The method debate thread

[Username: Username:]

Yeah, but eocross's poor ergonomics prevent zz from being objectively better than any other method for 2h

EOCross' ergonomics are not that bad, like at least only 2 F moves per solve

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

Roux vs cfop vs petrus vs zb vs zz vs freefop vs waterman vs leor vs heise/speedheise vs ribbon vs zipper which one is better


Im a freefoper sub 50 so close to sub 40 and, with cfop I couldn't get anywhere near sub 40. was still sub 50 but high sub 50. freefop has really helped my times

Firstly different methods will suit different people and secondly are you talking 2h or OH?

 

[ribbon method]

Firstly different methods will suit different people and secondly are you talking 2h or OH?

2h

 

[Deleted member 51471]

2h

If you average 40, a few seconds isn't at all a big difference.

 

[TerryD]

I originally posted this in The ZZvolution but I'm moving the debate here. Here are my points in case someone didn't see it


I think it's obvious that ZZ with EOCross is better than CFOP lol, it has better ergonomics, lower movecount, and easier lookahead.

Ergonomics:
ZZ-RULD
CFOP-RULFDy
ZZ is obviously better in this aspect.

Movecount:
ZZ with OLL and PLL(28 algs)-60 moves
ZZ-VH(46 algs)-55 moves
ZZ-a(493 algs)-45 moves to 50 moves
CFOP(78 algs)-60 moves to 65 moves
Unless you use optimal algs and do F2L very efficiently, you're not going to get 55 moves like the wiki says. Example: Feliks Zemdegs averages 62 moves.
Again, ZZ is better in this aspect.

Lookahead:
With ZZ, you only need to look for 3 things during F2L: EP, CP, and CO. With CFOP you have to look for EP, CP, CO, and EO. That means that CFOP lookahead should be harder than ZZ lookahead.

The only disadvantage that I think ZZ suffers from is more thing to be planned in inspection, but due to EO, planning in inspection becomes easier. I think consistently planning EOCross + 1 is very possible, and that nullifies most of the blind spots of ZZ.

 

[Nmile7300]

I originally posted this in The ZZvolution but I'm moving the debate here. Here are my points in case someone didn't see it


I think it's obvious that ZZ with EOCross is better than CFOP lol, it has better ergonomics, lower movecount, and easier lookahead.

Ergonomics:
ZZ-RULD
CFOP-RULFDy
ZZ is obviously better in this aspect.

Movecount:
ZZ with OLL and PLL(28 algs)-60 moves
ZZ-VH(46 algs)-55 moves
ZZ-a(493 algs)-45 moves to 50 moves
CFOP(78 algs)-60 moves to 65 moves
Unless you use optimal algs and do F2L very efficiently, you're not going to get 55 moves like the wiki says. Example: Feliks Zemdegs averages 62 moves.
Again, ZZ is better in this aspect.

Lookahead:
With ZZ, you only need to look for 3 things during F2L: EP, CP, and CO. With CFOP you have to look for EP, CP, CO, and EO. That means that CFOP lookahead should be harder than ZZ lookahead.

The only disadvantage that I think ZZ suffers from is more thing to be planned in inspection, but due to EO, planning in inspection becomes easier. I think consistently planning EOCross + 1 is very possible, and that nullifies most of the blind spots of ZZ.

I would like to point out that your CFOP move count is totally incorrect. ZZ still has a better move count though.

 

[PapaSmurf]

With EOCross, ZZ is 50-57, CFOP is 55-62. In practice. Either way, ZZ has a lower movecount and better ergonomics.
@RadicalMacaroni EOCross ergonomics are the same as XCross. <RULDBF> vs <RULDBF> for 9 moves.

 

[RadicalMacaroni]

I would like to point out that your CFOP move count is totally incorrect. ZZ still has a better move count though.

His ZZ movecount is also incorrect. Even on solves where I don't know the ZBLL, I rarely get 60+ moves unless I'm extremely unlucky.

 

[Nir1213]

did people abandon this thread?
Aww man

 

[Sub1Hour]

ZZ is still viable change my mind

HOWEVER: CFOP will be at the top for at least another 50 years

 

[Nir1213]

ZZ is still viable change my mind

ZZ is good for F...



ast cubers.

 

[PapaSmurf]

ZZ is still viable change my mind

HOWEVER: CFOP will be at the top for at least another 50 years

I don't need to change your mind for the first statement. Read my posts earlier in the thread.
I would need to change your mind on the second. No one at the top who uses CFOP actually uses CFOP, rather some form of CF-option select. If you say "well that's still CFOP", let's go with it and I'm gonna point you to a few things: ZZ, Roux and the potential of finding other methods. I mean CFOP might be at the top, but the probability of that is lower than that of other method being at the top combined.

 

[RiceMan_]

idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.

Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
Ergonomics
- Moveset: ZZ = CFOP
- Cube Rotations: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ has no cube rotations)
- Regrips: ZZ > CFOP (If you use EOCross ZZ has better regrips cuz CFOP has Cube Rotations)
Look Ahead
- Pieces Solved: ZZ = CFOP (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)
- Blind Spots = (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)

If you still think that CFOP is better than ZZ then you're just ignorant.

 

[PetraPine]

ZZ v Petrus(I think ZZ is better just want to post comparisons)
Regrips:ZZ>Petrus(might be equal if you consider more R U L regrips)((im counting rotations here))
Movecount petrus>>ZZ(petrus is the most efficient of the big 4)
Lookahead petrus=ZZ(this could also be changed but i cant really tell which is better since you can lookahead to 223 for petrus and lookahead to last side during EO, But ZZ has less piece info and you can do cross+1)
"Step switching"Petrus<ZZ
Tps Petrus<ZZ?idk about this for sure alot of 223 is like R2 R D F or sometimes just R U D and EO is R U F or R U M which is nice, and R U last side, i feel if you get a good 223 its better if you get an average/worse 223 its worse)
ConsistencyZZ=Petrus(I wouldve put petrus more consistent but sometimes you can get really bad 223 cases)((ZZ has 12 flips/10 flips, while petrus only has 6 flips(which are really fast anyway).
OH Petrus<<ZZ(ZZ smacks petrus for OH)
LL/LS Petrus>ZZ(this is only SLIGHTLY because last slot is always either R F or R B slot which means algoritmization could be easier and only R U is better than R U L U.)

 

[Kaneki Uchiha]

ZZ v Petrus(I think ZZ is better just want to post comparisons)
Regrips:ZZ>Petrus(might be equal if you consider more R U L regrips)((im counting rotations here))
Movecount petrus>>ZZ(petrus is the most efficient of the big 4)
Lookahead petrus=ZZ(this could also be changed but i cant really tell which is better since you can lookahead to 223 for petrus and lookahead to last side during EO, But ZZ has less piece info and you can do cross+1)
"Step switching"Petrus<ZZ
Tps Petrus<ZZ?idk about this for sure alot of 223 is like R2 R D F or sometimes just R U D and EO is R U F or R U M which is nice, and R U last side, i feel if you get a good 223 its better if you get an average/worse 223 its worse)
ConsistencyZZ=Petrus(I wouldve put petrus more consistent but sometimes you can get really bad 223 cases)((ZZ has 12 flips/10 flips, while petrus only has 6 flips(which are really fast anyway).
OH Petrus<<ZZ(ZZ smacks petrus for OH)
LL/LS Petrus>ZZ(this is only SLIGHTLY because last slot is always either R F or R B slot which means algoritmization could be easier and only R U is better than R U L U.)

Is petrus more efficient than roux?

 

[PetraPine]

yes

Is petrus more efficient than roux?

if you are good with blockbuilding+ZBLL average movecount could be around ~45 or 44
I did some splits myself were i did slowsolves(since i cant lookahead to 223) and did what would be realistic to solves,
and got a 27 F2L move average,
27+16
43 MC average (but I add one-2 because i might have been slightly to efficient)

 

[tx789]

idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.

Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
Ergonomics
- Moveset: ZZ = CFOP (both methods are RUL)
- Cube Rotations: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ has no cube rotations)
- Regrips: ZZ > CFOP (If you use EOCross ZZ has better regrips cuz CFOP has Cube Rotations)
Look Ahead
- Pieces Solved: ZZ = CFOP (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)
- Blind Spots = (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)

If you still think that CFOP is better than ZZ then you're just ignorant.

Cfop may have cube rotations but only 2-3. Cube rotations aren't that bad. If you have more then your bad.

Honestly I don't think either beats the other for regrips since that depends on your turning. ZZ requires switching between LU and RU turning and cfop has a rotation or two.

one issue with ZZ beyond eocross is being able to turn LU and RU equally. Being ambidextrous is need for ZZ. You could turn the L turns to Rw but that could be awkward in places.



Lastly can people stop saying a method is better because there are less algs. Honestly most cubers hate learning algs so much it is not that bad. It gets easier the most you learn. OLL is a small alg set but so many people don't bother. I know algs are hard at first but they get easier.

 

[RiceMan_]

Cfop may have cube rotations but only 2-3. Cube rotations aren't that bad. If you have more then your bad.

Honestly I don't think either beats the other for regrips since that depends on your turning. ZZ requires switching between LU and RU turning and cfop has a rotation or two.

one issue with ZZ beyond eocross is being able to turn LU and RU equally. Being ambidextrous is need for ZZ. You could turn the L turns to Rw but that could be awkward in places.



Lastly can people stop saying a method is better because there are less algs. Honestly most cubers hate learning algs so much it is not that bad. It gets easier the most you learn. OLL is a small alg set but so many people don't bother. I know algs are hard at first but they get easier.

I agree that more algs is bad cuz its more cases to recognise but I disagree that CFOP has to much algs, CFOP was actually my first speedcubing method and it only took me 2 week to learn full OLL.

 

[Kaneki Uchiha]

yes

if you are good with blockbuilding+ZBLL average movecount could be around ~45 or 44
I did some splits myself were i did slowsolves(since i cant lookahead to 223) and did what would be realistic to solves,
and got a 27 F2L move average,
27+16
43 MC average (but I add one-2 because i might have been slightly to efficient)

Looking at kians solves in cubesolv.es most of his averages have 44-46 stm movecount. Even if petrus is slightly more efficient. Having to learn zbll is a con. And it has cube rotations unlike roux

 

[PetraPine]

Looking at kians solves in cubesolv.es most of his averages have 44-46 stm movecount. Even if petrus is slightly more efficient. Having to learn zbll is a con. And it has cube rotations unlike roux

Did i say that petrus was better than roux? no I said it was more efficient
also @Kaneki Uchiha no they arnt there like ~49 average stm
if you look at his solves maybe your talking about singles?