# Does this (sub) method have a name?



## Systemdertoten (Jun 30, 2010)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but,  oh well...

I've been thinking for some time on a way to combine Roux and Friedrich in some manner, and I think I got it.

Possible steps:
Make the two 1x2x3 blocks, in the same manner as Roux.
Use U and M rotations to place the other two edges of the lower layer in their respective locations.
Continue solving the cube using OLL, PLL (...) whatever.
Now, I obviously looked up in the wiki to see if I found anything similar, but, once you see the Belt Method and Human Thislethwaite, you know you didn't find anything 


The idea ain't that bad; I get ~45 second solves since I SUCK at block-building. :fp


What do you think? Does this have a name? Or has this perfect example of a Rubik's Noob invented a new method?


----------



## Chapuunka (Jun 30, 2010)

I've never heard of anything like it, but it doesn't sound very fast. It's kind of like mixed up ZZ minus EO.


----------



## Edward (Jun 30, 2010)

Sounds like nubRoux.


----------



## Systemdertoten (Jun 30, 2010)

Edward said:


> Sounds like nubRoux.



Actually it is. I came up with it after becoming hopelessly confused by Waffle's tutorial, specially after the second 1x2x3 block. :fp


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 30, 2010)

Systemdertoten said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like nubRoux.
> ...


Real Roux is going to be faster. Have you looked at this or this yet?


----------



## nck (Jun 30, 2010)

(Fridrich+Roux)/2
A similar idea has been thought of by Weston except in his 'method' he builds 2 1x2x2 blocks, slams in the cross pieces and finishes f2l in Fridrich style.
I'm not sure but i think his 'method' was heavily criticized...

It is not an effective method as it doesn't 'combine' fridrich and roux in such a way that the advantages of each method are preserved. Although the block building part of it is efficient, slamming in cross pieces and doing LL less efficiently doesn't utilizes the advantages of roux's freedom. I think there is no real 'nice' combination between Roux and Fridrich as the main characteristics of such methods lies in the f2l part, and to me it's just not viable to combine slot and blocks.

A possible way may be having first block then extend that to a double xcross but that would be petrus except not as efficient.


----------



## Systemdertoten (Jun 30, 2010)

rickcube said:


> Systemdertoten said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...


 

I had already looked at the first "this", which resulted in MORE confusion  . I'm going to take a look at the other "this", though. 


rickcube said:


> Real Roux is going to be faster



What else could you expect from a Rubik's Noob (the first twisty puzzle that creates confusion to the PUZZLE, not the solver)


----------



## iChanZer0 (Jun 30, 2010)

average of five with this method
1	29.23	L' U2 D2 R2 B F R2 B2 F U B F' L2 D' R2 L2 D U2 L' B2 R2 F' U2 R' U
2	DNF	F2 D F B D' B' F L' B' L R2 B' F2 U2 R D L F2 L2 U' R B F' D U'
3	34.19	U' L' F' U' D2 L2 U' L' D B2 R' L2 U R2 L U L' U2 B' L B F2 D2 F B
4	29.49	D2 B U2 L2 D2 U' F L2 U' F2 L2 B' F' U L2 B2 L2 U' D F D2 L' B' U2 R'
5	33.13	U' B2 L R' D L2 D2 F2 U' D' L' B' F' U' R U' R2 D U R B F' U L' B


----------



## Daniel Wu (Jun 30, 2010)

Also this idea was bounced around a bit in this thread.


----------



## Forte (Jun 30, 2010)

It doesn't have a name because it's not really useful


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jun 30, 2010)

Almost FreeFOP


----------



## Boxcarcrzy12 (Jun 30, 2010)

I tryed this when someone gave me a brief overview of roux, its bad lol. I thought it was Roux :fp


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 30, 2010)

Arbitrary piece solving does not a good method make.


----------



## Edward (Jun 30, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Arbitrary piece solving does not a good method make.



Unless you use like, FreeFOP or something.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 30, 2010)

You're missing the point of what I'm saying.

Anyone can make a method that solves the F2L pieces in an arbitrary order. The difficulty lies in finding an efficient order.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jun 30, 2010)

CMLL, insert DB edge, orient edges while inserting DF edge, EPLL. (Or DB edge, orient edges while inserting DF edge, ZBLL). 4-5 seconds for me. I don't think that's that much slower than L6E Roux-style. People are too fast with criticizing new ideas.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 30, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> CMLL, insert DB edge, orient edges while inserting DF edge, EPLL. (Or DB edge, orient edges while inserting DF edge, ZBLL).




Or you could use Mizzle's L5E like a real man.



trying-to-speedcube... said:


> 4-5 seconds for me. I don't think that's that much slower than L6E Roux-style.




It is.



trying-to-speedcube... said:


> People are too fast with criticizing new ideas.




How long should we wait until criticising it?


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jun 30, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > CMLL, insert DB edge, orient edges while inserting DF edge, EPLL. (Or DB edge, orient edges while inserting DF edge, ZBLL).
> ...


Or you could actually try out what I say and actually find out that it actually is decently fast.



Kirjava said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > 4-5 seconds for me. I don't think that's that much slower than L6E Roux-style.
> ...


Including CMLL, sorry.


Kirjava said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > People are too fast with criticizing new ideas.
> ...


Until you actually thoroughly tested it out, got at a point where you are decently comfortable with the method, and can say that it's bad from experience.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 30, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > trying-to-speedcube... said:
> ...




I'm simply going to say that I don't believe you.

2 seconds for CMLL (do you even know CMLL?), 1 second for EPLL and I do not think you can execute DB then DF+EO in under a second.

Not even factoring recog in here.



trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > trying-to-speedcube... said:
> ...




It's a shame you didn't go and find out what the L5E technique is. You look silly now.



trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > trying-to-speedcube... said:
> ...




No need to waste time on these things. Detailed analysis is enough;

It's quicker to solve four edges in M than it is to solve four edges in U, algs are shorter, and execution is faster.

Not only is it easier to orient edges when you don't have to worry about things already permuted, there are also nicer shortcuts for placing UL/UR while doing orientation than doing orientation while placing DF.

Knowing from experience that the Roux-based technique is generally more efficient than the Waterman-based technique for LSE is enough to let me know that permuting any given edge prior to orientation isn't the best technique.

Roux is actually easier to learn; it's simpler and there are less "algs". Movecount is also obviously lower.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 30, 2010)

Seems, to me, a better way is:

Block
Block
Orient + DF and DB - Works the same as UL and UR and you can still do Phasing.
ZBLL

Also:

E15/E35


----------



## DavidWoner (Jun 30, 2010)

ZBLL has yet to be proven an effective method.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 30, 2010)

The reason I'm seeing that the DB first idea wouldn't be as fast as Gilles' way is that placing DB ends up being unnecessary.

- Orient edges after placing DB - About a 6 move average.
- Permute remaining 5 edges - 7.5 move average.

- Orientation step in normal LSE - About a 6 move average.
- Place UL+UR and finish M - A little less than an 8 move average.

Now what is left to consider? That you placed DB in the beginning - About a 3 move average. I also didn't consider the 3 AUFs for DB First, but I did consider them for normal LSE because it's really all one step. It's easy to average 13 moves for normal LSE in a speedsolve, that seems *very* difficult to do with DB First.

This is all just move count, not considering what is easiest to recognize and what type of steps are faster.


----------



## blakedacuber (Jun 30, 2010)

the only benefit i s from this mthod is if somone was changing from roux to fridrich or fridrich to roux


----------



## splinteh (Jul 1, 2010)

I like Petrus F2L plus OLL and PLL. You only need to memorize a few OLL algs because the cross is already made by finishing the F2L.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 1, 2010)

I tried this. I called this Roux2L.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 1, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> I called this Roux2L.



Or we can NOT call it Roux2L


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 1, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> 
> 
> > I called this Roux2L.
> ...



I meant the F2L method described. It's F2B and the last FL edges.


----------



## wannabsub20 (Nov 14, 2010)

I think it would be good if someone got good at it


----------



## nck (Nov 14, 2010)

wannabsub20 said:


> I think it would be good if someone got good at it


 
Nice bump dude.
On topic, no. The reasons are already stated in this thread.


----------

