Why do we solve the 4x4 like this?

[Gls7789]

So, why do people NOT solve a 4x4, like a 4x4? They solve it like a 3x3, but why did we make it this way? I know it’s probably the only way that makes sense and SOME people don’t solve it like a 3x3, but still, most people reduce it to a 3x3! (Don’t bully me for posting this)

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

So, why do people NOT solve a 4x4, like a 4x4? They solve it like a 3x3, but why did we make it this way? I know it’s probably the only way that makes sense and SOME people don’t solve it like a 3x3, but still, most people reduce it to a 3x3! (Don’t bully me for posting this)

The only other way I would think to do it is a LBL method. I think a good method for the last layer would be Edge flipping,3x3 OLL (parity), CPLL, commutators to solve the edges, and EPLL(parity) but the rest of 3 layers will probably be blockbuilding or smthn.

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

I don't think the edge flipping(M2 U M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U)will work like on the link

 Twizzle link 

M2 U M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U

 

[Isaac VM]

Even though I use Meyer for speedsolving, I love solving 4x4 and bigger cubes using K4.

 

[unirox13]

My primary guess would be convenience. The basic redux big cube solve uses skills a solver likely already has from smaller, cubic puzzles. Turning it into a 3x3 is not only efficient and effective, but often easy to remember and control. While I don't speedsolve, I do know the 4x4 Stadler method. A fun method whose edge reduction techniques have helped me immensely with cuboid solves. I currently prefer intuition based layer-by-layer solves for big cubes. I did a LBL 6x6 tutorial, but that same approach can be used for any and all big cubes.

 

[gsingh]

I know it’s probably the only way that makes sense

You just answered your own question

 

[Luke Garrett fan]

You post too much

 

[Thom S.]

Direct solving methods exist, due to few efforts going into making them fast, they are quite underdeveloped.
The most common ones, Meyer, Cage, K4, LBL, Triforce have been named already.
4x4 is quite on the verge where direct-solving could lead up to be faster in the future yet much much harder than on a 3x3, which is already heavily reduced.

 

[Gls7789]

You post too much

Dawg how much am I supposed to post, like once a year?

Also sorry for posting too much BEFORE. It was one day and this is my first post today. And I only posted once yesterday. AND ALSO I TOOK A VERY LONG BREAK FROM THIS WEBSITE FOR SOME REASON!

 

[Abram Grimsley]

4x4 LBL is fun, but isn't the fastest, nor the most efficient way to solve a 4x4. That's where redux, yau, Hoya, and other methods come in and make 4x4 more speedsolvable.
Although, it would be interesting to see how far someone could go with LBL.

 

[Luke Garrett fan]

Dawg how much am I supposed to post, like once a year?

Also sorry for posting too much BEFORE. It was one day and this is my first post today. And I only posted once yesterday. AND ALSO I TOOK A VERY LONG BREAK FROM THIS WEBSITE FOR SOME REASON!

You posted 3 times “Dawg”

 

[unirox13]

4x4 LBL is fun, but isn't the fastest, nor the most efficient way to solve a 4x4. That's where redux, yau, Hoya, and other methods come in and make 4x4 more speedsolvable.
Although, it would be interesting to see how far someone could go with LBL.

Again, not a speedsolver, but I think my fastest LBL 4x4 was around 2 minutes or so (lucky last layer if I remember correctly). I can average around 1min 20 seconds with both standard redux and Stadler though. The LBL for big cubes certainly has room for improvement, but honestly reducing them to a smaller, easier to solve puzzle, is just, currently, the most efficient approach.

But just imagine the possible advances! If I'm not mistaken, corners first was the original beginner's method for the 3x3. Look how far we've come since then.

 

[Gls7789]

You posted 3 times “Dawg”

I KNOW, AND I’M SORRY

 

[Abram Grimsley]

Again, not a speedsolver, but I think my fastest LBL 4x4 was around 2 minutes or so (lucky last layer if I remember correctly). I can average around 1min 20 seconds with both standard redux and Stadler though. The LBL for big cubes certainly has room for improvement, but honestly reducing them to a smaller, easier to solve puzzle, is just, currently, the most efficient approach.

But just imagine the possible advances! If I'm not mistaken, corners first was the original beginner's method for the 3x3. Look how far we've come since then.

I think I got as far as average 1:30 with LBL, but I haven't done it in awhile.

 

[unirox13]

Dawg how much am I supposed to post, like once a year?

Also sorry for posting too much BEFORE. It was one day and this is my first post today. And I only posted once yesterday. AND ALSO I TOOK A VERY LONG BREAK FROM THIS WEBSITE FOR SOME REASON!

Dude, ignore the haters. This forum has become a parasite where they'll hate you for bumping old threads and hate you for posting new ones. As long as you're not spamming like 10 threads a day about "your favorite color of 3x3" type BS, you're good. Keep your threads creative and conversation worthy and you should be OK.

Do a few searches for old threads before you post a new one though. If somebody asked the same question 2 weeks ago... Probably a safe bump. If the last thread about your current thought was from 3 years ago, save the bump and creatively ask your current questions with your own new thread. Don't give the trolling haters the benefit of response. As long as you're making convo, things are working like they should.

 

[unirox13]

I think I got as far as average 1:30 with LBL, but I haven't done it in awhile.

And probably a completely different LBL approach than me lol. The extra pieces create so many options for moving stuff around.

Also, another reason that direct big cube solves haven't become primary approaches; there's a lot to do! Lol

 

[Gls7789]

Dude, ignore the haters. This forum has become a parasite where they'll hate you for bumping old threads and hate you for posting new ones. As long as you're not spamming like 10 threads a day about "your favorite color of 3x3" type BS, you're good. Keep your threads creative and conversation worthy and you should be OK.

Do a few searches for old threads before you post a new one though. If somebody asked the same question 2 weeks ago... Probably a safe bump. If the last thread about your current thought was from 3 years ago, save the bump and creatively ask your current questions with your own new thread. Don't give the trolling haters the benefit of response. As long as you're making convo, things are working like they should.

Thank you. Also quick question, what is “bumping a thread”? Thank you for your advice. I hope you have a good life.

 

[unirox13]

Thank you. Also quick question, what is “bumping a thread”? Thank you for your advice. I hope you have a good life.

Bumping is when you find a thread, series of posts, from as much as a few days ago to so much as a few years ago, and respond to it. It brings it back to the top of the new posts. In older threads, chances are, the original people talking in that old thread have new opinions now or aren't even apart of the forum anymore. Just avoid replying to threads older than I'd say a year. Check the dates.

People often bump their own threads when they're trying to sell stuff because it brings that topic back to the top of the "new posts". But when you're asking questions, if the thread is over a year old, chances are that opinions and puzzle mechanics have changed since those original thoughts were posted.

 

[THE_V01DL0RD]

Dawg how much am I supposed to post, like once a year?

Also sorry for posting too much BEFORE. It was one day and this is my first post today. And I only posted once yesterday. AND ALSO I TOOK A VERY LONG BREAK FROM THIS WEBSITE FOR SOME REASON!

I honestly don't care. As long as it's not something stupid like "What Shape is a Rubik's Cube?".