Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:32:32 +0000
Subject: Re: 3x3 twisty puzzle talk
Newsgroups: rec.puzzles
References: <87y130k5ha.fsf@rpi3>
 <bUOdnSHP37lNnpn6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87ttdejgtz.fsf@rpi3>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 17:32:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87ttdejgtz.fsf@rpi3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <aqmdnWligPW9BJP6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 115
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tzsHKy4da4bYbcIfeQEqRj0h4WiEprL56UeSvH9w+YXqv5OF3aoRyoRDCSnlQ+bupzn/LWp/A3/73BQ!mVFpr9n9SUi++TgB9YQlnXnkPmuQa+AcbtALxOhK0SpMUL6Yv1u2X4ej2vga8s2RSqUnjXNxNlo8!TAVBAEmiERnNv1NnFaDe0XVAi2k=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 6860

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:
>>> Hey folks -
>>> Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
>>> technique.
>>> Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
>>> final
>>> edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
>>> reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
>>> don't utilize predefined techniques.
>>> Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
>>> I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>
>> I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it
>> back in 1980.  My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
>> speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
>> record/competition stuff!  The advantage (for me) of my method is that
>> it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
>> require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms.
>> (Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
>> puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
>> variants on the market.)
> 
> Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
> own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created
> your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
> it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.
> 
> The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
> know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
> shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
> and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set
> it down for many years.
> 
>> I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to
>> help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web
>> link to the method!
> 
> Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out that I
> was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to
> speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
> local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
> than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
> bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
> children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I
> won't feel too out-of-place.
> 
> Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased required
> moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
> solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
> layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you
> only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.
> 
> You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved - and
> there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use
> one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.
> 
> For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to solve
> the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've
> standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.
> 
> Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of the
> moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
> notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn
> these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
> distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:
> 
>               +-----+-----+-----+
>              /|     |     |     |
>             / |     |     |     |  x and y's denote the solved
>            /  |     |     |     |  area. They can be any color.
>           +   +-----+-----+-----+
>          /|  /|     |     |     |   As you can see, the middle
>         / | / |  x  |     |  y  |   slice and top layer are
>        /  |/  |     |     |     |   the remains of the solution.
>       +   + x +-----+-----+-----+   I didn't draw out the other side
>      /|  /|  /|     |     |     |   for brevity's sake.
>     / | / | / |  x  |     |  y  |
>    /  |/  |/  |     |     |     |
>   +   + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
>   |  /|  /|  /     /     /     /
>   | / | / | /  x  /     /  y  /
>   |/  |/  |/     /     /     /
>   + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
>   |  /|  /     /     /     /
>   | / | /  x  /     /  y  /
>   |/  |/     /     /     /
>   + x +-----+-----+-----+
>   |  /     /     /     /
>   | /  x  /     /  y  /
>   |/     /     /     /
>   +-----+-----+-----+
> 

That's great ascii drawing.  I even understand what it's saying related to your desctiption of the 
method.  With my solving technique, the last 4 corners I would have to solve as two 3-corner 
transforms, which means 16 moves minimum but probably more due to pre/post "setup" moves.  (Coming 
from a maths background, I would call those "conjugation" moves.)  So not efficient.  OTOH with 5 
corners to solve it would still be two 3-corner transforms unless I'm unlucky...  40 seconds for me 
would be /really/ fast, but I'm a bit rubbish at the whole physical twisting of the faces.  The 
first cube I had was the complete opposite of "slick" - it had a grating feel when twisting, and 
over time the internal workings wore away due to friction and it became looser and looser until you 
could almost shake it into separate pieces! :)

Anyhow, good luck with your speed cubing!
Mike.