Adopting a new method over Fridrich

[Zeroknight]

I say Fridrich, simply because you want best times. The current WR uses Fridrich. Enough said.

 

[bamman1108]

I'm having trouble understanding the CMLL chart on Roux's site. Some of them tell me to look at a different square, and those ones tell me to look somewhere else, and that place tells me to look where I started. Can anyone explain it?

 

[GaroMaster1337]

i started using roux and i must say that i absolutely love it, i just started using it and im almost down to a minute (coming from fridrich where i averaged in the low thirtys and high twenties) it does need more developing, but its super fun i cant wait to see where it goes. so ya, i voted roux

btw: i highly recommend the petrus tutorials by CaptainCrash44 (ErikJ here on speedsolving) that boiiwonder suggested

If ur going to go with petrus that is

 

[Sir E Brum]

I voted ZZ because I like the 3-gen F2L + Instant top face cross.

 

[JLarsen]

Personally, I think CMLL and COLL and CLL are crap, however CLS with petrus is excellent, although definitely an advanced thing to use ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yn1wLkC1eI

I disagree.
I can sub-1.5 on U, Z, and H perms, and actually remember to execute them at full speed in a real solve. They almost never lock up or pop. That's not the same with most of my other PLLs. Therefore, I'm going to learn COLL. I don't like CLL and CMLL because there are very few algs that aren't actually COLL that are faster than COLL. The move count is barely lower. Unless someone can prove me wrong with data?
Isn't COLL like 10.xx or 11.xx and CMLL 9.xx or 10.xx? And CLL on 2x2 is quite different from 3x3 CLL... I wonder if ignoring centers and all edges will decrease the move count by a lot.

I never said anything about edge perms. Have you ever tried COLL? The recognition for it is not that great. Look at Lars Petrus' times, he has like a 12 second f2l, yet he is not sub 20. Learning COLL as means of avoiding pll's you're bad at isn't justification enough for a method being good.

 

[Escher]

using one person as an example of recognition for a method is not a good idea.
i can recognise a coll case extremely quickly. i dont even know coll, im just learning CLL on 2x2.
how does jude get a 3.88 avg of 5 on cubemania with CLL barely a week after he learnt CLL (in a week)?
how does Rowe get a sub 3 avg of 12 with EG/CLL?

clearly coll/cll recognition ISNT that bad. yes, it is worse than pure OLL/PLL, and fares slightly worse again with OCLL, but fanwuq has a point - this is made up by the fact that recognition and execution for PLL is so ridiculously fast - Zs and Hs can be recognised practically instantly, and Us only slightly slower (and if you know both from more than one angle thats even better). and to top this off, you have a 1/12 chance of PLL skip.

i agree that OCLL + PLL can be quicker, because there is obviously always the chance that the OCLL user gets an EPLL, but i dont believe that it is necessarily quicker.

as always, its down to personal opinion and experience, but if i was a regular petrus user i would definitely learn COLL.

 

[bamman1108]

I'm almost sure that I'll use Roux, but I'm having trouble following the CMLL algorithms on Roux's site. The chart is SO confusing.

 

[JLarsen]

Well I must say, that method is sooooo freakin cool. Serisouly. Do that.

Eshcher I agree with you on that notion. Personal opinion really is a lot when it comes to these things. And btw isn't EPLL when the edges aren't oriented? If so then I think thats why Petrus is used with it.

 

[Escher]

And btw isn't EPLL when the edges aren't oriented? If so then I think thats why Petrus is used with it.

erm...
EPLL - edges permutation last layer
ELL - edges last layer

im not sure if i've misconstrued your question, but ELL is what you use if you don't have edges oriented correctly. i think guus uses CLL/ELL for speedsolves (if he even speedsolves any more with all that FMCing!).

hmm, did you mean 'edges are oriented correctly'? if so, then yes

 

[JLarsen]

I just didn't know the difference, but you cleared it up for me. I was just thinking if people like edge pll's so much than petrus with CLL could produce that every time.

By any stretch I use Petrus because it's fun, I don't use Fridrich because I don't find it to be, and I don't use Roux because I couldn't get those bad edges at first, and I didn't really bother to try any harder. However Roux is probably the coolest method I've ever seen, I just like the way it works.

 

[d_sprink]

I posted petrus.
I'm currently sticking with Freidrich, but I love Petrus. Only problem is, I can't seem to execute it quickly...
And I can't seem to say "Roux" without thinking of shrimp etuffee.

 

[puzzlemaster]

my recommendation is to stay with fridrich...maybe learn extended cross =D and use intuitive F2L..that way, you're doing intuitive moves and not all algs...so you feel that you're solving it but it's still essentially what you're used to...as far as the time goes..u'll get faster.. give it time