V Achyuthan
Member
Here I am presenting a new method for solving a 4x4.. 4PB (4x4 APB) can be considered as application of ABP on 4x4. The primary steps are :
Step 1 : Solve 2 opposite centres (if you are not colour neutral these have to be white and yellow)
Step 2 : Pair up and attach 2 cross coloured edges to the cross centre relative to each other and place in the BL and DL positions
Step 3 : Solve the rest of the centres using <rRUF> move set
Step 4 : Solve a 222 block by using the already paired up cross edges.
How to solve a 222 -
i) Pair up the edges that go between the 2 centres to which the 2 cross pieces are solved.
ii) Connect the paired up edges with the corresponding corner that makes a F2L pair.
iii) Solve the F2L pair to complete a 222
Step 5 : Extend it to a 223.
i) Pair up and solve any one of the remaining 2 cross edges.
ii) Use Step 4's i, ii and iii steps to extend it to a 223.
Step 7 : Edge pairing. Pair up edges while connecting 1 F2L pair (Look at example solves)
Step 8 : From here the rest of the cubes can be solved with just algorithms just like the APB method (with parity of course)
The total average movecount considering OLL and PLL parity is ~130 STM, since this method is mostly based on blockbuilding. This average movecount is actually equal to the Triforce's average movecount, even with OLL parity.
In comparison to Yau (the most common 4x4 speedsolving method):
4PB has a lower movecount than Yau. It's edge pairing ergonomics are better. Arriving at 3x3 stage. in 4PB most of the cube is solved leading to better look ahead.
It has a higher TPS compared to Yau Since every step after arriving at the 3x3 stage is only algorithms.
PROS
More efficient than most speed solving methods.
Can get singles which have a really low movecount (<120 STM)
More Ergonomic and algorithmic compared to most of the other methods
Since the F layer is free during Last 4 Centres, Centre pairing will be more efficient
CONS
Requires a pause before starting 3x3 stage to recognise EO (but this can sometimes be look ahead to while pairing up edges)
Here are some example solves
120 STM (118 STM with cancellations)
135 STM(134 STM with cancellations)
122 STM (without any cancellations)
135 STM (without any cancellations)
136 STM (without cancellations and double parity)
133 STM (without any cancellations)
118 STM (116 with cancellations. WTF)
118 STM (117 with cancellations. Lol)
Step 1 : Solve 2 opposite centres (if you are not colour neutral these have to be white and yellow)
Step 2 : Pair up and attach 2 cross coloured edges to the cross centre relative to each other and place in the BL and DL positions
Step 3 : Solve the rest of the centres using <rRUF> move set
Step 4 : Solve a 222 block by using the already paired up cross edges.
How to solve a 222 -
i) Pair up the edges that go between the 2 centres to which the 2 cross pieces are solved.
ii) Connect the paired up edges with the corresponding corner that makes a F2L pair.
iii) Solve the F2L pair to complete a 222
Step 5 : Extend it to a 223.
i) Pair up and solve any one of the remaining 2 cross edges.
ii) Use Step 4's i, ii and iii steps to extend it to a 223.
Step 7 : Edge pairing. Pair up edges while connecting 1 F2L pair (Look at example solves)
Step 8 : From here the rest of the cubes can be solved with just algorithms just like the APB method (with parity of course)
The total average movecount considering OLL and PLL parity is ~130 STM, since this method is mostly based on blockbuilding. This average movecount is actually equal to the Triforce's average movecount, even with OLL parity.
In comparison to Yau (the most common 4x4 speedsolving method):
4PB has a lower movecount than Yau. It's edge pairing ergonomics are better. Arriving at 3x3 stage. in 4PB most of the cube is solved leading to better look ahead.
It has a higher TPS compared to Yau Since every step after arriving at the 3x3 stage is only algorithms.
PROS
More efficient than most speed solving methods.
Can get singles which have a really low movecount (<120 STM)
More Ergonomic and algorithmic compared to most of the other methods
Since the F layer is free during Last 4 Centres, Centre pairing will be more efficient
CONS
Requires a pause before starting 3x3 stage to recognise EO (but this can sometimes be look ahead to while pairing up edges)
Here are some example solves
120 STM (118 STM with cancellations)
135 STM(134 STM with cancellations)
122 STM (without any cancellations)
135 STM (without any cancellations)
136 STM (without cancellations and double parity)
133 STM (without any cancellations)
118 STM (116 with cancellations. WTF)
118 STM (117 with cancellations. Lol)
Last edited: