# Merits of CFOP



## ravenguild08 (Sep 22, 2013)

I've been inactive in the forums for a long time, but I recently wrote this article and thought I would share. I hope you find it informative!

---

CFOP, aka. the Fridrich Method, is the wildly popular Rubik's Cube solving method used by virtually all high- and mid-level speedcubers. Still, methods like Petrus, Roux, and ZZ have their merits too, so why has CFOP persisted? Personally, I have learned four methods: CFOP, Petrus, Roux, and ZZ. However, CFOP remains my weapon of choice, and the reason goes far beyond old habits and the community bandwagon. This article describes the numerous strengths of CFOP that most of us never pause to appreciate, especially the unique advantages that cement it as an accessible and effective speedcubing method.


ACCESSIBILITY

*It's the most developed method*
Yes, it's true, once something like this gains prominence, only an uprising can dethrone it. The number of tutorials is mind-boggling. There are countless OLL and PLL libraries. Subtle improvements and modifications to F2L have been developed and published. No matter how good other methods are, none are as thoroughly understood and studied as CFOP.
*The steps follow the same order as most beginner methods*
Prevalent beginner's methods solve the cross in two steps, then 4 corners, then middle edges, then some 4-stage last layer. CFOP does the same and merely collapse each pair of steps into one.
*F2L is logically simple*
The bulk of the solve is repeatedly inserting 4 corner-edge pairs. Simple, clear, no nonsense. They even look pretty and orderly when they go in, establishing 2x2x2 blocks!
*LL has an easy learning curve*
2-look OLL (3 + 6 = 9 algs) and 2-look PLL (3 + 4 = 7 algs) solves the entirety of the last layer in a measly 16 algorithms, most of which are really easy to learn (e.g. 6-move T, Sune, U perm, A perm). It's actually quite fast too.
The next step is full PLL at 21 algorithms, which is still not that many. Many speedcubers stop here, as the payoff for learning the other 48 OLL is actually quite small.
FIRST TWO LAYERS

*The cross establishes the least visible pieces*
This is a remarkable boon, enabling the philosophy of "out of sight, out of mind". In the heat of things, cube rotations are costly and disorienting, while inspection is the only time you get to freely handle the cube like a gyroscope and find whatever you need. Getting the relatively inaccessible 4 bottom edges solved quickly means you never have to peek at the bottom of the cube to find out what pieces are being hidden from your native vantage point.
*F2L is rotationally symmetric*
This is the big one, CFOP's greatest boon. Following the cross, any of the four F2L pairs can be addressed first. It doesn't matter which, just find any matching pair of non-yellow pieces and you're good to go. You don't even need to worry about where they are to be slotted, just align the first (no restrictions on which slot is used for setup) and find the right slot during that time.
*Solved pieces are pushed to less visible locations*
It's a ubiquitous but under-appreciated feature. To realize what difference it makes, consider the beginners who solve with cross up. They constantly flick their wrist to look at the bottom of the cube. Moderate beginners who do the same execute triggers with their ring and pinky fingers. Seriously? Our eyes and our dexterous fingers are on top!
*Following every R with R' is good for fingertricks*
The cross edges anchor us so that virtually every insertion alg has the format R U* R' (or mirror or inverse), which is probably the most natural fingertrick. Flick wrist, trigger with index fingers, then flick wrist immediately back to resting position.
LAST LAYER

*OLL is extraordinarily easy to recognize*
There are yellow stickers everywhere! Which way are yellow stickers facing? It's so easy that it's almost natural even for non-cubers.
Anyone who has tried to learn COLL can attest that OLL is comparatively easy to recognize, and not just from more practice. For example, depending on whether it's the Sune group or T group, you have to look at different side stickers and match patterns depending on whether two colors are on the same or opposite sides. Ugh.
*PLL is reasonably easy to recognize ahead of time*
Staring at the 12 side stickers is straightforward and natural while executing OLL. There's no need to pay attention to the ubiquitous and confusing yellow stickers and which way they'll end up pointing.
*OLL -> PLL is an intelligent ordering and grouping*
Consider some alternatives:
The opposite, permuting pieces then orienting them, is an unabashedly terrible idea, as algorithms that orient cubies but retain permutation are abysmal.
Another possibility is to solve the edges then solve the corners. In fact, that's more similar the beginner's method I teach, which orients edges (6-move T), permutes edges (sune), permutes corners (niklas), then orients corners (sexy move). However, all the algorithms I know that solve the corners while leaving the edges untouched are either just a PLL+OLL or horribly long. It's just part of the cube's nature how it's difficult to affect the corners without moving edges too.
Solving the corners first with CLL then edges with commutators is plausible (it's what Roux does). I prefer memorizing and practicing algorithms to dynamically generated commutators, however.
*It balances ease of memorization and efficiency*
57+21= 78 algorithms to solve the entirety of the last layer is a fortuitously reasonable number. Not too many, not too few. Consider two extremes:
Beginner's methods have as few as 4 algorithms, so they're easy to learn, but not efficient enough. The fewer things you memorize the more time you have to spend reducing things into the few cases you do recognize.
ZBLL has a whopping 493 algorithms, so it's difficult to learn, but certainly efficient. However, it's not faster because of several reasons: some of the algorithms are inevitably awkward, it's implausible to train the muscle memory for every algorithm, and recognition is a nightmare. Analyzing the positions of all 16 relevant stickers? No thanks!
WEAKNESSES, to be fair:

*CFOP doesn't utilize the 15 seconds of inspection time*
Except at the highest level, CFOP users plan out the 4 cross edges, and that's it. Solving 4 pieces is quite enough, but as it only takes about 5 seconds of planning for most people, one wonders how we could better spend those precious free seconds. Advanced cubers might plan or track the first pair for a smoother transition into F2L, but that's about it.
*It's not all that efficient*
Yes, it's true, the average turn count of ZZ, Roux, and Petrus are all lower. Still, it loses efficiency in the F2L pairs and lack of effort to influence the last layer beforehand. Still, I feel like these inefficiencies are intelligently allocated to enable blind thoughtless bursts of turns.

Yes, I know I'm overthinking it. After all, as speedcubing adheres to the KISS principle: "Keep it simple. stupid". Speed comes with instinct, not its cumbersome cousin, thought. It shows, too; at around 14 seconds, I'm quite slow by speedcuber standards, but I excel at One-Handed cubing, where the inherently slower turn speed allows other skills to compensate.


A few notes on the other methods:


*ZZ* I like. The EOLine is immensely difficult, but it properly uses all 15 seconds of inspection. Reducing the F2L to just {L, U, R} is just about the best thing ever for one-handed cubing. Pre-orienting the LL edges enables me to use COLL leading to EPLL, the fastest PLL cases for OH.
*Roux* seems like a fantastic method, and the Roux experts are mind-blowingly quick. The first block uses inspection well and reduces the second block to just {M, R, r, U}, which flows well ergonomically with no regrips. CLL is a good alg set, and L6E can be murderously fast to execute when learned thoroughly. I just don't use it because the M slice is not good for OH.
*Petrus* really doesn't feel that good. It does have a lower turn count and in theory the best lookahead, as it sets the 4 invisible pieces in the 2x2x2 DBL block, but the blockbuilding is somewhat cumbersome. Unless you have fantastic color-neutral recognition, the non-structure is too unstructured for proper lookahead.


----------



## TDM (Sep 22, 2013)

I don't know how many people use Petrus now, but it isn't really a very fast method compared to CFOP/Roux/ZZ. I think Roux is best for 2H, ZZ is best for OH but CFOP gives a nice balance and although those other two methods are great for one event, CFOP is good (not as good, but definitely far from bad) in both. CFOP is also good for reduction on big cubes where you don't have any inspection time. However, there's a few things I disagree with you with: firstly, the number of algorithms. You've only compared it with the extremes, and not with Roux/ZZ. CMLL/COLL is half the number of algs (~40) as OLL+PLL (~80). Then there's "Solved pieces are pushed to less visible locations" is true for CFOP, but it can be done with ZZ too. Also, ZZ/Roux have no rotations and CFOP does have rotations. And you said "Solving the corners first with CLL then edges with commutators is plausible". You don't have to use commutators: you can use ELL instead of commutators; CFCE is another method similar to CFOP that does this.


----------



## ravenguild08 (Sep 22, 2013)

TDM said:


> You've only compared it with the extremes, and not with Roux/ZZ. CMLL/COLL is half the number of algs (~40) as OLL+PLL (~80). Then there's "Solved pieces are pushed to less visible locations" is true for CFOP, but it can be done with ZZ too. Also, ZZ/Roux have no rotations and CFOP does have rotations. And you said "Solving the corners first with CLL then edges with commutators is plausible". You don't have to use commutators: you can use ELL instead of commutators; CFCE is another method similar to CFOP that does this.



You're totally right about ELL. My bad.
While COLL at 40 is better than OLL+PLL's 78, it's still not bad on an absolute scale. Several of these aspects are not unique to CFOP, nor is CFOP the class leader in those aspects!

In fact, despite praising CFOP here, I have been contemplating switching to ZZ for OH because, as you also note, ZZ is pretty much perfect for OH. Even after just limited practice, I'm already averaging 24 with ZZ compared to 18 with CFOP. I know most of COLL and some CLS, so... working on it.


----------



## Dapianokid (Sep 23, 2013)

Petrus is (arguably) the most efficient method of them all, simply because it was designed to be that way. But since we aren't computers that can focus solely on the cube and know exactly what to do all the time (No matter how much we practice with it!), we can't be as fast as the method inherently presents itself to be capable of. It says "hey look! 40 turns average? Super easy look-ahead? I'd say so, bud!" but it really means "Okay, here are 12000 cases, wayy too many to just instantly recognize or even know what to do with right away. Just intuitively solve each step and hope you got lucky. Oh, look at that, you can't make sub-20 with it? Sorry about that." 

Petrus is REALLY easy to understand for being so efficient, but in practice as a speedsolving method, it just doesn't work.

Roux and ZZ speak for themselves. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages. They are both plausibly (and proven!) just as much world-class methods as CFOP, if you set your mind to it.

Petrus just takes so much work that it takes the fun out of it, I think. I have become tired of it and switched to CFOP. I do see many people who know CFOP, Roux, and ZZ all pretty well and I'm starting to see method neutrality in some folks. These methods are all engineered to work really well with our brains and our fingers. Petrus works well mathmatically and logically. Other than that... *sigh* Erik J will just have to show us what we'll never amount to.


----------



## rj (Sep 23, 2013)

Ahem. Alex Lau uses Roux.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 23, 2013)

>Anyone who has tried to learn COLL can attest that OLL is comparatively easy to recognize

To each their own.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 23, 2013)

rj said:


> Ahem. Alex Lau uses Roux.



And your point? The OP already acknowledged exactly how "mind blowingly fast" Roux experts are.


----------



## YddEd (Sep 23, 2013)

rj said:


> Ahem. Alex Lau uses Roux.


What's the point of this post again?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 23, 2013)

Nice read. I couldn't help but notice that you have the same last name. Do you know which "Hung" that is?


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Sep 23, 2013)

YddEd said:


> What's the point of this post again?



I'm still trying to figure that out...I literally read through the posts above and I still am confuzzled.


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 23, 2013)

CheesecakeCuber said:


> I'm still trying to figure that out...I literally read through the posts above and I still am confuzzled.




Could be a case of didn't read the OP.


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Sep 23, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Could be a case of didn't read the OP.



Yeah, I was thinking that...Or he just has a strong urge to defend Roux? Lol I have the same feeling especially when people who are slower than most Rouxers out there, criticize the method as "slow" and "not as good as CFOP", but I try to control it


----------



## ravenguild08 (Sep 23, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Nice read. I couldn't help but notice that you have the same last name. Do you know which "Hung" that is?



it's 洪.


----------



## MaikeruKonare (Sep 23, 2013)

Nice, very thorough.


----------



## rj (Sep 23, 2013)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> And your point? The OP already acknowledged exactly how "mind blowingly fast" Roux experts are.





[URL="http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/member.php?10749-ravenguild08" said:


> *ravenguild08*[/URL]
> 
> ]
> CFOP, aka. the Fridrich Method, is the wildly popular Rubik's Cube solving method used by virtually all high- and mid-level speedcubers.



That's the point


----------



## YddEd (Sep 23, 2013)

rj said:


> That's the point


Definition of virtually: Nearly; almost.
Didn't say ALL high level-mid level speedcubers use CFOP.


----------



## rj (Sep 23, 2013)

CheesecakeCuber said:


> Yeah, I was thinking that...Or he just has a strong urge to defend Roux? Lol I have the same feeling especially when people who are slower than most Rouxers out there, criticize the method as "slow" and "not as good as CFOP", but I try to control it



I'm not a total roux user, but I like it, and I'm a fan of Alex.


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 23, 2013)

ravenguild08 said:


> *CFOP doesn't utilize the 15 seconds of inspection time*
> Except at the highest level, CFOP users plan out the 4 cross edges, and that's it. Solving 4 pieces is quite enough, but as it only takes about 5 seconds of planning for most people, one wonders how we could better spend those precious free seconds. Advanced cubers might plan or track the first pair for a smoother transition into F2L, but that's about it.
> *It's not all that efficient*
> Yes, it's true, the average turn count of ZZ, Roux, and Petrus are all lower. Still, it loses efficiency in the F2L pairs and lack of effort to influence the last layer beforehand. Still, I feel like these inefficiencies are intelligently allocated to enable blind thoughtless bursts of turns.


I disagree with both cons. People only using 5 seconds inspection is nothing to do with the method, and in terms of efficiency, it is generally more efficient than ZZ. If you solve ZZ slowly, then sure, but the fastest ZZ solvers average similar to CFOP movecounts.

For me the pros of CFOP are;
-lots of information on the web, algs, etc
-lookahead and case recognition
-spammy <RU> <RUF> and <RUD> algs.
-very low intuition needed, which leads to less pauses/slow TPS.

cons;
-movecount
-rotations

Edit: during F2L, you see a case and apart from preserving other pairs and effecting LL edge orientation, you don't think much. Whilst you do your first pair you can look ahead to your next couple of pairs, because you solve pairs the same 70% of the time. In Roux, there aren't "2nd block" cases, so whilst you can plan out your first block, and fast Roux solvers can plan some of their second block, there is slightly more intuition which slows the solve down. Generally, the more brain dead a method is, the faster it is, as you can just turn.


----------



## Renslay (Sep 23, 2013)

What about FMC? Petrus is a very good start for FMC.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 23, 2013)

Renslay said:


> What about FMC? Petrus is a very good start for FMC.



Heise is very good for FMC but is very very hard to understand and get used to using it sucks for speed. 
But with FMC you use whatever would get you you the best result.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 23, 2013)

ravenguild08 said:


> it's 洪.



Too bad. I was hoping it would be the Confucius 孔 (mine). I don't often meet too many other descendants though KongShou on the forums is apparently a distant relative. Sorry for being OT. Had to ask.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 23, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> there is slightly more intuition which slows the solve down



intuition becomes algorithmic, I disagree with your statement


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Sep 23, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> intuition becomes algorithmic, I disagree with your statement



I agree with kirjava. Haven't you heard about muscle-memory and closing your eyes to solve F2L pairs?


----------



## KongShou (Sep 23, 2013)

sneaklyfox said:


> Too bad. I was hoping it would be the Confucius 孔 (mine). I don't often meet too many other descendants though KongShou on the forums is apparently a distant relative. Sorry for being OT. Had to ask.



a very distant one, i have to add. since you seem to come from guangzhou or hongkong. and spell your name like hung. I do it the mandarin way, kong(孔) , also my dad come from HeiLongJiang(黑龙江) they're like at the opposite end of china lol.

anyway back on topic.

i agree with kirjava

my f2l is basically algorithmic, even tho i never learnt any f2l algs.


----------



## ravenguild08 (Sep 23, 2013)

tx789 said:


> Heise is very good for FMC but is very very hard to understand and get used to using it sucks for speed.
> But with FMC you use whatever would get you you the best result.



Yeah, in FMC you just sort of use whatever works. Method neutrality is ideal.

This post was written in the frame of speedsolving, but I also wasn't aiming to claim that CFOP is superior to the other methods. And well, it's not superior anyway.
Tim Major and TDM say that rotations are a big weakness for CFOP, and... I guess I agree? I don't know why I didn't write about it originally.

And like everyone else, I also agree with Kirjava. Back in 2007, I actually figured out slotting by myself and discovered nearly all the cases through intuition and experimentation. These days, all of them have turned into pure muscle memory.


Also, KongShou and sneaklyfox, I'm of Taiwanese descent, so I don't think I'm too closely related either...


----------



## Dapianokid (Sep 23, 2013)

I discovered slotting and thought it was the secret to fast cubing  Then I learned X-cross!
I do have to admit that F2L pairs becomes algorithmic, although in slow turn solves it is to a much lesser degree than in fast turn solves. It (CFOP) is a 7 look method, as the F2L slots each take one look, and in some cases you can skip ahead.find shortcuts where you can solve two slots simultaneously. (cross takes one look and X-cross can too; LL takes two looks for advanced cubers and 2look-OLL can even be achieved with 1 look with a little practice)

I'm finding cube rotations to be a big problem as I get significantly faster. When I focus on speed, I really like to move fast without it necessarily being super-efficient. I usually try to either keep the cube fluidly rotating and take advantage of every face and move without regard to finger tricks during a slow solve during F2L, or I move really fast and solve the closest pair I can find while looking ahead at the next pair using R and U turns only, then rotating the cube and solving the next pairs. This doesn't work well when the pieces I want are stuck in other slots, so I have to either do a really slow B turn or do at least one cube rotation.

Petrus takes a lot of cube rotations during the first two steps, however. More than CFOP, I can promise you that. then, you get a few seconds of solving 5 pieces + a center to finish up F2L and then you have LL which can be solved however you want (I used to use Petrus LL, it works really well for beginners)...
I think Roux is honestly the fastest method. Few cube rotations, more efficient than ZZ and CFOP (unless you're a blockbuilding god and like FreeFOP), and it's easy to understand. I suck at it, though.


----------



## kcl (Sep 23, 2013)

I think with time Roux could possibly become King. However, I think CFOP and Roux will remain about the same speed. More people in the future will just become fast with roux.


----------



## Chree (Sep 24, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I think with time Roux could possibly become King. However, I think CFOP and Roux will remain about the same speed. More people in the future will just become fast with roux.



I dunno... with time? Maybe. But it's gonna be a loooooooong time. Like the article says, the momentum of CFOP is pretty monstrous. The Roux tutorials are needles in haystacks. Beginners will most like stumble across CFOP first.

And this may just be me, but so many M slices and Rw's, though ergonomic, is not intuitive. CFOP is. Newbies will be flocking to it for a long, long, long time.


----------



## kcl (Sep 24, 2013)

Chree said:


> I dunno... with time? Maybe. But it's gonna be a loooooooong time. Like the article says, the momentum of CFOP is pretty monstrous. The Roux tutorials are needles in haystacks. Beginners will most like stumble across CFOP first.
> 
> And this may just be me, but so many M slices and Rw's, though ergonomic, is not intuitive. CFOP is. Newbies will be flocking to it for a long, long, long time.



Look at Alexander Lau.. It took him 2 years.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Sep 24, 2013)

Chree said:


> And this may just be me, but so many M slices and Rw's, though ergonomic, is not intuitive. CFOP is.



On top of this, M slices are a pain on a standard Rubik's brand, so it's harder for beginners to get into Roux until they've upgraded to a better cube - CFOP doesn't have this issue.


----------



## bundat (Sep 24, 2013)

I find it hilarious that a "Rubik's storebought" was mentioned RIGHT AFTER a mention of Alexander Lau.


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 24, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> Whilst you do your first pair you can look ahead to your next couple of pairs, because you solve pairs the same 70% of the time. In Roux, there aren't "2nd block" cases, so whilst you can plan out your first block, and fast Roux solvers can plan some of their second block, there is slightly more intuition which slows the solve down. Generally, the more brain dead a method is, the faster it is, as you can just turn.





KongShou said:


> i agree with kirjava
> 
> my f2l is basically algorithmic, even tho i never learnt any f2l algs.



I basically said that F2L is superior in terms of TPS/lookahead, because all cases become algorithmic, removing the intuition, speeding the solves up. Since I average low 20 on proper Roux (sub 20 if I do it inefficiently) and 13~ with CFOP, I can't give an expert opinion. However, I feel like F2L cases become algorithmic over time removing intuition speeding up solves, whereas the 2nd block in Roux which I don't plan entirely in inspection, is slowed down as you need to think rather than just spam cases you've done thousand times.

So what I mean is I agree with "my f2l is basically algorithmic, even tho i never learnt any f2l algs", I think Kirjava was saying something different. *I stated that F2L = algorithmic and Roux 2nd block = intuition, but if I understand Kirjava correctly then he is saying that Roux 2nd block becomes algorithmic too.
*
@CheesecakeCuber: I have taught many people CFOP, and given tips and my biggest tip is generally "learn F2L pairs intuitively enough that they become algorithms you can do with your eyes closed, so I certainly have heard of the "closing your eyes to solve F2L pairs. I have been cubing since 2009 and I've helped/tried to help a lot of people with this technique.


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 24, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> I basically said that F2L is superior in terms of TPS/lookahead, because all cases become algorithmic, removing the intuition, speeding the solves up. Since I average low 20 on proper Roux (sub 20 if I do it inefficiently) and 13~ with CFOP, I can't give an expert opinion. However, I feel like F2L cases become algorithmic over time removing intuition speeding up solves, whereas the 2nd block in Roux which I don't plan entirely in inspection, is slowed down as you need to think rather than just spam cases you've done thousand times.



I feel roux is better than F2L when it comes to lookahead and maybe TPS for the first two blocks. First off, there are fewer pieces to keep track of in the second block compared to 4 F2L pairs. It should be easier to predict where the pieces will end up and make decisions when there are only a few pieces to work with isolated to one side of the cube. After a while of doing roux, you almost never have to look at the bottom or the back to find pieces. There is no need for cube rotations. And is shouldn't take long for first two block building to become as algorithmic as cfop.


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 24, 2013)

GuRoux said:


> And is shouldn't take long for first two block building to become as algorithmic as cfop.



This is the only part I took out of your post that changes my knowledge/arguments. All CFOP users under 15 seconds could likely do 2 F2L pairs blindfolded with a quick glance (IE, once the cross is done, glance at 4 pieces and solve both pairs). Can you glance at all pieces of the 2nd block and then do it like it's a CLL, as in, recognition then fast turning algorithm? If so, then that would change my argument


However;


GuRoux said:


> I feel roux is better than F2L when it comes to lookahead and maybe TPS for the first two blocks.


This is an opinion, which is formed by the fact that Roux is your main method. I turn much much much faster in F2L than in F2B, and I can lookahead much easier with little to no pauses. Of course you would be better at lookahead/TPS for your main method.


----------



## JasonK (Sep 24, 2013)

Tim Major said:


> All CFOP users under 15 seconds could likely do 2 F2L pairs blindfolded with a quick glance (IE, once the cross is done, glance at 4 pieces and solve both pairs).



Maybe it's just me, but I avg 13 and I definitely can't do this with a "quick glance".


----------



## bundat (Sep 24, 2013)

I actually analyzed statistics relevant to this in my other topic "How do top-cubers lookahead", and found that:

Alex Lau averages 9+ tps for second block.
(based from reconstructions' stats, e.g. sub-2 9.29 tps second block in the Danish challenge vid)

Faz and Mats are also around the same.

Faz's 4.79 unofficial has almost 10 tps for his F2L.

Mats 5.55 WR's F2L is almost 10 tps too.

I analyzed these because I didn't think these were speeds where you could even lookahead properly.

But at least Alex proves that Roux's "intuitive/lookahead step" (2nd block, also L6E) can be as fast as CFOP's (F2L).

Algorithmic or intuitive, building the 2nd block in 17 moves in 1.83 seconds (in the Danish challenge) at least proves that needing "slightly more intuition" doesn't seem to slow the solve down.

Also interesting to note, his CMLL average tps is 4-7 in many solves.
Also, in Faz's 4.79, his LL is only 6 tps (despite having an almost 10 tps F2L)
Also, in Mats' 5.55, his LL (simple CCW EPLL) is below 7 tps (but almost 10 for F2L).

And so it actually seems that "recog+drilled alg" steps are actually potentially slower than "lookahead+intuition" steps, due to the recog pause. (except for rare exceptions, such as Alex's 5.11, where his CMLL is 11.11 tps... I think it was either much faster, like his 14 tps perm vid, or that he was able to predict the CMLL).



JasonK said:


> Tim Major said:
> 
> 
> > All CFOP users under 15 seconds could likely do 2 F2L pairs blindfolded with a quick glance (IE, once the cross is done, glance at 4 pieces and solve both pairs).
> ...



Have a look at Rowan's posts in my thread that I mentioned.

He goes into detail on how being able to "predict" the entire F2L, and how such lookahead supposedly totally separates 12-13 second cubers from consistent sub-10/9/etc cubers.


----------



## JasonK (Sep 24, 2013)

bundat said:


> Have a look at Rowan's posts in my thread that I mentioned.
> 
> He goes into detail on how being able to "predict" the entire F2L, and how such lookahead supposedly totally separates 12-13 second cubers from consistent sub-10/9/etc cubers.



I know all about that. I wasn't asking how to do it, I was just challenging Tim's idea that anyone who's sub-15 could do it.


----------



## ottozing (Sep 24, 2013)

JasonK said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I avg 13 and I definitely can't do this with a "quick glance".



I average mid 9 and honestly almost never do 2 F2L pairs with a quick glance (I also find it kinda hard to do when I'm purely trying to do this exercise). My thought process during a CFOP solve is.

Inspection: Find the cross and the first pair (If I can't see the first pair, I'll modify my solution so it had more rotations and wide U moves so I have more chences to find my first pair).
After my cross: Assuming I plan the first pair, solve the pair while tracking an F2L corner and maybe an edge depending on if I find it quick enough. If not, I'll just solve the first pair I see in front of me. If I only see a corner, I rotate and look for the edge.
After my first pair (This thought process repeats until I'm up to LSLL): Find a corner (Generally I would have tracked the next corner anyway so this isn't too hard) and either find the corresponding edge with either instant recognition or through look ahead (More often than not it will be the former, but doing the latter isn't that uncommon, especially during the final few pairs as finding pieces gets easier).
During the last pair: Determine my LL EO type (0 right, 2 right, or 4 right) and influence it how I see fit. If I know I'll get an EO skip and I can reduce the last pair to R U' R', I'll do WV (I'll occasionally do this for R' U R and L' U L, but not that much).
During LL: Recognize the OLL and the CP (Unless it's a sune case which is the only CLL set that actually takes some effort to recognize for me, or if I know from the little CP info I have from first glance that my PLL won't be diag and/or can't be an OLLCP case I know), then solve the OLL with whatever CP influence I see fit.
Then PLL is pretty obvious.

Maybe I'm just a nub compared to most sub 15 solvers............


----------



## stoic (Sep 24, 2013)

ottozing said:


> My thought process during a CFOP solve is



Thanks for posting this, I found it fascinating.


----------



## bundat (Sep 24, 2013)

Wow, that's pretty impressive that you got that far with "corner bias" type of lookahead.
Do you know your tps during F2L?


----------



## ottozing (Sep 24, 2013)

bundat said:


> Wow, that's pretty impressive that you got that far with "corner bias" type of lookahead.
> Do you know your tps during F2L?



I'm pretty sure my overall tps is just over 6.5 (Not too sure about just F2L tps though). If you want, you can check out some of my 3x3 solve videos I have up to get an indication of what my F2L solving style is like. My 10.54 official average and 9.9x avg12 are probably the best indications of my current solving style (I should really upload a faster avg12 now :3).


----------



## kcl (Sep 24, 2013)

JasonK said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I avg 13 and I definitely can't do this with a "quick glance".



Eh probably because it's not something you're used to practicing. I used to practice that all the time so I can typically plan two pairs in like 5-10 seconds.


----------



## ravenguild08 (Sep 24, 2013)

bundat said:


> And so it actually seems that "recog+drilled alg" steps are actually potentially slower than "lookahead+intuition" steps, due to the recog pause. (except for rare exceptions, such as Alex's 5.11, where his CMLL is 11.11 tps... I think it was either much faster, like his 14 tps perm vid, or that he was able to predict the CMLL).



That is absolutely fascinating; thank you for sharing. I'd also attribute the lower TPS during OLL and PLL partly to the algorithms being simply harder to execute than RU'R'URUURUURURUUU


----------

