• 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 40,000+ 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

1) Being successful does not mean you know why you are successful. This is a general thing though, as I do believe Jayden knows why he is successful etc. He takes a very scientific and measured approach to cubing that I do admire.

2) my rebuttal falls on three fallacies in his video. The first, being that the entire video is about a type of ZZ that doesn't get used for two handed (eoline). The second, is the disregarding of ZBLL. The third, is the disregarding of eocross entirely.

Jayden might know more about me than cubing but I know more than him about ZZ.
You know more swag
 
ik this is an old thread but i couldn't find anywhere else to ask - what do you guys think about Hoya vs Yau? is Yau better for some big cubes and Hoya better for others? where is that line?
 
You are just biased because you use zz. He is objective. That is the real difference
He is bringing up things that Jayden did not mention, and presumably did not know, about the ZZ method. You, however, are simply disregarding his points as biased answers due to his use of ZZ. Please educate yourself on the definition of a strawman argument.
 
ik this is an old thread but i couldn't find anywhere else to ask - what do you guys think about Hoya vs Yau? is Yau better for some big cubes and Hoya better for others? where is that line?
I'm not super knowledgeable about big cubes but what i've heard is that Hoya handles better on the bigger cubes, and that the line where Hoya becomes better MIGHT be 7x7, maybe 6x6.
 
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.
EO pretty much worthless. Some methods like APB aim to solve that issue but still aren’t the best method
 
@AJT17 what are your takes on this
I think that APB handles EO alright, technically at its highest level you solve the BR pair while doing EO which may solve the issue that EO doesn't solve anything. But at the average level EO in APB doesn't do much else other than orienting the edges. So I'd say that APB certainly doesn't do EO the best, but I'm not sure what method may do EO the best. But all in all I think that the most advanced version of APB is better than most alternatives. Compared to Petrus it is an improvement as you only have 6 edges to look at as opposed to 7 so there are no blindspots that could make it more difficult. I would say that ZB is one of the best methods when it comes to EO since it only needs 5 edges instead of 6 and the algs are more ergonomic? than EOPair but EOPair hasn't had a lot of dedication put into genning algs yet, it is being worked on though.
I would love to see APB and ZB as the top methods in the future since they have quite comparable stats and APB tries to combine parts from all of the big methods. It is rotationless and requires a small amount of FBM moves so it more RUF turning for LL and mostly RUS for LXS which can take advantage of a higher turn speed. As for ZB it does have rotations but with more advanced techniques like pseudo-slotting and xcrosses and all of ZBLS and ZBLL it can have a lower move count that is close to APB's optimal move count. So I think that if/when both methods are more developed and practiced they could be comparable, but as for right now there are no great APB solvers, the official WR is most likely 8.94 which is over double the WR and almost double current ZB records. APB still has a ton of potential that hasn't been practiced yet because I don't believe that any single person has learned full ZBLL and LXS yet. Since it is supposed to be a primarily alg based method it can have upwards of 1300 algs for DFDB edges, BRPair, EO, LXS and ZBLL. So if anyone eventually learns all of those 1300 algs and really advances the method then it could be up there with CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and ZB in being a great method.
If you have any other questions or anything else, I would be happy to share more about APB, just ask here if it's relevant or DM me if it may become off-topic.
 
I think that APB handles EO alright, technically at its highest level you solve the BR pair while doing EO which may solve the issue that EO doesn't solve anything. But at the average level EO in APB doesn't do much else other than orienting the edges. So I'd say that APB certainly doesn't do EO the best, but I'm not sure what method may do EO the best. But all in all I think that the most advanced version of APB is better than most alternatives. Compared to Petrus it is an improvement as you only have 6 edges to look at as opposed to 7 so there are no blindspots that could make it more difficult. I would say that ZB is one of the best methods when it comes to EO since it only needs 5 edges instead of 6 and the algs are more ergonomic? than EOPair but EOPair hasn't had a lot of dedication put into genning algs yet, it is being worked on though.
I would love to see APB and ZB as the top methods in the future since they have quite comparable stats and APB tries to combine parts from all of the big methods. It is rotationless and requires a small amount of FBM moves so it more RUF turning for LL and mostly RUS for LXS which can take advantage of a higher turn speed. As for ZB it does have rotations but with more advanced techniques like pseudo-slotting and xcrosses and all of ZBLS and ZBLL it can have a lower move count that is close to APB's optimal move count. So I think that if/when both methods are more developed and practiced they could be comparable, but as for right now there are no great APB solvers, the official WR is most likely 8.94 which is over double the WR and almost double current ZB records. APB still has a ton of potential that hasn't been practiced yet because I don't believe that any single person has learned full ZBLL and LXS yet. Since it is supposed to be a primarily alg based method it can have upwards of 1300 algs for DFDB edges, BRPair, EO, LXS and ZBLL. So if anyone eventually learns all of those 1300 algs and really advances the method then it could be up there with CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and ZB in being a great method.
If you have any other questions or anything else, I would be happy to share more about APB, just ask here if it's relevant or DM me if it may become off-topic.
bro really made an entire essay about APB💀💀 but thanks for the info! (wait i am starting to get confused with EO like isnt EO just orienting the cross for LL?)
 
EO is orienting all the edges (basically forces RULD moves). APB is not as bad as it's made out to be, I have a sub 9 ao100 with it, but I still don't think it has as much potential as something like ZZ.
 
Back
Top