# [ER] Alexander Lau - 7.37 3x3x3 avg



## Masu1 (Apr 12, 2015)

http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/865/events/1/rounds/3/results
Congrats! So awesome  
7.78	6.57	6.87	9.50	7.46 | CR 7.37


----------



## cashis (Apr 12, 2015)

second in the world, no?


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Apr 12, 2015)

yup  Hurray for Arek!


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 12, 2015)

Yay gj
EDIT: cant wait for the vid! (and reconstructions of course)


----------



## Rocky0701 (Apr 12, 2015)

cashis said:


> second in the world, no?


Correct!

Congrats Alex! I think it's cool to know that a Rouxer is second.


----------



## cashis (Apr 12, 2015)

Now all we need is a ZZ user somewhere up there


----------



## irontwig (Apr 12, 2015)

Also three straight sub-8 averages(!)


----------



## WayneMigraine (Apr 12, 2015)

Wow, that's really fast! I hope somebody uploads a video of the solves


----------



## Berd (Apr 12, 2015)

Gj Alex! Good to know that I've solved on the cube that has a CR!


----------



## OrigamiCuber1 (Apr 12, 2015)

Gj Alex. Unfortunately I don't know if there is a video as he isn't too keen on being filmed.


----------



## TDM (Apr 12, 2015)

I didnt see anyone filming, but I couldn't see what was happening quite a lot of the time, so there MIGHT be a video. But I'm not sure.


----------



## CDcuber (Apr 12, 2015)

TDM said:


> I didnt see anyone filming, but I couldn't see what was happening quite a lot of the time, so there MIGHT be a video. But I'm not sure.


I hope so


----------



## biscuit (Apr 12, 2015)

Yep roux is officialy going to take over CFOP in the next couple of years. (Except for Feliks... Feliks just won't be beat for a long time.)


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 12, 2015)

I heard that Roux thing was a lot slower than CFOP.


----------



## Randomno (Apr 12, 2015)

biscuit said:


> Yep roux is officialy going to take over CFOP in the next couple of years. (Except for Feliks... Feliks just won't be beat for a long time.)



I'm pretty sure Alex is the only Roux solver in the top 100, and if not there aren't hardly any others, so I doubt it will.


----------



## OrigamiCuber1 (Apr 12, 2015)

Randomno said:


> I'm pretty sure Alex is the only Roux solver in the top 100, and if not there aren't hardly any others, so I doubt it will.



I have heard some beginners say that they will switch to roux because Alex is good at it. It annoys me SO MUCH when they say that


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 12, 2015)

Randomno said:


> I'm pretty sure Alex is the only Roux solver in the top 100, and if not there aren't hardly any others, so I doubt it will.



I think you're right. I believe Big Green is the next best.



OrigamiCuber1 said:


> I have heard some beginners say that they will switch to roux because Alex is good at it. It annoys me SO MUCH when they say that



Why does that annoy you? I hope you are just as annoyed when you hear people say they will use the Gans 357 or switch to Color Neutral because Feliks does.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 12, 2015)

Randomno said:


> I'm pretty sure Alex is the only Roux solver in the top 100, and if not there aren't hardly any others, so I doubt it will.



Les agree to disagree. Whatever can happen will happen.


----------



## OrigamiCuber1 (Apr 12, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> Why does that annoy you? I hope you are just as annoyed when you hear people say they will use the Gans 357 or switch to Color Neutral because Feliks does.



Yes I also get annoyed because of things like that as well. It is unusual but I just find it annoying


----------



## Randomno (Apr 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Les agree to disagree. Whatever can happen will happen.



I think Roux will gain some popularity in the future, but not overtake CFOP for the fastest times.


----------



## Myachii (Apr 12, 2015)

Alex omg so fast 
Great job on the average, it's a remarkable achievment


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 12, 2015)

Randomno said:


> I'm pretty sure Alex is the only Roux solver in the top 100, and if not there aren't hardly any others, so I doubt it will.



kaijun lin is in the top 100, but you have a good point, there still far fewer rouxers than cfoppers.


----------



## Iggy (Apr 12, 2015)

gj Alex!


----------



## DuffyEdge (Apr 13, 2015)

Yay Alex! Pushing closer and closer to sub 7...


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 13, 2015)

Congrats to Alex, anyone know if he's still cubing much? The less he cares about cubing, the less pressure when he competes :tu



cashis said:


> Now all we need is a ZZ user somewhere up there



ZZ doesn't have as many outright advantages over CFOP that Roux does. The only real advantage I see with ZZ at a high level is potential LL methods like ZBLL. ZZ F2L sucks.


----------



## cashis (Apr 13, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> ZZ doesn't have as many outright advantages over CFOP that Roux does. The only real advantage I see with ZZ at a high level is potential LL methods like ZBLL. ZZ F2L sucks.



I can see the potential for ZZ to get just as fast as Roux and CFOP. I quite like zzf2l, its a fun mix of blockbuilding and cfop and I like it. I can see it to be fast too. It is big 3, after all.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 13, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> Congrats to Alex, anyone know if he's still cubing much? The less he cares about cubing, the less pressure when he competes :tu



I dont cube much these days but i still go to competitions (and practice a lot a few days before)



OrigamiCuber1 said:


> I have heard some beginners say that they will switch to roux because Alex is good at it. It annoys me SO MUCH when they say that



You're funny.


----------



## RomFrta33 (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm pretty sure that if you get a new WR (like your 5.11) official, every beginner will switch to cfop and roux will become the most common method !


----------



## Berd (Apr 13, 2015)

RomFrta33 said:


> I'm pretty sure that if you get a new WR (like your 5.11) official, every beginner will switch to cfop and roux will become the most common method !


That's the goal!


----------



## Andri Maulana (Apr 13, 2015)

I remember your early sub 8 video in 2011-2012, now you finally made it officially. Congrats!


----------



## Logiqx (Apr 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> kaijun lin is in the top 100, but you have a good point, there still far fewer rouxers than cfoppers.



Looking at it from another angle.... top 100 results, I see that Alex has a fair few against his name. Impressive!

Top 100 results:

Feliks Zemdegs	49
Alexander Lau	15
Mats Valk	9
Cornelius Dieckmann	8
Bill Wang	3
Kevin Costello III	3
Philipp Weyer	3
Lucas Etter	2
Sebastian Weyer	2
Antoine Cantin	1
Collin Burns	1
Dario Roa Sánchez	1
Drew Brads	1
Haowei Fan (樊浩玮)	1
Patrick Ponce	1
Richard Jay S. Apagar	1

These counts don't include Guildford.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 13, 2015)

Logiqx said:


> Looking at it from another angle.... top 100 results, I see that Alex has a fair few against his name. Impressive!
> 
> Top 100 results:
> 
> ...



and what makes it more impressive is he's gone to far fewer competitions than most of the people on this list.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> and what makes it more impressive is he's gone to far fewer competitions than most of the people on this list.



Indeed.


Spoiler: Most Top-100 entries (3x3 average) per competition



Using data from WCA_export710_20150413 and Stefan's WCA Data Tools.


*personId**entries/comps**entries**comps*Feliks Zemdegs1.44124934Alexander Lau0.93751516Seung Hyuk Nahm (남승혁)0.200015Bill Wang0.1875316Cornelius Dieckmann0.1778845Mats Valk0.1343967Philipp Weyer0.0968331Patrick Ponce0.0769113Lucas Etter0.0741227Dario Roa Sánchez0.0714114Drew Brads0.0714114Kevin Costello III0.0698343Sebastian Weyer0.0667230Antoine Cantin0.0400125Haowei Fan (樊浩玮)0.0370127Collin Burns0.0323131Richard Jay S. Apagar0.0323131



Spoiler: SQL





```
[NOPARSE]SET @average100 := (SELECT max(average) FROM (SELECT average FROM Results WHERE eventId='333' and average>0 ORDER BY average LIMIT 100) tmp);

SELECT personId, entries/comps, entries, comps FROM
  (SELECT personId, personName, count(*) entries
  FROM Results
  WHERE eventId='333' and average>0 and average<[email protected]
  GROUP BY personId) tmp
NATURAL JOIN
  (SELECT personId, count(distinct competitionId) comps
  FROM Results
  GROUP BY personId) tmp2
ORDER BY entries/comps desc, personName;[/NOPARSE]
```


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 13, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Indeed.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Most Top-100 entries (3x3 average) per competition
> ...



interesting statistic!


----------



## ryanj92 (Apr 13, 2015)

yaay <3


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 13, 2015)

Great average, Alex. I love your solving style.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 13, 2015)

so if there's no video, would it be possible for reconstructions?


----------



## Randomno (Apr 13, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> so if there's no video, would it be possible for reconstructions?



If Alex can remember his solutions.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 13, 2015)

Randomno said:


> If Alex can remember his solutions.



which is actually pretty hard to do.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 13, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> which is actually pretty hard to do.



I'll give it a go if someone sends me the scrambles. The two 6s were both quite distinctive in solution


----------



## cashis (Apr 13, 2015)

Or Brest is psychic


----------



## Randomno (Apr 13, 2015)

5BLD said:


> I'll give it a go if someone sends me the scrambles. The two 6s were both quite distinctive in solution



https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qoh8fccrrqraitg/AAC5jpHB6ke7nBr6pCBezIERa?dl=0


----------



## philipneri (Apr 14, 2015)

Does Alexander Lau still use the DaYan ZhanChi with the really worn out stickers? I hope so.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 14, 2015)

philipneri said:


> Does Alexander Lau still use the DaYan ZhanChi with the really worn out stickers? I hope so.



Nope guhong v2.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 14, 2015)

philipneri said:


> Does Alexander Lau still use the DaYan ZhanChi with the really worn out stickers? I hope so.



i don't think zhanchi has ever been his main. it's always been, and perhaps always will be, guhong.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Apr 14, 2015)

Awesome job Arekxander
 go go go go sub-7


----------



## Renslay (Apr 14, 2015)

Woooaaah! Congrats, Alex!


----------



## Crazycubemom (Apr 14, 2015)

:tu Congrats


----------



## Escher (Apr 14, 2015)

Alex <3

The only reason I learned lots of things for 2x2 is because fast people used it AND I saw potential in how the method worked. Plus the puzzle is really simple so it doesn't take much to know how useful an approach will be.

Roux is a beautiful method through _how_ it divides stages of the solution. CLL+L6E is pretty much the best approach there is for algorithmically but intuitively solving a final set of pieces for the cube. CLL when used on a cube with F2L solved is obviously less efficient than allowing for <M,U> disruption (or manipulation), and manipulating the RB for a decent CLL case isn't too difficult. Roux's L6E approach _is_ human-optimal, in the sense that optimal solutions done by computation are almost always move-cancelled version of the Roux approach, and both generation and retracing of these solutions are fairly easily done. The efficiency of F2B as an approach to set up CLL+L6E is obvious, and are equally well broken down. If there was a 'perfect' method for humans Roux is far closer than CFOP is to that end.

CFOP inherently has a lower skill-ceiling because of how the cross and then F2L create restrictions - the trade-off between simplicity and efficiency is just less well done in CFOP. LL as an approach is also limited in that it's pretty much inherently non-intuitive and progression is capped by 'how many of these thousands of situations can you memorise?', either through experience and deducing PLL at the beginning of/during OLL or through raw memo and repetition. Expansion of f2l is equally difficult - it takes a lot of thought and experience to get a 27 move average f2l in a slow solve, let alone speedsolve. CFOP works well because the trade-off towards simplicity allows fast progression, somewhat simple lookahead, and rewards reactions over decision making. 

Feliks overcomes plenty of CFOPs weaknesses by abusing his colour neutrality and the fact we allow inspection time. By guaranteeing an efficient/ergonomic start and reaching the end of first pair without having to make many decisions, a lot of the awkwardness of cross and FP is skipped. After enough experience, it is relatively simple to know which of the final 3 pairs one should solve first to improve the 3rd/4th pair cases, and a little manipulation of the 3rd pair usually creates an easy 4th pair -> LL transition, at which point reaction times + practise creates competitive edge.

Basically I believe Roux > CFOP as a general method, unless you are CN, in which case speedcubing is not developed enough to distinguish between the two, where CFOPs weaknesses are bandaged by raw development and Roux's resources are limited in terms of competitive pool.

Unless you think about speedsolving solutions' methodology a lot sometimes all it can take is a display of skill from someone who is VERY VERY good at the alternative to see these truths without working through them.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 14, 2015)

Escher said:


> Alex <3
> 
> The only reason I learned lots of things for 2x2 is because fast people used it AND I saw potential in how the method worked. Plus the puzzle is really simple so it doesn't take much to know how useful an approach will be.
> 
> ...



Very well thought out interpretation. I agree with pretty much everything said here.

One thing to add is that may be holding most Rouxers back (certainly I feel like it's the case for me) is I believe that Roux requires a lot more practice, especially with L6E. L6E leads to a ridiculously high number of different cases compared to OLL/PLL, and very few people can seemlessly flow through at a TPS/efficiency rate that can compare to OLL/PLL. I think L6E separates average Roux users from great ones.


----------



## biscuit (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm not saying that Feliks should switch to Roux. But I do think that newer cubers should switch. How long has CFOP been around? 20 years? How long has Roux been around as a real speed solving method? 3-4 years TOPS? Once enough people switch and become fast I have no doubt that it will be a better method. Sure there will be fast CFOP solvers but many people have said that Roux is a "more pure" and "better" method. Maybe Alex is at it's cap. It's possible but I don't think so.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 14, 2015)

biscuit said:


> I'm not saying that Feliks should switch to Roux. But I do think that newer cubers should switch. How long has CFOP been around? 20 years? How long has Roux been around as a real speed solving method? 3-4 years TOPS? Once enough people switch and become fast I have no doubt that it will be a better method. Sure there will be fast CFOP solvers but many people have said that Roux is a "more pure" and "better" method. Maybe Alex is at it's cap. It's possible but I don't think so.



i think roux is around 8-10 years, not really sure.


----------



## Myachii (Apr 14, 2015)

It doesn't matter which method is better, because as we can see you can get amazing times with both Roux and CFOP and many other methods (anyone know how many non-roux/cfop solvers are in the top 100?)

To be honest I think this is a huge hit for MoYu. Not only is the 3x3 WR Single set with a ZhanChi, it has also stood for 772 days (since March 2013). If my research is correct, the MoYu Huanying was the first speedcube released by the MoYu division of YJ. Since then, the only record broken with a MoYu puzzle has been the 3x3 Average.

I think it's kinda ironic how nearly everyone (including myself) is using MoYu's 3x3's as their main puzzle, yet it hasn't yet managed to defeat the noble Zhanchi in terms of WR Single status, and a Guhong v2 has just gained 2nd in the world average for 3x3.

This amazing achievement by Alex in my opinion is more likely to turn people back to their Zhanchi's to see if they can get any decent times on them than it is to convert people to the Roux method.


----------



## TDM (Apr 14, 2015)

Myachii said:


> To be honest I think this is a huge hit for MoYu. Not only is the 3x3 WR Single set with a ZhanChi, it has also stood for 772 days (since March 2013). If my research is correct, the MoYu Huanying was the first speedcube released by the MoYu division of YJ. Since then, the only record broken with a MoYu puzzle has been the 3x3 Average.


In addition, Feliks has switched his main to a Gans, so if he does break any WRs in the future, it probably won't be with a MoYu cube, until they release something better.


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 14, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i think roux is around 8-10 years, not really sure.



But it was mostly irrelevant as a SPEED method. When I started it was pretty much universally thought that CFOP was the best current speedsolving method. Roux was on the same level as Petrus. Biggreen was the only fast Roux solver and he wasn't competitive with WR times. Only in the last few years it's been getting suggested to beginners alongside CFOP, so it likely means that a top 100 with more Roux solvers will just take time, not further innovation.



Escher said:


> CFOP inherently has a lower skill-ceiling because of how the cross and then F2L create restrictions - the trade-off between simplicity and efficiency is just less well done in CFOP.


I disagree, I think the tradeoff is done differently. CFOP has different periods of restriction, many of which are superior to Roux. As fast as Alex is at <MU>, TPS simply doesn't compare to CFOP's move restrictions <RUF> for example. CFOP is less efficient (assuming a high level Roux solver), but also less complex/adlib. CFOP solves are so similar that there is practically no thinking time. This allows much higher TPS than Roux.



> Feliks overcomes plenty of CFOPs weaknesses by abusing his colour neutrality and the fact we allow inspection time. By guaranteeing an efficient/ergonomic start and reaching the end of first pair without having to make many decisions, a lot of the awkwardness of cross and FP is skipped. After enough experience, it is relatively simple to know which of the final 3 pairs one should solve first to improve the 3rd/4th pair cases, and a little manipulation of the 3rd pair usually creates an easy 4th pair -> LL transition, at which point reaction times + practise creates competitive edge.
> 
> Basically I believe Roux > CFOP as a general method, unless you are CN, in which case speedcubing is not developed enough to distinguish between the two



Expand on this please, I think you are overstating CN's advantage. You don't need colour neutrality to inspect cross+1. Also inspection time is far more influential on Roux than CFOP.

The parts I didn't quote I don't necessarily have anything to say about, but you make some assumptions/broad statementd that you imply are fact. I'm not sure this method advantage is nearly as clear as you think


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 14, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> One thing to add is that may be holding most Rouxers back (certainly I feel like it's the case for me) is I believe that Roux requires a lot more practice, especially with L6E. L6E leads to a ridiculously high number of different cases compared to OLL/PLL, and very few people can seemlessly flow through at a TPS/efficiency rate that can compare to OLL/PLL. I think L6E separates average Roux users from great ones.


Couldn't the same be said about block-building versus CFOP F2L?


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 14, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Couldn't the same be said about block-building versus CFOP F2L?



? great cfop users don't use block building f2l.


----------



## Randomno (Apr 14, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> ? great cfop users don't use block building f2l.



Hence "versus"?


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 14, 2015)

Randomno said:


> Hence "versus"?



but deedub was talking about lse. all rouxers use lse, just the really good one are really efficient and have good look ahead while the bad one are high movecount and slow. it's not really analagous to blockbuilding f2l and cfop f2l.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 14, 2015)

Let me try again by stealing DeeDub's words.

Roux requires a lot more practice, especially with block-building. Block-building leads to a ridiculously high number of different cases compared to CFOP F2L, and very few people can seamlessly flow through at a TPS/efficiency rate that can compare to CFOP/F2L. Block-building separates average Roux users from great ones.


----------



## OrigamiCuber1 (Apr 14, 2015)

It's funny how this thread went from the average itself to a debate about CFOP vs roux. I use cfop and have tried both methods but I have to say that although I can do the blocks decently fast, they don't flow very well for me.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 15, 2015)

Just wrote reconstructions for two solves on my phone but for the others I'll have to think a bit more.
7.78
scramble: D' B2 U2 R2 B2 U2 L2 F2 D2 F' R2 F R2 U B' D' R U' B2 L 
yRu'R'u'U'r'U2r'F (9/9)
r'U'RU2RU'R'U'RUMU2M'rUR' (16/25)
Ul'U'L'URU'LU (9/34)
x'U'MUM'U2M'U2M' (8/42)

6.87
scramble: B2 R U2 B2 F2 L' B2 R U2 F2 L' D F' D B U R' B2 U' L' R2

x'zR'U'MFU'(RM)B' (8/8)
M'UR2U2r'U'r (7/15)
U2l'U'L'URU'LU (9/24)
x'U2M'UM'U2M'UM'U2M'U2M'U'M2U'M2U2 (17/41)

It's interesting to note that although the LSE in the second solve is rather long, I did no M moves so it was really fast to execute.


----------



## Escher (Apr 15, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> I disagree, I think the tradeoff is done differently. CFOP has different periods of restriction, many of which are superior to Roux. As fast as Alex is at <MU>, TPS simply doesn't compare to CFOP's move restrictions <RUF> for example. CFOP is less efficient (assuming a high level Roux solver), but also less complex/adlib. CFOP solves are so similar that there is practically no thinking time. This allows much higher TPS than Roux.



In most cases I would rather do 8 moves of <M,U> in 1 second than 11 moves of <R, U, F> in 1 second, which I think is the context we should talk about this comparison in. Firstly less moves generally means less opportunities for major or minor mistakes in turn accuracy, secondly <M, U> stance is generally 0 regrips whereas plenty of <R, U, F> algorithms tend to have 1 or more full or semi-regrips. Imo economy of movement is a plus for several reasons and that's harder to achieve with turns around a vertex like <R, U, F>. 

Other restrictions I forgot to mention are things like CFOPs reliance on maintaining D layer edge positions - I think some 2x2 CLLs are good examples of how alg design changes, though that's not a direct comparison. One can ignore or bypass ending every f2l alg with correcting a D layer edge but it really ups the complexity and you generally don't want to do it to maintain speed. 

The way I tend to envisage it is that everything you do in CFOP prior to the LL is always done with the intention of preserving the unsolved-ness of the U layer in combination with the solved-ness of the D layer edges... This creates certain types of restrictions as a trade for simpler lookahead, in turn creating simpler solutions. In contrast, until CmLL, Roux solutions are done in respect to preserving the FB (which is kept in your non-dominant hand anyway) and whatever you've currently built of the SB.


Edit: Oh yeah, basically didn't respond to your point, sorry. Although I respect your point about it being done differently (TPS rather than efficiency, simplicity > complexity), I think the ceiling argument still applies - the room for improvement in f2l basically comes from pair selection which in human application will probably never shave off more than one pairs worth of moves (and this is with a lot of experience and lookahead) from the average f2l. I remember a long time ago Breandan spent a good while working a very restricted approach with lots of esoteric f2l algorithms but abandoned it in favour of just 'better standard solutions'. Basically I'm trying to say that CFOPs approach reaches a physical tps/reaction time limit at around consistently 9-10tps and to increase efficiency from that point is very difficult simply due to method design... 

That being said I wouldn't be surprised if Feliks can now sub-2 every possible LL, I don't keep up with stuff that much right now.



Tim Major said:


> Expand on this please, I think you are overstating CN's advantage. You don't need colour neutrality to inspect cross+1. Also inspection time is far more influential on Roux than CFOP.
> 
> The parts I didn't quote I don't necessarily have anything to say about, but you make some assumptions/broad statementd that you imply are fact. I'm not sure this method advantage is nearly as clear as you think



I actually don't think I've stated CN's advantages enough, my point isn't about how CN helps you see further, but how CN gives you options, and options are power. Without actually doing any computation or hard research for numbers, being CN basically gives 6 opportunities for a random cross rather than 1, massively lowering variance not only in number of times you receive terrible cases, but in several other respects when we actually count what we're looking for in inspection. First pair is also incredibly important too, along with ergonomics, and distance of lookahead (the difference between seeing the corner of the second pair and not seeing it is pretty huge). Overall 'start quality' is much higher with CN when you can make a choice between several 5-6 move crosses with different options for FP. For loose analogies (but ones I believe you know) it's sort of like getting last pick every time in League of Legends, if you had no preference for role or champion, or if you got one of the late positions every time on a poker table.

Oops, just re-read what I said about inspection time, I think it's pretty clear Roux requires it more than CFOP! More I just meant CFOP with proper use of inspection is very very different to CFOP without, and I wanted to give the idea that this variance is why CN makes such a difference.

You are probably right about how the advantages are less clear-cut than I claim, but I really wanted to write a mini-essay (polemic?) highlighting a few factors I'm not sure have been discussed. Regardless I'll happily defend/debate the overall idea that Roux lies at a better position on the speed-efficiency trade-off curve than CFOP does.


----------



## Tao Yu (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm not sure I whether I think roux is faster or CFOP is faster. I'd just like to remind the people who think CFOP will die out, that it is still better for big cubes (at least right now). Feliks would probably have broken fewer WRs if he were a roux user.



> 6.87
> scramble: B2 R U2 B2 F2 L' B2 R U2 F2 L' D F' D B U R' B2 U' L' R2
> 
> x'zR'U'MFU'(RM)B' (8/8)
> ...



Was the first square of this second block intentional or was is just luck? I don't think there is any way I would have seen it, but knowing you...


----------



## AlexTheEmperor (Apr 15, 2015)

You get PLL/OLL skips in CFOP which shave off a lot of time and so many parts of the solve can be drilled to perfection such as algs in F2L and LL.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Apr 15, 2015)

AlexTheEmperor said:


> FEWER!!!!!
> 
> 
> If a noun is directly quantifiable (you can say n nouns), use FEWER not LESS.
> ...



1) CMLL Skips happen, and then sometimes, I have had it happen once, where everything after CMLL is solved
2) Algs < Intuitiveness, imho, don't you wonder why many people learn intuitive F2L?

Also Alex's LSE is insane for being intuitive, and in comparison to Faz's LL, its faster (just a guess, I read Faz has a sub-3 LL while Alex posted a sub-2 LSE avg a while ago.


----------



## TDM (Apr 15, 2015)

AlexTheEmperor said:


> Anyway, you get PLL/OLL skips in CFOP which shave off a lot of time and so many parts of the solve can be drilled to perfection such as algs in F2L and LL.


Are OLL skips really that good? I agree that forced ones are great, but when I'm not expecting them they can really distract me, and I have a huge pause before I even start recognising PLL.
CMLL skips also happen.
Can you not drill CMLLs?
F2B's efficiency sort of makes up for the fact that you can't spam TPS quite so much. But it's rotationless and easy to fingertrick; neither of those things can be said (to the same extent, at least) as Roux.

(I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just trying to make a point that for anything you say for either method, there's going to be some counterargument. Why do half of Alex's ER threads turn into some debate?)


----------



## MTGjumper (Apr 15, 2015)

TDM said:


> Are OLL skips really that good? I agree that forced ones are great, but when I'm not expecting them they can really distract me, and I have a huge pause before I even start recognising PLL.



I almost always recognise when I'm gonna get an OLL skip, so I can go straight to PLL, while PLL skips tend to catch me off guard.


----------



## OrigamiCuber1 (Apr 15, 2015)

TDM said:


> Why do half of Alex's ER threads turn into some debate?



Maybe he is a controversial person? Also a lot of roux threads turn into cfop vs roux.


----------



## Randomno (Apr 15, 2015)

TDM said:


> (I'm not trying to argue here, I'm just trying to make a point that for anything you say for either method, there's going to be some counterargument. Why do half of Alex's ER threads turn into some debate?)



Because someone always brings up the "oh look how good Roux is" point and it goes on from there.


----------



## TDM (Apr 15, 2015)

MTGjumper said:


> I almost always recognise when I'm gonna get an OLL skip, so I can go straight to PLL, while PLL skips tend to catch me off guard.


For me, PLL skips are easier to deal with because you just need to AUF afterwards - the pause isn't as big. They're also more common, especially since I use 2-look sometimes (so more COLL/ZBLL opportunities), so I expect them quite often. But you're right, it does depend on the person.


----------



## cashis (Apr 15, 2015)

5BLD said:


> It's interesting to note that although the LSE in the second solve is rather long, I did no M moves so it was really fast to execute.



Did you know this going into it, or did it just happen to be this way?
also, same CMLL


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 15, 2015)

cashis said:


> Did you know this going into it, or did it just happen to be this way?
> also, same CMLL



I believe I did. I mean I get lots of cases where I have a choice to do M or M' i think, perhaps doing M wouldve saved moves (by changing EP) but I just decided to turn fast


----------



## Artic (Apr 16, 2015)

5BLD said:


> I believe I did. I mean I get lots of cases where I have a choice to do M or M' i think, perhaps doing M wouldve saved moves (by changing EP) but I just decided to turn fast



Congrats on the great time! Sad that there isn't a video


----------



## Randomno (Apr 16, 2015)

Artic said:


> Congrats on the great time! Sad that there isn't a video



If there was a video it might not be ER.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Apr 16, 2015)

Randomno said:


> If there was a video it might not be ER.



True, but maybe Noah got another one


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 16, 2015)

5BLD said:


> I believe I did. I mean I get lots of cases where I have a choice to do M or M' i think, perhaps doing M wouldve saved moves (by changing EP) but I just decided to turn fast



yeah i'm the same way but probably worse, but i think doing the M is always worth it even if it only saves one move.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 16, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> yeah i'm the same way but probably worse, but i think doing the M is always worth it even if it only saves one move.



Think of it this way. In eo, if you have 2 misoreinted adjacent on top in UF and UR, do you do M U M or U' M' U' M'?


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 16, 2015)

5BLD said:


> Just wrote reconstructions for two solves on my phone but for the others I'll have to think a bit more.
> 7.78
> scramble: D' B2 U2 R2 B2 U2 L2 F2 D2 F' R2 F R2 U B' D' R U' B2 L
> yRu'R'u'U'r'U2r'F (9/9)
> ...



41/42 STM in a speed solve is remarkable.

EDIT: Those wide turns during CMLL to set up better EO... I really gotta learn that.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Think of it this way. In eo, if you have 2 misoreinted adjacent on top in UF and UR, do you do M U M or U' M' U' M'?



i do U' M' U' M', this case i think it's justified because there's two Ms and a U, which i not as easy for me.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Apr 16, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> 41/42 STM in a speed solve is remarkable.
> 
> EDIT: Those wide turns during CMLL to set up better EO... I really gotta learn that.



Take a look at Thom's alg list here. Thom was generally more into EO influence during CMLL than Alex is, so try and pick up some alternate algs that flip different edges. Personally I don't recog EO during CMLL recog, so I've not really implemented this, but there are definitely some easy cases like the one Alex uses there, like swapping out sune for wide sune, or FRUR'U'F' for fRUR'U'f' in algs that use use those in them.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Think of it this way. In eo, if you have 2 misoreinted adjacent on top in UF and UR, do you do M U M or U' M' U' M'?



Depends on the location of ULUR


----------



## irontwig (Apr 16, 2015)

btw, didn't you have as a goal to be able to plan block+square in inspection?


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 16, 2015)

I can do as good as block+"tell if the second block is good" so far. I kinda stopped practising properly after i made that goal


----------



## pdilla (Apr 16, 2015)

THE SANDS HAVE SHIFTED!


----------



## PJKCuber (Apr 16, 2015)

Randomno said:


> I'm pretty sure Alex is the only Roux solver in the top 100, and if not there aren't hardly any others, so I doubt it will.



Hey don't forget me and DeeDubb which are rising stars. Hey I suck though.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 16, 2015)

PJKCuber said:


> Hey don't forget me and DeeDubb which are rising stars. Hey I suck though.



Lol, I just cracked the top 5000, I'm no where close  There's much more likely youngsters to push up there, like Adam Attia and PDF


----------



## Randomno (Apr 16, 2015)

PJKCuber said:


> Hey don't forget me and DeeDubb which are rising stars. Hey I suck though.



I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 16, 2015)

Escher said:


> I actually don't think I've stated CN's advantages enough, my point isn't about how CN helps you see further, but how CN gives you options, and options are power. Without actually doing any computation or hard research for numbers, being CN basically gives 6 opportunities for a random cross rather than 1, massively lowering variance not only in number of times you receive terrible cases, but in several other respects when we actually count what we're looking for in inspection. First pair is also incredibly important too, along with ergonomics, and distance of lookahead (the difference between seeing the corner of the second pair and not seeing it is pretty huge). Overall 'start quality' is much higher with CN when you can make a choice between several 5-6 move crosses with different options for FP.



I realised this is what you meant, it's just that I'm pretty sure, though not 100% sure so maybe Feliks can answer tomorrow, that generally he only inspects the first pair on one/two crosses unless there are multiple easy crosses. In this respect his main advantage is saving moves on the cross, and on average even taking into account different cross+1 options he only saves a couple of moves at best, scraping fractions of a second off. I think if he decided to only use one colour he'd still be officially faster than Alex, and even less of a difference with dual-neutrality. I didn't quote the rest of your post because I see what you mean and agree with the rest of your arguments. (except maybe arguing that 8 <MU> moves are less likely to lockup/fail than 11 <RFU> moves, I think cubes are more willing to corner cut and stay stable for <RFU> than <MU> but that's a pointless hardware debate)



TDM said:


> Why do half of Alex's ER threads turn into some debate?)



Because half have no videos which leaves nothing to discuss except the only interesting part, him breaking records with non-CFOP.


----------



## irontwig (Apr 16, 2015)

I might be horribly wrong, but isn't being able to plan more and execute it faster way more important than saving a couple of moves? I don't remember who said it, but it was something like "Feliks is able to do X-crosses with as much confidence and speed as other does crosses".


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 16, 2015)

irontwig said:


> I might be horribly wrong, but isn't being able to plan more and execute it faster way more important than saving a couple of moves? I don't remember who said it, but it was something like "Feliks is able to do X-crosses with as much confidence and speed as other does crosses".



yes, if you can do it faster, that's better than being efficient. but often efficiency is faster.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Apr 16, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> Lol, I just cracked the top 5000, I'm no where close  There's much more likely youngsters to push up there, like Adam Attia and PDF


Adam surely will. His improvement is going at a great speed.



GuRoux said:


> yes, if you can do it faster, that's better than being efficient. but often efficiency is faster.



I think we should find a middle ground between speed and efficiency. That will be better in the long run.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 16, 2015)

CriticalCubing said:


> Adam surely will. His improvement is going at a great speed.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should find a middle ground between speed and efficiency. That will be better in the long run.



how fast is his improvement, i know pdf's is crazy.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 16, 2015)

5BLD said:


> Depends on the location of ULUR



I still cant do that.



GuRoux said:


> how fast is his improvement, i know pdf's is crazy.



I remember when he joined he was sub 20 and now hes sub 15. Im not that crazy. Only a half second a month.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I remember when he joined he was sub 20 and now hes sub 15. Im not that crazy. Only a half second a month.



that rate is insane at 11 seconds, how long has it been since you started again?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 16, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> that rate is insane at 11 seconds, how long has it been since you started again?



Started canada day 2014. So 9.5 months. I have sorta slowed down now at high 10s with school and stuff.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Apr 16, 2015)

5BLD said:


> I can do as good as block+"tell if the second block is good" so far. I kinda stopped practising properly after i made that goal



Did you develop any specific exercises to see as far as you can now in inspection?



DeeDubb said:


> Lol, I just cracked the top 5000, I'm no where close  There's much more likely youngsters to push up there, like Adam Attia and PDF



Thanks DeeDubb, you'll get up there  We youngesters have nothing on you guys 



CriticalCubing said:


> Adam surely will. His improvement is going at a great speed.



My improvement is a lot slower than TDM's and PDF's but I like the rate its going at a lot.





GuRoux said:


> how fast is his improvement, i know pdf's is crazy.



I think my best accomplishment was in the first Roux group racing thing.
Week1 like a 21.78 average, Week10 a 13.45 average


----------



## cashis (Apr 16, 2015)

Alex, why don't you practice much anymore? I think you could be faster (Feliks fast) with more practicing, tbh. Do you just not enjoy it anymore?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 17, 2015)

cashis said:


> Alex, why don't you practice much anymore? I think you could be faster (Feliks fast) with more practicing, tbh. Do you just not enjoy it anymore?



I think he caught chris-olson-itis.



theROUXbiksCube said:


> Did you develop any specific exercises to see as far as you can now in inspection?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah we are still pretty nub.

Thats pretty ridiculous too though. My 21-15 second improvement took about that long.


----------



## Suzuha (Apr 17, 2015)

Congrats on beating Mats Valk in second place!


----------



## TDM (Apr 17, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> My improvement is a lot slower than TDM's and PDF's but I like the rate its going at a lot.


I'm slower than you. I'm improving at roughly the same rate as Ross (0.0004 seconds per timed solve).


----------

