An analysis of cubing methods and times...

[Ross The Boss]

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

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

Of course, Roux solvers will never admit it.

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

 

[ottozing]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cashis]

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

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

 

[Artic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cashis]

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

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



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

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

 

[mDiPalma]

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

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

c u then

 

[cashis]

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

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

c u then

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

 

[GuRoux]

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

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



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

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

 

[BaMiao]

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

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

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

 

[mDiPalma]

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

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


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

 

[Ross The Boss]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[ottozing]

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

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

 

[Ninja Storm]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Artic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[5BLD]

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

 

[DeeDubb]

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

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

So for example, Bill Wang should be considered a better cuber than Alex Lau, at least from their official times list.

Ok,

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

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

But then you go on to say this:

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

Any thoughts on this?

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

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

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

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

The formula would look something like this:

S x E = T

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



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

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

Any thoughts on this?

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

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

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

 

[Berd]

ZZ anyone?

 

[waffle=ijm]

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

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

 

[LarsN]

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

 

[DeeDubb]

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

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

+1 on this...

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