That's not really true. You have awesome example solve and i appreciate it, but they are Petrus and not Roux.
What you do is: build 3x2x2, EO, F2L, COLL/EPLL (or anything else LL), and that's Petrus
What you have to do to call it roux: 3x2x1 block, opposite 3x2x1 block, COLL or CMLL, LSE (EO, UL/UR, L4E)
And you don't skip LSE, because in your way to solve it you'll never get a LSE
That's not really true. You have awesome example solve and i appreciate it, but they are Petrus and not Roux.
What you do is: build 3x2x2, EO, F2L, COLL/EPLL (or anything else LL), and that's Petrus
What you have to do to call it roux: 3x2x1 block, opposite 3x2x1 block, COLL or CMLL, LSE (EO, UL/UR, L4E)
And you don't skip LSE, because in your way to solve it you'll never get a LSE
-Solve a 3x2x1 block and make sure that no other pieces are placed correctly on the cube.
-Then solve a 3x2x1 block on the opposite side and make sure again that no other pieces are placed correctly.
-Then solve the CMLL while still making sure not to solve any other pieces.
-Then waste 20 htm solving a LSE case that I could have otherwise solved bit by bit along the way.
It's interesting to note that a Petrus 3x2x2 block includes a solved Roux 3x2x1.
Also that Petrus EO+F2L solves the exact same pieces as Roux's second block.
And that my L4C LL approach solves the exact same pieces as Roux CMLL.
As far as I can tell, Petrus is merely a variant of the Roux method.
Inspection: x2 y
Cross: L R' U' R' B2 y' R' u R' u'
F2l: y' U' R U R' U2 L' U' L
U' R' U R F R' F' R
y' U L' U L U' U' y' R U R'
U L' U' L
2LOLL: f R U R' U' f' U' R U R' U R U2 R'
PLL: y2 T Perm
Next: F2 U' L2 R2 U2 L2 B2 U' L2 U2 B R' D2 L2 F2 D L2 R' F' U2
-Solve a 3x2x1 block and make sure that no other pieces are placed correctly on the cube.
-Then solve a 3x2x1 block on the opposite side and make sure again that no other pieces are placed correctly.
-Then solve the CMLL while still making sure not to solve any other pieces.
-Then waste 20 htm solving a LSE case that I could have otherwise solved bit by bit along the way.
It's interesting to note that a Petrus 3x2x2 block includes a solved Roux 3x2x1.
Also that Petrus EO+F2L solves the exact same pieces as Roux's second block.
And that my L4C LL approach solves the exact same pieces as Roux CMLL.
As far as I can tell, Petrus is merely a variant of the Roux method.
Isn't every method pretty much a variant of each other? You don't have to make sure that no other pieces are solved, but you also don't have to go out of your way to make sure that they are solved; the idea is to build the opposing 3x2x1 blocks as optimally as possible. I always get a good laugh out of your "roux" solves, but I really don't see what point you're trying to make...
Ok, i think that's a matter of opinion. In my opinion it's not.
-Solve a 3x2x1 block and make sure that no other pieces are placed correctly on the cube.
-Then solve a 3x2x1 block on the opposite side and make sure again that no other pieces are placed correctly.
-Then solve the CMLL while still making sure not to solve any other pieces.
If its very obvious Ok, but you solve other pieces in purpose and every time. e.g in your way to solve you can't get LSE. So it's not a Roux example because nobody can study your LSE.
-Then waste 20 htm solving a LSE case that I could have otherwise solved bit by bit along the way.
You don't waste (let's say 12 moves), because you have tos solve the pieces anyway and that cost moves in other states of the solve, exept it is obvious (and then it is OK)
It's interesting to note that a Petrus 3x2x2 block includes a solved Roux 3x2x1.
Inspection: x2 y
Cross: L R' U' R' B2 y' R' u R' u'
F2l: y' U' R U R' U2 L' U' L
U' R' U R F R' F' R
y' U L' U L U' U' y' R U R'
U L' U' L
2LOLL: f R U R' U' f' U' R U R' U R U2 R'
PLL: y2 T Perm
-Solve a 3x2x1 block and make sure that no other pieces are placed correctly on the cube.
-Then solve a 3x2x1 block on the opposite side and make sure again that no other pieces are placed correctly.
-Then solve the CMLL while still making sure not to solve any other pieces.
-Then waste 20 htm solving a LSE case that I could have otherwise solved bit by bit along the way.
It's interesting to note that a Petrus 3x2x2 block includes a solved Roux 3x2x1.
Also that Petrus EO+F2L solves the exact same pieces as Roux's second block.
And that my L4C LL approach solves the exact same pieces as Roux CMLL.
As far as I can tell, Petrus is merely a variant of the Roux method.
-Solve a 3x2x1 block and make sure that no other pieces are placed correctly on the cube.
-Then solve a 3x2x1 block on the opposite side and make sure again that no other pieces are placed correctly.
-Then solve the CMLL while still making sure not to solve any other pieces.
-Then waste 20 htm solving a LSE case that I could have otherwise solved bit by bit along the way.
It's interesting to note that a Petrus 3x2x2 block includes a solved Roux 3x2x1.
Also that Petrus EO+F2L solves the exact same pieces as Roux's second block.
And that my L4C LL approach solves the exact same pieces as Roux CMLL.
As far as I can tell, Petrus is merely a variant of the Roux method.
If its very obvious Ok, but you solve other pieces in purpose and every time. e.g in your way to solve you can't get LSE. So it's not a Roux example because nobody can study your LSE.
If you are trying to solve a cube as efficiently as possible, wouldn't you TRY to minimize the amount of moves per individual step? Isn't 0 moves the lowest feasible moves I can get my LSE? Don't a lot of these efficient solves (in this thread) include skipped steps? Aren't we supposed to try to build XCrosses or use WV to skip OLL? Don't we all build F2L blocks during EOLine? Or solve CP during our solve to force a 2GLL?
For a specific method, there is nothing wrong with skipping a step or doing extra things per step, as long as I make sure I at least directly follow the procedure proposed by Roux himself. In step 1, I build the 3x2x1. In step 2, I build the opposite 3x2x1, and in step 3, I solve the relative position of the U-layer corners. I typically skip step 4. There are infinite ways to solve each step of the Roux method, and just because I happen to pick ones that lead to a 0 htm LSE, doesn't mean I'm not using the Roux method.
You're right, but there are an infinite number of Roux second blocks that WILL result in a solved EO. I happened to pick one. It's not unlikely. I had infinity to pick from.
Not exactly. Heise has a more strict "LL" scenario than Petrus. You could argue that all Heise solves are Petrus. But you cannot argue that all Petrus solves are Heise. That is why my Petrus records are faster than my Heise records.
tl;dr
I'm not trolling. I'm just trying to point out that there is a natural tendency for typical Roux solves to have a higher movecount than other methods (ZZ, Petrus, TFM), even when directly comparing my htm to your stm. If you want a more efficient LSE, well then you'd better influence it during the earlier steps. And if those "influences" happen to more closely follow the stepwise procedure of other blockbuilding methods, that just identifies what methods you should look to in order to improve your "pure" Roux.
U2 R' B R' U' D' F U L F' B2 R2 D' F2 U D2 L2 D F2 B2 L2
U R' L' F U2 F U2 R2 D' B // first block (10)
R F' U F R' U2 R * U2 R U' R U2 R // second block (13)
* = L' U R U' L U R' U' // CMLL (8-1)
U // LSE (1)
=31 htm
Yes, I did do my CMLL during my second block. It's Roux of the Future.
Hey, I didn't skip LSE this time! And I still got a good movecount!
Edit:
btw, If you can find a better spot for me to insert my CMLL, that would be awesome. I couldn't find any better cancellations, but that's because I'm bad at this commutator stuff.
Edit again: To whoever moved this from the Roux Example Solve thread to the regular Example Solve Thread, you'd better also attach a "next scramble," because I'm not going to do it.
Scramble: L2 D B2 D' L2 U2 B2 D F2 L2 U' L D' F2 D2 R' B2 F L' U2 F2
x z D L2 D2 L F' U' S R' f' //xcross
R U' R' y' L' U' L //f2l2
d' L' U L R U' R' //f2l3
d R U R' U2 R U R2 D' R U2 R' D R //tripod+f2l4
U2 y' B' U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R B //LL
Next: D2 B2 D L2 U2 L2 R2 U R2 U' L2 R' U L' B2 L' D' F2 R F'
U2 R' B R' U' D' F U L F' B2 R2 D' F2 U D2 L2 D F2 B2 L2
U R' L' F U2 F U2 R2 D' B // first block (10)
R F' U F R' U2 R * U2 R U' R U2 R // second block (13)
* = L' U R U' L U R' U' // CMLL (8-1)
U // LSE (1)
=31 htm
Yes, I did do my CMLL during my second block. It's Roux of the Future.
Hey, I didn't skip LSE this time! And I still got a good movecount!
Edit:
btw, If you can find a better spot for me to insert my CMLL, that would be awesome. I couldn't find any better cancellations, but that's because I'm bad at this commutator stuff.
Edit again: To whoever moved this from the Roux Example Solve thread to the regular Example Solve Thread, you'd better also attach a "next scramble," because I'm not going to do it.
What you are doing is Petrus, and your arguments are just playing devil's advocate. You are a great Petrus solver. Perhaps the best. I actually wish you'd put out learning materials on Petrus method, because it's where I'd like to go from Roux, especially for big cubes.
I don't think any of us would deny that Petrus dominates Roux in move count (the same way Roux dominates CFOP in movecount). But, someone needs to prove that the lower move count translates to faster solves, and until there's a sub-10 Petrus solver, I don't think the community will be convinced.
So you are proving that your "Roux" solves look great on paper in example games, are they actually faster than traditional Roux?
x2 y' - Inspection
D L U L F' L' D2 - CROSS
U' R U R' y' R U R' - F2L 1
y' R U R' U' R U R' U' L' U L - F2L 2
y2 R U' R' U2 R U' R' - F2L 3
U L U L' - F2L 4
U' f R U R' U' f' - OLL
U R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' - PLL
58 Moves
Next: D2 L2 B2 U2 R2 F2 U2 L2 D' R2 U' R D' F2 D' B2 R' D2 B D' F'
Scramble: D2 L2 B2 U2 R2 F2 U2 L2 D' R2 U' R D' F2 D' B2 R' D2 B D' F'
B L2 D2 L B2 D - CROSS
B' R U' R' B - F2L 1
U R' U2 R F' U F - F2L 2
U y R U R' U y' L' U' L - F2L 3
U' R' U' R - F2L 4
R U R' U' R' F R F' y R U R' U R U2 R' - OLL
y' R' U R y R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2 U - PLL
58 moves
Next: B' U' F' D' R' U D' F' B2 R' U B2 R2 L2 D' B2 U' L2 F2
.
