The Limits of Solving the Cube

[PJKCuber]

What about roux? It's low on algs and moves.

edit: or any highly intuitive method for that matter.

IMO I hate Roux because of the M slices and the block building. BTW CFOP is as intuituve as Roux because of Cross and F2L. Honestly though due to algs the execution speed of CFOP is faster than intuitive Roux. Think of it this way -CFOP is a luckier method than Roux because the chance of getting an easy cross or F2L or any OLL/PLL skips is more than getting an easy block or CMLL skip. IMO this is the main reason that most people are faster with CFOP. I know CFOP and Roux too. I am sub 25 with CFOP but barely sub 40 with Roux and I have practiced them about the same. Sorry If I am harsh, but for a person who wants to do big cubes also, CFOP is easier and IMO better.

 

[GuRoux]

IMO I hate Roux because of the M slices and the block building. BTW CFOP is as intuituve as Roux because of Cross and F2L. Honestly though due to algs the execution speed of CFOP is faster than intuitive Roux. Think of it this way -CFOP is a luckier method than Roux because the chance of getting an easy cross or F2L or any OLL/PLL skips is more than getting an easy block or CMLL skip. IMO this is the main reason that most people are faster with CFOP. I know CFOP and Roux too. I am sub 25 with CFOP but barely sub 40 with Roux and I have practiced them about the same. Sorry If I am harsh, but for a person who wants to do big cubes also, CFOP is easier and IMO better.

personally, i don't believe you when you say you've practice them equally. but even if you did, that doesn't prove much. if you are just starting cubing and spend a week with beginner's method vs cfop, you will be far better with beginner's. furthermore, the time you spent with beginner's method translates well into cfop but badly with roux. i'm not so sure which method is luckier, that's up for debate. as for big cubes you're probably right. cfop may be easier to move but it does have 5-10 more moves, more time recognizing cases for algs, and a couple of cube rotations.

IMO I hate Roux because of the M slices and the block building. BTW CFOP is as intuituve as Roux because of Cross and F2L. Honestly though due to algs the execution speed of CFOP is faster than intuitive Roux. Think of it this way -CFOP is a luckier method than Roux because the chance of getting an easy cross or F2L or any OLL/PLL skips is more than getting an easy block or CMLL skip. IMO this is the main reason that most people are faster with CFOP. I know CFOP and Roux too. I am sub 25 with CFOP but barely sub 40 with Roux and I have practiced them about the same. Sorry If I am harsh, but for a person who wants to do big cubes also, CFOP is easier and IMO better.

personally, i don't believe you when you say you've practice them equally. but even if you did, that doesn't prove much. if you are just starting cubing and spend a week with beginner's method vs cfop, you will be far better with beginner's. furthermore, the time you spent with beginner's method translates well into cfop but badly with roux. i'm not so sure which method is luckier, that's up for debate. as for big cubes you're probably right. cfop may be easier to move but it does have 5-10 more moves, more time recognizing cases for algs, and a couple of cube rotations.

 

[PJKCuber]

personally, i don't believe you when you say you've practice them equally. but even if you did, that doesn't prove much. if you are just starting cubing and spend a week with beginner's method vs cfop, you will be far better with beginner's. furthermore, the time you spent with beginner's method translates well into cfop but badly with roux. i'm not so sure which method is luckier, that's up for debate. as for big cubes you're probably right. cfop may be easier to move but it does have 5-10 more moves, more time recognizing cases for algs, and a couple of cube rotations.

Even if that may be true, LL recognition isn't that hard and LL is faster than LSE IMO (Around 2.5 seconds for the fastest solvers). A couple of cube rotations is okay opposed to weird and uncomfortable fingertricks in Roux. I like CFOP more because you don't have to look at the bottom for pieces. As for Roux, you need great lookahead to do F2B quickly. About the fact that CFOP has 10 more moves, LL takes up about 20 moves of CFOP. And these 20 moves can be executed in less than 2 seconds. F2L is much easier to lookahead in. One advantage that Roux has is that a high tps isn't needed to get sub 10.

 

[FailCuber]

Even if that may be true, LL recognition isn't that hard and LL is faster than LSE IMO (Around 2.5 seconds for the fastest solvers). A couple of cube rotations is okay opposed to weird and uncomfortable fingertricks in Roux. I like CFOP more because you don't have to look at the bottom for pieces. As for Roux, you need great lookahead to do F2B quickly. About the fact that CFOP has 10 more moves, LL takes up about 20 moves of CFOP. And these 20 moves can be executed in less than 2 seconds. F2L is much easier to lookahead in. One advantage that Roux has is that a high tps isn't needed to get sub 10.

Roux's CMLL and LSE takes about two seconds.

 

[PJKCuber]

Roux's CMLL and LSE takes about two seconds.

Both or each one?

 

[FailCuber]

Both or each one?

Both. You can really get fast with roux too. It's just that there's not too much of them.

 

[elrog]

I was thinking recently that CFOP substeps with high alg counts (ZBLL, OLLCP, RV) could be made a lot more useful if we could somehow highlight all of the nice cases. Like, a wiki page with only easy-to-recognise ZBLL cases would be really really useful. So instead, of learning all of the algs, we just learn the nice ones. So you can save moves without learning all of the algorithms.

Btw, here's a nice WV case that everyone should know: link

someone make this pls

I found the hidden message .

I would like to point out that mathematically CFOP and Roux (or any other method) are not equal. They are just so close and there are so many factors that we cannot know which is best. This really bugs me because I am a little bit of a perfectionist.

For FMC solving, there isn't really any method to use to improve intuition besides just solving intuitively and that only gets you so far. It would be possible to improve at FMC by memorizing massive numbers of algorithms. It is very possible that someone could remember every Last Layer case if they went through every one every day for a year.

For advancements in speedsolving, I think we may be on to something with a LL system like the one Kirjava has been working on. Also, big cube direct solving has not been fully explored. There are also great ideas out there (such as RoFL) that nobody has generated good algs for yet.

While there are improvements to be made, they are nearly negligible unless you are near world class already.

 

[GuRoux]

Both. You can really get fast with roux too. It's just that there's not too much of them.

i don't think anyone can cmll and lse in 2 seconds. i think for lau, it's about 1 for cmll and 2 for lse.

Even if that may be true, LL recognition isn't that hard and LL is faster than LSE IMO (Around 2.5 seconds for the fastest solvers). A couple of cube rotations is okay opposed to weird and uncomfortable fingertricks in Roux. I like CFOP more because you don't have to look at the bottom for pieces. As for Roux, you need great lookahead to do F2B quickly. About the fact that CFOP has 10 more moves, LL takes up about 20 moves of CFOP. And these 20 moves can be executed in less than 2 seconds. F2L is much easier to lookahead in. One advantage that Roux has is that a high tps isn't needed to get sub 10.

for lau, i think the cmll and lse take about 3 seconds. roux's first two blocks take about ten less moves than cfop's f2l. i don't know what you mean by weird and uncomfortable fingertricks. even at my level i never look at the bottom for pieces. lookahead might even be easier in roux since you are always only looking on one side of the cube. you will never have to look at both sides of the cube to see a pair as occasionally in cfop.

 

[PJKCuber]

for lau, i think the cmll and lse take about 3 seconds. roux's first two blocks take about ten less moves than cfop's f2l. i don't know what you mean by weird and uncomfortable fingertricks. even at my level i never look at the bottom for pieces. lookahead might even be easier in roux since you are always only looking on one side of the cube. you will never have to look at both sides of the cube to see a pair as occasionally in cfop.

If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record? By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves. Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds. The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux? This is becoming a fiery debate so please forgive my arrogance.

 

[TDM]

If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100?

He doesn't though? Alex Lau has sub-7 Ao100s (or at least one), and he has the UWR as far as I know.
And r/M moves aren't weird if you've practised them. They may be to you, but to an experienced Roux solved M moves are normal.
And CMLL skip is 1/324, only ~1.5 times as rare as an OLL skip. And nothing is stopping you using WV/SV in Roux to make it 1/6 too.
And yeah what pewpew said.

 

[pewpewrawr]

If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record? By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves. Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds. The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux? This is becoming a fiery debate so please forgive my arrogance.

You're obviously extremely uninformed, so please stop spewing **** about a method that you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[PJKCuber]

You're obviously extremely uninformed, so please stop spewing **** about a method that you know absolutely nothing about.

I'm not uninformed. Everybody is just biased towards their own methods. We are just debating on which one is better.

He doesn't though? Alex Lau has sub-7 Ao100s (or at least one), and he has the UWR as far as I know.
And r/M moves aren't weird if you've practised them. They may be to you, but to an experienced Roux solved M moves are normal.
And CMLL skip is 1/324, only ~1.5 times as rare as an OLL skip. And nothing is stopping you using WV/SV in Roux to make it 1/6 too.
And yeah what pewpew said.

Ok sure, but Feliks Zemdegs does hold the UWR for 3x3 avg of 100. http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_UWR

 

[Renslay]

If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record?

You're obviously extremely uninformed, so please stop spewing **** about a method that you know absolutely nothing about.

I have to agree on this. You have little knowledge in either cubing or statistics.

By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves.

Weird? How so?

Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds.

Again, lack of statistical knowledge and being closed-minded.

The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux?

How about the chance of getting square-skip, EO skip, X-cross skip, JJ-LSE1 skip, WV-skip, L5E skip, and so on? You cannot consider all the possible "skips" to compare the "luck" in methods. If so, LBL is better then CFOP because the chance of a skip of a step is higher.

 

[GuRoux]

If Roux is so much better then, why does Feliks Zemdegs has the UWR of 6.xx of 100? He also has the single UWR of 3.78. Why don't Roux users get a world record? By weird fingertricks I mean r and M moves. Sure, the number of Roux users is less but IMO Roux has a limit of 7 seconds. The chances of getting a CMLL skip is so rare compared to PLL or OLL skips in CFOP. In CFOP, stuff like WV or VLS can be used to force OLL skips. Can CMLL skips be forced in Roux? This is becoming a fiery debate so please forgive my arrogance.

it takes a while to get extremely good at the rubik's cube no matter what method you are using. it's not really about how popular roux is right now but how popular it was 2-4 years ago, since that's how long it takes. probably more than two thirds of the cubers in the top 100 have been cubing longer than lau, feliks with two extra years. you can't expect a method with such a small popularity in the recent past to generate a large number of world class cubers. the fact that lau somehow made it up there is mindboggling, considering unpopularity and especially if roux actually is worse.

 

[thatboyahcubah]

This really shouldn't be a debate about which method is "better". As a few people have mentioned, Roux and CFOP have their advantages and disadvatages, just like every other solving method. Each is fairly balanced, because Roux definitely takes more practice while CFOP sacrifices moves for quick learnability.

 

[TDM]

I'm not uninformed. Everybody is just biased towards their own methods. We are just debating on which one is better.

Neither is noticably better. It makes no difference which method you use.

Ok sure, but Feliks Zemdegs does hold the UWR for 3x3 avg of 100. http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_UWR

Yeah... that page is wrong. Someone posted that on here (although I can't find the thread), but iirc Alex Lau has a 6.8x Ao100, if not then something faster than faz's average.

 

[PJKCuber]

Okay then, I'll stop debating about which method is better, but CFOP is better for me because I like learning algs.

I have to agree on this. You have little knowledge in either cubing or statistics.



Weird? How so?



Again, lack of statistical knowledge and being closed-minded.



How about the chance of getting square-skip, EO skip, X-cross skip, JJ-LSE1 skip, WV-skip, L5E skip, and so on? You cannot consider all the possible "skips" to compare the "luck" in methods. If so, LBL is better then CFOP because the chance of a skip of a step is higher.

How can LBL be faster? It has way more moves than CFOP.

 

[Renslay]

Okay then, I'll stop debating about which method is better, but CFOP is better for me because I like learning algs.

Now that is a more rational thought.

EDIT:

How can LBL be faster? It has way more moves than CFOP.

That was just a silly example for showing that the chance for a skip means very little when you want to compare methods.

 

[PJKCuber]

Now that is a more rational thought.

EDIT:


That was just a silly example for showing that the chance for a skip means very little when you want to compare methods.

I need to practice Roux more then. I love the appearance of the method.

 

[Renslay]

I need to practice Roux more then.

And ZZ. That is also a method worth practicing.