system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Solving a Rubik's cube in the fewest moves is far a more impressive intellectual feat than solving it quickly

I will preface this by saying that I have nothing against speedcubing and speedcubers. It is highly impressive that people can solve scrambled cubes in a matter of seconds, and I respect all those who dedicate their lives to mastering the art of solving them quickly. There is no denying that it takes a huge amount of training, skill, and manual dexterity to become a competitive speedcuber.

That being said, I believe that being able to solve any given permutation of the cube in the fewest moves is a far more impressive intellectual feat (and one that should be valued more in competitions). Speedcubers are fast because they can recognise patterns quickly and are able to apply memorised algorithms. This takes a lot of practice, but is ultimately a question of experience. As you become more familiar with different permutations of the cube, you develop a 'feel' for which algorithms to apply and can rapidly execute them as a result. 

On the other hand, I am under the impression that fewest-move solves are much more difficult to master, since there are no fixed 'solving methods' for any given arrangement of the cube. It becomes an exercise in trying to develop your own algorithms on the fly so as to minimise the number of moves you will need, as opposed to an exercise in quickly applying algorithms that you have already memorised. In a sense this makes it more like solving a Rubik's cube 'au naturel' - without having read up on algorithms at all - a task that very few would be able to accomplish. In my view this makes it much more intellectually stimulating and challenging than speedsolving, and is why I believe that fewest-move solves should be the centrepiece of Rubik's cube competitions. CMV.

EDIT: I've just woken up and have received a tremendous number of replies, from cubers and non-cubers alike. Thank you all for your input; I've really enjoyed reading your replies even though I haven't had the chance to respond to all of them. The replies I have received from those experienced in both events have been the most enlightening. I gather it looks like I'm underestimating the amount of algorithmic thought required for fewest move count solves and oversimplifying the process of speedsolving. I'm not sure I've reversed my opinion just yet but it does give me something to think about. I also no longer think there is a valid basis for valuing what is perceived to be the more 'intellectual' event in cubing competitions.
gpt
If you tell five experienced cubers to solve a cube as quickly as possible, then you have one obvious winner at the end. That guy looks impressive and spectators are entertained.

If you all give five experienced cubers a Rubik's cube in the same order with infinite time to think, then they'll all give you a solution with the same number of solution steps. So then how do you determine who has won? It's also not really exciting from a spectator standpoint to see five guys think really hard for an hour and then all come up with equally good solutions.