The method debate thread

[Sub1Hour]

This is mukerflap we're talking about

*method isn't a roux variant*


method bad

 

[ProStar]

*method isn't a roux variant*


method bad

Wiki: Roux is a CF variant

cf woohoo

 

[sqAree]

Average movecounts of popular methods according to the wiki:
CFOP: 55
Petrus: 50
Roux: 48
ZZ: 44 (with ZBLL)

Those numbers might be off, but I can understand why someone says Petrus is not that efficient.

 

[Nmile7300]

Not very fair to include ZBLL for ZZ and not Petrus. I get that using ZBLL is one of the variants of ZZ, but still, that is a bit unfair.

 

[PetraPine]

Average eo cross without ZBLL 54
average petrus without ZBLL 50,
so i am pretty sure petrus is more efficient
that was prob eo line

 

[mukerflap]

????

What do you mean, the move count could easily be sub-50 HTM for most of your solves if you're smart with block building

This is mukerflap we're talking about

movecount of first 5 solves:
64
49 (got a f2l square skip)
50
61
42
and this is when hes very slow solving not going at 10 tps

 

[ProStar]

Average eo cross without ZBLL 54
average petrus without ZBLL 50,
so i am pretty sure petrus is more efficient
that was prob eo line

Because you're inefficient. I average sub-50 with Petrus and ZZ (both cross and line)

movecount of first 5 solves:
64
49 (got a f2l square skip)
61
50
42

Tao relies on TPS to be good. Again, I'm easily sub-50 with Petrus & ZBLL

 

[Metallic Silver]

I'm pretty sure petrus has the fewest move count. But you have to understand that when doing awkward blockbuilding moves is very difficult to fingertrick. This could either make us rotate, lockup on a cube, or hesitate when speedsolving. ZZ blockbuilding is not as fewer as petrus (but still pretty low move count), but it's definitely fingertrickable and rotationless (plus very good lookahead will definitely be damn fast).
Method with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

Method with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.

Duh. That’s why cfop is the best, even though it has a higher move count
/s

 

[PetraPine]

it said that on the wiki sorry if its wrong, i am personally av 48 moves w coll on petrus so the wiki is prob wrong.
also i said it was even,
and if you know what youre doing you can spam tps pretty well even with the bad fingertricks and anyway its just a tradeoff,
more efficient worse fingertricks
kinda simular to how roux is a great method bc it is very efficient even though the ergonomics are pretty bad.
==

 

[Sub1Hour]

movecount of first 5 solves:
64
49 (got a f2l square skip)
50
61
42
and this is when hes very slow solving not going at 10 tps

Man, I wonder if 3/5 solves fit my critera

Man, I wonder if the definition of most of the time is more than 50%

Man, I wonder if 60% > 50%

Man, I wonder if you cherry-picked example solves from someone that is better at TPS than efficiency

Man, I wonder if Petrus is actually the most efficient big-4 speedsolving method if you know how to do it properly

Man, I wonder if you read your posts before posting them to look if there is any kind of common sense strewn throughout them, just in case something actually makes sense for more than 3 sentences

 

[Username: Username:]

I'm pretty sure petrus has the fewest move count.

Dude, you forgot Heise.

 

[Metallic Silver]

Dude, you forgot Heise.

Oh yea for sure Heise is the fewest out of all methods, but I'm only comparing CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus.

 

[mukerflap]

Man, I wonder if 3/5 solves fit my critera

Man, I wonder if the definition of most of the time is more than 50%

Man, I wonder if 60% > 50%

Man, I wonder if you cherry-picked example solves from someone that is better at TPS than efficiency

Man, I wonder if Petrus is actually the most efficient big-4 speedsolving method if you know how to do it properly

Man, I wonder if you read your posts before posting them to look if there is any kind of common sense strewn throughout them, just in case something actually makes sense for more than 3 sentences

how can i cherry pick example solves when there are barely any petrus example solves are on youtube

and only 2 solves were sub 50 so its not 50%

 

[PapaSmurf]

Here are more realistic movecounts:
CFOP: 55-60
Roux: 45-50
Petrus (ZBLL): 45-50
ZZ (EOCross+ZBLL): 50-55

Here's why I think ZZ>Petrus IMO (as this was the context of the discussion): TPS. The ergonomics of Petruz, while not being bad, aren't as good as the ergonomics of ZZF2L because you have the problem of overturning and the extension as a step, is, as most Petrus solvers would agree upon, the most awkward step of the method. With ZZ the most awkward step is the first step, same with Roux and CFOP which means that some awkwardness can be negated by planning it properly. This is harder in Petrus. You also have worse ergonomics for EO in the middle of the solve than the a pair in a ZZ solve.

Anyway, why was it moved? It was doing perfectly fine in the other thread.

 

[Tao Yu]

In my defense, I didn't use ZBLL for a number of those solves. Also my solves could be improved a lot. My solves shouldn't be used as if they are some kind of gold standard - if you look at things objectively I'm really no more than a slow and inefficient Petrus solver whose solves don't prove a lot.

 

[Username: Username:]

Method with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.

rip LMCF

 

[Silky]

Here are more realistic movecounts:
CFOP: 55-60
Roux: 45-50
Petrus (ZBLL): 45-50
ZZ (EOCross+ZBLL): 50-55

Here's why I think ZZ>Petrus IMO (as this was the context of the discussion): TPS. The ergonomics of Petruz, while not being bad, aren't as good as the ergonomics of ZZF2L because you have the problem of overturning and the extension as a step, is, as most Petrus solvers would agree upon, the most awkward step of the method. With ZZ the most awkward step is the first step, same with Roux and CFOP which means that some awkwardness can be negated by planning it properly. This is harder in Petrus. You also have worse ergonomics for EO in the middle of the solve than the a pair in a ZZ solve.

Anyway, why was it moved? It was doing perfectly fine in the other thread.

But consider the fact that ZZ has more blind spots. Because Petrus uses direct solving at the beginning of the solve you don't end up with BL and BR blind spots. If you build 2x2x3 on BD the EO step becomes much easier. Plus even though finger tricks are harder because you plan block build at the start this helps to circumvent that problem. Even so, slower turning means that you theoretically have more time to look ahead, increasing the ability to be efficient. On a side note because Petrus always solves right block during Petrus F2L so you can make more consistent use of last slots algorithms (WV, Phasing, etc.). I'd say Petrus and ZZ are on equal footing, it just really depends if you prefer efficiency or TPS.

Edit: I forgot to mention that of the big 4 Petrus makes the best use of colour neutrality.

 

[Username: Username:]

But consider the fact that ZZ has more blind spots. Because Petrus uses direct solving at the beginning of the solve you don't end up with BL and BR blind spots. If you build 2x2x3 on BD the EO step becomes much easier. Plus even though finger tricks are harder because you plan block build at the start this helps to circumvent that problem. Even so, slower turning means that you theoretically have more time to look ahead, increasing the ability to be efficient. On a side note because Petrus always solves right block during Petrus F2L so you can make more consistent use of last slots algorithms (WV, Phasing, etc.). I'd say Petrus and ZZ are on equal footing, it just really depends if you prefer efficiency or TPS.

Edit: I forgot to mention that of the big 4 Petrus makes the best use of colour neutrality.

About the blind spots.
I do think this could be eliminated with practice, people (including myself) has practiced to the extent that blind spots don't bother.

 

[PetrusQuber]

I'd find ZZ to be much faster than petrus becuz even though petrus has fewer moves to solve whole F2L, ZZ influences last layer with EO and can be done with one whole alg with ZBLL. Just doing OLL and PLL on petrus could be fine, but ZZ has so many tricks up its sleeves that its just super efficient to solve. It may seem like petrus can just finish F2L faster than ZZ, but becuz ZZ has way much better fingertricks, ZZF2L is faster. And geez, if a ZZ user cant do ZBLL, that user can do phasing and then ZZLL which is just solving the whole last layer with only 170 something algs, or just use OLS->PLL or COLL->EPLL. There's so much flexibility with ZZ and I really think petrus doesn't really have much but just more freedom. The only downside about ZZ is that it is super difficult (and I mean VERY DIFFICULT) to get fast with becuz theres so much an average human can comprehend. You'd have to be very committed to become sub-8 or sub-7 with ZZ and experience/practice all the tricks to perfect your solutions and strategies.

You know you orient LL edges for Petrus too and can use the aforementioned subsets with Petus...