waffo loving sela more. GTFO theanoncuber D:<



Ummm... I never said I loved Sarah, waffle just assumed I did from this post:



waffle=ijm said:


> I like hitting on canadian girls right before I compete. I makes me feel like I'm less at a competition and more in canada.





> I think I'll take your advice.
> 
> EDIT: Wait, are you talking about Sarah Strong?



I was referring to his post, not mine, and I was joking when I said I would take his advice because it was so bad.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 9, 2010)

plus what works for me doesn't always work for others.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> ArcticxWolf said:
> 
> 
> > What's roux?
> ...



remembers what?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 9, 2010)

CH CH CHHH CHHHHH CHHCHCHCHCHCH <- Remembers this.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> CH CH CHHH CHHHHH CHHCHCHCHCHCH <- Remembers this.



and whats that?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 9, 2010)

It was one of those "you had to be there moments"


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> It was one of those "you had to be there moments"


And i get it you dont wish to explain what happened to me?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 9, 2010)

yep. plus you can just ask through a PM and not ask it while being so off-topic.


----------



## Dene (Sep 9, 2010)

FRIDRICH IS THE BEST METHOD (of these three) IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE OTHERWISE PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE KTNXBAI THREAD CLOSED.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> yep. plus you can just ask through a PM and not ask it while being so off-topic.



You told me to ask (through pm) but said yes that you didnt want to explain what happened, bad grammar much?


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> ElectricDoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Escher said:
> ...



You mad, kid?

Editing your OP doesn't change the fact that your true intent was to start a flame war.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > ElectricDoodie said:
> ...


Ok all i edited in was the "no flaming, kids" part cuz somebody said my intent was to start a flame (i think it was you) which it was not, and there was no flame war, me and waffle were joking around, i doubt anyone was offended.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > ArcticxWolf said:
> ...



Why did you bother saying that? Obviously it's an "in" joke that you will NEVER get because you were not there at the time.

lrn2society.

Can we have less talk of hitting on Sarah and debating whether this topic is worth debating on already and start making this thread worthwhile?



In short believe that ZZ is at least equal to the other methods because it's quite good in it's raw form with fridrich style moves, I.E. not TOO much less efficient, but when you bring in blockbuilding and ZZLL, it can be quite comparable in speed. There may also be advanced improvements to EOLine and F2L that we've overlooked. This is in no way a scientific answer, but it's good enough for me, and perhaps others.

A slightly more structured answer is that, from what I've learned:
(Please note that this is assuming ZZLL as the chosen LL method.)

EOLine Pros: Orients edges, solves two edges.
EOLine Cons: Solves 2 less edges than cross, takes an extra 1 or 2 moves on average.

Verdict: Depending on how you take advantage of the oriented edges later on, this may or may not be worthwhile.

ZZF2L Pros: More ergonomic with RUL moves only, Comparable movecount to CFOP when utilizing blockbuilding.

ZZF2L Cons: In certain cases takes more moves than CFOP due to restricted moveset, lookahead can take some getting used to (but is not necessarily inferior), you have to solve 2 additional pieces.

Verdict: I think this is at least equal to CFOP when done properly, and has the potential to be very fast with few pauses.

ZZLL Pros: 1LLL, much fewer algs than ZBF2L and ZBLL. Easier recognition than pure ZBLL. Phasing recognition is also very fast.

ZZLL Cons: Over 100 algs (which isn't really that bad, but might scare some people off), extra step on insertion of the last pair, adds maybe an average of 2 moves HTM.

Verdict: I think this is at least as fast as ZB, at least at a human level. The recognition is much more reasonable, with an easy phasing step at first, then the reduced complexity of EP recognition. What's more, fewer algs. 


/longwindedness

I know, this is not a very scientific article, but please take it for what it is. These are the evaluations that caused ME to stick with ZZ, and must be taken with a grain of salt. Do your own research.

I was ninja'd a couple of times while posting this, and the in joke part is now mostly redundant, but I'll leave it in anyway.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> ElectricDoodie said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



What? Why are you bringing Waffle into this? I ne'er mentioned him or anything about you and him talking.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 9, 2010)

Does it matter? The point is now that we are arguing about which we THINK is the best. It's never going to get scientific enough to be fact. That is NOW the topic of this thread, the past is irrelevant.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

Innocence said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


I asked "remembers what" cuz at the time i didnt know it was an inside joke, electricdooie is being stupid, and why does it seem EVERYBODY was at the place these "inside jokes" were made.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 9, 2010)

I wasn't, I was just pointing it out. By the way he said it, it was obvious the joke was not meant for everyone. But stop posting pathetic little short posts that are irrelevant to the topic. Do you WANT to destroy your own thread?


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

ok, cuz i didnt like quoting that really long quote i took it off, anyway. Me and waffle had that supposed "flame war" oh and innocence, how am i destroying my thread?


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



i no u r but wut am i?


----------



## Innocence (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> ok, cuz i didnt like quoting that really long quote i took it off, anyway. Me and waffle had that supposed "flame war" oh and innocence, how am i destroying my thread?



By posting offtopic posts, and leading people like me to do the same, therefore drawing attention from the true purpose of the thread, thus inevitably getting it closed. Which is bad, because I enjoyed typing that comparison a couple of posts back.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

ok electricdooie, stop quoting such long quotes, please, stopping saying my intent was to start a flame war, and wtf? "i no u r but wut am i?"


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Does it matter? The point is now that we are arguing about which we THINK is the best. It's never going to get scientific enough to be fact. That is NOW the topic of this thread, the past is irrelevant.



It doesn't matter, but it was fun while it lasted. Stop being so serious. Don't get your panties in a bunch. 

Also, Fridrich owns all other methods. 
There, I'm partaking in the OP question.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> ok electricdooie, stop quoting such long quotes, please, stopping saying my intent was to start a flame war, and wtf? "i no u r but wut am i?"



I only quoted long text because you did too. Don't act higher than thou.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> ok electricdooie, stop quoting such long quotes, please, stopping saying my intent was to start a flame war, and wtf? "i no u r but wut am i?"



Alright, that's it. This thread is ****. It has been ruined again and again. Just close this and create a new one.


----------



## Innocence (Sep 9, 2010)

Please take your arguments to PM, I'm looking to have a proper debate here.

And there's a difference between not being too serious and posting things such as "i no u r but wut am i?"


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Please take your arguments to PM, I'm looking to have a proper debate here.
> 
> And there's a difference between not being too serious and posting things such as "i no u r but wut am i?"



I loled. 

Chill out dude.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

theanonymouscuber said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > ok electricdooie, stop quoting such long quotes, please, stopping saying my intent was to start a flame war, and wtf? "i no u r but wut am i?"
> ...



but so many people put time and effort into right page long responses, itd be better if a mod could delete all the off topic posts.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> theanonymouscuber said:
> 
> 
> > y3k9 said:
> ...



that would take hours


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 9, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > theanonymouscuber said:
> ...


And all those posts would include these as well so I suggest that everyone stops arguing about going off topic because that is off topic in itself.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 9, 2010)

Kso, this thread has been on the verge of being closed for days. Any more cursing out of other members or completely off topic discussion or really anything that isn't a civil discussion about this and this thread will just get closed.


----------



## y3k9 (Sep 9, 2010)

OK this is officially the last off topic post, read the new rules i posted, and try to get a discussion started. And if you wanna go off topic use pm.


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 9, 2010)

y3k9 said:


> Which do you think is best? And remember, no flaming kids.
> Ok cuz some people were going off topic here are the rule *(all electricdooie fault, blame him)-*
> NO OFF-TOPIC...ness
> Post a reason for each for each response
> ...



are you kidding me? :fp

Patrick, please just close the thread and let a new one be started...


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 9, 2010)

PatrickJameson said:


> Kso, this thread has been on the verge of being closed for days. Any more cursing out of other members or completely off topic discussion or really anything that isn't a civil discussion about this and this thread will just get closed.



I agree, but seriously, it's ok to have my username like that, on the OP which he just edited in to the new rules? That doesn't seem fair.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 9, 2010)

uberCuber said:


> y3k9 said:
> 
> 
> > Which do you think is best? And remember, no flaming kids.
> ...



+1 Totally agree, like I stated before.


----------

