mukerflap
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2020
- Messages
- 261
it's as intuitive as cfop f2lExcluding CMLL, Roux is completely intuitive. Why do you say this?
it's as intuitive as cfop f2lExcluding CMLL, Roux is completely intuitive. Why do you say this?
Roux mixes things up:Roux isnt like that it's not really that intuitive
Half of the CFOP steps are algorithmic, while only 1/4 of Roux steps are.it's as intuitive as cfop f2l
3/4 if you use algorithmic F2L.Half of the CFOP steps are algorithmic, while only 1/4 of Roux steps are.
Ok, well when you're trying to convince people to use CFOP say :I don't think I ever say it like that but I agree with you.
I agree. With something like Roux, M slices get hard on big cubes.I think the only reason why CFOP is the best is because it is fast for 4x4 and bigger.
You say there is no point in saying more, but I disagree. This point should be repeated often.the most important thing is having fun.
Only on 6x6 and up, I can sub 4 lse on 5x5I agree. With something like Roux, M slices get hard on big cubes.
I've had a lot of fun with SSC and PCMS lately. I'm an intuitive cuber, and it's great fun to understand different methods, and to work out my own solutions to their steps. One of the best things about cubes and other twisty puzzles is that there are so many different ways to solve them. I use many different methods for different purposes:I for example appreciate Corners First Methods because we all forgot about the Ideas in the 80s like Corners First oder Waterman, Salvia etc. Corners First are really fast because of the ergonomic <U,M> Group. So in addition to that some won't even need cube rotations. Especially Waterman was back then highly evolved. Roux is a bit of corners First, which makes it a cool method. CFOP can be replaced by CFCE. I think we forgot the intuitive Side of cubing. It makes more fun to think about the cube as an object in respect of logical thinking. People back then didn't have computers to create algorithms. Corners First is something incredible and intuitive and its like cubing back to the roots
I read the CFOP section of that thread and the "Quotes from the best" seemed to be very selected quotes from a CFOP user saying why Roux is better than CFOP. I think this thread is biased and is not the best resource for beginnersI'm just going to put what I have to say here, and then I'll probably never post here again.
Those beginners should be directed to the Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method thread, and they can choose for themselves which method is best for them.
Antoine Cantin is faster then you now.I read the CFOP section of that thread and the "Quotes from the best" seemed to be very selected quotes from a CFOP user slower than me saying why Roux is better than CFOP. I think this thread is biased and is not the best resource for beginners
Lewis method does this. I also use this technique in my 4x4 method. These are both direct solving methods, not reduction methods. Sandwich method also ends up in this state, but it starts with corners first so it's not really like building blocks in Roux.what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux
Did you use Lewis method? I'm guessing yes, since you're using commutators to solve the last edges. I prefer to solve the edges before solving the last centers with commutators, since you can avoid parity completely that way. Always cool to see people experimenting with new methods.cool, i tried to do it by my self and im on the last wings, i plan to use bld algs to swap the wings
what if there was a yau method that made 2 blocks on ether side like roux
User dbeyer is also working on a Roux-based 4x4 method. See this video:and i did it