• 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

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
554
I would also comment that most cubers consider ZBLS a failure, in that (if you plan on using ZBLL) you are supposed to solve F2L with different F2L algorithms to gradually orient edges throughout each slot until the edges are automatically oriented by the time you get to last layer.
 

maticuber

Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
73
WCA
2009MACA01
tbh "the best method" is just a combination of a bunch of methods.

The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method, but if you add more stuff to it, like COLL, 2GLL, winter variation, OLLCP, ZBLL, 1LLL, keyhole, x-cross, multi-slotting, edge control, etc it gets a lot better.

No other method has that many variations, so maybe roux can be extended, or maybe a new, crazier methods gets invented, who knows.
 

xcross

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
95
Location
VC, Canada
I'm going to on record and say that I have tried Roux, Petrus, ZZ, and CFOP for a week each when I began cubing. Here's what I have to say,
CFOP- More algorithmic steps. Algs are obviously faster than intuitive, and honestly that removes alot of time from your solve. CFOP also has the fastest intuitive steps (F2L: 8 pieces, Cross 4 pieces. RB: 5, LB: 5, LSE: 6. EOLine (this is debatable): 2 ZZ-F2L-1: 5 ZZ-F2L-2: 5) What I really dislike about CFOP is the move count.

Roux- More intuitive, more flexibility. Roux's plethora of intuitive steps are a blessing. It's extremely simple to do creative things and come up with super efficient solutions. What I really dislike about Roux is the uselessness of skips. It will be hard to get CRAZY WR's with Roux simply because of the amount of steps. In CFOP getting a skip accounts for majority of the solve, but with Roux, 1 skip barely changes the solve. In order to shave off the amount of time on a Roux solve it would take skipping CMLL, and LSE. Two steps with alot of pieces.

ZZ- Efficient CFOP. ZZ is a lot like CFOP for me, so the algorithmic part carries over. Another good thing about ZZ is the customizations. By orienting all the edges you open up loads of LS, LL, and even F2L solutions. This means that if you learn the good things for every case, you will always be prepared. ZZ is like the Swiss Army Knife. What I really dislike about ZZ is the time it takes. For ZZ to be like a Swiss Army Knife, you have to spend ages learning algs, and learning more algs than CFOP and Roux.

Petrus- Nothing much I can say about this. Petrus is like if you put all the methods in a stew, (CFOP Algs, Roux Block Building, ZZ EO) and then watered it down to a really, really really mediocre bit of each. So ultimately, you take the best part of each method, water it down, put it all together and you get Petrus. Petrus does what every other method does just worse... That being said, it still has potential and if there was a way to improve upon each step to reach CFOP, ZZ, and Roux levels, it would be a god method.

But that's just my take, I'm Sub-30 so I have much more to learn.
 

mukerflap

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
166
I'm going to on record and say that I have tried Roux, Petrus, ZZ, and CFOP for a week each when I began cubing. Here's what I have to say,
CFOP- More algorithmic steps. Algs are obviously faster than intuitive, and honestly that removes alot of time from your solve. CFOP also has the fastest intuitive steps (F2L: 8 pieces, Cross 4 pieces. RB: 5, LB: 5, LSE: 6. EOLine (this is debatable): 2 ZZ-F2L-1: 5 ZZ-F2L-2: 5) What I really dislike about CFOP is the move count.

Roux- More intuitive, more flexibility. Roux's plethora of intuitive steps are a blessing. It's extremely simple to do creative things and come up with super efficient solutions. What I really dislike about Roux is the uselessness of skips. It will be hard to get CRAZY WR's with Roux simply because of the amount of steps. In CFOP getting a skip accounts for majority of the solve, but with Roux, 1 skip barely changes the solve. In order to shave off the amount of time on a Roux solve it would take skipping CMLL, and LSE. Two steps with alot of pieces.

ZZ- Efficient CFOP. ZZ is a lot like CFOP for me, so the algorithmic part carries over. Another good thing about ZZ is the customizations. By orienting all the edges you open up loads of LS, LL, and even F2L solutions. This means that if you learn the good things for every case, you will always be prepared. ZZ is like the Swiss Army Knife. What I really dislike about ZZ is the time it takes. For ZZ to be like a Swiss Army Knife, you have to spend ages learning algs, and learning more algs than CFOP and Roux.

Petrus- Nothing much I can say about this. Petrus is like if you put all the methods in a stew, (CFOP Algs, Roux Block Building, ZZ EO) and then watered it down to a really, really really mediocre bit of each. So ultimately, you take the best part of each method, water it down, put it all together and you get Petrus. Petrus does what every other method does just worse... That being said, it still has potential and if there was a way to improve upon each step to reach CFOP, ZZ, and Roux levels, it would be a god method.

But that's just my take, I'm Sub-30 so I have much more to learn.
roux skips are like 10 move blocks, cmll skips, mini skips in LSE
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
597
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
tbh "the best method" is just a combination of a bunch of methods.

The purest form of cfop (doing cross, then F2L, then OLL and finally PLL) is a really, really bad method, but if you add more stuff to it, like COLL, 2GLL, winter variation, OLLCP, ZBLL, 1LLL, keyhole, x-cross, multi-slotting, edge control, etc it gets a lot better.

No other method has that many variations, so maybe roux can be extended, or maybe a new, crazier methods gets invented, who knows.
ZZ has many variations too. Some of them are redundant when you know ZBLL, but some (such as ZZ-C) can be applicable and all can be used to optimise LSLL. Anyway, you get a better F2L with more keyhole/pseudoslotting and at least the same amount of multislottting.
I'm going to on record and say that I have tried Roux, Petrus, ZZ, and CFOP for a week each when I began cubing.
Well done. A lot of people don't do that but it's definitely the way to go.
Here's what I have to say,
CFOP- More algorithmic steps. Algs are obviously faster than intuitive, and honestly that removes alot of time from your solve. CFOP also has the fastest intuitive steps (F2L: 8 pieces, Cross 4 pieces. RB: 5, LB: 5, LSE: 6. EOLine (this is debatable): 2 ZZ-F2L-1: 5 ZZ-F2L-2: 5) What I really dislike about CFOP is the move count.
That's if you count F2L as intuitive (and it's even more algorithmic in ZZ).
Roux- More intuitive, more flexibility. Roux's plethora of intuitive steps are a blessing. It's extremely simple to do creative things and come up with super efficient solutions. What I really dislike about Roux is the uselessness of skips. It will be hard to get CRAZY WR's with Roux simply because of the amount of steps. In CFOP getting a skip accounts for majority of the solve, but with Roux, 1 skip barely changes the solve. In order to shave off the amount of time on a Roux solve it would take skipping CMLL, and LSE. Two steps with alot of pieces.
Skips in Roux, as said, are normally smaller, but when you do skip CMLL or LSE you save so much time and you really don't need to skip both to save at least 1.5 seconds.
ZZ- Efficient CFOP. ZZ is a lot like CFOP for me, so the algorithmic part carries over. Another good thing about ZZ is the customizations. By orienting all the edges you open up loads of LS, LL, and even F2L solutions. This means that if you learn the good things for every case, you will always be prepared. ZZ is like the Swiss Army Knife. What I really dislike about ZZ is the time it takes. For ZZ to be like a Swiss Army Knife, you have to spend ages learning algs, and learning more algs than CFOP and Roux.
Algs take time to learn, yeah, but in the long run it is better. Also, to be world class at CFOP you need to know a load of algs and to be world class at roux you need to be able to reognise a load of cases and be able to predict where things go after CMLL etc. You also only need to learn about 350 ish including PLL to be pretty much reaping all the benefits of full ZBLL. It's also a long term project - you don't need to learn them all in 6 weeks.
Petrus- Nothing much I can say about this. Petrus is like if you put all the methods in a stew, (CFOP Algs, Roux Block Building, ZZ EO) and then watered it down to a really, really really mediocre bit of each. So ultimately, you take the best part of each method, water it down, put it all together and you get Petrus. Petrus does what every other method does just worse... That being said, it still has potential and if there was a way to improve upon each step to reach CFOP, ZZ, and Roux levels, it would be a god method.

But that's just my take, I'm Sub-30 so I have much more to learn.
Petrus kinda does that, but kinda not. The only major flaw with Petrus is the expansion step IMO but that can be done fine. Otherwise, everything step by itself is a good step but the question is in how well it flows (kinda like with SSC).
 
Top