OH Method Debate

[brododragon]

I think ZZ-Roux is probably the best method for speedsolving because of the very low movecount using STM and the intuitive block building aspect.
with normal Roux coming in next, and CFOP being a close third with, ZZ dead last.

Edit: I meant to edit my original post oops.

Can you explain ZZ-Roux? Couldn't find resources.

EDIT: Ohhhh is that LEOR?

 

[maticuber]

In my opinion, I don't think that the "optimal" OH has been invented yet. For example, TH solving had been around for much longer than OH solving. Even TH started with Corners First and Petrus because people just didn't have enough experience with the cube the invent the Cross or F2B. I mean, I know a lot of y'all are method developers, and would you guys have been able to think to make an cross from absolute scratch? Like how pre-historic humans made the wheel. It's simple to us but not to them. I argue that the same thing is happening now. All these so called "OH optimized methods" are just basically putting together things that are known to us like EO and CP. Like people didn't even know what EO was when it first started. I say that if people are as motivated as now to develop a new OH method, we'll discover something new like, whatever, and CFOP for OH will seem prehistoric similar to how we see people who hunt with bow and arrows.

CFOP is as old as petrus and corner first, it was invented in the 80s, and it's actually a really bad but with all the optimizations that it was and all the development over the years it's an OK method now. Just think about the amount of algs and tricks that you have to learn in order to be sub-10 with it (2H).

I think ZZ-Roux is probably the best method for speedsolving because of the very low movecount using STM and the intuitive block building aspect.
with normal Roux coming in next, and CFOP being a close third with, ZZ dead last.

Edit: I meant to edit my original post oops.

ZZ is a lot better than CFOP for OH solving, and roux is only viable because of table abuse.

CFOP has a lot of really bad LL cases for OH, meanwhile ZZ is really nice with COLL+EPLL, also F2L is worse than ZZ block building.

 

[Owen Morrison]

Just think about the amount of algs and tricks that you have to learn in order to be sub-10 with it (2H).

I don't use a bunch of algs and tricks and I am sub 10, I just learned how to solve F2L efficiently and practiced slow solves to improve lookahead.

 

[maticuber]

I don't use a bunch of algs and tricks and I am sub 10, I just learned how to solve F2L efficiently and practiced slow solves to improve lookahead.

Efficient F2L is nothing but a bunch of tricks and algs, there are at least 41 F2L cases, and you probably know them from different angles. Even if you didn't learn a single alg for them you still drilled F2L and you do use algs for it, plust at least 78 algs for LL.

 

[Owen Morrison]

Efficient F2L is nothing but a bunch of tricks and algs, there are at least 41 F2L cases, and you probably know them from different angles. Even if you didn't learn a single alg for them you still drilled F2L and you do use algs for it, plust at least 78 algs for LL.

I think if anything methods like Roux would require more tricks to be sub 10 because it is more intuitive, which means that there are more possible you can get in F2B.

 

[PetraPine]

Petrus is an underated method for OH because the effieciency and fingertricks, not as good as zz i think because rotations but better than cfop.

Prev

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

Can you explain ZZ-Roux? Couldn't find resources.

It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL

 

[maticuber]

My point is that CFOP is a bad method, you need to learn and drill hundreds of cases and the algs are really long and not really good for OH.

 

[Micah Morrison]

I honestly don't know whether CFOP or roux is easier to get sub 10 with and it would be very hard to test it out. For CFOP, you would have to optimize regrips and lookahead more than Roux but for Roux you probably have to be more familiar with the cube and the blockbuilding.

 

[maticuber]

It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL

how's that better than zz? I'm genuinely intrigued because doing EO first will optimize the block building for OH a lot.

 

[Micah Morrison]

My point is that CFOP is a bad method, you need to learn and drill hundreds of cases and the algs are really long and not really good for OH.

How is CFOP a BAD method when it has all the world records for NXNs?

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

My point is that CFOP is a bad method, you need to learn and drill hundreds of cases and the algs are really long and not really good for OH.

Hundreds? last time I checked only OLL and PLL existed (ever heard of ZBLL? I hear it's good for LL optimization)

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

How is CFOP a BAD method when it has all the world records for NXNs?

For OH he means, it's not bad for any event but there's no OH for anything other than 3x3 @Micah Morrison

how's that better than zz? I'm genuinely intrigued because doing EO first will optimize the block building for OH a lot.

Because unless you do CP at the beginning of every solve you will NOT get 2Gen solutions every solve. Also EO is a little wonky with the F and B moves (not that cross is terribly better, it still is but not by much) So OLL is better for ZZ but unless you use COLL you have the same PLL. On top of that, CFOP's moveset is good for OH if you use nice solutions

 

[Micah Morrison]

I understand when people think Roux is better for one-handed (I think Roux probably has more potential) and that Kian may or may not have an 8.72 ao1000 but you can't say CFOP is BAD method when it has official world records for 2H and OH.

 

[brododragon]

It's Roux start, you solve the DF and DB edges while orienting edges and then finish with ZBLL

Ohhh LEOR.

how's that better than zz? I'm genuinely intrigued because doing EO first will optimize the block building for OH a lot.

FB definitely isn't OH optimized, but the rest is rRUM.

 

[maticuber]

How is CFOP a BAD method when it has all the world records for NXNs?

because is optimized for 2H, not for OH, and it has almost 40 years of development, not even 10 years ago half the std OLL/PLL were different.

Hundreds? last time I checked only OLL and PLL existed (ever heard of ZBLL? I hear it's good for LL optimization)

F2L, in order to be decent with cfop you have to learn F2L from multiple angles, that adds a lot of algs, also vanilla OLL/PLL is 78 algs, but you can go crazy with cfop variants, like zbll as you said.

 

[maticuber]

For OH he means, it's not bad but there's no OH for anything other than 3x3


Because unless you do CP at the beginning of every solve you will NOT get 2Gen solutions every solve. Also EO is a little wonky with the F and B moves (not that cross is terribly better, it still is but not by much) So OLL is better for ZZ but unless you use COLL you have the same PLL.

OH zz absolutely needs COLL, but doing EO line is way way better than cross+vanilla F2L.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

because is optimized for 2H, not for OH, and it has almost 40 years of development, not even 10 years ago half the std OLL/PLL were different.



F2L, in order to be decent with cfop you have to learn F2L from multiple angles, that adds a lot of algs, also vanilla OLL/PLL is 78 algs, but you can go crazy with cfop variants, like zbll as you said.

But no one thinks of F2L as algorithms and if you add COLL it's still barely over 100 algs

 

[brododragon]

F2L, in order to be decent with cfop you have to learn F2L from multiple angles, that adds a lot of algs, also vanilla OLL/PLL is 78 algs, but you can go crazy with cfop variants, like zbll as you said.

*Intuitive F2L exists*
Am I a joke to you?

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

OH zz absolutely needs COLL, but doing EO line is way way better than cross+vanilla F2L.

Prove it then. Do EO and then EO line and I will do cross. We will see who is faster. stackmat only come back with an average of 50 and I will do the same