# Roux-breaker? The YruRU method



## Devagio (Apr 27, 2020)

Inspecting CP in inspection allows us to solve the *entire cube 2-gen*.

Many cubers, notably *Jayden* and *Bhargav* are particularly excited by this idea; and this can potentially *beat Roux for One-handed* solving.

If you find it game-changing, or otherwise, let me know. I'll be putting this up along with the numbering system on some facebook groups, and on youtube.

On an overall level, it has an average move count of 45-50, and is similar to Roux in execution, except we have 2GLL instead of CMLL, and there is no MU turning necessary.

*The idea is simple: Reduce the cube to be solvable using
(First) u, r, U, R
(Then) r, U, R
(And finally) U, R*

Scramble: D2 R2 D2 R2 F’ R2 B’ D2 B F’ D F D’ U2 B D’ U B’ L R

R U x’ // 113
It takes 2-3 moves to make a 1x1x3 with white or yellow on one of the sides with 3 pieces (there are 8 such bars possible). This has to be placed in bottom left.

U2 F’ U F // CP
This takes 3-4 moves, and I have developed a numbering system to figure out how to do CP. Since all this is seen in inspection, there is no question of recognition time; and this step is extremely flexible (my numbering system gives 12 solutions that are 4 moves or less) so influencing the next step is very easy.

This is as far as needs to be seen in inspection, however, seeing much farther is possible (for reference, doing this with my numbering system is far easier than making an EO line in inspection)..

Now the cube is reduced to RUru.

U r u R’ U2 R’ u2 // 123

The cube is now reduced to RUr.

The previous step was quite simple and almost always ends with u2, so it is a great opportunity to look ahead.

r U2 r’ U’ R r U’ r’ // EO
R’ U’ r2 // 223

The above two can in advanced solves be combined like EOLR in Roux.

Now, the cube is solvable 2gen, we know how quick that can be.

1/6 of the time we get a CP skip. That’s 4 less moves, two of which are F or D; and allows us to see further into the solve during inspection.


*Here are some example solves*.

These by no means are perfectly done solves, but they do show the method's general idea; and the high probability of lucky solves adds to it as evident in solve 5.

Scramble 1: R2 U’ B2 R2 D’ F2 D B2 R2 D2 B F2 U L2 R U L’ R’ F2 D

Solution 1: z // inspection
R S // 113
R2 F’ U’ F // CP
 u’ R u’ R U R u2 // 123
R2 U R’ r U’ r // EO
R U2 R U r2 // 2-gen reduction



Scramble 2: F U2 B’ U2 L2 R2 F2 R2 F D’ U’ B R D’ R2 D’ L R2 D’ U

Solution 2: x2 // inspection
R’ F // 113
R F’ U’ F // CP
u R u R’ U2 R u2 // 123
R U R U r U’ r’ // EO
R’ U R U’ r2 // 2-gen reduction



Scramble 3: D2 R2 D2 R2 F’ R2 B’ D2 B F’ D F D’ U2 B D’ U B’ L R

Solution 3: x’ // inspection
R F // 113
U2 F’ U F // CP
U r u R’ U2 R’ u2 // 123
r U2 r’ U’ R r U’ r’ // EO
R’ U’ r2 // 2-gen reduction



Scramble 4: D2 F2 R B2 D2 B2 R’ F2 L’ B2 F2 U F D L’ F’ D B’ U L2

Solution 4: z y // inspection
F U’ f’ U F // 113 + CP
U r U r’ R’ U’ R’ u2 // 123
r U’ R2 U r U’ r // EO
U R’ U’ r2 // 2-gen reduction



Scramble 5: D’ B2 U B2 U’ F2 L2 U2 B2 U’ F L2 B U’ R F2 D R’ B2 L2

Solution 5: z2 y // inspection
S2 U’ F2 // 113
CP Skip!
U R’ u’ r’ R2 U R’ u2 // 123
U’ r U R U r U’ r’ // EO (+ block)
U r’ U2 r’ // 2-gen reduction (+ block)
R U2 R U2 R’ U’ R U R’ // F2L
U’ // 2-GLL Skip!



1/6 chance of CP skip, 1/324 chance of LL skip (1/108 if you do phasing, 1/12 if you do WV) Plus extremely high TPS for most of the solve, which would be under 50 moves long.

I’ll put up the numbering system.
If the method looks promising, let me (and others) know!

The method is called *YruRU* (Vaay-roo-roo).

EDIT: Here is the website for the method if you’re interested in having a look at the updated version (as of late June 2020).


----------



## sqAree (Apr 27, 2020)

Can you explain the CP step a bit more? Because 2-gen redux methods have been around for a while and it's almost always the CP step that stops them from being viable, so we kinda need that explanation.


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 27, 2020)

Yes, please put the numbering system here! I don't understand the CP step at all but doing it in inspection seems like a great way to eliminate the problems other methods have had with that step (like ZZ-d). I'm super interested in this method and I would consider switching to it for OH if I knew how it worked.


----------



## Devagio (Apr 27, 2020)

This is going to be an attempt to explain how to do the first step of the method. This is basically one of the first places where I'm posting an explanation out in public than explaining in person or chat, so it may be difficult to understand. I'll try to clarify doubts via a 2-part video that I’ve made. I will also put few examples later.

The first step is the CP-line, where we have to make a 1x1x3 block in bottom left while permuting corners, and this takes 4 - 6 STM on most scrambles. Before explaining how to do it, I will gloss over some bare minimum theory required to understand what we are actually doing.

Just like EO of edges in R and U layers allows them to be solved without the intervention of F and B faces, CP of corners in R and U layers allows them to be solved without the intervention of F, B, L and D faces. What is a solved CP exactly? We do not really have to care to answer that question beyond noting that it is a permutation of the 6 corners in the R and U layers such that it is solvable using R and U; I have already done the work and you just gotta learn some rules.

1) After you solve the two corners in the bottom left, you can solve the CP by "swapping" a pair of the remaining corners. Determining which corners to swap exactly is the hard part, we'll get to that later. We'll first see how to swap them.

2) The "swapping" can be done by using one of the following 3 triggers:
a. F' U' F swaps corners in spots UFL and UFR
b. F' U F or F R’ F’ swap corners in spots UFR and UBR (edited)
c. F R F' swaps corners in spots UBL and UBR
Any or all of these moves may even be wide moves, as per the convenience of solving the DL edge of the CP-line. Also, if the corners you want to swap aren't in these locations, simply get them there using R and U moves (or their wide versions).



Now we get into the numbering system, which will be used to determine which corners to swap. For now, assume that the two corners in bottom left are already solved, and for now say we have yellow on bottom. The following bit is quite complicated, but with practice, it'll become second nature in less than an hour.

I have numbered the white-green-orange corner as 1, the white-orange-blue as 2, white-blue-red as 3 and the white-red-green as 4. The corner that is supposed to be solved in DFR is called 5, and the corner that is to be solved in DBR is called 6.

Now, imagine a thread in the cube going from locations UFL-UBL-UBR-UFR-DFR-DBR. The locations UFL, UBR and DFR are called odd places, and the locations UBL, UFR and DBR are called even places. Also, there are three couples: UFL-UBL, UBR-UFR and DFR-DBR. Trace these on a cube and you will see the obvious patterns.

Now that the naming is out of the way, we can have a look at how to identify which corners to swap to solve CP.

1) Look for corner 5. If it is in an odd location, we will "read" the thread from UFL to DBR. If corner 5 is in an even location, we will read from DBR to UFL (The meaning of reading is obvious later).

2) Now look for corner 6. It can be in 3 possible locations.
a. If corner 6 is in the couple of location of 5, do nothing.
b. If corner 6 is in another couple and the parity of its location is different from the parity of location of 5, then visualise the corners in the third couple swapped, and corner 6 swapped with the corner in the couple of corner 5.
c. If corner 6 is in another couple and the parity of its location is the same as the parity of location of 5, then visualise the third corner in the same parity location swapped with the other corner in the couple of corner 6, and corner 6 swapped with the corner in the couple of corner 5.

3) Now read the thread in the direction as dictated by rule 1, with the considerations of rule 2, ignoring 5 and 6. You will obtain some permutation of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. Starting from 4, cyclically read the numbers (For eg: 3421 changes to 213).



You will have one of 6 possible sequences:

123: CP is solved

132: swap either 2-3 or 1-6 or 4-5
213: swap either 1-2 or 3-5 or 4-6 (edited)

231: swap either 1-4 or 2-5 or 3-6
312: swap either 3-4 or 1-5 or 2-6

321: swap either 3-1 or 2-4 or 5-6

You can choose any one of these swaps based on convenience of simultaneously putting the DL edge.

This took weeks to come up with and optimise, I'm fairly certain this is one of the quickest ways to do it; but again minor optimizations may be possible.

You can similarly fix a number system on yellow corners. This allows you to make one of a total of 8 1x1x3 bars. Being colour neutral would be dumb, since the number of bars only increases to 12 possible bars, but the EO will get massively difficult to determine later on.

Of course, we will not have the bottom left corners solved in each scramble, but more than 80% of the times it there will be a 1-move solution, and there always exists a 2 move solution. With under a week of practice, I could consistently plan CP-lines with 2 moves to solve the DL corners in under 15 seconds. Given I can barely plan cross+1 sub-15, I guess this means its really achievable to do this competitively with ease and maybe even plan further.

This is basically all you need to get started with this method given you understand the concept of EO as well, but i will make further posts on some great ideas I have developed that make this much more worth it.



PS. I've named the method YruRU [pronounced vaay-roo-roo], short for Yash's r-u-R-U reduction, which is also a dig at Roux [also pronounced roo], mocking "Why Roux?"

The above explanation is quite hard to understand; it’s great if you do, but I’ll add video links for ease of understanding. Till then, here is an example.


Scramble: L2 F2 D2 B' R2 B' D2 B' U2 L2 R' B D' F2 L' D R2 F L B2

x' y' (putting solved corners in bottom left)
a. 5 is in UFR, an even position, thus we read starting from DRB
b. 6 is in DRB, also an even position. Thus we visualise UBL swapped with DFR and UBR swapped with DRB.
c. Now, skipping the couple that will now have 5 and 6 as we have visualised, we read - DRB-DRF-UBL-UFL, which after the swaps has converted to UBR-UBL-DFR-UFL, which is 2143
d. Removing 4 we have 321, i.e. we have to swap either 1-3 or 2-4 or 5-6.
e. A good way to solve CP while solving DL is to swap 5-6 as follows:
U R2 f' u' F (the final u' is a wide move to facilitate the next step, which will be U R' u' R' u2)
Here, the U R2 was to set up 5 and 6 to swappable positions, and the trigger used was a variation of F' U' F.



sqAree said:


> Can you explain the CP step a bit more? Because 2-gen redux methods have been around for a while and it's almost always the CP step that stops them from being viable, so we kinda need that explanation.


Done



CuberStache said:


> Yes, please put the numbering system here! I don't understand the CP step at all but doing it in inspection seems like a great way to eliminate the problems other methods have had with that step (like ZZ-d). I'm super interested in this method and I would consider switching to it for OH if I knew how it worked.


Precisely! That was the point of this idea.


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 27, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Precisely! That was the point of this idea.


I hope to put a lot of effort into learning this later today, once I can give if my full attention. The CP recognition system seems to have a steep learning curve. I have to memorize which pieces are which numbers, figure out the weird tracing and swaps, remember what to do once I decide the CP case, and all while the pieces I'm tracing are 1-2 moves away from actually being there... It'll be a while before I have enough memorized to use this in solves but I'll be trying my best. Quarantine sucks but it's the perfect time to learn a completely new method - no comps to worry about ruining results in. Thank you for your contribution to the cubing community and I hope this becomes a popular OH method! Out of curiosity, how fast are you with this method compared to other methods? And you say you can plan CP-Line in inspection; is it nearly perfect or do you make mistakes sometimes?


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 27, 2020)

Interesting - I was just working out how to do last layer edge permutation using wide r and u moves for OH, so this is very timely for me. I'll look into it.


----------



## Devagio (Apr 27, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> I hope to put a lot of effort into learning this later today, once I can give if my full attention. The CP recognition system seems to have a steep learning curve. I have to memorize which pieces are which numbers, figure out the weird tracing and swaps, remember what to do once I decide the CP case, and all while the pieces I'm tracing are 1-2 moves away from actually being there... It'll be a while before I have enough memorized to use this in solves but I'll be trying my best. Quarantine sucks but it's the perfect time to learn a completely new method - no comps to worry about ruining results in. Thank you for your contribution to the cubing community and I hope this becomes a popular OH method! Out of curiosity, how fast are you with this method compared to other methods? And you say you can plan CP-Line in inspection; is it nearly perfect or do you make mistakes sometimes?


I have been developing this idea since quarantine started, so I’ve simply been polishing the entire thing and haven’t practiced with this method. In Inspection I do seem to have a 100% accuracy sub-15, but even if you don’t, you’ll end up with a PLL after your 2GLL, so your solve will basically have like 3-4 seconds added at worst.
The CP in inspection is a very new idea so it’ll certainly take time to understand, but mastering it is quite easy once you get it.
Also, if you find this method a big enough breakthrough, like potentially one of big four, then do help me popularise it. Thanks


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 27, 2020)

Devagio said:


> I have been developing this idea since quarantine started, so I’ve simply been polishing the entire thing and haven’t practiced with this method. In Inspection I do seem to have a 100% accuracy sub-15, but even if you don’t, you’ll end up with a PLL after your 2GLL, so your solve will basically have like 3-4 seconds added at worst.
> The CP in inspection is a very new idea so it’ll certainly time time to understand, but mastering it is quite easy once you get it.
> Also, if you find this method a big enough breakthrough, like potentially one of big four, then do help me popularise it. Thanks


Understandable that you would want to post the method as soon as you're done with it. I'd love to hear how it works for you in solves after a bit of practice. My initial thoughts are that the EO step needs to be developed more. I struggle to figure out how to use the r U/U' r' trigger to solve EO consistently. It should be more like Roux, where you recognize different cases of where bad edges are and have an "algorithm" of triggers to solve it. Also, EO recognition in the middle of a solve kinda sucks in general but it can be mitigated by the fact that the last move of 2x2x3 is basically always u2, so you can check the U-layer edges easily, and you can ignore the BD one because it's impossible to have one edge flipped. I also have trouble doing the 2x2x3 step since it's so different from any other method, but that should be easy enough to figure out with practice. I'll be posting example solves with this method in the example solve thread, and if I think it has enough potential, I might make a quest thread about it (you're new to the forums but if you search "quest" you will find many threads about people documenting their progress to improve with a certain method; it's a bit of a fad right now). That should help with popularizing it.


----------



## Devagio (Apr 27, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Understandable that you would want to post the method as soon as you're done with it. I'd love to hear how it works for you in solves after a bit of practice. My initial thoughts are that the EO step needs to be developed more. I struggle to figure out how to use the r U/U' r' trigger to solve EO consistently. It should be more like Roux, where you recognize different cases of where bad edges are and have an "algorithm" of triggers to solve it. Also, EO recognition in the middle of a solve kinda sucks in general but it can be mitigated by the fact that the last move of 2x2x3 is basically always u2, so you can check the U-layer edges easily, and you can ignore the BD one because it's impossible to have one edge flipped. I also have trouble doing the 2x2x3 step since it's so different from any other method, but that should be easy enough to figure out with practice. I'll be posting example solves with this method in the example solve thread, and if I think it has enough potential, I might make a quest thread about it (you're new to the forums but if you search "quest" you will find many threads about people documenting their progress to improve with a certain method; it's a bit of a fad right now). That should help with popularizing it.


This post is to explain the EOBF step of YruRU, so that given all the information on this group, one could use the method with complete knowledge of all its steps.

After making the CP-line, the line needs to be extended to a 1x2x3 block by attaching 1 centre and 2 edges. This step almost always ends with a u2, providing good opportunity to look ahead to the next step, which EOBF. Here, I have explained EO and BF separately, and the two can be combined with experience and/or algorithms as in EOLR in Roux.

With white or yellow centre on the U face, determine the orientation of the remaining 9 unsolved edges. You may have 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8 unoriented edges.

To solve the case with 4 edges, we have to make a staircase pattern: i.e. place the unoriented edges in DF, RF, UF and UL; while keeping white or yellow centre on top (stuff like r U2 r’ is allowed, though usually not necessary). Now to solve the EO, do (r U r’) or (r U’ r’) or (r U r) or (r U’ r). You can also mirror the staircase from the back and do the same triggers starting with r’ instead of r. The case with 8 unoriented edges can be solved by solving 4 at a time twice.

The cases with 2 or 6 unoriented edges has to be converted to the case with 4 unoriented edges by doing the triggers as above, except by keeping 1 or 3 unoriented edges in the staircase respectively.
EDIT: another way to solve the case with 2 misoriented edges (or reduce case of 6 misoriented edges) is to do stuff like r U R U r.

The fact that multiple triggers can get the same job done means you can pick the trigger to optimise EO when more than one trigger is required, and to optimise BF when only one trigger is required.

Now you’ll have a cube completely solvable using only R and U moves, and it’s really fun to spam TPS here.


----------



## Arc (Apr 27, 2020)

Hello.

This method was invented as the Briggs method in 2015.

Here's an Ao5 from Micki.

I think it's really cool that there's excitement over it again. I've been saying that it is the best OH method for a while now. One advancement that has been made is utilizing the CP recognition from Teoidus's 2GR method to solve CP and the bar (or even the entire FB, though that is more difficult) simultaneously in inspection. A variant called Leor also exists, which forgoes the CP at the beginning of the solve and uses ZBLL to finish. Pyjam has many example solves of Leor on the example solve thread.

It would be really cool if this method could pick up traction again and get attention from bigger names.


----------



## Devagio (Apr 27, 2020)

Arc said:


> Hello.
> 
> This method was invented as the Briggs method in 2015.
> 
> ...


Yeah, steps 2, 3 and 4 are identical! Really cool.
Though, the approach to CP is entirely different here; and arguably much faster / simplistic.
I’ll definitely have a look at this method to see whether there can be any modifications my method, thanks.



Devagio said:


> This is going to be an attempt to explain how to do the first step of the method. This is basically one of the first places where I'm posting an explanation out in public than explaining in person or chat, so it may be difficult to understand. I'll try to clarify doubts via a 2-part video that I’ve made. I will also put few examples later.
> 
> The first step is the CP-line, where we have to make a 1x1x3 block in bottom left while permuting corners, and this takes 4 - 6 STM on most scrambles. Before explaining how to do it, I will gloss over some bare minimum theory required to understand what we are actually doing.
> 
> ...


Here are the video tutorial links. They’re not sufficient by themselves and reading the above post is necessary to make sense of what is said. The video explains the idea very thoroughly though.
Part 1: 



Part 2:


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 27, 2020)

Devagio said:


> The "swapping" can be done by using one of the following 3 triggers:
> a. F' U' F swaps corners in spots UFL and UFR
> b. F' U F swaps corners in spots UFR and UBL *UBR*
> c. F R F' swaps corners in spots UBL and UBR


According to the video, the above correction should be made. This is assuming the video is correct, which I don't know for sure, but it seems like it would be easier to point at the correct pieces than to name them


----------



## y235 (Apr 28, 2020)

Here's an alternative CP recognition idea (not fully developped) - suppose the DL corners are solved. We'll divide the other six corners to 3 pairs - the two corners with D-layer color, and the four corners with the U-layer color are divided to opposite pairs - so if we solved the White-Green corners, our pairs are White-Blue-Orange+White-Blue-Red, Yellow-Green-Red+Yellow-Blue-Orange, Yellow-Blue-Red+Yellow-Green-Orange.
Now, recognition goes like this:
1. Look at the two DR corners, let us call them F and B (F is the front one, of course).
2. Find each of their pairs -
case i. F and B are themselves a pair,
case ii. We have two corresponding corners in the U-layer, call them F and B as well.
3. In case i, the other 2 pairs are in the U-layer and are either both positioned adjacently (so e.g. UFR-UFL is a pair and UBR-UBL is a pair), or diagonally.
In case ii., the F and B corners in the U-layer can be in one of only 3 relative positions - adjacent and F is before B going clockwise, adjacent and B is before F going clockwise, or not adjacent.

So we have 5 possible cases overall. One also needs to know the parity of the corner permutation, and then we have a total of 10 possible cases. Each one can be solved with a 3-4 move alg (like R F' U' F).

So, overall, recognition goes like this - First take note of the parity. Then look at the DFR and DBR corners. If they "match", see whether U-layer matching corners are adjacent or opposite. If they don't match, find the relative position of their pairs in the U-layer. Do the right fix out of 10 possible algs.

There is one small caveat - the relative position is determined up to AUF, that is, doing a U turn doesn't change the relative position of the pieces in the U-layer. However, it does change the parity of the corner permutation. So one has to take that into account as well. 

Also, Devagio's method is more flexible - you can choose which pair to swap out of three possible ones. However, I think that this recognition might be faster (counting parity is quick, finding the pairs is also quick).

The idea behind this is that in a state that can be solved 2-gen, those 3 pairs must be in exactly one of 5 configurations: (taken from https://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm)

​That is, if we're in case V for example, then one pair must be in UBL-UBR, another one in UFR-DFR, and the last one in DBR-UFL. So we find the locations of two pairs, and then do the right moves to bring us to one of those 5 desired situations. However, there might be a swap of 2 corners in the same pair - this is something we have to take account for.


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 28, 2020)

Devagio said:


> 213: swap either 1-2 or 3-6 or 4-5


After agonizing over what I could possibly be doing wrong, I think this line is incorrect. I think it should be 1-2 or 3-5 or 4-6

See this scramble for proof, or correct me if I'm wrong

R' B' D F U' R B U' R' L2 U2 F2 D' L2 D F2 L2 D F2 U2 F2

x' R2 F2 // Line, tracing should be 213


----------



## Arc (Apr 28, 2020)

This is the recognition method I mentioned. There is a learning curve to it but with some practice it becomes very fast. The big advantage of this is avoiding solving DFL and then unsolving it to solve CP. It also gives better ergonomics with only one F, and should let you see further in inspection once you are proficient.



Devagio said:


> Yeah, steps 2, 3 and 4 are identical! Really cool.
> Though, the approach to CP is entirely different here; and arguably much faster / simplistic.
> I’ll definitely have a look at this method to see whether there can be any modifications my method, thanks.


This method just splits the first step into three pieces, in essence it is an "intermediate version" of Briggs. Shadowslice also gives suggested substeps of 1x1x2 -> CP + 1x1x3 -> FB, which is identical to your steps except the redundant solving of DFL. And yes indeed, Shadowslice's original CP system isn't good, see above for a much better one. This is what I use and also what Micki used in the video.


----------



## Devagio (Apr 28, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> According to the video, the above correction should be made. This is assuming the video is correct, which I don't know for sure, but it seems like it would be easier to point at the correct pieces than to name them


Yes, this correction should be made, the video is correct.



CuberStache said:


> After agonizing over what I could possibly be doing wrong, I think this line is incorrect. I think it should be 1-2 or 3-5 or 4-6
> 
> See this scramble for proof, or correct me if I'm wrong
> 
> ...


Again, correct. I made an error.
By the way, a better CP-line here probably would be
x U’ F’ U’ F’ f2 (which is 2gen too)
This is more practical because it is much easier in inspection to check out CP when the bottom left corners are solved.



y235 said:


> Here's an alternative CP recognition idea (not fully developped) - suppose the DL corners are solved. We'll divide the other six corners to 3 pairs - the two corners with D-layer color, and the four corners with the U-layer color are divided to opposite pairs - so if we solved the White-Green corners, our pairs are White-Blue-Orange+White-Blue-Red, Yellow-Green-Red+Yellow-Blue-Orange, Yellow-Blue-Red+Yellow-Green-Orange.
> Now, recognition goes like this:
> 1. Look at the two DR corners, let us call them F and B (F is the front one, of course).
> 2. Find each of their pairs -
> ...


This seems like quite a decent idea once developed, definitely a little quicker than my version; though the lack of flexibility would probably mean adding a lot many more moves to solve the 1x1x3 line alongside CP.
I’d definitely suggest trying to expand this idea and see where it goes.



Arc said:


> This is the recognition method I mentioned. There is a learning curve to it but with some practice it becomes very fast. The big advantage of this is avoiding solving DFL and then unsolving it to solve CP. It also gives better ergonomics with only one F, and should let you see further in inspection once you are proficient.
> 
> 
> This method just splits the first step into three pieces, in essence it is an "intermediate version" of Briggs. Shadowslice also gives suggested substeps of 1x1x2 -> CP + 1x1x3 -> FB, which is identical to your steps except the redundant solving of DFL. And yes indeed, Shadowslice's original CP system isn't good, see above for a much better one. This is what I use and also what Micki used in the video.


This seems way too impractical tbh. I may be wrong, but this sure is quite a bit harder than YruRU’s recog. Moreover, EO isn’t necessary this early in the solve.


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 28, 2020)

Roux already reduces cube to RUMr in second block, without doing CP in inspection. F moves are not bad. I cant imagine Uw and Rw being ssuch a good moveset. For example, do r u r' u' 6 times and compare it to R U R' U' 6 times. wide U and R moves mean you have such a small grip on the cube, its not very stable. the MU part of roux is where i actually turn the fastest




this guy is consistently turning 6tps plus with 0 pauses


----------



## Devagio (Apr 28, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Roux already reduces cube to RUMr in second block, without doing CP in inspection. F moves are not bad. I cant imagine Uw and Rw being ssuch a good moveset. For example, do r u r' u' 6 times and compare it to R U R' U' 6 times. wide U and R moves mean you have such a small grip on the cube, its not very stable. the MU part of roux is where i actually turn the fastest
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roux requires CMLL to do CP, and the cube is not reduced to rRUM in second block. Also, you’ll almost never have to do r and u together if you’ve seen the method. Plus, MU is not a problem but RU is better.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Apr 28, 2020)

This is very interesting. It is certainly similar to Briggs but not obviously (to me at least at the moment) identical and it is basically impossible to have any new method not share some similarities with existing methods. I will look into it more for the next few days and come back with my thoughts


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 28, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Roux requires CMLL to do CP, and the cube is not reduced to rRUM in second block. Also, you’ll almost never have to do r and u together if you’ve seen the method. Plus, MU is not a problem but RU is better.


how is the cube not reduced to rRUM in sb? and CMLL is really easy


----------



## y235 (Apr 28, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> how is the cube not reduced to rRUM in sb? and CMLL is really easy


You can't permute corners with rRUM (e.g. you can't do an A-Perm)


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 28, 2020)

y235 said:


> You can't permute corners with rRUM (e.g. you can't do an A-Perm)


oh i thought he meant SB only and not after it


----------



## Exotic Butters (Apr 28, 2020)

Would you consider this to be a viable 2h method?


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 28, 2020)

I’ll have to look into this, it seems really cool! The only reason I never tried Briggs was because there wasn’t enough explanation for it. Hopefully this will clear things up


----------



## Devagio (Apr 28, 2020)

Exotic Butters said:


> Would you consider this to be a viable 2h method?


I’m pretty sure at the current stage it doesn’t even compare to say CFOP for 2H because of the awkward grip required to do u and r moves in the start and the active thinking portion for EO. But then again I can argue similarly for Roux, yet people are quite fast with it in 2H as well.
Only time will tell whether it is viable for 2H, though I wouldn’t bet on it.

Here are some CP-line examples.


R2 F2 D2 U' L2 D B2 D' L D' U2 L' F' D L' B F2 R' U'

z’ y
Corners already solved
Sequence - 312
R’ (F’ u’ F) U S’ // CP-line



R L U' F2 L' F' D B U' F D B2 U' B2 L2 D L2 F2 U2 L2 F2

y z’
F // corners
Sequence - 321
r (F r F) f2 // CP-line


U2 R F2 R D2 L' B2 U2 R2 U2 L2 U' B2 L B L' R2 B2 D2 L U'

x z’
Corners already solved
Sequence - 312
r (F’ u’ F2) f’ // CP-line


R' D B2 L U2 F R2 L U' B' R L2 U2 R2 B2 D2 B2 R2 F2 D' R2

z2
Corners already solved
Sequence - 231
u (F’ u F) U S’ // CP-line


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

z x’
F2 f // line
Sequence - 321
(F R F’) // CP-line
[with cancellations: z x’ S R F’]


Note, wherever possible, the centre that is to be solved on the L face is brought to either F, R or B face for the ease of doing the next step.


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 29, 2020)

After looking at this video, I am remembering the ru solves of Cube Roll, which was a unique subset to try out.


----------



## ProStar (Apr 29, 2020)

I'd like to here what @shadowslice e thinks of this, considering he's the creator of Briggs


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 29, 2020)

D2 F2 D' R2 U' L2 B2 U' F2 R2 F L2 U' R U' L' D L B2 F'
what movecount can you get on this scramble

this method is actually just LEOR cp btw


----------



## Devagio (Apr 30, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> D2 F2 D' R2 U' L2 B2 U' F2 R2 F L2 U' R U' L' D L B2 F'
> what movecount can you get on this scramble
> 
> this method is actually just LEOR cp btw


Just like ZZ is just CFOP EO lol.

x z2
F2 U2 f’ u f// CP-line
u’ U R’ u2 // 123
r U2 r U2 r U’ r // EO
U2 r’ U2 r // 2-gen reduction
That was 20 moves ETM, 19 STM.
Kinda average scramble, got lucky during 1x2x3.


----------



## 1cubealot (Apr 30, 2020)

This method seems good, I may try learning it even though I do CFOP


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'd like to here what @shadowslice e thinks of this, considering he's the creator of Briggs


I don't particularly care for cp first methods in speedsolving. They've been around for at least 4 years (possibly longer, but I haven't been able to find documentation of it) and it's been shown that cp in inspection can be done quickly and fairly easily (see 2gr).

What I want to see is basically inspectionless eo done fast in a speedsolve (not to mention RUru is a pretty awkward moveset). If that can be demonstrated, I'd be much more inclined to believe this method is good.

Failing that, I'd like to see eo and cp done together in inspection. Some friends and I actually tried to work out how to do that for a while but we never found anything satisfactory. I'd argue that cp first won't be really good until something along those lines is found (though even then it might not be since R,r2,U,U2 block building doesn't sound fun but ig you could try LU/RU alternating)

I'm also not convinced forcing 2gll is actually worth it. Afaik 2gll is not much (if at all) faster than zbll for oh on average.

And lastly, I don't think RU is actually faster than MU for oh (at least to solve their respective subgroups of the cube).

In summary, I don't think this method is anything revolutionary (or even does much to fix the problems of already existing cp methods).

But, like usual, I'd like to be proven wrong but I don't think I am.


----------



## 1cubealot (Apr 30, 2020)

Could someone help me with the EO


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 30, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm also not convinced forcing 2gll is actually worth it. Afaik 2gll is not much (if at all) faster than zbll for oh on average.


I'm similarly sceptical, but this may just be because of my ignorance. Here's what I've been thinking:

You have to do the F/B/D/L moves some time, so things like EP and CP just shift them around in the solve, and consolidate them. I'm not convinced that doing these awkward moves for CP at the start of the solve is any more efficient than doing them in the last layer. I'm no expert, but I think that CP only saves two L/L' moves in the last layer, and moves them to the start of the solve instead. With a z rotation, you can do corner permutation in the last layer using U/R/D moves, which is a very good move set for OH.

Doing EO first has some more benefits, since it consolidates many awkward moves into a single F or B move, and oriented edges help to reduce cases throughout the solve. I may be wrong, but it seems that CP only really helps during last layer.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 30, 2020)

Definitely worse than Roux.
There are too many small complicated steps, making it extremely difficult for me to believe that achieving fluid solving at high TPS is possible with this. The moveset is also quite far from ergonomic. RUru is pretty ugly for 2H due to wrist overturning and F-face thumb regrips every time a wide u is performed. It's arguably even worse for OH, for the same Uw front thumb regrip reason (as well as having to move middle finger from the E slice on the back). All of this extra work and dealing with ugly moves for a 2GLL finish is not worth it at all. If anything, this method shows how elegant and efficient Roux is as a method. The real roux-killer is more likely to be found in the hands of a young CFOP user who decides to learn how to actually build blocks properly and do giant Xcrosses every time followed by some ridiculous amount of algorithm sets solving LSLL.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

I think the Uw moves just break the entire thing for OH. you have to hold the entire cube by one 1x1x3 pillar on the bottom left. The only way to realistically do this is to use some wierd table abuse, which is exactly what this method is trying to lower.


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (Apr 30, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> With a z rotation, you can do corner permutation in the last layer using U/R/D moves, which is a very good move set for OH.


RUD is definitely not a 'very good' OH moveset


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 30, 2020)

antonio19kamh3 said:


> RUD is definitely not a 'very good' OH moveset


Besides R and U, what's the next best layer for OH? I always preferred D moves because you don't have to regrip or rotate.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

antonio19kamh3 said:


> RUD is definitely not a 'very good' OH moveset





dudefaceguy said:


> Besides R and U, what's the next best layer for OH? I always preferred D moves.


Yeah, D moves are easy. The problem is your grip. If your hand is parrellel with the cube, D moves are easy. A low down grip, though, doesn't allow for the same ease.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 30, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Besides R and U, what's the next best layer for OH? I always preferred D moves.


M is very good.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 30, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> M is very good.


Oh right - I do OH standing up on the train so I can't do M moves, as there is no table to abuse. If I had a table then of course M.


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (Apr 30, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Besides R and U, what's the next best layer for OH? I always preferred D moves because you don't have to regrip or rotate.


F


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

antonio19kamh3 said:


> F


You have to rotate.


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You have to rotate.


No. I have LOADS of OH solves on my channel where I do F moves (and sometimes B moves) completely rotationless


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

antonio19kamh3 said:


> No. I have LOADS of OH solves on my channel where I do F moves (and sometimes B moves) completely rotationless


How? With thumb?


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> How? With thumb?


for F, thumb, for F', index (like a pinch U'), and for F2, F' F' or thumb eido F2


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You have to rotate.


F' - index finger on ULF sticker, push down
F - thumb on FDL sticker, drag up
very easy when you get used to it


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

antonio19kamh3 said:


> for F, thumb, for F', index (like a pinch U'), and for F2, F' F' or thumb eido F2





mukerflap said:


> F' - index finger on ULF sticker, push down
> F - thumb on FDL sticker, drag up
> very easy when you get used to it


Okay thanks.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 30, 2020)

So, regarding the issue of minimizing these sub-optimal move sets for OH, can you actually eliminate or reduce them by doing CP first, or do you just move them to the beginning of the solve?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 30, 2020)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Definitely worse than Roux.
> There are too many small complicated steps, making it extremely difficult for me to believe that achieving fluid solving at high TPS is possible with this. The moveset is also quite far from ergonomic. RUru is pretty ugly for 2H due to wrist overturning and F-face thumb regrips every time a wide u is performed. It's arguably even worse for OH, for the same Uw front thumb regrip reason (as well as having to move middle finger from the E slice on the back). All of this extra work and dealing with ugly moves for a 2GLL finish is not worth it at all. If anything, this method shows how elegant and efficient Roux is as a method. The real roux-killer is more likely to be found in the hands of a young CFOP user who decides to learn how to actually build blocks properly and do giant Xcrosses every time followed by some ridiculous amount of algorithm sets solving LSLL.



Kian's been inactive on the forums for a while, then just comes back with Roux propaganda XD


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 30, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Just like ZZ is just CFOP EO lol.
> 
> x z2
> F2 U2 f’ u f// CP-line
> ...


Ok how fast can you execute all of that


----------



## Devagio (Apr 30, 2020)

@LEGENDS @PenguinsDontFly @shadowslice e
Semi-convinced; though I was aware of these drawbacks I didn't really weigh them right.
Perhaps you'll find this interesting:
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/roux-saver-the-yroux-method.77256/


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 30, 2020)

14.97 OH single with YruRU!!

D' R B2 D R' B L' F' D2 F2 L U2 L2 U2 B2 R F2 L2 D'

U2' S' // CPLine
U2' u' R r U' R u2' // FB
U2' R' r U' r' r' R U R' U' r // EO
U' R U' r2 // Stripe
U2' R' U R // Square
U2' R U R' U2' R U' R' // F2L
U' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U2' // 2GLL

49 moves/14.97s = 3.27 TPS

Been practicing a lot lately but it looks like I might have been practicing the wrong method rip. I probably didn't even overinspect this time considering how easy the CPLine was.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 30, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> 14.97 OH single with YruRU!!
> 
> D' R B2 D R' B L' F' D2 F2 L U2 L2 U2 B2 R F2 L2 D'
> 
> ...


Congratulations, that is impressive! What are the advantages you see to this method, after trying it?


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 30, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Congratulations, that is impressive! What are the advantages you see to this method, after trying it?


The obvious advantage is ergonomic turning for pretty much the entire solve. I personally don't have a problem doing Uw/Uw' moves with one hand like others have expressed, but Rw' moves are a bit difficult. Not having rotations is nice but plenty of other methods have that. A 2GLL finish is more worth it than it sounds at first, especially for OH. Other ZBLL vs. 2GLL might not be a big enough difference for 2H to put effort into forcing a 2GLL, but I think the difference is considerably larger for OH since you have to rotate to do RUL algs and RUF algs are kinda awkward. If all algs are slower, the difference between a fast alg and a slow alg is larger - and all 2GLLs are fast! Plus, the main thing that would make 2GLL algs bad for 2H is regrips/R2 moves. Not a problem for OH! I know roughly 1/4 of 2GLL and I'll probably learn the rest. About half the cases I know so far (and many I don't know) are two sune variants with an AUF in between, so super good for OH. 88 algs to one-look the last layer is pretty awesome. The biggest problem with the method (As the OP has already identified) is EO recognition in the middle of the solve with 9 edges. I'm doing better at looking ahead to EO during the 1x2x3 step but it can't be done perfectly. Another problem I have is inspection time. I struggle to plan CPLine sub-15 when there aren't two corners already solved. I'm confident this will change with practice though. This is probably more than you wanted to know, lol.


----------



## mukerflap (May 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> The obvious advantage is ergonomic turning for pretty much the entire solve. I personally don't have a problem doing Uw/Uw' moves with one hand like others have expressed, but Rw' moves are a bit difficult. Not having rotations is nice but plenty of other methods have that. A 2GLL finish is more worth it than it sounds at first, especially for OH. Other ZBLL vs. 2GLL might not be a big enough difference for 2H to put effort into forcing a 2GLL, but I think the difference is considerably larger for OH since you have to rotate to do RUL algs and RUF algs are kinda awkward. If all algs are slower, the difference between a fast alg and a slow alg is larger - and all 2GLLs are fast! Plus, the main thing that would make 2GLL algs bad for 2H is regrips/R2 moves. Not a problem for OH! I know roughly 1/4 of 2GLL and I'll probably learn the rest. About half the cases I know so far (and many I don't know) are two sune variants with an AUF in between, so super good for OH. 88 algs to one-look the last layer is pretty awesome. The biggest problem with the method (As the OP has already identified) is EO recognition in the middle of the solve with 9 edges. I'm doing better at looking ahead to EO during the 1x2x3 step but it can't be done perfectly. Another problem I have is inspection time. I struggle to plan CPLine sub-15 when there aren't two corners already solved. I'm confident this will change with practice though. This is probably more than you wanted to know, lol.


RUF algs are good


----------



## Cuberstache (May 1, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> RUF algs are good


That's all you have to say after I wrote a whole paragraph? My point was that 2GLL for OH is really good.


----------



## mukerflap (May 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> That's all you have to say after I wrote a whole paragraph? My point was that 2GLL for OH is really good.


i dont have to disagree with every single thing you say


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> The obvious advantage is ergonomic turning for pretty much the entire solve. I personally don't have a problem doing Uw/Uw' moves with one hand like others have expressed, but Rw' moves are a bit difficult. Not having rotations is nice but plenty of other methods have that. A 2GLL finish is more worth it than it sounds at first, especially for OH. Other ZBLL vs. 2GLL might not be a big enough difference for 2H to put effort into forcing a 2GLL, but I think the difference is considerably larger for OH since you have to rotate to do RUL algs and RUF algs are kinda awkward. If all algs are slower, the difference between a fast alg and a slow alg is larger - and all 2GLLs are fast! Plus, the main thing that would make 2GLL algs bad for 2H is regrips/R2 moves. Not a problem for OH! I know roughly 1/4 of 2GLL and I'll probably learn the rest. About half the cases I know so far (and many I don't know) are two sune variants with an AUF in between, so super good for OH. 88 algs to one-look the last layer is pretty awesome. The biggest problem with the method (As the OP has already identified) is EO recognition in the middle of the solve with 9 edges. I'm doing better at looking ahead to EO during the 1x2x3 step but it can't be done perfectly. Another problem I have is inspection time. I struggle to plan CPLine sub-15 when there aren't two corners already solved. I'm confident this will change with practice though. This is probably more than you wanted to know, lol.


On the contrary, that's exactly what I wanted to know - thank you! You brought up the issue of doing EO in the middle of the solve instead of during inspection, which I think is part of a larger issue: what is the most effective use of inspection time? We have to do all of these parts of the solve at some point, so doing something during inspection means that we have to do something else during the solve. Getting a one-look last layer is obviously good, but if you have to do another look elsewhere in the solve to achieve the single look later on, then the question becomes whether it is more efficient to do that extra look during the last layer, or elsewhere in the solve.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 1, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> On the contrary, that's exactly what I wanted to know - thank you! You brought up the issue of doing EO in the middle of the solve instead of during inspection, which I think is part of a larger issue: what is the most effective use of inspection time? We have to do all of these parts of the solve at some point, so doing something during inspection means that we have to do something else during the solve. Getting a one-look last layer is obviously good, but if you have to do another look elsewhere in the solve to achieve the single look later on, then the question becomes whether it is more efficient to do that extra look during the last layer, or elsewhere in the solve.


Do you mean this in general or specific to this method? With this method, you basically have to do EO for the CP to actually have a benefit and there's no way we're going to be able to do both in inspection. I did a couple dozen solves today timing inspection and nearly all of them were DNFs so we're not going to be able to cram more stuff in.


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Do you mean this in general or specific to this method? With this method, you basically have to do EO for the CP to actually have a benefit and there's no way we're going to be able to do both in inspection. I did a couple dozen solves today timing inspection and nearly all of them were DNFs so we're not going to be able to cram more stuff in.


It's true in general, but this is a particularly illustrative case. As you point out, you need the whole inspection time for CP so you will have to do EO during the solve. You also start with a small amount of pieces solved, similar to ZZ. This is a disadvantage compared to other methods that focus on solving pieces during inspection, like Roux and CFOP. Many cubers have pointed this out regarding ZZ. This seems to me to be another version of the same debate. But rather than debating whether we should spend inspection solving pieces versus reducing our moveset, we are discussing whether we should do EO during inspection and CP during the solve, or CP during inspection and EO during the solve. I think it's an interesting question, even though I'm obviously not knowledgeable enough to answer it.


----------



## Devagio (May 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> 14.97 OH single with YruRU!!
> 
> D' R B2 D R' B L' F' D2 F2 L U2 L2 U2 B2 R F2 L2 D'
> 
> ...


That is quite exceptional, especially given you've been practicing this for such a ridiculously short time! It wasn't a very lucky solve though, you'd find such 2-move CP-lines once every dozen solves or so. Imagine what you could achieve on lucky scrambles!


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 2, 2020)

This method is literally Briggs and Briggs is LEOR but you solve CP. For TH, this is pointless. ZBLL is good enough and doing CP for alg reduction is dumb. You also restrict how you can solve EO. For OH, this is also dumb for exactly the same reasons as for TH. The movecount of the method is good, the lookahead is not super great, especially as you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR). This means that you're gonna be doing a difficult step followed by a step with bad recog, before 2 nice steps. It's nice to see CP being explored at least, but there are definitely better ways to improve speedsolving (conjugation maybe, or writing an AI that finds good methods). If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case. From a cube theory/maybe fancy niche FMC, understanding CP is cool and I'm glad that I learnt, but it's not speedsolving useful (except maybe maybe maybe ZZ OH last slot using full CPLS [solving the pair and CP], but even then just OH ZBLL). 
TL;DR solving CP early doesn't benefit anything and this isn't new (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 2, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR).


Wait, so when you do LEOR solves, you plan the whole first block and know where bad edges will be after that?


----------



## mukerflap (May 2, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Wait, so when you do LEOR solves, you plan the whole first block and know where bad edges will be after that?


thats the only way its viable


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 2, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods.


This is the most important part.


----------



## Devagio (May 2, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This method is literally Briggs and Briggs is LEOR but you solve CP. For TH, this is pointless. ZBLL is good enough and doing CP for alg reduction is dumb. You also restrict how you can solve EO. For OH, this is also dumb for exactly the same reasons as for TH. The movecount of the method is good, the lookahead is not super great, especially as you're not gonna be inspecting EO in inspection (which is necessary for good LEOR). This means that you're gonna be doing a difficult step followed by a step with bad recog, before 2 nice steps. It's nice to see CP being explored at least, but there are definitely better ways to improve speedsolving (conjugation maybe, or writing an AI that finds good methods). If this were the Roux killer, Roux would've died 4 years ago, yet, as we can see from Sean, Kian and others, that isn't the case. From a cube theory/maybe fancy niche FMC, understanding CP is cool and I'm glad that I learnt, but it's not speedsolving useful (except maybe maybe maybe ZZ OH last slot using full CPLS [solving the pair and CP], but even then just OH ZBLL).
> TL;DR solving CP early doesn't benefit anything and this isn't new (it is fun though), but keep up searching for new methods.


There are multiple flaws in this argument; but rather than dissecting, I’ll suggest we wait for some time and let the results by people who’re trying it out speak for themselves.

A way to optimise EO is to standardise the way it is solved; this will not only improve efficiency, TPS and look ahead, but also vastly help recognition.
[The way I suggest to recognise EO is perhaps an unscientific one, but it seems to work for me more and more with practice.
You’ll have either 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8 edges flipped. That’s a pretty discrete set; so rather than looking for flipped edges, simply give the cube a glance and “intuit” how many edges are flipped; with familiarity it becomes automatic. The accuracy will improve with time.
If this seems like crap, it probably is; just ignore this bracket and read on.]

0 bad edges (1/256): EO skip

8 bad edges (<5%):
a. The good edge is in DB or DF:
(r U’ r) U R U (r U’ r) / mirror from back
b. The good edge is in R or U layer:
Bring the good edge to DR and do
(r U’ r’) U’ (r’ U’ r)

2 bad edges (~15%):
a. Adjacent bad edges in U layer:
Place them at UF, UR and do
r U R’ U’ r
b. Opposite bad edges in U layer:
Place them at UF, UB and do
(r U r’) U’ R’ (r U’ r)
c. Both Bad edges in R layer:
Convert to case a.
d. One bad edge in U layer and one bad edge in R layer:
Place the U edge in UF and the R edge anywhere except FR, and do a trigger similar to case a.
e. One Bad edge in DF and other not in DB
Place the second edge in UR (or BR or DR) and do
(r U’ r’) R’ (r U’ r)
f. Bad edges in DF and DB:
(r’ U r’) U’ R’ (r U’ r)
[in each case, you can also perform a mirror from back]

4 bad edges (~50%):
a. Bad edge in DF, not in DB, 3 in U layer
Create a Roux arrow and do R’ r U’ r
b. Bad edge in DF, not in DB, 2 bad edges opposite in U layer:
Convert to case a.
c. Bad edge in DF, not in DB, rest of the cases:
Make a staircase pattern and do r U’ r
d. Bad edges in DF and DB, opposite bad edges in U layer:
Place the U layer edges in UR, UL and do
(r U’ r’) R U (r’ U’ r)
e. Bad edges in DF and DB, rest of the cases:
Place one bad edge in UB, none in UF, and do r2 to get an arrow in the next move.
f. No bad edges in DF, DB:
Either do an r2 to get cases a, b or c; or place bad edges in UF, UR, UB, FR and do
(r U’ r’) U2 (r U’ r)

The terrible 6 Bad edges case (~30%):
Solution 1:
Spam TPS to somehow make a Full or partial staircase and convert to a case of 2 or 4 edges.
Solution 2:
Using an r2, ensure DF and DB are bad, place bad edges in FR, BR, UL, UB and do
r U’ r2 U’ r


Note that the final move in each of these algorithms can be either r or r’; both will always solve EO. In most cases, you should pick the move that brings the D centre to the top.
Note that the second last move in each of these algorithms can either be U or U’; both will always solve EO. In most cases, you should pick the move the attached a D edge to the D centre and/or puts a D edge in UL.


[This categorisation is quite effective to use, especially if you “intuit” the number of misoriented edges; but suppose you made an error and got a wrong intuition; then in the RU gen part of the solve, you would more often than not have 2 misoriented edges. You can fix this by placing the bad edges in UF and UR, and doing r U R’ U’ r’; which almost preserves F2L as well.]


This post should certainly remove the notion that EO of YruRU is “hard” and “inefficient”; this almost algorithmises the step and structurally solves it efficiently. This is best looked at like F2L; with patience it has huge potential.


----------



## 1cubealot (May 2, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Scramble 3: D2 R2 D2 R2 F’ R2 B’ D2 B F’ D F D’ U2 B D’ U B’ L R
> 
> Solution 3: x’ // inspection
> R F // 113
> ...



After doing the example solves for this method its never solved


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 2, 2020)

Devagio said:


> There are multiple flaws in this argument; but rather than dissecting, I’ll suggest we wait for some time and let the results by people who’re trying it out speak for themselves.


If you think that this method is better than doing straight up LEOR for TH, go ahead, but from experience, this isn't. You also ignore the simple EOs of F R* F' because they mess up CP. If you want to see all of LEOR's EOs btw, here's a sheet that me and a few other people made.
Anyway, I'm pretty certain that you'll never be able to be faster than the big three with this method, even if CP is super cool, but if you're doing it for fun, carry on.


CuberStache said:


> Wait, so when you do LEOR solves, you plan the whole first block and know where bad edges will be after that?


I wish, but as said, it's the only way it's viable.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 2, 2020)

1cubealot said:


> After doing the example solves for this method its never solved


Devagio just cuts off the solve at the point where you'd finish the same as CFOP


----------



## ProStar (May 2, 2020)

I think the "Roux Breaker" for OH is going to be some Autistic Californian teenager that practices a bunch. Wait...


----------



## Devagio (May 3, 2020)

Here's some ideas on how to tackle the final stage of YruRU, the RU-gen part.

*Stuff that's great:

a. F2L freedom*: Suppose you end up here -
Scramble: R2 U’ B2 R2 D’ F2 D B2 R2 D2 B F2 U L2 R U L’ R’ F2 D
Solution: z // inspection
R S R2 F’ U’ F // CP-line
u’ R u’ R U R u2 // 123
U2 R2 U R’ r U’ r // EO
R2 U' r U2 r' U2 r2 // 2-gen reduction
Of course you could go ahead and put down the white-orange an continue with a nice F2L; but here's another option:
U R U R U'
R' U' R' U R U' R' U
z
And now we have 2GLL, but on orange instead of yellow. If you have been CN on CFOP, this is going to *massively* help you every 3-4 solves.

*b. 2GLL Recognition: *
The point of having 2GLL goes far beyond alg reduction and ergonomic turning. Now that you *know* for certain that corners are going to be permuted, the case recognition is massively simplified. Here's a fact to make you appreciate that - once you know which of the 7 corner orientations it is, you can identify the 2GLL by looking only at the relative colours UFR corner, the UR edge and the UF edge; and that is in fact easier to do than PLL recognition. This should be the way you do 2GLL recognition for most cases as long as you use YruRU. Of course, this won't work with CFOP or ZZ because first you will have to check whether CP is solved to be able to do 2GLL.

*c. F2L is extremely easy:*
Lookahead is a piece of cake during F2L, and the number of F2L cases is really restricted; most of them are great. This doesn't need more explanation.



*Stuff that may not be great but I think it might:

a. Psuedo-block: *Suppose you end up here -
Scramble : D2 F2 R B2 D2 B2 R’ F2 L’ B2 F2 U F D L’ F’ D B’ U L2
Solution: z y // inspection
F U’ f’ U F // 113 + CP
U r U r’ R’ U’ R’ u2 // 123
r U’ R2 U r U’ r // EO
U R’ U’ r2 // 2-gen reduction 

You could now continue as follows:
U' R2 U R U' R' U' R U2 R2 U R U R' U R // 
U2 R' U R U' R U2 R' // WV
R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 // EPLL
U' R2 // adjustment

This was clearly not one of the best opportunity to do this, but it may so happen that you find a pre-made square; then no matter what square it is, you will be able to utilize it this way if you know WV. Also, You may simply do 2GLL instead of WV+EPLL if you are good at recognition of 2GLL from multiple angles (or you could recognize by flipping colours).


*Stuff that may be great but I do not personally recommend:

a. Phasing:* You could do this and reduce the number of 2GLL from 84+4 to 28+2, simply by adding 1-2 moves during your last slot 2/3 of the time. This also increases the chances of an LL skip from 1/324 to 1/108. Also, case recognition gets easier. However, the cases that remain after phasing are kinda bad, the average movecount of this subset is 2 moves more than 2GLL as a whole; also the R U R' insert has to be dealt with slightly painfully is you want to phase it. It may be worth it, especially to begin with; its each person's call.

*b. Un-phasing:* You could do this and reduce the number of 2GLL from 84+4 to 56+2, simply by adding 1-2 moves during your last slot 1/3 of the time. The subset that remains is better than the average 2GLL algs by over 1 move. It is questionable, but recognition may improve slightly. However, this reduces the chances of an LL skip to 0, and again, the R U R' insert has to be dealt with slightly painfully is you want to un-phase it. It may be worth it, its again each person's call.


*Stuff that's not worth it:

a. 1-look-LSLL: *While it may seem practical to do 1-look lsll since it has only ~300 algs, all 2gen; it requires a built pair and the recognition isn't amazing. Doing 2GLL is so much more worth it that this should definitely not be done even if you somehow know all 300 algs.

*b. Winter Variation: *Unless its a really simple case like R U R' U' R U' R', or if you know for certain that LL is going to skip, this is not very helpful; because you will nonetheless have to do one EPLL alg, which is not much better than 2GLLs expect in recognition.

*c. Weird variations like snake, etc.:* This is a TPS based step, keep it as simple as possible unless theres a huge advantage.


----------



## Stryder73 (May 3, 2020)

What you’re talking about is a method very similar to Petrus, but this one looks a bit better.


----------



## TheRouxGuy (May 4, 2020)

Do you have a pdf explaining the method? Probably including the algs?


----------



## Devagio (May 4, 2020)

Stryder73 said:


> What you’re talking about is a method very similar to Petrus, but this one looks a bit better.



Not really...
All method are bound to be similar to some extent. 
This is like petrus because there’s a 223; it’s also like Roux because there’s an FB; it’s like CFOP because there’s F2L followed by LL and like ZZ because there’s EO.




TheRouxGuy said:


> Do you have a pdf explaining the method? Probably including the algs?


I do not. Maybe I’ll make one. If someone posts a tutorial of any kind they can put the link or pdf here.
Though, this thread serves the purpose of a tutorial pretty well I guess.


----------



## Mohammad Rajin Hassan (May 4, 2020)

I want to adress a thing, about EO at middle of the solve. It is not easy to see which of the 8 edges are oriented and to solve along with forming line. Also, doing u moves is not that easy as you will hold the cube at a very small area.


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

I think I'll just stick to ZB


----------



## 1cubealot (May 4, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Devagio just cuts off the solve at the point where you'd finish the same as CFOP


Oh ok



1cubealot said:


> This method seems good, I may try learning it even though I do CFOP


Now I don't because of CP


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (May 4, 2020)

Mohammad Rajin Hassan said:


> I want to adress a thing, about EO at middle of the solve. It is not easy to see which of the 8 edges are oriented and to solve along with forming line. Also, doing u moves is not that easy as you will hold the cube at a very small area.


Agree with this - it's most likely one of the reasons why Petrus is not very popular


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

Devagio said:


> 0 bad edges (1/256): EO skip


So your arguments are mostly based on skips which is luck. When if using just something like regular CFOP it is consistent. Also it has much better look ahead which is the main difference between people like Feliks Zemdegs and people who average around 10 seconds. Look ahead is the reason this method will never be better than roux and CFOP and if you're bored with CFOP just learn full ZB which will keep you occupied for moths at least. Also I practiced this method for about a month and I do better with the beginners method and roux (which I gave up on in about a minute). As someone else said just move on.

Edit:
Didn't mean to sound as harsh as I did..


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> Didn't mean to sound as harsh as I did..


Yeah I've had a lot of fun investigating CP because of this method. I have concluded that if I'm going to do CP, I will do it in the last layer because that's the only time that recognition is reasonable, and it only saves like 2 moves doing it earlier. But, it was still fun to experiment and learn.


----------



## plechoss (May 4, 2020)

How is this different from C2GR described here almost three years ago?








Complex 2-Move Generator Reduction Method (c2gr)


Hello I want to share with you with my new speedcubing method, which I have described at my OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/w/s!Am1bZghSQmingyzL3Msq9ZW2LMc5 Generally the idea is to predict in pre-inspection time the moves leading the cube to group situation. I have called this Complex 2-Move...




www.speedsolving.com




zz also included a clear explanation of his CP recognition method


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

So basically the method is useless

Username: Username what do you find wrong with my statement


----------



## Username: Username: (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> Username: Username what do you find wrong with my statement



Well, first of all, someone is actually putting real effort into this method, and second, sometimes the speedsolving forum is hard to research to see if your method has been created or not.


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Well, first of all, someone is actually putting real effort into this method, and second, sometimes the speedsolving forum is hard to research to see if your method has been created or not.


I'm trying to be nice and I think it will benefit all of us if we stop trying to learn this method

Also its not like he has anything better to do in Lockdown


----------



## Devagio (May 4, 2020)

plechoss said:


> How is this different from C2GR described here almost three years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That’s pretty cool, the entire solve using C2GR would look very similar to solves using YruRU.
The difference is the CP recognition system, which in the case of YruRU is considerably simpler and much quicker to execute.
After CP reduction, the rest of the methods have similar motives (like achieving a 2x2x3, although done differently in both methods, is a common goal) because those are the most natural and obvious things to do.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> So your arguments are mostly based on skips which is luck.


None of his arguments are based on skip probabilities. He's merely pointing out that they exist. None of the skips are likely enough to make a huge difference in the solve, and he never said that they were.


ZB2op said:


> When if using just something like regular CFOP it is consistent.


CFOP has skips too. They play a part just as much as skips do with this method, or maybe slightly less.


ZB2op said:


> Also it has much better look ahead which is the main difference between people like Feliks Zemdegs and people who average around 10 seconds. Look ahead is the reason this method will never be better than roux and CFOP and if you're bored with CFOP just learn full ZB which will keep you occupied for moths at least.


I think the only problem with lookahead is in the EO step, and it's possible to look ahead at least partially. Do you find other steps to be hard to lookahead in or are you just vaguely criticizing the method without really knowing what you're talking about?


ZB2op said:


> Also I practiced this method for about a month


This thread was posted 7 days ago. Do you know the creator personally? Are you referring to the similar methods that were created in the past, as others have pointed out in this thread?


ZB2op said:


> I do better with the beginners method and roux (which I gave up on in about a minute). As someone else said just move on.


If you had actually seriously practiced this method for a month, there's no way you'd be faster with the beginner's method.


ZB2op said:


> Didn't mean to sound as harsh as I did..


And yet...


ZB2op said:


> So basically the method is useless





ZB2op said:


> I think it will benefit all of us if we stop trying to learn this method


These things sound pretty harsh to me. It's fine to have an opinion about the method, but this man put dozens of hours of work into this method (and is continuing to do so, improving the method) and the result is something truly promising. There's no need to keep saying things like this without clearly stating what's wrong with the method.

One more thing, please don't double post. Say everything you have to say in one post.


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> None of his arguments are based on skip probabilities. He's merely pointing out that they exist. None of the skips are likely enough to make a huge difference in the solve, and he never said that they were.
> 
> CFOP has skips too. They play a part just as much as skips do with this method, or maybe slightly less.
> 
> ...


Methods like this have existed in the past and some of them have even been better and have never matched CFOP or Roux. Your username is a lot better than your method ideologies. I am serious when I say i'm trying to help. Also I do admit now that I was being very harsh and if you think this method is best for you then maybe you'll be faster with it. Especially with your quick results you posted earlier. But for most people it will never be as good as CFOP or Roux.


CuberStache said:


> this man put dozens of hours of work into this method


Most of it is identical to methods such as C2GR. So all he did was a bit of research and refining. But as I said you use what you want.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> Methods like this have existed in the past and some of them have even been better and have never matched CFOP or Roux. Your username is a lot better than your method ideologies. I am serious when I say i'm trying to help. Also I do admit now that I was being very harsh and if you think this method is best for you then maybe you'll be faster with it. Especially with your quick results you posted earlier. But for most people it will never be as good as CFOP or Roux.
> Most of it is identical to methods such as C2GR. So all he did was a bit of research and refining. But as I said you use what you want.


All you've done is repeat yourself, ignoring the several direct questions I asked you.


----------



## fun at the joy (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> Most of it is identical to methods such as C2GR. So all he did was a bit of research and refining. But as I said you use what you want.


Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> All you've done is repeat yourself, ignoring the several direct questions I asked you.



this argument is going to go on for hours so i'm just going to say this. Maybe i'm just practising the method wrong so if you want to prove that this method is as good as you say it is. I need to know how you got such quick results and then i can see whether or not it's you or the method



fun at the joy said:


> Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?


I feel bullied


----------



## Username: Username: (May 4, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?



or in other words, coincidence.



ZB2op said:


> I feel bullied



well, you bullied the method first, and started a conflict.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> this argument is going to go on for hours so i'm just going to say this. Maybe i'm just practising the method wrong so if you want to prove that this method is as good as you say it is. I need to know how you got such quick results and then i can see whether or not it's you or the method


If you want to see my progress, keep up with my quest thread. I'll post solve videos at some point (once I don't have to overinspect every solve) if you don't believe me just saying that I got a 14.


ZB2op said:


> I feel bullied


How do you think the creator of the method feels, whose many hours of hard work you've reduced to "a bit of research and refining"?

The fact that you still haven't answered my questions says a lot about the lack of logical reasoning behind your arguments.


----------



## ZB2op (May 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> or in other words, coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> well, you bullied the method first, and started a conflict.



I'd like to say you're wrong but that would be a lie



ZB2op said:


> I'd like to say you're wrong but that would be a lie


same to you cuberstache


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 4, 2020)

ZB2op, stop double posting please, it fills up the thread unnecesarily. Also, there's no need for arguments; we're trying to constructively critique this method. I've already given my reasons for why I don't think it would work (and yes, I have actually practiced this method for about a month, as it is identical to Briggs) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. An important point made too is that someone can have an idea independently of another person (for example, calculus was simultaneously-ish invented by Newton and Leibniz). Now everyone be happy and kind, not too much to ask I hope.


----------



## Devagio (May 4, 2020)

*Thoughts on Neutrality and it’s implications on Look-ahead:*

I’ve been experimenting to figure out ways to tackle the bottleneck at EO, and I believe I’ve hit on something we can use.

On a parallel note, I had taken it for granted that x2 y neutrality is the way to go because I wanted to make the CP-line part efficient since that was kind-of the only thing I had to focus on building, the rest was trivial.

While doing the “intuit the number of bad edges” during EO, I found myself making errors sometimes, and almost every time, the error included either the FR edge or the BR edge. And it makes sense, these edges do not have a white/yellow sticker, their orientation state isn’t immediately obvious.

So, two days back, I started doing solves with x2 y2 neutrality, and here is what I found:

1. Most importantly, the EO step flows so much better. Since the rule for determining the EO state doesn’t change ever, I can determine EO in the blink of an eye with near-perfect accuracy with under 2 days of practice. Then, simply following the standardised way to do EO allows for amazing TPS here that I didn’t think was possible, or nobody did for that matter.
[The Rule I have now is, same as before with yellow/white; red/orange cannot be on U/D face; etc. This holds true for all solutions, so we do not have to think about EO actively]

2. Only L/R is always Red or Orange, so I found myself doing a little better during FB because of the filtering that is now possible. I’m sure this will evolve to make a big difference down the road and two days is too little a time to comment.

3. Strangely, my DF/DB solving got much faster, when I thought that wasn’t one of my weaknesses at all. We know that blue/Green is always F/B so that helps.

4. Inspection is standardised now. Initially, determining which edge was 5 and which was 6 took a split second of active thinking. Now, 5 and 6 are fixed as well, there is no shuffling around. This helps in speeding up the tracing part of inspection.

Those are some pretty huge advantages. Here is the only downside to it:
Instead of having a choice from 8/12 possible lines, we now have a choice from 4/12 possible lines. This almost halves the probability of finding solved DL corners (goes from around 40% to 25%) and increases the probability of having to do 2 moves before solving DL corner from around 10% to around 25%).

The choice in this trade off is obvious, and the EO step just got a whole lot faster! In fact, my ao100 with YruRU on OH fell by over 2 seconds; I now average close to 21; quite close to my CFOP OH average.

*Aside*: I am glad supporters and opposers of the method alike drew the line of where things were getting personal and forced a halt to the conversation. I didn’t feel attacked in the least, it’s usually easy to differentiate constructive criticism from attention seeking rebellion. The purpose of this thread is to develop YruRU and Make it accessible; and to keep most of the posts on this thread aligned to this goal, such interjections are best ignored till the person comes up with a sensible argument to back their claim. Lest, it simply degrades into the finger pointing game it did here.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 4, 2020)

Devagio said:


> So, two days back, I started doing solves with x2 y2 neutrality


Wow, I'll have to try this!


----------



## mukerflap (May 4, 2020)

Devagio said:


> *Thoughts on Neutrality and it’s implications on Look-ahead:*
> 
> I’ve been experimenting to figure out ways to tackle the bottleneck at EO, and I believe I’ve hit on something we can use.
> 
> ...


record solves


----------



## Arc (May 5, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> this method is actually just LEOR cp btw


Indeed. And I extracted Leor from Briggs with the idea "2GLL isn't really any better for 2H than ZBLL is, and CPFB is a lot harder than FB, so why not just do Briggs with normal FB?" thus "Leor CP" is quite literally Briggs. I'm not sure how Pyjam's path went, so perhaps it is half Briggs.



plechoss said:


> How is this different from C2GR described here almost three years ago?


This actually predates C2GR. C2GR was essentially an independent creation of 2GR except with the EO and CP flipped because ZZ did not know how to track CP through EO as Teoidus discovered. This is explained in more detail by Teoidus on that thread. 2GR itself is predated by Briggs which
is identical to this method down to minor deviations in the segmentation of CPFB (I believe direct CPFB in inspection is viable) and suggested CP recog system (the 2GR CP recog scheme is definitely the best one so far).



fun at the joy said:


> Do you know that it is possible to have an idea someone had before without being influenced?


Yes this happens all the time if you read the new method thread. It can be difficult to find prior art in cubing because the community is relatively small and these things tend to be poorly documented. Many people tend to walk the same path and come to the same ideas in the end, which is what happened here as well. Shadowslice himself independently rediscovered Meyer (the 4x4 method) with a slight deviation, now known as Shadowslice-Meyer.



Devagio said:


> *Thoughts on Neutrality and it’s implications on Look-ahead:*
> 
> I’ve been experimenting to figure out ways to tackle the bottleneck at EO, and I believe I’ve hit on something we can use.
> 
> ...


I actually found that the best limited neutrality for Leor (CP complicates this slightly) is y2 z, which is keeping the same two colors on F and B. EO is invariant* under a z rotation, which means that EO recognition doesn't change for any orientation, but you still have the same number of possible FBs as x2 y. CPFB makes things a little more difficult depending on your recognition system. Using the 2GR scheme it's simply a matter of learning two sets of names for the corners and not forgetting which orientation you're in (this is of course only relevant during inspection). On the other hand, the 2GR system is mostly invariant** within x2 y which could be an argument to prefer that. However I did think that the EO recognition was very relevant, and while it's simple to expand CP recog to the additional orientation, I thought that picking between more than 4 CPFBs in inspection would not be viable, so I decided that the intersection of x2 y and y2 z, which is x2 y2, would be the ideal limited neutrality for Briggs, which is the same conclusion you've come to, just by a different path.

*The "good" and "bad" edges flip. Rather than worrying about this, I abused the symmetry of the colors. I kept white/black (the colorless faces) on F and B (y2 z neutrality) and had two types of cube orientations. Warm orientations had red/orange on U and D, and cool orientations had blue/green on U and D. Then instead of edges being good or bad, they became warm or cold. Solving EO became making all the edges match the orientation of the cube, i.e. if I'm in a warm orientation I make the edges all warm, otherwise make them all cool.

**The cyclic ordering switches (CW vs ACW) on x2 and the corners play different roles on y. Both are fairly trivial to adapt to.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 5, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Here is the only downside to it:
> Instead of having a choice from 8/12 possible lines, we now have a choice from 4/12 possible lines. This almost halves the probability of finding solved DL corners (goes from around 40% to 25%) and increases the probability of having to do 2 moves before solving DL corner from around 10% to around 25%).


Also, the possibility of 3-move optimal 

R2 U2 B U2 B' R2 D2 F' R2 B' D2 U' F2 U2 L2 R' U' F2 L B2


----------



## Devagio (May 5, 2020)

Arc said:


> the 2GR CP recog scheme is definitely the best one so far


I checked out the 2GR system in depth, and I do not agree here. The many steps in the system and the lack of flexibility make it take longer to inspect, and relatively inefficient for CP-line. The system was developed to combine with EO-pair, which it does brilliantly. But as stand-alone for CP-line it gets beaten both in inspection speed and in move efficiency/flexibility. This could possibly be taken up for debate till somebody practices with both techniques; but what is certain is EO-CP-line is impossible to do consistently in 15 second inspection using the 2GR system.



CuberStache said:


> Also, the possibility of 3-move optimal


This is unfortunate 
It's fairly easy to resolve though, we'll have to memorise what swaps a 3-move insert does, and it doesn't switch up all that many things.
EDIT: I somehow still haven’t gotten such a scramble, it’s most likely very rare. Haven’t worked out the math, but I guess since this is quite rare, this can be the exception where x2y is okay, simply accepting the fact the EO is gonna be a pain.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 5, 2020)

Devagio said:


> I checked out the 2GR system in depth, and I do not agree here. The many steps in the system and the lack of flexibility make it take longer to inspect, and relatively inefficient for CP-line. The system was developed to combine with EO-pair, which it does brilliantly. But as stand-alone for CP-line it gets beaten both in inspection speed and in move efficiency/flexibility. This could possibly be taken up for debate till somebody practices with both techniques; but what is certain is EO-CP-line is impossible to do consistently in 15 second inspection using the 2GR system.


Just letting you know that every system ever devised to solve CP is the same thing through a different lense, so move efficiency/flexibility isn't a thing to worry about (especially when you're ignoring EO in Briggs FB). I would also say that in your CP solving idea, you solve line, then CP, then you solve the rest of FB, which is objectively worse than solving CP with FB (which 2GR system allows for). Inspection speed can be changed though by making the lense more efficient (if that makes any sense).


----------



## Devagio (May 5, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> in your CP solving idea, you solve line, then CP


Nope, CP is solved along with line. If you got this impression from first few example solves, they were done when the idea was kinda preliminary. Check out the CP-line examples on this thread.
CP line is extended into block because inspecting entire CPFB consistently doesn’t seem human for now for either YruRU’s inspection, or for 2GR’s inspection; but if one of these has a better chance of achieving that, it’ll be YruRU’s inspection.

That said, every CP solving system doesn’t do the same thing. The difference is not simply looking at things differently; in fact, 2GR’s solution of CP line and YruRU’s solution of CP line can never match unless there’s CP skip. I suggest you check out both ways of doing it in detail.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 5, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Nope, CP is solved along with line. If you got this impression from first few example solves, they were done when the idea was kinda preliminary. Check out the CP-line examples on this thread.
> CP line is extended into block because inspecting entire CPFB consistently doesn’t seem human for now for either YruRU’s inspection, or for 2GR’s inspection; but if one of these has a better chance of achieving that, it’ll be YruRU’s inspection.
> 
> That said, every CP solving system doesn’t do the same thing. The difference is not simply looking at things differently; in fact, 2GR’s solution of CP line and YruRU’s solution of CP line can never match unless there’s CP skip. I suggest you check out both ways of doing it in detail.


I'll give it a deeper look then.


----------



## y235 (May 6, 2020)

The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread


Some interesting method-related quotes from the now closed speedsolvingrubikscube group. I've known about these for years, but haven't posted them until now. I thought Gilles Roux's CP line was an interesting find considering a recent topic and debate about the viability. The others...




www.speedsolving.com





Turns out Gilles Roux himself aslo thought about YRUru (but dismissed it as not good enough). I also don't know what CP recognition system he used


----------



## Devagio (May 7, 2020)

*Partial edge control during FB*

The development in this post marks the *completion of the skeletal structure of YruRU*; so now I can start working on a tutorial pdf and possibly a github page. This post addresses and I believe *completely resolves the bottleneck of the EO stage*; which now is *considerably superior* to the EO stage of any variation of LEOR, Briggs, etc. that I could find online or think of.

After forming the CP-line, the next step in YruRU is to extend it to a 1x2x3 block. This takes 6-7 moves, during which the brain is mostly idle since the step is somewhat trivial. The following step is EO, so this idle time I initially thought would best be utilised to look ahead to this step since influencing EO during this step would be somewhat difficult. However it turns out it is possible to do partial EO adding 2 moves at worst (though overall saving moves since EO will be far fewer moves), not decreasing TPS at all, immensely restricting the cases possible during EO-step, and equally improving the look ahead.

Most FB extentions are traditionally solved this way (unless you basically have 2-move setups):
1. Bring the corresponding centre on R face,
2. Attach an edge to the centre while doing so,
3. Bring the other edge to the U layer,
4. Attach the other edge to the centre and bring this entire structure to the L face to make the FB.

Steps 1 and 2 take a combined 1-3 moves to achieve. Here is where we start thinking about partial edge control. The next steps are modified as follows:
3. Bring the other edge to the U layer such that an F/B centre is on top, and the edge is either on UF or UB
4. Take a note of whether there are more good edges or bad edges while attaching the other edge
5. If the attachment is of u R u type, end the combination with r (or U2 r) if there were more good edges, or U' r (or U r) if there were more bad edges. Vice-versa if the attachment is of U R u2 (In case of more bad edges and U R u2 type attachment, simply U r u2 saves a move).

With this step, you are basically orienting *at least 2 edges*, possibly 3. I have done some examples at the end to help understand the cases better and actually appreciate the power of this.

Using traditional FB extension, the probabilities are as follows:
0 bad edges: 0.4%
2 bad edges: 14%
4 bad edges: 49%
6 bad edges: 33%
8 bad edges: 3.5%

Using the above mentioned partial edge control, these probabilities become:
0 bad edges: 2.0%
2 bad edges: 36%
4 bad edges: 53%
6 bad edges: 9%
8 bad edges: 0.0%

Moreover, this partial EO enables us to *always put a good edge in DB*, which is our blindspot. We already know the orientation of 3 of our edges (which usually all end up on the B face, and most of them are good), thus we simply need to look at the orientation of 5 more edges to determine the EO case, all 5 of which are visible.
To compare with Roux EO, we need to look at the orientation of 5 edges, all 5 of which are visible, and the probabilities here are:
0 bad edges: 3.1%
2 bad edges: 47%
4 bad edges: 47%
6 bad edges: 3.1%
[Doing partial EO in Roux is not a good idea since 4 bad edges is better than 2 bad edges for Roux, no such thing is true for YruRU]

Thus recognition-wise, this becomes comparable to Roux, and thus is no longer a bottleneck for the method, making it viable to compete with the best methods out there. Execution-wise, we reduce the average move-count substantially since we have high move counts in the EO step only if there are 6 or 8 bad edges, which reduced from ~40% to less than 10%, and only the better of the cases arise.
[*Such things are not possible in LEOR, Briggs, etc.* due to the way FB is made in those methods, and a much more complicated / time-consuming way of partial edge control would have to be done.]

While this seems simple, it took me quite a long time to come up with. Thanks to @PapaSmurf for making me realise more can be done during the FB extension, for absolutely *no cost at all*.

Here are some examples:

R2 F2 D2 U' L2 D B2 D' L D' U2 L' F' D L' B F2 R' U'

z’ y
Corners already solved
Sequence - 312
R’ (F’ u’ F) U S’ // CP-line
u r2 u r' U' // setup
At this point, the edge in UR is good, the edge in UL is bad. The edge in UF looks good, but we have to flip the orientation of the edge opposite to our orange edge due to the orientation of the centres. Thus, the edge is bad. We have two bad edges and one good edge. Thus:
u R' u // FB
U' r // Partial edge control



y R L U' F2 L' F' D B U' F D B2 U' B2 L2 D L2 F2 U2 L2 F2

z’
F // corners
Sequence - 321
r (F r F) f2 // CP-line
R' u R // setup
At this point, the edges in UL and UR are bad, so we already know what to do, but just for the sake of the example, we look at the edge in UB. It looks bad but since it is opposite to our red edge, it is actually good. Nonetheless, we have more bad edges than good edges. Thus:
U' R' u2 // FB
r // Partial edge control (Note here we didn't use the trick mentioned in the bracket, just for the sake of having a simple example)


y U2 R F2 R D2 L' B2 U2 R2 U2 L2 U' B2 L B L' R2 B2 D2 L U'

x z’
Corners already solved
Sequence - 312
r (F’ u’ F2) f’ // CP-line
r2 R' u R2 // setup
UL and UR are bad, same case as above.
U' R u2 // FB + Partial edge control (here we used the trick mentioned in the bracket)



y F2 B' D2 L F2 D2 R2 L U' F' R' F2 L D2 L' F2 U2 R' U2 D2 F2

z x’
F2 f // line
Sequence - 321
(F R F’) // CP-line
[with cancellations: z x’ S R F’]
U R U r // setup
UL and UR are bad (UF is also bad but we don't need to check it), Thus:
U R' u2 // FB
r // Partial EO (here, we didn't use the trick of the bracket to ensure a good edge ends up in DB)
Note, we have a beautiful block, which we can preserve:
r U R U r' // EO
U2 r U2 r' // BF + square


Note, the number of EO cases is so severely restricted, that we can actually memorise algorithms for each EO case. We will have around 30 short algorithms to memorise. I will generate these and put up here soon.

EDIT: Out of the 16 possible (all equiprobable) cases there are two cases where ensuring DB is good is slightly complicated. In the U’ R u2 type insert, if UR and UL are good, but the UB is bad, instead of doing U’ R u2 U’ r, do r u R’ u U r2. This is the only case not completely intuitive.


----------



## mukerflap (May 7, 2020)

Devagio said:


> *Partial edge control during FB*
> 
> The development in this post marks the *completion of the skeletal structure of YruRU*; so now I can start working on a tutorial pdf and possibly a github page. This post addresses and I believe *completely resolves the bottleneck of the EO stage*; which now is *considerably superior* to the EO stage of any variation of LEOR, Briggs, etc. that I could find online or think of.
> 
> ...


R2 F2 D2 U' L2 D B2 D' L D' U2 L' F' D L' B F2 R' U'
x f r2 U2 r' F'
U R2 U R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U R U' R' U R U R'
F R U' R' U R U2' R' U' F'
U M2 U' M' U2 M' U2 M U M2 U' M'
45 stm

R L U' F2 L' F' D B U' F D B2 U' B2 L2 D L2 F2 U2 L2 F2
z U' r' R' U S' U2 F' U F'
r U r U R' U2 R' U2 r' U r
F R U R' U' F'
M2 U M U2 M2 U' M'
33 stm

U2 R F2 R D2 L' B2 U2 R2 U2 L2 U' B2 L B L' R2 B2 D2 L U'

y' U D' R' U' R D U r' U' r F'
M2 U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R' U' R r U r'
F R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' F'
U' M' U2 M' U2 M' U' M U' M' U2 M
50 stm

F2 B' D2 L F2 D2 R2 L U' F' R' F2 L D2 L' F2 U2 R' U2 D2 F2
x2 M f r D M' U2 F'
r U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R U' R' U2 r U r'
U F R U' R' U' R U R' U R U' R' F'
M2 U M U' M' U' M2 U' M2
47 stm


----------



## Devagio (May 7, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Note, the number of EO cases is so severely restricted, that we can actually memorise algorithms for each EO case. We will have around 30 short algorithms to memorise. I will generate these and put up here soon.


The idea to do EO is, as soon as the FB+partialEO is done, intuit the number of bad edges present on the cube. Since all bad edges will be in the field of view, the accuracy of doing this will be near perfect given the small discrete set {0 (2%), 2 (36%), 4 (53%), 6 (9%)}. Then, identify the case and do the algorithm. The recognition speed should be comparable to OLL. Here is an exhaustive list of cases to be memorised. All these are completely intuitive, and it should not take more than one session to memorise them all.

Note, the last two moves are in bold since they can be any one of U r, U' r, U r', U' r'


2 bad edges:

DF is bad: set up the other edge to one of these positions:
UR: r U' R' *U r*
RD: r U' R *U r*
RB: r U' R2 *U r*

DF is good, both bad edges in U layer:
UF-UB: r U' r U' R' *U r*
UF-UR: r U R' *U r *(mirror for UB-UR)

DF is good, one bad edge in U layer:
UF-RD: r U R *U r *(mirror for UB-RD)
UF-RB: r U R2 *U r *(mirror for UB-RF)
UF-RF: R' r U R *U r *(mirror for UB-RB)

If DF is good and both bad edges are in R layer: bring one of them to UF/UB:
RB-RD: R' U r U R2 *U r *(mirror for RD-RF)
RF-RB: R U r U R *U r*

All other cases' optimal solutions are 1 move setups to these (i.e. using R/U moves).


4 bad edges:

DF is bad: all (except one special case) optimal solutions are 0-3 move setups to staircase (UL-UF-RF) [or to arrow (UL-UF-UR) which basically sets up to staircase]:
Staircase: r *U r*
Arrow: R' r *U r *
UF-UL-RD: R r *U r*
UF-UL-RB: R2 r* U r*
UF-UB-RF: R U R' r *U r*
UF-UB-RD: R2 U R' r *U r*
UF-UB-RB: R' U R' r *U r*
UF-RF-RD: R U r *U r*
UF-RB-RD: R2 U r *U r*
RF-RB-RD: R U R U r *U r*
Special case - UF-RF-RB: r U2 R2 *U r*

DF is good: make DF/DB bad using *r* U2 *r* or r2, then convert to staircase (or arrow)
UF-UR-UB-UL: r U2 r' U2 r *U r*
UF-UB-RF-RB: r U2 r U' r *U r*
UF-UB-RB-RD: r U2 r U2 r *U r *(mirror for UF-UB-RF-RD)
UF-UR-RF-RD: r2 U' R' U' r' *U r *(mirror for UB-UR-RB-RD)
UF-UL-RF-RB: r2 U r U2 r2 *U r*
UF-RF-RD-RB: r2 U' r U2 r2 *U r*
UF-UR-UB-RF: r U' r' U2 r *U r *(mirror for UF-UR-UB-RB)
UF-UR-UB-RD: R r U2 r U' r *U r*

All other cases' optimal (or 1 move over optimal) solutions are 1 move setups to these (i.e. using R-U moves)


6 bad edges:

DF is good: Put the only other good edge in UR and do: r U2 r U' r' U' r2 *U r*

DF is bad: simply put the two good edges in UR and DR using <R, U> moves, and do r' U' r2 *U r*
Here, I will denote the case using good edges instead of bad edges:

Both good edges in U layer:
UF-UR: R2 U' r' U' r2 *U r*
UL-UR: R2 U2 r' U' r2 *U r*

One good edge in U layer:
UF-RF: R' U' r' U' r2 *U r *(mirror for UB-RB)
UF-RD: U' r' U' r2 *U r*

Both good edges in R layer:
RF-RB: R r' U' r2 *U r*
RF-RD: R U R' U' r' U' r2 *U r *(mirror for RB-RD)


----------



## Cuberstache (May 7, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Moreover, this partial EO enables us to *always put a good edge in DB*, which is our blindspot.


This is awesome, but how do you do it if you have a U r u2 case? There's no U move to manipulate before the r move.


----------



## Devagio (May 7, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> This is awesome, but how do you do it if you have a U r u2 case? There's no U move to manipulate before the r move.


You do U R u2 r instead, if U r u2 doesn’t put an oriented edge in. The trick in the bracket doesn’t work very often, which is why I put it in a bracket (it works in 75% of the cases)
On this thread the stuff I put in brackets is generally things I find interesting but that may not be objectively good to implement.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 8, 2020)

I would totally do this but the concept of CP is really wierd for me


----------



## Devagio (May 8, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> I would totally do this but the concept of CP is really wierd for me


Now that the primary developmental phase for the method is done, I’ll ask some YouTubers to make CP tutorials, they’ll definitely do a better job than me. If there are some reading this thread and have been able to make sense of it, they can perhaps give it a spin.
Stick with it though, it’s really not that hard. There’s nothing to understand, just a couple of rules you have to mug up.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 8, 2020)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to using this method


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 8, 2020)

I'm still confused to why this is anything different to Briggs. It's literally exatly the same, so if you do get youtubers to make a tutorial, call it Briggs, not YruRU. Also, 2GR CP is better IMO because you don't need to solve the second corner before CP AND you can actually do CPFB which is definitely possible in inspection. If it isn't, then this method automatically loses out to Roux because you can see all of FB and some of SB in inspection consistently. It also loses out to LEOR because you are doing extra work for something that makes EODFDB and RB harder (lack of D and F moves). If you're still confident that doing CP has any speed benefit, work out if your 2GLL algs are any faster than ZBLL algs. because the time save at best will be about .2 seconds on average for worse lookahead.


----------



## antonio19kamh3 (May 10, 2020)

you don't say you're method neutral if you know two different ways to recognize like some coll case or something, and the same thing applies here

it's another way (potentially better?) to recognize cp, but that's like using a 3sticker 2 face cmll recognition system compared to a 5sticker 4face cmll recognition system or something - it's still the same thing

(although like i don't believe that inspection is that much better anyway, but an example is an example)


----------



## Devagio (May 10, 2020)

*Advances in Inspection*

Let me first talk about an obvious advanced version of the YruRU recognition system.
Assume that the DL corners are solved, like in this scramble: R2 F2 D2 U' L2 D B2 D' L D' U2 L' F' D L' B F2 R' U' z' y
According to the beginner YruRU approach, after spotting corners 5 and 6, we need to mentally swap pieces and trace accordingly. However, with little time, it becomes obvious that there are only 30 possible configurations of corners 5 and 6; so we can simply memorise a trace circlet in each case (14 of these 30 cases are trivial since 5 and 6 are friends or almost friends in these cases). In this case, 5 is in UFL and 6 is in DBR, so the circlet is UBL>UFR>UBR>DFR>UBL. Now, while we can start our tracing now, there's a further obvious simplification; at this point, look for corner 4. In this case, it is in UBL. Now, we just need to trace the two corners in the circlet after 4; i.e. we only need to look at UFR>UBR. In this case, it is 3>1; thus this is the case known in beginners' tracing as 312.

Now, again assuming that the DL corners are solved, here is why this tracing is objectively (much) faster than 2GR tracing-

2GR tracing steps:
A. Find 5 & 6, decide where they are in relation to each other.
B. Recall which corners to trace.
C. Trace, getting three numbers.
D. Figure out the sequencing (like jump, forward or backwards, backwards).
E. Decide swap.

YruRU tracing steps:
a. Find 5 & 6, decide where they are in relation to each other.
b. Recall the circlet.
c. Find 4.
d. Trace, getting 2 numbers
e. Decide swap

Note that A=a and E=e; b is the same as B, d is faster than C (since 2 is less than 3), c is faster than D (since c involves spotting, D involves calculating). Moreover, b and c can be done in parallel, while no such parallel processing is possible in the 2GR system.

Also, in the case that DL corners are solved, YruRU allows for 3 possible swaps while 2GR allows for only 1, so CP-line move count is going to be much lesser for YruRU (Difference of around 1.5 STM on average, that is around 30% of the average CP-line movecount; which also leads further planning issues).


Now, to talk about cases where DL corners are not solved (roughly half of the scrambles for x2 y neutrality, and three quarters of the scrambles for x2 y2 neutrality).
While 2GR doesn't allow for very flexible solutions (due to only one swap instead of a choice from 3 swaps, thus leading to inefficient CP-line since cancellations will rarely occur), inspection wise, it is a better option (objectively better when it is 2 moves to solved corners, which is roughly 10% of scrambles in x2 y neutrality, 25% of scrambles in x2 y2 neutrality).

Thus, here I will outline 2GR's way of handling the case where DL corners are not solved (modified such that YruRU users can use it best):

i. Assume that the corner to be solved in DFL is actually the corner currently present in DFL
ii. Find 5 & 6, decide where they are in relation to each other.
iii. Recall the circlet.
iv. Find 4.
v. Trace, getting 2 numbers.
vi. Decide swap such that it involves the DFL corner.

Now, to solve the CP case, use <R, U> moves so that the DFL corner is either an F or an F' away from being solved, and the corner to be swapped with it is in UBR. Then, do the F or F' to solve CP. Use wide move wherever required to better place the DL edge.


Special Case: If DL corners are not solved and we get the solved CP case (i.e. there is no corner to put in UBR or in different words, the beginner tracing gives sequence 123)-
I am not sure if this is the best way to do this, but here is what I figured -
Use <R, U> moves so that the DFL corner is either an F or an F' away from being solved. Then, do the F R F R F' or F' U' F' U' F respectively. Use wide move wherever required to better place the DL edge. This is 2gen, so you can make it an <R, U> trigger followed by a rotation.
If someone comes up with a better idea I'll add it here; I'm certain there is a better way to do this.
Edit: Found a better way of handling this; mentioned it on page 11 of this thread.

Nightmare Case: Roughly once in every 2000 scrambles, there will be a case for x2 y2 neutral solvers where all DL corner pairs are relatively twisted while in correct permutation. Since this is so rare, it is wise to take a DNF (or just use CFOP, etc.) instead of memorising a special way to handle this.


Example: F2 B' D2 L F2 D2 R2 L U' F' R' F2 L D2 L' F2 U2 R' U2 D2 F2

We will solve red on left white on bottom.
i. Since 5 is in DFL, the white-green-red corner (currently in UFL) is 5.
ii. 5 is in UFL, 6 is in DFR.
iii. Circlet is UFR>UBL>UBR>DBR>UFR
iv. 4 is in UBL.
v. UBR is 1, DBR is 3.
vi. 5 swaps with 4.

U' R' U2 (this puts the DFL corner an F away from being solved, and puts 4 in UBR)
F // solves CP
U S2 // solves line
(While this looks slightly inefficient, the extra inspection time and there being a single F move in the entire solve makes it a worthwhile trade in my opinion.)

I intended to post this earlier, but I simply wanted to be sure of my claims and numbers, so I took two days to experiment with this idea.


----------



## Athefre (May 10, 2020)

Sometimes ideas aren't good, sometimes an idea has already been proposed and a small change isn't going to make it a completely new method, sometimes both. You have to be able to recognize that. It's important to be respectful to the work that others have put into things. Several people have already provided important points to consider. If your goal is to ignore this advice, then you aren't going to be respected by the community.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> we can simply memorise a trace circlet in each case (14 of these 30 cases are trivial since 5 and 6 are friends or almost friends in these cases).


This is awesome; I'm currently working out the non-trivial cases. What do you mean by "almost friends"? There are 6 cases where they're friends, so what are the 8 cases where they're almost friends?


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 10, 2020)

There's little to no point saying how to treat the case where the DL corners are solved. 2GR isn't especially designed to solve that case, so doing a short alg to solve CP is a lot simpler, although C and D are done in exactly the same step. 
For the modified version, itis just 2GR style, so you are doing the same thing through a different lense. The example of CMLL recog is a good one. Both ways recog and solve CP but they're 2 different sides of the same coin and best. Otherwise they're like venn diagrams that overlap almost completely. The biggest advantage of 2GR. is that it allows you to trace CP through FB, which is definitely the best route to go down in the long run, which your method(currently) doesn't have, except that it does, because it is the same as 2GR. As Athefre said, this is definitely not new and I think you need to recognise that. If you're trying to opimise Briggs, do it, I encourage you, but if you're trying to push 'your new YruRU method that's going to change the cubing meta', stop. Because very simply, it's not yours and it's not new.


----------



## Devagio (May 10, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> This is awesome; I'm currently working out the non-trivial cases. What do you mean by "almost friends"? There are 6 cases where they're friends, so what are the 8 cases where they're almost friends?


If 5 is in UFL and 6 is in UFR, then simply doing a U will make them friends (with 5 on even) so the circlet will simply become DBR>DFR>UBR>UBL>DBR. Sort of a trick I used when I did beginner tracing.



PapaSmurf said:


> For the modified version, itis just 2GR style, so you are doing the same thing through a different lense.


Yes, and I mentioned that.




PapaSmurf said:


> There's little to no point saying how to treat the case where the DL corners are solved. 2GR isn't especially designed to solve that case, so doing a short alg to solve CP is a lot simpler, although C and D are done in exactly the same step.
> For the modified version, itis just 2GR style, so you are doing the same thing through a different lense. The example of CMLL recog is a good one. Both ways recog and solve CP but they're 2 different sides of the same coin and best. Otherwise they're like venn diagrams that overlap almost completely. The biggest advantage of 2GR. is that it allows you to trace CP through FB, which is definitely the best route to go down in the long run, which your method(currently) doesn't have, except that it does, because it is the same as 2GR. As Athefre said, this is definitely not new and I think you need to recognise that. If you're trying to opimise Briggs, do it, I encourage you, but if you're trying to push 'your new YruRU method that's going to change the cubing meta', stop. Because very simply, it's not yours and it's not new.


I by no means intend to disrespect or belittle the work and analysis done by others, or take credit for things not originally mine. If somebody wants to consider YruRU a variation of Briggs, or simply want my name out of it, go ahead; you would be well justified due to the overwhelming similarity it bore with Briggs, especially when I first put it out.
I was excited when I came across an idea, and I’m here to defend and develop it, not necessarily take the credit.
Similarly, Briggs and 2GR were dismissed as not great speedsolving ideas; and from the same line of thought, one may consider this method unfit for speedsolving. Nobody forces you to use it and you can certainly verbalise your opinion. However, numerous individuals find it to have potential, so this is undeniably up for debate, it being a bad idea is not something that “I must recognise”. Again, CP-first is certainly not a new idea and I am aware of it now, but an independently developed “different version of Briggs” might have the potential to promise you vastly different results, and that this is not capable of producing something new is not something that “I must recognise”.
That said; this barrage of comments focussing on who gets credit is neither put in a healthy tone, nor is the need of the moment. If you believe you should be calling this method “Briggs variation 1.2” or “Semi-2GR”, do so. And if you’ve looked at all these methods and still decide to stick with “YruRU”, be my guest.

I’m here to push this method out there, and I will continue to do so; call it what you may.


----------



## Imam Alam (May 11, 2020)

@Devagio don't be discouraged by all the negativity around you, remember that each and every creative venture throughout the history of mankind have gone through what you and your ideas are going through now.

go ahead with what you are doing and know that there are also those of us who support new methods development, while knowing fully well that (harsh) criticism is expected.

and I must say, I find your responses to criticism to be very matured, and you express your views quite eloquently (...but in your videos you sounded quite young... how old are you by the way?)

either way, congrats on coming up with your new discovery, and it does not matter whether or not it has similarities with ideas from other people, and it is really exciting to see you updating and developing it consistently.

happy cubing, and thanks for contributing to the community!


----------



## Devagio (May 11, 2020)

Imam Alam said:


> @Devagio don't be discouraged by the negativity around you, remember that each and every creative venture throughout the history of mankind have gone through what you and your ideas are going through now.
> 
> go ahead with what you are doing and know that there are also those of us who support new method development, while knowing fully well that (harsh) criticism is expected.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for that generous and supportive comment, this is what really helps me keep going through with attempting to develop the idea further. I will certainly continue to try making it as good as I possibly can.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 11, 2020)

Circlets for advanced tracing

5 solved, 6 in _

1: DBR > UBR > UBL > UFR
2: UFL > DBR > UFR > UBR
3: UFR > UBL > DBR > UFL
4: UBL > UFL > UBR > DBR

5 in 1, 6 in _

3: UBL > DFR > UFR > DBR
5: DBR > UFR > UBL > UBR
6: UFR > UBR > DFR > UBL

5 in 2, 6 in _

4: UBR > DFR > UFL > DBR
5: DBR > UFL > UBR > UFR
6: UFL > UFR > DFR > UBR

5 in 3, 6 in _

1: UFR > DFR > UBL > DBR
5: DBR > UBL > UFR > UFL
6: UBL > UFL > DFR > UFR

5 in 4, 6 in _

2: UFL > DFR > UBR > DBR
5: DBR > UBR > UFL > UBL
6: UBR > UBL > DFR > UFL

5 in 6, 6 in _

1: UBR > UFR > UBL > DFR
2: UFL > UBR > DFR > UFR
3: UFR > DFR> UFL > UBL
4: DFR > UBL > UBR > UFL

I'm questioning how feasible this is to use in solves. It seems too difficult and confusing.


----------



## Devagio (May 11, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Circlets for advanced tracing
> 
> 5 solved, 6 in _
> 
> ...


This is the probably worst way you could learn it. What I did and I believe you should do is visualise the circlets on the cube.
For example, if 5 is in DFR and 6 is in UFL, there are 4 remaining pieces in the circlet, UBL, UBR, UFR and DBR.
In this case, the circlet is DBR>UBR>UBL>UFR>DBR
So visualise this circular path on the cube.
The only other circlet with these 4 locations in the path is when 5 and 6 are interchanged. In this case, the path is DBR>UFR>UBR>UBL>DBR.
When you “visualise” these two as being the only two possible paths when UFL and DFR are occupied by 5 and 6, it’ll get a lot easier to handle.
My recall is literally instant, the key is to “see” the circlet on the cube. Maybe trace the pieces with your finger in a circle a few times to commit to your memory.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 11, 2020)

Devagio said:


> This is the probably worst way you could learn it. What I did and I believe you should do is visualise the circlets on the cube.
> For example, if 5 is in DFR and 6 is in UFL, there are 4 remaining pieces in the circlet, UBL, UBR, UFR and DBR.
> In this case, the circlet is DBR>UBR>UBL>UFR>DBR
> So visualise this circular path on the cube.
> ...


Right, I'm trying to visualize the circlet, this was just writing them out so I don't have to figure it out every time. Visualizing the circlets makes sense, but it seems like there are just too many possibilities to keep them straight. How do you remember them so well? Are there patterns you've found?


----------



## Devagio (May 11, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Right, I'm trying to visualize the circlet, this was just writing them out so I don't have to figure it out every time. Visualizing the circlets makes sense, but it seems like there are just too many possibilities to keep them straight. How do you remember them so well? Are there patterns you've found?


There aren’t any patterns that I immediately see. The thing is, there are just 16 non-trivial cases (thats 8 pairs), and I memorised them over a week or two as I transitioned from the beginner tracing to this. Like I said, it’s an obvious jump from beginners to this, so I kinda started as soon as I started doing solves. Maybe just give it time.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 11, 2020)

Devagio said:


> There aren’t any patterns that I immediately see. The thing is, there are just 16 non-trivial cases (thats 8 pairs), and I memorised them over a week or two as I transitioned from the beginner tracing to this. Like I said, it’s an obvious jump from beginners to this, so I kinda started as soon as I started doing solves. Maybe just give it time.


The fact that swapping 5 and 6 simply reverses the circlet does make a big difference. I'll work on it. Thanks.


----------



## Devagio (May 11, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> The fact that swapping 5 and 6 simply reverses the circlet does make a big difference. I'll work on it. Thanks.


That doesn’t seem true...
In fact, I guess this is never true. It’s like a negative constraint.
Edit: it is indeed true.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 11, 2020)

Devagio said:


> That doesn’t seem true...
> In fact, I guess this is never true. It’s like a negative constraint.


Oh, I just didn't read your earlier post carefully enough. I see. Swapping 5 and 6 is just a method of grouping them.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 12, 2020)

Devagio said:


> I by no means intend to disrespect or belittle the work and analysis done by others, or take credit for things not originally mine. If somebody wants to consider YruRU a variation of Briggs, or simply want my name out of it, go ahead; you would be well justified due to the overwhelming similarity it bore with Briggs, especially when I first put it out.
> I was excited when I came across an idea, and I’m here to defend and develop it, not necessarily take the credit.
> Similarly, Briggs and 2GR were dismissed as not great speedsolving ideas; and from the same line of thought, one may consider this method unfit for speedsolving. Nobody forces you to use it and you can certainly verbalise your opinion. However, numerous individuals find it to have potential, so this is undeniably up for debate, it being a bad idea is not something that “I must recognise”. Again, CP-first is certainly not a new idea and I am aware of it now, but an independently developed “different version of Briggs” might have the potential to promise you vastly different results, and that this is not capable of producing something new is not something that “I must recognise”.
> That said; this barrage of comments focussing on who gets credit is neither put in a healthy tone, nor is the need of the moment. If you believe you should be calling this method “Briggs variation 1.2” or “Semi-2GR”, do so. And if you’ve looked at all these methods and still decide to stick with “YruRU”, be my guest.
> ...


I've said multiple times that I think it should be something that should be looked at and encouraged, I'm just suprised it took you so long to admit that it is literally Briggs (not 1.2 or semi 2GR, as it is 100% Briggs and 2GR is a different method altogether). I do think that LEOR style methods have promise and I think that LEOR as a method definitely has potential for world class times but I'm more skeptical of Briggs for that (OH might be different). A different variant that achieves a similar thing is to solve CP and last slot in one algorithm, which gives 2GLL and would definitely be great for OH.


Imam Alam said:


> go ahead with what you are doing and know that there are also those of us who support new method development, while knowing fully well that (harsh) criticism is expected.


I fully support new method development and at no point have I said that I was anti a different way of solving CP except for the opinion that 2GR style is better. Also, at every point of criticism I've been creating a dialogue to test the system, not to belittle it.


Imam Alam said:


> either way, congrats on coming up with your new discovery, does not matter whether it has similarities with what others may have thought of in the past, and it is very exciting to see you updating and developing it consistently.


The CP style was new and I'm impressed by anyone who manages to find a way to solve CP while solving the DL corners as it's pretty complicated.


Imam Alam said:


> happy cubing and thanks for contributing to the community!


Hear hear.


----------



## Devagio (May 14, 2020)

It has taken me a longer time to get used to the pEO system than I anticipated, so I am simply going to list out all the cases.
The notation is as follows:
G = good edge, B = bad edge, and we shall read clockwise from the FB edge in U layer. For example, if the FB edge is in UB, then GGB means Good edges in UR and UF, and a bad edge in UL.

The following algorithms are to be done after the setup. The cases in bold are the unintuitive cases.

u R u type insert, FB edge in UB:
GGG: u R' u r
GGB: u R' u r
GBG: *r’ U’ r2 (R/R’) u2*
GBB: u R' u U' r
BGG: u R' u r
BGB: u R' u U' r or u R' u U r
BBG: u R' u U r
BBB: u R' u U' r or u R' u U r

u R u type insert, FB edge in UF:
GGG: u' R u' U2 r
GGB: u' R u' U2 r
GBG: *r U (R/R’) u2 r2 *
GBB: u' R u' U r
BGG: u' R u' U2 r
BGB: u' R u' U' r or u' R u' U r
BBG: u' R u' U' r
BBB: u' R u' U' r or u' R u' U r

For the U R u2 type insert, it is not necessary to treat the UF and UB cases separately, thus I will only list the UB cases. Note, the second move can be either R or R' depending on what the FB edge is, here I will write R for the sake of listing (though if there is an R', the U r u2 type trick not work).
U R u2 type insert, FB edge in UB:
GGG: U R u2 U' r
GGB: U R u2 U' r
*GBG: *(r’ u' R u' / U2 r u R' u) U r U’ R U r*
GBB: U R u2 U2 r
BGG: U R u2 U' r
BGB: U R u2 r [or U r u2]
BBG: U R u2 r [or U r u2]
BBB: U R u2 r [or U r u2]

Note, it may be worthwhile to check out where the three U layer edges end up in each case (one of them is always DB, the other two are usually in the B face).

Aside from these, I tested out another pEO idea, which is basically the same set-ups, but with the U/D centre on top. Combining this idea with the current pEO idea would allow for some flexibility. However, it turns out it’s relatively complicated to do pEO with a U/D centre on top, so much so that it’s not worth learning. The sub-5 average move count of the current pEO technique and basically no requirement to pause to recognise the case since the first few moves are almost always identical makes it worth it to stand alone.

* What I consider better here is (r’ u’ R u’ U r2) or (U2 r u R’ u U r2). It is much lower movecount and ensures a good edge ends up in DB, but it increases the probability 6 bad edges. Also, once in 2048 solves, you will have an 8 bad edges EO case if you use this; which is why I did not list it up there.

Also, I am sometimes able to plan upto set-up in inspection, so it may be a long-term goal to always be able to plan upto set-up.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 14, 2020)

Is it just me or is this LEOR with CP at the beginning? I think LEOR would be better for OH.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 14, 2020)

Video tutorial of the method, optimization tricks coming soon


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 14, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Is it just me or is this LEOR with CP at the beginning? I think LEOR would be better for OH.


Yeah, which is actually Briggs.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 15, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Yeah, which is actually Briggs.


I think he’s heard you lol


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 15, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Partial edge control during FB
> 
> The development in this post marks the completion of the skeletal structure of YruRU; *so now I can start working on a tutorial pdf and possibly a github page.* This post addresses and I believe completely resolves the bottleneck of the EO stage; which now is considerably superior to the EO stage of any variation of LEOR, Briggs, etc. that I could find online or think of.



Hey, hey, hey, we need a wiki page too once you’ve fleshed it out a bit more (if there isn’t one already).


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 15, 2020)

There is already one for Briggs, I figure we should just add this method under alternative names and link this thread at the bottom


----------



## Cuberstache (May 15, 2020)

Devagio said:


> The notation is as follows:
> G = good edge, B = bad edge, and we shall read clockwise from the FB edge in U layer. For example, if the FB edge is in UB, then GGB means Good edges in UR and UF, and a bad edge in UL.


This is great; I'll be working on it a lot in the next few days. One minor thing though: If we're doing something different for each case, we don't need to mentally change the orientation of the edge opposite the FB edge. That worked great when we just did a different thing for more good edges or bad edges, but in this case it's unnecessary. I would recognize the first case, GGG, and GBG instead. This should make recognition easier. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something since I haven't looked at this in depth, but that's my first impression anyway.


----------



## Devagio (May 15, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> This is great; I'll be working on it a lot in the next few days. One minor thing though: If we're doing something different for each case, we don't need to mentally change the orientation of the edge opposite the FB edge. That worked great when we just did a different thing for more good edges or bad edges, but in this case it's unnecessary. I would recognize the first case, GGG, and GBG instead. This should make recognition easier. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something since I haven't looked at this in depth, but that's my first impression anyway.


If you’re looking at it algorithmically, this is a great idea. Currently I prefer to look at it intuitively, which is why I need to identify it as I mentioned, though I might shift to the algorithmic approach, in which case I’ll do it as you said.


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Hey, hey, hey, we need a wiki page too once you’ve fleshed it out a bit more (if there isn’t one already).




Wiki page: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/YruRU


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 15, 2020)

It's not similar to Briggs, it is Briggs (in reference to the Wiki article).


----------



## Cuberstache (May 15, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> It's not similar to Briggs, it is Briggs (in reference to the Wiki article).


1. I think you've made your point
2. The steps are very similar, but with some notable differences: 

In Briggs, CP is done with an 8-move 3-cycle, not a 3-move trigger.
Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier
The way Briggs does EOStripe is different from YruRU. Briggs solves DB first, then EO and solve DF
Call it a Briggs variant if you want; Devagio has agreed that that's ok. But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 15, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> It's not similar to Briggs, it is Briggs (in reference to the Wiki article).


On this one, I think I’m going to have to go with PapaSmurf. It is the same steps as Briggs. When talking about a preexisting method vs a new method, the steps are what matter, not how you do them. If I made a 2x2x2 block in Petrus by putting in two cross edges and an f2l pair, it’s still Petrus. If someone uses CoLL and does 5-sticker recognition and solves it intuitively using coms, rather than 3-sticker recognition using a heavily optimized alg set, both are still CoLL. They are not two different methods, they are different ways of doing the same thing, which is what is happening here.


CuberStache said:


> Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier


From what I understand of pEO (which is not very much, so correct me if I’m wrong), it is a way of fixing several bad edges between the cp and eo steps. However, this is not a part of the “base method,” similar to partial edge control with CFOP.


CuberStache said:


> But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs


I don’t think so. I think that creating this wiki page is slightly discrediting the work originally done by Briggs, especially if this became really popular (Big 3 level). However, if you are going to keep this wiki page (as I figure you will), you should at least add Briggs under alternate names. I do think that the cp recognition is revolutionary for the method, but as I said earlier, the first person to come to with CoLL 3-sticker recognition did not invent a new method.

Wow my forum posts are becoming long lol
Edit: Argh my laugh Emojis aren’t working


----------



## Devagio (May 15, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> On this one, I think I’m going to have to go with PapaSmurf. It is the same steps as Briggs. When talking about a preexisting method vs a new method, the steps are what matter, not how you do them. If I made a 2x2x2 block in Petrus by putting in two cross edges and an f2l pair, it’s still Petrus. If someone uses CoLL and does 5-sticker recognition and solves it intuitively using coms, rather than 3-sticker recognition using a heavily optimized alg set, both are still CoLL. They are not two different methods, they are different ways of doing the same thing, which is what is happening here.
> 
> From what I understand of pEO (which is not very much, so correct me if I’m wrong), it is a way of fixing several bad edges between the cp and eo steps. However, this is not a part of the “base method,” similar to partial edge control with CFOP.
> 
> ...


I like to look at it with the analogy of 4x4 methods.

Yau is basically reduction, except there is a little bit of shuffling; 3 edges are paired and placed sometime during centres to aid lookahead, but both methods are identical otherwise.
YruRU is basically Briggs, except there is a little bit of shuffling; 2 edges are oriented and placed sometime during FB to aid lookahead [There are other differences such as CP is done completely differently both recognition and execution wise, FB is done differently, DB-DF are solved differently; but these are not required to make my point].

Yau is considered a completely different method from redux; not identical, not its variation.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 15, 2020)

So is the pEO actually an “official” step in this method?


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 15, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> 1. I think you've made your point
> 2. The steps are very similar, but with some notable differences:
> 
> In Briggs, CP is done with an 8-move 3-cycle, not a 3-move trigger.
> ...


So pretty much YruRU is Briggs but better?


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 15, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> So pretty much YruRU is Briggs but better?


I’m Pretty sure they are identical but YruRU makes a few steps easier/different


----------



## Cuberstache (May 15, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> So is the pEO actually an “official” step in this method?


Yeah, the method has been in development since it was proposed. pEO, afaik, is an official step of the "complete" version of the method. It's listed on the wiki page as part of the FB step.


Owen Morrison said:


> So pretty much YruRU is Briggs but better?


Yeah, pretty much. Briggs has the benefit of doing FB+CP in inspection, but the way it does it is worse imo.


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> I’m Pretty sure they are identical but YruRU makes a few steps easier/different



You just said "I'm pretty sure they're identical, except where they're different"


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 15, 2020)

Just want to say @CuberStache , the videos you made are very easy to understand, thanks!



ProStar said:


> You just said "I'm pretty sure they're identical, except where they're different"


They are identical “but” that but (hehe) changes the whole thing.

What you said in jest also works as a sentence, with except taking the place of but


----------



## Cuberstache (May 15, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Just want to say @CuberStache , the videos you made are very easy to understand, thanks!


Thanks! I'm glad I'm helping spread knowledge of the method! It would be so cool if one day the majority of top OH solvers used this method.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 15, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Yeah, the method has been in development since it was proposed. pEO, afaik, is an official step of the "complete" version of the method. It's listed on the wiki page as part of the FB step


Ok. I will accept that this is a different method now. This is now a closed argument (for me). I am now forced (shameless Self promotion of my awesome debating skills) to put down my incredible argument that this should not have its own wiki page, and instead go argue an incredible argument elsewhere.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 16, 2020)

Is there an example solve thread for this?


----------



## ProStar (May 16, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Is there an example solve thread for this?



Yes. Just check Stache's posts in the example solve thread


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 16, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> In Briggs, CP is done with an 8-move 3-cycle, not a 3-move trigger.
> Briggs doesn't have pEO, which makes EO in YruRU much easier
> The way Briggs does EOStripe is different from YruRU. Briggs solves DB first, then EO and solve D
> Call it a Briggs variant if you want; Devagio has agreed that that's ok. But there's enough difference that's it's not exactly the same as Briggs.


In Briggs, you solve first block plus some form of CP. The 3 cycle was an inital way of solving it, but trust me, Briggs is just solving CP during FB. Briggs also has pEO if you want Briggs to have pEO, just as CFOP has edge control if you want to do edge control. They aren't separate things. And lastly, that is not true. The steps of Briggs are CPFB (in whichever way), EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. The steps of YruRU is solve CPFB in a specific way that also influences EO, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. Pretty identical. What you're counting as a differen method would be calling CFOP where you solve each cross piece one at a time instead of several at once a different method.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 16, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> In Briggs, you solve first block plus some form of CP. The 3 cycle was an inital way of solving it, but trust me, Briggs is just solving CP during FB. Briggs also has pEO if you want Briggs to have pEO, just as CFOP has edge control if you want to do edge control. They aren't separate things. And lastly, that is not true. The steps of Briggs are CPFB (in whichever way), EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. The steps of YruRU is solve CPFB in a specific way that also influences EO, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. Pretty identical. What you're counting as a differen method would be calling CFOP where you solve each cross piece one at a time instead of several at once a different method.


I agree with papa if you going to call YruRU a separate method you going to have to come up with different names for a sub 8 solver with cfop and someone averaging 30 and different names for ZZ EOcross and EOline etc.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 16, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> different names for ZZ EOcross and EOline etc.


But there are different names for EOcross and EOLine...


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 16, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> But there are different names for EOcross and EOLine...


there aren't they are both called ZZ


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 16, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> there aren't they are both called ZZ


ZZ with eoline is called ZZ-Vanilla


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 16, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> ZZ with eoline is called ZZ-Vanilla


I looked up zz vanilla and it appeared to refer to ocll pll not eoline also it definitely isn’t an official term but I may have overlooked something


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Kian's been inactive on the forums for a while, then just comes back with Roux propaganda XD


haha someone sent me the link and I had to do it to em


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 16, 2020)

Vanilla ZZ is just OCLL/PLL. ZZ with EOCross or EOLine is ZZ either way, not 2 separate methods, just as CFOP with XCross is still CFOP not some Petrus/CFOP hybrid. Also, on the 4x4 method point, Yau is in the family of reduction methods (along with pure reduction and Hoya), but it is separate, just as 2GR and Briggs are in the family of 2gen reduction methods but not the same because there are significant differences between them. On the other hand, YruRU has no significant differences to Briggs as it solves the same things in the same order just more specific.


----------



## Devagio (May 20, 2020)

In process of making something:
devagio.github.io/YruRU/
Once compiled, I believe it should provide a firm groundwork to get started with the method.
PS I am literally learning HTML, CSS and GitHub for the first time as I am making this, so I’ll be glad to receive any critique of the entirety of what’s on that link, not just the content.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 20, 2020)

I still don't know why you're calling it YruRU, but nice site.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I still don't know why you're calling it YruRU, but nice site.


Watch out, you angered the Morrison boys. The only way to repair that relationship is...


Spoiler



GET THEM THEY MGC 6x6s BY USING CODE OWEN AND MICAH AT CHECKOUT


@Micah Morrison @Owen Morrison 

This joke was brought to you by speedcubing.org


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Watch out, you angered the Morrison boys. The only way to repair that relationship is...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



Or the more feared option



Spoiler



switch to CFOP



I wouldn't go with that option if I were you though. Many who begin never finish


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Or the more feared option
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You forgot the joke part


Unless you are for reals


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Or the more feared option
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would much rather @Sub1Hour's option.


_Also ur da best @Sub1Hour, 

Do you want me to pay you the $20 through paypal?_


----------



## Cuberstache (May 21, 2020)

Stay on-topic please


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Stay on-topic please


Okay sorry, How is your progression on OH with YruRU? Also how hard is it to learn since I'm not great at OH and I want to try a new method for it.


Owen Morrison said:


> I
> 
> _Do you want me to pay you the $20 through paypal?_


No, Use those to do you know what (I promise that's the last off topic thing I will post in this thread)


----------



## Cuberstache (May 21, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Okay sorry, How is your progression on OH with YruRU? Also how hard is it to learn since I'm not great at OH and I want to try a new method for it.


No worries. My progression is going pretty well. I've been kinda busy lately with other stuff and most of my practice has been untimed solves but I should be averaging sub-20 with sub-15 inspection any day now. It's honestly really hard to learn. It's a big effort commitment that I think most people aren't willing to put in. You can improve at OH with whatever method you already use, but YruRU certainly has potential. If you're willing to put in a few hours to learn the method, by all means, do so! I learned it because I thought it was really cool and interesting. OH was not one of my main events before but now I'm having a lot of fun with it. So ultimately it comes down to your decision. I think it's worth the effort, but it is a large commitment. Keep in mind that there won't be any comps soon, so you have plenty of time to get used to it before any meaningful results get affected


----------



## Devagio (May 22, 2020)

Some general updates:

1. I beat my CFOP OH PB ao100 with YruRU, and got my first sub-19 ao100. I’ve been improving pretty quickly and I expect my global OH average with YruRU to surpass my global CFOP average anytime this week, if it hasn’t happened already. I did practice CFOP OH fairly well over the time I’ve been cubing, definitely more than what I’ve practiced with YruRU; plus I do not yet know full 2GLL, whereas I do know full OLL, PLL, some WV and COLL for CFOP. Reaching my CFOP times in a month with a totally different method reinforces my belief that YruRU is a better method for OH, at least for me.

2. I’m putting some work into the GitHub pages site, the 2GLL section is ready. I’ll complete the home and about section and upload those in a few hours, and put up a link here once I’m done.
EDIT: The link for home is obviously gonna be the same, here it is:
devagio.github.io/YruRU
I’ve uploaded the 2GLLs and described recognition of each case.

3. I’ve come up with a new CP first idea for OH, nothing major or novel but maybe worth considering. I do not find it practical since it has around 500 algorithms, but so does ZBLL and some people find ZZ and ZB practical so this very well may be worth it. I’ll post about it today or tomorrow. Most likely won’t be putting as much work into it, though will certainly help if someone else picks it up and tries developing it.




CuberStache said:


> It's honestly really hard to learn. It's a big effort commitment that I think most people aren't willing to put in.


You had been learning it as it was evolving, learning anything in that phase is going to be quite challenging. Perhaps now it’ll be considerably easier to go about it, and more so in the future.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 23, 2020)

Does anyone know a good place to find 2GLL algs?


----------



## Devagio (May 23, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Does anyone know a good place to find 2GLL algs?


Check out the website I just posted.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 23, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Check out the website I just posted.


Thanks!


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

My biggest problem when solving with YruRU is planning CP line when the two corners aren't solved. I don't seem to have an issue planning it, but it seems like 90% of my solves that don't have the corners solved I get diagonal corners at the end, does anyone know what I could be doing wrong? would an example of my CP help?


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 25, 2020)

Check out the 2GR page then because the systems are virually identical. The link is somewhere on this thread I'm pretty sure.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (May 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> My biggest problem when solving with YruRU is planning CP line when the two corners aren't solved. I don't seem to have an issue planning it, but it seems like 90% of my solves that don't have the corners solved I get diagonal corners at the end, does anyone know what I could be doing wrong? would an example of my CP help?


In my experience it is similar to BLD tracing (if you've ever done that) It just takes practice and time and many DNFs at the start. You will break through the infamous _"CP Wall" _ soon but it's very hard in the beginning.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> In my experience it is similar to BLD tracing (if you've ever done that) It just takes practice and time and many DNFs at the start. You will break through the infamous _"CP Wall" _ soon but it's very hard in the beginning.


I think it might be that, but many times I go over my solution over and over again and I did it "correctly" but what I am wondering is if my "correctly" isn't actually what your supposed to do, and what I think is what I am supposed to do only works 1 out of 10 times, I'll keep trying though.



PapaSmurf said:


> Check out the 2GR page then because the systems are vir*T*ually identical. The link is somewhere on this thread I'm pretty sure.


I have heard that the 2GR system is worse.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> My biggest problem when solving with YruRU is planning CP line when the two corners aren't solved. I don't seem to have an issue planning it, but it seems like 90% of my solves that don't have the corners solved I get diagonal corners at the end, does anyone know what I could be doing wrong? would an example of my CP help?


Diagonal corners for me often means I read the thread in the wrong direction. Some examples would be great, especially if you can find one where you're positive it should work but it doesn't.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Diagonal corners for me often means I read the thread in the wrong direction. Some examples would be great, especially if you can find one where you're positive it should work but it doesn't.


Alright he is an example of what I do:

Scramble: U L2 D F2 L2 B2 D2 R2 F2 D' B' D2 U' L' F' D2 L2 D' L' U2

x' z2

I see that U' F' will solve the two corners in the bottom left.

I assume that the WBO (in the UBL spot) corner that needs to go in the DFL spot is switched with the corner that is actually there, which means that the UBL corner is number 4.

I see that number 5 and 6 are in different parities and are not friends with each other, and 5 is in an even parity so I read the thread from DBR to UFL.

In my mind I swap corner number 6 ( WRG corner) to be the friend of corner number 5 ( WRB corner) So the corner in the UFR spot is number 1

I swap the corners in positions DFR and DBR because corner number 5 and 6 were in different parties and had different friends.

So when I read the thread I get DBR 2> DFR 3> UFR skip> UBR skip> UBL 4> UFL> 1

so when I read the thread I get 123 which means CP is solved, but because the DFL corner isn't solved, I set it up an F' away from solved with a U' and then do this alg I learned from @Devagio in his post earlier in this thread: F' U' F' U' F. I would insert the edge to make a line by doing U' S (prime?)

I solve the rest of the cube with YruRU and I get diagonal corners at the end Does anyone know what I did wrong? I really felt like I did it right.

Thanks!

EDIT: I forgot to add, this issue only happens when the two corners in the DL aren't solved, if they are, I almost always get CP right.


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Alright he is an example of what I do:
> 
> Scramble: U L2 D F2 L2 B2 D2 R2 F2 D' B' D2 U' L' F' D2 L2 D' L' U2
> 
> ...


The tracing here is 321, not 123. My solution is 
x’ z2 // inspection
R S2’ U’ F’ // CP-line

I’ll read your post properly once I’m free later today and let you know where the mistake exactly is.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

I just don't understand how you preserve CP


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 25, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I just don't understand how you preserve CP


CP is only altered if you do moves other then R, U, Rw, and Uw moves. After CP Line, the cube is only solved with R, U, Rw, and Uw moves.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> CP is only altered if you do moves other then R, U, Rw, and Uw moves. After CP Line, the cube is only solved with R, U, Rw, and Uw moves.


So when I do D, B or F moves the CP is affected, and that's how I make the CP Line right? kind of reminds me of EO. if you do F2?


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

@Owen Morrison I guess I figured your mistake out; you have labelled your yellow pieces in the wrong direction. The labelling needs to go clockwise.
For example, my labelling is 
YGR-1
YBR-2
YBO-3
YGO-4


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

Devagio said:


> @Owen Morrison I guess I figured your mistake out; you have labelled your yellow pieces in the wrong direction. The labelling needs to go clockwise.
> For example, my labelling is
> YGR-1
> YBR-2
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

Devagio said:


> The tracing here is 321, not 123. My solution is
> x’ z2 // inspection
> R S2’ U’ F’ // CP-line
> 
> I’ll read your post properly once I’m free later today and let you know where the mistake exactly is.


Wait, does F' swap the piece currently in the DFL spot with UBL? I always thought it was with UBR, maybe that is what I am messing up.


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Wait, does F' swap the piece currently in the DFL spot with UBL? I always thought it was with UBR, maybe that is what I am messing up.


It is with UBR, not UBL. According to my numbering, 4 is in DFL, needs to swap with 2, which ends up in UBR before the F’.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

Devagio said:


> It is with UBR, not UBL. According to my numbering, 4 is in DFL, needs to swap with 2, which ends up in UBR before the F’.


hmmm I must have switched some of my numbers up then. I am still very new to trying out this method though so that makes sense.

Sorry for so many questions, but how do you solve CP if the corner that needs to go in the DFL spot is an F2 away from being solved?


----------



## Cuberstache (May 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> hmmm I must have switched some of my numbers up then. I am still very new to trying out this method though so that makes sense.
> 
> Sorry for so many questions, but how do you solve CP if the corner that needs to go in the DFL spot is an F2 away from being solved?


I tend to just look for different corners in that case, but you can use RU moves to make it solvable with F or F', just like any other case. For instance, R U R' (F) or U' R' U (F')


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> hmmm I must have switched some of my numbers up then. I am still very new to trying out this method though so that makes sense.
> 
> Sorry for so many questions, but how do you solve CP if the corner that needs to go in the DFL spot is an F2 away from being solved?


It’s kinda complicated. I did figure out a way, and ended up deciding that it’s not worth it because it requires setting up of 2 corners, and trying to keep UFR fixed blocks both R and U moves.
So if you have it an F2 away, just solve from some other orientation, or do R U R’ and now it’ll be an F away.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 25, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> I tend to just look for different corners in that case, but you can use RU moves to make it solvable with F or F', just like any other case. For instance, R U R' (F) or U' R' U (F')





Devagio said:


> It’s kinda complicated. I did figure out a way, and ended up deciding that it’s not worth it because it requires setting up of 2 corners, and trying to keep UFR fixed blocks both R and U moves.
> So if you have it an F2 away, just solve from some other orientation, or do R U R’ and now it’ll be an F away.


Alright thanks!


----------



## TheRouxGuy (May 26, 2020)

Instead of doing CP in the beginning, can I construct the FB directly and perform CPLS while finishing the F2L?


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

TheRouxGuy said:


> Instead of doing CP in the beginning, can I construct the FB directly and perform CPLS while finishing the F2L?



You can also do cp after F2L while doing EOLL, 24 cases, 15 algs, you probably know most of them.


----------



## TheRouxGuy (May 26, 2020)

maticuber said:


> You can also do cp after F2L while doing EOLL, 24 cases, 15 algs, you probably know most of them.


What are those algs?


----------



## Devagio (May 26, 2020)

TheRouxGuy said:


> Instead of doing CP in the beginning, can I construct the FB directly and perform CPLS while finishing the F2L?


Yep, though that’d be a variation of LEOR.


----------



## maticuber (May 26, 2020)

TheRouxGuy said:


> What are those algs?



There's a thread by Kirjava with all the algs, the set is called CPEOLL


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

What is the best way to go about learning all of the circlets? Is there anywhere I can see all of them or do I need to figure out myself?


----------



## Devagio (May 26, 2020)

*A correction/addition in CP execution:*
There was an oversight in the CP execution, I’m amazed nobody caught it. Today, @Owen Morrison asked me about F2 setups to CP line, to which I in the moment hastily replied “pick another orientation.” I had thought about that in the past after all. A few minutes later, I had that facepalm moment; the logic for F2 setups is literally (well almost) the same as for F or F’, so putting the other corner in UBR should work all the same. And indeed it does.
So, not just setting up the DFL corner an F or F’ away works, but even F2 works. In all cases, the rule is the same, its pair needs to be in UBR. I feel stupid lol.
PS, in either case, F2 setups would be worth it in far fewer cases than F or F’ setups.


Owen Morrison said:


> What is the best way to go about learning all of the circlets? Is there anywhere I can see all of them or do I need to figure out myself?


I haven’t put them up anywhere yet. I intend to put them up on the website with a pnemonic way of memorising them; but that’ll take time because I got school stuff to do for at least a week.
The way I did it is just practice the beginner way for 2 weeks while being aware that I eventually have to memorise circlets, and I just somehow happened to memorise them all over time because there is only a small number of them.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

Devagio said:


> *A correction/addition in CP execution:*
> There was an oversight in the CP execution, I’m amazed nobody caught it. Today, @Owen Morrison asked me about F2 setups to CP line, to which I in the moment hastily replied “pick another orientation.” I had thought about that in the past after all. A few minutes later, I had that facepalm moment; the logic for F2 setups is literally (well almost) the same as for F or F’, so putting the other corner in UBR should work all the same. And indeed it does.
> So, not just setting up the DFL corner an F or F’ away works, but even F2 works. In all cases, the rule is the same, it’s pair needs to be in UBR. I feel stupid lol.
> PS, in either case, F2 setups would be worth it in far fewer cases than F or F’ setups.
> ...


Okay thanks!

And nice to know I can just use a F2 for that case! Also, you are not stupid, you came up with this awesome way of doing CP that most people would never be able to come up with.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 26, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> What is the best way to go about learning all of the circlets? Is there anywhere I can see all of them or do I need to figure out myself?


Swapping 5 and 6 simply reverses the circlet (this was dismissed before but with more testing, it is in fact true). So there are only a few circlets you need to learn: if 5 and 6 are in 1-3, 2-4, 1-5, 2-5, 3-5, 4-5, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, and 4-6. Look for some kind of visual thing to help you remember it. Like just how a line connecting the pieces in the right order would look. I'll film part three of my tutorial soon, in which I'll cover this sort of tracing thing as well as pEO.


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 26, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Swapping 5 and 6 simply reverses the circlet (this was dismissed before but with more testing, it is in fact true). So there are only a few circlets you need to learn: if 5 and 6 are in 1-3, 2-4, 1-5, 2-5, 3-5, 4-5, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6, and 4-6. Look for some kind of visual thing to help you remember it. Like just how a line connecting the pieces in the right order would look. I'll film part three of my tutorial soon, in which I'll cover this sort of tracing thing as well as pEO.


Thanks!


----------



## Devagio (May 26, 2020)

While we’re on this topic, here’s another trick that I guess I haven’t mentioned on this forum:

When DL corners are solved, we try to set up a pair of corners to
UFR-UFL: F’ U’ F
UFR-UBR: F’ U F or F R’ F’
UBR-UBL: F R F’

But here’s the entire list of where you can set up the pair of corners before doing the triggers:
F’ U’ F: UFR-UFL or UBR-DBR or UBL-DFR
F R F’: UBL-UBR or UFR-DFR or UFL-DBR
F’ U F: UBR-UFR or UBL-DBR or UFL-DFR
F R F’: UBR-UFR or UBL-DFR or UFL-DBR

I find this really fascinating, it really opens up so many possibilities! It reduces the average movecount of CP-line by one whole move (need to check that figure) because 80% of the cases will now have a 3 move CP solution. I haven’t used these in speedsolves yet, but I intend to very soon.

Another thing, I’ve sort of figured out better ways to handle that annoying case where DL corners are unsolved but CP is solved. It was obvious we could do better than the two algorithms we have used so far.

Set the DFL corner to be an F2 away from being solved and do F U F or F’ R’ F’.
There are a few more ways, I’ll edit this post and add the exhaustive list in a while.

I guess these are major developmental leaps right here!


----------



## Devagio (May 29, 2020)

Updates:

1. The EOBF section of the website is ready; that makes 4/7 sections. You can visit the home page here.
I hope to finish the F2L section in a day or two since there's nothing much to be done there. A lot of academic load got dumped on me all of a sudden, so the CP line and extension sections will have to wait.

2. I found myself improving fairly well in all parts of the solve, except the pEO extension. It would be wrong to say there wasn't any improvement, but I could feel it was sub-par. Rather than waiting more and trying different ways to improve at it, I'm trying to see how the step can be done differently, even considering freestyle pEO or something. I am extremely pleased with how EOBF has turned out simply by eliminating the DB blindspot, so the aim of pEO-extension will remain somewhat the same [LEOR OH people can make good use of this information as well, instead of planning FB + some EO, you could plan FB + EO of DB edge and see how that goes; in case that hasn't been tried seriously].


----------



## Devagio (May 31, 2020)

Apologies for multiposting, but I'm not sure how to go about it when this post is new information building on the previous post.
The F2L section is ready. I ended up adding quite a bit more than what I initially intended, but I think its for the best. You can visit the home page here.
I'll be taking a break from adding more to the website for now.
There's some awesome pEO stuff that I'll put up here soon enough; though first I'd like to know the thoughts of people who even briefly tried this method out with YruRU style CP; basically why you stuck to it or quit it. Simply put, feedback to see what worked for others and what didn't, and see if we can address those things.


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 1, 2020)

Devagio said:


> There's some awesome pEO stuff that I'll put up here soon enough; though first I'd like to know the thoughts of people who even briefly tried this method out with YruRU style CP; basically why you stuck to it or quit it. Simply put, feedback to see what worked for others and what didn't, and see if we can address those things.


I think the ergonomics were really intriguing and I wanted to try the method out. Even at first, before things were developed, I thought it could be the best one-handed method. As you already know, the extension is the hardest part of the solve, but apparently you've figured that out already (!!). My inspection is sub-15 now so YruRU CP seems to be the way to go.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> I think the ergonomics were really intriguing and I wanted to try the method out. Even at first, before things were developed, I thought it could be the best one-handed method. As you already know, the extension is the hardest part of the solve, but apparently you've figured that out already (!!). My inspection is sub-15 now so YruRU CP seems to be the way to go.


Thanks! Knowing that you’ve been using the method for over a month now, a more in depth critique of what good and bad things you think of each step/transition would be really helpful. Personal opinions totally welcome.



CuberStache said:


> but apparently you've figured that out already


Haha, wouldn’t say figured out, more like an experimental trick for now. Though glad to know that we’re on the same page that the extension step requires the most attention.


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 1, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Thanks! Knowing that you’ve been using the method for over a month now, a more in depth critique of what good and bad things you think of each step/transition would be really helpful. Personal opinions totally welcome.


CPLine: Inspection is good with practice. I can sub-15 basically every time now and look ahead to extension sometimes. It can be awkward with F moves and I have to do rotations sometimes, but obviously we have to start somewhere. Bad ergonomics for this short step make for really good ergonomics for the longer steps. The several options for tracing and solving CP make efficiency really good for almost any scramble. The F U F trick for 2GR solved CP was basically the last thing to make any case good. I guess now the only thing missing is when all corner pairs are twisted 

Extension/pEO: Finding the edges can be hard if they're in blindspots. I personally don't mind the u moves like others do. This step seems inefficient sometimes, compared to a movecount for a standard Roux FB. I do pEO completely intuitively, which is really easy, though I have gotten 8 bad edges a few times doing it intuitively. I don't have too much to say here; I'll wait to hear your new information.

EO: I still usually pause briefly to recognize the EO case. That should go away with more practice. There are a few cases I struggle to do optimally, but that's just me being lazy and not studying the EO algs posted earlier in the thread. Not much to say here, this is where ergonomics begin to be really nice, so high TPS is possible.

BF: Lookahead to this step can be hard sometimes, but I've noticed it getting better. Same with deciding how to do the last two moves of EO to influence this step. Usually I just do U' because it's easier, but I've had a noticeable improvement in doing a U if it's better or even placing the centers solved instead of D on U when there's one edge done already.

F2L: Not much to say here, the only real thing is that I rarely blockbuild, which is something I might have to change soon.

2GLL: Again not much to say. Here we get rewarded for the work we did at the beginning of the solve. I know _almost _full 2GLL now and I'll have it done by next week. I've been using Roman's ZBLL trainer to practice the algs, and that's been absolutely crucial to learning these algs well. Recognition is really fast for most cases and will get faster as I get more used to the algs.

I love this method


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> CPLine: Inspection is good with practice. I can sub-15 basically every time now and look ahead to extension sometimes. It can be awkward with F moves and I have to do rotations sometimes, but obviously we have to start somewhere. Bad ergonomics for this short step make for really good ergonomics for the longer steps. The several options for tracing and solving CP make efficiency really good for almost any scramble. The F U F trick for 2GR solved CP was basically the last thing to make any case good. I guess now the only thing missing is when all corner pairs are twisted
> 
> Extension/pEO: Finding the edges can be hard if they're in blindspots. I personally don't mind the u moves like others do. This step seems inefficient sometimes, compared to a movecount for a standard Roux FB. I do pEO completely intuitively, which is really easy, though I have gotten 8 bad edges a few times doing it intuitively. I don't have too much to say here; I'll wait to hear your new information.
> 
> ...


One thing that I don't understand is the pEO step, I thought you were just supposed to expand the 1x1x3 into a 1x2x3 but it seems like you are supposed to orient some edges while doing that. How do I do that?


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 1, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> One thing that I don't understand is the pEO step, I thought you were just supposed to expand the 1x1x3 into a 1x2x3 but it seems like you are supposed to orient some edges while doing that. How do I do that?


Make sure white/yellow isn't on top by making some moves wide moves, and just put a good edge into DB after the extension with (U/U'/U2/nothing) r. Check this out, and read the rest of the page too.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 1, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> I guess now the only thing missing is when all corner pairs are twisted


Forgot to mention this one  I haven’t updated that post that I said I will “in a while”.
You could do normal tracing, put a swap pair in UFL and DFR (this will take 0 or 1 move 94% of the time) then do one of the following 2gen triggers based on the orientation of the twist: F2 R’ F R’ F R’ F or F2 U F’ U F’ U F. Will give you an 8 move 2gen CP-line; probably bearable.


CuberStache said:


> This step seems inefficient


Yeah, working on pEO-extension. I’m getting a feeling it’s not that difficult an issue to resolve, but haven’t really found a great way to do it. I’ll put up the little trick I’ve been using; though my plan is to write a code to generate say 100 scrambles and solve pEO optimally; and see what patterns I can find.


CuberStache said:


> I still usually pause briefly to recognize the EO case.


I’m not sure if that’s something that’ll go away completely; at least not with the current pEO approach. I feel it’s something like OLL recognition, like how after F2L you somewhat know which OLL is coming up, but usually sort of need to pause just a little to exactly know which one.
Also, use the algs on the website. They’re organised in a much better way, plus I think the visual representation helps.


CuberStache said:


> I love this method


Yay!
Stuff I just realised: there’s 3 past posts that I said I will update but haven’t; the inspection post (though I don’t need to anymore, the rest of the stuff I just put up here), the 500 alg method post, and the of course the pEO trick post. Let me just make those right here.

*pEO Trick:*
If done right, you usually will not have to use Rw moves during the pEO extension step. You may have to use it “before” the step to set up the centres, and “after” the step to put in DB; but during the step, due to the lack of Rw moves, the DB and DF edges do not move. So during the step (or maybe even during inspection or CP line) check out the orientation of the DF edge. Half the time, you will get off simply by doing and Rw’ after extension. If you want to do more pEO, you can put a good edge in UL before doing the Rw’. Just an awesome idea to play with till further development; basically gives hope that there will probably be such a simple General way to do this step.

*~500 alg method:*
Not sure whether this method is worth it; though it certainly is much more efficient than YruRU can ever hope to be.
The general idea is pretty obvious:
1. Make CP line
2. Somehow solve F2L
3. Solve LL in 1 alg
Since CP is already done, the LL cases will be reduced, much like ZBLL; but it’s better here because all the algorithms will be [r, R, U]-gen which is a great moveset for OH, the alg length will be about the same, and the recognition is better than ZBLL (ZBLL has 1 orientation and 2 permutations to recognise, this thing here has 2 orientations and 1 permutation to recognise, orientations are easier to recognise than permutations, for eg OLLCP is easier to recognise than ZBLL).
Once we figure out how to do CP (YruRU CP takes care of that, and CP-line here will be more efficient than YruRU since we don’t care about EO at any point during the solve, so x2 y neutrality will be the way to go) the only non-trivial part is to figure out the best way to solve F2L (Unlike ZZ where it’s pretty obvious we gotta do LB and RB).
I have a couple of candidates on how to do F2L, none of them particularly great; though I can totally see this method averaging around 45 movecount in brain dead speedsolves; the last 15 moves of which will be an ergonomic algorithm, the first 5 moves will be planned, and the middle 25 moves will have [r, u, R, U] moveset.
The reason I do not expect much out of this method is mainly the fact that I do not like high alg count methods, and that I feel methods with asymmetries are just bad (the F2L part will most likely have some asymmetrical component). Though from an objective point of view, it’s probably worth a try.
If someone is interested in taking up developing this, I’ll be happy to assist if required.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 4, 2020)

Analysed over hundred HTM and QTM optimal solutions of pEO extension after the line is made. Just to be clear, by pEO extension, what I mean here is extending the 1x1x3 line on DL to a 1x2x3 block on left, having either white or yellow centre and top, while placing a *visible *edge in DB with correct orientation. Here, a visible edge is some edge that was in in the U layer or in DF at some point during the step (which means even if extension is done, centres are proper, and DB edge is oriented, we may not know that the DB edge is oriented and so would have to add something like say U r2; this has been incorporated in finding the optimal solution).

First things first, the setup > extension > pEO, while being a great stepping stone, is not all that efficient. The algorithmic approach and easy recognition may appeal to some; plus ensuring 8 bad edges never comes up and 6 bad edges comes up very infrequently is a big positive. However, with DB edge oriented, 6 edge cases aren’t really worse than 2 or 4 edge cases recognition or execution wise, and there is only one possible 8 bad edges case, which is still really rare and avoidable.

That said, after a fairly long consideration I believe freestyle pEO extension is the way to go (Simply doing extension is not a good idea because EO is horrible). There are some neat tricks that become apparent with practice, I’ll try to be active on the example solves thread and try to cover as many of them as I can; there aren’t very many. I tried to categorise them in some sense but I guess it’ll have to be like F2L tricks, you see it and you do it on a case by case basis.

Here are a couple of thumb rules (in order of priority) to get you started:
1. If the centres aren’t proper and DF is “misoriented”, then most often an optimal or almost optimal solution will include exactly one Rw’ while doing the extension, and no other wide R move.
2. Often, extension followed by an Rw or Rw2 can optimal / almost optimal; so if you cannot find a good way to put an oriented edge in DB or make centres proper during extension, simply track candidate edges for DB during the execution of extension, and follow up with one of the said moves.
3. U R u2 inserts are preferable over u R u inserts due to the freedom between R and r in the former type of inserts. Another kind of insert which is useful when the left centre is in U or D face is a “u r u” type insert, where one edge is connected to the centre and another is in the E slice.
Optional: If you wish to preserve the orientation of some edge (which will typically be on the U layer since you saw it), bring it to UL; it will likely stay oriented for the rest of the step. This will ensure 8 bad edge cases do not pop up. Also, it will reduce the likelihood of 6 bad edge cases, though with DB oriented, this isn’t annoying anymore.
Optional: if you have a choice, you can try to have DF misoriented at the end of the step, since EO algs are much better this way.

The best way to learn this will definitely be through example solves and practice, just like once down with basic F2L, advanced F2L is best learned through examples and not algsheets.

Side note: I tried considering whether CPFB is at all viable, since that’ll open up some good possibilities; while you will have a bigger pause for EO with possibly worse efficiency, making it not suitable for rRU>RU reduction, it may be possible to use it for rRU>MU reduction effectively. Checked out some ways I found proposed on a few threads, tried to come up with my own, etc. however, there is just too much to do in inspection that it seems ridiculously hard to achieve, let alone do it consistently. It may be my lack of foresight, however, I do not see myself being able to do it with any conceivable method that may even pop up in the future; since it will at the very least involve planning FB, identifying CP, and calculating what moves to add to solve CP without destroying FB; it’ll at best be a gamble to try and fit it in.

PS if someone wants to play around with the code (.py) to find the optimals they can DM me their e-mail and I’ll send it over, though honestly it’s a beginners’ exercise. Just brute force it, since the only possible moves are r, R, u and U; and most solutions are like 6 moves long.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 8, 2020)

At long last! Done with the website!!
Here it is.

Whatever your thoughts about the method, just check out the website once. Took really a lot of effort to make that, though learned a lot about version control and front end too.
There are most likely many errors in there which I will resolve over time as when they are pointed out; also advanced/intuitive pEO extension page hasn't been put up since I myself need more experience with it before putting it there.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 8, 2020)

So I have been trying to switch to the advanced way of doing CP, and as I was memorizing the circlets there is one that never solves CP for me.




If 5 is in UFL, I have been reading the 'N' from the UBL corner to the DFR corner, and if 6 is in UFL then I read it from DFR to UBL. Am I making a mistake or is this circlet incorrect?

Oh and btw your website looks awesome!


----------



## Devagio (Jun 8, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> So I have been trying to switch to the advanced way of doing CP, and as I was memorizing the circlets there is one that never solves CP for me.
> 
> 
> View attachment 12489
> ...


Thanks!
Well, you are doing it correctly, and this is what I do too; probably making a mistake elsewhere.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 8, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Thanks!
> Well, you are doing it correctly, and this is what I do too; probably making a mistake elsewhere.


hmmmmm I am trying it over and over again and It never works I can't find anything that could be making it not work. I will keep trying and update this post if I figure it out.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 8, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> hmmmmm I am trying it over and over again and It never works I can't find anything that could be making it not work. I will keep trying and update this post if I figure it out.


Okay so I found out that if I have 5 in UFL and 6 in UBR if I have the circlet UBL>DFR>UFR>DBR it works and solves CP. Not really sure what is going on.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 8, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Okay so I found out that if I have 5 in UFL and 6 in UBR if I have the circlet UBL>DFR>UBR>DBR it works and solves CP. Not really sure what is going on.


The circlet passed through UBR? But 6 is in UBR.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 8, 2020)

Devagio said:


> The circlet passed through UBR? But 6 is in UBR.


Whoops I meant UFR.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 8, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Whoops I meant UFR.


Yes, then that is exactly the same as the “letter N” circlet. It’s offset by one target, but at the end of the day it’s cyclic so it doesn’t matter.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 8, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Yes, then that is exactly the same as the “letter N” circlet. It’s offset by one target, but at the end of the day it’s cyclic so it doesn’t matter.


Thanks for this, I think I am just now understanding a lot more about these circlets and how they are cyclic.


Sorry I am asking so many questions, but how do you know which direction you go with the circlet? I know it has something to do with the locations of 5 and 6 but how do they decide which direction to go when doing the advanced cp?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 9, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Thanks for this, I think I am just now understanding a lot more about these circlets and how they are cyclic.
> 
> 
> Sorry I am asking so many questions, but how do you know which direction you go with the circlet? I know it has something to do with the locations of 5 and 6 but how do they decide which direction to go when doing the advanced cp?


You just have to memorise the directions individually. I know that’s tedious, but there’s just 8 cases, so brute force memorisation should be okay. I don’t know if @CuberStache figured out some pattern though.
Also, it’s great you’re asking these questions, because when someone comes to learn this next, they’ll not have to ask all this, they’ll just be able to read just from here.


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 9, 2020)

For the directions, having 5 solved or 6 solved is the "correct" direction, while having 6 in 5 or 5 in 6 is "backward". Then for the two cases with both in the U layer, just memorize those, there are only two.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 9, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> For the directions, having 5 solved or 6 solved is the "correct" direction, while having 6 in 5 or 5 in 6 is "backward". Then for the two cases with both in the U layer, just memorize those, there are only two.


What defines if 5 or 6 is solved?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 9, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> For the directions, having 5 solved or 6 solved is the "correct" direction, while having 6 in 5 or 5 in 6 is "backward". Then for the two cases with both in the U layer, just memorize those, there are only two.


I have a similar way to do it, where if 5 is ahead of 6 on the beginner thread, then I say that the direction is “correct”. But again, it’s still brute force memorisation.


Owen Morrison said:


> What defines if 5 or 6 is solved?


5 is solved if it is in DFR (even if twisted); similarly for 6.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 9, 2020)

Devagio said:


> I have a similar way to do it, where if 5 is ahead of 6 on the beginner thread, then I say that the direction is “correct”. But again, it’s still brute force memorisation.
> 
> 5 is solved if it is in DFR (even if twisted); similarly for 6.


Is 6 solved if it is in DFR, or DBR?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 9, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Is 6 solved if it is in DFR, or DBR?


So what I believe he does is:
For inverted N, Diamond, and inverted Bolt; he has memorised the direction for when 5 is in DFR. If in these cases 5 is not in DFR, he reverses the direction.
Similarly, for arrowhead, bolt and inverted V, he has memorised the direction for when 6 is in DBR. If in these cases 6 is not in DBR, he reverses the direction.
For N and V, he has just memorised normally.

The way I do it is, for every case, I have memorised the direction when 6 is after 5 (as per the beginner thread). If 6 is before 5, I reverse the direction.

At the end of the day, as long as you’re not doing something really long winded, all that matters is that you’ve memorised it, not how you’ve done it.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 9, 2020)

This is still Briggs. CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL vs CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. With Briggs you can influence EO while doing CPFB. Same with YruRU. With Briggs you can do things like anti phasing etc. Same with YruRU. 

The only requirement for a method to be Briggs is to solve FB and CP before you solve anything else, then solving EODFDB. The way you do that doesn't change the method. Yes, you can also influence the next step, but you can do that in any method (see: XCross not making a completely new method). The website is great and it is a clear tutorial for people who want to learn how to do Briggs but whatever you say it is still Briggs. To anyone who is currently trying to progress with Briggs, I would recommend also taking a look at 2GR style CP because it might help to give a different perspective on CP (although the page is kinda cryptic) and it definitely allows for CPFB in inspection.

They are the same method, just as ZZ-a and ZZ-b are, just as Roux and Roux with EOLR are. I completely appreciate the progression that this method has gone through (mainly pEO) down to you, but it's still Briggs and that doesn't change.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 9, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is still Briggs. CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL vs CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL. With Briggs you can influence EO while doing CPFB. Same with YruRU. With Briggs you can do things like anti phasing etc. Same with YruRU.
> 
> The only requirement for a method to be Briggs is to solve FB and CP before you solve anything else, then solving EODFDB. The way you do that doesn't change the method. Yes, you can also influence the next step, but you can do that in any method (see: XCross not making a completely new method). The website is great and it is a clear tutorial for people who want to learn how to do Briggs but whatever you say it is still Briggs. To anyone who is currently trying to progress with Briggs, I would recommend also taking a look at 2GR style CP because it might help to give a different perspective on CP (although the page is kinda cryptic) and it definitely allows for CPFB in inspection.
> 
> They are the same method, just as ZZ-a and ZZ-b are, just as Roux and Roux with EOLR are. I completely appreciate the progression that this method has gone through (mainly pEO) down to you, but it's still Briggs and that doesn't change.


That doesn't mean people can't call it YruRU. You can call CFOP Fridrich. You can call Ortega Varsano. Therefore there is no reason to force people to call this method Briggs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 9, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> That doesn't mean people can't call it YruRU. You can call CFOP Fridrich. You can call Ortega Varsano. Therefore there is no reason to force people to call this method Briggs.


I'm just going to point out that in both cases CFOP and Varasano are preferred over the alternatives due to primacy. The old names aren't so much used as they were not the inventors though many made the mistake at the time


----------



## ProStar (Jun 9, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm just going to point out that in both cases CFOP and Varasano are preferred over the alternatives due to primacy. The old names aren't so much used as they were not the inventors though many made the mistake at the time



I hardly ever hear Varasano, it's always Ortega


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 9, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm just going to point out that in both cases CFOP and Varasano are preferred over the alternatives due to primacy. The old names aren't so much used as they were not the inventors though many made the mistake at the time



Yeah my fault for being lazy and not finding better examples. Point is, there are still many methods with alternate names and there's no point in discouraging someone from using one name over another.

EDIT: I just wanted to say that I'm not sure where I stand on whether YruRU is Briggs or not. What I was saying before was that _*in the theoretical situation *_that @shadowslice e says that they are the same (because that's the only way we will ever be able to decide imo), people should still be able to call it YruRU if they want.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 9, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> Yeah my fault for being lazy and not finding better examples. Point is, there are still many methods with alternate names and there's no point in discouraging someone from using one name over another.
> 
> EDIT: I just wanted to say that I'm not sure where I stand on whether YruRU is Briggs or not. What I was saying before was that _*in the theoretical situation *_that @shadowslice e says that they are the same (because that's the only way we will ever be able to decide imo), people should still be able to call it YruRU if they want.


Sure, I don't have any problem with alternative names. This is far from the first time I've conceded alternative names for the same method. If you think there's no point discouraging alternate names, however, then I point you to the whole ortega vs varasano controversy there was a few years ago (as well as the CFOP vs Fridrich one but it's harder to find good references for that since it was a much longer time ago).


ProStar said:


> I hardly ever hear Varasano, it's always Ortega


Old habits die hard. Varasano is a newer name referencing another cuber with greater primacy so most of the documents are from pre-varasano days. It took the better part of a decade for CFOP to be more commonly used than fridrich. Even now you'll see that a lot of older cubers still use Fridrich.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 9, 2020)

I would say that the CP recog/solving style should be YruRU, just under the Briggs umbrella, just as there's also 2GR style. With the Ortega/Varasano thing, most people who know would agree that Varasano is the correct name but most people don't know, so just point them to Chris Olson's website/video. With the CFOP/Fridrich thing, the same thing happened but everyone knew about it at the time so that's why we're at the point where everyone calls it CFOP. The difference between now and all those other occasions is that back then this happpened due to lack of resources/knowledge due to no internet, but now we have the internet and it's pretty clear to see that Briggs preceeded YruRu by quite a bit and as they're identical, Briggs is the name of the method.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 9, 2020)

Why are we starting this debate over and over again.
When say Gilles Roux thought of the idea of CP first, I’m sure he exactly went in the order CP-line > CPFB > CP-EO-223 > finish. 
There is absolutely no amount of intellectual leap in how to solve the cube after CP-line; there is one clear speed-optimal way. If there comes a day some person can do CPFB in inspection, then this may change to there being 2 clear speed optimal ways, but the point still holds.
Thus naming it after a person is pointless.
Fair enough, we can the approach of this thread “YruRU-style CP-first”; and equivalently there will be “2GR-style CP-first” and so on; I have agreed to that in the past and I stand by it now. But this doesn’t come under the Briggs umbrella because any development made outside of CP was universally obvious, objectively speaking.


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 9, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is still Briggs.





Devagio said:


> Why are we starting this debate over and over again.


Please, anyone who cares about your opinion has already heard it a million times. You're not saying anything new and no one's mind has changed. Just give it up already.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 9, 2020)

Ok, should we call it Roux2? That's the most accurate (after maybe Roux and calling Roux Roux2 depending on what came first). But if we talk about the 'rediscovery' of CP first, I would argue that Briggs is the first method that actually made the intellectual leap of CP during FB. The original proposal wasn't necessarily refined but neither was CFOP or any other good method. Also, there have been people who did CPFB in inspection using the 2GR system btw. Anyway, I would think that Briggs with YruRU style CP is the best way to describe your idea, which, as I've said before, is a pretty cool thing to come up with, but it's certainly no different to Briggs as far as the 'method' construction goes.
Also, TIL that people have come up with things such as pEO in the past. 
So, this 'method' is Briggs with YruRU style CP. You can do Briggs with 2GR style CP. You could also do it with the bad comm CP thing which was pretty cool for its time. Basically, whatever it is, as long as it follows CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL you are doing Briggs. A recognition system does not denote a new method. That would mean that there are about 5 different methods that all end with ZBLL for example; that would be absurd. Instead you look at the pieces that are solved in the step (CPFB) and then voila, same method. 
Briggs with YruRU style CP, the best way to describe the method.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 10, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Please, anyone who cares about your opinion has already heard it a million times. You're not saying anything new and no one's mind has changed. Just give it up already.





PapaSmurf said:


> Ok, should we call it Roux2? That's the most accurate (after maybe Roux and calling Roux Roux2 depending on what came first). But if we talk about the 'rediscovery' of CP first, I would argue that Briggs is the first method that actually made the intellectual leap of CP during FB. The original proposal wasn't necessarily refined but neither was CFOP or any other good method. Also, there have been people who did CPFB in inspection using the 2GR system btw. Anyway, I would think that Briggs with YruRU style CP is the best way to describe your idea, which, as I've said before, is a pretty cool thing to come up with, but it's certainly no different to Briggs as far as the 'method' construction goes.
> Also, TIL that people have come up with things such as pEO in the past.
> So, this 'method' is Briggs with YruRU style CP. You can do Briggs with 2GR style CP. You could also do it with the bad comm CP thing which was pretty cool for its time. Basically, whatever it is, as long as it follows CPFB, EODFDB, RB, 2GLL you are doing Briggs. A recognition system does not denote a new method. That would mean that there are about 5 different methods that all end with ZBLL for example; that would be absurd. Instead you look at the pieces that are solved in the step (CPFB) and then voila, same method.
> Briggs with YruRU style CP, the best way to describe the method.


Uh hello?


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Why are we starting this debate over and over again.


Probably because you refuse to accept that you haven’t invented a new method despite lots of evidence from multiple people who know lots about methods pointing out it’s the same method.
If we accept YruRU as a new method And not just a variant then we have to accept every dumb kids Roux Cfop hybrid method that is clearly just worse freefop but varies in some small way.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 10, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> Probably because you refuse to accept that you haven’t invented a new method





Devagio said:


> Fair enough, we can the ***approach*** of this thread “YruRU-style CP-first”; and equivalently there will be “2GR-style CP-first” and so on; I have agreed to that in the past and I stand by it now.


Fact Checking. 

The only issue I have is calling these method/s “Briggs”. Since there exists a single obvious path after CP-line, one that most cubers can come up with (and did previously, and did later on), naming the method after a person is wrong. It is especially wrong when the person’s approach of the only non-trivial part was neither viable, nor the first; though that’s besides the point. Call it CEF (for CP-line, EO-223, Finish) for all I care, vote and pick an *impersonal* name. We will have different styles in the way CP is solved that we can prefix to it, the three CP styles (Briggs, 2GR, YruRU) are completely different, there’s no debate there.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Since there exists a single obvious path after CP-line


Fact checking

If there's only one method, why have I come up with 3 different approaches (2 of which are explicitly in my sig)?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 10, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> Fact checking
> 
> If there's only one method, why have I come up with 3 different approaches (2 of which are explicitly in my sig)?


B2 (which I came up with as Yroux since again it’s kinda obvious) is viable when you can inspect CPFB, else it’s far too inefficient; which is also why I said in the previous post the following:


Devagio said:


> If there comes a day some person can do CPFB in inspection, then this may change to there being 2 clear speed optimal ways, but the point still holds.


Not sure what third method you’re talking of, but if you’re speaking of “42”, (while almost certainly isn’t speed optimal this point can be refuted based on subjectivity) it is a more complicated way of doing B2.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> B2 (which I came up with as Yroux since again it’s kinda obvious) is viable when you can inspect CPFB, else it’s far too inefficient; which is also why I said in the previous post the following:


Why would it be less efficient than 2x2x3eo? And as for your claims that CPFB can't be done in inspection, there have been people who have been able to do it consistently (such as John li, the devisor of 2gr).



> Not sure what third method you’re talking of,


It's a combination with M-CELL. CPFB, 2x2x2 in DR, CELL.


> but if you’re speaking of “42”, (while almost certainly isn’t speed optimal this point can be refuted based on subjectivity) it is a more complicated way of doing B2.


Have you actually read what 42 does? It's not like B2 beyond they both finish MU-gen (though 42 is transformed). Also, I average the same with beginner's roux and beginner's 42 (both 2-look variants) with far less practise in the latter.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 10, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> It's a combination with M-CELL. CPFB, 2x2x2 in DR, CELL.


Not sure what this is, will have to give it a look; though this is something you probably can tag your name on since it doesn’t look an obvious path. Continuing as LEOR or Roux doesn’t grant you this privilege, the only thing you can claim in such a case is the way you do CP.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Not sure what this is, will have to give it a look; though this is something you probably can tag your name on since it doesn’t look an obvious path. Continuing as LEOR or Roux doesn’t grant you this privilege, the only thing you can claim in such a case is the way you do CP.


So is a method only "obvious" if you think of it? With regards to the Leor comment, that was developed *from* my post not vice versa. B2 additionally does influencing beyond what is done in roux. Does that make it a non-obvious continuation?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 10, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> So is a method only "obvious" if you think of it? With regards to the Leor comment, that was developed *from* my post not vice versa. B2 additionally does influencing beyond what is done in roux. Does that make it a non-obvious continuation?


As a man wisely said, attack the message not the messenger.
I said LEOR just for the sake of brevity; plus I’m sure we know full well what counts as an obvious continuation and what doesn’t.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> As a man wisely said, attack the message not the messenger.
> I said LEOR just for the sake of brevity; plus I’m sure we know full well what counts as an obvious continuation and what doesn’t.


Do we though? What makes Leor and roux obvious and m-cell non-obvious?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 10, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> Do we though? What makes Leor and roux obvious and m-cell non-obvious?


Let’s exhaustively explore what is obvious. Why do CP at all? One reason. To reduce moveset from requiring 5 types of moves to 4 types of moves to solve a cube (because going through all that pain just to reduce the scramble set by a factor of 6 for any other reason cannot be worth it).
How to do better? Reduce from 4 to 3. Thus extend to FB.
How to do better? Reduce from 3 to 2. Thus, either SB+CMLL or EO+BF.

Why I said the third method you described could “possibly” be non-obvious is:
Simply continuing as MCELL is asymmetrical, movecount wise inefficient, moveset wise inefficient, higher algorithm count, look-ahead wise more difficult, etc. compared to the first two approaches. However, due to the asymmetries introduced by solving the DBR cube, you could categorise it as “not an obvious continuation”.
By the way, if you scroll up, I mentioned a 500-alg method alg, which basically is a more efficient version of CP-first MCELL.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 10, 2020)

If we are to care at all about history or giving credit to the hard work people in the past have put into things, it is important to not claim that something is obvious. We can look at anything around us and, if we understand how it works, we can think that it is obvious. "I could have invented that." But look at what was happening before it was created. Who else did it? It almost always happens that there was no one else doing it or that there were a few people trying. The first person to succeed and develop is a significant moment. Research a term called Hindsight Bias. This is the tendency to look at something from the past and think that it is an obvious idea or event.

Who else was doing CP Line and the steps that follow before Joseph Briggs? I'm the one that showed the post by Gilles Roux. He may have talked about the idea and used it in FMC, but he never fully developed and presented it. Joseph Briggs gets credit for it because he was the first to complete it. Ryan Heise talked about EOLine+F2L before anyone else, but he never developed the complete method. So, Zbigniew Zborowski gets the credit because he was the first to complete it. People have even provided significant developments to current methods or have solved long-standing problems in those methods. These are developments that have completely changed the way people use those methods. But the method is still called by the original person's name.

Yes, someone else probably would have eventually thought of any of these things and finished it. However, no matter how simple something may seem - even though it probably wasn't when it was being developed, we can't look back at things and dismiss what someone accomplished. They were the first to do it and to provide to us what we have today.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Let’s exhaustively explore what is obvious. Why do CP at all? One reason. To reduce moveset from requiring 5 types of moves to 4 types of moves to solve a cube (because going through all that pain just to reduce the scramble set by a factor of 6 for any other reason cannot be worth it).


Except most of the reason I use it in B2 is to reduce the case count so I can do fancier things like BLS. Just using it for 2-gen cmll isn't really worth it.


> How to do better? Reduce from 4 to 3. Thus extend to FB.


This is true


> How to do better? Reduce from 3 to 2. Thus, either SB+CMLL or EO+BF.


This does also have merit. However, I must point out that 2-gen is barely any better than 3-gen. As I said above, B2 does this to reduce to a state which is more easily influencible. Really, all 3 methods are mostly exploring the blocks which reduce the scramble set to a more manageable size while preserving the pseudo-2-geniness.


> Why I said the third method you described could “possibly” be non-obvious is:
> Simply continuing as MCELL is asymmetrical, movecount wise inefficient, moveset wise inefficient, higher algorithm count, look-ahead wise more difficult, etc. compared to the first two approaches. However, due to the asymmetries introduced by solving the DBR cube, you could categorise it as “not an obvious continuation”.


As I said above, in both the M-CELL and B2 continuation, 2-gen reduction is used just as much for reducing the alg count as getting a certain moveset. Breaking this down further,


> movecount wise inefficient


What do you mean by this? M-CELL is demonstrably efficient with or without CP. The movecount is at least comparable to the other 2-gen reduction methods.


> moveset wise inefficient


What does this really mean? If you mean you use more "types" of moves, that isn't really true. The moveset for cp M-CELL is generated by {R U* R', r U* r', M' U* M, U} which is just as nice to fingertrick as it requires few regrips because it induces few (if any) overrotations and sends the hands back to the home grip more often than not.


> look-ahead wise more difficult


Why? You eliminate the blind spots which could make lookahead more difficult the others. For that matter, the 2-alg 1lll is designed to reduce pauses as you can recog one 5-cycle while performing the other.

If your argument is asymmetry makes it non-obvious, that's a reasonable argument for it being fundamentally different (if one that I don't necessarily agree with) though I wouldn't use nebulous words like obvious to describe it.


> By the way, if you scroll up, I mentioned a 500-alg method alg, which basically is a more efficient version of CP-first MCELL.


It might be more move efficient, but I have always strived to keep alg counts reasonable by requiring no more algs than is necessary (which is a large part of my opposition to methods like LMCF). This is not only the reason M-CELL uses 2-alg, 1lll but also a big reason for why 2-gen could be used. Extending this to a 1-alg method (which is what your extension appears to do) is very in line with the case reduction that is the reasoning for cp-first B2 and M-CELL


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 10, 2020)

Hey I just had an idea. During this whole argument thing, people have said that this should be called Briggs with YruRU style CP. Well I was think about what YruRU stands for which is Yash's ru RU Reduction. So if we called it Yash's cp line and then ru RU reduction then that could abbreviate to *GASP*
YruRU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is just a suggestion of how we can finally come to a compromise and end this dumb argument that has been going on for way too long.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 10, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> Hey I just had an idea. During this whole argument thing, people have said that this should be called Briggs with YruRU style CP. Well I was think about what YruRU stands for which is Yash's ru RU Reduction. So if we called it Yash's cp line and then ru RU reduction then that could abbreviate to *GASP*
> YruRU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> This is just a suggestion of how we can finally come to a compromise and end this dumb argument that has been going on for way too long.


You are just ignoring Briggs and calling it what you called it before that’s not compromising a true comprimise would be to call all of these 2GR as they all reduce to 2 gen but I disagree with that because afaik that’s quite different. And you say it’s dumb but it’s not as it sets a precedent for future incidences where 2 people invent the same method and we could end up with loads of methods that are very similar.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 10, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> You are just ignoring Briggs and calling it what you called it before that’s not compromising a true comprimise would be to call all of these 2GR as they all reduce to 2 gen but I disagree with that because afaik that’s quite different. And you say it’s dumb but it’s not as it sets a precedent for future incidences where 2 people invent the same method and we could end up with loads of methods that are very similar.


Fine then. Go right ahead and keep arguing for no reason if that suits you. I was only trying to help solve the dispute. I was not targeting you or anyone else who thinks the same way as you. I just think this argument has become pointless and it is only causing anger and division. Neither of those things have a place in our community.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 10, 2020)

Athefre said:


> If we are to care at all about history or giving credit to the hard work people in the past have put into things, it is important to not claim that something is obvious. We can look at anything around us and, if we understand how it works, we can think that it is obvious. "I could have invented that." But look at what was happening before it was created. Who else did it? It almost always happens that there was no one else doing it or that there were a few people trying. The first person to succeed and develop is a significant moment. Research a term called Hindsight Bias. This is the tendency to look at something from the past and think that it is an obvious idea or event.
> 
> Who else was doing CP Line and the steps that follow before Joseph Briggs? I'm the one that showed the post by Gilles Roux. He may have talked about the idea and used it in FMC, but he never fully developed and presented it. Joseph Briggs gets credit for it because he was the first to complete it. Ryan Heise talked about EOLine+F2L before anyone else, but he never developed the complete method. So, Zbigniew Zborowski gets the credit because he was the first to complete it. People have even provided significant developments to current methods or have solved long-standing problems in those methods. These are developments that have completely changed the way people use those methods. But the method is still called by the original person's name.
> 
> Yes, someone else probably would have eventually thought of any of these things and finished it. However, no matter how simple something may seem - even though it probably wasn't when it was being developed, we can't look back at things and dismiss what someone accomplished. They were the first to do it and to provide to us what we have today.


This is a completely arbitrary choice of when exactly the person deserves credit in the developmental chain of an idea.

-Someone conceives an idea.
-Someone constructs a framework to use the idea in the middle of the solve since that is where is it currently possible.
-Someone constructs a framework to use that idea with assuming the idea is possible to use in the start of the solve.
-Someone finds a way to use the idea in the start of the solve.
-Someone finds a way use that idea in the start of the solve in a way potentially viable for speedsolving.
-Someone popularises the idea.
-Someone proves the idea is worth it by getting good times.
-Plus the numerous branches people went into during this process.

Now I’m not saying people down the chain built upon the ideas of people above them, they may have begun from scratch. However, if an entire method hinges on a single idea, it isn’t fair for the person in point 3 to get any more credit than the person in point 5.

Second, I am aware of hindsight bias; however check out the “about” page of the website I posted (which by the way I haven’t edited since day one of the website, you can check the history on GitHub).
Just because there is a term for this phenomenon doesn’t mean it is applicable everywhere. I wouldn’t in my dreams say that corner-edge pairs is the “obvious” continuation of cross, even if it seems so to us now.



shadowslice e said:


> Except most of the reason I use it in B2 is to reduce the case count so I can do fancier things like BLS. Just using it for 2-gen cmll isn't really worth it.



You do second block+CMLL; irrespective of how you do it, that is what you do

As for MCELL vs other methods in the said categories, I believe that is another debate that we have opposite views on, we can let that go for now.


----------



## ep2 (Jun 11, 2020)

Can I ask a possibly naive question. Why does it matter what something is called, other than people know what you're talking about when it's referred to?


----------



## Nmile7300 (Jun 11, 2020)

ep2 said:


> Can I ask a possibly naive question. Why does it matter what something is called, other than people know what you're talking about when it's referred to?


 This is what I've been trying to say the whole time.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 11, 2020)

ep2 said:


> Can I ask a possibly naive question. Why does it matter what something is called, other than people know what you're talking about when it's referred to?


If you've been reading this as about names, then you've been reading the conversation on a very surface level.

But I've had enough. I won't be posting on the subject again.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 12, 2020)

*An interesting find:*
The following is most likely not going to evolve into something that's useful in speedsolving, but I think is a cool observation.

After CP line, the extension to first block can always be done using only <r, u> moveset.
EOBF can always be done using only <r, U> moveset.
2-gen finish can always be done using only, you guessed it, <R, U> moveset.

So after CP line, one could solve the cube in 3 sets of 2-gen sequences.

The reason I believe this is most likely not going to evolve to be used in speedsolving is because, firstly it isn't that much of a speed boost, secondly the solutions do seem to be slightly inefficient due to the added restrictions, and thirdly our current 3x3x3 hardware isn't exactly made to do <r, u> gen turning quickly one-handed. It is possible to make 3x3x3 cubes with wider outer layers (like we see in big cubes) and golf-ball like dips in corner pieces to facilitate this turning style, and maybe we will see them one day if <r, u> - gen turning makes OH solving faster.

Nonetheless, this is a cool observation to play around with; I'll put a few examples on the example thread.

EDIT: I got few DMs disagreeing basically with point 1, with arguments ranging from better look ahead and case reduction to it being a more exciting way to solve. I've decided to put more thought behind this observation to see if it can be made more efficient and speedy; moreover it'll be too much work organising intuitive pEO extension, and I have end-terms for the next two weeks so it'll be better for me to go ahead with this relatively low effort exercise.


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 15, 2020)

YruRU Tutorial Part 3 - Advanced Tracing and pEO


----------



## Devagio (Jun 22, 2020)

Here is a pretty nice Chris Olsen type Ao5 (18s OH) walkthrough by @CuberStache. Since he didn’t post it, I thought I’ll do it. It’s a good representation of what solves would look like, so even people that don’t understand much of the method can make a decision of whether to try it out based on if they find the video interesting.

I haven’t been active because I haven’t been cubing much during my end-terms, and checking out chess when I take a break like most people in this lockdown have been doing. I’ll most likely get back after 24th.


----------



## trangium (Jun 28, 2020)

This is a thought that I've been toying around with for a little bit, and it could end up being quite useful.
After the reduction to <R, Rw, U> and EO, if it takes a lot of moves to solve DF and DB, or if you want to utilize some blocks that would get destroyed after solving DF and DB, you can solve the right square (or even all of F2L) before solving DF and DB


Spoiler: Example






Devagio said:


> Suppose you end up here -
> Scramble: R2 U’ B2 R2 D’ F2 D B2 R2 D2 B F2 U L2 R U L’ R’ F2 D
> Solution: z // inspection
> R S R2 F’ U’ F // CP-line
> ...


(the rest of this solve wasn't included)

DF+DB took 7 moves. That's 7 moves just to solve 2 pieces, not great. But what if you did this instead:
z // inspection
R S R2 F’ U’ F // CP-line
u’ R u’ R U R u2 // 123
U2 R2 U R’ r U’ r' // EO
U' R' U' // Easy square
r2 U' r' U2 r' // DF+DB (2-gen reduction)
R U R // F2L
U R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R U // 2GLL


Of course, you shouldn't do this every solve. But when there are easy blocks or a hard stripe, saving the stripe for after the square (or even after F2L is done) could be worthwhile.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 28, 2020)

trangium said:


> This is a thought that I've been toying around with for a little bit, and it could end up being quite useful.
> After the reduction to <R, Rw, U> and EO, if it takes a lot of moves to solve DF and DB, or if you want to utilize some blocks that would get destroyed after solving DF and DB, you can solve the right square (or even all of F2L) before solving DF and DB
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that this is useful! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 28, 2020)

trangium said:


> This is a thought that I've been toying around with for a little bit, and it could end up being quite useful.
> After the reduction to <R, Rw, U> and EO, if it takes a lot of moves to solve DF and DB, or if you want to utilize some blocks that would get destroyed after solving DF and DB, you can solve the right square (or even all of F2L) before solving DF and DB
> 
> 
> ...


This is where the solve starts getting really flexible and your example perfectly shows how helpful this simple tweak can be.
As you mentioned, it may not be useful unless an easy block is able to draw your attention during BF, but this does happen quite often. Quite brilliant to point it out and be aware of it during solves.


----------



## trangium (Jun 29, 2020)

I've been working on some small optimizations for YruRU.

An improvement on one of the algorithmic pEO cases:


Spoiler






Devagio said:


> U R u2 type insert, FB edge in UB:
> GGG: U R u2 U' r
> GGB: U R u2 U' r
> *GBG: *(r’ u' R u' / U2 r u R' u) U r U’ R U r*
> ...





Devagio said:


> * What I consider better here is (r’ u’ R u’ U r2) or (U2 r u R’ u U r2). It is much lower movecount and ensures a good edge ends up in DB, but it increases the probability 6 bad edges. Also, once in 2048 solves, you will have an 8 bad edges EO case if you use this; which is why I did not list it up there.


For GBG, there is a better way:
For the U R u2 type insert, you can use this algorithm: *r U' r' U r u2*
For the U R' u2 type insert, you can use this algorithm: *r U' r' U r' u2*
These algorithms can be thought of as doing r U' r', then the normal insert with a wide r move. They're the same length as the alternative algorithm without increasing the probability of 6 bad edges, and they eliminate the possibility of an 8 bad edge EO. (These two algorithms orient two of the top edges compared to all three for the long 10-move standard alg, but that's OK and could even be considered a strength for the second alg since it guarantees that a bad edge ends up in DF. I might be misunderstanding something about pEO, so if I am, let me know.)



A small optimization for CP-line when DFL is solved:


Spoiler



A lot of the time, when DFL is solved, solving CP can be <F, U> gen or <F, R> gen, perhaps with wide versions of those moves to help solve DL. You could rotate to solve CP with R and U moves, but then you have to perform a time-consuming rotation after CP is done. Right? Wrong. You could replace an x or y rotation with an L or D move, respectively, which also happens to influence the centers.
For example, scramble the cube with R2 D2 F L2 R2 D' F2 U2 R2 U L2 U2 F2 U B U2 B L U2 R' D.
You could start off the solve like this:
z' // inspection
F' U' F S' // CP-line
This is fine, but F moves are hard to execute quickly. How about this?
z' y' // inspection
R' U' R2 r' y // CP-line
This is fine, but the y rotation is slow. What if you did this?
z' y' // inspection
R' U' R2 r' D' // CP-line
Changing the y into a D' seems like a worthwhile trade to me. In fact, this trick allows you to influence the positioning of the L center by choosing to rotate or use a D move. In this case, the D move puts the L center into an arguably better position, allowing us to continue like this:
R2 u2 R' u' // FB
U' r2 // good edge in DB
You shouldn't use this if it affects the centers or FB in an unfavorable way, or if the CP-line contains all three of R, U, and F moves.
This concept can be applied to final x rotations and L moves too, but it's not as useful since x rotations aren't as bad as y rotations.



A more efficient way of doing nightmare cases, where DFL is twisted in place:


Spoiler






Devagio said:


> You could do normal tracing, put a swap pair in UFL and DFR (this will take 0 or 1 move 94% of the time) then do one of the following 2gen triggers based on the orientation of the twist: F2 R’ F R’ F R’ F or F2 U F’ U F’ U F. Will give you an 8 move 2gen CP-line; probably bearable.


This doesn't seem to work, and it's really inefficient. For the case where DFL needs to twist counterclockwise, put a swap pair in UBL and UBR and do F2 R' F. If CP is solved, do F2 R' F2 R2 F'. If DFL needs to twist clockwise, put a swap pair in UFL and UFR and do F2 U F'. If CP is solved, do F2 U F2 U2 F. Again, I might be misunderstanding something, so if I am, let me know.

As an example, scramble the cube with D2 F U2 L2 U B2 U2 B R F' U F2 U' R2 U' B2 D R2 D B2 L2.
Inspection: x' y'
U' // put a swap pair in UFL and UFR
F2 U F' // 4 move CP-line in the nightmare case!



Some people, including me at one point, reasoned that you have to do unergonomic moves at some point, and CP-line just moves those unergonomic moves to the start of the solve. However, two things changed my mind. First, every method's first step includes unergonomic moves for OH; it's just unavoidable. CP-line just makes it so that those intital unergonomic moves eliminate the need to use unergonomic moves later in the solve. Second, CP-line can be solved with only *one* F move if DFL is unsolved, and CP-line can often be solved with only one D or L move if you use the optimization above. (Or one rotation if you don't use the optimization)


----------



## Devagio (Jun 29, 2020)

trangium said:


> I've been working on some small optimizations for YruRU.
> 
> An improvement on one of the algorithmic pEO cases:
> 
> ...


Really love the nightmare case trigger; truly makes this one of the best cases now. Definitely implementing it right away in my solves!
Not sure if the D/L move instead of a rotation is such a good idea, it seems to be more work than a rotation to me given the next step is going to involve u/r moves so you’ll have to completely change your grip anyway. But if it works for some, it works.
Also that algorithmic pEO alg is quite creative. I believe intuitive pEO will be better in the long run, but I’m unable to “package” all ideas like we do in intuitive F2L by saying split-pair-insert. Maybe you’ll be able to come up with something there.


trangium said:


> every method's first step includes unergonomic moves for OH; it's just unavoidable. CP-line just makes it so that those intital unergonomic moves eliminate the need to use unergonomic moves later in the solve.


If I may add something to this reasoning; putting the entire unergonomic part of the solve towards one of the ends enables us to flow through the steps with much more confidence. An F2L novice will find F2L much more comfortable to do on EO-cross than on regular cross because of being safe in the knowledge that come what may, there will be no rotations; thus rotationless F2L on a normal cross which occurs 1/16 of the time will still be slower than F2L on EO-cross.
That was my reasoning at least.


trangium said:


> I've been working on some small optimizations for YruRU.


This is beautiful stuff, keep it coming!


----------



## ProStar (Jun 29, 2020)

I'm still working on sub-1 4x4


----------



## trangium (Jun 30, 2020)

Here's an intermediate 2GLL method that decreases the average LL movecount from 21.046 to 16.904 (excluding AUFs) with only 7-8 new algorithms.

The first step is to use a Sune/Antisune/Backsune/Backantisune to reduce a T, U, L, H, or Pi case to one of eight anti-phased Antisune cases. (If you have a Sune, phased Antisune, or O case, use the beginner approach.)
The second step is to do one of 8 Antisune algorithms to finish the cube.

Here are the five recognition cases for step 1:
U case: Put the headlights in the front.
T case: Put the misoriented corners in the left.
L case: Put the unsolved pieces in UFL and UBR, with the yellow stickers facing towards you.
Pi case: Put the headlights on the left.
H case: Put the headlights in the front.
As it turns out, the required pre-AUF matches the pre-AUF for normal OLL in all 5 cases.

If there are two misoriented corners (U, T, and L), do a Sune. If there are four misoriented corners (H and Pi), do an Antisune.

Anti-phasing during step 1 is actually really simple. If you need to do a Sune (R U R' U R U2 R'), check the UF and UR edges (or the UL and UB edges). If they're opposite, do a back antisune (U' R' U2 R U R' U R). If not, simply do a Sune. If you need to do an Antisune (R U2 R' U' R U' R'), check the UF and UL edges (or the UB and UR edges). If they're opposite, do a back sune (U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R). If not, simply do an Antisune.

If you want to determine the anti-phasing case before pre-AUF, that's also really easy. If the pre-AUF is a U2, anti-phasing recognition is exactly the same: UF and UR for Sune; UF and UL for Antisune. If the pre-AUF is a U or U', the recognition is reversed: Check the edges in UF and UL (before the pre-AUF) for Sune,; UF and UR for Antisune.

Why go through the trouble of anti-phasing? First, it decreases the number of cases from 12 to 8. Second, the 8 anti-phased cases that remain have an average movecount of 11 moves, with two 7-movers and no cases longer than 13 moves. The 4 phased cases, however, take an average of 14 moves, with the worst case, the pure 3-twist, needing 17 moves to solve! Third, it does not cost any moves to anti-phase, due to being able to switch between Antisune and Backsune; and Sune and Backantisune. Fourth, anti-phasing is really easy to recognize: you just see if two stickers are opposites or not. Basically, anti-phasing saves moves at no cost. That being said, if anti-phasing is not for you, you can skip it and learn all 12 of the Antisune cases.

Examples:


Spoiler



1. R2 U' R U' R U R' U R U R' U' R' U R2
This is an L case. The pre-AUF is already correct. Since there are two misoriented corners, we need to do a Sune, so we check UF and UR. They're opposite, so we do a back antisune instead.
U' R' U2 R U R' U R // Step 1
U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2 U' R' U // Step 2 + AUF

2. U2 R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' R U' R' U
This is a U case. We are a U' away from the regular U orientation, so that's are pre-AUF. Since there are two misoriented corners, we need to do a Sune, so we check UF and UR. They're adjacent, so we proceed with a Sune.
U' // pre-AUF
R U R' U R U2 R' // Step 1
R U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2 U' R' U2 // Step 2 + AUF

3. U R U2 R' U' R' U' R' U' R U R' U' R2 U2 R U2
This is a Pi case. We are a U2 away from the regular Pi orientation, so that's our pre-AUF. Since there are four misoriented corners, we need to do an Antisune, so we check UF and UL. They are opposite, so we do a Back sune instead.
U2 // pre-AUF
U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R // Step 1
R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R U R2 U R2 U' // Step 2 + AUF

4. R U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R U
This is an H case. We are a U' away from the regular H orientation, so that's our pre-AUF. Since there are four misoriented corners, we need to do an Antisune, so we check UF and UL. They are adjacent, so we proceed with an Antisune.
U' // pre-AUF
R U2 R' U' R U' R' // Step 1
U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R // Step 2

5. U R2 U R U R2 U' R' U' R2 U' R U' R' U2
This is a Sune case, so we should use the beginner way to solve LL.
U2 // pre-AUF
R U R' U R U2 R' // OLL
U' R2 U' R' U' R U R U R U' R // PLL

6. U R' U' R U' R U R' U' R U R2 U R2 U' R' U R U' R'
This is an Antisune case. If this happens to be anti-phased, we already know this alg. Since we recognize this case as one that we know, it is anti-phased, and we can do this in one look!
// Step 1 skip
R2 U' R' U R U R' U2 R' U R2 U R2 U' // Step 2 + AUF



The eight anti-phased Antisune cases (these algorithms are from the website, except for #5 and #8):


Spoiler



R' U' R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R [11] - Pseudo-Backsune (Anti-Benny)
(U) R U2 R' U' R U' R' [7] - Antisune
R U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U R2 U' R' [11] - Pseudo-Antisune (Back-Benny)
R' U' R U' R' U2 R [7] - Backsune
(U) R2 U' R' U R U R' U2 R' U R2 U R2 [13] - Adj-Adj Square + no blocks
(U) R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R U R2 U R2 [13] - Trapped Block
(U) R2 U R2 U R U2 R' U R U R U' R2 [13] - Free Block
(U) R2 U R2 U R' U2 R' U R U R' U' R2 [13] - Adj-Opp Square + no-blocks


----------



## Exotic Butters (Jul 2, 2020)

If we were to solve the two corners in the bottom left (disregarding CP), what would the probability of having CP already complete be? is it also 1/6 just like last layer?


----------



## mukerflap (Jul 2, 2020)

Exotic Butters said:


> If we were to solve the two corners in the bottom left (disregarding CP), what would the probability of having CP already complete be? is it also 1/6 just like last layer?


there are only 6 possible CP cases always so yeah 1/6


----------



## Exotic Butters (Jul 2, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> there are only 6 possible CP cases always so yeah 1/6


Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying


----------



## trangium (Jul 3, 2020)

I generated some 2GLLs with Cube Explorer. Then I compiled a list of 2GLL algorithms that are/could be better than the ones on Devagio's website, which are in the table below. An algorithm is considered Tier 1 if nearly everyone would find it faster than the one on Devagio's website. An algorithm is considered Tier 2 if some people, including me, would find it faster, and considered Tier 3 if some people, excluding me, would find it faster. I operated under the assumption that R is faster than R', U' is faster than U, and U2 is faster than R2. I execute my R2s in one strong flick, meaning some R2-heavy algorithms still make it into Tier 2.

The naming of the alg is based on the OLL case and the ordering on Devagio's website. I didn't provide a starting AUF for any of the algs, but it should be easy to figure out.

Note that these are OH-optimized algs, and that many of these algs are trash for 2H.



Spoiler: The list of algs




AlgNameTierR' U' R U R U' R' U2 R' U2 R U' R U2 R'T12R' U2 R2 U' R U' R U' R U' R' U2 R2 U R2T22R' U2 R U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R' U RT53R' U2 R U' R2 U R U' R U' R U' R U R'T63R U' R U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R U' R' U' R2T73R U' R' U2 R' U2 R U' R U2 R' U2 R' U' RL12R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'L21R' U2 R U R' U R U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'L51R U' R U2 R U' R' U R U' R2 U' R' U2 R'L62R' U' R U' R' U2 R U' R U R' U R U2 R'L71R2 U' R U R U' R' U' R U' R' U R' U R2L92R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R U' R2L112R' U2 R U' R U2 R' U2 R' U' R U R U' R'U12R U R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R U2 R'U53R2 U' R' U' R U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R U' RU122R' U R' U' R' U R U R' U2 R U2 R U' RU122R2 U R U' R U2 R U' R U2 R U' R U R2S11R' U' R U' R U R' U R U2 R' U' R' U RS53R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U RS82R' U' R2 U R U R' U' R U R2 U2 R'S103R U R' U' R' U2 R U R' U R U' R U' R'S113R' U' R U R U2 R' U' R' U R U' R U' R'A33R U2 R2 U' R' U' R' U R U R2 U' R'A42R U R' U' R' U' R U R U' R' U' R' U RA41R U R2 U' R' U' R U R' U' R2 U2 RA53R U2 R2 U' R' U R U' R' U' R2 U RA73R2 U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U' R2A92R2 U' R' U R U R' U2 R' U R2 U R2A92R U' R U R U R' U' R' U' R2 U' R U' R'A92R' U' R' U R' U2 R' U' R U' R U' R U RA103R2 U' R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R2A112R2 U R2 U R' U2 R' U R U R' U' R2A112R' U' R U' R2 U' R' U' R' U R U R U' RA112R U R U' R U' R U' R' U2 R' U R' U' R'A123R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R U2 R'P12R U2 R' U' R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R U2 R'P12R U2 R' U' R U' R' U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'P21R' U' R U R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 RP31R U2 R2 U' R U' R' U2 R U R U' R'P41R U R' U R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U RP101R U2 R2 U' R' U R U' R' U' R' U' R' U2 RP112R U' R' U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U R U' R'P122R' U' R U' R' U R U' R2 U' R' U' R' U R U R U' RH11R U R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R U2 R U' R2 U' R2 U RH12R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R U2 R' U' R U' R'H22R' U2 R2 U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R2 U2 R'H33R U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R2 U2 RH43


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 5, 2020)

I finally got around to try the method , my CPLine was very inefficient but I don't think it's that hard to do it, what the hardest step for me to do tho is the pEO extension, I got a bit confused on that part, I would say this is a fast method method for OH and I will try to use it more.


----------



## Devagio (Jul 5, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I finally got around to try the method , my CPLine was very inefficient but I don't think it's that hard to do it, what the hardest step for me to do tho is the pEO extension, I got a bit confused on that part, I would say this is a fast method method for OH and I will try to use it more.


That’s awesome!
pEO is indeed the trickiest step for most people I’ve talked to. If you’re going for the intuitive approach, I guess just look at a lot of examples; else the path for algorithmic way to do it is clear enough. Best of luck!


trangium said:


> I generated some 2GLLs with Cube Explorer. Then I compiled a list of 2GLL algorithms that are/could be better than the ones on Devagio's website, which are in the table below. An algorithm is considered Tier 1 if nearly everyone would find it faster than the one on Devagio's website. An algorithm is considered Tier 2 if some people, including me, would find it faster, and considered Tier 3 if some people, excluding me, would find it faster. I operated under the assumption that R is faster than R', U' is faster than U, and U2 is faster than R2. I execute my R2s in one strong flick, meaning some R2-heavy algorithms still make it into Tier 2.
> 
> The naming of the alg is based on the OLL case and the ordering on Devagio's website. I didn't provide a starting AUF for any of the algs, but it should be easy to figure out.
> 
> ...


This is really helpful. I just looked at a couple of sheets I found online and compared the algs to the 2-gen move optimal (HTM optimised, sorted by QTM) algs that I genned, so there’s a good chance many of these are better algorithms.

Also I realised it’ll be a pain for a newcomer to try and search for the website, so I’ve added that to the OP.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 1, 2020)

Which lines can I make with x2 y2 neutrality?


----------



## Cuberstache (Aug 1, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> Which lines can I make with x2 y2 neutrality?


white/red, white/orange, yellow/red, yellow/orange

The point is that you always have white or yellow on top and green or blue in front so EO recognition is always the same


----------



## zzcuberman (Aug 1, 2020)

Videos of averages with this? Id like to see it in the works ya know?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 1, 2020)

zzcuberman said:


> Videos of averages with this? Id like to see it in the works ya know?


Check @CuberStache's Youtube


----------



## Devagio (Aug 15, 2020)

I believe YruRU has been developed enough in general terms, I do not sense any huge changes coming; any more changes would either be on a case basis, or personal preference (basically add-ons). 

While I am, along with a good number of people I know, pushing it by simply practicing with it as my main method and getting better times; I have decided to invest my time in a new idea which you can find on this thread. It is a much simpler idea than YruRU, but it does seem like a worthwhile pursuit so far. Check it out, it will get you interested for sure.

That said, this thread is obviously open incase anyone has ideas all of us missed, or otherwise.


----------



## Cuberstache (Aug 22, 2020)

The reconstruction thread


Wait, what! Nobody can even get a sub 1 ao5 officially, and you just burst the flipping door down with a sub 1 ao12 Bruh scale over 9000 A few of the top 2x2ers have sub-1 Ao12s. Still really impressive though




www.speedsolving.com




A 16.88 ao12 with reconstructions, hopefully this can help bring some substance to the theories presented in this thread

Only 3 solves were over 60 STM, two had mistakes and the third had the highest TPS of any solve in the ao12; it was an inefficient but fast way to solve the 2-gen state. This is counting things like U' U or R' R' as two moves, basically ETM but not counting rotations. And keep in mind that about half of those moves are 2-gen <R, U>
I can easily inspect under 15 seconds and can even plan into the extension most solves
I didn't keep track of my OH times with CFOP but this almost certainly would have beaten my CFOP OH PB ao12
I firmly believe that YruRU is _at least_ a top contender as far as OH methods go.


----------



## Devagio (Nov 17, 2020)

A brief update about my progress with the method, to keep this thread semi-active:
Finally sub-18 ao100 as I resumed practicing a lot with the method. Still haven't caught up to @CuberStache but hopefully will do soon.
Still x2y2 neutral, but I occasionally make the 2gen f2l block on UL.
My solves are typically efficient but slow, I need to learn to spam TPS. I intend to drill all 2GLLs and do only 2-gen solves for a while to improve.

It may be too premature for me to say this yet, but I can see sub-12 OH averages should be easy for seasoned solvers with this method.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 17, 2020)

I am having trouble with the CP part. I have no idea what i am doing or what CP stands for. Every other part of the method i'm golden in. I just need help with CP.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Nov 17, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I am having trouble with the CP part. I have no idea what i am doing or what CP stands for. Every other part of the method i'm golden in. I just need help with CP.


CP stands for “corner permutation.” You basically put all of the corners in their respective places, but they don’t necessarily have to be oriented correctly.


----------



## Cuberstache (Nov 18, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I am having trouble with the CP part. I have no idea what i am doing or what CP stands for. Every other part of the method i'm golden in. I just need help with CP.


Check the CPLine tutorial on my youtube channel. It's what forces a 2GLL at the end, but it's really complicated to do.


----------



## LukasCubes (Nov 18, 2020)

CuberStache said:


> Check the CPLine tutorial on my youtube channel. It's what forces a 2GLL at the end, but it's really complicated to do.


yeah i did that a few weeks ago.I was lukas14herrell on ur stream that one time remember? anyway ima wait until tomorrow to actually watch it again.


----------



## Devagio (Feb 13, 2021)

This method doesn't have a dedicated discord group yet; but there is now a YruRU channel on the Mehta discord. In the future if there is sufficient demand, we will have a separate discord group for YruRU as well, which I will update here with the invite link. Till then, if interested, please join the Mehta discord.


----------



## abunickabhi (Feb 13, 2021)

Devagio said:


> This method doesn't have a dedicated discord group yet; but there is now a YruRU channel on the Mehta discord. In the future if there is sufficient demand, we will have a separate discord group for YruRU as well, which I will update here with the invite link. Till then, if interested, please join the Mehta discord.


You can have the discord link in your signature. The SS Forum can be changed in settings.


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 13, 2021)

CuberStache said:


> Check the CPLine tutorial on my youtube channel.


A direct link, please?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Feb 13, 2021)

Pyjam said:


> A direct link, please?


----------



## Cuberstache (Feb 13, 2021)

Pyjam said:


> A direct link, please?





BenChristman1 said:


>


Make sure you also check out part 3 linked in the description, this video is a bit outdated


----------



## zed zed (Feb 14, 2021)

I had a method based on a similar concept of CP before learning about this much more optimal (and slightly older) method.



Spoiler: Steps



1. EO 223
2. CP using only one algorithm (not optimal)
3. 2 gen

The cube can be reduced as such:
scrambled <R, L, U, D, F, B>
EO 223 <R, L, U>
CP <R, U>
2 gen <1>

One can see that both methods reduce to 2 gen, but using different steps





Spoiler: My thoughts



EO 223 comes from petrus, solving EO and every piece but the ones in R or U, this step can be done with a 2x2x2 in LBD, EO using free F face, followed by square in front.
CP can only be done using one algorithm when the swap is known and set up is done, I usually solve D corner permutation, then match either 2 or 4 U corners to their E slice edges, then swapping the remaining two un-matched corners with j perm (obviously there are better algs).
2 gen is preferably F2L + 2GLL, though I also find F2L + OCLL + EPLL fairly efficient.

The only problem I see so far is the EO step of the EO 223; EO is usually recognized with a long inspection, never in the middle of a solve.
Other problems like inefficient CP can be solved with better and more algs.

Both methods have their strengths, but I think YruRU still stands higher with better research and more experienced cubers using it.
I mean I'm only sub 25 and barely sub 1 one handed.


----------



## tsmosher (May 7, 2021)

Hey @Devagio ,

In the About section on your YruRU method, you talk about another potential approach (after FBpEO) that you shot down:



> The second way is to reduce the moveset to M-U, i.e. continue like Roux and make a second block; but since CMLL will only be 7 algorithms, we can combine CMLL with second block. This requires 108 algorithms (54 if we are allowed to do M moves before commencing the algorithm) which are all short and [r, R, U]-gen. I tested out both approaches by generating all algorithms, and developed both ideas, till I came across a way to do partial edge orientation during the extension of 1x1x3 to 1x2x3. Also, the extension when applied all by itself is quite inefficient. Thus, unless there was a way to plan CP and FB both in inspection, I concluded that the second approach would not work as good as the first one. [...] The second approach, I named YRoux, because it sounds similar enough and it essentially borrows from Roux.



Do you have any of these YRoux algs you generated? (You can assume M setup moves are allowed or disallowed-- whichever is easier.)

Id be interested in checking such a method out...

Thanks,
Tim.


----------



## Cubing Forever (May 7, 2021)

I think this is what you're talking about. Images aren't working so if you have the time plug the algs into ACN and check them out.



Spoiler




Swap + No (Solved)(U) R U' R' U R U2 R2 U' R U' R' U2 R
(U) R' U2 R U R' U R2 U2 R' U' R U R'(R U' R')(U) R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'
(U) R U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' R U' R
(U) R U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' R U' R'(U2) R' U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' R2 U R
R U R' U' R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R(R U' R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R)((U')) R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U R'() R U R' U' R U' R'(U) R U' R' U R U2 R'(U) F r U2 R' U' R U' r' F R' F2 RR U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R(U) R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R()R F' r U R' U' r' F R U' R'
(U') r' U2 R U R' U r F2 r U r' F
(U) R U R' U R2 U' R2 U R U2 R2 U R' U2 R' U R(U) R U2 R2 U' R U' R' U2 RR U' R' U R' U2 R U R' U R(U) R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'(U') R U R2 U2 R' U R2 U' R' U R2 U R(U) R U2 R'(U2) r2 U R' U R U2 r2 U' r U2 r'
R U R' U R2 U' R' U R' U R' U R' U' R
(U') R U' R U2 R' U' R' U R U' R U' R2
(U) R2 U' R2 U R' U2 R2 U R U2 R' U' R
(U) R' U R U2 R' U' R2 U2 R U' R2 U R2
(U) R' U2 R' U R' U' R2 U R' U R2 U2 R'
(U) R' U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U2 R'(U) R2 U2 R' U R' U2 R U2 R U R' U' R'
(U) R2 U' R U' R2 U2 R2 U R U' R2 U' RR U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R'R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R(U) R U2 R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R
(U) R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R'(U') R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U' R U R'
(U') R2 U R' U R' U' R U R U2 R2(U) R U' R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'(U) R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U RR U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 RR U R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'



(Note: Multiple algs in a cell are alts for the same case)


----------



## tsmosher (May 7, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> I think this is what you're talking about. Images aren't working so if you have the time plug the algs into ACN and check them out.
> (Note: Multiple algs in a cell are alts for the same case)



What are these? SBLS algs?

The case count (54-108) doesn't match up to your 27.
That's the main thing that has me .


----------



## Cubing Forever (May 7, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> What are these? SBLS algs?
> 
> The case count (54-108) doesn't match up to your 27.
> That's the main thing that has me .


CP solved WVCP cases. That's only part of the cases. The other set, i.e SVCP isn't genned yet


----------



## Cuberstache (Jun 14, 2021)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbyguGdcaAf1XtIBeZhkY6qpdhNnYcDHu 
I made new YruRU tutorials because the old ones were outdated.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jun 14, 2021)

CuberStache said:


> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbyguGdcaAf1XtIBeZhkY6qpdhNnYcDHu
> I made new YruRU tutorials because the old ones were outdated.


Yo remember me?


----------



## Athefre (Dec 15, 2021)

I have a proposal. I recently made a post about CP methods. My suggestion was to group all of the CPLine > EOCP 2x2x3 > RB methods into one method and give them a single name. First we had Gilles Roux's idea, then Noah's CP Block 2.0, then Briggs, then C2GR, and finally YruRU. All with essentially the same steps. So how about we have a single method and call it CEOR? This would remove the problem of having various methods that are the same thing except with different CP recognition styles. We also wouldn't be using someone's name when there have been various creators with their own contributions to the general method.

Devagio himself thinks that the method shouldn't be named after a person as seen below.



> The only issue I have is calling these method/s “Briggs”. Naming the method after a person is wrong. Call it CEF (for CP-line, EO-223, Finish) for all I care, vote and pick an impersonal name.


Link

YruRU, when it was being presented as a method, was named after himself. So it makes even more sense to use a general name.



> I've named the method YruRU [pronounced vaay-roo-roo], short for Yash's r-u-R-U reduction.


Link

CEOR is a perfect name. We have LEOR which does the Left block without CP. Then we have CEOR which is the CP version with the left block. So when you are using this CP method, you would say that you are using CEOR. Not Briggs or YruRU or any other. It isn't necessary to add on to the method which CP recognition method you are using. But if others are curious which recognition method they can use, that information will be available on the wiki page and other sources. We can however have things like CEOR-b which would be the CP version of LEOR-b as PapaSmurf suggested.

PapaSmurf suggested the name CEOR and also to extend the method from not just CPLine but to CPFB > EOCP 2x2x3 > RB. You can read more about the method grouping at the bottom of my main post and also in PapaSmurf's post.


----------



## Devagio (Dec 16, 2021)

Athefre said:


> I have a proposal. I recently made a post about CP methods. My suggestion was to group all of the CPLine > EOCP 2x2x3 > RB methods into one method and give them a single name. First we had Gilles Roux's idea, then Noah's CP Block 2.0, then Briggs, then C2GR, and finally YruRU. All with essentially the same steps. So how about we have a single method and call it CEOR? This would remove the problem of having various methods that are the same thing except with different CP recognition styles. We also wouldn't be using someone's name when there have been various creators with their own contributions to the general method.
> 
> Devagio himself thinks that the method shouldn't be named after a person as seen below.
> 
> ...


Strongly in support of this idea. Will start implementing and promoting it wherever I’m mindful enough to do so.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 18, 2021)

How do we want to handle the merging? I could certainly make the CEOR wiki page and redirect the various pages to there. Then have the various proposers, the steps, recognition methods, a history section, links to the original proposals, and so on.

But what about the YruRU website? Currently it is titled "YruRU Method" and even has all of the steps of a method. Maybe we could convert that into a CEOR website? That would mean adding the other recognition methods. Or do some rewording or restructuring of the site to have it be clear that it is the YruRU recognition method and the recommended method to use it with is CEOR.


----------



## Devagio (Dec 20, 2021)

Athefre said:


> How do we want to handle the merging? I could certainly make the CEOR wiki page and redirect the various pages to there. Then have the various proposers, the steps, recognition methods, a history section, links to the original proposals, and so on.
> 
> But what about the YruRU website? Currently it is titled "YruRU Method" and even has all of the steps of a method. Maybe we could convert that into a CEOR website? That would mean adding the other recognition methods. Or do some rewording or restructuring of the site to have it be clear that it is the YruRU recognition method and the recommended method to use it with is CEOR.


It'll probably be far too much work converting the website to a general CEOR website with all recognition methods; I will make the changes and the rewordings to highlight these changes though.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 20, 2021)

If I can find the time (and effort), I may write a doc that lays out and compares all CEOR and 2gr recog/solving methods into one. It won't contain nuances of the approaches, but certainly a brief overview of how each one works. I reckon what you're saying about the YruRU site should work fine.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 25, 2021)

I have created the wiki page for CEOR. Do we want to re-direct the Briggs and YruRU pages to CEOR or do we want to re-write those pages to be CP method pages? It's probably best to re-direct then have a simple description of the various CP recognition methods on the CEOR page along with links to any sites or videos that go into more detail.



PapaSmurf said:


> If I can find the time (and effort), I may write a doc that lays out and compares all CEOR and 2gr recog/solving methods into one. It won't contain nuances of the approaches, but certainly a brief overview of how each one works. I reckon what you're saying about the YruRU site should work fine.


It would be great if you could do this. I think it would also be helpful if you added a summary of the recognition methods to the CEOR wiki page.


----------



## Silky (Jun 30, 2022)

So I've recently been playing around with DR and was wondering if anyone has explored the idea of solving all 11 remaining pieces after DR and CP is preformed. To be more clear after getting to 2x2x3 + EO + CP you would solve remaining E-slice edges while orienting the last 6 corners. Following this you'd solve 6CP and L5EP in one look. Obviously since YruRU solves CP in inspection this would be applicable. It's a bit of a mix between YruRU and Mehta 6CO/6CP. Recognition probably isn't fantastic but seems like a novel idea. Thought I throw it out there


----------

