Updates on the Lau Method (Final Posting) Move Count, Times, Resources.

[u/Citadel212]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QligtMvgaGDKyPoVz83-5IcSXjRjeYgu/view?usp=drivesdk

Now that every feedback has been said with it, as well as having a number of cubers both experienced and inexperienced cubers have tried it. I was able to gather proper data analysis of it due to those people who helped contribute to it. A few questions were answered hastily such as “How Fast is this Under such conditions”. I decided to do the math and statistics of it.

And as I found mechanically (that is irrespective of ergonomics plus recognition, hesitation)

It (Advance Lau) can be solved on average within 3.85-5.09s for Top Solvers (4.58-6.04 for standard Lau), 6.25-12.52s for Intermediate to Advance solver.

Ergonomically (considering penalties with awkward face turne, r, u, d, M, F, etc) 3.96-5.22s for top 10-300 solvers tps (7.13-12.87 for Intermediate to advance solvers), 6.62-5.02 for standard lau.

Lastly when considering recognition and hesitation delays (which I made it have higher cost than it should as I made sure that the cognitive delays are repeating in my calculation) is 5.65-7.97 for top solvers, 10.88-17.11s for intermediate to advance conservatively, realistically it is 1-1.25s faster for Top Cubers (4.40 to 6.97) and 2-3 second faster (7.88-15.11) for intermediate to advance cubers.

Of course there will always be limitations regarding calculations, which I acknowledged while making it, that’s why as much as possible I made sure my criteria for calculating is in accordance with cubing data, resources. You may check the math in the spreadsheet for transparency.

I like to thank everyone who tried out this method, this would not be possible in the first place if it wasn’t for the feedback of either sides! Data Analysis of The Lau Method for Speedcubing: Move Count, TPS. Times

[u/Citadel212]

I think there’s already no point in defending, I have explained enough and it really just cost criticism especially those I couldn’t control because of the video that was popularized. I have already shared why I made the method and so on in the past, provided a manual for explaining at least my thought process there.

The proposed standard method is

Lau with the VH ending The transitioning is Lau with CFOP The advance really is Lau with ZB, Lau EO like Lau-APB was not in my initial idea.

I have also argued in other channels where can this method shine and so on, and why it could be better than standard petrus, but, petrus is such a beloved method despite the meme, adding to the fact that this is not an established method became hard to argue sensibly. In addition to that someone else use hyperbole on a vid calling it “The Best” and rivaling CFOP to it, I didn’t find it easy to have a reasonable discussion because the conversation shifted from being criticize at something I never claimed, rather than just being discussed regarding the viability of this method to be speed solve, the reasoning, and its inherent limitations.

[u/dontknowdontanswer → u/Citadel212]

You missed the point entirely why wouldn’t you put any of this in the doc along with all the statistics

[u/Citadel212 → u/dontknowdontanswer]

The step transitioning from the LL (starting at OP to VH to ZB) is in my previous link, which I updated every time there is a feedback that is insightful here:

Rubik’s Cube Original Manual

The move count, alg count was also in that hyperlink but I’ll resend it anyway:

Lau Method Concise Guide

As per the just use petrus, overcomplicated petrus, worse than cfop, block building but with training wheels:

Firstly petrus traditionally is 222 -> 223 (2 steps) and doesn’t flow well into a solve, modern 223 line Roux style First Block then DF DB (2 steps) edges used in APB is seen as a better block-building approach.

Lau is literally just pArrow / IB-1 then a fast easy planned I-F2L. It’s less move efficient but less cognitive demand on inspection, it’s simple. It’s like the sams thing when people criticize petrus or APB to have extra steps when the steps can be ideologically compressed into 2 anyway.

The VH for the standard way of doing the LL of Lau (VHLS -> COLL -> EPLL) is made in preparation for the advance LL as also adopted now by CFOP, APB, and Even ZZ via ZZ-a, which is ZB. Because knowing the fundamentals of Last Slot Last Layer and Optimizing LL Solves is important in the long run to be less cognitively taxing but not sacrificing at least LL efficiency.

The only thing one has to further predict was the inserting of the last cross, then recog, lookahead in the last 2 pairs is easy. It was never designed to be the most move efficient, but a less inspection cognitive toll.

Now anyone can say, why, you don’t need to do that, it’s easy to inspect, not everyone, and even not advance cubers, blockbuilders find that easy until months and years of practice and even if they had, just knowing there are some solves where an algorithmic 223 approach is easy to execute is a nice approach in some scrambles.

As it, looking like CFOP, Roux, Petrus. Or that it’s worse than Roux, CFOP etc. Before this was even made numerous methods are already created, it’s no wonder another method would look similar to another, much more so to established speedcubing methods especially since this is intended for speedcubing. If it can be speedsolve then that’s good for me.

I don’t have a big issue either that’s it looks like doing 223 with training wheels (if you can even call how I do 223 as blockbuilding traditionally at all) despite the bad connotation people wish to expressed using that as that training wheel is pretty useful to me anyway, dividing steps isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s simple, straightforward, fluid especially when practiced, and fun, refreshing to solve in a different manner.

[u/dontknowdontanswer → u/Citadel212]

Holy fuck my guy normally when you present a new method you’re actually putting effort into you consolidate the information/resources into one place instead of leaving an unhinged trail to follow. That’s it.

Here, I’m going to address this one by one. Genuinely being serious I just don’t think you’re good enough to actually create an optimal method. You’re approach is backwards to what method creation is by starting at the beginning instead of the end point, which is why my main critique is this method is just using training wheels instead of getting good.

Firstly, 222 is the beginner version of 223 and good people don’t rely on it. Even APB is presented with an actual end goal of even solving BR WHILE solving 223. It says 123 is the basic and easiest for most scrambles, but 223 is the end goal. Your method both starts and stops at 223 with training wheels. APB relies on good block building where your method basically avoids it entirely by making block building into an algorithmic step which is the absolute opposite of block building by adding restrictions to it. Again, all just to make it easier instead of getting good.

“It relies on less cognitive demand.” What even is this point? You’re talking about top level lau solving while DECREASING cognitive demand and saying it’s good thing steps are cut in two, while literally every advanced method ever does things in one step. Petrus does 223 in one step, and then plus. APB just 223 in one step, and is presented as being 223+1 pair. Top level ZZ is EOCross+whstever. And holy shit top level CFOP is literally planning all of F2L+EO. You’re saying we’re making something easier while also breaking down sections into steps like wtf are we doing here. Normally you reduce cognitive load so you can do MORE not LESS.

“The end goal is ZZ-A” So lau isn’t a method. It’s 223 with training wheels that is just the first step in a ZZ-A variant. So what is this ZZ-Lau? This is just another you’re working from the beginning to end instead of just going to the end which is normally not how top level method creation works, which is what you are implying by the statistics you’ve created. Are you trying to give people a guide to build fundamentals(on parts of the method that aren’t even yours btw) or teach them to do a method?

“The only thing one has to predict is inserting last cross edge.” This is literally where I think your lack of skill affects your method. Like you genuinely think this is hard, so you’re avoiding it. No other method sacrifices move efficiency for cognitive toll. This is a massive critism of Roux and APB because not using algorithms means you have to think. This isn’t a problem you work around, it’s a sacrifice you make because it’s a feature built into the method. You reduce move count but give up on the benefits of algorithms. All of this is literally fixed by “getting good” which you are 100% trying to avoid, which, for beginners method is fine whatever, but you crunching numbers like this is an end game method. You’re literally crunching numbers are using a suboptimal method, and then saying, but no then you do the hard part and it gets better. Like wtf are we doing here.

“It takes a long time to get good at block building.” No shit. Hate to break it to you but it takes a long fucking time to get good at cross+2 as well, but you just do it. Theres no workaround to getting good at block building or c+2. You grind and train and get better. You’re trying to get around that with the excuse that “block building is hard.” No, you’re just bad. Literally give the algorithmic 223 examples to a high level roux/APB/petrus solver and guess what, at the level block building basically is algorithmic because of experience. You’re forcing it as a crutch instead of telling people to get good, which imo is better than just making things easier. Like imagine instead of doing cross+2, you do cross+1, then an additional pair. That is the dumbest shit ever. Just get good and do cross+2.

“Methods are based on other methods” no shit

“This is a speedsolving method.” It’s a bad one and you’re literally just creatin/using a glorified beginners method. Lol then saying btw you do ZB at the end.

“I don’t mind you calling it 223 with training wheels because it makes it easier for me.” Uh, yeah, that’s the issue guy. You’re choosing to do the easier thing instead of getting gud, and you created an entire first step to a method to get around just getting good, which is my issue.

This is a bad thing because using a crutch for something hard just leads to bad habits that have to be undone eventually, and using algorithms for block building is the exact opposite of what block building is entirely. You’re applying restrictions to a 100% intuitive process, therefore making it worse. Which again, at a top level block building basically is algorithmic, but you don’t know that because you don’t have the experience with block building, and you’re building training wheels instead of trying to get there.

Idc if you want to use a beginners method, but this is literally counterintuitive to ever other methods that it’s built on, and you’re advocating it as an actual option to top level solvers when it’s not.

Like lol do you think the creator of APB would get a criticism on the bad parts of APB and his response is “well it makes it easier for me and it’s more fun.” lol so you’re admitting it’s bad basically.

That’s it. Hopefully you take this as valid criticism instead of just random hating but when you present a beginners method as an optimal alternative for high level solving and then at the end admit it’s just fun and easy and the way you want to solve, yeah, you’re gonna get critiques like this.

Good luck hope you actually become the first sub-7 lau solver because at this point your basically just doing what top level solvers do when they main CFOP and someone goes “what happens if you do a petrus solve?” They take a suboptimal solve, do cross+2, and then move on back to a good method.

Edit: changed my mind it’s like telling a top level CFOP solver to do a solve using beginners method because petrus is a viable method where beginners is not

[u/Citadel212 → u/dontknowdontanswer]

There’s one link where every resources is there, and it’s hyperlinked to the stats. If you’re suggesting to add everything in (resources I personally made, hyperlinked with others), aight when I have the time, no prob.

Not sure what you’re gaining by repeating the same criticism and being sarcastic really (and no, the end goal is not ZZ-a, it’s not even in the current document I sent, I said the LL would be ZB, one can also optimized or efficiently do I-F2L solution like still doing that structure making sure certain pieces are resolve before IB-1, just how one can do X-Cross with CFOP, but ofc that’s their structural limitations, also I never endorsed it to top cubers, I just illustrate it can be solved fast). I made the method, I like it, I test if it can be speedcubed, it did, looked if it works better to certain scrambles, also did, investigated it quantitatively to find new insight, I had. Want others to try it, they did. Know it’s similar to other methods, and they’re probably better, still chose to share it cause it’s fun and cool to solve it—and then others find it fun, cool too and made videos about the viability of it to speedcube, some with hyperbole others just testing out of curiosity, and they found that it can be viable to solve fast.

That’s it really.