Roux, fridrich, or zz

[Escher]

Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.

 

[oprah62]

Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.

I agree. Seriously anyone can be fast with any method. You just need to work at it.

 

[XXGeneration]

Hard work > Method, generally.

 

[Daniel Wu]

Okay. I have an idea.

1. Orient all edges. It's like EOLine minus the... line.
2. Make a roux style 3x2x1 on the bottom left.
3. Make a matching block on the right CFOP style.
4. COLL
5. LSE

I call it RooZrich.

 

[jms_gears1]

somewhat off-topic:
The title really should be:
Fridrich vs. Roux vs. ZZ and where the hell is Petrus?

On-topic: Incesstuff can you really say that one method is faster than the other?

Spoiler

(so others dont have to load the vids each time they load the page)
Fridrich:

Roux:

Petrus: (oh there it is)

ZZ:

so what is the difference between these videos besides the times and methods?

Also no one ever answered Waffos question.

Also @waffo loving sela more. GTFO theanoncuber D:<

 

[rubiknewbie]

Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.

It's like Microsoft, Mac or Linux OS. Most of the time you choose Microsoft. If you want to be cool a bit, go ZZ (Mac). If you want to be unique, try Roux (Linux). But most of the time, just Microsoft.

 

[jms_gears1]

Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.

It's like Microsoft, Mac or Linux OS. Most of the time you choose Microsoft. If you want to be cool a bit, go ZZ (Mac). If you want to be unique, try Roux (Linux). But most of the time, just Microsoft.

Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
as far as unique goes everyones unique (lol oxymoron) no one solves the same, even if they do use the same method.

and why exactly do you think that Fridrice is better than Roux or ZZ or petrus (oh there it is again)?

 

[Innocence]

Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
as far as unique goes everyones unique (lol oxymoron) no one solves the same, even if they do use the same method.

and why exactly do you think that Friedrice is better than Roux or ZZ or petrus (oh there it is again)?

Fixed it for you. And he NEVER ever said that Fridrich is better than ZZ or Roux or...that other one that has a funny name. Don't you like EO after HALF of F2L in it? Weird.

 

[ElectricDoodie]

Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.

It's like Microsoft, Mac or Linux OS. Most of the time you choose Microsoft. If you want to be cool a bit, go ZZ (Mac). If you want to be unique, try Roux (Linux). But most of the time, just Microsoft.

Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
as far as unique goes everyones unique (lol oxymoron) no one solves the same, even if they do use the same method.

and why exactly do you think that Fridrice is better than Roux or ZZ or petrus (oh there it is again)?

When did he say Fridrich was better than Roux or ZZ or Petrus?
Oh, right, he didn't.

 

[Kirjava]

Okay. I have an idea.

1. Orient all edges. It's like EOLine minus the... line.
2. Make a roux style 3x2x1 on the bottom left.
3. Make a matching block on the right CFOP style.
4. COLL
5. LSE

I call it RooZrich.

The first two steps work better the other way around.

Me and a bunch of other people generated algs and tested the feasability of this method and concluded that it wasn't great.

Feel free to do your own research and decide for yourself though.

 

[Cride5]

@jms, my ZZ isn't nearly as quick as some of the new kids on the block. Here are some nicer examples:

Spoiler

 

[nck]

I'm wondering if anyone is averaging ~10 right now for ZZ.

 

[Innocence]

Fridrich for sure. It is mainstream.

It's like Microsoft, Mac or Linux OS. Most of the time you choose Microsoft. If you want to be cool a bit, go ZZ (Mac). If you want to be unique, try Roux (Linux). But most of the time, just Microsoft.

Since when did choosing a method to use make you cool, or unique?
as far as unique goes everyones unique (lol oxymoron) no one solves the same, even if they do use the same method.

and why exactly do you think that Fridrice is better than Roux or ZZ or petrus (oh there it is again)?

When did he say Fridrich was better than Roux or ZZ or Petrus?
Oh, right, he didn't.

Ninja'd by about an hour. C'mon, dude, why?

Oh and ZZ is a gud method lulz and im not takin no for an answer

This is an interesting debate thread though, it may have some merits in figuring out some actual pros and cons of the methods.

 

[incessantcheese]

Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.

I agree. Seriously anyone can be fast with any method. You just need to work at it.

really? the fact that i wanted to discuss this made you lose faith in the community? what's wrong with talking about it, even if you think i'm completely wrong? for the most part while i've been here, i haven't been rude to anyone, i've simply asserted my view of things. this is a forum, isn't it? despite kirjava's constant belittling of me, i am reading what he has to say and trying to respond to it.

my point was several things. first, i honestly don't feel like there's anything wrong with claiming cfop is the fastest method. i felt way this much stronger at the beginning of this discussion but i still think there isn't anything wrong with this statement. this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.

another point was that it is somewhat ridiculous to say that all the methods are "equal". sure, they are all fast, that is pretty obvious, i've seen sub-10 averages from BigGreen for a while now. however, it is highly unlikely that they are "equal", especially the way kirjava was going about arguing it. different methods will have different optimal speeds and it's simply unlikely that three randomly chosen methods - zz, cfop, and roux are going to be equal in speed.

at no point did i say you can't be fast with roux, or zz, or you can't be faster than cfop with roux or zz.

 

[Kirjava]

my point was several things. first, i honestly don't feel like there's anything wrong with claiming cfop is the fastest method. i felt way this much stronger at the beginning of this discussion but i still think there isn't anything wrong with this statement. this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.

I wish you'd stop saying **** that isn't true.

however, it is highly unlikely that they are "equal", especially the way kirjava was going about arguing it.

Oh really?

 

[incessantcheese]

that was quick...

oh, now i get why you keep quoting that. right, by that definition, that's fine. sure, i agree with that, they can all reach sub-10, without a doubt.
HOWEVER, earlier in the debate we were clearly arguing a different definition, since you were trying to get me to prove that layer by layer isn't slower than cfop. also, when waffle was talking about having a "faz" he said:

Then you drag this down to the last ****ing millisecond. And we still say there are non-accountable values that don't work for the every last ****ing decimal of the second.

and

You'll still end up deviations between times. Yes, I agree. But I said they're equal in potential speed not in actual times and definitely not down to the last decimal of the second.

which leads me to believe that when he says "equally fast" he means they're down to about .01 or .001 second apart, which i find unlikely, and i have explained why i find this unlikely. when i say they are not going to be equal, i'm talking about margins as big as .5 seconds or 1 second. yes, the methods are still fast, but .5 seconds or 1 second isn't a trivial margin, either. obviously, i can't prove that the margin is this big, but i think it's very likely, and nobody has disagreed with me on that point yet.

I wish you'd stop saying **** that isn't true.

i don't think it's a "true or false" statement. i just think that claiming cfop is faster isn't wrong given the current community. on the other hand, claiming that roux is faster would probably be wrong, as there's nothing supporting that statement (save maybe a move count break-down with possible tps or something). there's a clear difference in my mind between claiming cfop is the fastest method out there and claiming that another method is.

 

[Escher]

Now I've read this thread I think a little less of this community. Depressing.

I agree. Seriously anyone can be fast with any method. You just need to work at it.

really? the fact that i wanted to discuss this made you lose faith in the community? what's wrong with talking about it, even if you think i'm completely wrong? for the most part while i've been here, i haven't been rude to anyone, i've simply asserted my view of things. this is a forum, isn't it? despite kirjava's constant belittling of me, i am reading what he has to say and trying to respond to it.

my point was several things. first, i honestly don't feel like there's anything wrong with claiming cfop is the fastest method. i felt way this much stronger at the beginning of this discussion but i still think there isn't anything wrong with this statement. this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.

another point was that it is somewhat ridiculous to say that all the methods are "equal". sure, they are all fast, that is pretty obvious, i've seen sub-10 averages from BigGreen for a while now. however, it is highly unlikely that they are "equal", especially the way kirjava was going about arguing it. different methods will have different optimal speeds and it's simply unlikely that three randomly chosen methods - zz, cfop, and roux are going to be equal in speed.

at no point did i say you can't be fast with roux, or zz, or you can't be faster than cfop with roux or zz.

Actually the thread title and OP question (i.e. which do you think is best?) is perfectly reasonable.

I was more just disappointed with the quality of posts and the number of ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up. Kirjava, Cride and qq were the only ones with clear points and arguments. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, btw.

This argument is based on both quantifiable and completely unquantifiable elements (and I'm not even including personal preference). You can make as many points as you like comparing the several main methods there are with average move counts between 35-55 and list as many dis/advantages as you want. You are still never going to solve the problem.

It makes sense to compare these method steps and overall features in order to better understand each in the context of others, but it makes little sense to claim any is categorically better than another.

 

[Kirjava]

when waffle was talking about having a "faz" he said:

zomg I'm not waffle

I wish you'd stop saying **** that isn't true.

i don't think it's a "true or false" statement.

This is what I was referring to;

this is the point that has mostly been argued and that kirjava is most angry about.

You must know me better than I do!

Also,

i've seen lots of instances where people were ridiculed for saying that fridrich is faster.

Care to back this up?

 

[waffle=ijm]

This thread makes me giggle.

The point that is trying to be made is that no one knows what those averages would be, and therefore your choice in method should be solely on which you feel you enjoy more. There's no evidence any method is faster than any other method, nor will we ever accurately be able to measure 'which method is faster'.

Obviously the current faster method is Fridrich, but that's mainly because more people are taught the LBL beginner's method in which there is an easy segway to full Fridrich(note that a "beginner's method" doesn't always mean LBL, as you assumed before).

ie. there's no argument to have.

 

[incessantcheese]

I was more just disappointed with the quality of posts and the number of ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up.

okay, well, if this is the case and most people feel this way, i'm going to step out of the thread (probably overdue considering the length of this thread and amount of anger in it). i was trying to have a discussion, and i certainly wasn't trying to anger people, but if this is how a lot of people feel, there isn't much point for me to stick around, is there? some of the people ridiculing me i do feel didn't take the time to read all my points, but seeing as i am me, it's entirely possible i'm being biased.

i did stop arguing that cfop is better after my second or third post, i believe. my argument as it stands now is that although no method can be proven to be better, it is just as wrong to say they are equal in speed. i also don't think people are necessarily wrong when they say "cfop is the fastest method available now" depending on the context. i still do believe that.

and to kirjava, yes, you're not waffle, but we were arguing over waffle's words. if i find an example, i'll pm you, maybe, but i'm not sure if i want to start a whole pm'ing thing with you at this point.

edit: didn't realize 'pee' was a disallowed word