• 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

maticuber

Member
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
76
WCA
2009MACA01
if you use that argument it applies to every method as well. also on cubesolves feliks 5.91 ao5 movecounts: 63, 56, 57, 49, 58

No it doesn't because only a few methods are as developed as cfop (and only cfop can break the rules and still be called cfop). Also you don't have to have a sub 40 moves solution every time, you just need to get lucky.

Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP
z y // inspection
U R2 U' F' L F' U' L' // xxcross
U' R U R2 U R // 3rd pair
U2 R' U R // 4th pair
U R' U' R U' R' U2 R // OLL(CP)
U // AUF

Feliks' 4.16s solution was 41 moves
z y2 // Inspection
U' R' Rw’ L' // Cross
F' U F // 1st Pair
R' U' R U R' U' R // 2nd Pair
L U' L' // 3rd Pair
U y' U R U' R' U' R U' R2' F R // 4th Pair
U R U' R' U R U2' R' U' R U R' F' // OLL

Patrick Ponce's 4.24 solve is 38 moves
x y’ // Inspection
R D F R’ D’ U // Cross
R U R’ U R U’ R’ Dw // 1st Pair
U R U R’ y’ U’ L’ U’ L // 2nd Pair
R U2’ R’ U R U R2’ // 3rd Pair
U’ R // 4th Pair
F R U R’ U’ F’ // LL
U // AUF
 

mukerflap

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
261
No it doesn't because only a few methods are as developed as cfop (and only cfop can break the rules and still be called cfop). Also you don't have to have a sub 40 moves solution every time, you just need to get lucky.

Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP


Feliks' 4.16s solution was 41 moves


Patrick Ponce's 4.24 solve is 38 moves
you cant seriosuly be using WR solves as examples those are all very lucky solves feliks, patrick, yusheng do not get sub 40 solves normally in comp
 

PetraPine

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
705
Location
Somewhere i guess.
YouTube
Visit Channel
MU can be as fast as RU
i mean it can? but it isnt if you have good tps
i mean i got some amazing M U tps from when i used roux and my R U is still slightly" faster.

you cant seriosuly be using WR solves as examples those are all very lucky solves feliks, patrick, yusheng do not get sub 40 solves normally in comp
He was literally agreeing dude...
 

mukerflap

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
261
No it doesn't because only a few methods are as developed as cfop (and only cfop can break the rules and still be called cfop). Also you don't have to have a sub 40 moves solution every time, you just need to get lucky.

Current WR 3.47s solution was 27 moves with XXcross and OLLCP


Feliks' 4.16s solution was 41 moves


Patrick Ponce's 4.24 solve is 38 moves
also other methods are developed (zz and roux) but you just dont have experience with them
 

tasguitar7

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
117
Location
Los Angeles, California
YouTube
Visit Channel
Isn't this worse? Intuitive means thinking, and thinking is slower than just doing.

It isn't that simple. The steps to solving a situation intuitively are 1. Identifying the state of the situation. 2. Calculating a solution to the state. 3. Executing that solution. The steps to solving a situation algorithmically are 2. Identifying the case of the state. 2. Recalling the solution to that case. 3. Executing that solution. Whether an intuitive or algorithmic solution is faster depends not just on the time for any of the above substeps but the total time taken across them.

The "thinking" you mention would refer to "Calculating a solution to the state". The "doing" you mention would refer to "Executing that solution". As you can see from the step breakdown, these aren't even the corresponding steps to compare. The more correct comparison would be between "Calculating a solution to the state" and "Recalling the solution to that case". Certainly when calculating a solution for the first time (doing something intuitively but not being super experienced) it is much slower than recalling a recently memorized algorithm. So, when you are new to a method algorithmic is faster than intuitive. But, as WarriorCatCuber said:

No. It really isn't worst. Plus, all intuitive steps become algorithmic with some time.

As you become experienced with intuitive steps you can recall your past solutions rather than recalculate them and so it becomes just as fast as recalling an algorithm. In this way, intuitive steps actually have an advantage over algorithmic steps because not only can you recall your exact solutions but you can make on the fly modifications to them to adapt for the particular situation in which you find yourself. So, while step 2 is faster for algorithmic approaches at first it does not necessarily retain that advantage after sufficient practice.

The other steps to be compared are 1 and 3. 1 generally gives a bit of advantage to algorithmic approaches because they are typically quick recognition rules for cases that only require you check a few stickers. As well, you can often standardize where you have to look to recognize cases. For intuitive steps you often have to look around a bit more. This can of course can be mitigated and maybe reversed by developing good look ahead but the advantage would tend to go toward algorithmic approaches at first. When working intuitively with good lookahead, you are doing step 2 as you are finding pieces for step 1, reducing the total time significantly. When working algorithmically, you can get good at tracking pieces and case predict early as well, to blend steps 1 and 2.

3 could go either way, depending on the step. The factor which favors algorithmic approaches is tps due to the ability to drill algs repeatedly. The factor which favors intuitive approaches is move count because intuitive solutions are typically much more efficient. Which effect is bigger depends on what scenario you are actually solving.

So, each step is essentially comparable for skilled solvers using either approach and there is no clear consistent advantage to either. It is not as simple as thinking being slow if you actually practice the method.
 

PetraPine

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
705
Location
Somewhere i guess.
YouTube
Visit Channel
It isn't that simple. The steps to solving a situation intuitively are 1. Identifying the state of the situation. 2. Calculating a solution to the state. 3. Executing that solution. The steps to solving a situation algorithmically are 2. Identifying the case of the state. 2. Recalling the solution to that case. 3. Executing that solution. Whether an intuitive or algorithmic solution is faster depends not just on the time for any of the above substeps but the total time taken across them.

The "thinking" you mention would refer to "Calculating a solution to the state". The "doing" you mention would refer to "Executing that solution". As you can see from the step breakdown, these aren't even the corresponding steps to compare. The more correct comparison would be between "Calculating a solution to the state" and "Recalling the solution to that case". Certainly when calculating a solution for the first time (doing something intuitively but not being super experienced) it is much slower than recalling a recently memorized algorithm. So, when you are new to a method algorithmic is faster than intuitive. But, as WarriorCatCuber said:



As you become experienced with intuitive steps you can recall your past solutions rather than recalculate them and so it becomes just as fast as recalling an algorithm. In this way, intuitive steps actually have an advantage over algorithmic steps because not only can you recall your exact solutions but you can make on the fly modifications to them to adapt for the particular situation in which you find yourself. So, while step 2 is faster for algorithmic approaches at first it does not necessarily retain that advantage after sufficient practice.

The other steps to be compared are 1 and 3. 1 generally gives a bit of advantage to algorithmic approaches because they are typically quick recognition rules for cases that only require you check a few stickers. As well, you can often standardize where you have to look to recognize cases. For intuitive steps you often have to look around a bit more. This can of course can be mitigated and maybe reversed by developing good look ahead but the advantage would tend to go toward algorithmic approaches at first. When working intuitively with good lookahead, you are doing step 2 as you are finding pieces for step 1, reducing the total time significantly. When working algorithmically, you can get good at tracking pieces and case predict early as well, to blend steps 1 and 2.

3 could go either way, depending on the step. The factor which favors algorithmic approaches is tps due to the ability to drill algs repeatedly. The factor which favors intuitive approaches is move count because intuitive solutions are typically much more efficient. Which effect is bigger depends on what scenario you are actually solving.

So, each step is essentially comparable for skilled solvers using either approach and there is no clear consistent advantage to either. It is not as simple as thinking being slow if you actually practice the method.
This is why Roux and cfop are basically even if roux is much more efficient.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
42
one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,542
one of the things that make cfop the best is that it goes will with other events. Yau and hoya are really good for 4x4, and meyers and 4z4 is absolute garbage, and redux isn't great. also cfop goes well with megaminx, and stuff like zz spike are terrible.
I wouldn't call ZZ-spike meyer and 4z4 absolute garbage and terrible. They're decent methods, just not quite as good as yau and other CFOP-based methods.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
42
also, people say roux is great because it is intuitive. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS BETTER! You can turn 10x faster with algs then intuitive solving, and it is way worse. Also people say intuitive is better for some people, but in general anyone can learn algs, and algs can be drilled way faster.

I don't. I use CFOP based methods for 4x4 and mega

EDIT: and even if I did use them, they might be faster for ME because I use ZZ on 3x3.
Why do you use zz on 3x3?

I think it is also way harder to improve with zz on 3x3, because there are less than half the resources there are on 3x3!
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,542
also, people say roux is great because it is intuitive. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS BETTER! You can turn 10x faster with algs then intuitive solving, and it is way worse. Also people say intuitive is better for some people, but in general anyone can learn algs, and algs can be drilled way faster.
1. Roux blocks and LSE are about as intuitive as F2L
2. Roux CMLL is as algorithmic as OLL and PLL
Why do you use zz on 3x3?
Because I like the method, find it funner, and better than CFOP.
I think it is also way harder to improve with zz on 3x3, because there are less than half the resources there are on 3x3!
CFOP resources can easily be translated into ZZ resources. CFOP F2L and ZZF2L are very similar
 
Top