4x4x4 reduction + cross idea

miniGOINGS said:
rachmaninovian said:
false. Meyer's RouxRedux is nothing like stadler method. as explained by Patrick, it is basically solving a 1x3x4 block on the left after the first 2 centres, finish the rest of the centres, followed by avg pairing to reduce the cube into a 3x3. from here, solve roux style, and this method method provides an advantage for roux because there is a free 1x3x4 block after the reduction.
Stadler method is basically 1x3x4 block on L, 1x3x4 block on R, CMLL, centres, pair up edges with *comms* then roux finish. different methods.
Click to expand...

So it's

1: L&R centers
2: Left 1x3x4 block
3: M-slice centers
4: Edge pairing
5: Right 1x3x4 block
6: Corners of the last layer
7: Last six dedges

are there any tutorials or advanced tips that you know of?
Click to expand...
It is practically the same thing as the method Yau is explaining in this post. His video is pretty straight forward. The only difference is you insert 2 corners to complete the 1x3x4 block instead of inserting an edge piece for the cross.
 
Robert-Y said:

Copied from description:

Erik Akkersdijk introduced the idea of solving 3 cross pairs after the first two centres, then finishing the centres without destroying the 3 cross pairs. Someone (possibly Syuhei Omura I'm not sure) discovered a way of pairing 3 edges after the centres by doing d, replace 3 edges, then do d'. Chris Hardwick invented an edge pairing method called "2 pair chain solving".

What I have done is combined all three to create this method of solving the centres + edges + cross.

17/10/09 EDIT: Here's a video tutorial with annotations:

Click to expand...

He made a separate video for annotations? Doesn't he know you can just turn 'em off?
But to my point:
The idea of solving one center, then the opposite center, then to the cross is a nice idea. I may try this when I get my ES 4x4x4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, it's really not very good for bigcubes. The biggest problem is that edge pairing during F2L becomes extremely inefficient if not impossible on 5x5 up... you can't do 3-edge pairing every time, and AvG is pretty icky if you have to do an RUxR' trigger to set up each pair. If you add that to the fact that centers (which are 1/3 of the solve on 5x5 and even more on bigger cubes) are significantly slowed down by having to keep 3 cross pieces on L, it looks like this method would end up quite a bit slower than reduction on 5x5+.
 
Last edited:
qqwref said:
Yeah, it's really not very good for bigcubes. The biggest problem is that edge pairing during F2L becomes extremely inefficient if not impossible on 5x5 up... you can't do 3-edge pairing every time, and AvG is pretty icky if you have to do an RUxR' trigger to set up each pair. If you add that to the fact that centers (which are 1/3 of the solve on 5x5 and even more on bigger cubes) are significantly slowed down by having to keep 3 cross pieces on L, it looks like this method would end up quite a bit slower than reduction on 5x5+.
Click to expand...

+1

It seems that reduction (centres, then edges) is probably the fastest method for solving the 5x5x5 and up.

I have come up with a way of reducing + solving 2 opposite cross edges for the 5x5x5 (but I'm pretty sure it's bad because of the high move count).

1. Solve any centre, solve the opposite centre

2. Solve two cross pieces which are opposite to each other (e.g. if you are using the western colour scheme, and your cross colour is white, you would solve either the red and orange cross pieces or the blue and green cross pieces)

3. Finish the rest of the centres (without disturbing the already solved cross pieces and other centres)

4. Use Chris Hardwick's chain solving idea to solve the rest of the tredges. (Sometimes you can solve 2 wings at once if you have a tredge in which only the midge doesn't match the wings)

Again, I think this isn't a good idea for now.
 
Last edited:
Move counts after centers + 3 cross edges (up to 3x3):

Yau - 38, 43, 42, 37, 40, (33), 34, 34, 48, 37, 43, (52) -> 39.6
Yau-C - 38, 37, 46, (35), 37, 42, (46), 38, 40, 36, 42, 36 -> 39.2

I simulated them as much to a speedsolve as I could, I wasn't trying to find weird ways to save moves. Yau-C is somehow more consistent. I guess just choose whatever seems better for look ahead...
 
Last edited:
Bump...

I just read about Blah's method idea in his thread:

blah said:
blah blah blah

2. Solve 3 cross dedges, one of them in the wrong order, this becomes surprisingly easy to do after a while, because you have more freedom. If you don't understand what I just said, I'll give an example: say you have white center on D, then you'd solve, for example, red-white on F, green-white on R, and orange-white on L. Notice that red and green are in the correct order, but orange is intentionally placed at the wrong position, that's what I meant by one of them in the wrong order. Of course, any other combination will work. Use whatever method you want to solve them, direct solving, or pairing then solving, I haven't found the most efficient method yet.

blah blah blah

4. Solve the last cross dedge. How I do it: Place both edges in the E (u and d) slice such that you can pair them up with a Uw/Uw'/Uw2 move. In my above example, the last remaining dedge would be blue-white, so form the blue-white dedge, turn D such that it's above orange-white, solve blue-white, ADF, solve orange white, turn Uw back. (Have a cube with you while reading this to understand what I'm talking about.) And this is why you placed orange-white in the wrong position earlier.

blah blah blah...
Click to expand...

This idea is actually kinda useful for when your first 3 cross edges pairing goes slightly wrong.

I might be colour neutral for the 3x3x3 but to be honest, I think that's because I'm fully aware of which colours are opposites and which colours aren't opposites of each other. For this reason, I sometimes place a cross edge in the position opposite to where it's supposed to be whilst I'm solving the 3 cross edges.

So uh... yeah, if it goes wrong, you could just use Blah's idea:

1. ADF(adjust D face),
2. Replace the incorrect cross edge with the newly paired cross edge
3. ADF again
4. Place (which was) the incorrect edge in it's correct position.

Now you just continue with 3-2-2 edge pairing...

This idea makes it easier to do colour neutral solves, thanks Blah!



Now for something random about the name of this method for anyone who cares:

I think since what I've done is that I've used other people's ideas and combined them altogether, maybe we could form a name by taking the surnames of the people involved in the creation of this "method". Maybe an abbreviation?...

Akkersdijk
Barlow (or maybe his username: Kirjava)
Cohen
Hardwick
Lian (or maybe his username: Blah)
Omura
Yau

I'm not sure whether to include Erik (Akkersdijk) or Thom (Barlow) or both because I got the idea of pairing and placing 3 cross edges from one of Erik's video, but it seems that this idea sorta originally came from K4 (created by Thom).

I don't mind just sticking to "Yau" though :p


(I have a good feeling that many don't understand or just care about what I've typed :p)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
4x4x4: No Odd Parity 3x3x3 Reduction?
Replies
4
Views
1,430
walken
W
Christmas
  • Locked
How does one get faster at reduction, 4x4x4
Replies
1
Views
996
Sa967St
Sa967St
Sean Lev
Reduction of a 4x4x4
Replies
12
Views
2,689
sa11297
S
DaijoCube
4x4x4 Reduction Time
Replies
3
Views
1,542
Hyprul 9-ty2
Hyprul 9-ty2
R
4x4x4 cube - Reduction or K4 Method
Replies
6
Views
3,816
masterofthebass
masterofthebass
Back
Top