• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

Stachu Korick's New Method :)

Not new. Thought of it before, looong ago. Didn't like it.

ErikJ's got all the right reasons spelled out.

And, this really doesn't deserve a name of its own. Name it EO-Roux if you want, but there's no way you're taking all the credit away from Roux himself.
 
Last edited:
In any case, if you insist on combining ZZ and Roux, here's another idea I've had not long after having the one you mentioned:

EOLine as usual. Only this time, the Line in EOLine is DR and DL. Then Fridrich those 4 slots. Use (slightly more advanced) phasing during the last slot to permute 2 opposite edges. Then a 1-look last step.
 
When did pre-orient become the basis for every new method? People seem to think that 2gen pairs are the greatest thing ever, when most cases are either already 2gen after rotating, or just much nicer 3gen (R U' R' (U+d) R' U' R remains my definitive example)

I also don't get what is so great about WV. Most of the cases seem like a lot of moves for not much work. People seem so opposed to doing regular OLL these days and I don't get why.

In any case, if you insist on combining ZZ and Roux, here's another idea I've had not long after having the one you mentioned:

EOLine as usual. Only this time, the Line in EOLine is DR and DL. Then Fridrich those 4 slots. Use (slightly more advanced) phasing during the last slot to permute 2 opposite edges. Then a 1-look last step.

It seems like you would be wasting the formation of the line though. With normal ZZ getting the other 2 D-layer edges in place is really easy, it seems needlessly complicated here.

I think doing EO first would make the first 1x2x3 much slower than normal. and regular EO for roux only take about 1.5 seconds anyway (faster than ZZ EO).

Major high-five.


Time to split this up and take it apart.

Yu-Korick Method (YK)
Descrition 1.0

STEP 1. EO

This step orients all edges on the cube. The definition of oriented is that the edge can be moved to the correct location without using quarter turns from F or B (F2 and B2 are OK)

During inspection of the cube, try to determine which pieces are oriented. The main method for this is to do this.

If 2 edges are misoriented.
Place 1 in the F or B layers, make a F or B turn, now 4 edges are misoriented.

I'm pretty sure setting up and doing F R F' etc. will always be a better way of orienting 2 edges.

STEP 2. 1x2x3 on the Left Side

This is basically the first step of the Roux method. Nothing is solved, but we have all edges oriented. The idea is to create a 1x2x3 brick without ever using quarter turns from F or B.



A warning! If you do M or M', the F or B colors have now become the U and D layers, so you can't turn those quarter turns. For example, M U M' will disturb orientation, and M U2 M' will preserve it.

A good idea is to use the R slice as a working area, where you can pair up pieces and then use the U layer to transport them to the L slice. Remember never to use quarter turns from F or B.

Move-restricted blockbuilding kind of sucks. The advantage of blockbuilding vs CE pairs is the lower move count of the blockbuilding. Using R as a "working area" to make pairs also defeats the purpose of blockbuilding, although its a result of pre-orienting.

STEP 3. Line

This solves DF and DB. It should be done intuitively, and without messing up edge orientation.

Some hints:

If the edge piece is in the U layer, put it on top of where it needs to go.
For DF, now do M' U2 M.
For DB, now do M U2 M'.

If it's in the R layer, do a R layer turn to bring it to U and do a U insertion.

Now we come to the major downfall of this method. Why would you split up the EO and the line? Its like making your cross with 2 flipped edges and an adjacent swap! You're taking EOline, replacing it with a step that takes virtually the same number of moves but does half the work, then going back later and finishing with more pointless moves. Not to mention the extra moves caused by having pieces from your first block located in DF/DB.

STEP 4a. Finish F2L

This is basically the Petrus F2L step. Using R and U turns only, finish the entire F2L. This can be done by blockbuilding, or by a simple Fridrich system where you add a cross piece and then do Fridrich F2L to solve. This is not the only option, you can also do a method that will guarantee an OLL skip, see STEP 4b.

STEP 4b. Finish F2L

This is a different way of doing step 4a. Use blockbuilding methods to solve a 2x2x1 brick with the DBR corner, RD and RB corners. Then, use WV (Winter Variation) to solve the last two pieces in the F2L and orient all corners at the same time, therefore creating an OLL skip (since you preserved Edge Orientation).

Most of what I said about step 2 applies here as well.

I also don't know why everyone thinks WV is so great, CLS would probably be better since your edges are already oriented.

STEP 5a. OLL/PLL

This is probably the easiest method to use. If you know 2-look OLL with Fridrich, you know 1-Look OLL for YK since edges are already oriented. If you know full PLL as well, you have a 2 look LL. If you know 2-look PLL, you have a 3-look LL.

STEP 5b. PLL

This applies only if you used step 4b, and not 4a. You now have an OLL skip, so if you learn PLL, you have a 1-look LL.

STEP 5c. ZBLL

This is the hardest method to learn, because of the amount of algorithms. Solve with Step 4a, and then do ZBLL to give you a 1-look LL. It's much easier to use WV instead for a 1-look LL.

For 5b and 5c, you may have a 1-look LL, but you have a 2-look Last Slot.


Okay, what you just outlined is nothing more than a broken form of ZZ. You waste moves and time by not combining steps 1 and 3, and step 2 suffers as a result. There's really nothing original here, and I definitely believe blah came up with this exact thing when he went through his phase where he played around with new methods.

What Stachu described is a bit more efficient, I would describe it as pre-orient Roux with WV+CPLL instead of CMLL. However, the blockbuilding still suffers from the pre-orient, and I think COLL would be better than WV+CPLL.

I don't think either method really stacks up to its unaltered parent, and don't see any clear advantages over any method being used widely right now.
 
It seems like you would be wasting the formation of the line though. With normal ZZ getting the other 2 D-layer edges in place is really easy, it seems needlessly complicated here.

Have you ever tried ZZ? Or are you just assuming? I believe I've done enough ZZ (been using it for half a year for OH) to know that although it's ridiculously easy to get those 2 edges in, it also wastes a ridiculous number of moves just to solve 2 pieces.

I'm not a big fan of this approach either, that's why I'm not using it although I came up with it independently. All I did was suggest an alternative approach to what Stachu suggested.
 
It seems like you would be wasting the formation of the line though. With normal ZZ getting the other 2 D-layer edges in place is really easy, it seems needlessly complicated here.

Have you ever tried ZZ? Or are you just assuming? I believe I've done enough ZZ (been using it for half a year for OH) to know that although it's ridiculously easy to get those 2 edges in, it also wastes a ridiculous number of moves just to solve 2 pieces.

I'm not a big fan of this approach either, that's why I'm not using it although I came up with it independently. All I did was suggest an alternative approach to what Stachu suggested.

Yes I do know that finishing the cross after EOline is very inefficient. That's why I always try to blockbuild whenever I play around with ZZ.

I also didn't realize that you were suggesting your method as a modification of Stachu's, I thought you were proposing it as a separate idea. I guess it would work better that way, it would allow you to use CLS and PLL which would be better than WV+CPLL+M-slice EP
 
To clear up some confusion:
I originally did not want to take credit for anything (well, as far as using a name)
I originally was fine with "ZZ-Roux".
I did not expect this method to take over amazingly well, and was even surprised when byu was so excited.

While executing this method, I think that it feels a lot more like zz than roux, mainly because of the EO throughout.

Again, I ask the following:
Using similar ideas, do you(plural) think that there IS a better way to beat both Roux and ZZ?

Cheers,
Stachu
 
Corner First-ZZ ftw!!:p

I think there isn't a variation that can beat both Roux and ZZ. Combining the two is kinda pointless because one of the major advantages of ZZ is not having to regrip and doing only R,U,L turns which is really finger-trick friendly. Roux also have that same advantages, but with an addition to M-slice moves to the group of moves(Or maybe it was just me that never regripped during Roux solves). And on another note, blockbuilding shouldn't something that becomes restricted like how Fridrich F2L is.
 
The problem I have with this topic's idea, ZZ, and most other methods that have edge orienting as their first step is that you spend your pre-inspection time planning the edge orienting moves, then after they are oriented, the pieces you need for your next step are all over the cube.

If you are going to orient all edges first, you could have the second step be solving some corners. Even with that though, immediately after that step, the cube becomes very restricted. Pre-orientation feels terrible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top