6-2-2-2 edge method: What's going on?

[Robert-Y]

I've just noticed three people who have rather inconsistent 4x4x4 official averages and I think they all use the same edges method (well at least they do on hi-games.net):

Andy Tsao: 1:17.65 47.31 50.31 1:00.55 50.93 => 53.93

qqwref: 1:04.05 47.66 1:17.71 50.81 57.46 => 57.44

Michal Halczuk: 1:00.55 47.83 49.50 1:14.96 1:03.53 => 57.86

What's the reason behind the inconsistency? The edges method? Or is that just a coincidence?

EDIT: They also have a best and worst difference of about 30 seconds

 

[fanwuq]

I also use this method, and I do not think it's inconsistent. The cases of only solving 5 edges is very rare. I'd say 3-6-3 is probably more inconsistent. It should be slightly less consistent than 2 pairing only, but it shouldn't make that much of a difference. Maybe it can be explained by parities? (but double parity should only take about 7 seconds in total.
Let me take an average of 5 now.

Edit:
1:29.55 First solve of the day, not warmed up yet OP
1:19.19 PP
1:32.64 DP No special cases, but random panic during edge pairing. My fault for not practicing for 2 days.
1:06.08 NP decent solve that I did not mess up.
1:19.16 NP too many 2 swaps after 6 pairing. Could this be what you are looking for?
1:29.69 DP also too many 2 swaps after 6 pairing.
1:24.16 DP
1:25.02 OP messed up on G perm.

 

[masterofthebass]

I actually do think it's unconsistent. A lot of times, you don't get great cases for the 6 pair. I think you can have really fast solves when you have a great first 6 pairs, but a lot of the time, you get crappy cases. 2-2-2-2-2 provides a more consistent effort between solves. It may end up not being as fast for singles, but you have a better average with it.

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

I've just noticed three people who have rather inconsistent 4x4x4 official averages and I think they all use the same edges method (well at least they do on hi-games.net):

Andy Tsao: 1:17.65 47.31 50.31 1:00.55 50.93 => 53.93

qqwref: 1:04.05 47.66 1:17.71 50.81 57.46 => 57.44

Michal Halczuk: 1:00.55 47.83 49.50 1:14.96 1:03.53 => 57.86

What's the reason behind the inconsistency? The edges method? Or is that just a coincidence?

EDIT: They also have a best and worst difference of about 30 seconds

Maybe they can just find edges faster on some solves than others.

 

[Robert-Y]

hmm... it might well just be a coincidence: if you look at this: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2006GOTT01#444 , qq's other averages aren't that inconsistent.

 

[fanwuq]

I actually do think it's unconsistent. A lot of times, you don't get great cases for the 6 pair. I think you can have really fast solves when you have a great first 6 pairs, but a lot of the time, you get crappy cases. 2-2-2-2-2 provides a more consistent effort between solves. It may end up not being as fast for singles, but you have a better average with it.

The 6 pairing stage is always great and fast for me. Except when I begin with a 3 cycle. But that just becomes a 2 chain going into a 6 pairing and leaves another 2 pairing at the end, so that's actually pretty good. It's the 2 pairing stage that's giving me the problems. Sometimes I keep on looking for the last 2 edges when I've already finished all of them. I really hate it when I end with 3 2 swaps, It's hard to recognize things and mess up the rhythm. Ending with 2 2-pairing chain is considered the best finish for a normal case. 2-pairing chain and a 2 swap isn't bad either, but 3 swaps are really annoying.


Edit: I think 6 pairing gives your more chances of getting a lot of 2 swaps than just 2-chains. Is this true?

 

[Robert-Y]

Why would it be true?

 

[Erik]

Don't you think parity has something to do with inconsisency on 4x4?

 

[JLarsen]

I agree, perhaps the fact that it's a simulator plays a role?

 

[Robert-Y]

I agree, perhaps the fact that it's a simulator plays a role?

I don't understand what you mean...