Roux CN discussion (x2/y vs full CN)

[Exotic Butters]

Hello!
I was curious as to what type of CN was best for Roux, x2/y,or full CN. I think most people believe that x2/y is superior, but some people believe that full CN is better. What do you guys think?

 

[Username: Username:]

If you absolutely don't care about optimizing lookahead, which is basically the most important thing when you're like at the high levels of cubing, and want to get really lucky scrambles, then pick full CN, tho, full CN in Roux is really hard imo.
I can see that lookahead will be obviously really superior in x2/y CN cause you're not looking to improve at like 24 blocks which is insane.

I can maybe compare it like this, give a beginner who is not good at lookahead when CN but is really good at lookahead when it's not CN (unrealistic I know for a beginner but this is true for any method, lookahead in full CN is << lookahead in x2/y CN) a really lucky scramble, prolly had FB + DR already there, sure there's pieces solved = good lookahead right? well it's not that many pieces to compensate a lootttt of pauses during maybe SB and other unsolved pieces,
and FB + DR is not common imo.

but on the flip side, chances of a lucky scramble like FB is there becomes better than x2/y CN as you have a lot of choices for blocks.

 

[Silky]

I think it really depends on your style of solving. I actually just started on CN for Roux. Since I have a bit of a slower turning speed I rely more efficiency to get fast times and fluid look ahead. But if you have faster tps having really sharp look ahead is more important and it's easier to focus on that with x2/y CN.

I think this is one of the greatest things about Roux and ZZ. Instead of being forced to play into the strengths of the method ( CFOP with fast TPS or Petrus with efficiency ) the method can play into your own strengths!

 

[CrispyCubing]

I think x2/y CN is (in general) enough for now, because being x2/y allows you to optimize block building and look ahead (instead of spending examinx amounts of time trying to be good with full CN.) I am x2/y CN and I get a pair or cross/corner pair ~80% of the time. Although I wouldn’t be surprised to see world class roux solvers who are full CN in the future.

 

[xyzzy]

I'm an absolute casual when it comes to Roux solving; my two cents is that with full CN, you don't need to overlook super easy squares just because they're on the "wrong" colour.

On the other hand, the marginal value of additional FB choices (beyond the 8 choices with x2 y) is much smaller than e.g. with cross colours. The move counts for the remaining 16 FB choices are somewhat correlated with the move counts for x2 y's 8 choices since you can always find an x2 y FB choice that intersects in three or four pieces; not so with cross, where different crosses either share only one piece (adjacent) or none at all (opposite).

 

[Josh_]

Being fully cn is probably better, but I don't think that it would be worth it to switch considering how long it would take to do that. I think that x2 y is good enough because you can use any 1x1x2 bar you find in inspection.

 

[porkynator]

One big disadvantage of full color neutrality is that choosing a starting block from 24 possibilities takes more time than choosing one from 8. Since for speedsolving one typically wants to inspect in 15 seconds, this is valuable time taken from planning further into the solve.

 

[Alex Shih]

I wish more people would talk about x/y2 color neutrality. Imo it's almost as good as x2/y. You aren't able to take advantage of every 1x1x2 block from inspection, but you trade easy CMLL recognition for easier EOLR recognition.

I'm still not very advanced at Roux (I average ~22), but one major problem for me has been first block-second block transition. Because I do x2/y, after first block I'm constantly disoriented and need a few seconds to figure out the correct DR edge and the correct blocks to solve. Maybe this will change after a lot more solves, but I have my doubts.

 

[Athefre]

I wish more people would talk about x/y2 color neutrality. Imo it's almost as good as x2/y. You aren't able to take advantage of every 1x1x2 block from inspection, but you trade easy CMLL recognition for easier EOLR recognition.

I've been doing xy2 neutrality since the beginning. To me it feels like it matches the Roux method better because Roux is more based on the left and right sides of the cube than up and down like F2L based methods. I also like that I always have the same color UL and UR edges for LSE.

Another advantage is that it makes doing non-matching blocks easier because it makes you think of the cube as left and right based. When doing the second block, I just find any corner with the right side color and pair with edges. I don't pay much attention to what color belongs on the D layer because it doesn't matter. For those that do x2y neutrality, it may take a slight change of thinking to get away from focusing on finding the two yellow or white corners.

But really they are pretty much the same. It is just a different way of thinking about the cube.

 

[Alex Shih]

I've been doing xy2 neutrality since the beginning. To me it feels like it matches the Roux method better because Roux is more based on the left and right sides of the cube than up and down like F2L based methods. I also like that I always have the same color UL and UR edges for LSE.

Another advantage is that it makes doing non-matching blocks easier because it makes you think of the cube as left and right based. When doing the second block, I just find any corner with the right side color and pair with edges. I don't pay much attention to what color belongs on the D layer because it doesn't matter. For those that do x2y neutrality, it may take a slight change of thinking to get away from focusing on finding the two yellow or white corners.

But really they are pretty much the same. It is just a different way of thinking about the cube.

How do you recognize CMLL/EO when you do non-matching blocks? This has always been a problem for me when trying it.

 

[Athefre]

How do you recognize CMLL/EO when you do non-matching blocks? This has always been a problem for me when trying it.

I have a non-matching blocks guide in my signature. Click that link. There I provide the CMLL recognition method and how to make EO recognition easy.

 

[Alex Shih]

I've been doing xy2 neutrality since the beginning. To me it feels like it matches the Roux method better because Roux is more based on the left and right sides of the cube than up and down like F2L based methods. I also like that I always have the same color UL and UR edges for LSE.

Another advantage is that it makes doing non-matching blocks easier because it makes you think of the cube as left and right based. When doing the second block, I just find any corner with the right side color and pair with edges. I don't pay much attention to what color belongs on the D layer because it doesn't matter. For those that do x2y neutrality, it may take a slight change of thinking to get away from focusing on finding the two yellow or white corners.

But really they are pretty much the same. It is just a different way of thinking about the cube.

Is lookahead noticeably worse when you're preparing to do the last 1x1x2 for second block? The reason I ask is because you have to specifically ignore one of the remaining corners (if your right side is yellow and you make a 2x2x1 with yellow, red, and green, then you would have to ignore the yellow orange blue corner).

 

[Athefre]

Is lookahead noticeably worse when you're preparing to do the last 1x1x2 for second block? The reason I ask is because you have to specifically ignore one of the remaining corners (if your right side is yellow and you make a 2x2x1 with yellow, red, and green, then you would have to ignore the yellow orange blue corner).

It actually feels better versus not doing non-matching blocks. It is easy to look at the corner chosen for the 1x2x2 and, while solving it, find one of the two corners that have a color that matches. There are two options versus one, meaning you more quickly find a corner to use.

 

[Rouxster]

I use a special type of colour neutrality which I like to call x4y. I use white, yellow, blue and green as top/ bottom colours, which let's me use any pre made 1×2×2 square.plus it is not as hard as full cn, because there are 16 possible blocks instead of 24.

 

[DNF_Cuber]

I use a special type of colour neutrality which I like to call x4y. I use white, yellow, blue and green as top/ bottom colours, which let's me use any pre made 1×2×2 square.plus it is not as hard as full cn, because there are 16 possible blocks instead of 24.

that would be called xy.

 

[ZB2op]

Hello!
I was curious as to what type of CN was best for Roux, x2/y,or full CN. I think most people believe that x2/y is superior, but some people believe that full CN is better. What do you guys think?

The number of blocks is wrong. With x2/y you can take advantage of any pair on the cube.

 

[xyzzy]

The number of blocks is wrong. With x2/y you can take advantage of any pair on the cube.

It's not wrong. x2 y does allow making use of any pair, but you still have only eight choices of FB in total; in other words, you can't extend that pair in any direction you want, unlike with full CN.

 

[Pyjam]

L2 U2 F L2 B2 R2 B' D2 F L' D B2 U B2 F' L' D L
or :rolleyes: ?

 

[xyzzy]

L2 U2 F L2 B2 R2 B' D2 F L' D B2 U B2 F' L' D L
or :rolleyes: ?

:rolleyes: (link)

(Really though, if I were a Roux user (and used it with the same mentality I do for my CFOP/FreeFOP solves), I'd go for that block.)

 

[Pyjam]

I'm not CN, and… maybe… it's not even usefull for this scramble.

(y x') M' D R F R U' L2 U F // (9) FB (right) + square
M' U' M2' L F' L' F L' // (8/17) SB + CMLL
U M U M' U' M U2 // (7/24) LSE

To be honest, it's not a speed solve.