• 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 35,000+ 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

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
597
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
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).
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
1,976
Location
Null Island
so that you don't have to rotate, but in reality, all of the rotations combined is faster than all of those moves.
Yes, everyone knows that less moves, <RUL> gen, and no rotations is worse than <RLFBUD>, more moves, and rotations.
How is <RUL> worse than <RULFBD>? Also, how do you know M moves are worse?

Evidence?

Have you ever heard of OCLL/PLL?
So @cringycuber101 you're just not going to respond to valid arguments?
People on the forums should take debate/logic classes.
Yes PLEASE also some common sense and a bit of sense in math would help
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.
HAS NO ONE HEARD OF SAMPLE SIZE ISSUES???
 

Owen Morrison

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,190
Location
Tennessee
WCA
2017MORR06
YouTube
Visit Channel
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).
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.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
1,976
Location
Null Island
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.
EO is really similar gen to CFOP.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
3,521
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
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.
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
 

Owen Morrison

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,190
Location
Tennessee
WCA
2017MORR06
YouTube
Visit Channel
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
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)
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
585
Location
Nashville TN
WCA
2017MORR05
YouTube
Visit Channel
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).
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
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
597
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call
This is true but most advanced CFOPers know at least a couple of hundred algs.
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
If ZBLL recog takes up that much time you're recognising ZBLL incorrectly.
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.
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.
 

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
554
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.
 

tasguitar7

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
117
Location
Los Angeles, California
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
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.)
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
3,521
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
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.
I've literally been saying this for forever
 

tasguitar7

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
117
Location
Los Angeles, California
YouTube
Visit Channel
So I can learn ~70 algs and be fast, or learn ~500 algs and be fast? Tough call
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.
 

maticuber

Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
73
WCA
2009MACA01
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.
 
Top