Roux variation

[Deleted member 15503]

Hi there, I've been experimenting with a roux variation that might reduce the number of algs to learn without reducing speed! (maybe )

so normal roux is:

F2B => CMLL => EO => EP

but if you try to solve the DF and DB endge while orienting the edges, you get a EPLL. this is actually not to hard to do intuitivly!

so then it would look like this:

F2B => CMLL => EOline => EPLL

so now you could instead of learning full CMLL, learn full PLL! then you would have this:

F2B => Orient corners => EOline => PLL

hehe that looks like ZZ in a diffrent order but doing it actually feel like roux except the last step ofcourse

So, for this variation you would need full PLL and the algs to orient corners (I guess around 28?) wich is less than CMLL!

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

The only problem I can see with this, is that restricted EOLine is gonna be really slow. I think LSE would work out to be much faster then this.

 

[Deleted member 15503]

have you tried it? you should, its quite fun and its maybe not that slow...

anyway, i do like LSE over PLL I think..

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

Yeah I have tried it, but the first step of LSE is orientation anyway, then the solving of the DF/DB edges would be about the same as UL/UR. I just think that OCLL+PLL is going to be much slower than CMLL (usually shorter algs than OCLL) and then permute Mslice (Very fast, faster than PLL by a lot)

 

[Deleted member 15503]

It's not 'orient the edges and permute DF and DB' It's 'orient the edges while permuting DF and DB'
you have lots of freedom in EO, where you do M U M' you can also do M U' M or M U' M' and so on... use this freedom to permute DF and DB

 

[MaeLSTRoM]

I thought about that aswell, but just doing EO first would be much quicker IMO, since its less looks, so you can get it done in 1 go. I think this method is OK for fun solving, but I dont think it would be very similar to pure Roux in terms of speed.