• 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
75
@Devagio don't be discouraged by the negativity around you, remember that each and every creative venture throughout the history of mankind have gone through what you and your ideas are going through now.

go ahead with what you are doing and know that there are also those of us who support new method development, while knowing fully well that (harsh) criticism is expected.

and I must say, I find your responses very mature and expressed quite eloquently... but in the videos you sounded quite young... how old are you by the way?

either way, congrats on coming up with your new discovery, does not matter whether it has similarities with what others may have thought of in the past, and it is very exciting to see you updating and developing it consistently.

happy cubing and thanks for contributing to the community!
Thank you so much for that generous and supportive comment, this is what really helps me keep going through with attempting to develop the idea further. I will certainly continue to try making it as good as I possibly can.
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
572
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
Circlets for advanced tracing

5 solved, 6 in _

1: DBR > UBR > UBL > UFR
2: UFL > DBR > UFR > UBR
3: UFR > UBL > DBR > UFL
4: UBL > UFL > UBR > DBR

5 in 1, 6 in _

3: UBL > DFR > UFR > DBR
5: DBR > UFR > UBL > UBR
6: UFR > UBR > DFR > UBL

5 in 2, 6 in _

4: UBR > DFR > UFL > DBR
5: DBR > UFL > UBR > UFR
6: UFL > UFR > DFR > UBR

5 in 3, 6 in _

1: UFR > DFR > UBL > DBR
5: DBR > UBL > UFR > UFL
6: UBL > UFL > DFR > UFR

5 in 4, 6 in _

2: UFL > DFR > UBR > DBR
5: DBR > UBR > UFL > UBL
6: UBR > UBL > DFR > UFL

5 in 6, 6 in _

1: UBR > UFR > UBL > DFR
2: UFL > UBR > DFR > UFR
3: UFR > DFR> UFL > UBL
4: DFR > UBL > UBR > UFL

I'm questioning how feasible this is to use in solves. It seems too difficult and confusing.
 
Last edited:

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
75
Circlets for advanced tracing

5 solved, 6 in _

1: DBR > UBR > UBL > UFR
2: UFL > DBR > UFR > UBR
3: UFR > UBL > DBR > UFR
4: UBL > UFL > UBR > DBR

5 in 1, 6 in _

3: UBL > DFR > UFR > DBR
5: DBR > UFR > UBL > UBR
6: UFR > UBR > DFR > UBL

5 in 2, 6 in _

4: UBR > DFR > UFL > DBR
5: DBR > UFL > UBR > UFR
6: UFL > UFR > DBR > UBR

5 in 3, 6 in _

1: UFR > DFR > UBL > DBR
5: DBR > UBL > UFR > UFL
6: UBL > UFL > DFR > UFR

5 in 4, 6 in _

2: UFL > DFR > UBR > DBR
5: DBR > UBR > UFL > UBL
6: UBR > UBL > DFR > UFL

5 in 6, 6 in _

1: UBR > UFR > UBL > DFR
2: UFL > UBR > DFR > UFR
3: UFR > DFR> UFL > UBL
4: DFR > UBL > UBR > UFL

I'm questioning how feasible this is to use in solves. It seems too difficult and confusing.
This is the probably worst way you could learn it. What I did and I believe you should do is visualise the circlets on the cube.
For example, if 5 is in DFR and 6 is in UFL, there are 4 remaining pieces in the circlet, UBL, UBR, UFR and DBR.
In this case, the circlet is DBR>UBR>UBL>UFR>DBR
So visualise this circular path on the cube.
The only other circlet with these 4 locations in the path is when 5 and 6 are interchanged. In this case, the path is DBR>UFR>UBR>UBL>DBR.
When you “visualise” these two as being the only two possible paths when UFL and DFR are occupied by 5 and 6, it’ll get a lot easier to handle.
My recall is literally instant, the key is to “see” the circlet on the cube. Maybe trace the pieces with your finger in a circle a few times to commit to your memory.
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
572
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
This is the probably worst way you could learn it. What I did and I believe you should do is visualise the circlets on the cube.
For example, if 5 is in DFR and 6 is in UFL, there are 4 remaining pieces in the circlet, UBL, UBR, UFR and DBR.
In this case, the circlet is DBR>UBR>UBL>UFR>DBR
So visualise this circular path on the cube.
The only other circlet with these 4 locations in the path is when 5 and 6 are interchanged. In this case, the path is DBR>UFR>UBR>UBL>DBR.
When you “visualise” these two as being the only two possible paths when UFL and DFR are occupied by 5 and 6, it’ll get a lot easier to handle.
My recall is literally instant, the key is to “see” the circlet on the cube. Maybe trace the pieces with your finger in a circle a few times to commit to your memory.
Right, I'm trying to visualize the circlet, this was just writing them out so I don't have to figure it out every time. Visualizing the circlets makes sense, but it seems like there are just too many possibilities to keep them straight. How do you remember them so well? Are there patterns you've found?
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
75
Right, I'm trying to visualize the circlet, this was just writing them out so I don't have to figure it out every time. Visualizing the circlets makes sense, but it seems like there are just too many possibilities to keep them straight. How do you remember them so well? Are there patterns you've found?
There aren’t any patterns that I immediately see. The thing is, there are just 16 non-trivial cases (thats 8 pairs), and I memorised them over a week or two as I transitioned from the beginner tracing to this. Like I said, it’s an obvious jump from beginners to this, so I kinda started as soon as I started doing solves. Maybe just give it time.
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
572
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
There aren’t any patterns that I immediately see. The thing is, there are just 16 non-trivial cases (thats 8 pairs), and I memorised them over a week or two as I transitioned from the beginner tracing to this. Like I said, it’s an obvious jump from beginners to this, so I kinda started as soon as I started doing solves. Maybe just give it time.
The fact that swapping 5 and 6 simply reverses the circlet does make a big difference. I'll work on it. Thanks.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
75
The fact that swapping 5 and 6 simply reverses the circlet does make a big difference. I'll work on it. Thanks.
That doesn’t seem true...
In fact, I guess this is never true. It’s like a negative constraint.
Edit: it is indeed true.
 
Last edited:

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
590
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I by no means intend to disrespect or belittle the work and analysis done by others, or take credit for things not originally mine. If somebody wants to consider YruRU a variation of Briggs, or simply want my name out of it, go ahead; you would be well justified due to the overwhelming similarity it bore with Briggs, especially when I first put it out.
I was excited when I came across an idea, and I’m here to defend and develop it, not necessarily take the credit.
Similarly, Briggs and 2GR were dismissed as not great speedsolving ideas; and from the same line of thought, one may consider this method unfit for speedsolving. Nobody forces you to use it and you can certainly verbalise your opinion. However, numerous individuals find it to have potential, so this is undeniably up for debate, it being a bad idea is not something that “I must recognise”. Again, CP-first is certainly not a new idea and I am aware of it now, but an independently developed “different version of Briggs” might have the potential to promise you vastly different results, and that this is not capable of producing something new is not something that “I must recognise”.
That said; this barrage of comments focussing on who gets credit is neither put in a healthy tone, nor is the need of the moment. If you believe you should be calling this method “Briggs variation 1.2” or “Semi-2GR”, do so. And if you’ve looked at all these methods and still decide to stick with “YruRU”, be my guest.

I’m here to push this method out there, and I will continue to do so; call it what you may.
I've said multiple times that I think it should be something that should be looked at and encouraged, I'm just suprised it took you so long to admit that it is literally Briggs (not 1.2 or semi 2GR, as it is 100% Briggs and 2GR is a different method altogether). I do think that LEOR style methods have promise and I think that LEOR as a method definitely has potential for world class times but I'm more skeptical of Briggs for that (OH might be different). A different variant that achieves a similar thing is to solve CP and last slot in one algorithm, which gives 2GLL and would definitely be great for OH.
go ahead with what you are doing and know that there are also those of us who support new method development, while knowing fully well that (harsh) criticism is expected.
I fully support new method development and at no point have I said that I was anti a different way of solving CP except for the opinion that 2GR style is better. Also, at every point of criticism I've been creating a dialogue to test the system, not to belittle it.
either way, congrats on coming up with your new discovery, does not matter whether it has similarities with what others may have thought of in the past, and it is very exciting to see you updating and developing it consistently.
The CP style was new and I'm impressed by anyone who manages to find a way to solve CP while solving the DL corners as it's pretty complicated.
happy cubing and thanks for contributing to the community!
Hear hear.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
75
It has taken me a longer time to get used to the pEO system than I anticipated, so I am simply going to list out all the cases.
The notation is as follows:
G = good edge, B = bad edge, and we shall read clockwise from the FB edge in U layer. For example, if the FB edge is in UB, then GGB means Good edges in UR and UF, and a bad edge in UL.

The following algorithms are to be done after the setup. The cases in bold are the unintuitive cases.

u R u type insert, FB edge in UB:
GGG: u R' u r
GGB: u R' u r
GBG: r’ U’ r2 (R/R’) u2
GBB: u R' u U' r
BGG: u R' u r
BGB: u R' u U' r or u R' u U r
BBG: u R' u U r
BBB: u R' u U' r or u R' u U r

u R u type insert, FB edge in UF:
GGG: u' R u' U2 r
GGB: u' R u' U2 r
GBG: r U (R/R’) u2 r2
GBB: u' R u' U r
BGG: u' R u' U2 r
BGB: u' R u' U' r or u' R u' U r
BBG: u' R u' U' r
BBB: u' R u' U' r or u' R u' U r

For the U R u2 type insert, it is not necessary to treat the UF and UB cases separately, thus I will only list the UB cases. Note, the second move can be either R or R' depending on what the FB edge is, here I will write R for the sake of listing (though if there is an R', the U r u2 type trick not work).
U R u2 type insert, FB edge in UB:
GGG: U R u2 U' r
GGB: U R u2 U' r
*GBG: (r’ u' R u' / U2 r u R' u) U r U’ R U r
GBB: U R u2 U2 r
BGG: U R u2 U' r
BGB: U R u2 r [or U r u2]
BBG: U R u2 r [or U r u2]
BBB: U R u2 r [or U r u2]

Note, it may be worthwhile to check out where the three U layer edges end up in each case (one of them is always DB, the other two are usually in the B face).

Aside from these, I tested out another pEO idea, which is basically the same set-ups, but with the U/D centre on top. Combining this idea with the current pEO idea would allow for some flexibility. However, it turns out it’s relatively complicated to do pEO with a U/D centre on top, so much so that it’s not worth learning. The sub-5 average move count of the current pEO technique and basically no requirement to pause to recognise the case since the first few moves are almost always identical makes it worth it to stand alone.

* What I consider better here is (r’ u’ R u’ U r2) or (U2 r u R’ u U r2). It is much lower movecount and ensures a good edge ends up in DB, but it increases the probability 6 bad edges. Also, once in 2048 solves, you will have an 8 bad edges EO case if you use this; which is why I did not list it up there.

Also, I am sometimes able to plan upto set-up in inspection, so it may be a long-term goal to always be able to plan upto set-up.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
618
Location
The FitnessGram Pacer Test is a multi stage...
Partial edge control during FB

The development in this post marks the completion of the skeletal structure of YruRU; so now I can start working on a tutorial pdf and possibly a github page. This post addresses and I believe completely resolves the bottleneck of the EO stage; which now is considerably superior to the EO stage of any variation of LEOR, Briggs, etc. that I could find online or think of.
Hey, hey, hey, we need a wiki page too once you’ve fleshed it out a bit more (if there isn’t one already).
 

I'm A Cuber

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
172
There is already one for Briggs, I figure we should just add this method under alternative names and link this thread at the bottom
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
572
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
The notation is as follows:
G = good edge, B = bad edge, and we shall read clockwise from the FB edge in U layer. For example, if the FB edge is in UB, then GGB means Good edges in UR and UF, and a bad edge in UL.
This is great; I'll be working on it a lot in the next few days. One minor thing though: If we're doing something different for each case, we don't need to mentally change the orientation of the edge opposite the FB edge. That worked great when we just did a different thing for more good edges or bad edges, but in this case it's unnecessary. I would recognize the first case, GGG, and GBG instead. This should make recognition easier. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something since I haven't looked at this in depth, but that's my first impression anyway.
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
75
This is great; I'll be working on it a lot in the next few days. One minor thing though: If we're doing something different for each case, we don't need to mentally change the orientation of the edge opposite the FB edge. That worked great when we just did a different thing for more good edges or bad edges, but in this case it's unnecessary. I would recognize the first case, GGG, and GBG instead. This should make recognition easier. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something since I haven't looked at this in depth, but that's my first impression anyway.
If you’re looking at it algorithmically, this is a great idea. Currently I prefer to look at it intuitively, which is why I need to identify it as I mentioned, though I might shift to the algorithmic approach, in which case I’ll do it as you said.
 
Top