Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone ever messed around with 2x2 reduction on a 4x4 instead of 3x3 reduction? Or 5 reduction on a 7?

It would take about as much effort as it does to put it into solved state.

I disagree have you ever tried it?

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.

You have to change your way of thinking. It will be easier, and potentially the same speed over time. lots and lots of time.

How is it easier?

(sorry about double post)
 
WCA Reglations said:
10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. The minimum angle that tiles must have compared to the connecting tiles is 135°.

* 10g1) If one or two pairs of connecting tiles have a smaller angle with each other, and the puzzle is otherwise solved, then the puzzle is considered solved, with a penalty of 2 seconds. In all other cases the result is DNF.

Forgive me for my stupidness but I don't get this. Can someone explain this in different words? Is this the same thing as the 2 tiles high rule?
 
WCA Reglations said:
10g) For Magic (and similar puzzles) the puzzle must be flat on the surface. The minimum angle that tiles must have compared to the connecting tiles is 135°.

* 10g1) If one or two pairs of connecting tiles have a smaller angle with each other, and the puzzle is otherwise solved, then the puzzle is considered solved, with a penalty of 2 seconds. In all other cases the result is DNF.

Forgive me for my stupidness but I don't get this. Can someone explain this in different words? Is this the same thing as the 2 tiles high rule?

I just translated this to Estonian translation in WCA.

The minimum angle, when it's solved is 135degrees. If the angle is smaller, then the tile is higer and therefore it's +2/DNF.

when one side is with a smaller angle then it's +2, in any other case (2 or more (?)) it's DNF
 
Anyone ever messed around with 2x2 reduction on a 4x4 instead of 3x3 reduction? Or 5 reduction on a 7?

It would take about as much effort as it does to put it into solved state.

I disagree have you ever tried it?

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.

You have to change your way of thinking. It will be easier, and potentially the same speed over time. lots and lots of time.

How is it easier?

(sorry about double post)

After attempting, it's not any where as near easier. you're grouping different things together at different times. On 3x3 you don't have to worry about grouping centers with corners/edges. On 2x2 redux, you have to keep everything together once you make it, which proves difficult.
 
How can i drop my 5x5 average 20 sec?
I average 2:10. I want to be sub 2.
I take about 35 sec for centers, 1:10 for edges, and about 25 sec for 3x3.

You know the P-word? :D

PRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISEPRACTISE
 
im hinking of string BLD can some1 give me a few links to methods that are easy for a begginner? thanks in advance



Ironically, I have a BLD question. I currently use the story method for memo, and while remembering is easy, memorizing is difficult. Most of my time is spent deciding what to associate with each piece or how to incorporate that into the story. Is there an easier way to memo to get around this, or does this just mean I need to practice more?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Full OLL/PLL on 4x4 would by stupidly horrible. Recognition would be bad, and the algs themselves would probably suck really badly. Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top