5x5x5 Move Count

[Jason Baum]

I took averages for my 5x5x5 move count of centers and edges:

Centers: 69 (63) (78) 71 67 67 62 71 72 69 66 70 = 68.4

Edges (using AVG): 120 107 119 118 (103) 113 123 126 119 (129) 115 119 = 117.9

I was wondering how this compares to the top 5x5x5 solvers (except for Frank Morris because his move count is negative, of course). I could probably save more moves on my edges, but I'm curious as to how much.

 

[Ron]

Hi Jason,

I use the triplet pairing system, although I only practice the 2+2 pairing system.
Here are my results of March 2007.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C6 CT 4E 8E 12 ET 33 Tot
14 16 14 09 13 66 28 21 31 80 53 199
12 17 12 12 11 64 33 21 28 82 53 199
10 15 11 16 16 68 28 24 29 81 60 209
10 22 13 15 17 77 29 16 35 80 50 207
12 11 12 14 14 63 24 27 24 75 42 180
11 16 11 09 11 58 36 16 26 78 54 190

Actually, Bernett, Frank and I compared our results back then.
I have their results, but I hope they will post them themselves.

Have fun,

Ron

 

[AvGalen]

I am not a top solver, but because you asked how many moves you could save on edges I thought I would post my results. I only have time for 3 solves (normal solves, not optimised for fewest moves):

Centers = 10 + 14 + 15 + 15 + 14 = 68
Edges: 7 + 10 + 7 + 6 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 6 + 8 + 7 + 15 (parity) = 87

Centers = 9 + 15 + 10 + 11 + 16 = 61
Edges = 7 + 9 + 6 + 7 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 5 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 15 = 91 (parity again)

Centers = 11 + 13 + 9 + 14 + 8 = 55
Edges = 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 6 + 8 + 8 + 7 + 7 = 72

So I guess you could save about 35 moves on edges. Are you sure you are not using my beginners edge-method where you always setup to UB? I have some examples at http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?t=1447 and even with the beginners method I got 117 moves.

 

[Jason Baum]

Wow, that's way fewer moves than I thought. Ron, I tried a few solves just now using the triplet pairing system and my move count was significantly lower, but I just can't spot the pieces fast enough. Plus I hardly know any cases for the final two edge pairs. But maybe it's something I should start practicing more. Arnaud, 72 moves seems crazy. I know I waste some moves because I prefer to do things like U' R U' R' instead of R U2 R', but there must be something seriously wrong with my AVG technique if I am wasting that many moves. I'll have to look at your guides more closely and spot what I'm doing wrong.

 

[Erik]

So I tried 7 times:
Centres: 65, (73), 62, 69, 63, (54), 62 = 64.2
Edges: 96 (p), (78), (108), 83, 86, 97 (p), 90 = 90.4

On edges I 'waste' moves because I never do: DR2D' but mostly: R'DR'D' and rR' or rR and some setup moves I can do in 3 when I do them in like 5, which in reality doesn't lose much Time, but I better look at it xD
Trying an optimal solve with 6 at a time and good setup moves I got 77 easily, but of course this system lacks of lookahead

 

[AvGalen]

As you can see, the 87 had 11 pairings, the 91 had 12 pairings and the 72 had only 10 pairings AND no parities which means that on that solve 21 out of 24 edges were bad which isn't even really lucky.

A normal pairing is A+B setup moves + 1 slice move + 3 replacement moves + 1 anti-slice move. In reality, A is mostly 2, B is mostly 0 so a normal pairing is mostly 7 moves. That doesn't mean those moves are always very fast (consider B2R2). I really hate the cases from DL, DB and LB because my left hand is obstructing the view.

50% of the time you don't have parity, so you will only have 11 cycles, so for those solves sub 80 moves is normal.
50% of the time you do have parity so you might get 11 normal cycles and the 12 move parity fix (+setups) for those solves 90 moves is normal.
Only in extremely rare cases (no semi-pairs at the beginning, lots of flipped edges, parity) would you need about 100 moves. But if there are a lot of semi-pairs already built (you can save them during the last centers) and you have easy setups and no parity I can see sub 65 happening.

Compared to the bigcube method (8 tredges without restoring centers then algs for the last4 tredges) I think AVG uses about 5 moves extra on average, but because of the better look ahead I consider it to be faster. (and you only need to know 1 of all those last-4-tredges-algs )

 

[aznblur]

Centres - [60],[78], 65, 65, 71 = 67
Edges - [88(p)], 75, 85, 71, [62] = 77

I use 2469 or 369 centres depending on the situation and triplet pairing system. My last four edges are horrible.

 

[AvGalen]

Edges - [88(p)], 75, [85], 71, 62 = 69.3333

I guess you tried dropping highest and lowest, but made a mistake?
71+75+85 = 77 average

 

[aznblur]

Haha, oops.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Pedro]

did 5 solves:

(center 1, center 2, center 3, center 4, center 5+6 = total
edges total)

12 13 12 26 13 = 76
117

16 16 16 21 16 = 85
109

13 12 15 12 15 = 67
117

14 19 12 5 17 = 67
112

11 18 12 22 15 = 78
110

conclusion: I suck
no wonder why my reduction takes more than 2 minutes...

 

[AvGalen]

conclusion: I suck
no wonder why my reduction takes more than 2 minutes...

That's true and false

It's true because reduction takes you more than 2 minutes... so you suck
It's false because you confuse fewer moves with faster times. Doing 2 tps is doable on a 5x5x5 so even with 75+110 moves for reduction you could still do it in about 1:30. Look-ahead is much more important and it is the main reason why I am relatively fast on 5x5x5 eventhough I move very slowly.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I took averages for my 5x5x5 move count of centers and edges:

Centers: 69 (63) (78) 71 67 67 62 71 72 69 66 70 = 68.4

Edges (using AVG): 120 107 119 118 (103) 113 123 126 119 (129) 115 119 = 117.9

I was wondering how this compares to the top 5x5x5 solvers (except for Frank Morris because his move count is negative, of course). I could probably save more moves on my edges, but I'm curious as to how much.

I always wondered how it could be that you were beating me by only 6 or 7 seconds in competition, when you're so much faster than me. Now I see why. (My edges run less than 90 moves average, like Arnaud.) I hope you can figure out where you need to fix it - once you do, I'm sure you will be averaging sub-2:30 instantly, and probably be sub-2 pretty quickly if you work at it a little.

Look out, everyone - Jason is about to get good at big cubes!

 

[masterofthebass]

Here are my 5 tries:

Centers:
67, 68, 70, 75, 70

Edges:
89 (like 4-5 edge flips=7 moves each), 81, 71, 67, 90 (5 edge flips in the last 4 centers.)

So, when I use a lot of edge flips, my move count shoots up, but like Erik said, they are really fast. Those extra moves are done in around a second, so they really skew results. The 3 good solves went pretty well, and I avoided parity on all solves.

 

[AvGalen]

I agree that less moves doesn't equal better times when you can move the cube really fast like Erik, Dan (and Jason probably) can. But using almost 1/3 extra moves is just bad and should be easily fixed to get a better mixture between less moves, but still very fast turning.

I would like to know if Dan really found a way to avoid parity on 5x5x5, if he was just lucky, or if he fixed parity without realizing it.

 

[masterofthebass]

I think I just got lucky Also, since I always have to solve hte last 2 edges together, parity really doesn't affect move count. The parity alg for AvG is 12 moves, while the simplest non parity alg is 9 moves.

 

[ExoCorsair]

I'll try this when I have time later today or next week...

 

[Pedro]

conclusion: I suck
no wonder why my reduction takes more than 2 minutes...

That's true and false

It's true because reduction takes you more than 2 minutes... so you suck
It's false because you confuse fewer moves with faster times. Doing 2 tps is doable on a 5x5x5 so even with 75+110 moves for reduction you could still do it in about 1:30. Look-ahead is much more important and it is the main reason why I am relatively fast on 5x5x5 eventhough I move very slowly.

yeah, my look ahead is pretty bad...sometimes I take out a matched group, replacing it with another...and find that if I put that one the other way, it would be ready to match ¬¬

I'll work at it...

 

[ExoCorsair]

C1 10 09 11 08 07
C2 14 18 16 15 18
C3 13 09 09 11 10
C4 14 17 16 17 12
CL 15 12 10 22 11
----------
CT 66 65 62 73 58

E01 09 06 05 07 07
E02 09 08 11 07 10
E03 06 11 16 07 04
E04 04 07 10 07 04
E05 09 11 11 07 05
E06 06 10 05 04 05
E07 11 06 04 11 10
E08 04 05 06 05 06
---------
EFi 58 64 68 55 51
--------
E09 15 13 08 13 06
E10 08 11 08 11 11
E11 09 00 00 00 09
ELa 13 16 15 12 13
----------
ET 103 104 99 91 86

So the average reduction for me has a little more than 160 moves.
So apparently my TPS during reduction is only 2.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I just tried it quick to see where I stand. These were done at speed, and I averaged 3:20 on the solves (but I was taking time to type in my counts as I went, so I'd like to think they were really sub-3:15). So they really were pretty typical speedsolves for me.

Centers: (63), 70, 66, 74, (78) = 70
Edges: (77), 84, (94p), 84, 87p = 85

Conclusion: My move counts are pretty competitive with the guys who are good at this. Obviously my problem is that I'm just slow. Probably I just still need to get better with lookahead.

 

[Hadley4000]

Alright, time for the master. I'll only do 1.

Centers: 83
Edges: 154


How did I hit sub 4?