The method debate thread

[mukerflap]

Excluding CMLL, Roux is completely intuitive. Why do you say this?

it's as intuitive as cfop f2l

 

[brododragon]

Roux isnt like that it's not really that intuitive

Roux mixes things up:
1. M slice the LL (mostly) and most flexible layer
2. Multiple layers to be solved in the last step
3 Putting a large amount of time in the first step (or two, if you count LB and RB seperately)

 

[Hazel]

it's as intuitive as cfop f2l

Half of the CFOP steps are algorithmic, while only 1/4 of Roux steps are.

 

[brododragon]

Half of the CFOP steps are algorithmic, while only 1/4 of Roux steps are.

3/4 if you use algorithmic F2L.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

I don't think I ever say it like that but I agree with you.

Ok, well when you're trying to convince people to use CFOP say :
I would recommend CFOP, as it can be used if you are willing to be serious about 4x4 and up and megaminx.
(BTW I would never say this so YOU use it, I don't mean the words above.)

 

[MJS Cubing]

I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.

I agree. With something like Roux, M slices get hard on big cubes.

 

[dudefaceguy]

the most important thing is having fun.

You say there is no point in saying more, but I disagree. This point should be repeated often.

 

[mukerflap]

I agree. With something like Roux, M slices get hard on big cubes.

Only on 6x6 and up, I can sub 4 lse on 5x5

 

[Chris_Cube]

I for example appreciate Corners First Methods because we all forgot about the Ideas in the 80s like Corners First oder Waterman, Salvia etc. Corners First are really fast because of the ergonomic <U,M> Group. So in addition to that some won't even need cube rotations. Especially Waterman was back then highly evolved. Roux is a bit of corners First, which makes it a cool method. CFOP can be replaced by CFCE. I think we forgot the intuitive Side of cubing. It makes more fun to think about the cube as an object in respect of logical thinking. People back then didn't have computers to create algorithms. Corners First is something incredible and intuitive and its like cubing back to the roots

 

[Billabob]

A neglected reason for CFOP's dominance is that it can take a decade to become world-class. Even if Roux were to spike in popularity and become the most popular method today the top solvers would still be almost entirely CFOP, simply due to them having 10 years of practice and experience behind them.

 

[dudefaceguy]

I for example appreciate Corners First Methods because we all forgot about the Ideas in the 80s like Corners First oder Waterman, Salvia etc. Corners First are really fast because of the ergonomic <U,M> Group. So in addition to that some won't even need cube rotations. Especially Waterman was back then highly evolved. Roux is a bit of corners First, which makes it a cool method. CFOP can be replaced by CFCE. I think we forgot the intuitive Side of cubing. It makes more fun to think about the cube as an object in respect of logical thinking. People back then didn't have computers to create algorithms. Corners First is something incredible and intuitive and its like cubing back to the roots

I've had a lot of fun with SSC and PCMS lately. I'm an intuitive cuber, and it's great fun to understand different methods, and to work out my own solutions to their steps. One of the best things about cubes and other twisty puzzles is that there are so many different ways to solve them. I use many different methods for different purposes:
I actually started with Heise. I love how elegant it is - and it also makes it easy to solve shape mods, including cubes that need center orientation.
For 4x4 and 5x5, I use a method I made up, which is a variation on Sandwich/Lewis and avoids parity. I had to develop a new way to solve corners, since Heise can't solve odd parity corners on 4x4.
Once I did that, I was able to start using Roux for speedcubing. I'm down to about 35 seconds, using a permute-first corners method based on Petrus corners.
I also do a lot of cubing on the subway, and for that I either do one-handed linear FMC, or a one-handed mix of ZZ and Heise (i.e. F2L-1 with ZZ and finishing with Heise).
I've also recently started experimenting with 3-style, since I already use commutators a lot.
All of which is to say that there are a whole lot of really fun methods, and speed isn't everything. I'm 37 so I will never achieve any significant speed anyhow. I just like learning, and cubing is great for that.

 

[Micah Morrison]

I'm just going to put what I have to say here, and then I'll probably never post here again.

Those beginners should be directed to the Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method thread, and they can choose for themselves which method is best for them.

I read the CFOP section of that thread and the "Quotes from the best" seemed to be very selected quotes from a CFOP user saying why Roux is better than CFOP. I think this thread is biased and is not the best resource for beginners

 

[Deleted member 51471]

I read the CFOP section of that thread and the "Quotes from the best" seemed to be very selected quotes from a CFOP user slower than me saying why Roux is better than CFOP. I think this thread is biased and is not the best resource for beginners

Antoine Cantin is faster then you now.

 

[kirbzcitkatz]

what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux

 

[dudefaceguy]

what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux

Lewis method does this. I also use this technique in my 4x4 method. These are both direct solving methods, not reduction methods. Sandwich method also ends up in this state, but it starts with corners first so it's not really like building blocks in Roux.

 

[kirbzcitkatz]

cool, i tried to do it by my self and im on the last wings, i plan to use bld algs to swap the wings

 

[kirbzcitkatz]

and i did it

 

[dudefaceguy]

cool, i tried to do it by my self and im on the last wings, i plan to use bld algs to swap the wings

Did you use Lewis method? I'm guessing yes, since you're using commutators to solve the last edges. I prefer to solve the edges before solving the last centers with commutators, since you can avoid parity completely that way. Always cool to see people experimenting with new methods.

How did you like it compared to your main 4x4 method?

 

[dudefaceguy]

what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux

and i did it

User dbeyer is also working on a Roux-based 4x4 method. See this video:

And this thread:

4x4x4 Method

Greetings, I am going to start this thread here as I have refined the method since my original proposal. I want to talk about a Roux-centric method that allows you to quickly solve in a fluid Roux manner. It is interesting because I question all CFOP preconceived notions that 4x4x4 has to be...

www.speedsolving.com

I think there is a lot of potential for more development in these types of methods.

 

[kirbzcitkatz]

what i did is that i 2 centers, then made it 2 blocks, then finished wings and used 4x4 bld center commutators to finished to make it a 3x3 stage