• 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!

Marbles

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
6
Hey everyone!
I noticed that every now and then I get the opportunity to finish the first two layers instead of doing 4b (Solving UL + UR) by doing a M U2 M' (or M' U2 M), giving me a U Perm to finish the solve. Do you do this as well / think this is a good idea? Or should the Roux UL / UR Solution be more efficient? I guess if finishing the first two layers give me an H or Z perm, it is not worth it?

To set up a situation similar to the one I describe, simply do a U Perm (e.g. (R U') (R U) (R U) (R U') R' U' R) and then M U2 M'.

Thank you in advance
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,758
Hey everyone!
I noticed that every now and then I get the opportunity to finish the first two layers instead of doing 4b (Solving UL + UR) by doing a M U2 M' (or M' U2 M), giving me a U Perm to finish the solve. Do you do this as well / think this is a good idea? Or should the Roux UL / UR Solution be more efficient? I guess if finishing the first two layers give me an H or Z perm, it is not worth it?

To set up a situation similar to the one I describe, simply do a U Perm (e.g. (R U') (R U) (R U) (R U') R' U' R) and then M U2 M'.

Thank you in advance
M2 U M U2 M' U M' U2 M' will solve that case, fyi. (This is just MU U perm (M2 U M U2 M' U M2) cancelling into insert (M U2 M').)

General consensus is that this is not worth it; if you look at how the MU U perm algs work, or the common MU H and Z perm, algs, they're all essentially doing 4b then 4c. You're not skipping 4b/4c by setting up to EPLL; you're just doing it less efficiently.
 

Marbles

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
6
M2 U M U2 M' U M' U2 M' will solve that case, fyi. (This is just MU U perm (M2 U M U2 M' U M2) cancelling into insert (M U2 M').)

General consensus is that this is not worth it; if you look at how the MU U perm algs work, or the common MU H and Z perm, algs, they're all essentially doing 4b then 4c. You're not skipping 4b/4c by setting up to EPLL; you're just doing it less efficiently.
Thank you for your response! With the H and Z perms I noticed that they were essentially doing 4b / 4c. I did not know the MU U perms (only learned the 2-gen ones when I started with CFOP). But playing around with this helped me notice that I have an inefficiency in my current way of solving some 4b cases. For some reason, I would solve a "scramble" such as U M' U2 M (UL Edge between opposite colours) not simply with M' U2 M, but with the inefficient M U2 M' U2 M2. This might have contributed of my intuition of the U perms being faster. ;)
Thank you!
 

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
449
Roux is nice because it's fun, different, low movecount, we'll structured, free, low alg count, nicely flowing, and other things .
 

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
449
My thoughts on Roux vs CFOP solves and mentality. In a CFOP solve, your first step is to solve a cross. In doing this, you lock yourself into the orientation of solving the cube from the bottom up. This makes sense, as CFOP is only an optimization of LBL. However, since you do this, you force yourself to think of the current state of the cube as 4 empty F2L slots. When you solve your first pair, you don't think of the cube's state as 2x2x2 block plus two adjacent edges, but rather as an F2L-3. In solving each F2L pair, you don't look for the middle layer edge and the corner to pair with it, you find the D layer corner, and then its partner. Once you reach your top layer, you solve your top face, and finish the cube. If, by some chance, solving the upper layer corners is part of the aforementioned first LL step, you first find the orientation of the corners using the U layer stickers, and then you find the permutation using sticker patterns. Basically, the entirety of the solve is based on recognition the U and D sticker colors. Since we have been so hardwired into this up-and-down mentality, when we switch to using Roux, we use the same tactics. Barely anyone goes beyond x2 y color neutrality, meaning that your up and down layers are always a certain color or its opposite, equivalent to dual color neutrality in CFOP. Your first block is nearly always done in a square+pair fashion. After the square is made, you only ever consider one of the ways to expand it into a 1x2x3, the way that keeps your D layer color along the bottom. Your second block is usually done as DR+2 pairs. DR must match the D color from your first block. Using the U color is frowned upon, and using the F or B is unthinkable. This is partially due to the way the next step is done: CMLL is recognized using U color sticker positions. If there are two U colors, all heck breaks loose. If non matching blocks are used, even our L6E suffers. We depend on U/D colors to recognize EO, and with lack of them or with overlap, we struggle enormously. We are approaching Roux all wrong. Roux is based on the L and R faces. Solving your first block should set the standard for what colors you will be looking for. Your second block should not be done as edge/pair/pair, but rather as a continuous blockbuilding to a 1x2x3. You should not need to pay attention to your D color; NMB should be embraced as the norm. We should ideally recognize CMLL by first locating the L and R stickers and then finding sticker patterns. This way, NMCLL would require no extra effort. EO does not need to be so rigidly recognized by U and D; first, we should look to the L and R color stickers. Then, Roux would become better comprehensible and optimized.
 

1001010101001

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
1,010
Location
Australia
WCA
2017WENR01
How do you solve a Megaminx with Roux? I use Roux for all cubic puzzles , square-1 and pyraminx(L4E, which is a Roux based method.). I just have to find a way for Skewbs and Megaminxes.
 
Last edited:

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
449
I think Kian Mansour is doing a bunch of videos more geared towards beginners, and he's got a bunch of other food stuff too. His channel is probably one of the best Roux resources there is.
Edit: Oops, good stuff, not food stuff.
 
Last edited:

Neuro

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
497
Look at people's reconstructions. Reconstructions are very helpful to understand not only how the pieces pair/move during blocks but can also provide valuable insight in lookahead and fingertricks.

Another great resource is called block trainer. Essentially, you can choose what step you want to train (FB, SB, 2x2x2, 2x2x3, etc.) and it will provide a short scramble that can be solved in x moves. You get to choose the difficulty, ranging from 1-15 move blocks (stop at 6/7 though.) You can train blocks and try to find an efficient solution matching that movecount. You can also see the solution made by the computer to see the most efficient way to solve it.

One video I found very helpful was by teoidus called "Finding an Efficient First Block in Inspection." It's very good although long. It provides an almost branching method for finding good first blocks.

I find that SB is mostly practice and intuition, but I would take a look at some basic pairing and SB tips in Kian's Roux series. You can also use this series to review other concepts, such as FB and LSE.

Oddly enough, I consider my training with ZZ blockbuilding F2L to have given me an advantage namely in SB. I used to use ZZ, and I feel as though my practice in blockbuilding F2L helped me better understand how all the pieces move around the puzzle while in an easier to understand state. Perhaps this could help as well.

When starting, you can choose one of 3 main options for blockbuilding

Only do 1 FB every time (such as green with white bottom)
Solve any FB with a single bottom (y neutral, such always white bottom. 4 options)
Solve any FB with opposite bottoms (x2, y neutral. gives 8 FB options. Perhaps white/blue bottom if using Japanese scheme)

1 FB can be used to get a better understanding of blockbuilding in the very beginning as you always know the pieces required in FB, but it isn't recommended long term, as you won't always get access to a nice or the best first block.

y neutrality is a nice step forward because you always know what's on the bottom and top. It's a nice stepping stone into x2, y neutrality if you don't feel immediately comfortable moving into it. However, it has the same problem of not always giving access to best FB, although you do now have 3 more options.

x2, y is used by top solvers of the Roux method. With access to 8 FB's, you get a variety of different blocks to choose from. This allows you to choose the best FB while also having good SB/CMLL recognition later in the solve. However, I wouldn't recommend learning this until you are comfortable with FB.

I know it's a lot of info, but I hope this helps. Let me know if you want any more resources!
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
57
Personally, I'm not at all colour neutral. Blue lf and white bottom. However, I'd say 2 side colours and both vertical faces should give you enough variation to get decent solves.
 
Top