The method debate thread

[ProStar]

Balint is different I think

The different main methods are mostly just S2L style differences

 

[Deleted member 55877]

The different main methods are mostly just S2L style differences

ik

 

[Kaneki Uchiha]

some people avg 42-45 moves with roux

 

[PapaSmurf]

some people avg 42-45 moves with roux

In TH, turning quickly, no one averages under 45 moves with Roux. Speedsolving, most people who are fast average about 47-48, with a few who average over 50 (Sean for example).

 

[RiceMan_]

work on eficiency first. i am sub 8.4, and i only have 5 tps, being efficient is very imporant if you want to improve

Are you sure you past your math class cuz 8.4 x 5 = 42 and CFOP has a average of 60 moves per solves.

 

[Eamon]

i'm not sure about the tps thing, it's an estimate, but i do average low 8

 

[JakeCanSolve]

im new to cubing, im still using the biginners method, I want to know what speedcubing method should I use?

 

[ProStar]

im new to cubing, im still using the biginners method, I want to know what speedcubing method should I use?

I'd recommend looking at the three main Speedcubing methods: CFOP, Roux, and ZZ. CFOP is the most popular and easiest to switch to, but Roux and ZZ are just as good. You should look at all of them and decide what you like best

 

[JakeCanSolve]

I'd recommend looking at the three main Speedcubing methods: CFOP, Roux, and ZZ. CFOP is the most popular and easiest to switch to, but Roux and ZZ are just as good. You should look at all of them and decide what you like best

I think i'm gonna learn roux.

 

[NarcolepticFlarp]

Hello All,
I've been solving twisty puzzles for years, but I never cared about speed. However, now I am flirting with the idea of trying to get vaguely fast (lets say sub 30 seconds). I know around five (often slow) methods to solve 3x3, but I haven't dug deep into any of the big three. Of the three I would definitely go for ZZ, purely because I find it to be the most interesting. But after watching stuff and reading about ZZ I started wondering, why is ZZ significantly faster than Petrus? It seems to me like F2L for both methods is pretty similar, just in a different order. And in both you get EOLL for free. I know with ZZ there are things like Phasing and WV, but is that the only gain you get from doing ZZ?

Sorry if this is really obvious and I'm just missed something. Thanks!

 

[Scollier]

Is ZZ obviously actually faster than Petrus though? That is highly arguable.

Also, congrats on your first post!

 

[NarcolepticFlarp]

Is ZZ obviously actually faster than Petrus though? That is highly arguable.

Also, congrats on your first post!

Interesting, that is good to know. Any idea why ZZ is considered viable for speedcubing whereas Petrus is regarded as antiquated?

And thanks

 

[Silky]

Interesting, that is good to know. Any idea why ZZ is considered viable for speedcubing whereas Petrus is regarded as antiquated?

And thanks

To preface, I think that Petrus is at least as good as ZZ given that they are tangentially related methods. Generally, ZZ is considered better than Petrus because it has a higher TPS cap and is more ergonomic with <R,U,L> reduction during F2L. The other part of it is that Petrus had very little development since 2003 where ZZ has blossomed in the last few years. That being said, People like @petrus have make great efforts to revamp the method and up until recently there Petrus had very similar unofficial averages to ZZ. Hopefully we will see further advancement in Petrus in the years to come..

Also Petrus has rotation where ZZ doesn't.

 

[Nir1213]

Also Petrus has rotation where ZZ doesn't.

to counteract with that, ZZ has more regrips than Petrus.

 

[carcass]

Balint, Westlund, or Yu Da Hyun on Megaminx? I use Balint

 

[Silky]

Does anyone have thoughts on VDW method? It looks like it have very good potential but only if you can consistently plan bars + CLL. If not, it seems like a worse version of LMCF/Roux

 

[Tao Yu]

Does anyone have thoughts on VDW method? It looks like it have very good potential but only if you can consistently plan bars + CLL. If not, it seems like a worse version of LMCF/Roux

LR looks like a terrible step. I can see no way how the supposed advantages gained in other steps could come close to making up for it.

This looks like such a Roux wannabe method, it's like Roux is a great idea, and we can't think of a way to make it better so instead, let's just make a totally illogical version and call it a method.

Frankly, the fact that method development is like this these days is why I find it totally uninteresting. It's literally just solve EO EP CO CP in a random order.

 

[Silky]

LR looks like a terrible step. I can see no way how the supposed advantages gained in other steps could come close to making up for it.

This looks like such a Roux wannabe method, it's like Roux is a great idea, and we can't think of a way to make it better so instead, let's just make a totally illogical version and call it a method.

Frankly, the fact that method development is like this these days is why I find it totally uninteresting. It's literally just solve EO EP CO CP in a random order.

Well heck. an you go more into your opinion on method development
?

 

[DNF_Cuber]

Balint, Westlund, or Yu Da Hyun on Megaminx? I use Balint

Most use westlund, but Yu Da Hyun is similar and it has proven itself to be fast. I used to use balint, but I couldn't blockbuild very well, so unless you can do that excellently, then switch.

 

[efattah]

LR looks like a terrible step. I can see no way how the supposed advantages gained in other steps could come close to making up for it.

Indeed LR does look like a bad step. However, recently I was re-generating certain 'bad cases' of LMCF algorithms, and cube explorer spit out something that looked awful, but ended up pretty good, I call it the sexE move:
U' L E' L' U' L E L'
This is basically the sexy move except some of the U moves are replaced with E moves. I thought it would be crap. But on a properly tuned cube, after some drilling, I can consistently do it in 0.90 seconds (8.88tps) and I'm a very slow turner (3-4 tps average on full solves). I think an expert could do this in 0.50 seconds. The same mirror exists on the R/U/E set. This weird trigger opens up a large number of possibilities for move reduction in LMCF and also (possibly) makes certain methods like Mehta that require E moves somewhat more practical. I'm curious if a fast turner here can try this trigger, try timing 10 repetitions of the sexE move and then divide by 10 to see how long it takes you. Personally I find the ULEL version easier than the URER version.