Rowe Variation: My new last slot/OLL experiment

[IRNjuggle28]

I don't understand why you can't just learn zz method instead of a bunch more algorithms

...where did that come from? ZZ and OLS have barely anything in common. And spoiler alert: ZZ is slower than CFOP for 2H for just about everyone.

Not a good bump.

 

[TDM]

ZZ is slower than CFOP for 2H for just about everyone.

Why?

 

[Renslay]

ZZ is slower than CFOP for 2H for just about everyone.

Citation needed.

 

[kcl]

Citation needed.

Take a look at the WCA database. There is no official sub 10 average with ZZ, but hundreds with CFOP.

 

[guysensei1]

Take a look at the WCA database. There is no official sub 10 average with ZZ, but hundreds with CFOP.

That's only because more people use CFOP. Give Phil Yu more time. He'll get there.

 

[Renslay]

Take a look at the WCA database. There is no official sub 10 average with ZZ, but hundreds with CFOP.

That is completely irrelevant, since the difference between the size of the two groups (CFOP users and ZZ users) are immense.

 

[TDM]

Give Phil Yu more time. He'll get there.

He isn't the only fast ZZ user. He doesn't have the fastest official ZZ average.

 

[Escher]

Sample size is always relevant for discussing the meaning of pretty much any statement like that, bad citation. There are probably <20 people who use ZZ competitively. If you took 20 random CFOP users from the database you'd find that ZZ was by far the faster method. Does that lead you to believe that ZZ is faster now? No.

Personally speaking I think ZZ can definitely be faster than CFOP, it's just that it is much higher skillcap. I got to ~12 second average with ZZ after practising for a month when I was around 9ish at CFOP, and I'd barely scratched the surface of where you can go with it, and my EOLine was awful.

 

[kcl]

Sample size is always relevant for discussing the meaning of pretty much any statement like that, bad citation. There are probably <20 people who use ZZ competitively. If you took 20 random CFOP users from the database you'd find that ZZ was by far the faster method. Does that lead you to believe that ZZ is faster now? No.

Personally speaking I think ZZ can definitely be faster than CFOP, it's just that it is much higher skillcap. I got to ~12 second average with ZZ after practising for a month when I was around 9ish at CFOP, and I'd barely scratched the surface of where you can go with it, and my EOLine was awful.

This is true, I didn't think about sample size. I think it could be faster, but too many people use CFOP and don't want to switch to it.

 

[kcl]

Sample size is always relevant for discussing the meaning of pretty much any statement like that, bad citation. There are probably <20 people who use ZZ competitively. If you took 20 random CFOP users from the database you'd find that ZZ was by far the faster method. Does that lead you to believe that ZZ is faster now? No.

Personally speaking I think ZZ can definitely be faster than CFOP, it's just that it is much higher skillcap. I got to ~12 second average with ZZ after practising for a month when I was around 9ish at CFOP, and I'd barely scratched the surface of where you can go with it, and my EOLine was awful.

This is true, I didn't think about sample size. I think it could be faster, but too many people use CFOP and don't want to switch to it.