[Unofficial] 5x5 - 2:11.80 direct solving :D

[rachmaninovian]

I think direct solving uses too many, non finger trick friendly moves.

I can get 230 plus or minus 10 movecounts so it isn't too bad. and I have modified the alga such that they are fingertrick friendly...

 

[Dene]

Here's a question: Why is it called "direct solving". Is there any particular reason or reference?

By this I mean, is there any possible way to solve a cube non-directly? (If this is the reason for calling it "direct")

 

[TMOY]

but but but...i'm barely sub 25s on 3x3...

That's no excuse - I'm 28s on 3x3x3, but I can solve a 5x5x5 using reduction in about 2:45.

I'm not even sub-30 at 3^3 and my PB at 5^3 with direct solving is 2:34, and it was not even lucky
Some direct solving methods are actually very fast methods. Whatever you think of them.

 

[joey]

And some reduction methods are faster methods

 

[JLarsen]

Jesus it almost looks sped up with that camera. It's like spamming all over the cube lol. Very interesting to watch, I really want to look into that, redux is boring as hell I agree, just like fridrich. I love Petrus method, block building, just more intuitive approaches, even though they may be harder, they are much more satisfying to be good at, and its so much more entertaining. Do you have a link or anything maybe?

 

[TMOY]

lease explain why, as soon as anybody speaks about a direct solving method for big cubes, a bunch of cubers instantaneously jump on him, saying that he should use reduction instead and that reduction shound necessarily be better. Not only is it defnitely not true, it is an insult to people who actually try to develop good alternatives to reduction. Such an attitude REALLY pisses me off. and I am serious.

 

[JLarsen]

lease explain why, as soon as anybody speaks about a direct solving method for big cubes, a bunch of cubers instantaneously jump on him, saying that he should use reduction instead and that reduction shound necessarily be better. Not only is it defnitely not true, it is an insult to people who actually try to develop good alternatives to reduction. Such an attitude REALLY pisses me off. and I am serious.

People assume that whatever is used most is the best, purely because the more people use a method, the better in general people are at it, or at least the more common in it to see an amzing solver with the method.

 

[joey]

Umm, only one person seemed 'forceful' in their 'use reduction'. You seemed to type that after my statement, that's why I'm replying.
I use reduction, but I do also like direct solving. I use reduction because it makes sense to me, more sense than the direct solving methods I've seen.

edit:
Just because you say 'people assume it is the best because everyone uses it' etc, doesn't mean it ISN'T the best.

 

[Dene]

lease explain why, as soon as anybody speaks about a direct solving method for big cubes, a bunch of cubers instantaneously jump on him, saying that he should use reduction instead and that reduction shound necessarily be better. Not only is it defnitely not true, it is an insult to people who actually try to develop good alternatives to reduction. Such an attitude REALLY pisses me off. and I am serious.

I think that people advocate reduction because it is the best method.
Are you more pissed off yet?
Would calling you a noob help?



Oh yeah, I did have a point. Stop crying, nobody cares.

Gah, had to edit to "pissed" because it censors it without the "es" >.<

 

[DcF1337]

Wow! That was insanely fast! o_O

My V5 is still rough and tight. I opened it up and lubed the insides but it's still tight and rough. How did you make yours so smooth?

 

[TMOY]

Of course it might turn out to be the best. But by now nothing proves it actually is. And the more I learn about big cubes, the more I am convinced it is not.

 

[Dene]

Wow! That was insanely fast! o_O

My V5 is still rough and tight. I opened it up and lubed the insides but it's still tight and rough. How did you make yours so smooth?

Your V5 should be fairly good out of the box. Just use it heaps. Lube isn't necessary.

 

[McWizzle94]

Hey man nice solve!

 

[joey]

Of course it might turn out to be the best. But by now nothing proves it actually is. And the more I learn about big cubes, the more I am convinced it is not.

At the moment, the top times are our proof. And since *all* the top big cubers use reduction of some sort, it 'proves' that reduction is the best method of the moment. I dont think *all* reduction users use reduction cos all people use reduction. Some people have tried other methods, but are still just faster with reduction.

 

[Neroflux]

Wow! That was insanely fast! o_O

My V5 is still rough and tight. I opened it up and lubed the insides but it's still tight and rough. How did you make yours so smooth?

silicone oil.

 

[DavidWoner]

lease explain why, as soon as anybody speaks about a direct solving method for big cubes, a bunch of cubers instantaneously jump on him, saying that he should use reduction instead and that reduction shound necessarily be better. Not only is it defnitely not true, it is an insult to people who actually try to develop good alternatives to reduction. Such an attitude REALLY pisses me off. and I am serious.

I carefully read and reread every post before this, and NO ONE said that he should switch to reduction.

redux is boring as hell I agree, ... I love ... more intuitive approaches

Your implied assertion that direct solving is more intuitive than reduction does not agree with rachmaniovian's description of his method.

basically I solve 2 opposite sides with something to avoid middle slice parity (and solving it too!)
Next, middle edges...Mike Bennett's idea. Do a search and you will find out sadly mike did not have algs on his webbie so, thank you Kenneth for your algs... and of course algs from the k4 tutorial.

lastly, final 4 centres...i just wrote down all the 31 algs I know.

How many algs does reduction have? Oh thats right. Zero. So by definition reduction is more intuitive than (this method of) direct solving.

I also dont get how spamming algs for the last 2/3 of your solve is less boring than freestyling the first 3/4.

I am not saying that anyone should switch to one method or another, I am saying that everyone should stop whining about people using the popular methods.

 

[Dene]

I still don't get how reduction doesn't count as "direct"? How can you non-directly solve a puzzle?

 

[joey]

Well, we don't directly solve the pieces do we? In 'direct-solving' you solve the edges to where they need to go. But we solve the edges wherever, to make it look like a 3x3, which we then solve..

 

[Jai]

What headphones were you using?
I usually use my Audio-Technica ATH-CK6 IEMs when cubing, because of the isolation, or my Panasonic RP-HTX7.

 

[AvGalen]

lease explain why, as soon as anybody speaks about a direct solving method for big cubes, a bunch of cubers instantaneously jump on him, saying that he should use reduction instead and that reduction shound necessarily be better. Not only is it defnitely not true, it is an insult to people who actually try to develop good alternatives to reduction. Such an attitude REALLY pisses me off. and I am serious.

I "jump" on you because you don't explain your reasons properly and because you accuse others of being sheep. I have used a direct solving method in the past and so have many others. Most of use tried reduction and realised it was a better/faster method. THAT is why we use reduction, not because we are sheep. Some of us even go as far as to develop another way to do reduction, make text and video tutorials about it and teach it in person to many others.

Of course it might turn out to be the best. But by now nothing proves it actually is. And the more I learn about big cubes, the more I am convinced it is not.

So why don't you ever tell us what you have learned about big cubes that convinces you direct solving is better?