I don't belong to a method. Why?

mDiPalma said:
CFOP/Salvia are horribly contrived methods, in my opinion. The first steps make an awkward skeleton, and the following steps are stuck "dealing" with the skeleton.
Click to expand...

I agree a little bit, but considering how fast CFOP can be, I think CFOP is just one of those little accidents that turned out to be really fast when put into practice.

On paper, 55-60 moves with a minimum of 78 algorithms and tons of y rotations seems dumb in comparison to other methods.
ZZ and Roux do seem more pure in the speed-optimization sense.

But somehow, it's really fast. Maybe partly because our cubes are so good and people can average 10 TPS, which is kinda hard when blockbuilding.
 
Smiles said:
I agree a little bit, but considering how fast CFOP can be, I think CFOP is just one of those little accidents that turned out to be really fast when put into practice.

On paper, 55-60 moves with a minimum of 78 algorithms and tons of y rotations seems dumb in comparison to other methods.
ZZ and Roux do seem more pure in the speed-optimization sense.

But somehow, it's really fast. Maybe partly because our cubes are so good and people can average 10 TPS, which is kinda hard when blockbuilding.
Click to expand...

I think the main reason CFOP prevails over other methods is because of how many subsets and how much stuff you can add. Feliks doesnt just know CFOP, he knows CFOP, plus a crap ton of subsets that makes almost every single solve different than just cross, F2L, OLL, PLL. an example of these subsets are ZBLL, WV, 1LLL, etc.
Another thing is how mindless CFOP solving is. I barely have to think about my CFOP solves, whereas in Roux or even ZZ, I have to preplan my moves which leads to slower turning. I'm no saying CFOP is better ,but its definitely not an accident.
Just my thoughts
 
mDiPalma said:
method neutrality is a pretty fun thing to try. Choosing the best start between Petrus/ZZ/CFOP/FreeFOP/PCMS I typically average around 13. At a competition, I restrict myself to ZZ/Petrus, but when I'm just screwing around at home/with friends, there's no reason to sacrifice enjoyment for lower times.

CFOP/Salvia are horribly contrived methods, in my opinion. The first steps make an awkward skeleton, and the following steps are stuck "dealing" with the skeleton. Purer methods like Petrus/Roux/Heise/ZZ always interested me more because they seemed more pure. Just my thoughts.

I suppose the purest methods are direct-solving methods like computer algs/tables and Redux, but those aren't possible/easy for humans.
Click to expand...

Computer programs turned into human methods are really cool. You should try Human Kociemba and Human Thistlewhaite if you like algorithim methods like redux
 
cashis said:
@TDM
Click to expand...
OHAI
Smiles said:
On paper, 55-60 moves with a minimum of 78 algorithms and tons of y rotations seems dumb in comparison to other methods.
ZZ and Roux do seem more pure in the speed-optimization sense.

But somehow, it's really fast. Maybe partly because our cubes are so good and people can average 10 TPS, which is kinda hard when blockbuilding.
Click to expand...
The reason why CFOP is so fast is how unintuitive it is. You can just spam TPS for 90% of the solve, which is harder to do with other methods. CFOP doesn't require as much concentration as ZZ or Roux. However, I do think ZZ and Roux should still be faster than CFOP - I'm switching to Roux for a reason!
StachuK1992 said:
Method neutrality unfortunately is no good for speedsolving, but it's fun!
Click to expand...
I agree that it's fun, but why is it no good for speedsolving? I rarely ever get a bad scramble when I'm doing Roux/CFOP neutral sessions, and I tend to average low 13, compared to high 13 with CFOP and low 14 with Roux (I usually start sub-13 for 20-25 solves before I start to get tired/bored and slow down a bit. But I'm definitely faster being neutral than when I restrict myself to one method). I've never really seen anyone suggest that method neutrality could be good before, but I'm using it, and it's great for me.
 
TDM said:
I agree that it's fun, but why is it no good for speedsolving? I rarely ever get a bad scramble when I'm doing Roux/CFOP neutral sessions, and I tend to average low 13, compared to high 13 with CFOP and low 14 with Roux (I usually start sub-13 for 20-25 solves before I start to get tired/bored and slow down a bit. But I'm definitely faster being neutral than when I restrict myself to one method). I've never really seen anyone suggest that method neutrality could be good before, but I'm using it, and it's great for me.
Click to expand...

What percentage of your solves are roux in method neutral sessions?

I might do one or two roux solves in an avg100. I only ever do a roux solve when the blocks are really, really easy. If they're only okay, I feel that I have a much higher chance of getting a fast solve with CFOP.

Edit: What's your average with CFOP and what's your average with roux? Which one are you faster with?
 
Tao Yu said:
What percentage of your solves are roux in method neutral sessions?

I might do one or two roux solves in an avg100. I only ever do a roux solve when the blocks are really, really easy. If they're only okay, I feel that I have a much higher chance of getting a fast solve with CFOP.

Edit: What's your average with CFOP and what's your average with roux? Which one are you faster with?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'll do an Ao100 now.
I average high 13 with CFOP and low 14 with Roux.

E: after 50 solves: 21 CFOP, 27 Roux, 2 FreeFOP (223 -> F2L -> LL). 13.02 session average.

E2: done

[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]Method[/td]
[td]Number of solves[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]CFOP[/td]
[td]40[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Roux[/td]
[td]56[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]CFCE[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]FreeFOP[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Ao100 was 12.98, slightly faster than usual.
 
Last edited:
I'm no one to speak on the following subject.

That said, 13-14s is not fast.
At my prime (and I've NEVER practiced as if I cared), I was averaging around 14s with method-neutrality, too.
You simply need to be faster to make a case for method-neutrality.

Based on my empirical evidence, I know I could have hit much faster averages if I would have fully dedicated myself to a method (whatever that method may be).
 
TDM said:
I don't know. I'll do an Ao100 now.
I average high 13 with CFOP and low 14 with Roux.

E: after 50 solves: 21 CFOP, 27 Roux, 2 FreeFOP (223 -> F2L -> LL). 13.02 session average.

E2: done

[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]Method[/td]
[td]Number of solves[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]CFOP[/td]
[td]40[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Roux[/td]
[td]56[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]CFCE[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]FreeFOP[/td]
[td]2[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

Ao100 was 12.98, slightly faster than usual.
Click to expand...

strange that you average worse with roux but use it more often. i guess that means you really like it.
 
StachuK1992 said:
That said, 13-14s is not fast.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it is. There's no point in me comparing my times to everyone else since I'm not that fast. I'm comparing my method neutral times to my own times, and saying it's faster than when using each method separately. Of course I'm not going to be breaking any records with these times, but I would have expected you to be able to see what I was comparing.

But I don't like how you're saying slow people can't argue for a case because they lack evidence. Based on that, ZZ is a bad method.
 
I used cfop for a good 2 years learned full OLL and PLL and got to around the sub 20 mark. Then for some reason I decided this is boring af and I didnt wanna feel "brain dead" while solving anymore and wanted to make a switch. I had tried roux before but for what ever reason it didn't work for me so I tried ZZ and I loved solving again idk why but it was so nice solving with a more intuitive method. Now fast forward a year and a bit and I can now consistently get averages in the 15 second area. I'd like to touch on the ongoing method agruement as well I believe the reason why CFOP is proven to be the fastest is simply due to the large amount of people that learned cfop first and put all of their time into it. I also think cfop is probably a little easier to get faster with because it is less intuitive and as a result easier to look ahead. But that doesn't mean ZZ and Roux can't be just as fast or faster it all comes down to the individual and how much time he/she puts into the method. There's my little rant for the hopefully it makes sense lol
 
Last edited:
I kind of know how you feel right now. This is how my journey went till now
-Learnt Beginners method from badmephisto
-Learnt CFOP from tutorials by badmephisto
-Planned on learning Petrus, but I kind of did CFOP/Petrus hybrid which was good enough.
-Again came back to CFOP and started learning full PLL and becaume faster with it
-Got bored with CFOP, so started learning original Petrus from Lars and asking things from mdiPalma and porkynator on how to improve further.
-Came back to CFOP and learnt full OLL and because sub 15 with CFOP.
-Started thinking that Roux, so learnt it and now practice Roux
-Intuitively made a Roux/petrus hybrid but dont practice it
-Practiced CFOP more and became 13 seconds with it and practice Roux and because sub 30 with it.
Thats it. As you can see, I got bored, and learnt something new and again came back and then again got bored and learnt something new. The cycle continues. I learnt so many things by temporarily pausing my main method that is CFOP and doing some other things or doing hybrid methods. You just have to continue experimenting. I could have left off CFOP but I continued with it as I was fastest with it and I didnt want to let my work from past be in vain. Thats why I always came back to CFOP. So experiment with different things, stick with the one you like and slowly slowly improve upon that :)
 
Some interesting facts about my method-neutrality experiences

i am objectively faster with ZZ than Petrus.
i am objectively faster with Petrus than CFOP.
if I do a large average with ZZ/Petrus/CFOP, the mean will be notably less than the ratio of ZZ/Petrus/CFOP solves, multiplied by my method-dedicated averages would dictate.

this is because the higher chances of getting an easy/lucky first step. for example, in a dedicated ZZ average, I would never be able to take advantage of an easy 2x2x2 block on white (because my EOLine color is yellow). that "lucky" scramble is wasted.

sure, I'm certainly faster with pure ZZ, but that's because I'm bad at the other methods, not because ZZ is faster.
 
I primarily use ZZ, but if I see an easy cross, I'll do CFOP, partially because I want to have some CFOP practice for big cubes. I tried Roux, but it just didn't work for me.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys, oh and BTW I got the blocks down, now its time for L6E.
I currently do a very weird L6E where I orient the edges, return the D face edges, and do a quick EPLL (M slice 2Gen)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Waffles
A progression thread belonging to waffles
2 3
Replies
46
Views
5,870
DuckubingCuber347
DuckubingCuber347
S
  • Poll Poll
All Your Base Are Belong To Us
2
Replies
23
Views
4,522
alexc
A
EveryDayGamer2763
Loopover Methods
Replies
3
Views
202
EveryDayGamer2763
EveryDayGamer2763
AK51
2.51 world record used 33 moves, it shall be 28 moves using AK-cubie method
Replies
0
Views
325
AK51
AK51
J-B
Low algorithm counted LS method
Replies
7
Views
546
J-B
J-B
Back
Top