Best Method for ZERO inspection?

I think CFOP is the best for no inspection, Roux with. CFOP's steps are just so simple, cross doesn't start with blockbuilding, you just need to see one piece and start turning. I also think cross has better chances of luck. I liked @Silky 's comment about LMCF, however, I don't think it is better, not only is it just not as good as a method than CFOP but also, I think it relies on inspection for 2x2 stage because it's very important to have an idea of what you're doing. You solve the corner of the puzzle in haste and than have little idea of where all your edges are. Probably none of them are solved so it's going to be tough to locate them all.

That being said, I think no-inspection should be a personal choice, not forced on every cuber. I made a post on it in the past that I'll quote below. It's not very well written, but I feel too lazy to include another essay worth writing that I would have to say to conclude my thoughts.

In Speedcubing the point is to solve the cube with techniques you know. No inspection would make more advanced techniques completely useless because that takes time. Look ahead would be trash and it would be impossible (almost) to be color neutral. In the Red Bull speedcubing Bill Wang, a color neutral solver, used white cross only in "Fastest Hand" because there was no inspection, making it very hard to use his full skill and potential. Let's take Tymon Kolasinski, one of the best 3x3 solvers in the world. He relies on inspection to plan amazing solutions. His 3.43 Full-step Sub-WR single on ML had a xxxcross and a pause less 4th pair. In a following interview he said that he planned the entire F2L solution during inspection. Think about how crazy that is, most people struggle to plan an xcross but the entire F2L, the hardest step of CFOP! To say that solve would have been more impressive without inspection, maybe a 7-8 second solve is ridicules. If inspection was to be removed it would never have been added in the first place. Sure, there are some debatable rules in the WCA but inspection seems like a no-brainer. Speedcubing isn't about pleasing the spectators like in say, American Football. It's about doing the best you can do with the skill you have, if you want to please the spectators with a less impressive solve with lots of pauses for the average cuber by turning down inspection, go ahead! No one is stopping you. But to argue that it should be removed because you think it benefits not the joy of speedcubing is ridicules. If inspection was not a part of speedcubing I wouldn't partake in the sport because it takes the joy of striving to improve away.

As mentioned in another post, solves would be completely based on luck, not skill. There would be countless variables that take away from efficiency and such, CFOP would be pretty much the only viable method besides LBL and we'd have to go for the first thing we see. Inspection on the other hand is something that you can never stop improving with, you learn and learn, get better and better, and maybe one day be like Tymon, even he is continuously improving. All the skill is to know what to do in each situation and how to take advantage of certain positions. With no inspection you simply don't have time. You can say you work it into the solve but it would be better just to get right into solving then to make a massive pause to look at each individual piece and determine what you can do best with what you know.

I think you should have an understanding of the cube, methods, techniques, planning, etc, before you make a conclusion that it would be possibly better without those 1-15 seconds and, no offense, but with what I can garner you do not have a mediocrely advanced understanding of how to take advantage of things and how to plan multiple moves ahead in a short time.

Just my two cents.
 
I think CFOP is the best for no inspection, Roux with. CFOP's steps are just so simple, cross doesn't start with blockbuilding, you just need to see one piece and start turning. I also think cross has better chances of luck. I liked @Silky 's comment about LMCF, however, I don't think it is better, not only is it just not as good as a method than CFOP but also, I think it relies on inspection for 2x2 stage because it's very important to have an idea of what you're doing. You solve the corner of the puzzle in haste and than have little idea of where all your edges are. Probably none of them are solved so it's going to be tough to locate them all.

That being said, I think no-inspection should be a personal choice, not forced on every cuber. I made a post on it in the past that I'll quote below. It's not very well written, but I feel too lazy to include another essay worth writing that I would have to say to conclude my thoughts.
LMCF is an interesting case in general. Normally I would say that the greatest strength of LMCF is it's optimization of inspection. However, the reason I mention it here is because of how incredibly fast 2 BLD solvers are.
 
I vote for some kind of 3-style BLD technique like Beyer-Hardwick or R2M2 except with your eyes open. You just have to keep you eye on the buffer. Sub 10 second times are possible.
Just a thought.
 
I vote for some kind of 3-style BLD technique like Beyer-Hardwick or R2M2 except with your eyes open. You just have to keep you eye on the buffer. Sub 10 second times are possible.
Just a thought.
That doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think it's physically possible to execute 20ish targets of m2r2 that fast.

I think cfop is a clear winner for no inspection. You can start solving as soon as you see one piece basically and then look ahead to the rest of the cross.

Max park averaged low 8 seconds for his 1 hour attempt.
 
I would say anything that solves pieces directly and exclusively in the first step. So CFOP, Roux or Petrus. You won't be getting the best solutions (for reasons already mentioned), but there's equally no clear winner between those 3 apart from how good you are at said method. I don't think ZZ is as good in this specific scenario, but it's certainly by no means terrible (as the video posted by Otter shows). I use ZZ on big cubes post redux simply because I'm just better with ZZ than any other method, and taking the hit in inspection is still faster for me. So I would actually be as fast (maybe faster) with ZZ no inspection as I am with CFOP no inspection (or any other method) because I am simply that much faster with ZZ.
 
Back
Top