The Case for Yau: Omar Ellabban on Why Big Cube Solving Is Moving Away From Redux

Canadian big cube champion Omar Ellabban explains why Yau is gaining ground, why Redux still works, and what serious solvers should consider next.

Omar Ellabban, posing with 4 Canadian Championships. Source: Omar Ellaban

Omar Ellabban is one of Canada’s top big cube solvers and a multiple-time Canadian champion across 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7.

Why This Debate Matters

Yau vs Redux has been a topic of discussion for years now, and as time progresses, more and more people have been switching to Yau - especially in bigger cubes like 6x6 and 7x7.

For me, this debate became personal when I switched over to Yau a few years back. Since making that switch, it has helped me break countless national records across 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7, and become a 7x Canadian champion across 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7.

I’ve used both methods extensively, but after thousands of solves and years of competition experience, Yau became the method I trusted most at the highest level.

Quick Explanation of Redux vs. Yau

Both Yau and Redux aim to reduce the cube into a “3x3” stage, but they approach reduction differently.

Redux solves all centers first, then all edges, then finishes with standard 3x3.

Yau changes the order by starting with two opposing centers, then building three or all four of your cross edges, finishing the remaining centers while preserving those edges, then completing the rest of edge pairing before transitioning directly into 3x3.

The destination is the same, the difference is how each method gets there.

Why Redux Has Stayed Popular

As explained by how each method works, it’s easy to see why Redux has remained popular. Redux is simpler and more straightforward to learn compared to Yau. The stages are separated clearly and the progression feels natural.

When you pair that simplicity with Max Park’s dominance in big cubes for almost a decade, it makes a very strong case for why so many people think Redux is the right choice when getting into big cube solving.

But are we all really Max? Max has made Redux look almost unbeatable, but being able to make something work at an extraordinary level doesn’t necessarily mean it’s automatically optimal for everyone else.

Where I Think Redux Falls Short

As straightforward as Redux is, I think it has drawbacks that become more noticeable over time. Redux often requires extremely high efficiency while edge pairing, along with more rotations and more flipping of the cube than necessary when searching for pieces.

The method also tends to rely more heavily on increased raw TPS and edge luck during pairing, and because each stage is isolated from the next, the transitions can often feel disconnected. When solves go well, Redux can look amazing. But when edge cases aren’t favorable or transitions become inefficient, the method becomes much more demanding.

Why I Think Yau Is Better Long-Term

In my opinion, Yau is better long term because it reduces how much of the cube you need to look at while edge pairing and during the 3x3 stage. The transitions between stages feel smoother since you’re constantly building toward later parts of the solve instead of fully separating them. I also find there’s less time variance between solves because Yau is less dependent on edge luck and rewards efficiency more consistently.

Another thing I value is structure. Most Yau solvers start their solves with the same first two centers, which creates consistency across solves - similar to being white-yellow only on 3x3 instead of fully color neutral. That repeatability makes it easier to build habits and refine execution over time.

I also think that consistency matters even more in competition. When nerves start building, pressure increases, and you’re solving on stage or deep into finals, your ability to execute the same solve structure over and over becomes incredibly valuable. Having fewer decisions to make and more familiar transitions makes it easier to trust your process instead of relying purely on reactions and TPS.

For me, that consistency under pressure is one of Yau’s biggest strengths.

The Downsides of Yau

With all the benefits of Yau, it definitely has drawbacks.

The biggest one is restriction during last four centers because you need to preserve your cross edges while solving. That limits your move freedom and can feel awkward at first. It also naturally restricts your starting centers to colors that allow you to transition properly into the 3x3 stage.

On top of that, Yau takes significantly more time to get used to because it breaks up steps that Redux keeps together. Adjusting to preserving cross edges usually forces you to turn slower initially, which many cubers simply don’t enjoy and aren’t willing to push through, even if they believe Yau may ultimately be better.

A good Redux solve will still beat bad Yau.

Why Hardware Changes the Conversation

As cubes get better, more people can turn fast. That removes many of the old limitations Yau used to have, especially frustrations around turning on moves like L and L’ during last four centers while preserving cross edges.

With these hardware improvements, we also need to start looking more at solve efficiency rather than cube speed. Years ago, slowing down your big cubes for more control would’ve been almost blasphemy when people were putting Maru lube in every few solves just to keep cubes usable.

Today, hardware is no longer the bottleneck. That means method choice and efficiency matter more than ever.

What I’d Tell a Serious Redux Solver

The argument I’m making isn’t that Yau is definitely better than Redux for everybody. It’s about figuring out what works best for you as an individual. Different turning styles benefit from different methods.

The main thing I’d look at when deciding which method to use is comparing your center splits, edge splits, and your 3x3 stage.

If you’re like me and your weakness is edges, TPS, and the 3x3 stage, then Yau can provide huge benefits through smoother edge pairing and entering 3x3 with a premade cross.

If your centers are much weaker, then further limiting your turning during last four centers may not make as much sense.

But the only real way to know is to try both.

Use Yau seriously for a week. Are your times much worse? The same? Maybe even better? Then ask yourself: if you continued with it, do you see more long-term potential than what you currently have with Redux?

Why I Personally Use Yau

Ever since I switched to Yau back in 2023, I noticed the biggest improvements in edge pairing and the 3x3 stage. I no longer had to constantly flip the cube searching for edges and didn’t have to stop and build my cross. I could simply continue focusing on the edges I was pairing, which transitions extremely well into lookahead for F2L.

The results were immediate. My times improved significantly and helped me reach 6th in the world in 7x7. I earned 38 out of my 40 national records after switching and saw major drops in competition times, including improving my 7x7 single by 18 seconds in under three months.

On top of those records, every single one of my Canadian championship titles in 2023 and 2025 was achieved using Yau. That doesn’t automatically prove Yau is better - but for me, the results made the decision obvious.

Closing Thoughts

Redux has looked unbeatable partly because Max Park made it look unbeatable. But for people who aren’t Max Park, Yau may be the better long-term path.

We’re already starting to see this shift happen. 10 of the top 12 7x7 solvers in the world use Yau. You have examples like Lim Hung’s 6x6 and 7x7 world records, Tymon’s dominance in 5x5, and even people like Feliks Zemdegs - who has dominated the sport longer than many of us have been cubing - switching methods and continuing to improve with Yau.

Redux isn’t bad, but I don’t think it should automatically remain the default anymore.

For serious big cube solvers trying to combine speed and efficiency, Yau deserves much more attention than it currently gets.