Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3x3 Roux-Stadler Solution

Expand Messages
  • thomasstadlerschweiz
    Hi Roux solvers, i ve modified the idea of 2.5 look last six edges from josef jelinek and found a really good strategy for orient and permute the last six
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Roux solvers,
      i've modified the idea of "2.5 look last six edges" from josef jelinek and found a really good strategy for orient and permute the last six edges in 2 Steps.
      There are only 11 new algs to learn (for the orientation). You will reach a lower move count because opposite-colour-neutrality.
      I've set it on my site :www.speedcubing.ch (3x3 roux-stadler solution)
      Its written in german, but i think that you will understand the pictures.
      Thx for comments and more ideas.

      Thomas Stadler (Switzerland)


      P.S. See you in Düsseldorf (WM)

      www.speedcubing.ch
    • athefre
      This is similar to, or the same as: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9095
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        This is similar to, or the same as:

        http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9095

        --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "thomasstadlerschweiz" <thomasstadler@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Roux solvers,
        > i've modified the idea of "2.5 look last six edges" from josef jelinek and found a really good strategy for orient and permute the last six edges in 2 Steps.
        > There are only 11 new algs to learn (for the orientation). You will reach a lower move count because opposite-colour-neutrality.
        > I've set it on my site :www.speedcubing.ch (3x3 roux-stadler solution)
        > Its written in german, but i think that you will understand the pictures.
        > Thx for comments and more ideas.
        >
        > Thomas Stadler (Switzerland)
        >
        >
        > P.S. See you in Düsseldorf (WM)
        >
        > www.speedcubing.ch
        >
      • thomasstadler@thurweb.ch
        hi athefre, thx for the link, now i see that this idea already exists :-( so what are your experiences using 2,5 look last six edges for speedcubing (not for
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          hi athefre,
          thx for the link, now i'see that this idea already exists :-(

          so what are your experiences using 2,5 look last six edges for
          speedcubing (not for fmc)?
          are you place the UL and UR at the bottom before doing CMLL (so its
          necessary to use COLL) ?
          Have you seen that you can also using UF and UB at the buffer position ?
          Has someone written all algs if i would placing DF and DB at DF and DB
          (ignoring exact position and orientation) and then orient all 6
          remaining edges? It would end up with an EO at last.
          What would be the fastest way?

          My average using 2,5 look last six edges is around 18seconds (but i
          think that i could speed up if i could place UR and UL before C...LL
          and if i have learned all last step cases)...

          thx for new (or already existing) ideas

          Thomas Stadler

          www.speedcubing.ch



          ----------------------------------------------------------------
          This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
        • athefre
          The main problem I see with this 2.5 look is the time it takes to look for UL and UR so you can place them at DF and DB. With Gilles Roux s LSE, it takes
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            The main problem I see with this 2.5 look is the time it takes to look for UL and UR so you can place them at DF and DB. With Gilles Roux's LSE, it takes almost no time at all to see the orientation pattern. It takes a little more time to find two edges than it does to recognize an orientation pattern. Plus both have about the same move count so I don't see any benefit to using this 2.5 look style other than to be doing something different. One thing I do think though is, after CMLL, if UL/UR happen to already be at DF and DB, that you could use this new 2.5 look depending on the case. I think it would give you a lower move count without losing time to recognition.

            > are you place the UL and UR at the bottom before doing CMLL (so its
            > necessary to use COLL) ?

            I haven't ever considered this. I thought about doing it with Petrus though.

            What's your way of doing it? Do you place each edge while doing the second block's pairs?

            > Have you seen that you can also using UF and UB at the buffer position ?

            You mean solving UF and UB instead of UL and UR? I've tried that a few times and I found it a little hard to see which way to have the corners so I could finish M.

            > Has someone written all algs if i would placing DF and DB at DF and DB
            > (ignoring exact position and orientation) and then orient all 6
            > remaining edges? It would end up with an EO at last.
            > What would be the fastest way?

            I don't think I've seen this before. I guess it would be as good as the other way of doing the LSE. Recognition time may be a problem.

            When using "Roux" I solve the regular way; block, block, corners, normal LSE. When I was using NMCMLL, I was using unconstrained centers in LSE and it felt so unnecessary. The recognition time was a little longer than the regular way and it had a higher move count average (by .75) because of the final R/r rotation.

            Honestly, the best way I've seen to finish the last six edges in "Roux" is the way Gilles Roux describes on his site. In my opinion it is already a 2.5 look because you first look at the edge orientation, and while you are doing that you notice the location of the UL/UR edges, you solve one or both of them at the same time you are orienting, then you permute the M edges. It's wonderful.

            --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, thomasstadler@... wrote:
            >
            > hi athefre,
            > thx for the link, now i'see that this idea already exists :-(
            >
            > so what are your experiences using 2,5 look last six edges for
            > speedcubing (not for fmc)?
            > are you place the UL and UR at the bottom before doing CMLL (so its
            > necessary to use COLL) ?
            > Have you seen that you can also using UF and UB at the buffer position ?
            > Has someone written all algs if i would placing DF and DB at DF and DB
            > (ignoring exact position and orientation) and then orient all 6
            > remaining edges? It would end up with an EO at last.
            > What would be the fastest way?
            >
            > My average using 2,5 look last six edges is around 18seconds (but i
            > think that i could speed up if i could place UR and UL before C...LL
            > and if i have learned all last step cases)...
            >
            > thx for new (or already existing) ideas
            >
            > Thomas Stadler
            >
            > www.speedcubing.ch
            >
            >
            >
            > ----------------------------------------------------------------
            > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.