5x5x5 intuitively/ blockbuilding method

Am1n-

Am1n-

Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
82
Location
Belgium WVl
I've been messing around with an intuitive blockbuilding method for the 5x5x5. I'm going to show the steps I did.

1: scrambled cube


2: building a 2x2x1 block


3: extending to 2x2x2


4: extending to 2x2x3


5: extending to 3x2x3


6: extending to 3x3x3


7: extending to 3x3x4


8: extending to 3x3x5


9: extending with a 3x3x1 block


10: extending with another 3x3x1 block


11: inserting a 3x1x1 block


12: I define the yellow layer as top layer and pair the top-layer thredges


13: Inserting the last bottom wing-edge and completing the last tredges


14: orienting and placing the tredges


15: finishing the 3x3x3 centers, commutator-based


16: finishing the last 5 corners, commutator-based ==> finished





Let me know what you think of this, should I work it out further? Has anyone tried something like this?...

mvg
 
Please provide a scramble and the moves that are needed to go from step to step.

For reduction, you need (roughly) 60 moves for centers, 80 for edges and 55 for 3x3x3 so about 200 in total.

If this method has a much higher move-count (I think it does) or a worse look-ahead (I think it does at least in the beginning) it is probably not worth it for speedsolving. It is fun as an alternative though
 
It is already possible to solve a 5x5x5 intuitively using either any known BLD method, or centers - AvG edges - Heise.

@04mucklowd and Arnaud: I don't think the OP intended it to be a speedsolving method. He just wanted to show a fun way of solving a 5x5x5 :)
 
So this is it:
scramble:
Rw' R D Bw2 Lw2 D' B2 Bw Uw' B' Fw' F' U2 Rw' R2 Dw' Rw' B' U' B' Fw' F2 R' Bw2 D Dw Uw2 U' Rw2 B' D2 B Bw' Fw F' Lw' Dw' Bw' L' Lw B' R Bw2 Dw2 B2 D' F' Rw' B2 F' D2 Dw' Uw U2 Bw' F U' Bw D U2

Solution:


2x2x1: D L' F2 L2 U' L2 U2 F' U (9 = 9)
2x2x2: U R2 D2 R U' (9 + 5 -1 = 13)
2x2x3: F' D F Fw' R2 Fw (6 + 14 = 19)
2x3x3: Rw Lw F Rw' Lw2 L' Rw' U' Rw (19 + 9 = 28)
3x3x3: D Dw'2 B Dw Uw R' Uw2 (29 + 8 = 36)
3x3x4: F U Lw' U'
Lw U Lw' U'

L2 Bw' L Bw D'
Fw D' Fw'(36 + 16 = 52)

3x3x5: F Dw F'
R' D R F D2 F'
Dw L U' F2 L' F2 L U
L' Uw2 R' D2 R Uw2 (52 + 23 = 75)

3x3x1 ext1: Fw' D' Fw D Lw2 D' Dw L' D
L B Dw' B'
D L D' Dw' Lw (75 + 18 = 93)

3x3x1 ext2: Dw' L D L2 D' L2
F B' L F' L' B
L D L' (Fw Bw') F' L F L' (Fw' Bw)
U { L' D L B D2 B'} U'
Uw { L' D L} Uw' (93 + 36 = 129)

(z2)

3x1x1 insertion: R Uw R' Uw' U
R Uw U' R'
(commutator) Rw R' U' Rw' Lw F Rw' R F' Rw Lw' U
(insertion) Uw Rw Uw' Rw' (129 + 24 = 153)

Tredge pairing:
1: U [RU'R' F'UFU RU'R']
U2 [R (Uw2 U2) R' Uw']
[RUR'UF'U'F]
U2 [R (Uw2 U2) R' Uw']
2: R U2 R'
[RU'R' F'UFU RU'R']
U2 [R (Uw2 U2) R' Uw']
3: F' U2 F
U2 [R (Uw2 U2) R' Uw']
[RUR'UF'U'F] Uw
4: U F' U' F
U' [R (Uw2 U2) R' Uw']
[RUR'UF'U'F] Uw' (153 + 92 = 245)
Last tredge + bottom wing-edge: F' U2 F
Uw2 R U R' U

(F' U F) Uw' (F' U' F)

R Uw' R (245 + 18 = 263)

Orienting + placing tredges: R U' R U F' U' F
U R U R' U' R U2 R' U2 (263 + 16 = 279)

Center commutators: (279 + 170 = 449) ==> lol
corner commutators: +14: corner twist
+9: 3-cycle (here PLL case) (449 + 23 = 472)

==> sjiit: forgot parity +9 (472 + 9 = 481)



Can anyone check this???

mvg
 
Last edited:
Ok, first,
I began to experiment with this because:
--> I have a 3x3x3 cube, I solve it as a 3x3x3.
--> I have a 5x5x5 cube, I reduce it to a 3x3x3 and then solve it as a 3x3x3. ==> first tought: FAIL
so now:
--> I have a 5x5x5 cube, I solve it as a 5x5x5.

It's indeed not a speedcubing method, but still, I like the idea.

second,
The movecount is 481 moves for this previous example but there are some flaws in the solution and the solver:
1: I'm not a very good cuber (AvG: 5x5x5 reduction: 200 moves, me 300 moves).
2: The blockbuilding (ext2 3x3x5) probably can be done in much fewer moves (pulling together steps, more efficient blockbuilding, etc.)
3: The center commutators (170 moves!) I come to realize whilst I only use {F, R, U and Um} moves for the tredge pairing, I could make the top center before the tredgepairing, so I have more degrees of freedom( {F, Fw, R U, Uw} ), so much less moves. This means that the center commutators go down to a maximum of 135 moves (I think; my logic: 4 3x1 blocks and possible a 2x1 block of the last bottom wing-edge => choose the center with (max)5 wrong centerpieces as your last, which will be solved automaticly if the others are solved. That leaves 3*3 centerpieces that need to be solved with each max 1 commutator(with a conjugate of max 1) so that is 9*(1+13+1)=135).
4: While placing the tredges, I could also solve 2 corners using Heise (2 pairs or 1 pair) whilst now I use the (tr)edges first method (which isn't that efficient). That means the corner-commutators are down to 1 with a maximum of 12 moves (conjugate of 2, commutator of 8)
5: The parity (which in this case i forgot :) ) probably can be solved with a little planning whilst making the last 2 tredges and inserting the last bottom wing-edge. (I'll experiment with this later on)

Maby I'll make another exaple, paying attention to the above points later.

PS: sorry for any mistakes in my spelling, I'm not very good in writing English :)

mvg
 
Last edited:
Hi :-)

With such a high move count it stands no chance as a top notch speeding method even with perfect lookahead. My cage method has about 300-350 turns (done slowly, so real count is a bit higher i guess). Cage method has almost "perfect" lookahead, at least for the later stages. I have achieved low 1:40 with this. Im no longer an active speedcuber, as my prime interests have changed.

Per
 
This sounds like a very fun method to play around with (I've tried similar ones for fun), but given the lookahead and number of moves required it's definitely not going to be a good choice for speedcubing, as people have said before.

If you want to solve the 5x5 more like a 5x5 and not just by reducing to a 3x3, I suggest Cage, sandwich (aka r5), K4, or my columns method.
 
Thanks for the replies :)

The movecount in this method can't be such a problem, I just did a quick solve with approximately 350-400 moves(counting the slice moves as 1, in the example I counted the slice moves as 2 (Rw R') ), but the lookahead isn't quite good (certainly in the beginning), but it betters as you solve more things (which is quite logical :) ). But I still like solving ot this way because I'm no big algorithm fan, and here there arn't needed any, only the knowledge of commutators and some insight is needed (somewhat like Heise).

I'll certainly look up some of the other methods you mentioned

mvg
 
If you really enjoy making up on-the-spot commies (commutators) then cage is your friend.:rolleyes:

Per
 
qqwref said:
This sounds like a very fun method to play around with (I've tried similar ones for fun), but given the lookahead and number of moves required it's definitely not going to be a good choice for speedcubing, as people have said before.

If you want to solve the 5x5 more like a 5x5 and not just by reducing to a 3x3, I suggest Cage, sandwich (aka r5), K4, or my columns method.
Click to expand...

Any more information about the sandwich/r5 method?? I can sorta guess it would do 2 opposite layers first... Google didnt give me anything:confused:

Per
 
My own variant: build 2 opposite centers, then the corners, then finish the opposite layers, then the middle edges, and finally the last 4 centers. If I remember correctly rachmaninovian's method is slightly different (after the first 2 centers, he solves the "3^3" formed by the corners and midges).
I tried a slow solve and got a move count of 156 STM (counting HTM makes no sense for such a method), but the solve was quite easy. The average is closer to 180-200 STM.
 
mrCage said:
qqwref said:
This sounds like a very fun method to play around with (I've tried similar ones for fun), but given the lookahead and number of moves required it's definitely not going to be a good choice for speedcubing, as people have said before.

If you want to solve the 5x5 more like a 5x5 and not just by reducing to a 3x3, I suggest Cage, sandwich (aka r5), K4, or my columns method.
Click to expand...

Any more information about the sandwich/r5 method?? I can sorta guess it would do 2 opposite layers first... Google didnt give me anything:confused:

Per
Click to expand...

hehe per that's me and you suggested the name sandwich. :D

TMOY: i would have used something similar to yours if I did not suck at corners first for 3x3...:)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DuckDecoys
  • Poll Poll
Can you solve the 5x5x5
Replies
12
Views
311
Kami
Kami
sfo
5x5x5 Superflip gone wrong - Swap Center-Edges
Replies
4
Views
822
L4NC3_D4_AS14N
L4NC3_D4_AS14N
C
5x5x5 begginer method
Replies
6
Views
1,024
Fred
Fred
C
Im looking for a budget 5x5x5
Replies
10
Views
1,528
Deleted member 36445
D
Artem Tabaliuk ( Артём )
5x5x5 Edge Pairing
Replies
0
Views
523
Artem Tabaliuk ( Артём )
Artem Tabaliuk ( Артём )
Back
Top