Roux-breaker? The YruRU method

[plechoss]

How is this different from C2GR described here almost three years ago?

Complex 2-Move Generator Reduction Method (c2gr)

Hello I want to share with you with my new speedcubing method, which I have described at my OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/w/s!Am1bZghSQmingyzL3Msq9ZW2LMc5 Generally the idea is to predict in pre-inspection time the moves leading the cube to group situation. I have called this Complex 2-Move...

www.speedsolving.com

zz also included a clear explanation of his CP recognition method

 

[ZB2op]

So basically the method is useless

Username: Username what do you find wrong with my statement

 

[Username: Username:]

Username: Username what do you find wrong with my statement

Well, first of all, someone is actually putting real effort into this method, and second, sometimes the speedsolving forum is hard to research to see if your method has been created or not.

 

[ZB2op]

Well, first of all, someone is actually putting real effort into this method, and second, sometimes the speedsolving forum is hard to research to see if your method has been created or not.

I'm trying to be nice and I think it will benefit all of us if we stop trying to learn this method

Also its not like he has anything better to do in Lockdown

 

[Devagio]

How is this different from C2GR described here almost three years ago?

Complex 2-Move Generator Reduction Method (c2gr)

Hello I want to share with you with my new speedcubing method, which I have described at my OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/w/s!Am1bZghSQmingyzL3Msq9ZW2LMc5 Generally the idea is to predict in pre-inspection time the moves leading the cube to group situation. I have called this Complex 2-Move...

www.speedsolving.com

zz also included a clear explanation of his CP recognition method

That’s pretty cool, the entire solve using C2GR would look very similar to solves using YruRU.
The difference is the CP recognition system, which in the case of YruRU is considerably simpler and much quicker to execute.
After CP reduction, the rest of the methods have similar motives (like achieving a 2x2x3, although done differently in both methods, is a common goal) because those are the most natural and obvious things to do.

 

[Cuberstache]

So your arguments are mostly based on skips which is luck.

None of his arguments are based on skip probabilities. He's merely pointing out that they exist. None of the skips are likely enough to make a huge difference in the solve, and he never said that they were.

When if using just something like regular CFOP it is consistent.

CFOP has skips too. They play a part just as much as skips do with this method, or maybe slightly less.

Also it has much better look ahead which is the main difference between people like Feliks Zemdegs and people who average around 10 seconds. Look ahead is the reason this method will never be better than roux and CFOP and if you're bored with CFOP just learn full ZB which will keep you occupied for moths at least.

I think the only problem with lookahead is in the EO step, and it's possible to look ahead at least partially. Do you find other steps to be hard to lookahead in or are you just vaguely criticizing the method without really knowing what you're talking about?

Also I practiced this method for about a month

This thread was posted 7 days ago. Do you know the creator personally? Are you referring to the similar methods that were created in the past, as others have pointed out in this thread?

I do better with the beginners method and roux (which I gave up on in about a minute). As someone else said just move on.

If you had actually seriously practiced this method for a month, there's no way you'd be faster with the beginner's method.

Didn't mean to sound as harsh as I did..

And yet...

So basically the method is useless

I think it will benefit all of us if we stop trying to learn this method

These things sound pretty harsh to me. It's fine to have an opinion about the method, but this man put dozens of hours of work into this method (and is continuing to do so, improving the method) and the result is something truly promising. There's no need to keep saying things like this without clearly stating what's wrong with the method.

One more thing, please don't double post. Say everything you have to say in one post.

 

[ZB2op]

None of his arguments are based on skip probabilities. He's merely pointing out that they exist. None of the skips are likely enough to make a huge difference in the solve, and he never said that they were.

CFOP has skips too. They play a part just as much as skips do with this method, or maybe slightly less.

I think the only problem with lookahead is in the EO step, and it's possible to look ahead at least partially. Do you find other steps to be hard to lookahead in or are you just vaguely criticizing the method without really knowing what you're talking about?

This thread was posted 7 days ago. Do you know the creator personally? Are you referring to the similar methods that were created in the past, as others have pointed out in this thread?

If you had actually seriously practiced this method for a month, there's no way you'd be faster with the beginner's method.

And yet...


These things sound pretty harsh to me. It's fine to have an opinion about the method, but this man put dozens of hours of work into this method (and is continuing to do so, improving the method) and the result is something truly promising. There's no need to keep saying things like this without clearly stating what's wrong with the method.

One more thing, please don't double post. Say everything you have to say in one post.

Methods like this have existed in the past and some of them have even been better and have never matched CFOP or Roux. Your username is a lot better than your method ideologies. I am serious when I say i'm trying to help. Also I do admit now that I was being very harsh and if you think this method is best for you then maybe you'll be faster with it. Especially with your quick results you posted earlier. But for most people it will never be as good as CFOP or Roux.

this man put dozens of hours of work into this method

Most of it is identical to methods such as C2GR. So all he did was a bit of research and refining. But as I said you use what you want.

 

[Cuberstache]

Methods like this have existed in the past and some of them have even been better and have never matched CFOP or Roux. Your username is a lot better than your method ideologies. I am serious when I say i'm trying to help. Also I do admit now that I was being very harsh and if you think this method is best for you then maybe you'll be faster with it. Especially with your quick results you posted earlier. But for most people it will never be as good as CFOP or Roux.
Most of it is identical to methods such as C2GR. So all he did was a bit of research and refining. But as I said you use what you want.

All you've done is repeat yourself, ignoring the several direct questions I asked you.

 

[fun at the joy]

Most of it is identical to methods such as C2GR. So all he did was a bit of research and refining. But as I said you use what you want.

Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?

 

[ZB2op]

All you've done is repeat yourself, ignoring the several direct questions I asked you.

this argument is going to go on for hours so i'm just going to say this. Maybe i'm just practising the method wrong so if you want to prove that this method is as good as you say it is. I need to know how you got such quick results and then i can see whether or not it's you or the method

Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?

I feel bullied

 

[Username: Username:]

Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?

or in other words, coincidence.

I feel bullied

well, you bullied the method first, and started a conflict.

 

[Cuberstache]

this argument is going to go on for hours so i'm just going to say this. Maybe i'm just practising the method wrong so if you want to prove that this method is as good as you say it is. I need to know how you got such quick results and then i can see whether or not it's you or the method

If you want to see my progress, keep up with my quest thread. I'll post solve videos at some point (once I don't have to overinspect every solve) if you don't believe me just saying that I got a 14.

I feel bullied

How do you think the creator of the method feels, whose many hours of hard work you've reduced to "a bit of research and refining"?

The fact that you still haven't answered my questions says a lot about the lack of logical reasoning behind your arguments.

 

[ZB2op]

or in other words, coincidence.



well, you bullied the method first, and started a conflict.

I'd like to say you're wrong but that would be a lie

I'd like to say you're wrong but that would be a lie

same to you cuberstache

 

[PapaSmurf]

ZB2op, stop double posting please, it fills up the thread unnecesarily. Also, there's no need for arguments; we're trying to constructively critique this method. I've already given my reasons for why I don't think it would work (and yes, I have actually practiced this method for about a month, as it is identical to Briggs) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. An important point made too is that someone can have an idea independently of another person (for example, calculus was simultaneously-ish invented by Newton and Leibniz). Now everyone be happy and kind, not too much to ask I hope.

 

[Devagio]

Thoughts on Neutrality and it’s implications on Look-ahead:

I’ve been experimenting to figure out ways to tackle the bottleneck at EO, and I believe I’ve hit on something we can use.

On a parallel note, I had taken it for granted that x2 y neutrality is the way to go because I wanted to make the CP-line part efficient since that was kind-of the only thing I had to focus on building, the rest was trivial.

While doing the “intuit the number of bad edges” during EO, I found myself making errors sometimes, and almost every time, the error included either the FR edge or the BR edge. And it makes sense, these edges do not have a white/yellow sticker, their orientation state isn’t immediately obvious.

So, two days back, I started doing solves with x2 y2 neutrality, and here is what I found:

1. Most importantly, the EO step flows so much better. Since the rule for determining the EO state doesn’t change ever, I can determine EO in the blink of an eye with near-perfect accuracy with under 2 days of practice. Then, simply following the standardised way to do EO allows for amazing TPS here that I didn’t think was possible, or nobody did for that matter.
[The Rule I have now is, same as before with yellow/white; red/orange cannot be on U/D face; etc. This holds true for all solutions, so we do not have to think about EO actively]

2. Only L/R is always Red or Orange, so I found myself doing a little better during FB because of the filtering that is now possible. I’m sure this will evolve to make a big difference down the road and two days is too little a time to comment.

3. Strangely, my DF/DB solving got much faster, when I thought that wasn’t one of my weaknesses at all. We know that blue/Green is always F/B so that helps.

4. Inspection is standardised now. Initially, determining which edge was 5 and which was 6 took a split second of active thinking. Now, 5 and 6 are fixed as well, there is no shuffling around. This helps in speeding up the tracing part of inspection.

Those are some pretty huge advantages. Here is the only downside to it:
Instead of having a choice from 8/12 possible lines, we now have a choice from 4/12 possible lines. This almost halves the probability of finding solved DL corners (goes from around 40% to 25%) and increases the probability of having to do 2 moves before solving DL corner from around 10% to around 25%).

The choice in this trade off is obvious, and the EO step just got a whole lot faster! In fact, my ao100 with YruRU on OH fell by over 2 seconds; I now average close to 21; quite close to my CFOP OH average.

Aside: I am glad supporters and opposers of the method alike drew the line of where things were getting personal and forced a halt to the conversation. I didn’t feel attacked in the least, it’s usually easy to differentiate constructive criticism from attention seeking rebellion. The purpose of this thread is to develop YruRU and Make it accessible; and to keep most of the posts on this thread aligned to this goal, such interjections are best ignored till the person comes up with a sensible argument to back their claim. Lest, it simply degrades into the finger pointing game it did here.

 

[Cuberstache]

So, two days back, I started doing solves with x2 y2 neutrality

Wow, I'll have to try this!

 

[mukerflap]

Thoughts on Neutrality and it’s implications on Look-ahead:

I’ve been experimenting to figure out ways to tackle the bottleneck at EO, and I believe I’ve hit on something we can use.

On a parallel note, I had taken it for granted that x2 y neutrality is the way to go because I wanted to make the CP-line part efficient since that was kind-of the only thing I had to focus on building, the rest was trivial.

While doing the “intuit the number of bad edges” during EO, I found myself making errors sometimes, and almost every time, the error included either the FR edge or the BR edge. And it makes sense, these edges do not have a white/yellow sticker, their orientation state isn’t immediately obvious.

So, two days back, I started doing solves with x2 y2 neutrality, and here is what I found:

1. Most importantly, the EO step flows so much better. Since the rule for determining the EO state doesn’t change ever, I can determine EO in the blink of an eye with near-perfect accuracy with under 2 days of practice. Then, simply following the standardised way to do EO allows for amazing TPS here that I didn’t think was possible, or nobody did for that matter.
[The Rule I have now is, same as before with yellow/white; red/orange cannot be on U/D face; etc. This holds true for all solutions, so we do not have to think about EO actively]

2. Only L/R is always Red or Orange, so I found myself doing a little better during FB because of the filtering that is now possible. I’m sure this will evolve to make a big difference down the road and two days is too little a time to comment.

3. Strangely, my DF/DB solving got much faster, when I thought that wasn’t one of my weaknesses at all. We know that blue/Green is always F/B so that helps.

4. Inspection is standardised now. Initially, determining which edge was 5 and which was 6 took a split second of active thinking. Now, 5 and 6 are fixed as well, there is no shuffling around. This helps in speeding up the tracing part of inspection.

Those are some pretty huge advantages. Here is the only downside to it:
Instead of having a choice from 8/12 possible lines, we now have a choice from 4/12 possible lines. This almost halves the probability of finding solved DL corners (goes from around 40% to 25%) and increases the probability of having to do 2 moves before solving DL corner from around 10% to around 25%).

The choice in this trade off is obvious, and the EO step just got a whole lot faster! In fact, my ao100 with YruRU on OH fell by over 2 seconds; I now average close to 21; quite close to my CFOP OH average.

Aside: I am glad supporters and opposers of the method alike drew the line of where things were getting personal and forced a halt to the conversation. I didn’t feel attacked in the least, it’s usually easy to differentiate constructive criticism from attention seeking rebellion. The purpose of this thread is to develop YruRU and Make it accessible; and to keep most of the posts on this thread aligned to this goal, such interjections are best ignored till the person comes up with a sensible argument to back their claim. Lest, it simply degrades into the finger pointing game it did here.

record solves

 

[Arc]

this method is actually just LEOR cp btw

Indeed. And I extracted Leor from Briggs with the idea "2GLL isn't really any better for 2H than ZBLL is, and CPFB is a lot harder than FB, so why not just do Briggs with normal FB?" thus "Leor CP" is quite literally Briggs. I'm not sure how Pyjam's path went, so perhaps it is half Briggs.

How is this different from C2GR described here almost three years ago?

This actually predates C2GR. C2GR was essentially an independent creation of 2GR except with the EO and CP flipped because ZZ did not know how to track CP through EO as Teoidus discovered. This is explained in more detail by Teoidus on that thread. 2GR itself is predated by Briggs which
is identical to this method down to minor deviations in the segmentation of CPFB (I believe direct CPFB in inspection is viable) and suggested CP recog system (the 2GR CP recog scheme is definitely the best one so far).

Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?

Yes this happens all the time if you read the new method thread. It can be difficult to find prior art in cubing because the community is relatively small and these things tend to be poorly documented. Many people tend to walk the same path and come to the same ideas in the end, which is what happened here as well. Shadowslice himself independently rediscovered Meyer (the 4x4 method) with a slight deviation, now known as Shadowslice-Meyer.

Thoughts on Neutrality and it’s implications on Look-ahead:

I’ve been experimenting to figure out ways to tackle the bottleneck at EO, and I believe I’ve hit on something we can use.

On a parallel note, I had taken it for granted that x2 y neutrality is the way to go because I wanted to make the CP-line part efficient since that was kind-of the only thing I had to focus on building, the rest was trivial.

While doing the “intuit the number of bad edges” during EO, I found myself making errors sometimes, and almost every time, the error included either the FR edge or the BR edge. And it makes sense, these edges do not have a white/yellow sticker, their orientation state isn’t immediately obvious.

So, two days back, I started doing solves with x2 y2 neutrality, and here is what I found:

1. Most importantly, the EO step flows so much better. Since the rule for determining the EO state doesn’t change ever, I can determine EO in the blink of an eye with near-perfect accuracy with under 2 days of practice. Then, simply following the standardised way to do EO allows for amazing TPS here that I didn’t think was possible, or nobody did for that matter.
[The Rule I have now is, same as before with yellow/white; red/orange cannot be on U/D face; etc. This holds true for all solutions, so we do not have to think about EO actively]

2. Only L/R is always Red or Orange, so I found myself doing a little better during FB because of the filtering that is now possible. I’m sure this will evolve to make a big difference down the road and two days is too little a time to comment.

3. Strangely, my DF/DB solving got much faster, when I thought that wasn’t one of my weaknesses at all. We know that blue/Green is always F/B so that helps.

4. Inspection is standardised now. Initially, determining which edge was 5 and which was 6 took a split second of active thinking. Now, 5 and 6 are fixed as well, there is no shuffling around. This helps in speeding up the tracing part of inspection.

Those are some pretty huge advantages. Here is the only downside to it:
Instead of having a choice from 8/12 possible lines, we now have a choice from 4/12 possible lines. This almost halves the probability of finding solved DL corners (goes from around 40% to 25%) and increases the probability of having to do 2 moves before solving DL corner from around 10% to around 25%).

The choice in this trade off is obvious, and the EO step just got a whole lot faster! In fact, my ao100 with YruRU on OH fell by over 2 seconds; I now average close to 21; quite close to my CFOP OH average.

Aside: I am glad supporters and opposers of the method alike drew the line of where things were getting personal and forced a halt to the conversation. I didn’t feel attacked in the least, it’s usually easy to differentiate constructive criticism from attention seeking rebellion. The purpose of this thread is to develop YruRU and Make it accessible; and to keep most of the posts on this thread aligned to this goal, such interjections are best ignored till the person comes up with a sensible argument to back their claim. Lest, it simply degrades into the finger pointing game it did here.

I actually found that the best limited neutrality for Leor (CP complicates this slightly) is y2 z, which is keeping the same two colors on F and B. EO is invariant* under a z rotation, which means that EO recognition doesn't change for any orientation, but you still have the same number of possible FBs as x2 y. CPFB makes things a little more difficult depending on your recognition system. Using the 2GR scheme it's simply a matter of learning two sets of names for the corners and not forgetting which orientation you're in (this is of course only relevant during inspection). On the other hand, the 2GR system is mostly invariant** within x2 y which could be an argument to prefer that. However I did think that the EO recognition was very relevant, and while it's simple to expand CP recog to the additional orientation, I thought that picking between more than 4 CPFBs in inspection would not be viable, so I decided that the intersection of x2 y and y2 z, which is x2 y2, would be the ideal limited neutrality for Briggs, which is the same conclusion you've come to, just by a different path.

*The "good" and "bad" edges flip. Rather than worrying about this, I abused the symmetry of the colors. I kept white/black (the colorless faces) on F and B (y2 z neutrality) and had two types of cube orientations. Warm orientations had red/orange on U and D, and cool orientations had blue/green on U and D. Then instead of edges being good or bad, they became warm or cold. Solving EO became making all the edges match the orientation of the cube, i.e. if I'm in a warm orientation I make the edges all warm, otherwise make them all cool.

**The cyclic ordering switches (CW vs ACW) on x2 and the corners play different roles on y. Both are fairly trivial to adapt to.

 

[Cuberstache]

Here is the only downside to it:
Instead of having a choice from 8/12 possible lines, we now have a choice from 4/12 possible lines. This almost halves the probability of finding solved DL corners (goes from around 40% to 25%) and increases the probability of having to do 2 moves before solving DL corner from around 10% to around 25%).

Also, the possibility of 3-move optimal

R2 U2 B U2 B' R2 D2 F' R2 B' D2 U' F2 U2 L2 R' U' F2 L B2

 

[Devagio]

the 2GR CP recog scheme is definitely the best one so far

I checked out the 2GR system in depth, and I do not agree here. The many steps in the system and the lack of flexibility make it take longer to inspect, and relatively inefficient for CP-line. The system was developed to combine with EO-pair, which it does brilliantly. But as stand-alone for CP-line it gets beaten both in inspection speed and in move efficiency/flexibility. This could possibly be taken up for debate till somebody practices with both techniques; but what is certain is EO-CP-line is impossible to do consistently in 15 second inspection using the 2GR system.

Also, the possibility of 3-move optimal

This is unfortunate
It's fairly easy to resolve though, we'll have to memorise what swaps a 3-move insert does, and it doesn't switch up all that many things.
EDIT: I somehow still haven’t gotten such a scramble, it’s most likely very rare. Haven’t worked out the math, but I guess since this is quite rare, this can be the exception where x2y is okay, simply accepting the fact the EO is gonna be a pain.