• 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

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
572
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
It's not similar to Briggs, it is Briggs (in reference to the Wiki article).
1. I think you've made your point
2. The steps are very similar, but with some notable differences:
  • In Briggs, CP is done with an 8-move 3-cycle, not a 3-move trigger.
  • Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier
  • The way Briggs does EOStripe is different from YruRU. Briggs solves DB first, then EO and solve DF
Call it a Briggs variant if you want; Devagio has agreed that that's ok. But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs.
 

I'm A Cuber

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
173
It's not similar to Briggs, it is Briggs (in reference to the Wiki article).
On this one, I think I’m going to have to go with PapaSmurf. It is the same steps as Briggs. When talking about a preexisting method vs a new method, the steps are what matter, not how you do them. If I made a 2x2x2 block in Petrus by putting in two cross edges and an f2l pair, it’s still Petrus. If someone uses CoLL and does 5-sticker recognition and solves it intuitively using coms, rather than 3-sticker recognition using a heavily optimized alg set, both are still CoLL. They are not two different methods, they are different ways of doing the same thing, which is what is happening here.
Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier
From what I understand of pEO (which is not very much, so correct me if I’m wrong), it is a way of fixing several bad edges between the cp and eo steps. However, this is not a part of the “base method,” similar to partial edge control with CFOP.
But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs
I don’t think so. I think that creating this wiki page is slightly discrediting the work originally done by Briggs, especially if this became really popular (Big 3 level). However, if you are going to keep this wiki page (as I figure you will), you should at least add Briggs under alternate names. I do think that the cp recognition is revolutionary for the method, but as I said earlier, the first person to come to with CoLL 3-sticker recognition did not invent a new method.

Wow my forum posts are becoming long lol
Edit: Argh my laugh Emojis aren’t working
 

Devagio

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2020
Messages
75
On this one, I think I’m going to have to go with PapaSmurf. It is the same steps as Briggs. When talking about a preexisting method vs a new method, the steps are what matter, not how you do them. If I made a 2x2x2 block in Petrus by putting in two cross edges and an f2l pair, it’s still Petrus. If someone uses CoLL and does 5-sticker recognition and solves it intuitively using coms, rather than 3-sticker recognition using a heavily optimized alg set, both are still CoLL. They are not two different methods, they are different ways of doing the same thing, which is what is happening here.

From what I understand of pEO (which is not very much, so correct me if I’m wrong), it is a way of fixing several bad edges between the cp and eo steps. However, this is not a part of the “base method,” similar to partial edge control with CFOP.

I don’t think so. I think that creating this wiki page is slightly discrediting the work originally done by Briggs, especially if this became really popular (Big 3 level). However, if you are going to keep this wiki page (as I figure you will), you should at least add Briggs under alternate names. I do think that the cp recognition is revolutionary for the method, but as I said earlier, the first person to come to with CoLL 3-sticker recognition did not invent a new method.

Wow my forum posts are becoming long lol
Edit: Argh my laugh Emojis aren’t working
I like to look at it with the analogy of 4x4 methods.

Yau is basically reduction, except there is a little bit of shuffling; 3 edges are paired and placed sometime during centres to aid lookahead, but both methods are identical otherwise.
YruRU is basically Briggs, except there is a little bit of shuffling; 2 edges are oriented and placed sometime during FB to aid lookahead [There are other differences such as CP is done completely differently both recognition and execution wise, FB is done differently, DB-DF are solved differently; but these are not required to make my point].

Yau is considered a completely different method from redux; not identical, not its variation.
 
Last edited:

Owen Morrison

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2019
Messages
1,059
Location
Tennessee
WCA
2017MORR06
YouTube
Visit Channel
1. I think you've made your point
2. The steps are very similar, but with some notable differences:
  • In Briggs, CP is done with an 8-move 3-cycle, not a 3-move trigger.
  • Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier
  • The way Briggs does EOStripe is different from YruRU. Briggs solves DB first, then EO and solve DF
Call it a Briggs variant if you want; Devagio has agreed that that's ok. But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs.
So pretty much YruRU is Briggs but better?
 

CuberStache

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
572
Location
Washington State, USA
WCA
2016DAVI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
So is the pEO actually an “official” step in this method?
Yeah, the method has been in development since it was proposed. pEO, afaik, is an official step of the "complete" version of the method. It's listed on the wiki page as part of the FB step.
So pretty much YruRU is Briggs but better?
Yeah, pretty much. Briggs has the benefit of doing FB+CP in inspection, but the way it does it is worse imo.
 

I'm A Cuber

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
173
Yeah, the method has been in development since it was proposed. pEO, afaik, is an official step of the "complete" version of the method. It's listed on the wiki page as part of the FB step
Ok. I will accept that this is a different method now. This is now a closed argument (for me). I am now forced (shameless Self promotion of my awesome debating skills) to put down my incredible argument that this should not have its own wiki page, and instead go argue an incredible argument elsewhere.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
590
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
  • In Briggs, CP is done with an 8-move 3-cycle, not a 3-move trigger.
  • Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier
  • The way Briggs does EOStripe is different from YruRU. Briggs solves DB first, then EO and solve D
Call it a Briggs variant if you want; Devagio has agreed that that's ok. But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs.
In Briggs, you solve first block plus some form of CP. The 3 cycle was an inital way of solving it, but trust me, Briggs is just solving CP during FB. Briggs also has pEO if you want Briggs to have pEO, just as CFOP has edge control if you want to do edge control. They aren't separate things. And lastly, that is not true. The steps of Briggs are CPFB (in whichever way), EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. The steps of YruRU is solve CPFB in a specific way that also influences EO, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. Pretty identical. What you're counting as a differen method would be calling CFOP where you solve each cross piece one at a time instead of several at once a different method.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
209
WCA
2017OWEN01
In Briggs, you solve first block plus some form of CP. The 3 cycle was an inital way of solving it, but trust me, Briggs is just solving CP during FB. Briggs also has pEO if you want Briggs to have pEO, just as CFOP has edge control if you want to do edge control. They aren't separate things. And lastly, that is not true. The steps of Briggs are CPFB (in whichever way), EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. The steps of YruRU is solve CPFB in a specific way that also influences EO, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. Pretty identical. What you're counting as a differen method would be calling CFOP where you solve each cross piece one at a time instead of several at once a different method.
I agree with papa if you going to call YruRU a separate method you going to have to come up with different names for a sub 8 solver with cfop and someone averaging 30 and different names for ZZ EOcross and EOline etc.
 
Top