I'll give it a go if someone sends me the scrambles. The two 6s were both quite distinctive in solution
Does Alexander Lau still use the DaYan ZhanChi with the really worn out stickers? I hope so.
Does Alexander Lau still use the DaYan ZhanChi with the really worn out stickers? I hope so.
Alex <3
The only reason I learned lots of things for 2x2 is because fast people used it AND I saw potential in how the method worked. Plus the puzzle is really simple so it doesn't take much to know how useful an approach will be.
Roux is a beautiful method through how it divides stages of the solution. CLL+L6E is pretty much the best approach there is for algorithmically but intuitively solving a final set of pieces for the cube. CLL when used on a cube with F2L solved is obviously less efficient than allowing for <M,U> disruption (or manipulation), and manipulating the RB for a decent CLL case isn't too difficult. Roux's L6E approach is human-optimal, in the sense that optimal solutions done by computation are almost always move-cancelled version of the Roux approach, and both generation and retracing of these solutions are fairly easily done. The efficiency of F2B as an approach to set up CLL+L6E is obvious, and are equally well broken down. If there was a 'perfect' method for humans Roux is far closer than CFOP is to that end.
CFOP inherently has a lower skill-ceiling because of how the cross and then F2L create restrictions - the trade-off between simplicity and efficiency is just less well done in CFOP. LL as an approach is also limited in that it's pretty much inherently non-intuitive and progression is capped by 'how many of these thousands of situations can you memorise?', either through experience and deducing PLL at the beginning of/during OLL or through raw memo and repetition. Expansion of f2l is equally difficult - it takes a lot of thought and experience to get a 27 move average f2l in a slow solve, let alone speedsolve. CFOP works well because the trade-off towards simplicity allows fast progression, somewhat simple lookahead, and rewards reactions over decision making.
Feliks overcomes plenty of CFOPs weaknesses by abusing his colour neutrality and the fact we allow inspection time. By guaranteeing an efficient/ergonomic start and reaching the end of first pair without having to make many decisions, a lot of the awkwardness of cross and FP is skipped. After enough experience, it is relatively simple to know which of the final 3 pairs one should solve first to improve the 3rd/4th pair cases, and a little manipulation of the 3rd pair usually creates an easy 4th pair -> LL transition, at which point reaction times + practise creates competitive edge.
Basically I believe Roux > CFOP as a general method, unless you are CN, in which case speedcubing is not developed enough to distinguish between the two, where CFOPs weaknesses are bandaged by raw development and Roux's resources are limited in terms of competitive pool.
Unless you think about speedsolving solutions' methodology a lot sometimes all it can take is a display of skill from someone who is VERY VERY good at the alternative to see these truths without working through them.
I'm not saying that Feliks should switch to Roux. But I do think that newer cubers should switch. How long has CFOP been around? 20 years? How long has Roux been around as a real speed solving method? 3-4 years TOPS? Once enough people switch and become fast I have no doubt that it will be a better method. Sure there will be fast CFOP solvers but many people have said that Roux is a "more pure" and "better" method. Maybe Alex is at it's cap. It's possible but I don't think so.
In addition, Feliks has switched his main to a Gans, so if he does break any WRs in the future, it probably won't be with a MoYu cube, until they release something better.To be honest I think this is a huge hit for MoYu. Not only is the 3x3 WR Single set with a ZhanChi, it has also stood for 772 days (since March 2013). If my research is correct, the MoYu Huanying was the first speedcube released by the MoYu division of YJ. Since then, the only record broken with a MoYu puzzle has been the 3x3 Average.
i think roux is around 8-10 years, not really sure.
I disagree, I think the tradeoff is done differently. CFOP has different periods of restriction, many of which are superior to Roux. As fast as Alex is at <MU>, TPS simply doesn't compare to CFOP's move restrictions <RUF> for example. CFOP is less efficient (assuming a high level Roux solver), but also less complex/adlib. CFOP solves are so similar that there is practically no thinking time. This allows much higher TPS than Roux.CFOP inherently has a lower skill-ceiling because of how the cross and then F2L create restrictions - the trade-off between simplicity and efficiency is just less well done in CFOP.
Feliks overcomes plenty of CFOPs weaknesses by abusing his colour neutrality and the fact we allow inspection time. By guaranteeing an efficient/ergonomic start and reaching the end of first pair without having to make many decisions, a lot of the awkwardness of cross and FP is skipped. After enough experience, it is relatively simple to know which of the final 3 pairs one should solve first to improve the 3rd/4th pair cases, and a little manipulation of the 3rd pair usually creates an easy 4th pair -> LL transition, at which point reaction times + practise creates competitive edge.
Basically I believe Roux > CFOP as a general method, unless you are CN, in which case speedcubing is not developed enough to distinguish between the two
Couldn't the same be said about block-building versus CFOP F2L?One thing to add is that may be holding most Rouxers back (certainly I feel like it's the case for me) is I believe that Roux requires a lot more practice, especially with L6E. L6E leads to a ridiculously high number of different cases compared to OLL/PLL, and very few people can seemlessly flow through at a TPS/efficiency rate that can compare to OLL/PLL. I think L6E separates average Roux users from great ones.
Couldn't the same be said about block-building versus CFOP F2L?
? great cfop users don't use block building f2l.
Hence "versus"?