The method debate thread

[cringeycuber101]

I don't. I use CFOP based methods for 4x4 and mega

EDIT: and even if I did use them, they might be faster for ME because I use ZZ on 3x3.

YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.

 

[Owen Morrison]

1. Roux blocks and LSE are about as intuitive as F2L
2. Roux CMLL is as algorithmic as OLL and PLL

I agree with this, but often the same people who say this are the people who say Roux is better because it is more intuitive.

@cringeycuber101 I somewhat agree with what you are saying but I think you are exaggerating everything a little too much. Also, please don't triple post, you can edit your previous message if you have something more to say or you can wait until someone else posts.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.

I don't bloody care about anything other than clock and 3x3. I did no timed mega or 4x4 solves since the beginning of 2020.

 

[cringeycuber101]

another thing is m moves are actually so much slower than people say they are. What is faster? M U M? Or R U R?

 

[Owen Morrison]

YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.

But if CFOP isn't fun for him then he shouldn't use it. The whole point of cubing is to have fun, and it doesn't make sense to use a method that isn't fun for you just so you can be faster, (which won't actually make him faster because if it isn't fun for him then he won't practice).

 

[Deleted member 51471]

another thing is m moves are actually so much slower than people say they are. What is faster? M U M? Or R U R?

The amount of times you will use either of those triggers is low lol

 

[Sub1Hour]

also, people say roux is great because it is intuitive. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS BETTER! You can turn 10x faster with algs then intuitive solving, and it is way worse. Also people say intuitive is better for some people, but in general anyone can learn algs, and algs can be drilled way faster.

I find an issue with this statement that "Algorithmic is faster". I have not learned a single F2L alg in my entire 2+ years of cubing and my F2L Split is 4-5 seconds. ALGORITHMIC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BETTER. Especially for F2L since it makes lookahead harder and case influencing nearly impossible. Not to mention that you said 10x faster turning with algorithms is kind of rediculous at face value but I get your point even though its wrong. Patrick ponce said he never learned an F2L alg and never planned to and his tps is insane, same with Max Park. So if Patrick switched to algorithmic F2L he will have 100 TPS?

 

[xcross]

1. Roux blocks and LSE are about as intuitive as F2L
2. Roux CMLL is as algorithmic as OLL and PLL

But thats more intuitive pieces, too
Roux: 10 pieces for blocks, 6 pieces for edges
CFOP: 8 pieces for F2L, 4 pieces for cross.
which generally will make the solve slower, not to mention less algorithmic pieces (meaning algs save less time)
Roux: 4, CMLL
CFOP: 14, OLL, PLL (this is arguable, you could say that it is more or less pieces depending on the case, but for arguments sake we will take the average and use 14)

I find an issue with this statement that "Algorithmic is faster". I have not learned a single F2L alg in my entire 2+ years of cubing and my F2L Split is 4-5 seconds. ALGORITHMIC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BETTER. Especially for F2L since it makes lookahead harder and case influencing nearly impossible. Not to mention that you said 10x faster turning with algorithms is kind of rediculous at face value but I get your point even though its wrong. Patrick ponce said he never learned an F2L alg and never planned to and his tps is insane, same with Max Park. So if Patrick switched to algorithmic F2L he will have 100 TPS?

Turning intuitive steps in to algs does not make it faster, but steps that have always been algorithmic are faster than if they were intuitive.

 

[ProStar]

But thats more intuitive pieces, too
Roux: 10 pieces for blocks, 6 pieces for edges
CFOP: 8 pieces for F2L, 4 pieces for cross.
which generally will make the solve slower, not to mention less algorithmic pieces (meaning algs save less time)
Roux: 4, CMLL
CFOP: 14, OLL, PLL (this is arguable, you could say that it is more or less pieces depending on the case, but for arguments sake we will take the average and use 14)

OLL and PLL solves 9 pieces at most

 

[brododragon]

YOu should use CFOP on 3x3, cuz you would be faster at other events.

Why can't he do what is fun? That's the point of cubing. Please stop being such a CFOP supremacist.

 

[mukerflap]

one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.

Thats not an argument for why cfop is the best for 3x3 which is what this thread is about

 

[ProStar]

Thats not an argument for why cfop is the best for 3x3 which is what this thread is about

Wow! That's completely wrong!

This is a thread to debate on which method is best and if methods are equal and stuff like that.

 

[mukerflap]

But thats more intuitive pieces, too
Roux: 10 pieces for blocks, 6 pieces for edges
CFOP: 8 pieces for F2L, 4 pieces for cross.
which generally will make the solve slower, not to mention less algorithmic pieces (meaning algs save less time)
Roux: 4, CMLL
CFOP: 14, OLL, PLL (this is arguable, you could say that it is more or less pieces depending on the case, but for arguments sake we will take the average and use 14)

Is a step really "intuitive" if you plan it in inspection?

 

[Etotheipi]

Thats not an argument for why cfop is the best for 3x3 which is what this thread is about

If I know how to read correctly, the title is "the Method Debate Thread" not "the 3x3 Method Debate Thread", so yes that does belong here.

Is a step really "intuitive" if you plan it in inspection?

Why would it make it not?

 

[mukerflap]

If I know how to read correctly, the title is "the Method Debate Thread" not "the 3x3 Method Debate Thread", so yes that does belong here.

Why would it make it not?

Wow! That's completely wrong!





I think Fringing is best for 15 Puzzle

"one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events " is what he said. He is saying cfop is the best 3x3 method because it goes well with other events

 

[ProStar]

"one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events " is what he said. He is saying cfop is the best 3x3 method because it goes well with other events

He said you should use CFOP for 3x3 because it raises your skill ceiling in other events


I think that's an awful argument, but it does belong in this thread

 

[Etotheipi]

"one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events " is what he said. He is saying cfop is the best 3x3 method because it goes well with other events

Just because its not the best argument in the world doesn't mean its off topic.

 

[mukerflap]

Just because its not the best argument in the world doesn't mean its off topic.

He said you should use CFOP for 3x3 because it raises your skill ceiling in other events


I think that's an awful argument, but it does belong in this thread

its not that far to assume its a 3x3 method debate thread when all the tags are 3x3 methods, there is no other discussion of any other event

 

[ProStar]

its not that far to assume its a 3x3 method debate thread when all the tags are 3x3 methods, there is no other discussion of any other event

Just because people don't often post 2x2 methods in the new method thread doesn't mean it can't be used for 2x2. And tags are never accurate

 

[mukerflap]

Just because people don't often post 2x2 methods in the new method thread doesn't mean it can't be used for 2x2. And tags are never accurate

Except the difference is there has not been a single message about other events in this thread as opposed to the new method thread. And how am i supposed to know that tags arent accurate