• 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

Why ZZ>CFOP:
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.
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.
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.
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).
 
cringeycuber101 said:
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...
Yes, everyone knows that less moves, <RUL> gen, and no rotations is worse than <RLFBUD>, more moves, and rotations.
brododragon said:
How is <RUL> worse than <RULFBD>? Also, how do you know M moves are worse?

Evidence?

Have you ever heard of OCLL/PLL?
Click to expand...
So @cringycuber101 you're just not going to respond to valid arguments?
Etotheipi said:
People on the forums should take debate/logic classes.
Click to expand...
Yes PLEASE also some common sense and a bit of sense in math would help
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...
HAS NO ONE HEARD OF SAMPLE SIZE ISSUES???
 
PapaSmurf said:
Why ZZ>CFOP:
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.
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.
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.
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).
Click to expand...
These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.
 
Owen Morrison said:
These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.
Click to expand...
EO is really similar gen to CFOP.
 
Owen Morrison said:
These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.
Click to expand...

Doing EO doesn't just "solve nothing". While it doesn't directly solve any pieces, it makes the rest of the solve easier and improves F2L
 
ProStar said:
Doing EO doesn't just "solve nothing". While it doesn't directly solve any pieces, it makes the rest of the solve easier and improves F2L
Click to expand...
But it means that after you have done everything you have planned in inspection less pieces on the cube are in their correct spots, this makes lookahead slightly worse. But the fact that every solve you can use ZBLL cancels this out and makes the methods equal (if you know full ZBLL)
 
PapaSmurf said:
Why ZZ>CFOP:
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.
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.
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.
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).
Click to expand...
I think lookahead is also an important factor, and I think CFOP with ZBF2L and ZBLL would likely have the same or similar movecount as ZZ. Also I think the ZBLL recognition probably cancels out the same amount of time as the extra moves in OLL and PLL take
 
I'm A Cuber said:
So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call
Click to expand...
This is true but most advanced CFOPers know at least a couple of hundred algs.
Micah Morrison said:
I think lookahead is also an important factor, and I think CFOP with ZBF2L and ZBLL would likely have the same or similar movecount as ZZ. Also I think the ZBLL recognition probably cancels out the same amount of time as the extra moves in OLL and PLL take
Click to expand...
If ZBLL recog takes up that much time you're recognising ZBLL incorrectly.
Owen Morrison said:
These were all great arguments, much better then the others who just claimed ZZ is better without proof. I do think though that because of the moves used at the beginning which solve nothing, only orient pieces (I'm talking about the moves before EO cross/extra moves during cross) make ZZ not better than CFOP. I think if you learn full ZBLL the methods are about equal.
Click to expand...
I mean you use about 3 extra moves to know half the information about every edge at any time, so there's a big advantage there and I agree that ZBLL is, in most cases, necessary.
 
Just to be clear you can't (ever) use the argument that a method is best because the top cubers use it. Or that a method is best because most of the top cubers use it. Or that a method is bad because no one uses it.

Imagine hypothetically that tomorrow, a supercomputer invented an insane method that was so clearly and obviously WAY better than anything ever before created. How many people use that method? Zero. Any method always starts with zero users. The day that CFOP was invented by Jessica Friedrich (and possible others), no one used it. The day that Waterman invented his method, no one used it. The day that Roux was invented, no one used it.

Using the argument that a method sucks because no one uses it means that CFOP sucks because there was a day when no one used it.
In the 80's when cubing was dominated by Minh Thai and Marc Waterman, both corners first solvers, who beat CFOP solvers, you could say that CFOP sucked because no top cubers used it. But CFOP doesn't suck, it is an excellent method. But there was a time when no top cubers used it.
 
efattah said:
Just to be clear you can't (ever) use the argument that a method is best because the top cubers use it. Or that a method is best because most of the top cubers use it. Or that a method is bad because no one uses it.

Imagine hypothetically that tomorrow, a supercomputer invented an insane method that was so clearly and obviously WAY better than anything ever before created. How many people use that method? Zero. Any method always starts with zero users. The day that CFOP was invented by Jessica Friedrich (and possible others), no one used it. The day that Waterman invented his method, no one used it. The day that Roux was invented, no one used it.

Using the argument that a method sucks because no one uses it means that CFOP sucks because there was a day when no one used it.
In the 80's when cubing was dominated by Minh Thai and Marc Waterman, both corners first solvers, who beat CFOP solvers, you could say that CFOP sucked because no top cubers used it. But CFOP doesn't suck, it is an excellent method. But there was a time when no top cubers used it.
Click to expand...

This is the key point. The density of CFOP among top solvers is not evidence CFOP is the best method, just that it is the most popular method and that it is good enough that the significantly smaller sample sizes of users of other methods are not big enough to overpower it. The most popular alternatives to CFOP are only used by a few percent of cubers. It only makes sense to use number of top solvers using a method as a way to compare methods when those methods have approximately an equal number of users. It is especially ridiculous to claim that CFOP is the "best" or "fastest" method when they are solvers of alternate methods (SPV with Roux) who are just as fast officially (sub-6 average, sub-5 single, in SPV's case) as the fastest CFOP solvers.

The fact is, CFOP has the most research done into it and the most users of it. It is impossible to know how fast Petrus would be if an equal number of people had invest the time and effort into it that CFOP had. (I believe Petrus or a subtle variant of is entirely capable of achieving current world class times and is probably as good as CFOP. Yes Petrus has glaring flaws; so does every method.)
 
efattah said:
Just to be clear you can't (ever) use the argument that a method is best because the top cubers use it. Or that a method is best because most of the top cubers use it. Or that a method is bad because no one uses it.

Imagine hypothetically that tomorrow, a supercomputer invented an insane method that was so clearly and obviously WAY better than anything ever before created. How many people use that method? Zero. Any method always starts with zero users. The day that CFOP was invented by Jessica Friedrich (and possible others), no one used it. The day that Waterman invented his method, no one used it. The day that Roux was invented, no one used it.

Using the argument that a method sucks because no one uses it means that CFOP sucks because there was a day when no one used it.
In the 80's when cubing was dominated by Minh Thai and Marc Waterman, both corners first solvers, who beat CFOP solvers, you could say that CFOP sucked because no top cubers used it. But CFOP doesn't suck, it is an excellent method. But there was a time when no top cubers used it.
Click to expand...

I've literally been saying this for forever
 
I'm A Cuber said:
So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call
Click to expand...

If your argument is that the best method is the one with the fewest algs needed to be fast, then CFOP certainly loses to Roux. If you work hard you could even get fast with just a variant of Petrus/speed Heise where you just block build, do EO during LS, EP+2C, then a comm for L3C for a total of 0 algs.
 
I'm pasting my response to another thread because it is relevant to the conversation:

...cfop has been optimized and perfected over the last 40 years and most of the world-class speedsolvers have put years into cubing using cfop.

Back in 2009 for example fingetricks, algs and turning style were different, I remember the first person to upload a video with all the PLLs under 1s (Breandan Vallance), that year the WR avg was just above 10s. Feliks got a sub 10 avg the next year, that was a long long time ago and he's still rank 1 in the world, after 10 years practicing the same method, adding more stuff to it, optimizing his solutions, etc.

In order to find a method better than roux/cfop you'll need a lot of people willing to spend many many year optimizing a method, finding the best algs for it, adjusting turning styles, creating a recognition system, etc. Just think about all the people that have worked in cfop over the years to make it a "good" method, we needed a lot of people creating good algs, good recognition methods, finding different ways of solving the last pair to skip OLL, finding different ways of solving OLL to skip PLL, finding hundreds of 1LLL solutions, etc, the list goes on and on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll Poll
3 Blind Method Debate Thread
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8,770
Silky
S
Roux
  • Poll Poll
Cubing method debate.
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2,875
KubikPanda
KubikPanda
S
Quantitative Method Analysis
Replies
16
Views
3,513
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
36,088
Nir1213
Nir1213
Back
Top