[Help Thread] Roux Discussion and Help

[Daniel Wu]

I average 22ish with roux. The reason that I stopped practising roux as much is that it's bad for big cubes as well as OH. Personally, I think it's a better method for 3x3 though.

 

[Kirjava]

I have been working with CFOP for a little while and feel like I am doing pretty good at it (not amazing, but consistently sub 60 with one or two +60 if I make a mistake). I started to learn 2LOLL and 2LPLL. I have most of those algs down. I was wondering if I should continue with Fredrich and try to get all (or almost all algs) or of I should switch to Roux (I've heard people can do that method fast).

The first reply to this thread pretty much got it right. Try it if you want to, both methods are equally valid.

People who use Roux will tell you Roux is better. People who use Fridrich will tell you Fridrich is better.

That's because 'better' is subjective.

most of the top players use Fridrich

Statistics mean nothing.

if you're not good at doing M and M' moves, I'd avoid Roux.

M and M' fingertricks are learned, not already known.

If I want to try to experiment with Roux to see which I like better, should I try to learn alot of the method first or just try to get the basics down and see which method is better to pursue for right now. (I plan on trying to learn both in the future.)

These are the kind of things that you should be deciding yourself.

Even if some of the top cubers use CFOP, Roux is a relatively new method compared to CFOP. So most Roux solvers haven't had time to develop it like CFOP users have evolved from the original Fridrich Method.

It doesn't need development imo. The only real improvments to be made are better CMLL algs and LSE solving - both have been widely researched.

I love fried rice.

Also, I think that, being the most method-neutral person that I know of, I need to say something here.

Mizzle is more method neutral than you. I probably am, too.

Roux is good to learn on, but Fridrich will beat Roux overall.

You're stating this as if it's a fact.

I think that Roux is a great expansion to one's skills, and can provide new enjoyment in cubing overall. Also, if you have wicked-fast <M,U> speed, than there's a great chance you can do well with Roux.

I can't help but feel patronised by this paragraph.

Problems occur with Roux on other events way too often for it to be my 'main' method, however, so until further ado, I'll be using other methods such as Petrus, ZZ, and of course CFOP for speedsolving.

What problems? If you mean OH, since the rule change allowing you to use the table, there's a beautiful way to perform MU. If you mean using it after reduction, it's not exactly relevant, but that's why K4 exists.

well i think it depends on wat ever one you like but u should think about the bigger cubes too. Roux, as far as i know, is horrible on cubes with multiple layers in the middle so i think Fredrich would be good to learn if you are thinking about goiing onto other larger cubes, but it still is ur choice on the methods

Roux isn't designed for big cubes, so whats the point in trying to use it on them? Maybe it'd be smarter to use a method designed for that puzzle, instead.

Roux is more fun and has more room for improvement.

Subjective.

you should learn full Roux but use 2 look corners

I find that 1 look corners is faster.

I say you should experiment with building the first two blocks. I think it is the most difficult to become fast at. That is what I did when first trying out Roux, and I had so much fun I stuck with it.

This is good advice. I will add; go slowly and try and find short solutions.

I think Roux has great potential as well, as you can see with Biggreen, Waffle, and Gilles.

Ok, these are all from my point of view.

Roux: Because it's newer, it has more unexplored potential
Fridrich: Becuase it's older, it has more resources, and we know what works well and doesn't.

It's not that new, and it's been explored a lot more than you know about.

Roux: Uses restrictions to it's advantage.
Fridrich: Uses freedom to it's advantage.

What does this mean?

Roux: More options during inspection.

You mean 'more pieces to place in the first step, taking more advantage of inspection'. Or you could Xcross.

Fridrich: More options during the solve.

What does this mean?

Roux: Intuitive sequences that become algorithmic.
Fridrich: Algorithmic sequences that become intuitive.

Fridrich is largely intuitive sequences that become algorithmic, too.

Roux: Greatly a thinking method.
Fridrich: Greatly a doing method.

Both are pretty brainless after enough time.

That's how I see it.

Maybe you should reevaluate.

if u were saying avg of 12 ,
yes , i haven't seen any avg of 12 of roux solves get sub10..in vid i mean :rolleyes:

Statistics mean nothing.

well i think it depends on wat ever one you like but u should think about the bigger cubes too. Roux, as far as i know, is horrible on cubes with multiple layers in the middle so i think Fredrich would be good to learn if you are thinking about goiing onto other larger cubes, but it still is ur choice on the methods

Bigger cubes my point!!!
but for funn it is great

Time to reiterate. Roux isn't designed for big cubes, so whats the point in trying to use it on them? Maybe it'd be smarter to use a method designed for bigcubes - columns, cage, K4, sandwich, rouxby4.

i use fridrich myself but i like how sneakypandaman solves. petrus with EJF2L (i think thats the right one). i know that this thread is about roux and fridrich but im just making options for the thread maker

Don't worry about being offtopic, it's a dumb thread to begin with.

If you want to learn fridrich then you can use 2-look OLL and PLL ,what contains fewer algorithms than 1-look OLL and PLL. Roux uses 42 algorithms and these algorithms contain a lot of M moves.

None of the corner algorithms use M moves. Educate yourself.

Based on the discussion on this thread, I think I will get 2LOLL and full PLL for Fridrich first. Then I will work with Roux. And maybe after that I will learn another method, or go back and learn full OLL. Thanks for all your help.

Just pick one and stick with it, anything else is a waste of time, really. (Well, not really but it won't particularly help you get faster switching all the time)

Problems occur with Roux on other events way too often for it to be my 'main' method

Can you explicit that ?

I hope you mean "explain."

Basically, it sucks on big cubes and OH, unless you use alternate methods or find sexy ways to do M-slices.

See above. M can actually be done nearly as fast as two handed.

Also, you can only efficiently team BLD with other Roux users, unless you're familiar with other methods to a decent degree.

This problem occurs with every method, so I don't know why you're listing it.

Basically, it sucks on big cubes and OH, unless you use alternate methods or find sexy ways to do M-slices.

Also, you can only efficiently team BLD with other Roux users, unless you're familiar with other methods to a decent degree.

Ok, this is true for OH and team solve.

Actually, it isn't.

Based on the discussion on this thread, I think I will get 2LOLL and full PLL for Fridrich first. Then I will work with Roux. And maybe after that I will learn another method, or go back and learn full OLL. Thanks for all your help.

That make no sense for me. You'll never get good time by changing method all the time.

Choose roux or fridrich and train yourself on it.

I approve of this message.

Reduction sucks but everyone who is fast uses it. Right. Also, don't doublepost.

I'm 'fast'. I don't redux.

block building is not for the weak hearted, my heart cant lift the smallest set of weights at the gym, i use fridrich and if your heart is like mine, i reccomend it

Wait.. what?

I thought that having two methods would be better than one.

I don't think anyone exists who can use two methods interchangeably. People are (Mizzle is?) close, but it's not at the 50/50 stage at all, where you can choose your method based on inspection. Not anyone fast, anyway. ^_^

Working on different method help to improve your general comprehension of the cube.

But you'll have to choose one which will be your main speedcubing method.

You don't have to, but dedicating more time to one as a main one usually yields better results.

or you could use belt

It's called the Ring Method.

I average 22ish with roux. The reason that I stopped practising roux as much is that it's bad for big cubes as well as OH. Personally, I think it's a better method for 3x3 though.

Hurr.

 

[deadalnix]

Basically, it sucks on big cubes and OH, unless you use alternate methods or find sexy ways to do M-slices.

Also, you can only efficiently team BLD with other Roux users, unless you're familiar with other methods to a decent degree.

Ok, this is true for OH and team solve.

Actually, it isn't.

I'm pretty sure bloc building meyhod are difficult to speedblind (not especially roux) regardless of the stupid argument of less people use it (that can apply to any method).

The point is that you can't lists and express cases easily, and so, it's difficult to have a fast communication between members of the team.

 

[Kirjava]

Of course you can.

 

[deadalnix]

The numer of cases is largely too big to have simple communication like you can have for F2L like :
- Fish in 3
- Coconut in 5
etc . . . Each one defining a corner/edge pair in fridrich.

It's almost impossible to have this kind of communication with bloc building method like roux or petrus.

 

[Kirjava]

No it isn't.

 

[deadalnix]

Ok, you argument is so strong that I'm convinced -_-

 

[Athefre]

You people and your method racism

 

[Kirjava]

Ok, you argument is so strong that I'm convinced -_-

CMLL and the last six edges can easily be named and described, the first block can be seen during inspection and the moves can be described to the solver before he does it. The only tricky step may be the second block. However, with normal notation and the push/pull descriptions - along with anything else you may want to make up for it, I can see a nice system really easily implemented.

Sorry for refusing to answer you at first but I thought you might be smart enough to realise this yourself.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Roux: Uses restrictions to it's advantage.
Fridrich: Uses freedom to it's advantage.

What does this mean?

With Roux, the SB and LSE are almost always restricted to 2 gen and 3 gen (respectively) which can achieve great speed. Fridrich, however, does not encourage restrictions, rather optimized sequences.

Roux: More options during inspection.

You mean 'more pieces to place in the first step, taking more advantage of inspection'. Or you could Xcross.

No, during inspection you have 24 possible 1x2x3's to make during inspection for Roux. For Fridrich, there are only 6 crosses to make.

Fridrich: More options during the solve.

What does this mean?

There are 4 different F2L pairs to solve. An experienced solver will solve the shortest/fastest one first.

Roux: Intuitive sequences that become algorithmic.
Fridrich: Algorithmic sequences that become intuitive.

Fridrich is largely intuitive sequences that become algorithmic, too.

Largely =/= Completely

That's how I see it.

Maybe you should reevaluate.

Maybe you should learn what opinion means.

 

[StachuK1992]

Kirjava beat you. Just give up.
Also, yes. I was also being silly above in my posts, claiming false things. My bad.

also:

There are 4 different F2L pairs to solve. An experienced solver will solve the shortest/fastest one first.

NMCMLL. 'nuff said.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Kirjava beat you. Just give up.

He didn't beat me, he just tried to correct my opinion.

There are 4 different F2L pairs to solve. An experienced solver will solve the shortest/fastest one first.

NMCMLL. 'nuff said.

Actually, I totally forgot about non matching blocks.

 

[Muesli]

Roux: More options during inspection.

You mean 'more pieces to place in the first step, taking more advantage of inspection'. Or you could Xcross.

No, during inspection you have 24 possible 1x2x3's to make during inspection for Roux. For Fridrich, there are only 6 crosses to make.

So that's 18 more possible options for you to recognise and accept/reject in your 15 seconds. Also, you have to place 1 more piece per block than you would in a Fridrich cross. You would probably do better choosing quickly and planning how to place all those pieces efficiently rather than assessing all 24 options availiable, thus making all your possible options pretty much null. I wouldn't have thought that 15 seconds is long enough to see all those cases and think of how to execute the best one.

Just sayin'.

 

[Kirjava]

I like how you conceded that I was correct about some of the points I raised about your post but didn't acknowledge that. Are you only going to talk to me when you think I'm wrong?

Roux: Uses restrictions to it's advantage.
Fridrich: Uses freedom to it's advantage.

What does this mean?

With Roux, the SB and LSE are almost always restricted to 2 gen and 3 gen (respectively) which can achieve great speed. Fridrich, however, does not encourage restrictions, rather optimized sequences.

Right. I asked because it wasn't obvious at all what you were saying. Also, Fridrich has of course got it's own set of restrictions.

Roux: More options during inspection.

You mean 'more pieces to place in the first step, taking more advantage of inspection'. Or you could Xcross.

No, during inspection you have 24 possible 1x2x3's to make during inspection for Roux. For Fridrich, there are only 6 crosses to make.

No-one (literally no-one) uses all 24 1x2x3s. Barely anyone uses all 6 crosses.

From Gilles' site; "Speed-cubing rules allow cubers a 15 second inspection time before starting. This first step is designed to use this time efficiently. In 15 seconds, you can detect a configuration to start with, and anticipate about 10 moves."

This is how it is designed to take advantage of inspection. Crosses are never 10 moves, so Roux inspection aims to achieve a further complete state. The option of 24 different 1x2x3s is likely more of a disadvantage with regards to using time efficiently.

Fridrich: More options during the solve.

What does this mean?

There are 4 different F2L pairs to solve. An experienced solver will solve the shortest/fastest one first.

An experienced Roux solver will solve the shortest/fastest part of the block /or/ shortest/fastest block first.

Roux: Intuitive sequences that become algorithmic.
Fridrich: Algorithmic sequences that become intuitive.

Fridrich is largely intuitive sequences that become algorithmic, too.

Largely =/= Completely

This applys to Roux aswell, nullifying your point.

That's how I see it.

Maybe you should reevaluate.

Maybe you should learn what opinion means.

Misinformation is not an opinion.

 

[StachuK1992]

Kirjava beat you. Just give up.

He didn't beat me, he just tried to correct my opinion.

your opinion was wrong. And most of you said wasn't an opinion anyway. :/

 

[miniGOINGS]

I like how you conceded that I was correct about some of the points I raised about your post but didn't acknowledge that. Are you only going to talk to me when you think I'm wrong?

Ok. I really don't want to argue or fight or anything. This was not supposed to be a "Roux is better because _, Fridrich is better because _." post. When I hear "Roux", that is what I think of, same with "Fridrich". It's just how I "hear" the words. I didn't claim that anything I said was fact, just what hits my brain first. I hope that cleared it up.

 

[Kirjava]

I like how you conceded that I was correct about some of the points I raised about your post but didn't acknowledge that. Are you only going to talk to me when you think I'm wrong?

Ok. I really don't want to argue or fight or anything. This was not supposed to be a "Roux is better because _, Fridrich is better because" post.

I'm not arguing or fighting, I'm educating. I didn't see it as a "Roux is better because _, Fridrich is better because" post - I simply saw many things in this topic that are incorrect and I corrected them. People are free to correct me, but I think I am right

When I hear "Roux", that is what I think of, same with "Fridrich". It's just how I "hear" the words. I didn't claim that anything I said was fact, just what hits my brain first. I hope that cleared it up.

Wha. I didn't claim anything as fact before this post either, but we are both up to the same scrutiny. I mean, come on - "No, during inspection you have 24 possible 1x2x3's to make during inspection for Roux. For Fridrich, there are only 6 crosses to make." isn't exactly an opinion, is it?

Other than that, I really don't understand what you just said. You say what hits your brain first? When you hear 'Roux' it's what you think of? It's how you 'hear' the words? Are you telling me that you don't think when you make a post? (If so, let me know so I can ignore any further ones) Or have I misunderstood you completely?

 

[waffle=ijm]

but I think I am right

I honestly wouldn't argue with this Roux solver. Kirjava a cool roux user and probably knows more than you.

 

[miniGOINGS]

but I think I am right

I honestly wouldn't argue with this Roux solver. Kirjava a cool roux user and probably knows more than you.

As I previously stated, I don't want to argue. I know that he know's more than me.

isn't exactly an opinion, is it?

Well, I guess it didn't really sound like one.

Or have I misunderstood you completely?

If you have it was probably my fault. Maybe it's just me, but when I hear or read a proper noun, a whole wave of feelings, descriptors, and attibutes hits my brain. I was just explaining what "Roux" and "Fridrich" does to me, and tried to put it in words.

 

[Kirjava]

Or have I misunderstood you completely?

If you have it was probably my fault. Maybe it's just me, but when I hear or read a proper noun, a whole wave of feelings, descriptors, and attibutes hits my brain. I was just explaining what "Roux" and "Fridrich" does to me.

That's fine but it's not relevant.


Also, waffle.