• 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 40,000+ people from around the world today!

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

Help choosing a method (advanced)

Which method?


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,541
Which method should I use as my main method?

CFOP:
Pros: used it for ages, I’m quite fast at f2l
Cons: boring, lookahead fails me sometimes and I’m not good at cross

LEOR:
Pros: seems pretty interesting and I feel like I’d get reasonable times with it
Cons: it’s the method I’ve looked into the least

Mehta:
Pros: high tps and mostly algorithm based
Cons: not many resources on it and blockbuilding

Roux:
Pros: lots of resources?
Cons: blockbuilding, slice moves, not used to intuitive solutions, blocks

ZZ:
Pros: like the concept of 2 gen f2l and edge orientation stuff
Cons: might be hard in inspection cause I’m not the greatest at using inspection amazingly


Let me know what you think but remember- always gonna be weighted towards CFOP :)
Can you activate vote changes? I said "other" meaning to suggest waterman, but now I can't check the right box
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
944
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
On the S2 thing: you use S2 if an alg has S2. Easy. You could go your whole life without using an alg with it in, or you could learn a load of algs with it. To say it's specific to one alg in any specific method is simply wrong.

If you're deciding between Mehta and ZZ, go ZZ. Mehta is mediocre and all the fan boys will say I'm wrong, but comparing the numbers, the fingertricks and the flow of the solve, ZZ is simply better. It's about 50-55 (around 52) vs 45-50 for Mehta. The steps of Mehta (using TDR) are 1x2x3 on DL, 3QB, EOLE, TDR, ZBLL for 843 algs. For ZZ: EOCross, F2L, ZBLL (there's also the possibility of using more algs, but we'll stick with ZZ-A) which is 493 algs.

The main argument for ZZ over Mehta is twofold:
  • The TPS you have from having rotationless F2L with very good ergonomics (see the TPS of CFOP solvers in F2L, but a bit better) is better than the max TPS of Mehta.
  • The single alg step vs two (and a half with EOLE) means that you have a better solve flow. You shouldn't pause from beginning to LL in ZZ, whereas in Mehta you would have a small pause for EOLE and TDR and the same pause for ZBLL as with ZZ.
We know that TPS and the ability to not pause are important as that's literally what all the fast people do to be fast. You could argue that they don't have as big of an impact as I'm saying, but the disadvantages are still inherent to the method.

But importantly, choose a method you find the most fun. That's the main reason why we cube.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
1,843
Location
Brazil
YouTube
Visit Channel
On the S2 thing: you use S2 if an alg has S2. Easy. You could go your whole life without using an alg with it in, or you could learn a load of algs with it. To say it's specific to one alg in any specific method is simply wrong.

If you're deciding between Mehta and ZZ, go ZZ. Mehta is mediocre and all the fan boys will say I'm wrong, but comparing the numbers, the fingertricks and the flow of the solve, ZZ is simply better. It's about 50-55 (around 52) vs 45-50 for Mehta. The steps of Mehta (using TDR) are 1x2x3 on DL, 3QB, EOLE, TDR, ZBLL for 843 algs. For ZZ: EOCross, F2L, ZBLL (there's also the possibility of using more algs, but we'll stick with ZZ-A) which is 493 algs.

The main argument for ZZ over Mehta is twofold:
  • The TPS you have from having rotationless F2L with very good ergonomics (see the TPS of CFOP solvers in F2L, but a bit better) is better than the max TPS of Mehta.
  • The single alg step vs two (and a half with EOLE) means that you have a better solve flow. You shouldn't pause from beginning to LL in ZZ, whereas in Mehta you would have a small pause for EOLE and TDR and the same pause for ZBLL as with ZZ.
We know that TPS and the ability to not pause are important as that's literally what all the fast people do to be fast. You could argue that they don't have as big of an impact as I'm saying, but the disadvantages are still inherent to the method.

But importantly, choose a method you find the most fun. That's the main reason why we cube.
in other words, choose mehta
*runs*
 

Waffles

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
279
Location
Melbourne, Australia
So generally I enjoy big cubes (or as big as I have lol) and tried a 6x6 and 7x7 AND ENJOYED THEM TOO and I use Yau for the big cubes I currently have.
So yeah I think I’d still try use CFOP or ZZ for 4x4 and 5x5 at least

Also I had an idea: given all the tips and pros and cons you guys have put here, someone could make an ADVANCED guide to choosing a method. (ik a beginners guide already exists) Personally I don’t have the time or effort but if someone did that’s ould actually be really nice.
 

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
3,098
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
YouTube
Visit Channel
So here's my two cents.

LEOR is out for sure. It's nowhere near as good as the others, at least for two-handed solving.

Since you already know CFOP, it may not be worth it to switch, even though there are plenty people who have, and have been very successful thus far. It also depends on how far into CFOP you are. If you know 2LLL and are sub-15ish, it might not be beneficial to you if your only goal is to get faster. That said, if you're not concerned about getting faster, then feel free to switch to a different method, by all means.

If you want to learn a method similar to CFOP, go for ZZ. The only difference in beginner's ZZ is that you do EO right at the start of the solve, which makes it so that you can solve all of F2L <RUL> gen and without rotations. One con is that a lot of people will argue that you need to learn a lot of algs (all of ZBLS and ZBLL, which ends up being 795 algs) to make it worth it. I'm not saying that this is true, because I have gotten some decent times with ZZ with minimal practice, and I've been using it as my main OH method for a couple days now.

I personally don't think that Roux exclusively is good across all events. Sure, there's Meyer for big cubes, but it's definitely not as good as Redux, Yau, and Hoya. As for megaminx, there's nothing even close to good. You could always use Roux for 3x3, and CFOP-like methods for big cubes and megaminx, if you are concerned about other events. Otherwise, if you only want to focus on 3x3, though, it is definitely worth it. The low move count, good combo between intuitiveness and algs, and the awesome looking <MU> moveset at the end of the solve are all good reasons to choose it. (Well, maybe not that last one. ;) )

Petrus is actually a really underrated method, in my opinion. Some people are great at the intuitiveness of the method, but some aren't. You just have to figure out which group of people you fall into. Similar to ZZ, a lot of people will argue that it's terrible unless combined with ZBLL, but I don't think that's the case. With enough practice, sub-10 is definitely possible with Petrus.

And then for Mehta. It's a very new method, so there aren't very many resources for learning it, but it is a really fun method. You can learn minimal algs (like me, see the spoiler if you want to know how to do this), or you can learn hundreds for full TDR. And there's so many different things that you can do with the method. There's lots of different paths and alg sets that you can learn, which makes it the most flexible method of the bunch.
So basically, I do FB and non-algorithmic EO Belt first. For EOLE, I basically just do EO, then insert the last edge. Then, I do R2<U>R2 setups and OCLL algs to orient all of the corners. Next, I do R2<U>R2 again to do an intuitive APDR, which then leads into PLL. As long as you know all of the OCLLs and full PLL, then you will be able to do this method without any new algs! (This definitely isn't the best way to do it by a long shot, but it's the lazy man's way to do it. :cool:)

But, I don't think you should learn any of these methods. I think that you should learn all of them. This will help you best make the decision about what method you want to use for speedsolving going forward, and it will give you many more skills that you can use for whatever method you decide to use. For example, knowing how to do EO (like you learn in ZZ, Petrus, and Mehta), is very beneficial to CFOP, because you can quickly tell if you will need to rotate to solve a certain F2L case. After learning all of the methods mentioned above, I have learned so much more about how the cube works, and it has definitely made me faster, even though I have decided not to switch from CFOP (although I did switch to ZZ for OH a couple days ago, and I think that I'll probably stick with it).
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
1,448
Location
On a long train journey, Smashin' PBs one a stop
YouTube
Visit Channel
On the S2 thing: you use S2 if an alg has S2. Easy. You could go your whole life without using an alg with it in, or you could learn a load of algs with it. To say it's specific to one alg in any specific method is simply wrong.

If you're deciding between Mehta and ZZ, go ZZ. Mehta is mediocre and all the fan boys will say I'm wrong, but comparing the numbers, the fingertricks and the flow of the solve, ZZ is simply better. It's about 50-55 (around 52) vs 45-50 for Mehta. The steps of Mehta (using TDR) are 1x2x3 on DL, 3QB, EOLE, TDR, ZBLL for 843 algs. For ZZ: EOCross, F2L, ZBLL (there's also the possibility of using more algs, but we'll stick with ZZ-A) which is 493 algs.

The main argument for ZZ over Mehta is twofold:
  • The TPS you have from having rotationless F2L with very good ergonomics (see the TPS of CFOP solvers in F2L, but a bit better) is better than the max TPS of Mehta.
  • The single alg step vs two (and a half with EOLE) means that you have a better solve flow. You shouldn't pause from beginning to LL in ZZ, whereas in Mehta you would have a small pause for EOLE and TDR and the same pause for ZBLL as with ZZ.
We know that TPS and the ability to not pause are important as that's literally what all the fast people do to be fast. You could argue that they don't have as big of an impact as I'm saying, but the disadvantages are still inherent to the method.

But importantly, choose a method you find the most fun. That's the main reason why we cube.
Yes I agree with this for now(but I'm not gonna switch methods). At this stage, ZZ(or any big 3 method) is simply better than Mehta but we don't know what's gonna happen in the future. (About the pauses thing, you can actually eliminate one of those pauses(i.e EOLE-TDR pause) if you know what you're doing.

@Waffles , do choose the method you like. No one's gonna stop ya!! :D
 

Waffles

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
279
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Since you already know CFOP, it may not be worth it to switch, even though there are plenty people who have, and have been very successful thus far. It also depends on how far into CFOP you are. If you know 2LLL and are sub-15ish, it might not be beneficial to you if your only goal is to get faster. That said, if you're not concerned about getting faster, then feel free to switch to a different method, by all means.

If you want to learn a method similar to CFOP, go for ZZ. The only difference in beginner's ZZ is that you do EO right at the start of the solve, which makes it so that you can solve all of F2L <RUL> gen and without rotations. One con is that a lot of people will argue that you need to learn a lot of algs (all of ZBLS and ZBLL, which ends up being 795 algs) to make it worth it. I'm not saying that this is true, because I have gotten some decent times with ZZ with minimal practice, and I've been using it as my main OH method for a couple days now.

Yeah, I know 2LLL and have decent Winter Variation/COLL Knowledge and am around 16 seconds. ZZ is by far the most interesting of these methods that I talked about.
 

LBr

Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
158
Location
Location
about the big cube methods, Yau is definately best for 4x4 and 5x5, and using a different method such as ZZ for 3x3 means you would have to transition through methods. I know that 4z4 exists. But it is much less efficient and practically useless, and Yau builds part of CFOP 3x3, so CFOP is the best for transitioning through cubes. But if you think that ZZ will make you faster, then use it for 3x3, but for big cubes just do yourself a favour and use Yau with a cfop 3x3 stage
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
944
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
about the big cube methods, Yau is definately best for 4x4 and 5x5, and using a different method such as ZZ for 3x3 means you would have to transition through methods. I know that 4z4 exists. But it is much less efficient and practically useless, and Yau builds part of CFOP 3x3, so CFOP is the best for transitioning through cubes. But if you think that ZZ will make you faster, then use it for 3x3, but for big cubes just do yourself a favour and use Yau with a cfop 3x3 stage
I agree about 4Z4, which is why I'd recommend LEOR instead, yours sincerely the inventor of 4Z4.

But again, on big cubes, it doesn't actually matter which method you use. On 4x4 there's LEOR for ZZ and Meyer for Roux, then on 5x5+ if you use redux, your 3x3 method doesn't matter at all if you're good with your 3x3 method.
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
902
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
One con is that a lot of people will argue that you need to learn a lot of algs (all of ZBLS and ZBLL, which ends up being 795 algs) to make it worth it.
Kinda surprised no one corrected this already but ZBLS is not needed in ZZ because the edges are already oriented. Only ZBLL (493 algs).
 

Waffles

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
279
Location
Melbourne, Australia
By the way, sorry I’ve been doing all these small response posts with no real duty, I’ve had a big assignment for school and have dedicated most of my time to that. I hope I can put together a summary post at some point. But I think my main focus will be (at least looking at) the method that’s voted the most (except for CFOP ofc) so probably ZZ lol

(edit) I forgot to say that you can change your votes now - and vote for 2 options
 

LBr

Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
158
Location
Location
Current averages with the methods I’ve timed:

CFOP: 15
ZZ: 25 (x5 for inspection)
Mehta: 45 (beginner alg sets)
Roux: 50 (why does CLL need to Ben used on 3x3!!!)
Petrus: 1:15
I noticed that you voted for ZZ in your poll. Does this mean you are going with zz?
 
Top