• 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 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

The method debate thread

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
1,976
Location
Null Island
Please take a bit of time out of your day to read this.

I think Petrus is a lot better than people say it is.

2x2: Even a beginner can almost always plan it during inspection. Also, less moves then cross.
2x2x3: 3-gen, so relatively quick. Additionally, you can expand three ways on 2x2, while all other methods can be continued in 1 way, meaning less moves in Petrus.
EO. Can be easily recognized and influenced during 2x2x3. For around 6 moves that are quicker than alg, you open up ZBLL and take OLL algs from 57 to 7.
LL. 2L OLL works like 1L, and ZBLL can be used.

Ontop of all of this, it can easily be done rotationless. It's all 3-gen or 2-gen, meaning easier high TPS. Speaking of TPS, if you have an average TPS of 10, which is reasonable to achieve, you will average five seconds. If you're thinking, well, Petrus is too intuitive for 10 TPS, think about loopover or piano. In both of those there is nothing to memorize (I'm talking about playing a piece from sheet music, bit memorized); It's entirely intuitive, yet you reach a point where you can do it without thinking. If you average around 20 seconds in loopover, you know what I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,480
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm just going to put what I have to say here, and then I'll probably never post here again.

I don't think CFOP is the best just because most pros use it. I think most pros use it because it's just an easier transition from LBL, so naturally more people use it—and if more people use it, then it's only natural for the majority of the pros to use it too.
I think Roux as just as much, if not more potential, and if more beginners gave it a chance then we could see that potential fulfilled.
I think that ZZ is very good too, but has its flaws. ZZ-a is definitely better than pure ZZ, but I don't know where it stands in relation to CFOP/Roux. I'd guess that it's either slightly worse, or just as good.
Petrus is better than people give it credit for, but like ZZ, I can't say for sure where it stands compared to CFOP/Roux.
For OH, I think CFOP and Roux are about equal, perhaps with an edge to Roux.
Other methods with less development such as ZBRoux, Leor, LMCF, or Hexagonal Francisco, might also be very good, but only time and exploration can tell.

However: regardless of which method is best (if any), I think that the most important thing is having fun. If someone likes a random, mostly unknown method more than any of the above, then they should use that method. I'm personally very likely going to switch to either ZBRoux or Leor soon, because I think using one of those methods with full ZBLL would just be more fun for me than keeping with CFOP. As Chris Tran once said, "Cubing is fun, let's just have fun."
And if a beginner doesn't care about which method is most fun and just wants to be fast, one shouldn't say "just use CFOP", because again—Roux is likely just as good if not better, and other methods have potential too. Those beginners should be directed to the Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method thread, and they can choose for themselves which method is best for them.
We haven't explored any method enough to know for sure which one is best. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the best human method for 3x3 hasn't been found yet, and likely won't for some time. Whether it's more similar to CFOP or Roux or Petrus, or something else entirely, I do not know.

There's no point in me saying any more in future posts, because the above is all of my thoughts on the subject.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
3,521
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.
I think a big problem is that you just say "Use CFOP its great don't use others" without giving any reasons. That's why the beginners speedsolving guide thread is great, it compares pros and cons instead of just stating random things. Knowing that CFOP is better for big cubes is important, but so is the other pros of different methods.
 

Owen Morrison

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,190
Location
Tennessee
WCA
2017MORR06
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think a big problem is that you just say "Use CFOP its great don't use others" without giving any reasons. That's why the beginners speedsolving guide thread is great, it compares pros and cons instead of just stating random things. Knowing that CFOP is better for big cubes is important, but so is the other pros of different methods.
I don't think I ever say it like that but I agree with you.
 
Top