MCubing4Life
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 10
How about the current WR methods
How about the current WR methods
The WR for 5x5(and also for 6x6 and 7x7) is currently from Reduction/Freeslice not Yau/Freeslice.2x2: EG
OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
4x4: Yau
5x5: Yau/Freeslice
Pyraminx: Top-first methods with plugins (Oka + 1-flip, etc), L4E
Square-1: CSP
3BLD: 3-style[/SPOILER]
2x2: EG
OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
4x4: Yau
5x5: Yau/Freeslice
Pyraminx: Top-first methods with plugins (Oka + 1-flip, etc), L4E
Square-1: CSP
3BLD: 3-style
CSP is not a real method. It's like COLL- an algorithmic subset for a method
I suppose several 'methods' are named in a similar sense - EG and CLL for 2x2 are 'just subsets' as well used to solve the last layer, but I guess it makes the 'defining' feature of the method. Similarly with L4E for pyraminx, if you get technical about it all what L4E really stands for is the solution for the last 4 edges of the pyraminx, but people have come to associate it with the V-first method including L4E in its entirety.
So I was thinking about it in a similar way for CSP - it feels to me as a significant step that really changes the way you think about the puzzle compared to if you didn't account for parity during cubeshape. I guess to be technically correct I should have said Lars Vandenbergh method + CSP, but I think to some extent, names are just arbitrary anyway, it's just a means of communication. I don't actually own a square-one myself, so perhaps therein lies some of my misunderstanding in the matter, but in my mind when I see CSP I associate it with using the Lars Vandenbergh method to finish the solve. In any case, I only stumbled upon the idea of CSP recently and thought it would be interesting to point out as a noteworthy technique/method to the OP, seeing how useful it is to world-class solvers.
Thanks!CFOP holds its own against Roux and ZZ, but most people agree that you should try out all three and pick whichever you like best.
Ok. I was mostly wanting to get faster. I will probably still try them out though.I would definetly try them and if you like one of them better you could switch. But in general you should just go with the method that you feel the most comfortable with. Switching methods because you want to get faster will probably not pay of since all of these methods are very similar in their potential performance.