Statistics show that 95 percent of speed cubers out there use the Fridrich Method. I, right now, am one of those 95%. The other five percent uses other stuff, like the Petrus. But i have found something that is very fun to use, and i want to know if anyone else here uses it as a speed method:

*drum roll*

The Roux Method!!!!!

anyone know anything about this? tips to getting faster? Any cool vids? (i've only found one on google)

I know thom uses this method, he has a 12.36 on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7I-J9L3xZw I did look at this as one of my options, but then I decided to go with fridrich, but I do try a solve with it everynow and then.

i've got a feeling i could get this one really fast if i tried... it would be interesting because next to nobody uses it.

I know of at least 2 Roux users on this very forum.
Thom and Athefre.


1x2x3 on Left
1x2x3 on Right
CMLL
Then sort edges.

That's an awesome video and makes me want to learn it..

Which statistics?

roux is better if you are a sub 30 petrus user first.then you won't struggle finding tricks.

If you like the Roux Method you might like my method.

http://www.speedcubing.com/DavidJSalvia.html

David J

*

Your last name is cool in an interesting way.

I'm sure you've gotten comments before though.

Anyways, your method is pretty solid sounding. I'll experiment!

Have fun with your Roux/Petrus/Heise methods. I'll stay away because I can't do intuitive stuff very well. [is sad]. I should do more blindfold cubing.

But you will be often searching for the edges of the second block, because they "hide" themselves in the DB or DF position.

So far I'm not really fast with the Roux method, but it surely is fun.




Q

Anyone know the average number of moves a good Roux solver uses?

Hey, I'm here again for another roux Q&A...

For me, i find it takes around 48/50 moves. (ATM/STM)

Since you seem to be one of the only people here who use the roux method, any tips you can give a beginner?

sorry for the double post, but nobody has posted again and i found something that i might need help on:

the third step to Roux is COLL, or CMLL (they are the same, right?)

Anyone have a nice printable, easy to understand sheet of the algs? The table on his site it confusing, and i can't really take it with me wherever i go...

COLL and CMLL are different.

here is my cmll page: snkenjoi.com/cmll

thanks Thom. by the way, what is the difference between COLL and CMLL?

COLL preserves the orientazion of the edges.



Q

CMLL is generally an easier step as you do not have to worry about the orientation edges in U.

i see... but it still has a bundle of algs to learn, lol.

Pembo/Q talking about CLL not CMLL ?

Just like fridrich! Petrus is good in that respect, there aren't that many algs to learn.

CMLL just means that M is free, CLL would work too.

hmm i guess the question is, do you guys think i should give up something i already know (Fridrich F2L, PLL, some OLL) and go to something where i won't have a need for it? with petrus i would still do the LL, but with Roux i would give up everything i have already learned...

You should have a go with them first, before "forgetting" about fridrich. I tried the Roux method at first, but it didn't seem to agree with me.

If you use Petrus F2L, why not use Fridrich's OLL/PLL?
you only need to learn 7 OLL algorithms.

What is your goal?
To get as fast as possible in a short time period?
Then I would advise you to stick with your method.

When you want to learn more about the cube, are bored by your solving style or just want to have fun with the cube, then switch.



Q

I like occasionaly like solving using petrus or roux, because for the most part it is more like solving the puzzle rather than applying algorithims.

too many people think petrus is about intuitive moves. after many many thousands of solves you see all of the positions and there are no tricks left and you are stuck with algorithms basically.

CLL would not work because sometimes it messes up the F2L/B, CMLL can messabout with the entire M-ring including orientation of centres and can flip/swap the edges in U.

COLL is orientation keeper, if you will.

So more freedom seems to be inversly proportional to length of algs, as CLL has less moves than CMLL which has less mvoes than COLL (generally).



I agree entirly in reference to the two 1x2x3 blocks.

Did the meaning change to that? I'm used to CLL meaning to solve LL corners after F2L.

I always though CLL was for 2x2x2, so it didn't matter if it funked with edges.

CLL solves LL corners, but the more common approach is to use COLL so that edges are preserved.

Also, I'm sure some CLL algs I've used on speedcubing.com changed the F2L.

I'm with Stefan at this point.
CLL ELL is a common approach for the last layer, so it should not mix up the F2L.

That's what Gilles writes about CMLL on his site:"Many other web sites teach you how to solve four corners (Waterman, CLL, COLL). In this method, there's no big difference, except that M-slice is free. Let's call it CMLL."

So only the possibility of the M-slice should be the difference between CLL and CMLL.



Q

It appears CLL on the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3 are different things.

even though its about corners, the real difference is edges.

hey thom, do you use any setup moves to place edges while you twist corners?i found lots of tricks to finish LL in 2 algs with only two 1x2x3's done, when i was using roux.it really is an interesting method.

wow.... i make one stupid comment, and look at the argument that breaks out!

I don't get what you mean, the last layer in roux is the M-ring. And that's always one alg or less everytime.

If you mean U, I don't really understand you I use CMLL, and each alg plays havoc with the edges so it's not worth learning how each one would effect them.

I already do three things during CMLL, I don't really wanna add more

I do a lot of tricks for the edges during the last step. Things like sacrificing centre orientation for easy edge permutation are totally worth learning.

i mean if you need to shoot DF to DB only and twist 3 corners. you can do 1 alg to twist corners + swap edges. that is a short example.(this is the step after 1x2x3's, so you can skip M layer.)

Ah, I see what you mean.

I don't think I'd use it as it looks like a quite temperamental approach considering how the corner algs work on roux. Interesting for FMC, though.

Have you used NMCMLL yet?

what is NMCMLL?

Non-matching CMLL, it's used after non-matching blocks. Where the two 1x2x3 blocks don't match each other.

well, after much consideration i think i have finally found a method that i'm interested in learning:

Petrus. I would still be able to use the PLL stuff that i have learned on it, it is a method i can customized to be my own (shortcuts, etc) and it's Fast! Better yet, i have a whole website at my disposal to help me out (thanks Kyle!), and i've already gotten a 37 PB solve with it!

Thom, are you saying that the second 1x2x3 is not in it's correct place, ex: there is a 1x2x3 at LDFB and one at RUFB?or something else?

More like LDFB and UDBR and you do an R to make them act like real blocks. it's like pseudo-building, but for speedsolving.

i rarely do, it is hard :/

wow, and ppl just think of this on their own? you guys are crazy, waaaaaaay more time than i have on my hands

Hi

Non-matching roux blocks would (normally) mean that the positions of the 2 blocks do match but not the colors. This is the same as pseudo-roux-blocks for those who are into fewest-moves terminology. A scramle premove would turn the pseudo-roux-blocks into normal perfectly matching roux-blocks.
Maybe Gilles Roux wants the last word on this matter?

-Per

Surprizingly, I've never gotten comments along that line before. A curious omission. Otherwise there have been only two comments: the general "sage" reference and Mickey Mouse's face at the entrance to Disneyland was partly ornamental Salvia.
I read that there's a flower named David Salvia, but I've never seen it. =8^O

Tell me later how your experiment with my method goes.

David J

*

Yeah, I recognised your last name but didn't comment on it, as I thought you'd be sick of people asking about it all the time. Apparently not :)

Heh, my last name is Gouly. I've had many a comment also!