How good can roux get?

[Sajwo]

I've never really tried Roux, just CFOP and a little ZZ, but somehow I thought that one of the advantages of Roux was a low alg count. Nevermind who may or may not be able to get fast on Roux, but doesn't this WaterRoux eliminate the benefit of a low alg count?

Low alg count may be an advantage, but only for beginners. The more algs you know, the faster you are.

 

[allanboss131]

Low alg count may be an advantage, but only for beginners. The more algs you know, the faster you are.

Wrong in so many ways. Colin burns is a great example. And learning coll is a new alg set and isn't faster than normal oll and pll (debatable) but most likely not for 2 handed. Maybe put more thought into your comment before you go blurting things out.

 

[allanboss131]

I've never really tried Roux, just CFOP and a little ZZ, but somehow I thought that one of the advantages of Roux was a low alg count. Nevermind who may or may not be able to get fast on Roux, but doesn't this WaterRoux eliminate the benefit of a low alg count?

One of the advantages yes, but low move count is also another advantage.

 

[shadowslice e]

You said that he got a flat 7 average and he would still improve if he didn't stop practising. That's equivalent to saying that he would eventually be sub7 mate.

Wrong again. I said he would likely keep improving. To what level I'm not sure but probably to the point where on a good day he might get a sub-7 Ao100. It is definitely worth noting that Ao100 is not the same as globally though I would not completely rule that out.

In addition, you seem to be implying that though he got a 7 Ao100, and though you acknowledge he was still improving, you say he couldn't get a sub-7 Ao100 which seems only slightly contradictory to me.

It's not good when people take what you say and twist it until only a small amount of what you said is still in that statement is it? Please don't do the same to others.

 

[One Wheel]

Low alg count may be an advantage, but only for beginners. The more algs you know, the faster you are.

In general if you have more algs it means you are doing more with those algs, and recognition will probably suffer. If recognition keeps pace with new algs then yes, more algs is faster, presuming that those algs are at least as good as far as move count and ergonomics.

 

[GuRoux]

Wrong in so many ways. Colin burns is a great example. And learning coll is a new alg set and isn't faster than normal oll and pll (debatable) but most likely not for 2 handed. Maybe put more thought into your comment before you go blurting things out.

unless you're using an overwhelming amount of algs, more algs tend to be better if you're using good algs. it just takes time to train recognition and execution. collin burns with oll, pll, and winter variation will be faster than collin burns with just oll and pll in the long run. i don't know cfop that well, but i think this is apparent because instead of doing f2l pair, oll, pll you do winter variation, pll. i would assume winter variation has similar recognition as f2l+oll but faster exectuion.

in terms of roux vs cfop, can't really say one is better than the other based on the number of algs. they are too different from each other. but even in roux, knowing more extra algs is useful. for example, knowing multiple cmll for each case can often be used to avoid bad cases or set up good cases in lse.

 

[allanboss131]

unless you're using an overwhelming amount of algs, more algs tend to be better if you're using good algs. it just takes time to train recognition and execution. collin burns with oll, pll, and winter variation will be faster than collin burns with just oll and pll in the long run. i don't know cfop that well, but i think this is apparent because instead of doing f2l pair, oll, pll you do winter variation, pll. i would assume winter variation has similar recognition as f2l+oll but faster exectuion.

in terms of roux vs cfop, can't really say one is better than the other based on the number of algs. they are too different from each other. but even in roux, knowing more extra algs is useful. for example, knowing multiple cmll for each case can often be used to avoid bad cases or set up good cases in lse.

I totally agree with you that more algs is USUALLY better, But, "the more alts you know the faster you are" is not always true.

 

[efattah]

knowing multiple cmll for each case can often be used to avoid bad cases or set up good cases in lse.

Are you saying you choose your CMLL based on the edges of the top layer or DF/BD? To finish with a better setup for LSE? I know Waterman would inject M/M' into his CLL algorithms to modify the edge permutation and solve an edge during CLL.

 

[obelisk477]

Are you saying you choose your CMLL based on the edges of the top layer or DF/BD? To finish with a better setup for LSE? I know Waterman would inject M/M' into his CLL algorithms to modify the edge permutation and solve an edge during CLL.

It's usually done with regard to edges on top instead of DF/DB. Alex Lau considered (completed?) learning full OLLCP to have maximum control over EO while solving the corners, but I think he eventually decided it wasn't worth it. Anywho, most advanced Roux users will use basic algs like wide J perm to affect EO during CMLL if it's obvious.

As a side note (because most people dont know about it) I genned CMLL+6-flip a little over a year ago to help avoid those nasty 6-flip cases. It may be useful to someone someday

 

[GuRoux]

Are you saying you choose your CMLL based on the edges of the top layer or DF/BD? To finish with a better setup for LSE? I know Waterman would inject M/M' into his CLL algorithms to modify the edge permutation and solve an edge during CLL.

yeah, there are many algs where you can do a wide move instead of single layer move to essentially inject and M/M' and effect eo. other cases where we use totally different algs.