# A Hybrid method, Roux-Fridrich



## ChaosWZ (Jul 25, 2009)

Well ive found (with practice) roux f2b (equivalent to f2l for those who dont know) can be done in like 16 moves easily, at 5 tps thats like barely over 3 seconds (if youre some computer and have no recog delay) add in recognition delay and say 5 seconds at 5 tps. Then fix bad edges, solve the first 2 layers coll epll. I tried it, i average like 25 with fridrich, 33 with roux, with this on the FIRST solve i got 28, not bad fixing bad edges is optional, and coll can be replaced with oll. heres how it works layed out

First 1x2x3 on the left
Second 1x2x3 on the right
Fix the bad edges (easy to learn to do, should take 2-3 seconds)
Solve the first 2 layer(just moving 2 good edges, is that hard? should be done in about 1-2 seconds)
Coll (or if you dont fix bad edges oll)
Epll (or if you dont fix bad edges pll)

Either way it should be a very fast method even at low turn speeds. Good chance of a pll skip (1/12?) and coll isnt necessary you can do cmll then fix bad edges if you already know it

Anyway try it out and tell me what you think, if youre one of those people who hates hybrid methods because theyre never as good as the original, im pretty sure that an xcross isnt a stupid thing or eoll coll isnt stupid because that works nicely.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jul 25, 2009)

ChaosWZ said:


> Well ive found (with practice) roux f2b [..] can be done in like 16 moves easily


If you always solve both blocks optimally and are completely color neutral, the average is about 16. This is the first time I hear anyone call that easy. Some example scrambles and solutions please!

Btw I hope "like 16" didn't mean "actually it's over 20".



ChaosWZ said:


> Then fix bad edges, solve the first 2 layers coll epll.


Hybrids like this have suggested many times and all experienced Roux users seem to think that it's not good. To me, CMLL and MU-finish feels much more natural and efficient. Have you compared the move counts of your idea and normal Roux?



ChaosWZ said:


> Good chance of a pll skip (1/12?)


Yup, 1/12.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 25, 2009)

I came up with a variant of this a while back, but yours may be faster.

I've used:

First 1x2x3 on left
Second 1x2x3 on right
CMLL
EO for both layers
Permute top and bottom edges into their respective layers (using M' U2 M or M' U2 M2 U2 M')
*Bottom layer may require an opposite edge swap (M2 U2 M2 U2 or U M2 U2 M2 U)*
EPLL

I've gone sub-19 with it, but I had an easy first block. My average using this is about 24 seconds.

I voted for the third option, but I would say that it has the potential to be fast, but Roux is probably superior.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jul 25, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> First 1x2x3 on left
> Second 1x2x3 on right
> CMLL
> EO for both layers
> ...


That's almost normal Roux, you just solve DF and DB instead of UR and UL. Is EPLL somehow better than permuting M-slice? It seems clearly longer and slower to me.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 25, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> That's almost normal Roux, you just solve DF and DB instead of UR and UL. Is EPLL somehow better than permuting M-slice?



That's why Roux is probably better than any derivatives involving PLL.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2009)

Proposed a billion times. Nothing 'hybrid' about it. Inferior.


----------



## ErikJ (Jul 25, 2009)

this is not new. this is just the way that lazy people do roux method.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 25, 2009)

ErikJ said:


> this is not new. this is just the way that lazy people do roux method.



Soo true...


----------



## jacob15728 (Jul 27, 2009)

Or you can just use Petrus


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 31, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> That's almost normal Roux, you just solve DF and DB instead of UR and UL. Is EPLL somehow better than permuting M-slice? It seems clearly longer and slower to me.



The M slice is waaaay faster than the U layer edges.



JTW2007 said:


> I voted for the third option, but I would say that it has the potential to be fast, but *Roux is probably superior.*



Heck, even full Fridrich is superior to this.


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 31, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > this is not new. this is just the way that lazy people do roux method.
> ...



I'll just say the same thing that I always say when I see someone hybridizing Roux/Petrus with Fridrich. Which is....

The point of both of these methods is to reduces the cube to two layers. Roux reduces to M,U and Petrus to R, U. These steps are both blindingly fast but people seem to shy away from them due to bad edges. Also might I point out that these hybrids always come out during bad edges?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 31, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> The point of both of these methods is to reduces the cube to two layers. Roux reduces to M,U and Petrus to R, U. These steps are both blindingly fast but people seem to shy away from them due to bad edges. Also might I point out that these hybrids always come out during bad edges?



Yea, maybe people should just man up and learn the whole freaking method. 

EDIT: I agree with your "blindingly fast", I just checked and my blocks usually take me 15-20 seconds, my corners about 5 (I'm using 2 look right now) and about 3-7 seconds for the last edges. On my 19.00 PB, I did sub-2 edges, just because I was able to see the orientation, and permutation within milliseconds.


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 31, 2009)

I was really referring to step 4 of the petrus method which takes me 2 or 3 seconds =]. It's like CCCHHHHHHHHKKKKKKKK done.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 31, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I was really referring to step 4 of the petrus method which takes me 2 or 3 seconds =]. It's like *CCCHHHHHHHHKKKKKKKK* done.



Lol nice sound. And I was referring to step 4 of the Roux method .


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 31, 2009)

Any variation of Roux is not Roux at all. and people who combine a block building method to LBL type method should just not try to hybridize anything.

(Hybridizing has mating involved and you can't just do that. In other words go**** yourself)

@Sn3kyPandaMan- sub-1.5 bad edges


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 31, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> Any variation of Roux is not Roux at all. and people who combine a block building method to LBL type method should just not try to hybridize anything.
> 
> (Hybridizing has mating involved and you can't just do that. In other words go**** yourself)
> 
> @Sn3kyPandaMan- sub-1.5 bad edges



You or me? I know me, and I bet you too. Erik as well. =]. Bad edges are easy poop. Also LOL @ you know what.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 31, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Any variation of Roux is not Roux at all. and people who combine a block building method to LBL type method should just not try to hybridize anything.
> ...



only smart people highlight 
Bad edges just scare so many people.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 31, 2009)

Roux-rich
*knee slap*



Chris

P.S. I'm not making fun of the hybrid method, I just thought this name for the hybrid method was particularly *knee slap* ;-)


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 31, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> Roux-rich
> *knee slap*
> 
> 
> ...



We should have a knee-slap smiley .


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 31, 2009)

jacob15728 said:


> Or you can just use Petrus


No.

And it doesn't matter who cares it isn't faster in the long run.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

man up and use full roux?

This hybrid takes the fun out of roux, and the awsome M slice's


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 31, 2009)

I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 31, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.



ZOMG that is the most godly method EVAH!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > I has an idea guyz. Let's do corners first, but instead of the normal ending, let's do OLL PLL.
> ...



Hmm i dont know i like the hammer method better


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...



I made a new one. It goes 1x2x2, opposite 1x2x2, both 1x2x3's by adding on CE pairs, then f2l, the full oll pll.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


OHH im advancing that method. Why not make a 3x3x2 block then OLL and PLL


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



3x3x2 block hahahaha I'm actually going to try this. Maybe 2x2x3 with a 1x2x3.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...


wouldnt that just be petrus without fixing the bad edges. seeing as you cant actually build the entire 1x2x3 after the 2x2x3.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...



That's silly, just learn my method and start by making a 3x3x3 block.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



that works. oh and after you complete that you have to perform this algorithm if you run into parity.

R2 L2 D2 B D B' L L' B D' B B2 D2 L2 r2 b2 d2 d2 b2 r2 R2


----------



## qqwref (Aug 1, 2009)

I think the "cross only" method is the best. Just solve the cross. Are you done? If not, you did something wrong... so go solve a cross on another side. Still not done? Keep going... you'll get it eventually.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I think the "cross only" method is the best. Just solve the cross. Are you done? If not, you did something wrong... so go solve a cross on another side. Still not done? Keep going... you'll get it eventually.



LOL

What about this with a 2x2? Make them feel like they're doing something "hard"


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> LOL
> 
> What about this with a 2x2? Make them feel like they're doing something "hard"



Haha, I trademarked that method already .


----------



## Rikane (Aug 1, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I think the "cross only" method is the best. Just solve the cross. Are you done? If not, you did something wrong... so go solve a cross on another side. Still not done? Keep going... you'll get it eventually.



Being stupid and not knowing anything about cube theory, I tried that out for fun.


```
F U' R2 D2 B F' L2 B' F' L D2 F2 L B F' R2 D' L2 R2 F U' L' D F2 R2
W-B-R-Y-O-G
Solve 29 - All crosses Solved.

F2 L2 B' R L' D' U' B2 F' L2 D2 L D2 B' R' U F D2 F D2 R U2 R' B F2
W-B-R-Y-O-G
Solve 22 - All crosses solved.

B U L2 D2 B F2 D R F' B2 U2 F2 B L B2 D2 L R F' D' B' D2 B2 D' B
W-B-R-Y-O-G
Solve 3, Yellow cross finished, skipped onto next colour
Solve 9 - All crosses solved.
```

Haha, waste of time.


----------



## mazei (Aug 1, 2009)

Guys, to me its just a last 6 edges variant.

Do it as normal until CMLL. Do that, then bad edges then solve the DF and DB edges. Lastly you get a EPLL, which YOU CAN DO WITH M,U(Manchester United ). In any case, after doing some averages with Roux I feel like going back to it. Its a nice method but then again, I love redux on big cubes so I guess either I stick to Fridrich or learn a new big cube method or use both methods.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 1, 2009)

mazei said:


> Guys, to me its just a last 6 edges variant.
> 
> Do it as normal until CMLL. Do that, then bad edges then solve the DF and DB edges. Lastly you get a EPLL, which YOU CAN DO WITH M,U(Manchester United ). In any case, after doing some averages with Roux I feel like going back to it. Its a nice method but then again, I love redux on big cubes so I guess either I stick to Fridrich or learn a new big cube method or use both methods.



We've already stated that this is very inefficient, unless it's a lucky case, like with 1 or both of the pieces already solved.


----------



## bamilan (Aug 23, 2009)

I think Roux is a very clever person and an experienced speedcuber; and when he got the idea of starting with 2 opposite 1x2x3 blocks(blocks on opposite sides), he tried every finish possible. Counted move counts(number of moves), times, fingertricks, and the corners+6 edges finish were the best of them.
I think you cannot find any better finish(starting with 1x2x3 blocks).


Not so long ago I tried to change the method I used to a variation of the Roux and the Fridrich methods. My idea was to start with 1x2x2 blocks on opposite sides(with a lot of practise you can see how to solve them during the 15 sec inspection) => that was the best thing in it. This step can be done in ~3 seconds, which(if you think about it) is really good.


From this point you have a lot of options:

- finish with Fridrich: solve remaining 2 cross pieces(max 2 seconds), and continue the solve(solve the cross and 2 F2L in 5 sec is not too bad, but neither too good)

- finish with Roux: solve remaining 2 corner-edge pair(for this there are different methods[fridrich's F2L, Roux's CE pair, ...]), but it was slower for me than solving the 1x2x3 blocks with Roux(I am not good at Roux method(avg around 16 seconds); I don't think 1x2x2 is a better start then 1x2x3 if you finish the solve using Roux

- finish with Petrus: you can orient edges and solve the missing edge between the solved blocks at the same time, and then continue the solve; I think this was good because you need only 1 look to solve a 2x2x3 block with all edges oriented(inspection is not counted)

- also tried to finish with corners first, edges first, thistlethwaite, and so on; but they did not succeed 

It is ONLY a good start if you can see both 1x2x2 blocks during inspection.


Milan


----------



## miniGOINGS (Sep 1, 2009)

bamilan said:


> I think Roux is a very clever person and an experienced speedcuber; and when he got the idea of starting with 2 opposite 1x2x3 blocks(blocks on opposite sides), he tried every finish possible. Counted move counts(number of moves), times, fingertricks, and the corners+6 edges finish were the best of them.
> I think you cannot find any better finish(starting with 1x2x3 blocks).
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, that 16 average for Roux is _horrible_. I like your Petrus idea though.

Has anyone noticed that in ZZ, after the first 1x2x3 it is a Petrus solve?


----------



## JLarsen (Sep 5, 2009)

Very much so.


----------

