# Friedrich or Roux



## Inusagi (Nov 28, 2007)

Which one is the best one in
-Fastest
-Lesser algorithm??


----------



## tim (Nov 28, 2007)

http://grrroux.free.fr/method/Miscellaneous.html

http://cubefreak.net/speedcubing.html


----------



## Demon Parasite (Nov 28, 2007)

Erm, it's "less" not "lesser", and "algorithm" should be plural. Also, you're only comparing two, so it's "faster", and it's "Fridrich".

Anyway, I think the idea of Roux F2L and OLL+PLL would be faster.


----------



## Dyste (Nov 29, 2007)

Demon Parasite said:


> Erm, it's "less" not "lesser", and "algorithm" should be plural. Also, you're only comparing two, so it's "faster", and it's "Fridrich".
> 
> Anyway, I think the idea of Roux F2L and OLL+PLL would be faster.



I'm glad someone likes my idea.


----------



## gogozerg (Nov 29, 2007)

Demon Parasite said:


> Anyway, I think the idea of Roux F2L and OLL+PLL would be faster.


Bad, bad idea!


----------



## Johannes91 (Nov 29, 2007)

gogozerg said:


> Demon Parasite said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I think the idea of Roux F2L and OLL+PLL would be faster.
> ...


Agreed. If you want Fridrich, use Fridrich. Continuing that way after the 1x2x3 blocks is very unnatural.


----------



## Inusagi (Nov 29, 2007)

My question was acctually: Shuold I begin learning the Roux method now, or not? I am finish with learning all the algorithms in the friedrich method and was wondering if Roux was faster


----------



## ExoCorsair (Nov 29, 2007)

I think if you can do M/M'/M2 quickly, go Roux.


----------



## scsoup (Nov 29, 2007)

have you considered the petrus method at all?

it is just as fast as the fridrich method and the last layer can be done with oll/pll, coll , or a 3 look last layer


----------



## Dyste (Nov 29, 2007)

Johannes91 said:


> gogozerg said:
> 
> 
> > Demon Parasite said:
> ...



That's not true. It's only "unnatural" if you've already learned all of one or the other and feel familiar with only the one. Hybrid methods are not bad. No one's complained about Petrich or Fridrus, or whatever.


----------



## Johannes91 (Nov 30, 2007)

Dyste said:


> That's not true. It's only "unnatural" if you've already learned all of one or the other and feel familiar with only the one.


If I knew OLL and not Roux, I would still say that it's an unnatural idea. CMLL is a very logical continuation, after that you can still move M and U freely. It takes advantage of the situation. But solving DF and DB seems very clumsy to me, like a too late attempt to go back to Fridrich with "F2L" and "LL". It doesn't fit Roux at all.



Dyste said:


> Hybrid methods are not bad. No one's complained about Petrich or Fridrus, or whatever.


In Petrus, F2L and LL are very individual steps. You can use whatever method you want for LL.


----------



## Dyste (Nov 30, 2007)

Perhaps it's "unnatural," as you claim it to be, but you can't deny that it would work.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 30, 2007)

Demon Parasite said:


> Erm, it's "less" not "lesser", and "algorithm" should be plural. Also, you're only comparing two, so it's "faster", and it's "Fridrich".
> 
> Anyway, I think the idea of Roux F2L and OLL+PLL would be faster.


Erm, it's "fewer," not "less."

And anyhow, faster is better, except for FMC (I'm assuming you want to do well in comps time-wise and placement-wise).


----------



## Johannes91 (Nov 30, 2007)

Dyste said:


> ... but you can't deny that it would work.


Depends on what that means exactly.


----------



## adragast (Nov 30, 2007)

Inusagi, this is again a question which depends on you. Some people prefer the Gilles Roux method, some the Fridrich one (not to mention Petrus, Petrich, fridrus, ...). But I would not say that Roux is faster than Fridrich. Overmore, if you have learnt the algorithms for Fridrich shouldn't you benefit from this effort by improving your solves with Fridrich first ?


----------



## Inusagi (Nov 30, 2007)

I am a bit impatient. I feel that I won't get any better on friedrich. My average out of 12 is about 21 sec. Thats why I was wondering if it was worth learning roux.


----------



## Jilvin (Dec 9, 2007)

Erm... actually, if you learn how to get really good at blockbuilding, it will be faster than setting up a cross and using algorithms to solve f2l, youll probably have around a 25 move f2l if you can use a Roux avariation. Probably down to 10 seconds in time.


----------



## Demon Parasite (Dec 9, 2007)

Inusagi said:


> I am a bit impatient. I feel that I won't get any better on friedrich. My average out of 12 is about 21 sec. Thats why I was wondering if it was worth learning roux.



Haha, 21 seconds is no where near the limit of Fridrich. All the sub-10 solves use Fridrich I bet.


----------



## joey (Dec 9, 2007)

Demon Parasite said:


> Inusagi said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit impatient. I feel that I won't get any better on friedrich. My average out of 12 is about 21 sec. Thats why I was wondering if it was worth learning roux.
> ...



No, 9.39 Petrus.


----------



## masterofthebass (Dec 9, 2007)

I think he was referring to the official solves. Also, I don't think anyone uses full petrus, but just petrus f2l. Anyway, there's no reason to learn roux other than to learn roux. Each method has it's own benefits and you should just pick whichever one you want.


----------

