# Roux Variations



## miniGOINGS (Jun 11, 2009)

hi guys, im looking for some imput from you, mostly the roux solvers but anyone is welcome to reply.

im looking for any variations of the roux method, or alternative ways of doing the last 6 edges. if anyone has any help with different ways of doing things like winter variation or stuff like that i would like to know if that would be helpful on roux solves.


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 11, 2009)

I can think of a few. What are the circumstances? Are they already oriented?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 11, 2009)

deco122392 said:


> I can think of a few. What are the circumstances? Are they already oriented?



they could be, or could not be, depending on what would help

EDIT: and the unsolved edges are at UF UL UB UR DB DF


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

ok well lets say they are oriented you could solve DF and DB the use pll.but this seems pretty move count inefficient and would ruin the feel that the roux last step offers.
IF we assume that the l6e are not oriented then you could solve DF and DB and use ell and some on the fly commutators to finish that.
theres two ideas. but i like the aproach that roux usually has orient solve UL and UR then solve m slice


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

deco122392 said:


> ok well lets say they are oriented you could solve DF and DB the use pll.but this seems pretty move count inefficient and would ruin the feel that the roux last step offers.
> IF we assume that the l6e are not oriented then you could solve DF and DB and use ell and some on the fly commutators to finish that.
> theres two ideas. but i like the aproach that roux usually has orient solve UL and UR then solve m slice



i was thinking more along the lines of use 1 alg to solve all 6 edges, but the edges part was only a suggestion, any variation on any part of roux would be appreciated


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

isnt there a "Advanced" way to solve last 6 edges on the waterman method page?

http://rubikscube.info/waterman/stage3.php

you could learn a few things here. if i remember correctly your somewhat familiar with corners first solving.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

2 Look Last Edges?

I was working on this for a while. After the orientation, the rest in one step. or UL/UR while orientation so you can just flow into 4c. I think that most can be done intuitively but recognition is another thing.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

deco122392 said:


> isnt there a "Advanced" way to solve last 6 edges on the waterman method page?



yea but the six edges are in different places


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

why not just weed out the cases were only the DF DB UF UB UR UL edges arnt solved and use those?

edit: and heres a link that might be what waffle is referring to. 
http://rubikscube.info/lastsix2look.php


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

deco122392 said:


> why not just weed out the cases were only the DF DB UF UB UR UL edges arnt solved and use those?
> 
> edit: and heres a link that might be what waffle is referring to.
> http://rubikscube.info/lastsix2look.php



ok, but we are still talking about the last six edges, does anybody know if winter variation would help alot with the corners in roux?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> deco122392 said:
> 
> 
> > why not just weed out the cases were only the DF DB UF UB UR UL edges arnt solved and use those?
> ...



I have tried to incorporate CLS into roux. Recognition only slowed me down. AND THEN if you're not lucky you still have to permute the corners.

so recognition of a WV case and execution of the permutation (if you're not lucky) is slower in my experience


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

If you were finishing your last block in an f2l fashion then you could use W.V to insert it and finish the c.o.. Then you would permute the corners and continue with your solve.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > deco122392 said:
> ...



makes sense i guess, but right now im still using a basic blockbuilding method (yes i said method, i know) and 2 look corners, so would it help for me?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> makes sense i guess, but right now im still using a basic blockbuilding method (yes i said method, i know) and 2 look corners, so would it help for me?



no. if you are planning to go all out with roux (full 1x2x3 blockbuilding and CMLL), you will have very little use of WV. 

Let's put is this way. let's say that you already know CMLL and can sub 2.5(including recognition) all the algs. Wouldn't sub 2.5 CMLL be faster than WV+permutation. sure you can use WV for algs that you don't like but even if you can sub-2 a WV case you still have to do permutation.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> no. if you are planning to go all out with roux (full 1x2x3 blockbuilding and CMLL), you will have very little use of WV.
> 
> Let's put is this way. let's say that you already know CMLL and can sub 2.5(including recognition) all the algs. Wouldn't sub 2.5 CMLL be faster than WV+permutation. sure you can use WV for algs that you don't like but even if you can sub-2 a WV case you still have to do permutation.



well, lately i have been timing my solves and i have realized, no matter how fast one section of my solve is, the first 2 blocks take the same amount of time as the rest of the cube. usually that is 21-23 seconds each. should i focus on speeding up my blocks or the rest of the cube?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

blocks. its the hardest part.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> blocks. its the hardest part.



if you made a time ratio of (first 2 blocks)rest of the cube) what would yours be?


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > no. if you are planning to go all out with roux (full 1x2x3 blockbuilding and CMLL), you will have very little use of WV.
> ...



Take some time to intuitively block build you f2b. Try doing some slowwwww block building and i guarantee you, youlll pick up some new tricks naturally which will show on your time when you speedsolve. One of the amazing things about the roux method is the amount of freedom you have most of the solve, and by using a method to build the f2b you might be making the solve a bit harder for yourself or at least a little more comlex then it needs to me.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

blocks:the rest
5:3.5

usually 10 for both blocks 7 for the rest.

go slow use less moves. and when you get used to using less moves go fast using less moves.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> blocks:the rest
> 5:3.5
> 
> usually 10 for both blocks 7 for the rest.
> ...



wow, so i should look at cutting my blocks down in about half, and then the same for the rest, and go back to my blocks?


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

Why not just practice in general? youll pick up things on your own. the standard roux method is already proven to be fast. and once you think youv reached a plateau with the standard version then look for addons and such.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

blocks is most time consuming. if you and I were fridrich users, blocks would be the cross and F2L(most time consuming) and you should practice more of that instead of OLL and PLL.

bottom line, we're not fridrich users and you should practice blocks since I can get sub-20 avgs using only 2 look corners. and i'm sure you can too


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> blocks is most time consuming. *if you and I were fridrich users, blocks would be the cross and F2L*(most time consuming) and you should practice more of that instead of OLL and PLL.
> 
> bottom line, we're not fridrich users and you should practice blocks since I can get sub-20 avgs using only 2 look corners. and i'm sure you can too



I was going to say that lol


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> blocks is most time consuming. if you and I were fridrich users, blocks would be the cross and F2L(most time consuming) and you should practice more of that instead of OLL and PLL.
> 
> bottom line, we're not fridrich users and you should practice blocks since I can get sub-20 avgs using only 2 look corners. and i'm sure you can too



ok, thanks for your help, but im just thinking, shouldnt i get my corners and edges as fast as i can first, before working on blocks? like wouldnt the last half show the most time improvement?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

Let me use this again, if you and I were fridrich users, and you can do the LL in 4 seconds and I can do the LL in say, 7 seconds would that make you instantly faster despite your f2l times? If your cross and f2l takes, 20-21 (like your current blocks) and my cross and f2l took 10 (like my current blocks), you would still be slower. again, in fridrich, f2l takes the most time and the LL is just a fraction of that.

and once more, we are not fridrich users, and blocks take longer to make and take the most time and should be given more attention to

also. it took a year to get sub-20 with roux and it all because of my blocks. I knew a lot of CMLLs and the rest was a breeze but my blocks killed my solves


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

sorry, im not being very clear. let me reiterate; wouldnt it be easier for me to lose 3 seconds on the corners and edges than losing 3 seconds on the blocks?


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 12, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> sorry, im not being very clear. let me reiterate; wouldnt it be easier for me to lose 3 seconds on the corners and edges than losing 3 seconds on the blocks?



nope (= youd think that tho wouldnt you? (it becomes true after a while but your at a place were you can improve with the rite mindset.)


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 12, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> sorry, im not being very clear. let me reiderate; wouldnt it be easier for me to lose 3 seconds on the corners and edges than losing 3 seconds on the blocks?



using that logic, learn all the CMLLs and you're guaranteed to get sub-20 

of course, its easier to lose 3 on corners instead of 3 on blocks. but you're not aiming for losing 3 on blocks. you're looking at losing about 12 for blocks. say you're averaging 35. wouldn't it be nice to have 23 because you worked on the blocks instead of having 32 because you worked on the corners. 

I'm saying that it is easier but if you put more time into blocks its a better investment of your time.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 12, 2009)

hey waffle, look at my new times  im _almost_ completely sub 40, my last 2 solves in my average of 12 was 51.03 and 55.06, if it wasnt for those 2 i would be sub 40 

EDIT: yay, sub 30 at last!!!


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jun 13, 2009)

This may not be contributing to the topic to much. But in roux, if you haven't noticed, after you finish building the 2 blocks , if you correct the centers and fill the bottom 2 edges you finish the first 2 layers and could solve the final 4 edges [and corners] with a Fridrich algorithm and permutate them also with a Fridrich algorithm. So in that sense you could use the Roux block building and then finish the cube with Fridrich.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 14, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> This may not be contributing to the topic to much. But in roux, if you haven't noticed, after you finish building the 2 blocks , if you correct the centers and fill the bottom 2 edges you finish the first 2 layers and could solve the final 4 edges [and corners] with a Fridrich algorithm and permutate them also with a Fridrich algorithm. So in that sense you could use the Roux block building and then finish the cube with Fridrich.





deco122392 said:


> *ok well lets say they are oriented you could solve DF and DB the use pll.but this seems pretty move count inefficient and would ruin the feel that the roux last step offers.*
> IF we assume that the l6e are not oriented then you could solve DF and DB and use ell and some on the fly commutators to finish that.
> theres two ideas. but i like the aproach that roux usually has orient solve UL and UR then solve m slice



it looks like we have noticed...


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jun 15, 2009)

Hehe.......










(too short)


----------



## deco122392 (Jun 15, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> 
> 
> > This may not be contributing to the topic to much. But in roux, if you haven't noticed, after you finish building the 2 blocks , if you *correct the centers* and fill the bottom 2 edges you finish the first 2 layers and could solve the final 4 edges [and corners] with a Fridrich algorithm and permutate them also with a Fridrich algorithm. So in that sense you could use the Roux block building and then finish the cube with Fridrich.
> ...



Scence im in a good mood ,due to the fact that my V-Cubes a scheduled to arrive tomorrow, let me show a critical flaw in the variant i mentioned by comparison. 

Noticed how i didn't mention to correct the centers?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 15, 2009)

deco122392 said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> ...



unfortunately, there has been a thread that discusses this variant if you can dig it up from the grave. 

Most, including me, think it's a horrible idea that defeats the purpose of Roux.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 17, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> unfortunately, there has been a thread that discusses this variant if you can dig it up from the grave.
> 
> Most, including me, think it's a horrible idea that defeats the purpose of Roux.



correct me if im wrong but in a typical roux solve it goes as follows:

1. First Block
2. Second Block
3. Corner Orientation
4. Corner Permutation
5. Edge Orientation
6. Double Edge Permutation
7. Quadruple Edge Permution

most fast roux solvers combine steps 3 and 4, combining steps 1 and 2 would be almost pointless because theyre intuitive steps (i just used the words double and quadruple cause the sound better than 2 and 4)

what if we found algs to combine:
4 + 5
5 + 6
6 + 7
4 + 5 + 6
5 + 6 + 7
4 + 5 + 6 + 7

what do you think?


----------



## brunson (Jun 18, 2009)

Using ZB as an example for why it won't work: You can derive the algs, it's the recognition that's the killer.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jun 21, 2009)

brunson said:


> Using ZB as an example for why it won't work: You can derive the algs, it's the recognition that's the killer.



yea, i guess the memo and recongnition of all of those algs isnt going to work..

EDIT: with 6 edges, and 2 of them giving its 6*5*4*3=360
if we put one edge in place, at DB, recognition wouldnt be that bad and it would _only_ be 5*4*3=60, thats not to many algs right?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 7, 2009)

Bump. After timing myself doing various stages of a Roux solve I have broken it down into:

First Block........5-10
Second Block....10
Corners...........5-10
Edges..............5-10

Total..............25-40


----------

