Joffie Berkowitz
Member
ZZ Method: Why don't you complete the cross first? Isn't it still faster than completing it during F2L?
but then u cant blockbuild efficiently and it will be harder to plan out in inspectionZZ Method: Why don't you complete the cross first? Isn't it still faster than completing it during F2L?
This video begs to differ:
Yooooo, I been doing EOCross, and once you get good with it, it's SICK.
You avoid awkward L2 and R2, and you can just spam TPS, and if you have a background in CFOP, it's bretty gud.
For anyone who tells you that EOCross is too hard compared to EOLine, the secret is to git gud.
Well, considering the guy was primarily a CFOP solver, it doesn't even discounting the fact he said he is switching to blockbuilding ZZ because it is probably faster.This video begs to differ:
It may not be real ZZ, but I think it's probably faster.
Because it is less efficient and lookahead isn't actually any better because you have to track more pieces and work out which one is nicer so in general FB->SB is betterwhy dont we solve dr and dl then do 4 f2l pairs for roux?
blockbuilding is efficient and as hard as it may be having 8 ways to do your first block helps alot
Because it is less efficient and lookahead isn't actually any better because you have to track more pieces and work out which one is nicer so in general FB->SB is better
Yes, I do agree with this but mostly for the reason that CFOP works well for CFOP. However, if another method can be created to work well with a specific part of CFOP, it stands to reason that it should be implemented. To clarify, a method should not have something simply because it has been done before and it works especially if it is not that hard to think of other ways which could be better. For example, if you want to get rid of F2L, then there is clearly something wrong with the way in which you think in terms of methods as something like F2L is in fact a useful concept and a good way to reduce the cube to something which a solver can use.And this is the same with zz in general we should make every method as far from cfop
This I almost completely disagree with and think it is quite a stupid position. Let's break this down:because it's bad and stupid and slow and ineffiecnt and alg intensive and look ahead intensive and slow and bad and unoriginal and bad and bad and bad
This is quite a baseless and unfounded comment especially as it is still statistically the fastest and most successful method which has ever been created. A more reasonable perspective would be that it does not have the most potential for speed for 3x3 or OH though it clearly is not bad as it seems to have taken us reasonably close to the theoretical and generally agreed limit to human speedsolving times.
I'm not even sure what you mean here. If you mean that it is a method which is not open to innovation, i point you to the fact that it can be used with almost technique you can name: VHLS? what do you think it was designed for? MGLS, of course. Partial edge control? Again, designed originally for CFOP. If you mean that lazy people use CFOP, then why are there more potential expansions for CFOP than any method with the only possible exception being ZZ though I'm still inclined to there being more for CFOP. Another interpretation of "lazy" would be that it is only algs and can not be used in any other way. As a counter example to this, I point you to a little technique used by almost all the fastest solvers: multislotting (and partial edge control though to a lesser degree).stupid
Again, it is the most successful method which has thus far been created and the fastest method yet utilised. While this might not be that strong an argument as for years corners first was the fastest though it is now accepted it cannot be used to consistently get world class times. However, as CFOP is still faster than almost every other method (and there is only so much faster we can get given the limits of human cognition and physiology). This is not to say that I think that CFOP has the greatest potential (in fact I think there are at least 2 methods which can be used to get faster times) but rather that it is far from slowslow
This depend on what metric you are using. In most metrics, yes, it is less efficient than many modern methods: notably Roux. However, as @Robert-Y pointed out to me when I was quite new to the forum as well as cubing, it deos quite well in SQTM which is arguably the most important metric when it comes to speed (though personally I prefer AQTM though the situation is similar there). There are also many ways in which you can improve the efficiency such as Xcrosses and the multislotting mentioned above. Also, in modern cubing there is a general balance which has to be struck between efficiency and turning speed (hence why not everyone uses the same method) and CFOP is definitely leaning towards fast turning which is not necessarily a bad think.inefficient
Honestly, it isn't. It really just isn't. This might have been a reasonable position to hold maybe 10 years ago, in the current era it really does not have any base as there are many more methods which have a higher alg count such as ZZ-CT, ZB or similar. There is also a somewhat dangerous slant towards method creators becoming anti-algorithm. While I am all for elimination of arbitrary algorithms, they do have their place in modern methods and indeed form one of the foundational parts of modern cubing: a list which also includes Blockbuilding, Lookahead and Intuition. If something can be done faster with algorithms without too much recognition time or case count, then use algorithms.alg intensive
What method (at world class level) isn't?lookahead intensive
See above.slow
See above.
I don't see how this is a criticism. CFOP is one of the oldest methods and also the longest enduring and successful and the only remaining member of the original big 3 thanks to it being one of the most adaptable. Even if it wasn't, would you came up with a whole new method of multiplying by 10 just because the simple and effective method of "adding a 0" was unoriginal?unoriginal
Yes, I do agree with this but mostly for the reason that CFOP works well for CFOP. However, if another method can be created to work well with a specific part of CFOP, it stands to reason that it should be implemented. To clarify, a method should not have something simply because it has been done before and it works especially if it is not that hard to think of other ways which could be better. For example, if you want to get rid of F2L, then there is clearly something wrong with the way in which you think in terms of methods as something like F2L is in fact a useful concept and a good way to reduce the cube to something which a solver can use.
This I almost completely disagree with and think it is quite a stupid position. Let's break this down:
This is quite a baseless and unfounded comment especially as it is still statistically the fastest and most successful method which has ever been created. A more reasonable perspective would be that it does not have the most potential for speed for 3x3 or OH though it clearly is not bad as it seems to have taken us reasonably close to the theoretical and generally agreed limit to human speedsolving times.
I'm not even sure what you mean here. If you mean that it is a method which is not open to innovation, i point you to the fact that it can be used with almost technique you can name: VHLS? what do you think it was designed for? MGLS, of course. Partial edge control? Again, designed originally for CFOP. If you mean that lazy people use CFOP, then why are there more potential expansions for CFOP than any method with the only possible exception being ZZ though I'm still inclined to there being more for CFOP. Another interpretation of "lazy" would be that it is only algs and can not be used in any other way. As a counter example to this, I point you to a little technique used by almost all the fastest solvers: multislotting (and partial edge control though to a lesser degree).
Again, it is the most successful method which has thus far been created and the fastest method yet utilised. While this might not be that strong an argument as for years corners first was the fastest though it is now accepted it cannot be used to consistently get world class times. However, as CFOP is still faster than almost every other method (and there is only so much faster we can get given the limits of human cognition and physiology). This is not to say that I think that CFOP has the greatest potential (in fact I think there are at least 2 methods which can be used to get faster times) but rather that it is far from slow
This depend on what metric you are using. In most metrics, yes, it is less efficient than many modern methods: notably Roux. However, as @Rob Yau pointed out to me when I was quite new to the forum as well as cubing, it deos quite well in SQTM which is arguably the most important metric when it comes to speed (though personally I prefer AQTM though the situation is similar there). There are also many ways in which you can improve the efficiency such as Xcrosses and the multislotting mentioned above. Also, in modern cubing there is a general balance which has to be struck between efficiency and turning speed (hence why not everyone uses the same method) and CFOP is definitely leaning towards fast turning which is not necessarily a bad think.
Honestly, it isn't. It really just isn't. This might have been a reasonable position to hold maybe 10 years ago, in the current era it really does not have any base as there are many more methods which have a higher alg count such as ZZ-CT, ZB or similar. There is also a somewhat dangerous slant towards method creators becoming anti-algorithm. While I am all for elimination of arbitrary algorithms, they do have their place in modern methods and indeed form one of the foundational parts of modern cubing: a list which also includes Blockbuilding, Lookahead and Intuition. If something can be done faster with algorithms without too much recognition time or case count, then use algorithms.
What method (at world class level) isn't?
See above.
See above.
I don't see how this is a criticism. CFOP is one of the oldest methods and also the longest enduring and successful and the only remaining member of the original big 3 thanks to it being one of the most adaptable. Even if it wasn't, would you came up with a whole new method of multiplying by 10 just because the simple and effective method of "adding a 0" was unoriginal?
I guess most people are not going to read the whole of this but I am not going to apologise for the long post because I feel that it is a necessity to put an end to the people who think that CFOP is bad simply because everyone uses it and they want to be hipster and can hold themselves up as "better" because they use another method.
While most frequenters of this forum will know that I do not think that CFOP is the be all and end all of methods, nor even the best method which we currently have, I just wanted to emphasise that I do not think that it is by any means a bad method.
Honestly, it isn't. It really just isn't. This might have been a reasonable position to hold maybe 10 years ago, in the current era it really does not have any base as there are many more methods which have a higher alg count such as ZZ-CT, ZB or similar. There is also a somewhat dangerous slant towards method creators becoming anti-algorithm. While I am all for elimination of arbitrary algorithms, they do have their place in modern methods and indeed form one of the foundational parts of modern cubing: a list which also includes Blockbuilding, Lookahead and Intuition. If something can be done faster with algorithms without too much recognition time or case count, then use algorithms.
I highly doubt anyone would be sub 3 just because one of those methods was invented first.if any other of the new methods roux m-cell zz etc where invented first we would be in a better place with sub 3 averages
Have you considered that most of those F2L 'algs' you saw were intuitive solutions? They're presented as algorithms to aid learning, but personally I only use a few algorithms for cases that have better, less-obvious solutions. I get sub-12 solves with intuition-heavy F2L and manage to use multislotting.its the amount of f2l algs people use to get sub 12 is ridiculous when i used to watch f2l vids
Then maybe before making all these claims of how superior your method is and how inferior ours is you should do a little more research first.no i didnt try to exagerate except from the alst thing i said i legitimately thought cfoppers used algs for every f2l case and actually thinking of thaem as intuition solutions makes it seems much more not crazy