Roux-breaker? The YruRU method

[Owen Morrison]

Yes, then that is exactly the same as the “letter N” circlet. It’s offset by one target, but at the end of the day it’s cyclic so it doesn’t matter.

Thanks for this, I think I am just now understanding a lot more about these circlets and how they are cyclic.


Sorry I am asking so many questions, but how do you know which direction you go with the circlet? I know it has something to do with the locations of 5 and 6 but how do they decide which direction to go when doing the advanced cp?

 

[Devagio]

Thanks for this, I think I am just now understanding a lot more about these circlets and how they are cyclic.


Sorry I am asking so many questions, but how do you know which direction you go with the circlet? I know it has something to do with the locations of 5 and 6 but how do they decide which direction to go when doing the advanced cp?

You just have to memorise the directions individually. I know that’s tedious, but there’s just 8 cases, so brute force memorisation should be okay. I don’t know if @CuberStache figured out some pattern though.
Also, it’s great you’re asking these questions, because when someone comes to learn this next, they’ll not have to ask all this, they’ll just be able to read just from here.

 

[Cuberstache]

For the directions, having 5 solved or 6 solved is the "correct" direction, while having 6 in 5 or 5 in 6 is "backward". Then for the two cases with both in the U layer, just memorize those, there are only two.

 

[Owen Morrison]

For the directions, having 5 solved or 6 solved is the "correct" direction, while having 6 in 5 or 5 in 6 is "backward". Then for the two cases with both in the U layer, just memorize those, there are only two.

What defines if 5 or 6 is solved?

 

[Devagio]

For the directions, having 5 solved or 6 solved is the "correct" direction, while having 6 in 5 or 5 in 6 is "backward". Then for the two cases with both in the U layer, just memorize those, there are only two.

I have a similar way to do it, where if 5 is ahead of 6 on the beginner thread, then I say that the direction is “correct”. But again, it’s still brute force memorisation.

What defines if 5 or 6 is solved?

5 is solved if it is in DFR (even if twisted); similarly for 6.

 

[Owen Morrison]

I have a similar way to do it, where if 5 is ahead of 6 on the beginner thread, then I say that the direction is “correct”. But again, it’s still brute force memorisation.

5 is solved if it is in DFR (even if twisted); similarly for 6.

Is 6 solved if it is in DFR, or DBR?

 

[Devagio]

Is 6 solved if it is in DFR, or DBR?

So what I believe he does is:
For inverted N, Diamond, and inverted Bolt; he has memorised the direction for when 5 is in DFR. If in these cases 5 is not in DFR, he reverses the direction.
Similarly, for arrowhead, bolt and inverted V, he has memorised the direction for when 6 is in DBR. If in these cases 6 is not in DBR, he reverses the direction.
For N and V, he has just memorised normally.

The way I do it is, for every case, I have memorised the direction when 6 is after 5 (as per the beginner thread). If 6 is before 5, I reverse the direction.

At the end of the day, as long as you’re not doing something really long winded, all that matters is that you’ve memorised it, not how you’ve done it.

 

[PapaSmurf]

This is still Briggs. CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL vs CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. With Briggs you can influence EO while doing CPFB. Same with YruRU. With Briggs you can do things like anti phasing etc. Same with YruRU.

The only requirement for a method to be Briggs is to solve FB and CP before you solve anything else, then solving EODFDB. The way you do that doesn't change the method. Yes, you can also influence the next step, but you can do that in any method (see: XCross not making a completely new method). The website is great and it is a clear tutorial for people who want to learn how to do Briggs but whatever you say it is still Briggs. To anyone who is currently trying to progress with Briggs, I would recommend also taking a look at 2GR style CP because it might help to give a different perspective on CP (although the page is kinda cryptic) and it definitely allows for CPFB in inspection.

They are the same method, just as ZZ-a and ZZ-b are, just as Roux and Roux with EOLR are. I completely appreciate the progression that this method has gone through (mainly pEO) down to you, but it's still Briggs and that doesn't change.

 

[Nmile7300]

This is still Briggs. CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL vs CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. With Briggs you can influence EO while doing CPFB. Same with YruRU. With Briggs you can do things like anti phasing etc. Same with YruRU.

The only requirement for a method to be Briggs is to solve FB and CP before you solve anything else, then solving EODFDB. The way you do that doesn't change the method. Yes, you can also influence the next step, but you can do that in any method (see: XCross not making a completely new method). The website is great and it is a clear tutorial for people who want to learn how to do Briggs but whatever you say it is still Briggs. To anyone who is currently trying to progress with Briggs, I would recommend also taking a look at 2GR style CP because it might help to give a different perspective on CP (although the page is kinda cryptic) and it definitely allows for CPFB in inspection.

They are the same method, just as ZZ-a and ZZ-b are, just as Roux and Roux with EOLR are. I completely appreciate the progression that this method has gone through (mainly pEO) down to you, but it's still Briggs and that doesn't change.

That doesn't mean people can't call it YruRU. You can call CFOP Fridrich. You can call Ortega Varsano. Therefore there is no reason to force people to call this method Briggs.

 

[shadowslice e]

That doesn't mean people can't call it YruRU. You can call CFOP Fridrich. You can call Ortega Varsano. Therefore there is no reason to force people to call this method Briggs.

I'm just going to point out that in both cases CFOP and Varasano are preferred over the alternatives due to primacy. The old names aren't so much used as they were not the inventors though many made the mistake at the time

 

[ProStar]

I'm just going to point out that in both cases CFOP and Varasano are preferred over the alternatives due to primacy. The old names aren't so much used as they were not the inventors though many made the mistake at the time

I hardly ever hear Varasano, it's always Ortega

 

[Nmile7300]

I'm just going to point out that in both cases CFOP and Varasano are preferred over the alternatives due to primacy. The old names aren't so much used as they were not the inventors though many made the mistake at the time

Yeah my fault for being lazy and not finding better examples. Point is, there are still many methods with alternate names and there's no point in discouraging someone from using one name over another.

EDIT: I just wanted to say that I'm not sure where I stand on whether YruRU is Briggs or not. What I was saying before was that in the theoretical situation that @shadowslice e says that they are the same (because that's the only way we will ever be able to decide imo), people should still be able to call it YruRU if they want.

 

[shadowslice e]

Yeah my fault for being lazy and not finding better examples. Point is, there are still many methods with alternate names and there's no point in discouraging someone from using one name over another.

EDIT: I just wanted to say that I'm not sure where I stand on whether YruRU is Briggs or not. What I was saying before was that in the theoretical situation that @shadowslice e says that they are the same (because that's the only way we will ever be able to decide imo), people should still be able to call it YruRU if they want.

Sure, I don't have any problem with alternative names. This is far from the first time I've conceded alternative names for the same method. If you think there's no point discouraging alternate names, however, then I point you to the whole ortega vs varasano controversy there was a few years ago (as well as the CFOP vs Fridrich one but it's harder to find good references for that since it was a much longer time ago).

I hardly ever hear Varasano, it's always Ortega

Old habits die hard. Varasano is a newer name referencing another cuber with greater primacy so most of the documents are from pre-varasano days. It took the better part of a decade for CFOP to be more commonly used than fridrich. Even now you'll see that a lot of older cubers still use Fridrich.

 

[PapaSmurf]

I would say that the CP recog/solving style should be YruRU, just under the Briggs umbrella, just as there's also 2GR style. With the Ortega/Varasano thing, most people who know would agree that Varasano is the correct name but most people don't know, so just point them to Chris Olson's website/video. With the CFOP/Fridrich thing, the same thing happened but everyone knew about it at the time so that's why we're at the point where everyone calls it CFOP. The difference between now and all those other occasions is that back then this happpened due to lack of resources/knowledge due to no internet, but now we have the internet and it's pretty clear to see that Briggs preceeded YruRu by quite a bit and as they're identical, Briggs is the name of the method.

 

[Devagio]

Why are we starting this debate over and over again.
When say Gilles Roux thought of the idea of CP first, I’m sure he exactly went in the order CP-line > CPFB > CP-EO-223 > finish.
There is absolutely no amount of intellectual leap in how to solve the cube after CP-line; there is one clear speed-optimal way. If there comes a day some person can do CPFB in inspection, then this may change to there being 2 clear speed optimal ways, but the point still holds.
Thus naming it after a person is pointless.
Fair enough, we can the approach of this thread “YruRU-style CP-first”; and equivalently there will be “2GR-style CP-first” and so on; I have agreed to that in the past and I stand by it now. But this doesn’t come under the Briggs umbrella because any development made outside of CP was universally obvious, objectively speaking.

 

[Cuberstache]

This is still Briggs.

Why are we starting this debate over and over again.

Please, anyone who cares about your opinion has already heard it a million times. You're not saying anything new and no one's mind has changed. Just give it up already.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Ok, should we call it Roux2? That's the most accurate (after maybe Roux and calling Roux Roux2 depending on what came first). But if we talk about the 'rediscovery' of CP first, I would argue that Briggs is the first method that actually made the intellectual leap of CP during FB. The original proposal wasn't necessarily refined but neither was CFOP or any other good method. Also, there have been people who did CPFB in inspection using the 2GR system btw. Anyway, I would think that Briggs with YruRU style CP is the best way to describe your idea, which, as I've said before, is a pretty cool thing to come up with, but it's certainly no different to Briggs as far as the 'method' construction goes.
Also, TIL that people have come up with things such as pEO in the past.
So, this 'method' is Briggs with YruRU style CP. You can do Briggs with 2GR style CP. You could also do it with the bad comm CP thing which was pretty cool for its time. Basically, whatever it is, as long as it follows CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL you are doing Briggs. A recognition system does not denote a new method. That would mean that there are about 5 different methods that all end with ZBLL for example; that would be absurd. Instead you look at the pieces that are solved in the step (CPFB) and then voila, same method.
Briggs with YruRU style CP, the best way to describe the method.

 

[Nmile7300]

Please, anyone who cares about your opinion has already heard it a million times. You're not saying anything new and no one's mind has changed. Just give it up already.

Ok, should we call it Roux2? That's the most accurate (after maybe Roux and calling Roux Roux2 depending on what came first). But if we talk about the 'rediscovery' of CP first, I would argue that Briggs is the first method that actually made the intellectual leap of CP during FB. The original proposal wasn't necessarily refined but neither was CFOP or any other good method. Also, there have been people who did CPFB in inspection using the 2GR system btw. Anyway, I would think that Briggs with YruRU style CP is the best way to describe your idea, which, as I've said before, is a pretty cool thing to come up with, but it's certainly no different to Briggs as far as the 'method' construction goes.
Also, TIL that people have come up with things such as pEO in the past.
So, this 'method' is Briggs with YruRU style CP. You can do Briggs with 2GR style CP. You could also do it with the bad comm CP thing which was pretty cool for its time. Basically, whatever it is, as long as it follows CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL you are doing Briggs. A recognition system does not denote a new method. That would mean that there are about 5 different methods that all end with ZBLL for example; that would be absurd. Instead you look at the pieces that are solved in the step (CPFB) and then voila, same method.
Briggs with YruRU style CP, the best way to describe the method.

Uh hello?

 

[AlphaCuber is awesome]

Why are we starting this debate over and over again.

Probably because you refuse to accept that you haven’t invented a new method despite lots of evidence from multiple people who know lots about methods pointing out it’s the same method.
If we accept YruRU as a new method And not just a variant then we have to accept every dumb kids Roux Cfop hybrid method that is clearly just worse freefop but varies in some small way.

 

[Devagio]

Probably because you refuse to accept that you haven’t invented a new method

Fair enough, we can the ***approach*** of this thread “YruRU-style CP-first”; and equivalently there will be “2GR-style CP-first” and so on; I have agreed to that in the past and I stand by it now.

Fact Checking.

The only issue I have is calling these method/s “Briggs”. Since there exists a single obvious path after CP-line, one that most cubers can come up with (and did previously, and did later on), naming the method after a person is wrong. It is especially wrong when the person’s approach of the only non-trivial part was neither viable, nor the first; though that’s besides the point. Call it CEF (for CP-line, EO-223, Finish) for all I care, vote and pick an impersonal name. We will have different styles in the way CP is solved that we can prefix to it, the three CP styles (Briggs, 2GR, YruRU) are completely different, there’s no debate there.