OH Method Debate

[Owen Morrison]

Pros: has slightly higher movecount than ZB-Roux/LEOR

Cons: And has a higher movecount that ZB-Roux/LEOR

 

[ProStar]

From the poll "loer" XD

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

From the poll "loer" XD

I saw that too hehe.

Maticuber.exe has stopped working

 

[ProStar]

I love just drilling those Petrus 2x2x2 algs.

You haven't lived till you've tried algorithmic F2B

 

[Owen Morrison]

And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements

You are being kind mean here, @maticuber is just debating and is not being an idiot.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

You are being kind mean here, @maticuber is just debating and is not being an idiot.

I do agree that the name calling was uncalled for but I think that Maticuber isn't very familiar with CFOP or Roux or anything outside what he's learned about beginner ZZ

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

What method is the best for OH?

Can you add ZB-Roux?

 

[ProStar]

You are being kind mean here, @maticuber is just debating and is not being an idiot.

He thinks F2L is 100% algorithmic, ZZ sucks without COLL, using table abuse(which is legal) makes Roux bad, and is making false and illogical arguments. While it may have been harsh, I don't think I said anything I said was untrue.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

He thinks F2L is 100% algorithmic, ZZ sucks without COLL, using table abuse(which is legal) makes Roux bad, and is making false and illogical arguments. While it may have been harsh, I don't think I said anything I said was untrue.

Unnecessary and untrue are different things

 

[ProStar]

Unnecessary and untrue are different things

I am completely aware of that, but while truth can be determined relatively easily and somewhat objectively in this case, whether what I said was over the top is completely subjective

 

[maticuber]

I do agree that my knowledge is kinda "out of date", but I do think that roux is better than cfop even tho I don't use it myself.
ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL. I'm just experimenting with the method but I'm getting a bunch of low 20s with it, even tho I didn't practice for almost 10 years and I'm just learning ZZ. I remember a bunch of times when I had a sub 8 F2L OH just to end up with a dot OLL and E perm.

COLL+EPLL with less than 2 weeks into it is already at 5 to 8s for me depending on the case, a lot better than OLL+PLL even considering the times when I practiced a lot (sub-20 with 2010 hardware is not easy).

also Felix is the normal way of spelling that name in my native language, I typed that without thinking (you can say it was an algorithm).

In the other hand F2L is algorithmic, intuitive F2L is what,10 cases? but after that you end up learning tricks and algs for most cases anyway, but you do it so sporadically that you don't realize.

Also table abuse wasn't a thing back then, so for me it's weird to see how widely accepted it is now, it's kinda weird to need a table to solve a cube one handed. I don't think roux is bad for OH, I'm just saying that table abuse makes it viable, if you remove table abuse Roux is not viable at all.

 

[Micah Morrison]

but sub 20 OH with cfop is not as easy, sub 10 OH with cfop is something that only a few people have achieved, and how many have tried? it's definitely not easy. Maybe if roux was more popular, more people could be sub-10 OH.

I use CFOP and have never been super serious about OH and I average right around 20 and I have small hands.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

I do agree that my knowledge is kinda "out of date", but I do think that roux is better than cfop even tho I don't use it myself.
ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL. I'm just experimenting with the method but I'm getting a bunch of low 20s with it, even tho I didn't practice for almost 10 years and I'm just learning ZZ. I remember a bunch of times when I had a sub 8 F2L OH just to end up with a dot OLL and E perm.

COLL+EPLL with less than 2 weeks into it is already at 5 to 8s for me depending on the case, a lot better than OLL+PLL even considering the times when I practiced a lot (sub-20 with 2010 hardware is not easy).

also Felix is the normal way of spelling that name in my native language, I typed that without thinking (you can say it was an algorithm).

In the other hand F2L is algorithmic, intuitive F2L is what,10 cases? but after that you end up learning tricks and algs for most cases anyway, but you do it so sporadically that you don't realize.

Also table abuse wasn't a thing back then, so for me it's weird to see how widely accepted it is now, it's kinda weird to need a table to solve a cube one handed. I don't think roux is bad for OH, I'm just saying that table abuse makes it viable, if you remove table abuse Roux is not viable at all.

No one argued about the validity of Roux being better than CFOP for OH but when you tell me that F2L is algorithmic I'm sorry but I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't know what your are talking about.
Also misspelling Felik's name is common and understandable if you've only ever heard it spoken

 

[ProStar]

I do agree that my knowledge is kinda "out of date", but I do think that roux is better than cfop even tho I don't use it myself.
ZZ in paper looks really good and it fixes the problems of cfop for OH like the last layer, when I competed my OH OLL+PLL was really really bad, I'm talking about 8-10s F2L into a 10s LL. I'm just experimenting with the method but I'm getting a bunch of low 20s with it, even tho I didn't practice for almost 10 years and I'm just learning ZZ. I remember a bunch of times when I had a sub 8 F2L OH just to end up with a dot OLL and E perm.

That comes down to drilling LL cases, which actually are algs

COLL+EPLL with less than 2 weeks into it is already at 5 to 8s for me depending on the case, a lot better than OLL+PLL even considering the times when I practiced a lot (sub-20 with 2010 hardware is not easy).

Because you have drilled those algs

also Felix is the normal way of spelling that name in my native language, I typed that without thinking (you can say it was an algorithm).

I figured it was something of a sort, my computer autocorrected to Felix for a while

In the other hand F2L is algorithmic, intuitive F2L is what,10 cases? but after that you end up learning tricks and algs for most cases anyway, but you do it so sporadically that you don't realize.

I've learned about 5 algs for F2L. Otherwise, I've come up with everything on my own intuitively. I don't learn "tricks and algs", I come up with my own intuitive ways to solve them. What you are referring to with intuitive F2L being 10 cases or whatever is Beginner F2L. In beginner's F2L, it's very basic and you will set up one case into another, hence the name Beginner. Advanced F2L is more advanced and doesn't require setting up one case into another but solving things efficiently, but still doesn't require any algorithms. You may learn tricks that help you, but you won't learn algorithms. The reason people can do the cases so fast is because they've done an intuitive solution enough times to have it implanted into their muscle memory. This is not an algorithm. Algorithm is not another word for habit, it is a set sequence of turns that will solve a certain case. Algorithms must be memorized and not figured out, unlike F2L.

Also table abuse wasn't a thing back then, so for me it's weird to see how widely accepted it is now, it's kinda weird to need a table to solve a cube one handed. I don't think roux is bad for OH, I'm just saying that table abuse makes it viable, if you remove table abuse Roux is not viable at all.

Table abuse is clearly allowed by the regulations, and saying that using it makes a method less viable is like saying someone's times aren't legit because they used a stickerless cube. I understand that it seems weird coming from when you cubed, but it's legit, allowed, and not going anywhere.

 

[maticuber]

No one argued about the validity of Roux being better than CFOP for OH but when you tell me that F2L is algorithmic I'm sorry but I can't take your arguments seriously when you don't know what your are talking about.

I guess it depends on what you call intuitive F2L and algorithmic F2L.

(U R U' R') U' (R U' R' U) (R U' R') is not really an intuitive way to solve that pair, most people learn the alg for it, same with a lot of other cases, same with stuff like f R' f' for example.

That comes down to drilling LL cases, which actually are algs
Because you have drilled those algs

I definitively drilled the algs back in the day, Antoine has a really good video explaining why COLL+EPLL is better than OLL+PLL for OH.

I've learned about 5 algs for F2L. Otherwise, I've come up with everything on my own intuitively. I don't learn "tricks and algs", I come up with my own intuitive ways to solve them. What you are referring to with intuitive F2L being 10 cases or whatever is Beginner F2L. In beginner's F2L, it's very basic and you will set up one case into another, hence the name Beginner. Advanced F2L is more advanced and doesn't require setting up one case into another but solving things efficiently, but still doesn't require any algorithms. You may learn tricks that help you, but you won't learn algorithms. The reason people can do the cases so fast is because they've done an intuitive solution enough times to have it implanted into their muscle memory. This is not an algorithm. Algorithm is not another word for habit, it is a set sequence of turns that will solve a certain case. Algorithms must be memorized and not figured out, unlike F2L.

Why an algorithm can't be figured out? A perms are commutators, F and J perm are T perm conjugates (I think that's the word, not sure about the english term but you know what I'm talking about), MU EPLLs are intuitive, OLLs can be figured out just by experimenting with sune+T cases for example.

In the other hand, F2L is highly intuitive, but you still use algorithms for them, an algorithm is a sequence of moves that do something in the cube, it might cycle 3 pieces, or orient 2 pieces, or permute 3 pieces, etc. By that definition F2L is just a bunch of algorithms that needs to be learned. The fact that they are easy to figure out, practice and remember doesn't mean they are not algorithms. I know a lot of people, myself included, who didn't find the most speed efficient way of solving some F2L cases, if that ever happens you just look for an algorithm for it, and said algorithm might've been found by intuition by other people.

EDIT: I do agree with you in the other points, specially table abuse, at some point using the table was considered a DNF, but then again, a pop gave you an extra attempt.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

Maticuber.com is not responding

LOL right as I say that.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

I guess it depends on what you call intuitive F2L and algorithmic F2L.

(U R U' R') U' (R U' R' U) (R U' R') is not really an intuitive way to solve that pair, most people learn the alg for it, same with a lot of other cases, same with stuff like f R' f' for example.




I definitively drilled the algs back in the day, Antoine has a really good video explaining why COLL+EPLL is better than OLL+PLL for OH.




Why an algorithm can't be figured out? A perms are commutators, F and J perm are T perm conjugates (I think that's the word, not sure about the english term but you know what I'm talking about), MU EPLLs are intuitive, OLLs can be figured out just by experimenting with sune+T cases for example.

In the other hand, F2L is highly intuitive, but you still use algorithms for them, an algorithm is a sequence of moves that do something in the cube, it might cycle 3 pieces, or orient 2 pieces, or permute 3 pieces, etc. By that definition F2L is just a bunch of algorithms that needs to be learned. The fact that they are easy to figure out, practice and remember doesn't mean they are not algorithms. I know a lot of people, myself included, who didn't find the most speed efficient way of solving some F2L cases, if that ever happens you just look for an algorithm for it, and said algorithm might've been found by intuition by other people.

EDIT: I do agree with you in the other points, specially table abuse, at some point using the table was considered a DNF, but then again, a pop gave you an extra attempt.

I'm done arguing. All you are doing is restating your initial arguments no matter how many times we explain it to you.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

Excerpts from Quora:

Andy Lee, B.S. Computer Science, McGill University (2023)
Answered Jan 7, 2020


Ok, so for Regular CFOP, in total there are 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs making it 78 algorithms.
For Cross and F2L however, there are way too many “algorithms” to count. For F2L, there are way too many ways of pairing up two pieces and inserting them, not to mention all of the more advanced tricks such as keyhole and x-cross.
For this reason, F2L should be approached intuitively and not algorithmically.
However. if you were to put an upper bound on the number of possible algorithms for F2L I should estimate it to be ~150–200.
96 views

Kilua Nakaba
Answered May 19, 2020


Well,
There aren't specific algorithms for F2L… Personally, I learned ‘intuitive F2L’ which is actually a better way to learn F2L according to me.
There are various tutorials for intuitive F2L on YouTube, Go ahead explore.
2 views

Sai Teja P, Rubik's cube enthusiast. Solves in less than 20 sec. Can solve blindfolded.
Updated April 5, 2017

I peraonally like Intuitive F2L. That is one of the reasons I enjoy solving the Rubik's cube.
Although intuitive F2L also consists of algorithms, but you are the one who is formulating the algorithms, so I don't think they can be separated from algorithmic F2L. Since the F2L part isn't so difficult compared to OLL and PLL, you too might enjoy it too.
When it comes to algorithmic F2L, learning can be quicker than intuitive F2L. I have been formulating my F2L algorithms since a long time, but still I have a few cases to solve!!
Although I have seen several F2L algorithms online to compare with my algorithms. They are far more complicated to me than my own algorithms. So I suggest you to try intuitively, but if you can't formulate them don't hesitate to search for algorithms online.
Happy cubing.

How many algorithms would there be in full F2L?

Answer (1 of 10): Ok, so for Regular CFOP, in total there are 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs making it 78 algorithms. For Cross and F2L however, there are way too many “algorithms” to count. For F2L, there are way too many ways of pairing up two pieces and inserting them, not to mention all of the more adv...

www.quora.com

Not to mention the entire thread dedicated to this

[Help Thread] - F2L Intuitive vs. Algorithm Solving

I've been cubing for a few days, and have gotten my beginner's method solves to sub-1:30 with relative ease. In the effort to further improve my times, I researched speedcubing methods and decided to pursue Fridrich for the time being. When doing the beginner method and solving the...

www.speedsolving.com

A little unrelated but @maticuber joined yesterday.

 

[maticuber]

I'm done arguing. All you are doing is restating your initial arguments no matter how many times we explain it to you.

I guess we'll never agree on that particular topic just because your definition of an algorithm is different than mine, which is fine, we can call them "F2L cases" if you want.

My original point was that cfop is a really bad method that has been around for a long time and it has been optimized with both hardware and algorithms/better F2L cases. cfop was around when the 1982 WC happened, but corner first was a better method back then, maybe it was the hardware that didn't allow fingertricks and bad algorithms. cfop is the way it is now just because there are thousands of people who worked on it over the years, just look for examples solves from 2010 and see the OLL/PLL algorithms and the way people solved F2L. No other method have had that kind of development.

Excerpts from Quora:

Andy Lee, B.S. Computer Science, McGill University (2023)
Answered Jan 7, 2020


Ok, so for Regular CFOP, in total there are 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs making it 78 algorithms.
For Cross and F2L however, there are way too many “algorithms” to count. For F2L, there are way too many ways of pairing up two pieces and inserting them, not to mention all of the more advanced tricks such as keyhole and x-cross.
For this reason, F2L should be approached intuitively and not algorithmically.
However. if you were to put an upper bound on the number of possible algorithms for F2L I should estimate it to be ~150–200.
96 views

Kilua Nakaba
Answered May 19, 2020


Well,
There aren't specific algorithms for F2L… Personally, I learned ‘intuitive F2L’ which is actually a better way to learn F2L according to me.
There are various tutorials for intuitive F2L on YouTube, Go ahead explore.
2 views

How many algorithms would there be in full F2L?

Answer (1 of 10): Ok, so for Regular CFOP, in total there are 57 OLLs and 21 PLLs making it 78 algorithms. For Cross and F2L however, there are way too many “algorithms” to count. For F2L, there are way too many ways of pairing up two pieces and inserting them, not to mention all of the more adv...

www.quora.com

That's what I'm saying, F2L is just a bunch of algorithms that are easy to figure out, learn and practice, but as I said before, I'll talk about it as "F2L cases" just so you guys understand what I'm saying.

 

[HaHaHaHeeHeeHee]

"Felix" Matts, Patrick, and any other CFOPer you want to bring up doesn't know many algs for F2L but simply have their intuitive solutions into their muscle memory from doing them thousands of times, And please shut up and do some research before making these completely false statements



ZB-Roux is different from LEOR

ZB-Roux - F2B, EOStripe, ZBLL
LEOR - FB, EOStripe, SB, ZBLL

if we're gonna go full on sicko mode with corrections then @ProStar here is a funny joke for you

Mats Valk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and also I think that zz and cfop are equal in oh (this is completely opinion based- I am trash at zz I only have one sub 20 single 2h)
but roux is again better than cfop if you look at the proportionality to 2h times

and in the topic of algorithmic f2l most f2l "algs" are just the same way that you would do it intuitively, but I mean there are some cases that people like jayden Mcneill show in their videos that I'm pretty sure are either computer generated or made by someone with a brain the size of a mixer truck.

also, stuff like multislotting (again, disclaimer, I do not implement this into my solves, and I never did, since I use Roux lol) I'm pretty sure is algorithmic

and for separate methods for OH, I think thats quite stupid, since that raises the question of method neutrality on 3x3, since other than the turning barriers, OH is still solving a 3x3 Rubiks Cube- so if you're gonna use a separate method that is "optimized" for OH, then why not just use both Roux and CFOP for 2h and use the most out of scrambles by being method neutral with the two currently fastest 3x3 methods. So since method neutrality has already been discarded as not feasible, I think that a "optimal OH method" is not a good option.

correct me if im wrong pls