A Hybrid method, Roux-Fridrich

[jms_gears1]

man up and use full roux?

This hybrid takes the fun out of roux, and the awsome M slice's

 

[JLarsen]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

 

[waffle=ijm]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

 

[jms_gears1]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

 

[JLarsen]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.

 

[jms_gears1]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.

OHH im advancing that method. Why not make a 3x3x2 block then OLL and PLL

 

[JLarsen]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.

OHH im advancing that method. Why not make a 3x3x2 block then OLL and PLL

3x3x2 block hahahaha I'm actually going to try this. Maybe 2x2x3 with a 1x2x3.

 

[jms_gears1]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.

OHH im advancing that method. Why not make a 3x3x2 block then OLL and PLL

3x3x2 block hahahaha I'm actually going to try this. Maybe 2x2x3 with a 1x2x3.

wouldnt that just be petrus without fixing the bad edges. seeing as you cant actually build the entire 1x2x3 after the 2x2x3.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.

OHH im advancing that method. Why not make a 3x3x2 block then OLL and PLL

3x3x2 block hahahaha I'm actually going to try this. Maybe 2x2x3 with a 1x2x3.

That's silly, just learn my method and start by making a 3x3x3 block.

 

[jms_gears1]

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.

ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!

Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better

I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.

OHH im advancing that method. Why not make a 3x3x2 block then OLL and PLL

3x3x2 block hahahaha I'm actually going to try this. Maybe 2x2x3 with a 1x2x3.

That's silly, just learn my method and start by making a 3x3x3 block.

that works. oh and after you complete that you have to perform this algorithm if you run into parity.

R2 L2 D2 B D B' L L' B D' B B2 D2 L2 r2 b2 d2 d2 b2 r2 R2

 

[qqwref]

I think the "cross only" method is the best. Just solve the cross. Are you done? If not, you did something wrong... so go solve a cross on another side. Still not done? Keep going... you'll get it eventually.

 

[JLarsen]

I think the "cross only" method is the best. Just solve the cross. Are you done? If not, you did something wrong... so go solve a cross on another side. Still not done? Keep going... you'll get it eventually.

LOL

What about this with a 2x2? Make them feel like they're doing something "hard"

 

[miniGOINGS]

LOL

What about this with a 2x2? Make them feel like they're doing something "hard"

Haha, I trademarked that method already .

 

[Rikane]

I think the "cross only" method is the best. Just solve the cross. Are you done? If not, you did something wrong... so go solve a cross on another side. Still not done? Keep going... you'll get it eventually.

Being stupid and not knowing anything about cube theory, I tried that out for fun.

F U' R2 D2 B F' L2 B' F' L D2 F2 L B F' R2 D' L2 R2 F U' L' D F2 R2
W-B-R-Y-O-G
Solve 29 - All crosses Solved.

F2 L2 B' R L' D' U' B2 F' L2 D2 L D2 B' R' U F D2 F D2 R U2 R' B F2
W-B-R-Y-O-G
Solve 22 - All crosses solved.

B U L2 D2 B F2 D R F' B2 U2 F2 B L B2 D2 L R F' D' B' D2 B2 D' B
W-B-R-Y-O-G
Solve 3, Yellow cross finished, skipped onto next colour
Solve 9 - All crosses solved.

Haha, waste of time.

 

[mazei]

Guys, to me its just a last 6 edges variant.

Do it as normal until CMLL. Do that, then bad edges then solve the DF and DB edges. Lastly you get a EPLL, which YOU CAN DO WITH M,U(Manchester United ). In any case, after doing some averages with Roux I feel like going back to it. Its a nice method but then again, I love redux on big cubes so I guess either I stick to Fridrich or learn a new big cube method or use both methods.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Guys, to me its just a last 6 edges variant.

Do it as normal until CMLL. Do that, then bad edges then solve the DF and DB edges. Lastly you get a EPLL, which YOU CAN DO WITH M,U(Manchester United ). In any case, after doing some averages with Roux I feel like going back to it. Its a nice method but then again, I love redux on big cubes so I guess either I stick to Fridrich or learn a new big cube method or use both methods.

We've already stated that this is very inefficient, unless it's a lucky case, like with 1 or both of the pieces already solved.

 

[bamilan]

I think Roux is a very clever person and an experienced speedcuber; and when he got the idea of starting with 2 opposite 1x2x3 blocks(blocks on opposite sides), he tried every finish possible. Counted move counts(number of moves), times, fingertricks, and the corners+6 edges finish were the best of them.
I think you cannot find any better finish(starting with 1x2x3 blocks).


Not so long ago I tried to change the method I used to a variation of the Roux and the Fridrich methods. My idea was to start with 1x2x2 blocks on opposite sides(with a lot of practise you can see how to solve them during the 15 sec inspection) => that was the best thing in it. This step can be done in ~3 seconds, which(if you think about it) is really good.


From this point you have a lot of options:

- finish with Fridrich: solve remaining 2 cross pieces(max 2 seconds), and continue the solve(solve the cross and 2 F2L in 5 sec is not too bad, but neither too good)

- finish with Roux: solve remaining 2 corner-edge pair(for this there are different methods[fridrich's F2L, Roux's CE pair, ...]), but it was slower for me than solving the 1x2x3 blocks with Roux(I am not good at Roux method(avg around 16 seconds); I don't think 1x2x2 is a better start then 1x2x3 if you finish the solve using Roux

- finish with Petrus: you can orient edges and solve the missing edge between the solved blocks at the same time, and then continue the solve; I think this was good because you need only 1 look to solve a 2x2x3 block with all edges oriented(inspection is not counted)

- also tried to finish with corners first, edges first, thistlethwaite, and so on; but they did not succeed

It is ONLY a good start if you can see both 1x2x2 blocks during inspection.


Milan

 

[miniGOINGS]

I think Roux is a very clever person and an experienced speedcuber; and when he got the idea of starting with 2 opposite 1x2x3 blocks(blocks on opposite sides), he tried every finish possible. Counted move counts(number of moves), times, fingertricks, and the corners+6 edges finish were the best of them.
I think you cannot find any better finish(starting with 1x2x3 blocks).


Not so long ago I tried to change the method I used to a variation of the Roux and the Fridrich methods. My idea was to start with 1x2x2 blocks on opposite sides(with a lot of practise you can see how to solve them during the 15 sec inspection) => that was the best thing in it. This step can be done in ~3 seconds, which(if you think about it) is really good.


From this point you have a lot of options:

- finish with Fridrich: solve remaining 2 cross pieces(max 2 seconds), and continue the solve(solve the cross and 2 F2L in 5 sec is not too bad, but neither too good)

- finish with Roux: solve remaining 2 corner-edge pair(for this there are different methods[fridrich's F2L, Roux's CE pair, ...]), but it was slower for me than solving the 1x2x3 blocks with Roux(I am not good at Roux method(avg around 16 seconds); I don't think 1x2x2 is a better start then 1x2x3 if you finish the solve using Roux

- finish with Petrus: you can orient edges and solve the missing edge between the solved blocks at the same time, and then continue the solve; I think this was good because you need only 1 look to solve a 2x2x3 block with all edges oriented(inspection is not counted)

- also tried to finish with corners first, edges first, thistlethwaite, and so on; but they did not succeed

It is ONLY a good start if you can see both 1x2x2 blocks during inspection.


Milan

Wow, that 16 average for Roux is horrible. I like your Petrus idea though.

Has anyone noticed that in ZZ, after the first 1x2x3 it is a Petrus solve?

 

[JLarsen]

Very much so.