mitchell has some on his site www.opticubes.com, but that's why I've been trying to get relearn Arnaud's method. He showed me at the US Open, but I forgot the intricacies of the method. Granted, Arnaud does not really move any cube extremely fast, and he still is there. I just finished doing a bunch of 5x5 solves, and I was able to get 30-35 second centers and sub 30 3x3s, but my edges killed everyone of my times (65-70). Getting Arnaud's method into a fast-handed person could prove to be powerful.
Nvm... mitchell didn't have any 5x5 vids. O well.
By the way, ExoCorsair, I've tried using both methods and counting moves, and I never expect it while it's happening, but it almost always works out to almost exactly the same number of moves. Arnaud's method actually seems worse at first, but the last 4 tredges in the bigcubes method wind up being enough moves to compensate so it works out the same. (Of course, the last 4 tredges are memorized algorithsm which go quickly, so from an execution perspective, you'd think it'd be quicker.) So the benefit one way or the other either is due to my not executing one of them optimally (which is certainly possible - I might even be doing both of them wrong!), or due to recognition or execution being quicker per edge one way or the other. But I'm not good enough to make any determination on that, unfortunately. Which is why it would be interesting for someone who's better at 5x5x5 to try to figure it out.
ExoCorsair, maybe you were suggesting you were going to do just that. If not, would you consider it? I'd like to see how it works out in your (much more capable) hands. Or maybe you should do move counts for the bigcubes method and Arnaud should do them for his method, and then we can compare averages (to make sure good versions of the method are used in both cases).
Arnauds method does indeed have the same amount or sometimes a bit more moves, but this small disatvantage is blown away by the nice lookahead of the method, if I perfect my style and improve my lookahead skills a bit there should be exactly 0 delays in the pair-up phase
I finally had a little while to do the comp.:
16.86 (14.08) 20.94. 16.84 (POP)
The 20.94 was a minor pop but I was able to fix quick. The last POP was huge, so I just said screw solving. All were full non-lucky solves, without warmups. I am satisfied.
BTW Arnaud, I have still be confirming the FM posts each week, just so you know
About my 5x5x5 edge pairing method: I made a comparison with Ron and it turned out that he uses about 75 moves using the bigcubes method and I use about 80 moves. The move count of my method is greatly depending on the 50% chance of parity. If you end up with 3 semi-pairs you don't have parity and save 12 moves.
As Erik explained the good part about my method is the look-ahead. You don't start with a center and then try to find to wings (2 out of 24 pieces), but you start with a wing and try to find the center (1 out of 12). Then while you are setting up that center you know what the the next wing is so you can already look for the next center (1 out of 12) and so on. Finding 1 out of 12 pieces is easier than 2 out of 24 pieces and you can find the pieces while you move the cube.
Doing 80 moves in about 60 seconds should be possible for everyone that practises for a while.
Finally for those that don't know, Erik is using my method and has fast hands. His times for this week:
5x5: (1:39.91), (2:01.06), 1:50.59, 1:53.25, 1:44.69 => 1:49.51
o, i didn't realize that erik was using that method... I guess it can compete with bigcubes.com