• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

The method debate thread

efattah said:
Interesting arguments. However based on your logic then ZBRoux should be the best method, since it has better lookahead than any other method, with all the advantages you mention including almost no M-moves, and way fewer total moves than CFOP...
Click to expand...
yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.
 
cringeycuber101 said:
yes, but no one in the top 100 in the world uses it, and is it alg based. Algs are quite important, because you can execute it very fast.
Click to expand...

That's a sample size issue, no one uses it

Etotheipi said:
People on the forums should take debate/logic classes.
Click to expand...

What do you expect from a bunch of 8-13 year olds?
 
cringeycuber101 said:
Ok. Cfop is the best period. Reason 1. Easiest lookahead. Look ahead is easily on of the most important factors. It is even more important than efficiency. 2. Cfop has best finger tricks. ZZ has awkward moves, and roux uses m moves which are good, but, they are slower than other moves. 3. I think that Roux is almost as good as cfop, but not as good, and zz is the worst. Hardly anyone that is top100 in the world for 3x3 uses zz. Majority uses Cfop, which proves that it is the best. Also zz is terrible cause Zbll and coll is useful, but it is so hard to learn them all, and at the beginning, you do a bunch of moves so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.
Click to expand...
ok, I believe that CFOP is either the best method or is equal to Roux, but some of your arguments are kind of flawed. #1 and #2 I agree with you, but there's not really a way to prove them, first part of #3 is an opinion. I don't think anyone top 100 in the world uses zz (lol). The Majority use CFOP because it's been out longer, it's more developed, and it's easier to learn from LBL, but, considering how few people use Roux, and the good times that those people have put up, it's likely just as good. COLL has less algs than full OLL but it's likely harder to learn because the algs are longer and don't have the similarities that many OLL's have in common, but, if you don't ;earn the sune/antisune cases, which aren't worth learning anyway, it's probably just as difficult or easier to learn than full OLL. I have to agree about the first step of zz that using inspection and how ever many moves it takes to solve 2 pieces is kind of wasteful and makes lookahead harder and fingertricks more awkward. I know eocross is a thing which fixes those problems and if it can be planned in inspection it might make ZZ a viable method, but then it takes out the blockbuilding so then it's just CFOP but more inefficient and no rotations.
 
Micah Morrison said:
ok, I believe that CFOP is either the best method or is equal to Roux, but some of your arguments are kind of flawed. #1 and #2 I agree with you, but there's not really a way to prove them, first part of #3 is an opinion. I don't think anyone top 100 in the world uses zz (lol). The Majority use CFOP because it's been out longer, it's more developed, and it's easier to learn from LBL, but, considering how few people use Roux, and the good times that those people have put up, it's likely just as good. COLL has less algs than full OLL but it's likely harder to learn because the algs are longer and don't have the similarities that many OLL's have in common, but, if you don't ;earn the sune/antisune cases, which aren't worth learning anyway, it's probably just as difficult or easier to learn than full OLL. I have to agree about the first step of zz that using inspection and how ever many moves it takes to solve 2 pieces is kind of wasteful and makes lookahead harder and fingertricks more awkward. I know eocross is a thing which fixes those problems and if it can be planned in inspection it might make ZZ a viable method, but then it takes out the blockbuilding so then it's just CFOP but more inefficient and no rotations.
Click to expand...
people can already plan EOcross in inspection, and some can do XEOcross, and even with eo cross its still more efficient than cfop if you include zbll
 
Micah Morrison said:
ok, I believe that CFOP is either the best method or is equal to Roux, but some of your arguments are kind of flawed. #1 and #2 I agree with you, but there's not really a way to prove them, first part of #3 is an opinion. I don't think anyone top 100 in the world uses zz (lol). The Majority use CFOP because it's been out longer, it's more developed, and it's easier to learn from LBL, but, considering how few people use Roux, and the good times that those people have put up, it's likely just as good. COLL has less algs than full OLL but it's likely harder to learn because the algs are longer and don't have the similarities that many OLL's have in common, but, if you don't ;earn the sune/antisune cases, which aren't worth learning anyway, it's probably just as difficult or easier to learn than full OLL. I have to agree about the first step of zz that using inspection and how ever many moves it takes to solve 2 pieces is kind of wasteful and makes lookahead harder and fingertricks more awkward. I know eocross is a thing which fixes those problems and if it can be planned in inspection it might make ZZ a viable method, but then it takes out the blockbuilding so then it's just CFOP but more inefficient and no rotations.
Click to expand...
Some of you arguments are flawed as well. EOcross is just a little more efficient than CFOP, but the reason that it is worse is because the extra moves at the beginning solve nothing which makes lookahead harder.

Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ :p
 
Owen Morrison said:
Some of you arguments are flawed as well. EOcross is just a little more efficient than CFOP, but the reason that it is worse is because the extra moves at the beginning solve nothing which makes lookahead harder.

Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ :p
Click to expand...
mukerflap said:
people can already plan EOcross in inspection, and some can do XEOcross, and even with eo cross its still more efficient than cfop if you include zbll
Click to expand...
I wasn't including ZBLL, I was just including COLL and EPLL
 
Owen Morrison said:
Some of you arguments are flawed as well. EOcross is just a little more efficient than CFOP, but the reason that it is worse is because the extra moves at the beginning solve nothing which makes lookahead harder.

Also, I don't think anyone in the top 1000 uses ZZ :p
Click to expand...
There are probably plenty of people in the top 1000 who use ZZ. I know of at least 2012KALH01, but there must be more. ^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll Poll
3 Blind Method Debate Thread
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8,766
Silky
S
Roux
  • Poll Poll
Cubing method debate.
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2,874
KubikPanda
KubikPanda
S
Quantitative Method Analysis
Replies
16
Views
3,511
Silky
S
Christopher Mowla
Is the "Yau Method" Actually the "Jameson Method"? (Debate)
2
Replies
39
Views
6,753
mookiemu
M
Sub1Hour
  • Poll Poll
OH Method Debate
16 17 18
Replies
350
Views
36,084
Nir1213
Nir1213
Back
Top