4x4 method!

[Cool Frog]

The idea of this method Is to combine efficency and speed together in one method.

The first step of this method is to reduce the cube into a 2x2x2 "state" where you would then solve the cube as a 2x2. The advantages of doing this over reducing it into a 3x3 state is that
1. The 2x2 is significantly easier to solve than a 3x3
2. There is no edge pairing
3. you don't have to solve the centers until closer to the end of the solve where you can just use wide turns.
4. You cannot get parity once you have reduced to 2x2.

As to go about reducing into 2x2 state there are multiple methods that all work well (I shall order them from best to least in my opinion.)

1. Blockbuild sections and manupulate bad cases with wide turns (since you DO have lots of freedom)
2. Creation with NO manipulation of 2x2 sections. (Allows for lookahead directly into 2x2 state)
3. Direct solving into a solved 2x2
4. Direct solving 2x2 state.

History/ extra information

This method was created by Chris Hardwick and Justin Harder, and formerally called HH method (Hardwick-Harder) and pronounced HHHHHH(Like a gasping sound)

The idea came as silly challenge at a cube mettup and after a solve Chris had a 8:xx solve while I failed at some blockbuilding and got a 12:xx. after some quick calcualtions we determined that rate of improvement would deacrease exponentially until the 2x2 state starts to hinder you. At wich point you would begin to learn more 2x2 algorithms... (guimond, CLL, EG)

This method is easily a sub 20 method.

 

[RNewms27]

This method is easily a sub 20 method.

For humans or million-dollar androids with 4 hands?

Edit: Add "unique" to the poll.

 

[Phlippieskezer]

 

[vcuber13]

i read "The first step of this method is to reduce the cube into a 2x2x2 "state" where you would then solve the cube as a 2x2." and went :fp
there isnt parity once you reduce it to a 3x3 either, and there is still parity

 

[emolover]

I'm just going to stick with 3-2-2-3 reduction.

 

[chicken9290]

what. this is not a sub 20 capable method at all. are you ok dude

and next time you make an effin poll. give someone the chance to vote in a way that doesnt glorify you

 

[Hyprul 9-ty2]

Point 3 is false. You still have to "solve" the centers by moving them into proper "blocks" of 3 to form part of a 2x2 corner.

 

[Cool Frog]

Point 3 is false. You still have to "solve" the centers by moving them into proper "blocks" of 3 to form part of a 2x2 corner.

Thats like saying you have to "solve" the edges in edge pairing by pairing them? most of the centers arn't in their correct solved location.

 

[iEnjoyCubing]

I highly doubt that this would beat any other popular method (Yao, K4, Reduction). And sub-20 on a 4x4x4 just isn't practical.

 

[cmhardw]

No it's totally sub-20 material! This assumes some practice at the 2x2x2 stage of course, but we figured a 3.5 second average on 2x2x2 (manageable with plenty of practice) leaving about 16 seconds for reduction. Sure our initial solves were fairly lengthy, but we figured about maybe 4-5 more solves we could surely sub-20 with this method. Now, if someone like Dan Cohen or Feliks were to apply this approach, I'm thinking maybe even sub-15 is possible. Who knows, the sky's the limit!