• 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.

Older cubers discussions

Last edited:
I bumped into another interesting F2L-alg yesterday, one that I couldn't find in algdb: L'-Sune-L. I've used L2 U2 L U L' U L2 to solve from that same position. It's shorter and a bit faster for me to perform, but it's not very good for lookahead with all those L2 moves. The neat thing with L'-sune-L is also that it preserves the pair in the FL slot, which could come in handy.

An alternative way of using the same basic alg is Sune-R'-U2'-R (R-U-R'-U-R-U2-R2-U2-R). Not as much of a fan of this version though. But again it preserves the pair currently in the slot you are inserting to.
 
Last edited:
h2f said:
Congrats @openseas.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
Out of curiosity, tried to check family podium through WCA dB but since family relationship is not included, not possible. So, I tried to get just same last name podiums, then, Asian culture - family name first sequence, makes it also impossible to do that. I guess WCA needs to clean up a little bit (just separate first and last name). L
 
@openseas congrats! I may have to pick your brain in charleston... while I can get immediate feedback. But not until AFTER the comp. I don’t want to distract you and your son during prep time.

@JanW that will be some good F2L work for me when I get around to it. I haven’t spent a lot of time optimising my F2L. Rather, I’ve just worked on my look ahead to improve tracking pieces from pair NOT currently being solved.

Lately, I’ve been distracted with some 5x5. My buddy seems to like it. He was asking me some questions and ever since, I’ve been trying various methods. I’ve tried yau 5 and subtle variations on the same. Trying to determine which is more efficient for me—(1) solving the cross edges, then 2 F2L edges within the next 4 and inserting those to the rear slots before finishing; or (2) cross edges, ANY four edges using free slicing followed by the remaining 4 edges.

In both cases, I’ve found that i make fewer errors with the parity alg when I do it AFTER F2L. Meaning, I see it and still do F2L before fixing it. Then go on to OLL/PLL.

How do you guys go about 5x5? Pure reduction, yau 5, other...???
 
I'm definitely pure reduction, actually AvG on 5x5x5. Lately I'm trying once again to get better at freeslice, but I've never been able to get quite as fast with it as with AvG. At my best I was averaging about 2:10 globally; now I'm slower, around 2:25 with AvG and 2:45 with freeslice.

I really believe AvG can be equally fast to other methods on 5x5x5; it's just when you go to 6x6x6 and beyond that freeslice is clearly better than AvG. If you look at how fast Erik Akkersdijk was with 5x5x5 using AvG with really bad hardware back in the early days, I think it's hard to say AvG is a bad method for 5x5x5.

I admit I haven't looked enough into other methods like yau5 to have an opinion on them.
 
Mike Hughey said:
I'm definitely pure reduction, actually AvG on 5x5x5. Lately I'm trying once again to get better at freeslice, but I've never been able to get quite as fast with it as with AvG. At my best I was averaging about 2:10 globally; now I'm slower, around 2:25 with AvG and 2:45 with freeslice.

I really believe AvG can be equally fast to other methods on 5x5x5; it's just when you go to 6x6x6 and beyond that freeslice is clearly better than AvG. If you look at how fast Erik Akkersdijk was with 5x5x5 using AvG with really bad hardware back in the early days, I think it's hard to say AvG is a bad method for 5x5x5.

I admit I haven't looked enough into other methods like yau5 to have an opinion on them.
Click to expand...
Right. I wouldn’t say I’m using any “pure” method at this point. I tend to do the white cross colours first, but that’s mainly because they are easy to see. After that, I don’t think I’ve come to any decision about methods. I tend to do what works in that moment. But sometimes I get “burned” and do the F2L slots in the rear and after fixing parity they are all jacked up—meaning taking the time to place them was wasted. However, filling the rear slots with ANY solved edge seems to assistg look ahead by reducing the possible locations. Of course, after that I don’t do freealice at all.

You’re lightyears ahead of me. I couldn’t even claim a global on 5x5, but 4:30-4:40 is probably fair to say. That said, I’m not the speediest cuber our there. I bet with a little focus and some improved hardware (using cyclone boys) I could get below 4 min pretty consistently.
 
Someone recently mentioned that big cubes are all about spamming practice. If you do lots of solves, you'll get faster, almost no matter what you do.

Somehow I've always loved solving big cubes. If I want to do something mindless, I solve a 5x5x5 or a 7x7x7. I've always preferred odds to evens, too.

I'm REALLY REALLY looking forward to getting a decent modern 7x7x7 and 5x5x5. I get my new cubes just two days from now!!! :-D
 
SpartanSailor said:
How do you guys go about 5x5? Pure reduction, yau 5, other...???
Click to expand...

I've used Yau (without inserting F2L pairs before finishing edge pairing), reduction with edge parity forced to the last layer (which I use on 6x6), and reduction (freeslice) with edge parity at the end of edge pairing. I like the flow and ability to take advantage of lucky cases in the latter.
 
Mike Hughey said:
Someone recently mentioned that big cubes are all about spamming practice. If you do lots of solves, you'll get faster, almost no matter what you do.

Somehow I've always loved solving big cubes. If I want to do something mindless, I solve a 5x5x5 or a 7x7x7. I've always preferred odds to evens, too.

I'm REALLY REALLY looking forward to getting a decent modern 7x7x7 and 5x5x5. I get my new cubes just two days from now!!! :-D
Click to expand...
I definitely can tell just some regular solving has made huge improvements in a short time. But that is to be expected when it’s a relatively new puzzle—I “can” solve bigger cubes, but don’t regularly.

One Wheel said:
I've used Yau (without inserting F2L pairs before finishing edge pairing), reduction with edge parity forced to the last layer (which I use on 6x6), and reduction (freeslice) with edge parity at the end of edge pairing. I like the flow and ability to take advantage of lucky cases in the latter.
Click to expand...

Do you find that with a little “planning” you can see and fix parity before it occurs? Sometimes I feel like I can see the parity and do an edge pairing to flip the edge and allow for a parity free final edge... of course, that could just be a parity free solve and not necessarily due to what i “think” I’m doing.
 
SpartanSailor said:
@openseas congrats! I may have to pick your brain in charleston... while I can get immediate feedback. But not until AFTER the comp. I don’t want to distract you and your son during prep time.

@JanW that will be some good F2L work for me when I get around to it. I haven’t spent a lot of time optimising my F2L. Rather, I’ve just worked on my look ahead to improve tracking pieces from pair NOT currently being solved.

Lately, I’ve been distracted with some 5x5. My buddy seems to like it. He was asking me some questions and ever since, I’ve been trying various methods. I’ve tried yau 5 and subtle variations on the same. Trying to determine which is more efficient for me—(1) solving the cross edges, then 2 F2L edges within the next 4 and inserting those to the rear slots before finishing; or (2) cross edges, ANY four edges using free slicing followed by the remaining 4 edges.

In both cases, I’ve found that i make fewer errors with the parity alg when I do it AFTER F2L. Meaning, I see it and still do F2L before fixing it. Then go on to OLL/PLL.

How do you guys go about 5x5? Pure reduction, yau 5, other...???
Click to expand...
I do Hoya for 5x5 and 4x4. I don't think it's the best for 5x5, but at the same time I think I can get a lot better before it would matter that I use it. I'm just a little under 3 mins, but there are some decent guys that use it.
 
SpartanSailor said:
Do you find that with a little “planning” you can see and fix parity before it occurs? Sometimes I feel like I can see the parity and do an edge pairing to flip the edge and allow for a parity free final edge... of course, that could just be a parity free solve and not necessarily due to what i “think” I’m doing.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that edge parity has to do with center configuration. I did a little experiment a while back that is easier to describe than the results: take a solved 7x7, and put 4 or 5 wrong-colored pieces on a face in an asymmetric pattern. Take a picture of that pattern, do a parity alg, and compare the center to the picture of the center before parity.
 
When we were doing 4x4x4 fewest moves on the weekly competition, my goal would be to always remove all parity in the initial centers solve. I don't remember the exact rules, but the idea was: come up with the best possible center solve in about 10 minutes (we had 2.5 hours for the entire solve), then solve it and see if you have parity. If so, go back and make the proper adjustments to the centers solve, possibly adding 2 or 3 moves, so as to remove parity. Then solve the edges with AvG (which is really surprisingly move-efficient when done slowly and carefully), then do an ordinary 3x3x3 fewest moves solve from there to finish, with no parity. I was able to average under 100 moves with that rather simple approach, and without being very good at the time at 3x3x3 FMC. I really wish I remember the details, but I don't right now.
 
AvG? I’m not familiar with that acronym. I don’t want to miss the point by making a wrong assumption about the meaning. This is the second (or third) time someone referred to it.

I assume it’s a shorthand for simple reduction or something similar.
 
Mike Hughey said:
When we were doing 4x4x4 fewest moves on the weekly competition, my goal would be to always remove all parity in the initial centers solve. I don't remember the exact rules, but the idea was: come up with the best possible center solve in about 10 minutes (we had 2.5 hours for the entire solve), then solve it and see if you have parity. If so, go back and make the proper adjustments to the centers solve, possibly adding 2 or 3 moves, so as to remove parity. Then solve the edges with AvG (which is really surprisingly move-efficient when done slowly and carefully), then do an ordinary 3x3x3 fewest moves solve from there to finish, with no parity. I was able to average under 100 moves with that rather simple approach, and without being very good at the time at 3x3x3 FMC. I really wish I remember the details, but I don't right now.
Click to expand...
Not that I’m able to do FMC for ANY sized cube, but I take it to that you are saying if the Center’s are solved “correctly” you can avoid parity in from any initial scramble/configuration? Very interesting. I wasn’t sure what caused the parity, just know it can be annoying when going for speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Burrito
Any older kid/teen cubers in Durham Region, Ontario?
Replies
0
Views
793
Burrito
Burrito
Jilli0
  • Locked
Any Teen/Older Kid Cubers in Wayne County, Michigan?
Replies
11
Views
2,505
Deleted member 74176
D
Mr Cubism
How many older members (registered before 2010) are still active here?
Replies
1
Views
93
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
O
[Member Intro] Older beginner in scotland
Replies
17
Views
3,174
Cuberto333
C
Humble Cuber
Selling Older Puzzles | 2-5's & Megaminx's
Replies
6
Views
2,264
Humble Cuber
Humble Cuber
Back
Top