Roux, fridrich, or zz

[Kirjava]

okay, yikes.
okay first:

and i'm not sure if people agreeing with the insistent (mostly roux) users actually feel that way or just don't feel like stepping on any toes.

This is an absurd thing to say.

well, you think this is absurd to say, but i felt it was a valid question to ask. maybe it's absurd that i think it's a valid question, but that's how i feel.

Please note that I'm not writing this post for you, it is for the entertainment of others. That is why I shall let this segment stand on it's own.

moving on...
so you agree with those that say that a lot of methods are equal, and that there's no way to tell right now if one is better than another. but at the same time, i think it's easy to say that some methods are worse than others. clearly, a beginner's method is slower than full fridrich. by this same logic, i think it's strange to say that an arbitrary number of methods are "equal". i doubt they are equal, even if we have difficulty ranking them right now.

I'd like to see you prove that a beginners method is slower than CFOP. Regular viewers will note that I've had this exact conversation before and it ended with much lulz.

my point with documentation and development and all that wasn't the idea of coll or vh or all that, i was thinking more along the lines of last layer algorithms (and to some extent f2l algorithms).

The algorithms have had to be developed a lot because speedcubing as a community has matured. It was a lot harder to find good algs a while ago. Roux algs were discovered at a time when good algorithm generation was easy - is it not possible that they are already good enough?

if there was less documentation available for cfop, i do strongly feel that it would be a worse method. there are a pretty large number of algorithms for the fridrich method, and the availability of very fast algorithms is a lot of what makes it a fast method. if nobody shared their pll and oll algorithms with each other, it would without a doubt be a slower method.

The point is that multiple resources are not required for something to be good.

There is a reason why there is only one real Roux method tutorial. That's because it's really good.

for this reason, less popular variants of the last layer are going to be handicapped, because not as many people are interested in them and bettering the method.

I remember a time when people were happy to do their own research. This allowed an individual to tailor their algorithms and techniques closer to their own style.

for the sub-20 in two months thing, if it has happened, then sorry. i've just heard of people getting amazingly fast with fridrich in a short amount of time, but was under the impression roux had a much steeper learning curve.

Why are you telling people this if you have no knowledge to back it up?

you say that it's possible to misrepresent things with statistics, but i think that if the fastest, i dunno, 100 or so records in the world are done with cfop, it is much, much easier for someone to claim that cfop is the fastest method in the world than for someone else to claim that it is not. in my eyes, the burden of proof most definitely falls on that second person to back up his claim.

If everyone used LBL and the top 100 results were done with LBL, would this imply that it was a better method than CFOP? Not only are statistics meaningless in this argument, a good statistical analysis is impossible due to lack of sample data.

again, i disagree with the claim that no method can be faster than any other. there are undeniably some methods that are slower than other methods. trying to apply fmc methods to a speedsolve or doing layer by layer is definitely slower.

Please prove this.

similarly, i think few people will argue that petrus is slower than fridrich. of course, more people will argue if i were to say zz is slower than fridrich, and even more if i were to say roux is slower than fridrich. how is it that no method can be faster than any other? please explain this sentence. i don't understand it.

You're completely ignoring the human element. This applys to nearly all of the points you're trying to make.

finally, i apologize that my post gave you a headache. i certainly didn't mean to cause physical pain to anyone with it.

I said this because your stupid ramblings were not worth replying to properly so it was easier and funnier to just insult them.

 

[incessantcheese]

What are you guys talking about? This alg count thing doesn't make any sense. Are algs bad or good?

Theyre talking about how many algrithoms aare needed for each method. The less the better basically.

yeah nobody knows what he/we are talking about. i don't even know anymore.

 

[Kirjava]

I think by equal he means "equally able to produce fast times".

 

[Lucas Garron]

What are you guys talking about? This alg count thing doesn't make any sense. Are algs bad or good?

Theyre talking about how many algrithoms aare needed for each method. The less the better basically.

I'm staying mostly out of the thread, but this is wrong. The more algs, the better.
As long as you can keep them all in your head (and they're not redundant), more algs = more power.

 

[waffle=ijm]

I think by equal he means "equally able to produce fast times".

I'm glad I slept through all of this. It made me lol.

By equal, I mean
-All the methods have pros and cons. This allows for balance between the 3 methods.
-All have the potential to produce fast times

EDIT - @Lucas - I do agree that if you can recognize the case instantly and recall the algs quickly, you have more power in solving. People who learned ZB will need time to work on that

EDIT -I can honestly keep a straight face saying this because there is nothing wrong with the statement.

 

[qqwref]

Oh, also

I think ZZ is slightly inferior to the other two. No reason you can't still get sub-10 with it, though.

So, if you didn't just say that to make people mad, can you tell us why it's inferior? I'd like to know why I should switch back to Fridrich.

I have a few reasons for thinking this (and keep in mind I'm talking two-handed here, ZZ isn't necessarily worse for OH or big cubes):
- EOline is more difficult to plan than cross, and solves fewer pieces. This means that any color neutrality more complex than opposite F/B and U/D colors is very difficult for a ZZ user to do in 15 seconds. You have to rush. Color neutrality is way easier in Fridrich because you can quickly scan the cube for good starts. Keep in mind that a shorter first step means fewer wristy turns and also better lookahead to the next step.
- Comparing ZZ F2L to an experienced Fridrich user's F2L, unless you use blockbuilding your efficiency in ZZ will be no better than in Fridrich (and even slightly worse, perhaps, since a few cases take more moves to do 2gen). Of course, the same is worse because you used more moves to get there. But blockbuilding has its own set of problems: lookahead to a blockbuilding setup is more difficult; you spend more time thinking while you turn; there are too many cases to practice the turning on each one. So I think that in ZZ you have a tradeoff between more thinking than Fridrich (but possibly fewer moves) and more moves than Fridrich (but just as much thinking). As for the rotations, I don't think they're as slow as people think once you consider how few are used, and switching from doing right-handed 2gen moves to left-handed ones takes about as much time for me as a fast rotation.
- I don't think there's much LL benefit if any. I'm going to ignore the ZBLL/phasing+ZZLL approaches for now because I haven't yet seen anyone get nearly as fast with those (in terms of recognition and tps) as with OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. For most people, those are the two options. COLL/EPLL doesn't give much benefit if any because many Fridrich users already use it (an experienced Fridrich user can get LL edges oriented much more than 1/8 of the time). OCLL/PLL sounds like it should definitely be faster than OLL/PLL, but if you can avoid four flipped edges almost all the time the difference is minimal because there are many good OLL cases that have two flipped edges.

So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.


PS: Hi Kirjava, claiming that no method can be proven to be faster than any other method is silly. I can demonstrate to you a method that is impossible to get under 15 seconds on because the best tps ever recorded cannot even come close. Of course, you have to make more statistical assumptions to compare methods that are more similar, which is why I don't claim that any of my feelings about method comparisons are objective facts, but rather hunches and opinions.

 

[incessantcheese]

kirjava: ugh, okay well, first i'm not trying to attack you or roux or whatever, i put time and some amount of energy into the posts so i'd appreciate if you didn't just respond by calling me an idiot every time, even if you really strongly do feel this way.

i didn't read any previous arguments about cfop vs beginner's method, so if i repeat something that was already covered, sorry. a beginner's method on average can take as much as twice as many moves as cfop, and is not by any means optimized for quick execution. i don't even know why this is a point of argument, unless you have some deeper meaning behind arguing over this. trying to use methods designed for fmc that are meant to take up time to think is certainly going to be slower than a cfop method designed to be done in as few as ten seconds or less.

i agree that speedcubing as a community matured and there is a lot shared information right now. for that same reason, the cfop that exists today is i feel undeniably faster than the cfop method that existed when i first got interested in cubing back in 2005.

it's certainly possible roux has matured enough or caught up fast enough because of technology or the current community. this doesn't necessarily apply to other methods that involve a large number of algorithms. there could very well be a great method that would take an intensive amount of work to develop before it is as fast or faster than current methods. however, the fact that nobody has put forth the effort to learn that method or develop the method for others to learn means it's not really a viable method.

as for the sub-20 thing, i've been around for a while and have heard of people using fridrich get fast amazingly quickly, but haven't heard of it happening with other methods, so i said so. you have heard of it happening, so you pointed it out to me, and the point is dropped. i wasn't telling people that it's impossible, just that i had never heard of it.

individual research is great and all, but it certainly isn't as good as a collective effort of research. the reason times are as fast as they are now as a whole is because people have put energy into sharing what they've learned and discovered with other people. there are clearly still people looking into algs themselves (and then willing to share their findings) or cubing wouldn't be moving forward.

my point with saying almost all of the top 100 is made with cfop is that it is the current fact that the fastest people in the world use cfop. if the fastest 100 people in the world were using layer by layer, and someone was to claim that layer by layer was the fastest in the world, then i feel it would be very difficult to dispute this fact unless someone were to demonstrate otherwise. the fact is, lbl does not hold the fastest time in the world, and for good reason.

i don't think i'm "ignoring the human element" i think i'm trying very hard to acknowledge the human element in every point i make. i'm framing everything in the present and with the current tools we have as a group.

 

[y3k9]

Oh, also

I think ZZ is slightly inferior to the other two. No reason you can't still get sub-10 with it, though.

So, if you didn't just say that to make people mad, can you tell us why it's inferior? I'd like to know why I should switch back to Fridrich.

I have a few reasons for thinking this (and keep in mind I'm talking two-handed here, ZZ isn't necessarily worse for OH or big cubes):
- EOline is more difficult to plan than cross, and solves fewer pieces. This means that any color neutrality more complex than opposite F/B and U/D colors is very difficult for a ZZ user to do in 15 seconds. You have to rush. Color neutrality is way easier in Fridrich because you can quickly scan the cube for good starts. Keep in mind that a shorter first step means fewer wristy turns and also better lookahead to the next step.
- Comparing ZZ F2L to an experienced Fridrich user's F2L, unless you use blockbuilding your efficiency in ZZ will be no better than in Fridrich (and even slightly worse, perhaps, since a few cases take more moves to do 2gen). Of course, the same is worse because you used more moves to get there. But blockbuilding has its own set of problems: lookahead to a blockbuilding setup is more difficult; you spend more time thinking while you turn; there are too many cases to practice the turning on each one. So I think that in ZZ you have a tradeoff between more thinking than Fridrich (but possibly fewer moves) and more moves than Fridrich (but just as much thinking). As for the rotations, I don't think they're as slow as people think once you consider how few are used, and switching from doing right-handed 2gen moves to left-handed ones takes about as much time for me as a fast rotation.
- I don't think there's much LL benefit if any. I'm going to ignore the ZBLL/phasing+ZZLL approaches for now because I haven't yet seen anyone get nearly as fast with those (in terms of recognition and tps) as with OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. For most people, those are the two options. COLL/EPLL doesn't give much benefit if any because many Fridrich users already use it (an experienced Fridrich user can get LL edges oriented much more than 1/8 of the time). OCLL/PLL sounds like it should definitely be faster than OLL/PLL, but if you can avoid four flipped edges almost all the time the difference is minimal because there are many good OLL cases that have two flipped edges.

So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.


PS: Hi Kirjava, claiming that no method can be proven to be faster than any other method is silly. I can demonstrate to you a method that is impossible to get under 15 seconds on because the best tps ever recorded cannot even come close. Of course, you have to make more statistical assumptions to compare methods that are more similar, which is why I don't claim that any of my feelings about method comparisons are objective facts, but rather hunches and opinions.

what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.

 

[Kirjava]

PS: Hi Kirjava, claiming that no method can be proven to be faster than any other method is silly. I can demonstrate to you a method that is impossible to get under 15 seconds on because the best tps ever recorded cannot even come close.

Of course, I don't include the Devil's Algorithm and similar.

 

[Daniel Wu]

I'd assume ZZ last layer is COLL/PLL or EPLL

 

[a small kitten]

So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.

I am a ZZ user and I kind of feel the same way. I am curious though, about your thoughts on ZZ's OH potential. I've been using ZZ for OH for around 10-11 months now and I've been able to consistently get sub 20 (while still making a considerable amount of mistakes during f2l lol).

I'd assume ZZ last layer is COLL/PLL or EPLL

ZZLL refers to a one look last layer after phasing. Since the edges are already oriented, a further step is taken to reduce the number of last layer possibilities.

 

[Kirjava]

kirjava: ugh, okay well, first i'm not trying to attack you or roux or whatever, i put time and some amount of energy into the posts so i'd appreciate if you didn't just respond by calling me an idiot every time, even if you really strongly do feel this way.

I too put effort into my posts. I make valid points, and when I read something as frustrating as some of the things you have posted, I call it as I see it.

i didn't read any previous arguments about cfop vs beginner's method, so if i repeat something that was already covered, sorry. a beginner's method on average can take as much as twice as many moves as cfop, and is not by any means optimized for quick execution.

There are more elements than these two to take into consideration. Some cannot even be quantified.

there could very well be a great method that would take an intensive amount of work to develop before it is as fast or faster than current methods. however, the fact that nobody has put forth the effort to learn that method or develop the method for others to learn means it's not really a viable method.

This is simply wrong.

individual research is great and all, but it certainly isn't as good as a collective effort of research. the reason times are as fast as they are now as a whole is because people have put energy into sharing what they've learned and discovered with other people. there are clearly still people looking into algs themselves (and then willing to share their findings) or cubing wouldn't be moving forward.

This is correct, and I never disagreed with anything like it. It's also somewhat irrelevant.

if the fastest 100 people in the world were using layer by layer, and someone was to claim that layer by layer was the fastest in the world, then i feel it would be very difficult to dispute this fact unless someone were to demonstrate otherwise.

I'd dispute it the same way I'm doing now, and tell him that the statistics are meaningless for deciding which method is better.

i don't think i'm "ignoring the human element" i think i'm trying very hard to acknowledge the human element in every point i make. i'm framing everything in the present and with the current tools we have as a group.

You haven't even considered that certain people may be suited to certain methods better than others. This alone renders your entire point null.

 

[incessantcheese]

just because you're frustrated with a post doesn't mean you should just go ahead and be completely discourteous, especially if you plan on actually discussing it afterwards.

i didn't read any previous arguments about cfop vs beginner's method, so if i repeat something that was already covered, sorry. a beginner's method on average can take as much as twice as many moves as cfop, and is not by any means optimized for quick execution.

There are more elements than these two to take into consideration. Some cannot even be quantified.

there could very well be a great method that would take an intensive amount of work to develop before it is as fast or faster than current methods. however, the fact that nobody has put forth the effort to learn that method or develop the method for others to learn means it's not really a viable method.

This is simply wrong.

how are there non-quantifiable elements? lookahead? as qqwref said it is entirely possible to make a method that will be impossible for a human to execute in less than 7 seconds, which is the current world record. it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.

my wording for the second part was a bit off. of course, a method that hasn't been developed is still viable. but if someone is asking, "what's a good method to learn to be among the fastest in the world?", i'm certainly not going to recommend it, and i don't know many that would. you're free to use any method you want, but you can't make a comparison between a hypothetical method and a current method that's already in use.

anyway, the other stuff is basically you disagreeing with me, not much to argue about anymore.

and, uh, you argue that the fact that certain people may be better suited for some methods than others. i don't see how this "renders my entire point null". except in extreme cases, i can't see how someone can be so much better suited to one method than another. for the most part, anybody of average intelligence and memory seems to be able to use most methods proficiently. why should one person be so much more suited to one method than another?

 

[waffle=ijm]

it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.

pretty sure that's what you did to start this argument in the first place

 

[Edward]

But guys, young Jimmy in 30 years will fall off of a cliff using the perfect cube, and knowing the best method. Let's save all of this until then ;-;

 

[Cride5]

- EOline ... solves fewer pieces.

This is like arguing that OLL solves fewer pieces than COLL. Orientation is an aspect of the solve. EOLine solves the orientation of 10 edges and the permutation of 2. You are correct that it's more moves, CN or otherwise.

- Comparing ZZ F2L to an experienced Fridrich user's F2L, unless you use blockbuilding your efficiency in ZZ will be no better than in Fridrich (and even slightly worse, perhaps, since a few cases take more moves to do 2gen). Of course, the same is worse because you used more moves to get there.

Doing EOCross+Slots is not ZZ. ZZF2L is always done with blockbuilding, if you're not doing that then you're not doing ZZ.

But blockbuilding has its own set of problems: lookahead to a blockbuilding setup is more difficult; you spend more time thinking while you turn; there are too many cases to practice the turning on each one. So I think that in ZZ you have a tradeoff between more thinking than Fridrich (but possibly fewer moves) and more moves than Fridrich (but just as much thinking).

ZZ blockbuilding takes time to get good at, but it really isn't that hard. Speaking from experience, the level of thought during ZZF2L becomes pretty minimal. I don't believe ZZF2L lookahead is any worse than Fridrich. Consider that completed 1x2x2's can always be placed in the back positions, and that EO often allows any other hidden edges to be worked out.

As for the rotations, I don't think they're as slow as people think once you consider how few are used, and switching from doing right-handed 2gen moves to left-handed ones takes about as much time for me as a fast rotation.

If you're strongly right handed or don't like switching, z/z' rotations are easily quicker than y rotations, and it means everything is R/U gen. Aside from ergonomics, the other problem with rotations is tracking pieces.

I don't think there's much LL benefit if any. I'm going to ignore the ZBLL/phasing+ZZLL approaches for now because I haven't yet seen anyone get nearly as fast with those (in terms of recognition and tps) as with OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. For most people, those are the two options. COLL/EPLL doesn't give much benefit if any because many Fridrich users already use it (an experienced Fridrich user can get LL edges oriented much more than 1/8 of the time).

And what of the extra thought/effort required to do EO during F2L? With the time a serious CFOP'er takes to learn this sort of stuff, a serious ZZ'er can easily learn ZZLL. ZZ himself uses ZZLL. I have my doubts about ZBLL, but ZZLL is definitely realistic. 167 cases and a min of 80 algs is easily dooable by a serious speedcuber.

OCLL/PLL sounds like it should definitely be faster than OLL/PLL, but if you can avoid four flipped edges almost all the time the difference is minimal because there are many good OLL cases that have two flipped edges.

And what about COLL? Avoiding diagonal swap PLLs is deffo a plus. My slower OCLLs are substituted for COLLs, which makes a greater proportion of my PLLs edges only. OCLL is the 'beginner' way to do the LL in ZZ. It would be more fair to compare that with 2-look OLL/PLL in Fridrich, as they both take about the same level of effort to learn.

So my feeling is: EOline is slower than cross; ZZ F2L is slower than or equal to Fridrich F2L for an experienced cuber; ZZ LL is about equal to Fridrich LL.

EOLine - Probably
F2L - I believe ZZF2L is faster: move count is similar, ergonomics better.
LL - 100% disagree!

 

[Kirjava]

just because you're frustrated with a post doesn't mean you should just go ahead and be completely discourteous, especially if you plan on actually discussing it afterwards.

it doesn't, but I did.

how are there non-quantifiable elements? lookahead?

That's one of them, sure. Why are you asking if you already know?

as qqwref said it is entirely possible to make a method that will be impossible for a human to execute in less than 7 seconds, which is the current world record. it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.

k. You cannot argue that any of Roux/CFOP/ZZ are faster than each other.

you can't make a comparison between a hypothetical method and a current method that's already in use.

Of course you can - we do it all the time in the Random Cubing Discussion thread.

and, uh, you argue that the fact that certain people may be better suited for some methods than others. i don't see how this "renders my entire point null".

Because you cannot say for sure that a specific method is better for everyone.

for the most part, anybody of average intelligence and memory seems to be able to use most methods proficiently. why should one person be so much more suited to one method than another?

Anybody can learn to drive manual or automatic, and people generally prefer one or the other. ZOMG CAR ANALOGY

 

[incessantcheese]

it's just silly to argue that no method is faster than another.

pretty sure that's what you did to start this argument in the first place

huh? lol okay well i got stuff to do! argue with you guys later, don't hate me for my opinions :<

edit: well since kirjava posted as i was leaving and i can't resist - my original point was that since different methods are clearly faster or not faster than others, it's silly to say that roux, cfop, or zz are equal. just because they're hard to compare doesn't mean you can just say they're the same speed. some methods are clearly faster than others and the chance that three arbitrary methods are "equal" doesn't really work for me. qqwref already stated he doesn't think zz is as fast as the others, and i think it's totally okay to argue that fridrich is currently faster than roux. you don't, but that doesn't mean they're equal.

you can make a hypothetical comparison between a not-yet existing method and a current one, but that doesn't have any bearing on which one is currently better/worse/whatever.

car analogy aside, i don't see why anybody would be suited to one method better than another. sure, they can like a method more, but that doesn't mean that it's faster for them. people can prefer driving manual, but that doesn't mean it's the most efficient thing for them to do.

AH i gotta go: and to waffo below, i simply didn't (and don't) understand what you were referring to; i wasn't dismissing your point. i try not to dismiss points, as you can probably tell if you look at the past three pages. i apologize that you don't like lols. i do them a lot. okay bye.

 

[waffle=ijm]

putting "lol" in a sentence doesn't absolve that some of your points aren't entirely correct nor does it help support your arguments. You can't say that method x > method y on the grounds of user statistics.

EDIT to above - I like "lols" but in a serious argument they really don't help. Again your argument that CFOP> Roux is just annoying.

 

[Owen]

My favorite is Corners first, because it's fun, has great algorithms, and makes you look like you're cubing fast, even when you're not.