[Canadian NR] Kian Mansour - 6.86 3x3 average

[Underwatercuber]

Then how come Alex was faster than Feliks? And how come Feliks himself stated that Roux and CFOP have very similar potential (on his Cube Skills blog)?

1. Alex WAS faster than Feliks
2. Similar does not mean equal

 

[shadowslice e]

1. Alex WAS faster than Feliks
2. Similar does not mean equal

1)Was is completely fine as he didn't fall behind because he wasn't as good; just that he doesn't practise anymore.
2) How do you know which way he meant it? Perhaps he thinks Roux is actually better.

I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.

 

[GuRoux]

I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason

what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.

He's saying that you're fast too. Just take the compliment

 

[GuRoux]

He's saying that you're fast too. Just take the compliment

k.

 

[asacuber]

use what is best for you. done

 

[shadowslice e]

what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.

Cuz U OH gud

 

[MoyuDayanLover3]

This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.

Exactly.

 

[SolemnAttic]

The cuber picks the method fastest to him. It is equally possible for a Roux user to set the world record as a CFOP user. What you need is the speed, efficiency and luck that every world record has.


Kian, get the world record. Please.

 

[Malkom]

The cuber picks the method fastest to him. It is equally possible for a Roux user to set the world record as a CFOP user. What you need is the speed, efficiency and luck that every world record has.


Kian, get the world record. Please.

That's just stupid

 

[EmperorZant]

That's just stupid

I also don't fully agree, but I don't fully disagree; he definitely has something figured out when pointing out that people have their preferences. In moderation, though, methods are definitely not equal, which is why conversations about them are so interesting.

 

[SolemnAttic]

That's just stupid

Why?!?

 

[Malkom]

Why?!?

can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.

 

[SolemnAttic]

can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.

Isnt Kian proof enough? I did not imply that you can get sub 7 with LBL. Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps. LBL would be out of the question.

With CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.

/endrant

 

[Malkom]

Isnt Kian proof enough?

There's a woman at my local chinese resturant with 3 thumbs, isn't that proof enough humans is a 3 thumbed spieces?!

With CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.

/endrant

SIMILAR DOES NOT EQUAL EQUAL
123,676,097,753,168,584 =/= 123,676,097,753,168,585
they're very very close but not E Q U A L.

 

[Competition Cuber]

CFOP, ROUX, AND ZZ CAN BE EQUAL SO USE WHATEVER YOU WANT!!

And probably some other methods too.

 

[Malkom]

CFOP, ROUX, AND ZZ CAN BE EQUAL SO USE WHATEVER YOU WANT!!

And probably some other methods too.

how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Competition Cuber]

how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

This (the next quote):

Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps.

Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?

To be honest, if I was over 19-20 seconds or so, I would probably switch to Roux. I just dont want to switch because Ive been using CFOp for over a year and a half.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

I dont even know what that is.

Also, I think I might get off this thread now.

 

[turtwig]

Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?

But it has less TPS. The fact that it's more efficient means means that you have to think harder when you solve, so TPS is sacrificed.