The Evolution of Rubik's Cube Speedsolving Methods

[martinba314]

This is a research paper I wrote for my English 101 class. It focuses on possible changes in the future of the cubing community such as a surge in the popularity of other methods, challenging the dominance of CFOP.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

It's a great paper, however there are some mistakes like the usage of "and also" (redundant) and some over-repetition of ideas that could be fixed with a simple read over. But overall very impressive. GJ!

 

[ProStar]

A couple cubing errors:

MU turning is defiantly slower than a standard moveset
J Perm isn't the biggest YouTube cuber
MU moves are harder to get fast at than RU for OH, although you are correct that they can be fairly easy to learn
CMLL(specifically OH) still has some clunky cases, despite being better than OLL/PLL most of the time
ZZ doesn't have great ergonomics, as switching between R and L causes a lot of regrips
EOLine/EOCross doesn't have that bad of ergonomics, CFOP crosses almost always have F moves and one B move or two isn't that bad
It's not the opinion of everyone that ZZ isn't as good as CFOP or Roux
ZZ is also potentially really good for OH
ZZ isn't necessarily the best method for OH, although it is considered good
You said yourself that ZZ has B moves occasionally, yet you also said "There are many cases in pure CFOP that would be highly inconvenient to perform with your feet such as rotations, F and B moves, bad last layers, etc. None of these problems show up in ZZ, which allows for a more fluid solve."
There are ZZ/Roux/Petrus specific methods for 4x4+, although they aren't as well known. I know you talk about this, but purely not being as well known doesn't mean they can't be used
EOCross(basically ZZ cross, although it isn't just EO then CFOP...) isn't just another variant, but considered the best way to do ZZ TH by most top solvers(not all)


A lot of this is nitpicky, and while it may seem like I don't like it, I actually thought this paper was great. Informative and interesting, it definitely was worthwhile to read. I do wish you had talked about Petrus, even though it has dropped in popularity recently

 

[Athefre]

I do wish you had talked about Petrus, even though it has dropped in popularity recently

If unintentional, this is an oversight. The Petrus method was a huge moment in method history. Before Roux and ZZ, there were Petrus solvers winning competitions. Even over solvers such as Mats Valk.

 

[Christopher Mowla]

Since it's a research paper that you "wrote" (that is, past tense), these suggestions (both mine and other respondent's) can't help you with your submission, but just remember that when writing papers, you have to remember who your audience is. Your audience here appears to be your teacher. I hope that he/she is familiar with how to solve the Rubik's cube, because when you mention "The cuber will first solve the edges of the D-layer,", you don't define (or provide a picture of) what the different layers of the cube are. So you leave your reader in the dark on page 3 (if not earlier) with just that fact alone. Don't misunderstand me, every teacher is different and has a different grading critique. And if he/she really doesn't care about the little details more than the overall appearance of the work, that also helps. So if you didn't get your grade back yet, don't let my comment get you worried!

Instead I will congratulate you because it was quite brave of you to post a paper like that here. Because a lot of the points you made -- and even your quotes/support of your claims -- are subjective (even if you were led to believe otherwise with your interpretation of the sources you cited!), especially in the eyes of some of the people here (who have been around or have lurked around long enough to know that), since there are so many exceptions to the rule.

I believe your paper is trying to put a finger on what that rule is, but when one actually sees maps of MANY methods and substeps and how they are connected, one can assume that the rule for the optimal method is . . . is that there are no rules, because there is no bound on how many algorithms someone can remember, the turn quality of cubes keeps increasing, the quantity of good tutorials keeps growing, and the ages of cubers who are getting access to those resources are getting younger. Well, okay, the last point has been around for at least a decade. But the quantity of really young cubers is increasing (which means a larger variety of cool things can happen).

And, that being the case, if someone was to write what could be an "indisputable" paper, that paper would probably be written as one which was an observation of long-term case studies to reflect the trends (or non-trends) of cubers' behavior from decade to decade or cubing generation to cubing generation.

In short, the nature of the objective of your paper (in my opinion) is similar to the masses trying to figure out what is the key contributor to obesity (which they obviously STILL don't know . . . or maybe that statement in of itself is an illogical premise . . . that there are many causes of obesity . . . just as there are many paths to being a fast speedcuber: the cube, the method, the genetic predisposition, the environment, the family/friend support, the current non-cuber cube craze (e.g. The Pursuit of Happiness film caused the 2006 craze, Google's front page in 2014, due to the 40th anniversary), etc.

They keep proposing one diet (Atkins, Keto, etc.) one generation, and then change their minds the next. Meanwhile some people get results with one diet, while others with another.