What would your method be if you had to switch now.

[ProStar]

If you look at how the top mega solvers solve the puzzle, part of why they are fast is they don’t do the steps before LL so algorithmically. They take advantage of block building cases. Because the shape of mega limits the turn speed a bit, the extra efficiency they squeeze out from block building is what makes the difference

And normal F2L isn't done algorithmically

 

[OreKehStrah]

And normal F2L isn't done algorithmically

What I mean is that usually for any given case people solve a cross and then F2L pairs in a certain way because it’s faster that way. On a megaminx, because turning speed is limited, it’s better to do nonconventional block building and lower the movecount

 

[efattah]

No question if you are into big cubes, CFOP is the best because it works on all cube sizes including Megaminx. If you choose a non-F2L style method like Roux/Waterman/LMCF you are totally out of luck on big cubes. However, in the distant future, what will win 3x3 is the best method for 3x3, not the best method for big cubes, used on a 3x3. So you could argue that picking a non-CFOP method for 3x3 is quite a dedication because you are committing to 2 methods, one for 3x3 and one for big cubes.

 

[Etotheipi]

I think @Etotheipi's argument was also stupid.

My argument was stupid because it was a joke lol. Why would you take a two word argument to be anything other than that? XD

 

[kubesolver]

There is another possibility. That one method can produce faster average, but the other is usually faster.
The first is more likely to get a record and the second to win a competition.

In this case no method would be really better unless we get very specific what better means.

 

[Etotheipi]

I think personal preference outweighs any tiny fraction of a second speed difference, which is why I think this argument is dumb.

 

[RiceMan_]

ZZ> Waterman> Roux> Petrus-W

 

[Chris_Cube]

I found out that Waterman has a lot of Potential. With all these algorithms and a fast TPS even very good averages are possible.
So Waterman as a second choice for bored cubers is something everyone should consider

 

[efattah]

I found out that Waterman has a lot of Potential. With all these algorithms and a fast TPS even very good averages are possible.
So Waterman as a second choice for bored cubers is something everyone should consider

I have recalculated the Waterman algorithms as part of LMCF development and I now have the alg sets with way better ergonomics and significantly lower movecount, making the method even better.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

I have recalculated the Waterman algorithms as part of LMCF development and I now have the alg sets with way better ergonomics and significantly lower movecount, making the method even better.

Do you also have algs for CLL (ignoring E slice) and Solving two redges simultaniously ?

 

[efattah]

Do you also have algs for CLL (ignoring E slice) and Solving two redges simultaniously ?

Around 75% of my LMCF CLL algorithms work with waterman and the other 25% would need to be regenerated. I have all the algos optimized/updated for solving two redges simultaneously, even three redges sometimes, and also the last ledge and two redges at the same time, and solving the last 2 redges while orienting the midges. People have often misquoted the number of algorithms in Waterman's original method, because his original PDF document is deceiving in the way it lists algos. The original Waterman method has around 380 algorithms.

 

[Deleted member 51471]

Around 75% of my LMCF CLL algorithms work with waterman and the other 25% would need to be regenerated. I have all the algos optimized/updated for solving two redges simultaneously, even three redges sometimes, and also the last ledge and two redges at the same time, and solving the last 2 redges while orienting the midges. People have often misquoted the number of algorithms in Waterman's original method, because his original PDF document is deceiving in the way it lists algos. The original Waterman method has around 380 algorithms.

Is all this in your LMCF doc ?

 

[icarneiro]

CFOP (now) > ZZ > ..... > begginer method > Roux

I prefer to use the beginning layer method than to use Roux

 

[Deleted member 51471]

CFOP (now) > ZZ > ..... > begginer method > Roux

I prefer to use the beginning layer method than to use Roux

I thought you used roux.

 

[Owen Morrison]

I thought you used roux.

I am not going to get in another argument but I think we all know why he doesn't use Roux.