Kirjava
Colourful
ahahaha yeah sure whatever
Fastest "Big 4" method
- Thread starter IQubic
- Start date
ahahaha yeah sure whatever
mDiPalma
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,533
http://qblog.be/2010/04/zzf2l-move-count-analysis-part-2/
12 moves max for one block
and we know 6.27 moves for eoline (less than 6 for cn zz)
k add em up and bye
(edit: and that is also 12 qtm)
Last edited:
If you can table spam somehow, I guess roux would be okay.
5BLD
Legend
Persuasive? Um. I don't quote myself often but when I do... I do so.
5BLD said:
I personally don't care about persuading people; I just feel a little frustrated at the attitude of a lot of new cubers in the community; 'if a person is not fast at it, I don't even wanna go near that method'.
Why assume Roux is incapable of being fast at OH? The only argument I've heard is "no one is fast" which is a ridiculous 'argument'. We have no damn idea whether it is capable, and never will until there's significant evidence. If someone gave me evidence and it was convincing I'd be happy to say that my hopes for Roux OH have been silly. More than happy. (I'd then proceed to seek to prove them wrong, of course, however.)
And the answer to "why are there no fast roux OHers" is simple: we don't care. Yet.
Kirjava
Colourful
because everyone always solves optimally in speedsolves
mDiPalma
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,533
1) i never said anything about speedsolves (i have a problem with the relative potential movecounts listed in that chart).
2) even if i did, it's not hard to solve a zzblock of your choosing in <~12 moves; ask around.
3) plus you can usually pick an eoline that preserves/creates a usable pair for the first block.
4) and you can solve multiple blocks at the same time, to be more efficient. (i've omitted these from my original comparison with petrus so as to have an equivalent comparison of two method subparts which leave the cube in the same state [2x2x3+eo]).
5BLD
Legend
anyone can get a decent movecount in a non speedsolve
also if you noticed the title of the thread
I don't think that matters as long as x is the same or similar in every method for this rough equation: (average optimal move count)*x=(average move count in a speedsolve).
So if the optimal count is low, usually you can assume that the move count in a speedsolve will be proportionality low. However, finding optimal counts is possible; finding speedsolve counts is not. That is why saying a method has "low move count" is an estimate at best, but a good way to measure methods relativity.
EDIT: Ninja'd, i guess.
mDiPalma
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,533
which method is fastest as cuber experience approaches infinity would be a function solely of ~optimal~ movecount and ergonomics.
Kirjava
Colourful
Comparing optimal movecounts is useless as they don't directly correlate to human speed based movecounts.
I looked at a lot of ZZ reconstructions. Apparently, you're wrong. Unless you meant non speedsolve, which would be completely meaningless.
Rendered irrelevant.
Czery
Veteran
This is a bad poll.
Methods can't be fast or slow. Methods can have low move counts, varying ease of recognition, speed-optimal algorithms, etc but the method itself can't be fast or slow.
If you are talking about the potential of each of these methods I would say that it has already been demonstrated that Roux can be fast if not faster than CFOP. Petrus seems to be fading away. ZZ may have some potential but I haven't seen to many die-hard ZZ users so I can't say for sure.
Methods can't be fast or slow. Methods can have low move counts, varying ease of recognition, speed-optimal algorithms, etc but the method itself can't be fast or slow.
If you are talking about the potential of each of these methods I would say that it has already been demonstrated that Roux can be fast if not faster than CFOP. Petrus seems to be fading away. ZZ may have some potential but I haven't seen to many die-hard ZZ users so I can't say for sure.
5BLD
Legend
You speak as if cuber experience is anywhere near inf, you are delusional. You speak as if ZZ, pah any of the 'big four' would really be the best method by your criteria.
Last edited:
Ranzha
Friendly, Neighbourhoodly
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,551
- Location
- Reno, Nevada, United States
- WCA ID
- 2009HARN01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Is it such a bad idea to learn techniques from multiple different methods?
Or techniques that aren't explicitly part of a method?
One huge problem I have with the "What method do you use?" or "What is the fastest method?" or "Which method is faster?" polls that pop up is that infrequently do "fast" cubers rely solely on one system of solving.
I'd consider sub-10 to be in the "fast" category, so I ask this: are there any sub-10 cubers who rely explicitly on one method to solve?
Or techniques that aren't explicitly part of a method?
One huge problem I have with the "What method do you use?" or "What is the fastest method?" or "Which method is faster?" polls that pop up is that infrequently do "fast" cubers rely solely on one system of solving.
I'd consider sub-10 to be in the "fast" category, so I ask this: are there any sub-10 cubers who rely explicitly on one method to solve?
Kirjava
Colourful
All of them?
cubernya
Premium Member
More so: Are there any cubers that don't?
RaresB
Premium Member
I don't think that having that attitude is at all negative. Its only natural that when you start out you would want to ensure that you will have some chance of being successful. If thousands of other people have succeeded, that is more reassuring then if 10 people have. IMO Experimenting with new methods, or under used methods should be left to more experienced cubers who know what they are doing. Just my 2 cents
Ickathu
Veteran
I get
ZZ 55-60
Roux 40-55
Petrus 50-60
CFOP 55-65
Counting slices as 1 move, F2, R2, etc as 1 move
So for me at least ZZ is higher than Roux and Petrus, similar to CFOP.
I find that CFOP has a really high MC, personally. I can get sub45 stm with Roux fairly easily if I try.
IQubic
Regular
Move count should not matter, for you want speed not low move count.
aznanimedude
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 666
actually could. assuming same tps, lower movesount results in a faster overall solve. although tps is actually calculated AFTER the solve so the movecount for that is set. But if you do a bunch of solves and realize your tps hovers around a certain amount, that means in a solve if you do it more efficiently and have a lower movecount yet keep the same tps, that's a faster time
sneaklyfox
Legend
Of course move count matters. Time = MC/TPS
A good method should optimize this equation. Some methods have higher MC but easy to also have high TPS (CFOP). Others have low MC but hard to have high TPS (Petrus).
And methods do kind of have speed. It's just hard to define exactly because the limits are the human brain and physical turn speed. If you had a method that had a very high average MC like 240 (ridiculous number), you could only get a 6-second solve if you have 40TPS. Which I don't think is humanly possible.
Considering all this, and even though I am a CFOPer, I do think Roux is fastest of the Big 4... but only for those who can master its concept! Otherwise, I think CFOP is for the average person who still wants to be fast.
Last edited:
Similar threads
