PetraPine
Member
It wasn´t really a civil war because i had no one on my side / :
-
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!
NEW Guide to Choosing a Speedcubing Method (Speedcubing.org)
- Thread starter AlphaCuber is awesome
- Start date
I for sure agree with you about the move toward OH specific methods. It's something that has been long overdue. Roux and ZZ have really proven that gen-reduction, lack of rotations, and efficiency are becoming more and more important. One of the largest downfalls with CFOP, especially in OH, is efficiency, rotations, and lack of algsets. Since there is more time to recognize cases ZZ/Petrus really benefit from consistently integrating 2GLL/ZBLL and Last Slot sets, which also lower movecount, which previously stated is pretty important. LEOR and YruRU for sure have the most potential when it comes to OH, given the axioms I've set up for evaluating such methods. iI think Petrus falls into a bit of a grey area since it still has rotations. Efficiency should make up for this and since there only requires one planned rotation, the rotation is minimized ergonomics wise.
I can't speak for everyone but I think this has some challenges. Theory crafting/method debates are of course subjective/bias. I think one of the biggest issues regarding this matter is that people rely a bit too heavily on statistics for support ( saying that this is the only valid means by which to evaluate methods ). Being analytical is really just as valid as support in critical debate. Statistics have a pretty heavy interpretive flaw, as theres way too much confirmation bias. To add to this people are far more critical of other methods than of CFOP. I think support wise there needs to be equal weight in critical thought as well as statistical analysis.
Also, @AlphaCuber is awesome nice work on the thread, this is for sure long overdue. Let us know if you need any help with working on other methods.
Last edited:
PetraPine
Member
I dont know if that is as true on the forums, ive seen people say cfop is terrible alot.
I dont think it is and most dont think it is but there out there for sure.
For people arguing for other methods for sure. I kinda just meant people that mindlessly argue for CFOP.
RadicalMacaroni
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2019
- Messages
- 54
zz vs cfop
ergonomics:
cross and eocross have the same ergonomics, so i'm not going to include that.
ZZ-<RUz>
CFOP-<RULFy> or if you want to count L moves as zR then <RUFyz>
zz has better ergonomics so also higher max tps.
movecount:
ZZ-45 to 55
CFOP-55 to 65, maybe 55 to 60 if you blockbuild xcross or use more algs or something
lookahead:
zz lookahead is easier because of EO.
why is this even an argument, zz is clearly better than cfop at oh.
ergonomics:
cross and eocross have the same ergonomics, so i'm not going to include that.
ZZ-<RUz>
CFOP-<RULFy> or if you want to count L moves as zR then <RUFyz>
zz has better ergonomics so also higher max tps.
movecount:
ZZ-45 to 55
CFOP-55 to 65, maybe 55 to 60 if you blockbuild xcross or use more algs or something
lookahead:
zz lookahead is easier because of EO.
why is this even an argument, zz is clearly better than cfop at oh.
PetraPine
Member
EOcross is more like 50 moves, and you have to count the fact that because of eo moves you have to have the same if not higher tps during F2L and LL
no, you don't need same or higher tps because of the lower movecount of zz. also, zz has a higher max tps
PetraPine
Member
Because of the EO moves it cancels out the efficiency,
making you need the same or higher tps during f2l
making you need the same or higher tps during f2l
You have more time to do optimal blockbuild plus you have access to LS and ZBLL and no rotations
PetraPine
Member
not many people use Normal ZZ anymore even for oh,
ZZ only has a
¨higher tps limit¨
if you use cross
ZZ only has a
¨higher tps limit¨
if you use cross
yes, zz has a higher tps limit if you use eocross. zz with eocross is still more efficient than cfop though lol
Nmile7300
Member
Can we just stop already? This is 6 pages full of pointless arguing. Nobody is going to change their mind, so let's do everyone a favor and just stop.
PetraPine
Member
Dude i just explained that lol
The EO means that youre going to have to have the same or higher tps,
because it cuts time and moves out of the rest of the solve not solving anything
The EO means that youre going to have to have the same or higher tps,
because it cuts time and moves out of the rest of the solve not solving anything
if conclusive points are made, why shouldn't anyone change their mind?
PetraPine
Member
the average EO movecount is 6-7 if a solve was 50 moves, it would be more like actaully needing the tps of a 56 move solve during f2l, and ll, BUT because of LL and tps it partially makes up for that.
and eo cross doesnt even have higher tps limits,
R U gen with rotations,
is seemingly better than
R U L.
and eo cross doesnt even have higher tps limits,
R U gen with rotations,
is seemingly better than
R U L.
Nmile7300
Member
I'm not staying people shouldn't change their mind, I'm saying they just won't. Countless method arguments like this one have happened on the forums and I've never seen anyone actually change their opinion.
eocross has same tps limits as cross but zzf2l and ll have higher tps limits than cfop.
RU gen with rotations is better than RUL, and even better than RULF with rotations.
as i said, zz is RUz while cfop is RULFy or RUFyz, so i don't see how you can argue that cfop has better ergonomics than zz.
mukerflap
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2020
- Messages
- 261
so what?
Nmile7300
Member
So we should stop arguing for no reason, that's what.
Similar threads
