New PB single
8.52 L2 B2 R2 B' U2 R2 B U2 B L2 R2 U' B' L R D B2 D L D'

y2 D R2 D R' D' // FB
U' Rw' U' Rw U R U2 Rw' U' Rw // RB square
M2 R U' Rw' // RF Pair
U' R' F R B' R' F' R B // CMLL
U' M' U' M' U' M U' M' // EO
U' M2 U M2 // the rest

Wow
 
New PB single
8.52 L2 B2 R2 B' U2 R2 B U2 B L2 R2 U' B' L R D B2 D L D'

y2 D R2 D R' D' // FB
U' Rw' U' Rw U R U2 Rw' U' Rw // RB square
M2 R U' Rw' // RF Pair
U' R' F R B' R' F' R B // CMLL
U' M' U' M' U' M U' M' // EO
U' M2 U M2 // the rest

Wow

nice solve, weird cmll, isn't easier just to do U2 F' r U R' U' r' F R? or R U R U' L' U R U' x'?
 
nice solve, weird cmll, isn't easier just to do F' r U R' U' r' F R?

I learned this from Bob Burton's site (cubewhiz.com). Actually a really fast alg imo. I use your version on 2x2 though, and the reflection of yours for the reflection case.

Edit: timed my alg a few times. Fastest was 0.47 :)
 
Last edited:
nooooo 10.83 scramble: D2 F2 U' B2 U' L2 U B2 L2 D' L' F2 D B R D' B2 F R' D'
inspection: x2, y
fb:B' U' R M U' M2 U2 L' U L
SB: M' U' R' U r' U' r U' R2 U' R U2 R' U' R
CMLL: U2 L' U2 L U2 L F' L' F
EO: M2 U' M' U M'
LR: U M' U2 M U M2 U
EP: M U2 M U2 M2
 
Last edited:
nooooo 10.83 scramble: D2 F2 U' B2 U' L2 U B2 L2 D' L' F2 D B R D' B2 F R' D'
inspection: x2, y
fb:B' U' R M U' M2 U2 L' U L
SB: M' U' R' U r' U' r U' R2 U' R U2 R' U' R
CMLL: U2 L' U2 L U2 L F' L' F
EO: M2 U' M' U M'
LR: U M' U2 M U M2 U
EP: M U2 M U2 M2


your scramble: D2 F2 U' B2 U' L2 U B2 L2 D' L' F2 D B R D' B2 F R' D'
time: 7.43
solution:
x2 y
U B' U' R' U' r' F' (7)
r' U r U R2 U' r U B' R' B (11)
L F2 L' U2 R' F R F' (8)
U' M' U' M' U2 M2 U' M' U2 M U2 (11)
stm: 37
tps: 4.98
 
Question from a CFOPer; why wouldn't you want to use COLL for Roux since you could more easily predict EO after CxLL? Any time lost by having longer COLL algs would seem to easily be made up by having an idea of what edges would be flipped after the alg.
 
Question from a CFOPer; why wouldn't you want to use COLL for Roux since you could more easily predict EO after CxLL? Any time lost by having longer COLL algs would seem to easily be made up by having an idea of what edges would be flipped after the alg.
That extra time is probably made okay by having shorter algs.
 
Question from a CFOPer; why wouldn't you want to use COLL for Roux since you could more easily predict EO after CxLL? Any time lost by having longer COLL algs would seem to easily be made up by having an idea of what edges would be flipped after the alg.

i actually think it's better to just learn COLL if you're just going to learn one alg for each case. But for almost all of my CMLL, i have one eo preserving alg (not necessarily COLL) and one eo changing alg. A lot of them is just switching R for r or something like that.
 
My average move count is about 40-50, and my tps in most solves is 3. Should I gradually increase turn speed while keeping fluidity or should I further lower my move count?
 
Back
Top