The method debate thread

[ProStar]

Except the difference is there has not been a single message about other events in this thread as opposed to the new method thread. And how am i supposed to know that tags arent accurate

You're really desperate to be right. Too bad you're wrong

 

[Deleted member 51471]

This thread was made to discuss what method is best. I was focusing mainly on 3x3, but when I created it was meant to be a debate for all events. However, if a conversation is about 3x3 methods, you must keep to 3x3 and not start saying other people are dumb because their method is bad for 4x4.

 

[cringeycuber101]

I find an issue with this statement that "Algorithmic is faster". I have not learned a single F2L alg in my entire 2+ years of cubing and my F2L Split is 4-5 seconds. ALGORITHMIC DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN BETTER. Especially for F2L since it makes lookahead harder and case influencing nearly impossible. Not to mention that you said 10x faster turning with algorithms is kind of rediculous at face value but I get your point even though its wrong. Patrick ponce said he never learned an F2L alg and never planned to and his tps is insane, same with Max Park. So if Patrick switched to algorithmic F2L he will have 100 TPS?

No because no one really thinks they are using algorithmic, but overtime with muscle memory it starts to become that. It is more tricks then algs. And I was talking about OLL and PLL

 

[cringeycuber101]

Hey, changing the topic a bit, what are your opinions for 3-2-3 vs 6-2 on 4x4? I think 3-2-3 is better, but I wanna hear your arguments.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

No because no one really thinks they are using algorithmic, but overtime with muscle memory it starts to become that. It is more tricks then algs. And I was talking about OLL and PLL

LSE and Roux blocks also become muscle memory overtime.

 

[Sub1Hour]

No because no one really thinks they are using algorithmic, but overtime with muscle memory it starts to become that. It is more tricks then algs. And I was talking about OLL and PLL

There is a difference between solving a case with an alg and with a setup to an insert. Muscle memory is only triggers and your brain plans out how to solve the case and therefore it does not hinder your tps and it only boosts your lookahead.

 

[ProStar]

LSE and Roux blocks also become muscle memory overtime.

Roux blocks never become muscle memory, it's not like there's the 42 different cases. LSE does become mm though

 

[cringeycuber101]

LSE and Roux blocks also become muscle memory overtime.

that is a good point.

 

[Sub1Hour]

that is a good point.

Not really, see post here

Roux blocks never become muscle memory, it's not like there's the 42 different cases. LSE does become mm though

The actual cases dont become muscle memory, Technically doing a L move is muscle memory but intuitive thinking is still required for things like FB+SB and F2L

 

[Micah Morrison]

Hey, changing the topic a bit, what are your opinions for 3-2-3 vs 6-2 on 4x4? I think 3-2-3 is better, but I wanna hear your arguments.

[Help Thread] - 4x4 Discussion

honestly just doing solves should get you to sub 2:00 pretty quick. Then you can learn Yau, and go from there. he knows Yau my man

www.speedsolving.com

only thing I'm going to say here is 3-2-3 is better, just do it.

 

[Etotheipi]

I think first block you definitely don't get muscle memory for, since to do it in a case by case way is impractical and bad, but SB is more done by case, and done with muscle memory by fast Rouxers I think, though nice block building cases would still be taken advantage of intuitively.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

I think first block you definitely don't get muscle memory for, since to do it in a case by case way is impractical and bad, but SB is more done by case, and done with muscle memory by fast Rouxers I think, though nice block building cases would still be taken advantage of intuitively.

Yeah. FB is more like cross, SB is more like F2L

 

[PapaSmurf]

Why ZZ>CFOP:

Spoiler: Movecount

CFOP:
Cross=5
F2L=28 (7 per pair)
OLL=10.02
PLL=12.95
Rotations=2
Total=57.97 SETM
With XCross:
XCross=9
F2L=21 (7 per pair)
OLL=10.02
PLL=12.95
Rotations=2
Total=54.97 SETM

ZZ:
EOCross=9
F2L=28 (7 per pair)
ZBLL=15.30
Rotations=0
Total=52.30 SETM
With XEOCross:
XEOCross=14
F2L=21 (7 per pair)
ZBLL=15.30
Rotations=0
Total=50.3 SETM
From this we can see that ZZ is slightly more efficient CFOP in terms of movecount. Tricks can be used in both to lower that and pretty much cancel out.
Sources for alg movecount is from Train Yu.

Spoiler: Ergonomics

CFOP has RUFD and LUFD pairs with about 60% to 40% right to left. ZZ has RUD and LUD pairs with a 50/50 split.
All of ZZ F2L cases can be found in CFOP but not vice versa. You don't have most of the bad cases (none of the edge flipped in slot with corner in slot cases) and almost all of the good cases (including keyhole inserts, 2 gen spam etc.) You can't say that you have regrips with ZZ because EOCross almost completely removes them.

Spoiler: Misc.

CFOP has many extensions, but then so does ZZ. They cancel out.
ZBLL is too many algs, but it isn't. You can definitely learn all minus sunes and anti sunes in a year.
XEOCross/EOCross+1 is amazing but pretty difficult and is slightly less work than seeing cross+2, but when done it is amazing. It is also possible about 50% of solves imo.
Blind spots in ZZ are a thing but not really because EO is solved. This means that you already know half the information of any edge on the cube. You also get blind spots in CFOP, so again, it cancels out.
With EO being solved, it's even easier to optimise F2L because you have half the number of cases. This means that tps can be even higher.
ZZ hasn't got a lot of users because it's bad is the wrong way of looking at it. ZZ is currently slow because it doesn't have a lot of users. I know of 2 other ZZ users in my country. That's compared to the several hundred CFOP users and around 10 Rouxers. ZZ has little to no chance of being picked up by some fast kid compared to CFOP.
The argument about why haven't fast people switched has 2 solutions:

• They are already sub 8 with CFOP so why put in loads of effor for something that would mean that they might get faster instead of definitely getting faster by doing some CFOP thing better?
• They think that ZZ is worse because everyone is telling them that it's worse, especially if they're using EOLine.

Also, ZZ with EOCross is as much CFOP as CFOP with XCross is Petrus. Ie. It's not.

Spoiler: Conclusion

ZZ is beter than CFOP because it has a slightly lower movecount and better ergonomics, plus other factors. Of course the difference isn't vey large, but I do think that the position that they are equal is much more tenable than CFOP is better than ZZ (which is absurd given the above evidence).

May I point the recent debate about ZZ and CFOP to this post.
On the topic of ZZ is bad for other events: odd big cubes (especially 7x7) with redux are actually great for ZZ. You save 10 moves if you're good over CFOP and the inspection thing doesn't really matter that much. I can inspect EO in less than 2 seconds if you were wondering. Megaminx has a completely different solving style and ZZ and CFOP transfer almost equally to S2L. Also UK NR holder uses Roux and he's not switching any time soon, despite not doing Roux on mega, so that's a bad comparison. The only places where it slightly matters a little bit are 6x6 and 4x4. Yau might be a little bit faster than Meyer or LEOR (better than 4z4) on 4x4 but if you really cared about 4x4 and thought that Yau was faster you would just use Yau on 4x4 and ZZ on 3x3. On 6x6, you have the slight disadvantage of having an odd number of bad edges every other solve but that can be an advantage as it's much easier to force OLL skips with parity with 3 orientated edges instead of 1. You also have the advantage of being able to do COLL then EPLL+parity instead of OLL, PLL pairty, PLL or OLL, PLL, PLL parity. Tl;dr: the argument that ZZ is worse because fewer events is a bad one.

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

how can meyer be so much worse than yau when its practicaly the same method, the only difference is solving 2 corners with first 3 edges.

 

[Cubingcubecuber]

Mini-rant incoming:

I just gonna plug in here that methods don’t matter until the highest level of cubing, which most people will never reach. I average 12.5 seconds with Hawaiian Kociemba, and have gotten numerous sub 10 singles. Some methods way be more optimized, but none are explicitly “better.” Hawaiian Kociemba was though to be a joke. I’ve put effort into optimizing it, and now I’m a joke too:rolleyes:. Also certain move sets are not objectively “better” either. It depends on what you are used to, what your turn style is, what cube you’re using, etc.

Whew, that was hard to type on a phone

 

[Sub1Hour]

how can meyer be so much worse than yau when its practicaly the same method, the only difference is solving 2 corners with first 3 edges.

Because after making centers it's weird to pair edges while preserving corners and I'm pretty sure that 3-2-3 is impossible with Meyer, not to mention that roux in general is worse for big cubes since the hardware is more limiting than 3x3 although now that we have magnets M slices on 4x4 are easier. If hardware was perfect then on 5-7 redux then roux would be feasible for bigger cubes but Meyer as a whole is like you, but without the parts that make it good due to the lack of freedom while edge paring due to the required preservation of corners. I think that if you just did yau and then put the corners in for FB would be equally as fast if not faster due to time saves on edge pairing thanks to the lack of corners that need preservation. If there are any roux users willing to try this on a big cube let me know how it goes.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Because after making centers it's weird to pair edges while preserving corners and I'm pretty sure that 3-2-3 is impossible with Meyer, not to mention that roux in general is worse for big cubes since the hardware is more limiting than 3x3 although now that we have magnets M slices on 4x4 are easier. If hardware was perfect then on 5-7 redux then roux would be feasible for bigger cubes but Meyer as a whole is like you, but without the parts that make it good due to the lack of freedom while edge paring due to the required preservation of corners. I think that if you just did yau and then put the corners in for FB would be equally as fast if not faster due to time saves on edge pairing thanks to the lack of corners that need preservation. If there are any roux users willing to try this on a big cube let me know how it goes.

3-2-3 is 100% possible. You just turn D so that you don't destroy the block. On 4x4 M moves are fine. Also I mean you could do the corner thing, but you save nothing and you would be more efficient by a few moves solving them with FB. Btw, all these points also apply to LEOR on 4x4.

 

[mukerflap]

Because after making centers it's weird to pair edges while preserving corners and I'm pretty sure that 3-2-3 is impossible with Meyer, not to mention that roux in general is worse for big cubes since the hardware is more limiting than 3x3 although now that we have magnets M slices on 4x4 are easier. If hardware was perfect then on 5-7 redux then roux would be feasible for bigger cubes but Meyer as a whole is like you, but without the parts that make it good due to the lack of freedom while edge paring due to the required preservation of corners. I think that if you just did yau and then put the corners in for FB would be equally as fast if not faster due to time saves on edge pairing thanks to the lack of corners that need preservation. If there are any roux users willing to try this on a big cube let me know how it goes.

M slices are easy on 3-7

 

[ProStar]

M slices are easy on 3-7

M slices are easy 3-4, doable on 5, and suck on 6+. I know they can be done, but it's very annoying to do M slices on 6x6+

 

[mukerflap]

M slices are easy 3-4, doable on 5, and suck on 6+. I know they can be done, but it's very annoying to do M slices on 6x6+

proof