trangium
Member
Now that the method's steps are set in stone, I'm going to compare this to Roux.
FB = FB, obviously
SB ~ 3/4-Belt+EOLE. My reasoning is that both have a movecount of 12-13, <RUMr> is more ergonomic than <RUuEF>, but EOLE is algorithmic so has higher TPS and lookahead is slightly easier in 3/4-Belt.
CMLL ~ 6CP. Although 6CP's movecount is 1 less than CMLL (10 vs 11) on average, the algs for 6CP are less ergonomic because of the R2s and the algset being less developed. If/when 6CP algs get more developed, the average movecount will increase.
LSE's EO step > 6CO. 6CO takes 8.5 moves on average, whereas LSE EO often only takes 3-5 moves (if there are 4 bad edges) and never takes more than 9 moves (if there are 6 bad edges). 6CO TPS is higher, but that doesn't make up for the much higher movecount.
Rest of LSE < L5EP. L5EP is algorithmic and has one fewer edge to solve, so the movecount is lower.
Conclusion: Mehta and Roux are about equally good, but Mehta has many more algorithms than Roux, and Mehta is less developed.
FB = FB, obviously
SB ~ 3/4-Belt+EOLE. My reasoning is that both have a movecount of 12-13, <RUMr> is more ergonomic than <RUuEF>, but EOLE is algorithmic so has higher TPS and lookahead is slightly easier in 3/4-Belt.
CMLL ~ 6CP. Although 6CP's movecount is 1 less than CMLL (10 vs 11) on average, the algs for 6CP are less ergonomic because of the R2s and the algset being less developed. If/when 6CP algs get more developed, the average movecount will increase.
LSE's EO step > 6CO. 6CO takes 8.5 moves on average, whereas LSE EO often only takes 3-5 moves (if there are 4 bad edges) and never takes more than 9 moves (if there are 6 bad edges). 6CO TPS is higher, but that doesn't make up for the much higher movecount.
Rest of LSE < L5EP. L5EP is algorithmic and has one fewer edge to solve, so the movecount is lower.
Conclusion: Mehta and Roux are about equally good, but Mehta has many more algorithms than Roux, and Mehta is less developed.