I know that it's actually harder, but my point was that reduction to a 2x2 would take as long or longer than simply solving it, and is hence not a good speedsolving idea.
I know that it's actually harder, but my point was that reduction to a 2x2 would take as long or longer than simply solving it, and is hence not a good speedsolving idea.
I know that it's actually harder, but my point was that reduction to a 2x2 would take as long or longer than simply solving it, and is hence not a good speedsolving idea.
I know that it's actually harder, but my point was that reduction to a 2x2 would take as long or longer than simply solving it, and is hence not a good speedsolving idea.
I think the method would take significantly longer than 3x3x3 reduction. Imagine after you have made 5 of the meta-2x2 corners. At this point there are 3 meta-corners unsolved, and this is potentially 21 unsolved pieces. Not only that, but to solve these last 3 meta-corners you would pretty much be using commutators to finish off the last pieces.
Of course it might still be fast, but I think the move count would be higher than 3x3x3 reduction, and thus you would have to execute algorithms more quickly to account for this.
I haven't practiced this method, but these are at least my initial thoughts on the method. Of course I don't mind being proved wrong about these opinions, but my initial thoughts are that it has the potential to be slower unless some neat innovations of how to handle the last few meta-corners come about.