# The WaterRoux 3x3 method thread



## efattah (Mar 9, 2017)

I am creating a specific thread to compile all related research & development of the WaterRoux method which was originally discussed in the New Method thread.

MAJOR EDIT April 13 2017: Updated this original post to reflect the current state of WaterRoux.

After extensive discussion and real world experimentation, the description of WaterRoux is as follows:

1. Solve the first block on the left as you do in normal Roux.
2. Solve the DFR and DBR corners in any permutation/orientation with at least one of them having the correct facelet on the D-slice
3. Solve all six remaining corners in one algorithm with TLEG-1 (which is a mix of CLL, LEG-1, and Twisty LEG-1 which has four sets). There are about 252 algorithms if you learn them all but you don't need anything except CLL or CMLL. You can use classic Roux CMLL, but you can use fewer moves with modified CLL since you don't need to preserve the right block.
4. Now the first block and all the corners are solved. Solve two redges (R layer edges) using ERL algorithms (you can find these in the LMCF document or later in this thread).
5. Now you have seven edges left (UL, UR, all the M-slice, and either FR or DR). Now you can finish the solve in MANY different ways, but the best way is Crafto's L7E method which averages only 18 moves and 91 algorithms.

WaterRoux is a rotationless method with extraordinary ergonomics. The average movecount is usually less than LMCF (which was itself the lowest movecount speed method), but WaterRoux has better ergonomics than LMCF and unlike LMCF, WaterRoux doesn't use rotations. The exact average movecount is somewhat TBD but looks to be around 42 moves. Full WaterRoux would be 252 corner algorithms and 91 L7E algorithms. The ERL 'algorithms' are essentially intuitive once you understand how they work. So the full count would be 343 algorithms which is remarkably low considering the efficiency and ergonomics.

Furthermore, it is quite common to be able to solve the first block AND the DBR and DFR (disoriented) corners in 7 moves or less, making it possible to ONE LOOK the left block, and ALL the corners of the cube. This puts the TLEG-1 252 algorithm recognition time in the inspection phase which is a HUGE advantage over ordinary Roux where you must do CMLL recognition in the middle of the solve.

You can find more detailed documentation & discussion later on in the thread.


----------



## efattah (Mar 9, 2017)

EDIT: Please disregard this post and use Crafto's L7E method which is found later in the thread!!!


----- OBSOLETE ------------------
Okay so I have generated the last seven edges (L7E) algorithm set for WaterRoux. That took a long time. If you include reflections there are 80 cases to solve UL, UR, FR at the same time while orienting all four M-slice edges. For completeness I have created an L7E document which also includes Waterman L6E which is useful in many of the cases as well. Neuro has finished TMCLL+, I will let him post it.

Last 7 edges (L7E) PDF download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kbnRRM0sxSDhHbkk

Last 7 edges (L7E) DOCX download:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kZ2k3RXM5eG1IQzA

I am providing the DOCX. As you see in the document many of the cases I provide six or more algorithms that are of decent speed to let the user decide which one they like. This is still somewhat of a work in progress but I have spent WAY too much time generating algorithms/methods lately so I need to take a step back but please feel free to edit and re-post the DOCX file with any corrections or additions so the community can keep developing WaterRoux.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 10, 2017)

This seems amazing! Didn't think L7E was actually an achievable concept... I wonder if we could push it any further?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Neuro (Mar 10, 2017)

I saw a suggestion earlier today that said that we could use EG algs to do the corners. I'm not entirely on board with it but it does sound feasible. I'm currently making a spreadsheet with the TCMLL+ and normal CMLL algs on it, hopefully I will have it done soon. Will add TCMLL- when it's completed.


----------



## GuRoux (Mar 10, 2017)

i think waffo has all the tcmll algs generated already.


----------



## Miro (Mar 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I saw a suggestion earlier today that said that we could use EG algs to do the corners. I'm not entirely on board with it but it does sound feasible.


I think viable is only EG1-style second block (partly second block). First block is fully solved, and second block has oriented, but swapped two corners (DFR, DBR). Recognition for CMLL and EG1-style is the same.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 10, 2017)

Great to hear on TCMLL, I'll see if I can find them or at minimum contact him to confirm. EG-1 could be good, I can make the algs and come back


----------



## Mnts (Mar 10, 2017)

Interesting approach, looking forward for a complete set + more examples and a tutorial. From my perspective it seems like extremely hard to master technique although if you put enough practice in it, it might return with benefits. And also how many algs TCMLL and WL7E aproximately have?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 10, 2017)

Hey guys would L8E be in any way possible/useful? Just thinking in terms of methods like SSC-M or ECE which can reach L8E in less than 20 moves.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## efattah (Mar 10, 2017)

The EG1 variant is really only plausible if you don't solve any edges in the second block, otherwise the algorithms would be really bad and high move count. Having said that I have already experimented with several of the EG variants even before we created WaterRoux and they were promising. The EG variants take several forms:

Variant 1: Solve first block on the left; solve the two corners in the second block (on the right) in any permutation, execute an EG style algorithm; at this point you are now in a pure Waterman state to finish the cube

Variant 2: Like variant 1, except for the EG1 algorithm you hold the cube with the first block on the back. Using this method about half of the EG1 algorithms work without modification and actually keep the back block undamaged, but you do need to do a y rotation to get into the Waterman finish.

Variant 3: This is the original Waterman-EG, where you solve the first block, put it on the D face at the back, then solve the DFR and DFL corners in any permutation, and execute the EG1 algorithm; again many of the existing EG1 algorithms will work unmodified, but then you need to do a z+x rotation to get into the Waterman finish.

I suck at block building and my TPS is pretty low (3-4), but despite my low TPS, give me a cube that has the first block finished and the corners finished and I can easily finish the cube in 6 seconds. An expert would take 3. It should be possible for good block builders to build the first block and finish the EG algorithm in 2.5 seconds, giving a 5.5 second average.

One of the problems of Roux is the CMLL recognition has to happen in the middle of the solve. LMCF fixes that by moving the corner alg recognition into the inspection, but with some other drawbacks. In WaterRoux-EG, there is a decent chance that an expert MIGHT be able (once in a while) to see the first block and the EG1 or CMLL algorithm in the inspection. That could lead to an excellent solve.


----------



## efattah (Mar 10, 2017)

Mnts said:


> Interesting approach, looking forward for a complete set + more examples and a tutorial. From my perspective it seems like extremely hard to master technique although if you put enough practice in it, it might return with benefits. And also how many algs TCMLL and WL7E aproximately have?



CMLL, TCMLL+ and TMCLL- are around 40 algs each so about 120 total, the same as full EG. L7E varies dramatically. Keep in mind advanced Roux LSE already has 120+ algorithms if you use EOLR and memorize all the reflections. The 2-look Waterman L6E also has around 120 algorithms, and the pure L7E is 80 with reflections. L7E can be finished with intuitive solving then doing Roux LSE; it is the bad cases that are the problem and advanced L6E/L7E are designed to deal with those bad cases. The more cases you learn, the more you convert 'bad' cases into 'amazing' cases and actually want them to happen. You can learn subsets of L6E/L7E to deal with the worst cases and gradually learn more cases to deal with the 'medium-bad' cases and so on.

Neuro and I will generate more example solves soon.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 10, 2017)

I have all of TCMLL+ generated and added all of the CMLL's from alg.db. Will add TCMLL- as soon as I'm done making the algs. Leave a comment asking to help and I'll add you as a contributor. Mean movecount is basically the same between CMLL and TCMLL+ and I'd assume TCMLL- as well, being between 10 and 11 moves. Here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1alIgdOKLVbHvooQKmdTcrj-Ew1jb-9TzRYNTvpzOgRw/edit?usp=sharing

Also, there'd be 128 corner algs to learn, 42 CMLL's, and 43 TCMLL+ cases as well as 43 TCMLL- cases.


----------



## GuRoux (Mar 10, 2017)

is waterman lse better than roux lse? i'm not too familiar with the waterman style, but it seems harder to lookahead? or perhaps that just because i'm so much more use to roux lse.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 10, 2017)

Well it's not quite as easy, but it's still decent and could probably be as fast as Roux LSE. Setup can take a while to get used to, but it's pretty fast. In setup, you can eventually learn to predict your set and whether the LE is in DF or DB. And from there all you need to do is check the orientation of the top edges.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Mar 11, 2017)

GuRoux said:


> is waterman lse better than roux lse? i'm not too familiar with the waterman style, but it seems harder to lookahead? or perhaps that just because i'm so much more use to roux lse.


Probably not, but look-ahead is fine.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

I finished all of the TCMLL+/- algs and put in the CMLL algs for completion sake. Since I was using CubeExplorer, some of the algs are pretty nasty. If you have a better alg, please leave a comment and feel free to ask to become a contributor as well. Here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GfvmTDta1tF5-u3VIM58yE5Gug/edit#gid=670959495

**the movecount formula used only works with OBTM, so algs using M will need to have the movecount manually entered


----------



## obelisk477 (Mar 13, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I finished all of the TCMLL+/- algs and put in the CMLL algs for completion sake. Since I was using CubeExplorer, some of the algs are pretty nasty. If you have a better alg, please leave a comment and feel free to ask to become a contributor as well. Here's the link:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GfvmTDta1tF5-u3VIM58yE5Gug/edit#gid=670959495
> 
> **the movecount formula used only works with OBTM, so algs using M will need to have the movecount manually entered



link isn't public


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

Ok thanks for letting me know! Hopefully this one works:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14o5y4Qcu2Q5PxutMOGfvmTDta1tF5-u3VIM58yE5Gug/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## efattah (Mar 13, 2017)

For those wanting to experiment with the WaterRoux-EG variant:

1. Solve FB on the left (roux style)
2. Solve DFR and BDR corners in a random permutation
3. Execute an LEG-1 or CMLL algorithm to solve the top corners and permute the bottom right corners
(LEG-1: http://www.cyotheking.com/leg1/ )
4. Solve two R-layer edges at once in a pair algorithm (LMCF style) or if possible solve a triplet (UL, and two redges)
5. Finish with L7E or Waterman L6E

The vast majority of the 2x2 LEG-1 algorithms maintain the Roux first block undamaged on 3x3. The few that damage it would need to be regenerated with Cube Explorer.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 14, 2017)

Hey we're getting some coverage!


----------



## TDM (Mar 14, 2017)

Very similar to a method I proposed a while back, except I did CPFB which let me combine steps 3 and 4 relatively easily. I wouldn't be surprised if your method was better though.
I also couldn't find a good L7E method, so it's good to see you've got something!


----------



## Neuro (Mar 15, 2017)

I did a small test in regards to movecount and unfortunately it may not be as low as was predicted. It's still about the same as Roux though. Here is my rundown:

FB: 7 moves
Sq+C:11 moves (?)
TCMLL: 10 moves
Setup: 2 moves (?)
L7E: 15 moves (?)

So I'd estimate the average movecount to be 45 which is still excellent and in the range of Roux and ZZ-A, but unfortunately not as powerful as was expected. Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't this about the same movecount projected in LMCF? I'm thinking that maybe 45 moves is about the est. average movecount that a human method can get right now but that may change in the future.


----------



## GuRoux (Mar 15, 2017)

i think lmcf is estimated as low 40? kind of interesting because the whole method is 100% algorithms, so theoretically, really fast turning does not increase movecount; giving it an advantage over more blockbuilding methods where movecount suffers due to speed (though blockbuilding becomes pretty algorithmic as well). the question is how good are the moves and recognition. just from a couple rotations, lmcf would probably be worse than roux.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 15, 2017)

Recognition in LMCF from what I can see could be really fast but would take a while to get used to. From what I see, a lot of the cases (in E2L especially) have poor ergonomics (4/5-gen at points.) I'd say that it's probably on-par with Roux because even though the solves can get very low movecount and a majority of the method is quite fast, the ergonomics of the second step alone can destroy a solve. 

What I hope to come out of WaterRoux is a method that gets low movecount solves while preserving high ergonomics and some degree of intuition. But in my eyes, it has a bit of a road block: the movecount is basically the same as Roux so it has very little incentive to switch to unless someone is already a very serious Roux user who wants help with bad cases. Even though it's a good method at the moment, it's either not optimized enough or it needs to be modified to make it feel like a worthwhile method to learn IMO.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 15, 2017)

I think the big problem with WaterRoux is L7E. It just seems forced. The setup required, the enormous amount of algs and the mediocre recog makes regular L6E a lot more appealing, and the move count is essentially the same. More algs does not mean faster times, especially in a case like this where the setup required for L7E is so great that you might as well just setup L6E after TCLL and you'll get better recog and about the same moves. And without L7E WaterRoux just isn't WaterRoux. So in my eyes this method just won't work out :/

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Neuro (Mar 15, 2017)

Well WaterRoux with L6E is still WaterRoux just with a possibly better algset. WaterRoux with L6E was actually my initial proposal and the way that it's structured gives users an opportunity to choose how they want to finish the solve (L7E, L6E, L5E, or strict Roux) 

L7E is efattah's creation and I will support it but personally I will push for L6E to be used as the "main" branch of the method. 

What sets WaterRoux apart is in the steps and techniques used, not an algset. That's like saying that using Roux but using Pinkie Pie vs strict LSE is no longer Roux. It's just not the case. It's a different way to finish the solve. Same thing with ZZ variants: there are a countless number of them, but there all just that- variants. It's still the ZZ method!

I don't think that this is a doomed method. Method progression is naturally slow. CFOP has been around since the 80's and we're still finding ways to make it better. It'll probably just be a while before this gets running. I'd be happy to hear any opinions though. I'm still fairly new to method design so it helps a lot to get feedback and I'm sure that efattah appreciates it as well.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 15, 2017)

Of course, sorry I didn't phrase that properly, what I was trying to get at is that L7E will never work out in my eyes, not WaterRoux as a whole. This is just my opinion of course, but the way I see it, it simply wouldn't be beneficial under any circumstances. Either way, I apologize for my previous statement, I did not express myself correctly. I do strongly believe methods like these are the right path to finding the "holy grail" in terms of methods (and by methods like these, I mostly mean Roux based methods as they seem to have the most potential).

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Neuro (Mar 15, 2017)

All is good, and I understand the viewpoint on L7E. I can discuss with efattah as to what the main variant should be if there even needs to be one for the edges. 

I'd be willing to discuss the potential of Roux based methods or the idea of best methods over PM. It'd have to be tomorrow though, its like 1:30 AM here


----------



## efattah (Mar 15, 2017)

I personally think WaterRoux-EG has good potential for complicated reasons. I took one of Alex Lau's solves and finished it with WaterRoux-EG instead:

F U2 R2 D2 R' B2 L R2 U R' B D2 F' B2 U' R F2 R D' B D' U' B' F R2

WaterRoux-EG version:
y x // inspection
M r' F // LF block
R2 x' r U' x // LB pair
R U R' U R2 // solve bottom corners
U2 R' F R2 F' R U2 R' U' R2 // CLL
B U M' U' M B' // pair
M' // setup Waterman L6E
M U r U M U M' U' M' U' r' U' // Waterman L6E 
E2 M E2 // permute midges
Total 43 STM

Original Alex Lau Solve
y x // inspection
M r' F // LF block
R2 x' r U' x // LB pair
R' U' R' U2 R' U R2 // RB block
U' R' U r2 R' U' R' // RF pair
U' R' U' R U' R' U R' F R F' U R // CMLL
M' U2 M' U2 M U M' // EO
U M' U2 M' U' M2' // UL/UR
U M' U2 M' // EP
Total 50 STM


----------



## efattah (Mar 15, 2017)

Another example:

F' B D2 F R D2 U' R2 D2 R2 B' D' L B2 L F' D L' U2 D R2 B2 F2 D' F'

WaterRoux EG version:
y2 x // inspection
U R' E2' // LB block
F r' F // LF pair
U' R' U R // bottom corners
F R' F' R' U2 R' U R2 // LEG1
U2 M U' M U2 M2 U' // pair
r U2 R2 U M U' R2 U2 // pair
R // setup L5E
U M' U M' U M U2 M U' R2 // orient midges
U2 M U2 M' // permute midges
48 STM

Original Alex Lau solve:
y2 x // inspection
U R' E2' // LB block
F r' F // LF pair
U2' R U R U2 r' U' R // RB block
U' R U R' U R U r' // RF pair
R U2' R' U2 R' F R2 U R' U' F' // CMLL
M' U M' U M U' M' // EO
U2 M' U2 M' U' // UL/UR
M2' U2 M U2 M' // EP
50 STM


----------



## efattah (Mar 15, 2017)

3rd example:

F U2 L2 U F2 U D2 F' U2 L2 U' L2 D2 B' L' B2 F2 D L2 U' R' U L2 R U'
WaterRoux-EG version:
y2 // inspection
E R' E' // LF block
R' U R U' B // LB pair
B U2 B' // bottom corners
U R2 U R' U2 R' F' U' F // LEG-1
R U M' U' // 1st redge
M2 R2 U M' U' // 2nd redge
M2 R U M' U2 M U // last pair
R2 // setup L5E
M U' M' U2 M' U' R2 // orient midges
M U2 M U2 M // permute midges
48 STM

Alex Lau version:
y2 // inspection
E R' E' // LF block
R' U R U' B // LB pair
r U' R' U' R U R2 U' R' // RF block
U' M r' U' r // RB pair
U2' F R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F2 // CMLL
U2 M' U M' U2 M' U M // EO
U' M U2 M' // UL/UR
U' M' U2 M' // EP
50 STM


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 15, 2017)

@efattah Oh right, I completely forgot about this! This right here has huge potential imo. I'll practice with this for a while and give my thoughts from a speedsolving perspective. @Neuro I'm on vacation atm so PMing would most likely not work out until my return... I might just post some rambling and ideas to my YouTube channel once I get home, spending my nights writing long method proposals is starting to take it's toll.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Neuro (Mar 18, 2017)

crafto and I are working on a potential way to do edges that we could use some help on in making algs. Basically the DB and FR edges get solved while orienting the rest of the edges so it's possible to end in L5EP. The DB and FR edges get put in the redge slots with no regards to permutation/orientation. Anyone think they can help us out? Preferably keep the algs using M U and R/r moves. I know that the sets with both DB and FR oriented have 16 algs each and there'd be 8 sets so it's not a horribly large algset (120-130 is my guess)


----------



## Neuro (Mar 27, 2017)

So I'm thinking that the style w/o blockbuilding DR may be better overall. It seems that restricting to a very specific block and influencing the LC would not only be awkward but would take longer than simply putting the last D layer corners in EG/CLL/TCLL+-. Algs may also be shorter because of less edges to perserve. E2L would be really easy because you only need to solve 3 edges rather than 6. Probably same movecount, but it looks like the recog would be much better. Thoughts?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 27, 2017)

Here's a solve using the WaterRoux-Corners variant, 40 moves!
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F2_L-..._M-_U_M_U_M-_U-_M2_U-_M_U2__M_U-//LSE_(14/40)


----------



## efattah (Mar 27, 2017)

The same example with LMCF L6E finishes in 39:
R F' M' F2 r' z' x'//FB (5/5)
F' U F U L2 D' L' D F2 L2 U l//Corners (12/17)
r U M' U' R' S R2 S' r2//E2L (9/26)
M2 M' U M' U' M U M2 U2 M' U' M2 U2 // LMCF L6E (iDFR set)

A much more ergonomic version without S moves, Waterman style E2L in 41 moves:
R F' M' F2 r' z' x'//FB (5/5)
F' U F U L2 D' L' D F2 L2 U l//Corners (12/17)
r U2 R U' M' U R' U2 R' U M U' // solve 3 edges E2L waterman style
M' U M U' M' U M' U' // L5E DFR
M2 U2 M U2


----------



## efattah (Mar 27, 2017)

If you didn't know TCLL and only knew LEG-1, two versions:

R F' M' F2 r' z' x'//FB (5/5)
U2 R2 U' R2 // solve red corners
U' R' U R' U' R U L' U R2 U' L // LEG-1 L case
U' R2 U M' U' // 1st edge
R2 U' M U2 M2 U' // 1st pair
r' M // set up
U' M2 U' R2 U M U' R2 U' M' U' // Waterman L6E Set 1 case 1
M U2 M' U2 r // permute midges
50 STM

Another variant:
R F' M' F2 r' z' x'//FB (5/5)
U2 R2 U' R2 // solve red corners
M // centers
U' R' U R' U' R U L' U R2 U' L // LEG-1 L case
U' r M' U M' U' R2 U' M' U // pair
r S' U S U' // pair
U2 M' U M U M' U M U' // L5E
M U2 M U2 M' // permute midges
51 STM


----------



## gogozerg (Mar 27, 2017)

efattah said:


> Original Alex Lau Solve
> y x // inspection
> M r' F // LF block
> R2 x' r U' x // LB pair
> ...



Maybe Alex could have saved a few moves with U'M'U'MUM'U2MU2MUM'U2?
Mhh.. Such an edge orientation pattern may be hard to detect.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 28, 2017)

Here's a 43 move solve. I'm not really good with E2L hence the length of solution but it had an amazing FB and LSE solution. Not all solves have to end in LSE, this just proves that even without large edge algsets it can still be really efficient.

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2_U2...2_U_R-//E2L
M-_U2_M-_U2_M-_U-_M-_U_M2_U-//LSE


----------



## efattah (Mar 28, 2017)

I finished the same solve above with proper LMCF E2L/L5E and it finished in 39:

Scramble: L2 U2 B2 D2 B' U2 R2 U2 L2 U2 F2 L B R D R2 F U B2 R2 F2 
D' R2 y M2 B //FB
U' R' U' R2 F U' F' U R' F2 R U2 R' F R //Corners
U' M2 U M' U' R' B' U' M' U B r2 // E2L
U' M' U' M U M U R' // LMCF L5E BDR set


----------



## efattah (Mar 28, 2017)

The same scramble using my personal preference for CLL finishes in 41:

Scramble: L2 U2 B2 D2 B' U2 R2 U2 L2 U2 F2 L B R D R2 F U B2 R2 F2
D' R2 y M2 B//FB
U' R' U' R2 // lower right corners
U R U' R U' R' U R' F R2 F' // CLL pi case
U' M' U' r2 U M' U' R2 U M U' r // E2L
M' U M U2 M U // LMCF L5E BDR set
E2 M' E2 L' // permute midges
41 STM


----------



## Neuro (Mar 28, 2017)

Yeah I figured it could've been under 40, I guess I need to work on E2L. But thanks for showing me that, I'm sure it'll be useful!


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

With all the talk of TEG1, I realized TLEG1 could be a game changer for WaterRoux. With TLEG1 it becomes possible on many solves to see the entire first block AND the corner solve in 1-look. It still takes an expert to do so, but this would finally resolve the last hurdle of Roux which is to put the CMLL recognition into the inspection phase; while still maintaining a lower move count than regular Roux, by a quite significant amount.

Better still, you don't need full TEG1 for WaterRoux since the left block is always solved, so you only need four TLEG1 sets, L+, L-, R+, and R-, as well as normal LEG1 and CMLL optimized for an unconstrained left block. So this would be 252 corner algorithms in order to be 'in range' of a 1-look solve of the left block and all the corners. An example:

Scramble: 
B2 R' D2 B2 R2 F2 D F2 U B' R' F' R2 B F U2 B' R' U'
y M' S U S' // FB (4/4)
R2 U' R' // yellow corners (or JUST R' if you solve the white corners)
// Now solve corners with TLEG1, L+ set
[I would comment that if you are good enough to solve with non-matching corner sets, it only takes 1 move to put the white corners in, meaning just 5 moves to 1-look the corners and first block]

In the above example we need to see 7 moves into the future in order to 1-look the yellow corners which is hard but within range of a master (or 5 moves to 1-look the yellow/white not matching corners). After that, there are just 5 L/R edges left, of which we need to solve 3 in order to reach LSE. However half the time one is already solved at random, meaning we are one E2L pair away from LSE. Allowing no constraints on where this pair is, sometimes this pair solves the UL slot and a random redge, putting us into a Waterman L6E situation. However, I have started optimizing the Waterman L6E sets, and Waterman Set 2 is the one that occurs most often by far, and I have so far optimized it to an amazing 9.4 moves while improving the speed and ergonomics of the algorithms. So even in the situation where you end up with UL solved, it means in most cases you can solve the last two redges and orient the midges in less than 10 moves, or 11 moves if you include 1 set up move.

If you 1-look the first block and corners, this is around 15-17 moves at essentially max TPS since you know exactly what to do; so this could be 1.7 seconds. Then you solve one E2L pair in 1 second, then you finish with either Roux EOLR, LMCF L6E, or Waterman L6E, the worst case being around 2 seconds for that operation. So a 1-look solve would be around 4.7 seconds for an expert.

As WaterRoux-TLEG1 cuts at least 1-2 more moves off the average move count, then it will be even lower than regular WaterRoux, which was already lower than Roux. But the bigger advantage is being able to 1-look the corners.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 4, 2017)

@efattah in response to what you posted on the new concept thread.. you're totally right, that is the main difference to our methods. To test out which method of ours is better, I took the TEG hammer set I made yesterday and applied it to my method (preserving DL, DB and DR edges while solving corners) and your method (preserving FL, DL and BL while solving corners) to see if the cases would preserve our pre-solved edges. Only one or two TEG algs preserved the 3 ledges in your guys' method, and almost all of the TEG algs preserve the d-layer edges used in my method. My method is also almost completely rotationless if you solve FB on the d-layer (which is realy really easy) and use a TLEG alg+three u-layer edges. The only rotation would be a z rotation after these for L6E. I also feel like the third option you gave for L9E (three redges+LMCF L6E) is the best way to go until a better way of doing L7E is developed. Could you leave me a link to the place somerandomkidmike has these algorithms or talks about them? I'm very curious. And yes lets move this discussion over to the waterroux thread, you can write your reply to this post there.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 10, 2017)

@Thermex I have just finished developing a method that solve L7E in 18 moves on average, although lucky sub-15 move singles are very common. I can share my document with you as soon as I have added the finishing touches.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 10, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> @Thermex I have just finished developing a method that solve L7E in 18 moves on average, although lucky sub-15 move singles are very common. I can share my document with you as soon as I have added the finishing touches.


Oh cool! Show me it when you're done. Today I just finished one of the 42 alg TEG sets, I'll be showing that in the new method/concept thread later today once I'm done revising it. But isn't 18 moves for L7E higher than the average for the method Effatah came up with for solving L7E (placing redges/ledges, permuting midges)?


----------



## efattah (Apr 10, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Oh cool! Show me it when you're done. Today I just finished one of the 42 alg TEG sets, I'll be showing that in the new method/concept thread later today once I'm done revising it. But isn't 18 moves for L7E higher than the average for the method Effatah came up with for solving L7E (placing redges/ledges, permuting midges)?



We have done extensive tests & comparisons and Crafto's L7E method averages 18 moves with around 100 algorithms, whereas my method average 18.5 with more than 350 algorithms. So it seems his method is way better. There is still some question about how fast the recognition is, but by the sound of it, pretty good.

His new L7E method should be a game-changer not only for WaterRoux but for LMCF, as LMCF 'intermediate' will experience a decrease of around 3-5 moves per solve with a drastic reduction in the number of algorithms ultimately needed.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2017)

Oh right, I forgot to mention I'm working on a recognition system atm that works really well! It relies on the fact that only 3 or 4 edges out of 6 are required to recognize the L6EP algs, so you just ignore the last redge entirely. In cases when L6EP must be solved intuitively due to a setup being very inefficient, one can either ignore the last redge or imagine it is the edge in front or behind it. Sorry if that makes little to no sense, details will be in my document.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 11, 2017)

@crafto22 I kinda get what you mean and it sounds pretty cool, but of course seeing the document would help. Btw the link to the TEG- PDF is attached at the bottom of this post.

Like I said in the new method/concept thread, all the TEG algs are really good, but the gun set kinda sucks. I can sub 2 all of the cases and sub 1.5 most of them. A lot of them (~15%) were 2-gen and the average movecount in an algorithm was about 8.6 moves. I was too busy to make pictures for the cases, so I just wrote them out in the same order they are on cyotheking's website: http://www.cyotheking.com/tcll-1/
And when there's an "a" alg and then a "b" alg, those are two equal algorithms that can be used for one case.

@efattah I thought your original L7E method was like 15 moves on average or something, but whatever. Crafto's method sounds pretty cool anyway and can hopefully be a game changer for upcoming methods. So now that I'm done with the FR- set I think I'm going to move on to the FL- set! I'll post those algorithms at the end of the month once I'm done. Tell me if you find any algs that can be done more efficiently/ergonomically, especially the 4th gun case, that one SUCKS. Also do you think there should be a TEG thread? Seems like we talk about it a lot.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2017)

Here is the link to the complete WaterRoux L7E spreadsheet. I will be uploading an in-depth tutorial to my Youtube channel soon.


----------



## efattah (Apr 11, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @crafto22 I kinda get what you mean and it sounds pretty cool, but of course seeing the document would help. Btw the link to the TEG- PDF is attached at the bottom of this post.
> 
> Like I said in the new method/concept thread, all the TEG algs are really good, but the gun set kinda sucks. I can sub 2 all of the cases and sub 1.5 most of them. A lot of them (~15%) were 2-gen and the average movecount in an algorithm was about 8.6 moves. I was too busy to make pictures for the cases, so I just wrote them out in the same order they are on cyotheking's website: http://www.cyotheking.com/tcll-1/
> And when there's an "a" alg and then a "b" alg, those are two equal algorithms that can be used for one case.
> ...



Isn't the DFR- set thet same one Cale generated? What was his case for the 4th gun case?

BTW my L7E was 15 moves for the cases where the cube was already 'set up' with the two redges on the R layer. It is pretty bad when neither redge slot has any redge in it.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 11, 2017)

@efattah crap, I assumed that the algs Cale S made were only stollery cases (he said they could be solved by doing F R U' R', which is the stollery set) but he might have made the full FR- set, I'll have to ask him (I'll actually do it this time). Either way, it still wasn't a big waste of time since it was only a week and I got to know cube explorer a lot better, plus since I spent a lot of time on some of the algs they might be a little better then the ones he generated, but I would still like to see what he had for some of the gun and pinwheel poser cases as some of those kind of sucked.

Okay, three quick questions, first off, should one of us start a TEG thread, and if so, who? Second, do you think over the summer we should generate TEG 2 algs? It seems like they should exist as anyone crazy enough to learn all 320 TEG 1 cases probably won't mind adding an extra 80 algs to save half a second or so every ten solves. Finally, something I've been wondering about for a while: do you think for the BL and BR TEG sets the twisted corner should be held in the back or the bar should be held in the back? Which is better? So yeah, hopefully you can answer those questions, I'll ask Cale S for his algs and start making the FL- set tomorrow.

As for L7E, I like this improvement Crafto made as it consists of several short algs which are fun to use and is also pretty fast with not too many algs. I think it's a great method for intermediate solvers, but I still think some sub-15 move L7E method needs to be developed in order for the "solve two u-layer edges then L7E" strategy to be fast and sub-40 moves, since solving two u-layer edges is about 6 moves. My favorite WaterRoux variation is still the one I came up with a while ago (block, TEG, TEUL and L6E) and I'll try to generate the TEUL algs with someone over the summer break.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2017)

@Thermex I spent literally hours upon hours thinking of a way to solve L7E, so what I am saying comes from a lot of experience with L7E. My method is the absolute best I could come up with using less than 100 algs. However, I know for sure that L7E can be solved in 15 moves or less every time if we remove a limit on alg count. If we eliminate the O2E step from my method, essentially turning OL5E into OL7E and add 43 new L6EP algs, we get a 14.5 move L7E with about 210 algorithms. I can start generating algs for that if anyone really believes saving 3.5 moves is worth 100 new algs and bad recog. Honestly, efficiency is overrated. Fast recog + ergonomic/small algsets > extreme efficiency. That is my opinion, of course. I think we have all become so caught up with creating the most efficient method possible that we have forgotten that the current "best" 3x3 method in terms of real-life results in terms of speed is CFOP, despite the average move count surpassing 60. WaterRoux is very particular. It has a very low move count, but also has excellent recog for almost all the steps. My L7E method has pretty good recog in my experience, but I find I get FAR better times using LMCF L5E, and this method is ALMOST as efficient as L7E. The major difference is that using LMCF L5E produces a solve with extremely good recognition, unlike anything I've ever seen. Pieces are extremely easy to track during ERL and L5E recog is very nice. Same goes for all the corner algs. So really, what I'm saying is that maybe L7E could be extremely useful for very advanced WaterRoux/LMCF solvers. However, I don't see the use in pushing the limits of move count so far when the real objective here is speed. Sorry for this ramble XD. Just my personal opinion, of course.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 11, 2017)

@crafto22 I see your point, me and others really get way to caught up in thei move count and sometimes forget about ergonomics and recognition. I'm not sure if it's worth generating those algs, but I still think some super alg-heavy way of doing L7E with decently good recognition could be developed, but of course you know way more about this than I do.


----------



## efattah (Apr 11, 2017)

I agree 100% with crafto. The more I cube, the more I realize the benefit of using smaller sets with good ergonomics and super recognition. There seems to be a certain critical number of algorithms, for me it seems to be around 250, and going above that, the cases just don't come up often enough. This means that solving cubes (fast or slow) is no longer sufficient to maintain familiarity and speed with the algorithm sets. What that means is that cubing becomes a chore; a beneficial cubing session ceases to be solving but instead becomes repeating long stressful slide shows, drilling algorithms that you haven't seen in thousands of solves. And no amount of slide-show drilling ever seems to create the grace and fluid familiarity of executing a case that you have seen in thousands of solves. Executing a case you have drilled thousands of times but only seen a handful always seems slower and more erratic.

I think one reason vanilla CFOP (78 LL + 42 F2L) and Roux (even with EOLR) are so successful is because the algorithm sets are just the right size to be small enough to allow real mastery and each case comes up often enough that solving alone is good enough practice. The cubers that use full OLLCP and ZBLL are forced to spend huge amounts of times doing drills, and the ones that are diligent in doing that gain some advantage, but the fun factor drops.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 12, 2017)

@efattah I see your point, you're totally right. Unlike you guys I've been cubing for a very very short time (~6 months) and haven't had to learn any huge algsets or anything, so I don't know much about this stuff. The two sort of distict types of methods are the hardcore low movecount alg-heavy needs-a-lot-of-practice method for people who want to put in a LOT of time in practicing and learning algs and getting faster (ex: ZBLL), and a simpler low algorithm fun version of that method for the general public (ex: 2-3 look CFOP LL). I really feel like method designing can be split into those two categories, and people's opinions on "what's a good method" often depends on which of those two examples they're going for. So far pretty much all the variations of WaterRoux we're making are definitely geared toward the first audience I talked about, the people that are willing to learn a TON of algs to save a few moves. And I really think you're right, the problem with my WaterRoux variation is the fact that althogh TEG and L6E aren't that alg-heavy (250 & 89 algs), the third step (TEUL) would be over 300, which is learnable but as you said not fun and would probably have some crappy recog. This weekend I'm going to look into some slight less alg-heavy ways of doinng L9E in WaterRoux, maybe something kind of styled like Crafto's method but with 9 unsolved edges would be cool, but idk.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 14, 2017)

Here's a solve proving the true potential of WaterRoux. The solve was fairly average and still got under 40 moves while over half of the solve was pseudo 2 gen and over 75% of the solve was simply algorithmic.

U R' D2 L B L' y//FB (6/6)
R2 U y' U R' U2 R' F R F' R y//Corners (10/16)
M U2 M2 U R2 U M2 U'//ERL (8/24)
r U' M U R2 M U M U2 M U' M2 U2 R'//L7E (14/38)

I'm working on a special ERL set and will probably get with somerandomkidmike about cases where no redges are in UL or M slice.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

I wasn't sure where to post this so I'm putting it here. I found a pretty good way to solve the L5C when FB and a 2x2 at BDR are solved.
First, you orient all the corners using one of 16 algorithms, most are 2-gen and super fast, average is 5 moves. Next, you permute the corners using one of 6 algorithms, average is 7 moves. This would have L5C solved in roughly 12 moves using only 22 algorithms (more like 14 because 6 of the cases are essentially intuitive). This is very good considering using regular TCLL is about 11 moves and requires 84 algorithms. Seems like saving 1 move probably isn't worth the 70 extra algs if ya ask me!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

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.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Apr 17, 2017)

I know this is closed to Roux but it's a cool idea I thought of while reading crafts post.

FB
Square
Make a pair without inserting it
Orient 3 top corners while preserving the pair
Insert pair with block commutater to solve permutation of corners (9.5 I think)
Lse

Block commutaters give good edge influence possibilities so ppl could almost always solve at least an edge leading to l5e. EO influence can also be intresting


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

Rcuber123 said:


> Bad idea


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 (May 31, 2017)

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 (May 31, 2017)

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 (Jun 14, 2018)

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)


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 14, 2018)

_zoux said:


> M2 B' M2


x M2 U2 M2



_zoux said:


> r2 R'



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


----------



## _zoux (Jun 15, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> x M2 U2 M2
> 
> 
> 
> Hold like you would on a r but at the same time push with your ring finger


Oh, thanks.


----------



## StrategySam (Jul 28, 2021)

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 (Jul 28, 2021)

StrategySam said:


> 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 (Jul 28, 2021)

StrategySam said:


> 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 (Oct 1, 2021)

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 (Oct 1, 2021)

crafto22 said:


> 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)
> ...





LukasCubes said:


> 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).


----------



## Melkor (Oct 4, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2021)

Melkor said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2021)

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 (Oct 6, 2021)

Athefre said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2021)

Melkor said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2021)

Melkor said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2021)

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.


----------

