# The WaterRoux 3x3 method thread

#### crafto22

##### Member
I don't think thats a good idea... Trying to orient corners whilst preserving a pair is sorta pointless, thing are done much more efficiently by inserting the pair and then just orienting and permuting all at once (standard Roux)

#### Rubik's cubed

##### Member
Hello, I have heard about your great new method water roux and I am very interested in learning it, but since it is still a work in progress everybody is just throwing ideas around and making it hard to follow. Can anyone help me to better understand the method!

#### Neuro

##### Member
It's a very hard method to master hence why progress is really slow with it. Once I get more time I'll really start pumping out algs. However, here's the method as of now if you'd like to try it on your own cube:

1: Roux FB- 1x2x3 block generally built on the left
2: Last 6 Corners- This is generally done by putting the D layer corners on the bottom and doing a 2x2x2 style solve
3: Solve 2 Redges- Using <MURr>, solve a minimum of 2 edges on the R face
4: L7E- This is by far the hardest part of the method. It is generally recommended for beginners to solve into an LSE state or to LMCF style L5E. However; crafto has come up with a system that we will be refining.

Here's a basic solve that shows the method. The average movecount is predicted to be 40-45 at the most advanced stage with really good consistency.

F' B2 L' D R2 B U L2 U2 F L2 D2 R2 L2 F' R2 (39 STM)

x2 F R2 B2 L2 r' D//FB (6/6)
U2 R//L6C Setup (adding these to full L6C movecount)
U2 R' F' U2 F U' R U2//L6C (10/16)
R' U2 R U' M' U R' U2//2RE (8/24)
r2 x U' M' U' M2 U' M' U' x' M U' M2 U2 M2 U' r'//L7E (15/39)

Hope this helps! If you want to try it out, I'd recommend using CLL for corners, solving 3 redges, and doing either LSE or LMCF style L5E. Best of luck, and I say it's long past time the method gets finished (I tend to move from method to method without ever really finishing one )

#### _zoux

##### Member
Sad to see this thread/method died. At the moment i'm learning it, though i'm kinda worried about L7E ergonomics. (Like M2 B' M2 or r2 R' looks scary), and what is the avarge movecount for:
fixed redges (only F and B, or only D and B)
less fixed (F and B, or D and B)
redges neutrality (F and B, or U and D, D and F, D and B, U and B, U and F)

#### _zoux

##### Member
x M2 U2 M2

Hold like you would on a r but at the same time push with your ring finger
Oh, thanks.

#### StrategySam

##### Member
I you know full water roux could you also use the same algs for 2x2, basically getting a 2 for 1 alg set deal.

#### Melkor

##### Member
I you know full water roux could you also use the same algs for 2x2, basically getting a 2 for 1 alg set deal.
The WaterRoux TLEG algs preserve FB, so it would not be optimal for 2x2. In addition, the potentially unsolved corners are held to the right in WaterRoux, whereas they would optimally be held in the back for 2x2.

#### abunickabhi

##### Member
I you know full water roux could you also use the same algs for 2x2, basically getting a 2 for 1 alg set deal.
wow this post was a big bump.

#### LukasCubes

##### Member
WaterRoux got potential tho tbh. FB, Square, L5C, L7E. But what about L8E, or to go as far as L9E ignoring any edges. Thats how to reduce movecount by ALOT but then again there are waaaaaaay more algs.

#### tsmosher

##### Member
So the average moves is actually about 13, but considering we're talking about only 14 algs versus 84, I'd say it's worth 2 moves. This could be used to solve in one of two ways:
1. FB (8)
2. DRB corner (1.5)
3. L5C (13)
4. ERL (7)
5. L7E (17)
Total: 46.5

1. FB (8)
2. Square (7)
3. L5C (13)
4. L7E (17)
Total: 45
Second option is only slightly more efficient, probably due to more blockbuilding.

WaterRoux got potential tho tbh. FB, Square, L5C, L7E.

Yeah, Id like to see the algorithms @crafto22 was using for his L5C/(ERL/)L7E variant. Although simple, I feel like this variant warrants a lot more discussion.

EDIT: As far as L8E, the only reasonable approach I've seen was EZD. Which requires edges to be oriented and separated to their correct layers first-- and runs into possible parity cases (fixed via M2 U2 M2 although it can be hard to cancel into this sequence).

Last edited:

#### Melkor

##### Member
As far as L8E, the only reasonable approach I've seen was EZD. Which requires edges to be oriented and separated to their correct layers first-- and runs into possible parity cases (fixed via M2 U2 M2 although it can be hard to cancel into this sequence).
EZD algorithms are not particularly ergonomic though, and the setup would be a lot of algs. I think L8E might(?) have potential, but I don't think EZD is the way to go.

#### tsmosher

##### Member
EZD algorithms are not particularly ergonomic though, and the setup would be a lot of algs. I think L8E might(?) have potential, but I don't think EZD is the way to go.

I agree. But I think we have yet to see a good approach to L7E- let alone to L8E. In light of this, L8E seems a much tougher nut to crack.

#### Melkor

##### Member
I agree. But I think we have yet to see a good approach to L7E- let alone to L8E. In light of this, L8E seems a much tougher nut to crack.
Having a good L7E method would make a variety of methods world-class, and doing the same for L8E, well, I think that would fundamentally change cubing. But we are nowhere near that yet.

#### Athefre

##### Member
I think I like Jason Wong's idea of FR edge + DB edge then L5E. Which I'm thinking now we could also do a redge + any U layer edge then the other style of L5E.

#### Melkor

##### Member
I think I like Jason Wong's idea of FR edge + DB edge then L5E. Which I'm thinking now we could also do a redge + any U layer edge then the other style of L5E.
WaterRoux does not really need L7E, as after you solve the corners you can often solve an E2L triplet in order to reach L6E, which can be solved using normal Waterman/LMCF techniques.

#### LukasCubes

##### Member
WaterRoux does not really need L7E, as after you solve the corners you can often solve an E2L triplet in order to reach L6E, which can be solved using normal Waterman/LMCF techniques.
correct lol that does happen. Waht about the rare L8E and L9E cases?

#### Melkor

##### Member
correct lol that does happen. Waht about the rare L8E and L9E cases?
When you can't solve a triplet? Solve a pair and intuitively solve another edge to get L5E or solve a pair and set up to LMCF/Waterman L6E.

#### LukasCubes

##### Member
When you can't solve a triplet? Solve a pair and intuitively solve another edge to get L5E or solve a pair and set up to LMCF/Waterman L6E.
yeah that could happen. Makes sense.

#### GodCubing

##### Member
Could we do a R layer edges alg set like in APB? Or is that already a thing?
That is if we ignore the square step and go straight to corners.