What approach is best for CFOP - High TPS or Efficiency

[Imsoosm]

these are random solves, nothing special
View attachment 19492View attachment 19493View attachment 19494View attachment 19495

That's just 20 6 second solves. You only put up the bad solves and ignored the good ones. He has at least 100 low 5 + high 4 solves in speedcubedb, and at least 20 sub-4 + low 4 solves.

 

[lawofthecube]

I like Max's solves and think he is great solver and exciting and fun to watch but my heart is with Tymon with his "mad scientist" approach/solves and given I might be ok with LL TPS someday I feel like for me to eventually solve very efficiant and smoothly I'll have to know the more complicated shorter path to getting through first two layers...

I have finally admitted, which is hard for me to hold onto thoughts in a certain order, that I am not naturally gifted in cross so I might post a help with cross post as it's clearly what is holding me up and my doing xcross and seeing into F2L etc...

I might be a Tymon fan...lol

 

[Swagrid]

Gotta agree with the masses here. Tymon style CFOP has a much higher skill ceiling. Using simple, standard solutions, and doing them very quickly is all good until you can't do them any quicker. Using tricks, influencing, and pseudo, well the sky is the limit for that as far as cfop is concerned. It can bring cfop down to be luckier and more efficient than it has ever been before.

As for the future of cubing, efficiency is absolutely the way. Imo it'll be a lot harder to keep turning faster and faster, so solvers like Ruihang that use incredible TPS to get their results will only be successful for so long. Eventually, it's not gonna be about how fast you do the moves, but how many moves you do. Which is why Roux is the best method.

 

[Dan the Beginner]

Gotta agree with the masses here. Tymon style CFOP has a much higher skill ceiling. Using simple, standard solutions, and doing them very quickly is all good until you can't do them any quicker. Using tricks, influencing, and pseudo, well the sky is the limit for that as far as cfop is concerned. It can bring cfop down to be luckier and more efficient than it has ever been before.

As for the future of cubing, efficiency is absolutely the way. Imo it'll be a lot harder to keep turning faster and faster, so solvers like Ruihang that use incredible TPS to get their results will only be successful for so long. Eventually, it's not gonna be about how fast you do the moves, but how many moves you do. Which is why Roux is the best method.

Me too! To this beginner, the difference between averages of 5.2 sec, 5.4 sec or even 4.9 is not much at all. They are equally very, very impressive to me. I would be even more impressed and interested to watch them if it's done with innovative new tricks and fresh ideas.

 

[LukasCubes]

now what if you combine both of them with Ruihangs Caps Lock button TPS

 

[Imsoosm]

now what if you combine both of them with Ruihangs Caps Lock button TPS

Then Tymon Xu is going to be a consistent sub-5 solver

 

[voidrx]

Then Tymon Xu is going to be a consistent sub-5 solver

Technically it would be Tymon Ruihang. Because Chinese names are said backward iirc.

 

[DynaXT]

Yeah, but Xu is the surname still.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

 

[voidrx]

Yeah, but Xu is the surname still.

Ok I dumb

 

[OtterCuber]

Unpopular opinion: This might not be as one-sided as people think, because high-efficiency solutions are more difficult to inspect. Brute-force spamming may in the end be more consistent.

 

[Swagrid]

Unpopular opinion: This might not be as one-sided as people think, because high-efficiency solutions are more difficult to inspect. Brute-force spamming may in the end be more consistent.

Counter arguments:

1) with how unreasonably optimized 3x3 is, I think taking the more reliable approach with the lower ceiling is probably something we should be leaving in the past. We're simply getting too good to be taking the easy route.

2) Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we should leave it. Tymon level inspection is hard, sure, but so were simple xcrosses when they were new, so is cross+1 to most people, ZBLL used to be considered super hard and now a load of people know it in full, even more without sunes, someone has learnt it oh, and tonnes of people use TUL.

 

[OtterCuber]

Counter arguments:

1) with how unreasonably optimized 3x3 is, I think taking the more reliable approach with the lower ceiling is probably something we should be leaving in the past. We're simply getting too good to be taking the easy route.

2) Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we should leave it. Tymon level inspection is hard, sure, but so were simple xcrosses when they were new, so is cross+1 to most people, ZBLL used to be considered super hard and now a load of people know it in full, even more without sunes, someone has learnt it oh, and tonnes of people use TUL.

This sounds logical, but in practice the extra cognitive muscles needed to recall and execute large alg sets like ZBLL may incur a penalty that "easier" methods are immune to. It's for this reason that no one uses FMC methods to speedsolve. That's an extreme example, but I don't think we could push for xxcross or xxxcross for every inspection either. You can't optimize endlessly without sacrificing speed. There has to be an optimal point somewhere in between.

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

Gotta agree with the masses here. Tymon style CFOP has a much higher skill ceiling. Using simple, standard solutions, and doing them very quickly is all good until you can't do them any quicker. Using tricks, influencing, and pseudo, well the sky is the limit for that as far as cfop is concerned. It can bring cfop down to be luckier and more efficient than it has ever been before.

As for the future of cubing, efficiency is absolutely the way. Imo it'll be a lot harder to keep turning faster and faster, so solvers like Ruihang that use incredible TPS to get their results will only be successful for so long. Eventually, it's not gonna be about how fast you do the moves, but how many moves you do. Which is why Roux is the best method.

According to large-scale analysis of world-class solves reconstructions they can do 41% more outer layer moves than m-axis moves in the same amount of time. You just cannot reach that level of TPS with roux.

 

[Swagrid]

According to large-scale analysis of world-class solves reconstructions they can do 41% more outer layer moves than m-axis moves in the same amount of time. You just cannot reach that level of TPS with roux.

While the slightly lower TPS during LSE is a small drawback, we also have to acknowledge that Roux uses less moves overall, as well as M moves being a small part of that.
If we look at a fairly well sized cubeast session from a top Roux solver, LSE takes just 13 moves on average. Half of those being slices. So, 7.5 slice moves on average. With Roux being ~45 moves and top cfop being ~57-58, we can see roux being about 22.58% more efficient, although if we count slice moves as 1.5 of a move, it's still 20% more efficient.


Consider also that top CFOP solvers, are not top roux solvers, and as such, are far far less practiced in slice moves. I think a top rouxer wouldn't see such a vast difference between outer block and slice turns.

 

[Imsoosm]

Max almost never uses ZBLL, while Tymon knows at least 60% of ZBLLs.
@Klaudiusz Szyprocinski that document was a really interesting read.

 

[Luke Solves Cubes]

Tymon Max Ruihang is the best cuber of all, insane lookahead and tps, x-crosses, very efficient solutions, zblls, and pseudo slotting

 

[Imsoosm]

Tymon Max Ruihang is the best cuber of all, insane lookahead and tps, x-crosses, very efficient solutions, zblls, and pseudo slotting

Add a Fahmi behind it... and this person would be OH god

 

[Deleted member 36445]

Feliks hides in the corner forsaken

 

[Blau]

Max almost never uses ZBLL, while Tymon knows at least 60% of ZBLLs.
@Klaudiusz Szyprocinski that document was a really interesting read.
View attachment 19629

tymon actually knows around 69% of zblls (TULH pi)

A good comparison of max park style solving vs tymon style solving will be directly comparing their solutions and times for the same scrambles.
They competed head to head in red bull finals 2021 and max won 3-2.

reconstructions for your reference:
solve 1: (tymon 6.19)
tymon
max

solve 2: (tymon 5.66)
tymon
max

solve 3: (max 4.94)
max
tymon

solve 4: (max 4.83)
max
tymon

solve 5: (max 6.10)
max
tymon