[Help Thread] Big Cube Discussion (5x5 / 6x6 / 7x7 / etc)

[xyzzy]

For the OXOXO case... I couldn't find a single algo fix. I realized that I could do one of each after each other... and that would fix it.. but was hoping there was a change to the wide slices I move to do this.

Any ideas on the variation?

See:

This specific rendition of Lucas parity is also easily modified to a variant for solving only inner parity for 666 and 777 (and even bigger cubes):
3R U2 3R x U2 3R U2 (x' 3L') U2 3L U2 3R' U2 3R U2 3R' U2 3R'

 

[robdawg421]

See:

Yes but that is a bit different of an algorithm (which might be better.. I just have been exclusively using the other until now). It moves the location of the x rotation, adds an additional reverse x rotation.. and swaps an R for an L. Which admittedly is close.

Are the changes in x rotations required to adjust the algo I am using to handle OXOXO?

 

[xyzzy]

Yes but that is a bit different of an algorithm (which might be better.. I just have been exclusively using the other until now). It moves the location of the x rotation, adds an additional reverse x rotation.. and swaps an R for an L. Which admittedly is close.

Are the changes in x rotations required to adjust the algo I am using to handle OXOXO?

You can freely swap x/L/R moves when they're next to each other (and in fact Rw x and x Rw are exactly the same thing when executed quickly).

While (m)Lw' moves can combine with an x' rotation to become an (n−m)Rw' move, this is not the case for slice moves. 3L' x' is not equivalent to 3R' (or 4R', or any other slice); it is instead equivalent to Lw 3Rw' (on a 6×6×6) or Lw 4Rw' (on a 7×7×7).

To wit, this is another way of writing the very same alg:
3R U2 x 3R U2 3R U2 (Lw 4Rw') U2 3L U2 3R' U2 3R U2 3R' U2 3R'

 

[robdawg421]

You can freely swap x/L/R moves when they're next to each other (and in fact Rw x and x Rw are exactly the same thing when executed quickly).

While (m)Lw' moves can combine with an x' rotation to become an (n−m)Rw' move, this is not the case for slice moves. 3L' x' is not equivalent to 3R' (or 4R', or any other slice); it is instead equivalent to Lw 3Rw' (on a 6×6×6) or Lw 4Rw' (on a 7×7×7).

To wit, this is another way of writing the very same alg:
3R U2 x 3R U2 3R U2 (Lw 4Rw') U2 3L U2 3R' U2 3R U2 3R' U2 3R'

Dude... thats awesome. What is the OOXOO for the Rw U2 Rw (x U2 Rw U2 x') Lw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw' algo?

Also... where can I see a bit about how to use Rw U2 Rw U2 F2 Rw F2 Lw' U2 Lw U2 Rw2 ?

 

[Sub1Hour]

What is the OOXOO for the Rw U2 Rw (x U2 Rw U2 x') Lw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw' algo?

Just replace the wide moves with 3 moves and you're set

 

[robdawg421]

Just realized there were single slices instead of wide turns... got confused on the notation

3R U2 x 3R U2 3R U2 (Lw 4Rw') U2 3L U2 3R' U2 3R U2 3R' U2 3R'

vs.

3Rw U2 x 3Rw U2 3Rw U2 (Lw 4Rw') U2 3Lw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw'

The orig alg I was using was wide turns.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Just realized there were single slices instead of wide turns... got confused on the notation

3R U2 x 3R U2 3R U2 (Lw 4Rw') U2 3L U2 3R' U2 3R U2 3R' U2 3R'

vs.

3Rw U2 x 3Rw U2 3Rw U2 (Lw 4Rw') U2 3Lw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw'

The orig alg I was using was wide turns.

Unless you have an XOXOX case or need to preserve everything else for some reason you shouldn't have to use single slices.

But yeah, the notation is very confusing at first but once you get familiar with it it's not that bad.

 

[robdawg421]

How can Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw' be converted for XOXOX in the least impactful way? The single slice one looked great as far as minimal changes.. but single slices instead of wide is also a big change.

 

[Sub1Hour]

How can Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw' be converted for XOXOX in the least impactful way? The single slice one looked great as far as minimal changes.. but single slices instead of wide is also a big change.

Honestly single slices is probably your best bet. Yeah it sucks and all but it’s very simple and you don’t have to learn an extra alg for it. It’s not worth it to me to learn an entirely different algorithm for a case that rarely happens that is only gonna save a second on 7x7. Your better off putting your energy towards center building and edge building principles that can save you many seconds on every solve instead of a different parity algorithm that saves a second or two on a handful of solves

 

[robdawg421]

Yeah.. my recent goal has been as few algorithms as possible. After not cubing for 2 years I lost the ability to solve a 3x3 from memory.. had to look things up. I sort of felt that knowing 4LLL helped with that instead of the beginner's method.

The base algo I am using here took me from 4x4 - 6x6 with very minimal changes. For my current learning style.. I would almost prefer to do two of the simple algos back to back (which works) than switch the whole algo up and and have to backtrack to regain muscle memory. The only case holding me back was the XOXOX. And it has come up in solving the final edge in my current level.

Is there a more minor adjustment to handle XOXOX or that is the straw that broke the camel's back lol. I'll have to backtrack a bit and try new algos or do two algos to handle it.

Thats not to say the current algorithms shared aren't awesome... I am actually amazed at how you guys are playing with the moves. I'm learning a lot.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Yeah.. my recent goal has been as few algorithms as possible. After not cubing for 2 years I lost the ability to solve a 3x3 from memory.. had to look things up. I sort of felt that knowing 4LLL helped with that instead of the beginner's method.

The base algo I am using here took me from 4x4 - 6x6 with very minimal changes. For my current learning style.. I would almost prefer to do two of the simple algos back to back (which works) than switch the whole algo up and and have to backtrack to regain muscle memory. The only case holding me back was the XOXOX. And it has come up in solving the final edge in my current level.

Is there a more minor adjustment to handle XOXOX or that is the straw that broke the camel's back lol. I'll have to backtrack a bit and try new algos or do two algos to handle it.

Thats not to say the current algorithms shared aren't awesome... I am actually amazed at how you guys are playing with the moves. I'm learning a lot.

I mean switching it to slices instead of full wide turns is about as simple as it gets, but I’m glad your picking up on some of the nuances of the alg alterations. It’s very hard to grasp at the beginning but I can tell your getting very familiar with how it works. Keep it up!

 

[robdawg421]

Thanks to both of you for sharing and working to help me with my algos. Just solved 7x7 for the 2nd time from full scramble and this time I see how maybe I can try to avoid the XOXOX parity during the edge pairing stage perhaps. Part of why I am trying to find a single simple algorithm is I like that with 3x3 I can send a friend a link and pretty much anyone can follow the steps and solve it. When I was trying to learn 4x4.. there are equivalent sites/guides.. but they start to diverge on the algorithm's for parity. The algorithm in the main guide I used was disgusting and then I found the method JPerm used for 4x4 and saw he easily extended it for 5x5 and 6x6. Only prob was 7x7 and suddenly the few guides I found were using completely different algorithms.

Probably will spend time going back down to lower cubes to reenforce what I've learned.. then actually will probably focus back on 3x3 as my cross and f2l could use some speeding up. For anyone who was looking for the algos online and ran into the same issue with finding a single use algo here is what I've settled on:

4x4 OLL
Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw' for 4x4

5x5 OLL
3Rw U2 x 3Rw U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' U2 3Lw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw'

6x6 OLL
4Rw U2 x 4Rw U2 4Rw U2 4Rw' U2 4Lw U2 4Rw' U2 4Rw U2 4Rw' U2 4Rw'
3Rw U2 x 3Rw U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' U2 3Lw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' U2 3Rw'

7x7 OLL
4Rw U2 x 4Rw U2 4Rw U2 4Rw' U2 4Lw U2 4Rw' U2 4Rw U2 4Rw' U2 4Rw'
5Rw U2 x 5Rw U2 5Rw U2 5Rw' U2 5Lw U2 5Rw' U2 5Rw U2 5Rw' U2 5Rw'
do both for OXOXO

PLL
Rw2 F2 U2 Rw2 R2 U2 F2 Rw2 for 4x4
3Rw2 F2 U2 3Rw2 R2 U2 F2 3Rw2 for 6x6
4Rw2 F2 U2 4Rw2 R2 U2 F2 4Rw2 for 8x8

 

[robdawg421]

Feel much more comfy with what the algorithms are doing. Ordered an 8x8 and 9x9 now. Orig figured would stop at 7x7... but the Meilong's are cheap enough to say whatever... let's do this. No magnets but I am actually totally fine taking my time at this point. 11x11 is where the price really jumps.

 

[rubik2005]

Any idea how to solve this last 2 edges case on 9x9?

 

[Sub1Hour]

Any idea how to solve this last 2 edges case on 9x9?

Just work your way from the inside out. The way I do it on big cubes is to look at the layers closest to the middle as a 5x5 edge, solve that "5x5" edge, and keep going until the edge is solved.

 

[Melvintnh327]

I need help for the parity algorithm for 6BLD inner wings...

 

[One Wheel]

I need help for the parity algorithm for 6BLD inner wings...

4x4 OLL parity, except only the innermost layers, then U2 Rw' Lw.

 

[Melvintnh327]

4x4 OLL parity, except only the innermost layers, then U2 Rw' Lw.

I meant for the 6x6 blindfolded method

 

[One Wheel]

I meant for the 6x6 blindfolded method

Ah. I'll figure that out someday, I guess you're ahead of me.

 

[Melvintnh327]

I need help for the parity algorithm for 6BLD inner wings...

oh never mind I figured it out.
basically it is the 4BLD wings parity but instead turn the innermost layer.
I was confused with 3BLD edges parity.