• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[Canadian NR] Kian Mansour - 6.86 3x3 average

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,880
Location
Hampshire, England
YouTube
Shadowslice
1. Alex WAS faster than Feliks
2. Similar does not mean equal
1)Was is completely fine as he didn't fall behind because he wasn't as good; just that he doesn't practise anymore.
2) How do you know which way he meant it? Perhaps he thinks Roux is actually better.

I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
3,327
Location
Ottawa, Canada
WCA
2015MANS03
YouTube
P3NGU1N5D0NTFLY
This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.
 

GuRoux

Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,714
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2014TANG03
YouTube
franktangtartharakul
I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason
what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
88
Location
Toronto, Ontario
WCA
2017JIAA01
YouTube
channel/UCdBKXr-7frv8KtuY0FtauXw?d
This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.
Exactly.
 
M

Malkom

Guest
can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.
 

SolemnAttic

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
17
Location
Malaysia
can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.
Isnt Kian proof enough? I did not imply that you can get sub 7 with LBL. Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps. LBL would be out of the question.

With CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.

/endrant
 
M

Malkom

Guest
Isnt Kian proof enough?
There's a woman at my local chinese resturant with 3 thumbs, isn't that proof enough humans is a 3 thumbed spieces?!

With CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.

/endrant
SIMILAR DOES NOT EQUAL EQUAL
123,676,097,753,168,584 =/= 123,676,097,753,168,585
they're very very close but not E Q U A L.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
1,744
Location
Literally nowhere
how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This (the next quote):
Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps.
Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?

To be honest, if I was over 19-20 seconds or so, I would probably switch to Roux. I just dont want to switch because Ive been using CFOp for over a year and a half.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
I dont even know what that is.

Also, I think I might get off this thread now.
 
Top