• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Roux-breaker? The YruRU method

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
Fact checking

If there's only one method, why have I come up with 3 different approaches (2 of which are explicitly in my sig)?
B2 (which I came up with as Yroux since again it’s kinda obvious) is viable when you can inspect CPFB, else it’s far too inefficient; which is also why I said in the previous post the following:
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.
Not sure what third method you’re talking of, but if you’re speaking of “42”, (while almost certainly isn’t speed optimal this point can be refuted based on subjectivity) it is a more complicated way of doing B2.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,917
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
B2 (which I came up with as Yroux since again it’s kinda obvious) is viable when you can inspect CPFB, else it’s far too inefficient; which is also why I said in the previous post the following:
Why would it be less efficient than 2x2x3eo? And as for your claims that CPFB can't be done in inspection, there have been people who have been able to do it consistently (such as John li, the devisor of 2gr).

Not sure what third method you’re talking of,
It's a combination with M-CELL. CPFB, 2x2x2 in DR, CELL.
but if you’re speaking of “42”, (while almost certainly isn’t speed optimal this point can be refuted based on subjectivity) it is a more complicated way of doing B2.
Have you actually read what 42 does? It's not like B2 beyond they both finish MU-gen (though 42 is transformed). Also, I average the same with beginner's roux and beginner's 42 (both 2-look variants) with far less practise in the latter.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
It's a combination with M-CELL. CPFB, 2x2x2 in DR, CELL.
Not sure what this is, will have to give it a look; though this is something you probably can tag your name on since it doesn’t look an obvious path. Continuing as LEOR or Roux doesn’t grant you this privilege, the only thing you can claim in such a case is the way you do CP.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,917
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
Not sure what this is, will have to give it a look; though this is something you probably can tag your name on since it doesn’t look an obvious path. Continuing as LEOR or Roux doesn’t grant you this privilege, the only thing you can claim in such a case is the way you do CP.
So is a method only "obvious" if you think of it? With regards to the Leor comment, that was developed *from* my post not vice versa. B2 additionally does influencing beyond what is done in roux. Does that make it a non-obvious continuation?
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
So is a method only "obvious" if you think of it? With regards to the Leor comment, that was developed *from* my post not vice versa. B2 additionally does influencing beyond what is done in roux. Does that make it a non-obvious continuation?
As a man wisely said, attack the message not the messenger.
I said LEOR just for the sake of brevity; plus I’m sure we know full well what counts as an obvious continuation and what doesn’t.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
Do we though? What makes Leor and roux obvious and m-cell non-obvious?
Let’s exhaustively explore what is obvious. Why do CP at all? One reason. To reduce moveset from requiring 5 types of moves to 4 types of moves to solve a cube (because going through all that pain just to reduce the scramble set by a factor of 6 for any other reason cannot be worth it).
How to do better? Reduce from 4 to 3. Thus extend to FB.
How to do better? Reduce from 3 to 2. Thus, either SB+CMLL or EO+BF.

Why I said the third method you described could “possibly” be non-obvious is:
Simply continuing as MCELL is asymmetrical, movecount wise inefficient, moveset wise inefficient, higher algorithm count, look-ahead wise more difficult, etc. compared to the first two approaches. However, due to the asymmetries introduced by solving the DBR cube, you could categorise it as “not an obvious continuation”.
By the way, if you scroll up, I mentioned a 500-alg method alg, which basically is a more efficient version of CP-first MCELL.
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
975
Location
(0, 0, 0)
If we are to care at all about history or giving credit to the hard work people in the past have put into things, it is important to not claim that something is obvious. We can look at anything around us and, if we understand how it works, we can think that it is obvious. "I could have invented that." But look at what was happening before it was created. Who else did it? It almost always happens that there was no one else doing it or that there were a few people trying. The first person to succeed and develop is a significant moment. Research a term called Hindsight Bias. This is the tendency to look at something from the past and think that it is an obvious idea or event.

Who else was doing CP Line and the steps that follow before Joseph Briggs? I'm the one that showed the post by Gilles Roux. He may have talked about the idea and used it in FMC, but he never fully developed and presented it. Joseph Briggs gets credit for it because he was the first to complete it. Ryan Heise talked about EOLine+F2L before anyone else, but he never developed the complete method. So, Zbigniew Zborowski gets the credit because he was the first to complete it. People have even provided significant developments to current methods or have solved long-standing problems in those methods. These are developments that have completely changed the way people use those methods. But the method is still called by the original person's name.

Yes, someone else probably would have eventually thought of any of these things and finished it. However, no matter how simple something may seem - even though it probably wasn't when it was being developed, we can't look back at things and dismiss what someone accomplished. They were the first to do it and to provide to us what we have today.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,917
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
Let’s exhaustively explore what is obvious. Why do CP at all? One reason. To reduce moveset from requiring 5 types of moves to 4 types of moves to solve a cube (because going through all that pain just to reduce the scramble set by a factor of 6 for any other reason cannot be worth it).
Except most of the reason I use it in B2 is to reduce the case count so I can do fancier things like BLS. Just using it for 2-gen cmll isn't really worth it.
How to do better? Reduce from 4 to 3. Thus extend to FB.
This is true
How to do better? Reduce from 3 to 2. Thus, either SB+CMLL or EO+BF.
This does also have merit. However, I must point out that 2-gen is barely any better than 3-gen. As I said above, B2 does this to reduce to a state which is more easily influencible. Really, all 3 methods are mostly exploring the blocks which reduce the scramble set to a more manageable size while preserving the pseudo-2-geniness.
Why I said the third method you described could “possibly” be non-obvious is:
Simply continuing as MCELL is asymmetrical, movecount wise inefficient, moveset wise inefficient, higher algorithm count, look-ahead wise more difficult, etc. compared to the first two approaches. However, due to the asymmetries introduced by solving the DBR cube, you could categorise it as “not an obvious continuation”.
As I said above, in both the M-CELL and B2 continuation, 2-gen reduction is used just as much for reducing the alg count as getting a certain moveset. Breaking this down further,
movecount wise inefficient
What do you mean by this? M-CELL is demonstrably efficient with or without CP. The movecount is at least comparable to the other 2-gen reduction methods.
moveset wise inefficient
What does this really mean? If you mean you use more "types" of moves, that isn't really true. The moveset for cp M-CELL is generated by {R U* R', r U* r', M' U* M, U} which is just as nice to fingertrick as it requires few regrips because it induces few (if any) overrotations and sends the hands back to the home grip more often than not.
look-ahead wise more difficult
Why? You eliminate the blind spots which could make lookahead more difficult the others. For that matter, the 2-alg 1lll is designed to reduce pauses as you can recog one 5-cycle while performing the other.

If your argument is asymmetry makes it non-obvious, that's a reasonable argument for it being fundamentally different (if one that I don't necessarily agree with) though I wouldn't use nebulous words like obvious to describe it.
By the way, if you scroll up, I mentioned a 500-alg method alg, which basically is a more efficient version of CP-first MCELL.
It might be more move efficient, but I have always strived to keep alg counts reasonable by requiring no more algs than is necessary (which is a large part of my opposition to methods like LMCF). This is not only the reason M-CELL uses 2-alg, 1lll but also a big reason for why 2-gen could be used. Extending this to a 1-alg method (which is what your extension appears to do) is very in line with the case reduction that is the reasoning for cp-first B2 and M-CELL
 

Nmile7300

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
776
Location
Arizona
WCA
2019MILE04
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hey I just had an idea. During this whole argument thing, people have said that this should be called Briggs with YruRU style CP. Well I was think about what YruRU stands for which is Yash's ru RU Reduction. So if we called it Yash's cp line and then ru RU reduction then that could abbreviate to *GASP*
YruRU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is just a suggestion of how we can finally come to a compromise and end this dumb argument that has been going on for way too long.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
329
WCA
2017OWEN01
Hey I just had an idea. During this whole argument thing, people have said that this should be called Briggs with YruRU style CP. Well I was think about what YruRU stands for which is Yash's ru RU Reduction. So if we called it Yash's cp line and then ru RU reduction then that could abbreviate to *GASP*
YruRU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is just a suggestion of how we can finally come to a compromise and end this dumb argument that has been going on for way too long.
You are just ignoring Briggs and calling it what you called it before that’s not compromising a true comprimise would be to call all of these 2GR as they all reduce to 2 gen but I disagree with that because afaik that’s quite different. And you say it’s dumb but it’s not as it sets a precedent for future incidences where 2 people invent the same method and we could end up with loads of methods that are very similar.
 

Nmile7300

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
776
Location
Arizona
WCA
2019MILE04
YouTube
Visit Channel
You are just ignoring Briggs and calling it what you called it before that’s not compromising a true comprimise would be to call all of these 2GR as they all reduce to 2 gen but I disagree with that because afaik that’s quite different. And you say it’s dumb but it’s not as it sets a precedent for future incidences where 2 people invent the same method and we could end up with loads of methods that are very similar.
Fine then. Go right ahead and keep arguing for no reason if that suits you. I was only trying to help solve the dispute. I was not targeting you or anyone else who thinks the same way as you. I just think this argument has become pointless and it is only causing anger and division. Neither of those things have a place in our community.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
If we are to care at all about history or giving credit to the hard work people in the past have put into things, it is important to not claim that something is obvious. We can look at anything around us and, if we understand how it works, we can think that it is obvious. "I could have invented that." But look at what was happening before it was created. Who else did it? It almost always happens that there was no one else doing it or that there were a few people trying. The first person to succeed and develop is a significant moment. Research a term called Hindsight Bias. This is the tendency to look at something from the past and think that it is an obvious idea or event.

Who else was doing CP Line and the steps that follow before Joseph Briggs? I'm the one that showed the post by Gilles Roux. He may have talked about the idea and used it in FMC, but he never fully developed and presented it. Joseph Briggs gets credit for it because he was the first to complete it. Ryan Heise talked about EOLine+F2L before anyone else, but he never developed the complete method. So, Zbigniew Zborowski gets the credit because he was the first to complete it. People have even provided significant developments to current methods or have solved long-standing problems in those methods. These are developments that have completely changed the way people use those methods. But the method is still called by the original person's name.

Yes, someone else probably would have eventually thought of any of these things and finished it. However, no matter how simple something may seem - even though it probably wasn't when it was being developed, we can't look back at things and dismiss what someone accomplished. They were the first to do it and to provide to us what we have today.
This is a completely arbitrary choice of when exactly the person deserves credit in the developmental chain of an idea.

-Someone conceives an idea.
-Someone constructs a framework to use the idea in the middle of the solve since that is where is it currently possible.
-Someone constructs a framework to use that idea with assuming the idea is possible to use in the start of the solve.
-Someone finds a way to use the idea in the start of the solve.
-Someone finds a way use that idea in the start of the solve in a way potentially viable for speedsolving.
-Someone popularises the idea.
-Someone proves the idea is worth it by getting good times.
-Plus the numerous branches people went into during this process.

Now I’m not saying people down the chain built upon the ideas of people above them, they may have begun from scratch. However, if an entire method hinges on a single idea, it isn’t fair for the person in point 3 to get any more credit than the person in point 5.

Second, I am aware of hindsight bias; however check out the “about” page of the website I posted (which by the way I haven’t edited since day one of the website, you can check the history on GitHub).
Just because there is a term for this phenomenon doesn’t mean it is applicable everywhere. I wouldn’t in my dreams say that corner-edge pairs is the “obvious” continuation of cross, even if it seems so to us now.

Except most of the reason I use it in B2 is to reduce the case count so I can do fancier things like BLS. Just using it for 2-gen cmll isn't really worth it.
You do second block+CMLL; irrespective of how you do it, that is what you do

As for MCELL vs other methods in the said categories, I believe that is another debate that we have opposite views on, we can let that go for now.
 

shadowslice e

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
2,917
Location
192.168. 0.1
YouTube
Visit Channel
Can I ask a possibly naive question. Why does it matter what something is called, other than people know what you're talking about when it's referred to?
If you've been reading this as about names, then you've been reading the conversation on a very surface level.

But I've had enough. I won't be posting on the subject again.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
An interesting find:
The following is most likely not going to evolve into something that's useful in speedsolving, but I think is a cool observation.

After CP line, the extension to first block can always be done using only <r, u> moveset.
EOBF can always be done using only <r, U> moveset.
2-gen finish can always be done using only, you guessed it, <R, U> moveset.

So after CP line, one could solve the cube in 3 sets of 2-gen sequences.

The reason I believe this is most likely not going to evolve to be used in speedsolving is because, firstly it isn't that much of a speed boost, secondly the solutions do seem to be slightly inefficient due to the added restrictions, and thirdly our current 3x3x3 hardware isn't exactly made to do <r, u> gen turning quickly one-handed. It is possible to make 3x3x3 cubes with wider outer layers (like we see in big cubes) and golf-ball like dips in corner pieces to facilitate this turning style, and maybe we will see them one day if <r, u> - gen turning makes OH solving faster.

Nonetheless, this is a cool observation to play around with; I'll put a few examples on the example thread.

EDIT: I got few DMs disagreeing basically with point 1, with arguments ranging from better look ahead and case reduction to it being a more exciting way to solve. I've decided to put more thought behind this observation to see if it can be made more efficient and speedy; moreover it'll be too much work organising intuitive pEO extension, and I have end-terms for the next two weeks so it'll be better for me to go ahead with this relatively low effort exercise.
 
Last edited:

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
194
Here is a pretty nice Chris Olsen type Ao5 (18s OH) walkthrough by @CuberStache. Since he didn’t post it, I thought I’ll do it. It’s a good representation of what solves would look like, so even people that don’t understand much of the method can make a decision of whether to try it out based on if they find the video interesting.

I haven’t been active because I haven’t been cubing much during my end-terms, and checking out chess when I take a break like most people in this lockdown have been doing. I’ll most likely get back after 24th.
 
Top