• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.
Hey, so People. An update on using K4. (AKA why people don't use it)
after playing with it, watching Austin moore livestream solves , and seeing this video, I don't know why more people don't use it.
Hey, so I think the main reason people don't use K4 is because of ELL. There are a lot of people that in general don't understand the concept of commutators, and the idea of using an LL method based entirely on a foreign concept scares them a bit (recognizing cycles and EO can be a bit tough if not experienced.) Also, I find the recognition of ELL to be awkward and a bit slow, but that can probably be chalked up to inexperience.

It should also be noted that the beginning of K4 is pretty awkward, and some people may not be comfortable with a method that doesn't have (as) efficient F2L. But this would be really easy to improve on. You could build Roux blocks, do L4C, use commutators to insert the last 2 F2L edges, and do ELL (but this is really just a less efficient variant of Lewis.) You can also take a basic cross approach (Yau and use K4 to build F2L and solve LL), or you could even make a ZZ direct solving method (although it would probably have a horrendous movecount); say, build LR centers, use OBLBL to make EO line, use K4 pairing to blockbuild F2L, and finally ELL. All have potential but I'd focus on the ZZ and CFOP based approaches b/c they'd be the most efficient and easiest to execute.

So yes it has potential, it's just scary to a lot of people; and while I'm no statistician, I would predict that it has a higher movecount than the main 4x4 methods. But if you could find a nice recog system I think it could be worth looking into, or maybe change the steps of ELL up a little. Maybe orient all the dedges and solve one so you only have 6 wings to solve?
 
Hey, so I think the main reason people don't use K4 is because of ELL. There are a lot of people that in general don't understand the concept of commutators, and the idea of using an LL method based entirely on a foreign concept scares them a bit (recognizing cycles and EO can be a bit tough if not experienced.) Also, I find the recognition of ELL to be awkward and a bit slow, but that can probably be chalked up to inexperience.

It should also be noted that the beginning of K4 is pretty awkward, and some people may not be comfortable with a method that doesn't have (as) efficient F2L. But this would be really easy to improve on. You could build Roux blocks, do L4C, use commutators to insert the last 2 F2L edges, and do ELL (but this is really just a less efficient variant of Lewis.) You can also take a basic cross approach (Yau and use K4 to build F2L and solve LL), or you could even make a ZZ direct solving method (although it would probably have a horrendous movecount); say, build LR centers, use OBLBL to make EO line, use K4 pairing to blockbuild F2L, and finally ELL. All have potential but I'd focus on the ZZ and CFOP based approaches b/c they'd be the most efficient and easiest to execute.

So yes it has potential, it's just scary to a lot of people; and while I'm no statistician, I would predict that it has a higher movecount than the main 4x4 methods. But if you could find a nice recog system I think it could be worth looking into, or maybe change the steps of ELL up a little. Maybe orient all the dedges and solve one so you only have 6 wings to solve?
K4 in its purest original form has only slightly higher movecount than yau. that's about what Meyer/Hoya/lewis are at.
 
Oh yeah guys... got a 1:02 4x4 single on camera with Lewis method! I still have a lot of pauses, especially during F2B, so I think I could have sub-1 or maybe even sub-50'd it with smoother blocks.


EDIT: made a wiki page for Lewis method, with videos linked if you want to ever learn.
 
Last edited:
That's a lot of extra moves and looks just to get an EPLL. And it's still like 100 algs... I don't see that as being beneficial.

I'm not saying this makes it viable, but phasing opposite edges is usually around 3-4 moves, which really isn't that much. But I agree about ELL not being very good, unless you use it only when the cases come up, not as a substep. And it's only around 40-50 algs, not 100.
 
I'm not saying this makes it viable, but phasing opposite edges is usually around 3-4 moves, which really isn't that much. But I agree about ELL not being very good, unless you use it only when the cases come up, not as a substep. And it's only around 40-50 algs, not 100.
If my math is right, the case count would be:
possible edge orientations: 4flip, noflip, oppflip1, and oppflip2(there are 2 because of COLL asymmetry). You'd have 42 cases for each set, so that'd be 42*4 = 168 cases. that is not alg count, and I bet there would be mirrors/inverses, but the case count is pretty high.
 
I think the best way to do OLLCP with CFOP is to get EO out of the way at the start of the solve :P
 
If my math is right, the case count would be:
possible edge orientations: 4flip, noflip, oppflip1, and oppflip2(there are 2 because of COLL asymmetry). You'd have 42 cases for each set, so that'd be 42*4 = 168 cases. that is not alg count, and I bet there would be mirrors/inverses, but the case count is pretty high.

Alright, I checked on algdb and there are 25 ELL cases, but this doesn't count EPLL (all oriented), so the grand total is 29.
 
New 3x3 PB today with LMCF: 8.88 single! Probably the lowest movecount speedsolve of my life, 27 moves!! That's why it's called low movecount corners first!

Approximate reconstruction:

1. During the 15 second inspection I saw I could solve the green face and get a CLL skip on blue (1 in 162), and I also saw I could solve the blue center and one blue edge in 2 moves
2. Solved the corners and one edge as above (5 moves)
3. Solved 2 E2L pairs (15 moves)
4. Solved last edge and got a midges orientation skip (3 moves)
5. Permuted the midges and adjusted the R face (4 moves)

STPS 3.04

Note this was one of the first solves in the day so I was not warmed up at all. Had it been later in the sequence my TPS would have been higher and it could have even been sub 7, and if this were done by an expert it could have been 3.50.

This was done with Valk 3 (non-magnetic) on stackmat (I actually took a photo of the timer 8.881), too bad it wasn't on video.
 
New 3x3 PB today with LMCF: 8.88 single! Probably the lowest movecount speedsolve of my life, 27 moves!! That's why it's called low movecount corners first!

Approximate reconstruction:

1. During the 15 second inspection I saw I could solve the green face and get a CLL skip on blue (1 in 162), and I also saw I could solve the blue center and one blue edge in 2 moves
2. Solved the corners and one edge as above (5 moves)
3. Solved 2 E2L pairs (15 moves)
4. Solved last edge and got a midges orientation skip (3 moves)
5. Permuted the midges and adjusted the R face (4 moves)

STPS 3.04

Note this was one of the first solves in the day so I was not warmed up at all. Had it been later in the sequence my TPS would have been higher and it could have even been sub 7, and if this were done by an expert it could have been 3.50.

This was done with Valk 3 (non-magnetic) on stackmat (I actually took a photo of the timer 8.881), too bad it wasn't on video.
The lowest movecount speedsolve of I think anybody. Feliks couldn't get that many moves. holy **** that could have been sub-3 at 10 TPS. Teach us this method Efattah! youre a god!
 
The lowest movecount speedsolve of I think anybody. Feliks couldn't get that many moves. holy **** that could have been sub-3 at 10 TPS. Teach us this method Efattah! youre a god!
I've had one or two solves with movecounts like that before... The scramble is far more important than the method if you want to get sub-30 moves. I think Feliks could get sub-30 moves with a LL skip, given that F2L movecount averages low-mid 30s.
 
I've had one or two solves with movecounts like that before... The scramble is far more important than the method if you want to get sub-30 moves. I think Feliks could get sub-30 moves with a LL skip, given that F2L movecount averages low-mid 30s.
I guess so. but the avg movecount for LMCF is crazy. I have been able to play with it intuitively, since I know CLL(just CMLL algs lel). it's crazy.
 
Back
Top