What's the best 3x3 method?

[Xatu]

hi, i was wondering what YOU GUYS think is the best method. so fill out the POLL

 

[ruffleduck]

As a ZZ and CFOP solver, I believe Roux is the best method. Roux is lame.

 

[Duncan Kimmett]

As a CFOP solver, I believe that 1LS (1 Look Solve) with its 43,000,000,000,000,000,000 algorithms is hands down the best method. Still haven’t learned it yet though, I think you should add it.

 

[ProStar]

Of the currently known methods, I’d have to say that CFOP and Roux are both contenders for the best method. It’s impossible to say for certain which is better at the moment, but I do think both are legitimate options. Methods like ZZ and Petrus can be very good but I don’t think they’ll compete at the top level

 

[Xatu]

me, as a ZZ solver, thinks that ZZ is best because its rotationless

 

[Xatu]

As a CFOP solver, I believe that 1LS (1 Look Solve) with its 43,000,000,000,000,000,000 algorithms is hands down the best method. Still haven’t learned it yet though, I think you should add it.

vote other for any methods not shown

 

[Burrito]

Of the currently known methods, I’d have to say that CFOP and Roux are both contenders for the best method. It’s impossible to say for certain which is better at the moment, but I do think both are legitimate options. Methods like ZZ and Petrus can be very good but I don’t think they’ll compete at the top level

The learning curves are higher but the reward is greater. Who doesn't like feasible 1LLL in minimum 72 algs?

 

[ProStar]

me, as a ZZ solver, thinks that ZZ is best because its rotationless

The biggest problem with ZZ is that RUL isn’t actually that good. Yes, it avoids rotations, but it also introduces a ton of regrips and finger shifting. RUFy is just as good if not better than RUL when done efficiently, which means that now ZZ is wasting 2-8 moves (usually very unergonomic ones) at the beginning of a solve for basically no advantage at the top level. Even having the EO during LL isn’t actually especially helpful, and definitely not worth the earlier time loss

 

[Burrito]

The biggest problem with ZZ is that RUL isn’t actually that good. Yes, it avoids rotations, but it also introduces a ton of regrips and finger shifting. RUFy is just as good if not better than RUL when done efficiently, which means that now ZZ is wasting 2-8 moves (usually very unergonomic ones) at the beginning of a solve for basically no advantage at the top level. Even having the EO during LL isn’t actually especially helpful, and definitely not worth the earlier time loss

I can say that RUL is actually good; its usually just a skill issue for the people who complain.

The luck of ZZ is also a great reason to do it. Even with the base, I get at least 4-5 OLL skips per day and maybe 1 PLL skip. I have had many solves with 2 or 3 free/3move pairs.

 

[ProStar]

The luck of ZZ is also a great reason to do it. Even with the base, I get at least 4-5 OLL skips per day and maybe 1 PLL skip. I have had many solves with 2 or 3 free/3move pairs.

To be clear, I said that it couldn’t compete *at the top level*, not that it was a trash method impossible to become good with. At the world class level, the luck factor is mostly meaningless. Top cubers now know large chunks of ZBLL, so they’d probably use 1LLL anyway. Plus, now that 1LLL is proven to be a human feasible thing, I imagine in a few years time it too will become standard to have learned, making ZZ’s one major advantage (human feasible 1lll) mostly pointless at the word class level as well.

I can say that RUL is actually good; its usually just a skill issue for the people who complain.

Yeah, except that it isn’t actually good. You can’t maintain homegrip during ZZF2L, and your fingers are constantly having to shift to make room for switching between R and L moves. This time loss is more or less equivalent to the time loss from rotations in CFOP.

Even if RUL is slightly better than RUFy, it’s still definitely not good enough to be spending all that time at the start of the solve doing EO

 

[tom0989123]

hi, i was wondering what YOU GUYS think is the best method. so fill out the POLL

I think CFOP is 100% the best method no matter what method wins the vote.

 

[ProStar]

I think CFOP is 100% the best method no matter what method wins the vote.

Do you have any reasoning for that?

 

[tom0989123]

Do you have any reasoning for that?

yes I do,

the reason why I said that is because it's the easiest way to solve a 3x3

( don't bother replying )

 

[Meanjuice]

I’m surprised cfop didn’t get as many votes, as a higher percentage of people do it. ( i voted cfop)

 

[ruffleduck]

The biggest problem with ZZ is that RUL isn’t actually that good. Yes, it avoids rotations, but it also introduces a ton of regrips and finger shifting. RUFy is just as good if not better than RUL when done efficiently, which means that now ZZ is wasting 2-8 moves (usually very unergonomic ones) at the beginning of a solve for basically no advantage at the top level. Even having the EO during LL isn’t actually especially helpful, and definitely not worth the earlier time loss

ZZ has issues, but RUL isn't really one of them. This is almost completely resolved by using the (clearly superior) eocross approach. There are now less regrips than CFOP, and only about 2 grip shifts in an average solve, which more than cancels out with CFOP's about 2 rotations per solve. ZZ's big trump is LSLL, which is considerably better than CFOP. ZBLL is so good that you see top solvers trying to figure out how to force it to be more common. ZBLS is the most consistent approach, but this illustrates ZZ's advantage here nicely: you don't have to waste recognition or moves on ZBLS and you can smoothly transition from the third pair to the last. ZZ's main issue is eocross vs cross. CFOP's trump is that it's essentially a pair ahead, since eocross and xcross are roughly comparable. ZZ chugs along a pair behind, but makes up for it with greater consistency during F2L (far fewer cases) and guaranteed ZBLL with no influencing.

 

[OldSwiss]

With a look on the current world ranking I would say CFOP

Where are the first non CFOP Solvers currently in this ranking?

But to be honest, I only know CFOP

 

[JayTheCuber]

CFOP is a good method. if you don't want to learn 140+ algorithms ], try roux, you need to know basic f2l but it is otherwise simpler with less algorithms.

 

[Burrito]

To be clear, I said that it couldn’t compete *at the top level*, not that it was a trash method impossible to become good with. At the world class level, the luck factor is mostly meaningless. Top cubers now know large chunks of ZBLL, so they’d probably use 1LLL anyway. Plus, now that 1LLL is proven to be a human feasible thing, I imagine in a few years time it too will become standard to have learned, making ZZ’s one major advantage (human feasible 1lll) mostly pointless at the word class level as well.



Yeah, except that it isn’t actually good. You can’t maintain homegrip during ZZF2L, and your fingers are constantly having to shift to make room for switching between R and L moves. This time loss is more or less equivalent to the time loss from rotations in CFOP.

Even if RUL is slightly better than RUFy, it’s still definitely not good enough to be spending all that time at the start of the solve doing EO

ZZ F2L is mostly RU or LU, its usually suboptimal to use RUL on one pair. The homegrip statement is false. Also, only 3 people are working on 1LLL so far, ao it will still take a long time for it to be commonplace at world class level.

 

[Marz]

I Use cfop, however roux is great for oh and cfop is better for big cubes.

 

[Marz]

sean patrick villanueva got a sub 6 3x3 average with roux+less people use roux+cfop has been around for longer therefore it has been more developed