uberCuber
Legend
lul
I'ma still keep messing with it on the side for fun, particularly after Nats is over. I wanna get sub-45 with it at some point so I can see how much improvement it still seems possible to make past that.
[Help Thread] Big Cubes Discussion
lul
I'ma still keep messing with it on the side for fun, particularly after Nats is over. I wanna get sub-45 with it at some point so I can see how much improvement it still seems possible to make past that.
Stingray970
Regular
I just did the Florian + Konsta mod and before I assemble the cube, I wanted to mod the center pieces a bit more than required. What I wanted to do was sand down the center pieces so that in the very center of each face it resembles a Wit Eden 2x2x2. This is mainly for easy screw access.
Would this have any harmful effects? Would this also have any benefits other than screw access?
Would this have any harmful effects? Would this also have any benefits other than screw access?
JianhanC
Veteran
Theoretically it shouldn't harm the cube's performance. I'd imagine that it might help inner layer corner cutting too. Just remember to not oversand it.
bobthegiraffemonkey
Veteran
Modified BOBSLBL on 4x4x4, plus example of OLL parity CP. Linear solves, trying to be efficient. Mainly movecount efficient, but not always since it is supposed to be for speed so doesn't make sense to deviate too much for no good reason.
Solve 2 - DP, 142 BTM
Solve 2: NP, 109 BTM
Does this count as an efficient method? If the blocks go nice, it can go really nice. I had a 105 BTM with PLL parity, where I cancelled the last move of edge pairing into a Sune OLL, it freaked me out, but unfortunately I was just practicing for this post and didn't write it down
. I haven't practiced it much yet, so not so quick at it. I hope to get a decent average posted on Youtube soon.
Matt
Solve 2 - DP, 142 BTM
u' B2 r' L2 U' L' D2 B' R f B' r u F' L' F' f R2 F2 R' F2 U2 B L2 F2 r2 u' L' R r' B D' r D L r2 F U2 r2 U'
x' //inspection
r' U r L' x U' F' 2r2' F r F2 r y' 3r U2 r R2' f R2 f' //opp centres 18/18
r D r' 3r F' 3r U x2' //block 7/25
F' 2r2' 3r' R' U2 R U' r' F2 3r' //extend 10/35
r U' r' U R U R' U r R F' //build 11/46
r2 F R' F' r' //insert + pair 5/51
F r R U r' U R U' R' U' r U2 r' //centres + pairs 13/64
R2' F R y L' U2 L //F2L stuff 6/70
R U R' u' R U R' d R' U R u' U' R' U R u //pair 17/87
U' R' U R L' U2 L y R U R' //F2L 10/97
3f R U R' U' 3f' U //OLL 7/104
R' F R F' r U2' r2' l' U2 r U2' r' U2 l U2' r' U2 r U2' r' U2' r' U R U2' R' //ParityCP 26/130
(R2' x) F' u2' r2' U2 2R2' U2 r2 u2' F (R2 x') U2 //PLL 12/142
I was a little sleepy when I did this solve so probably a few mistakes. I like diag CP with one edge flip. Could cancel a move from OLL into PLL, but whatever, it separates the steps better.
alg.garron
x' //inspection
r' U r L' x U' F' 2r2' F r F2 r y' 3r U2 r R2' f R2 f' //opp centres 18/18
r D r' 3r F' 3r U x2' //block 7/25
F' 2r2' 3r' R' U2 R U' r' F2 3r' //extend 10/35
r U' r' U R U R' U r R F' //build 11/46
r2 F R' F' r' //insert + pair 5/51
F r R U r' U R U' R' U' r U2 r' //centres + pairs 13/64
R2' F R y L' U2 L //F2L stuff 6/70
R U R' u' R U R' d R' U R u' U' R' U R u //pair 17/87
U' R' U R L' U2 L y R U R' //F2L 10/97
3f R U R' U' 3f' U //OLL 7/104
R' F R F' r U2' r2' l' U2 r U2' r' U2 l U2' r' U2 r U2' r' U2' r' U R U2' R' //ParityCP 26/130
(R2' x) F' u2' r2' U2 2R2' U2 r2 u2' F (R2 x') U2 //PLL 12/142
I was a little sleepy when I did this solve so probably a few mistakes. I like diag CP with one edge flip. Could cancel a move from OLL into PLL, but whatever, it separates the steps better.
alg.garron
Solve 2: NP, 109 BTM
R2 r L' F2 u L2 F' U2 L u2 f u U2 D' R B U R2 D' U2 u f R D B2 r' D' f' L U f' R f D2 r' f' F B' L' r2
r' F u y' r2' U2 z l F' l' F z' 2R //opp centres 10/10
z x' U 3r U' 3r' F r' U F x z U' L' U L z' //block 12/22
F r U R' U' R U 3r2' //extend 8/30
U2 r' L' U L F' //build 6/36
U2 r F r2 x' U' R U l' //insert + pair stuff 8/44
F' 2R U' r' R' U' r U2' r' //centres plus pair 9/53
R' U' R' U' F R' F2 //F2L stuff 7/60
y R U' R' 2U' R U' R' u r' U L' U' L r //pair 14/74
L U L F' L' F' U' L' U' L' U2 L U L' U' L //F2L 16/90
U' F R U R' U' F' //OLL 7/97
U2 R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 //PLL 12/109
Fairly usual solve. I prefer to not have the middle F2L slot done first, like what happened in the first solve, that was kinda weird actually, so this is how it usually looks. Protip: I like solving the bottom of either FL or BR F2L slot and pair from the top, then when I'm done I have the slot done. You can do this once or twice, at the 'F2L stuff' stage, or finishing edge pairing.
clicky
r' F u y' r2' U2 z l F' l' F z' 2R //opp centres 10/10
z x' U 3r U' 3r' F r' U F x z U' L' U L z' //block 12/22
F r U R' U' R U 3r2' //extend 8/30
U2 r' L' U L F' //build 6/36
U2 r F r2 x' U' R U l' //insert + pair stuff 8/44
F' 2R U' r' R' U' r U2' r' //centres plus pair 9/53
R' U' R' U' F R' F2 //F2L stuff 7/60
y R U' R' 2U' R U' R' u r' U L' U' L r //pair 14/74
L U L F' L' F' U' L' U' L' U2 L U L' U' L //F2L 16/90
U' F R U R' U' F' //OLL 7/97
U2 R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 //PLL 12/109
Fairly usual solve. I prefer to not have the middle F2L slot done first, like what happened in the first solve, that was kinda weird actually, so this is how it usually looks. Protip: I like solving the bottom of either FL or BR F2L slot and pair from the top, then when I'm done I have the slot done. You can do this once or twice, at the 'F2L stuff' stage, or finishing edge pairing.
clicky
Does this count as an efficient method? If the blocks go nice, it can go really nice. I had a 105 BTM with PLL parity, where I cancelled the last move of edge pairing into a Sune OLL, it freaked me out, but unfortunately I was just practicing for this post and didn't write it down
. I haven't practiced it much yet, so not so quick at it. I hope to get a decent average posted on Youtube soon.Matt
cubegenius
Regular
Who thinks It's possible to do 100 7x7 solves per day?
Daniel Wu
Premium Member
Well for me, ~6 min to solve and ~2 min to scramble. So ~8 minutes total per solve.
8 min x 100 solves = 13 hr 20 min. I don't have that kind of time so it's not possible for me.
8 min x 100 solves = 13 hr 20 min. I don't have that kind of time so it's not possible for me.
Hunter
Veteran
Honestly, I think after 13 hours straight of cubing your fingers / wrists would hurt too much to continue.
Ickathu
Veteran
After 5 hours more like.
I just got my shenghshou 4x4 on Thursday, and I am wondering what is the most popular method for edge pairing for the reduction method. In bigcubes.com they list two different ways for solving the edge pairs fast. Which one is more popular? I already know the beginner method and I am ready to learn something faster.
ThomasJE
Premium Member
The fastest method (or at least the WR method) is Yau, and that involves some 32223. So, learn 32223, and then Yau.
JianhanC
Veteran
I did about 75 solves on a school day once so yeah, why not. I just got my SS though, so I was pretty addicted to the turning.
Hunter
Veteran
Thanks for the video! I've looked at it a little bit so far, and it seems good. I'll look at it in more detail later today. Btw interesting color scheme.
Hunter
Veteran
Thank you very much!
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it because I have black instead of white?
I have always thought of my color scheme to be pretty standard.
It's because you have black AND white.
Hunter
Veteran
CarlBrannen
Veteran
I use the same scheme, yellow gets replaced by black. And I do the edges by color, black/xxx first, then white/xxx, and finally the remainder. [This is wildly inefficient, but it's good for an old guy like me who's bad at "where's Waldo" type searches for arbitrary edges.]
Last edited:
cubecraze1
Veteran
CubeRoots
Veteran
In Yau after i've solved centers and 3 cross dedges. I habitually pair up 6 edges then the remaining 3, are there any disadvantages to this? feels natural for me to do it this way, but wonder why other cubers do it the convensional way which seems to be 2223
Pyjam
Premium Member
I'm looking for comments about “my ZZ method for big cubes”.
The discussion started there after a Robert Yau's solve for 5x5, but please comment here.
This is how I finish this solve when the cross is made, using ZZ : http://tinyurl.com/bvzzlt5
It's a little longer but I think Robert was lucky with his XXCross, and my ZZLL was one of the longest. This comment is really not very important.
Warning, I changed the color scheme.
The discussion started there after a Robert Yau's solve for 5x5, but please comment here.
This is how I finish this solve when the cross is made, using ZZ : http://tinyurl.com/bvzzlt5
It's a little longer but I think Robert was lucky with his XXCross, and my ZZLL was one of the longest. This comment is really not very important.
Warning, I changed the color scheme.
y x2 // inspection
// first 2 centers
M' U2 M // orange 3x2
U' (x' z') U 2l z' U' x2' 2r // orange
U' x U x' 2l' U' x' 2l z 2r U' 2r' // red 3x2
(x2' y') 3l' U2' 2l L2' 2u L2 2u' // red
// 3 cross edges
z2 U' x' U2' 3l2 D' // YO
4r' 2r' U M2' 4r2 U' // WO
x' 3r' U 3r' U' 2l2' 2r2 x' F' L // GO
// finish centers
U2' 3r U' // blue 3x2
4r2 2r 2L' U' 4r' 2r U 2r 2L // blue
U 2L2 U x 2l2 // white 3x2
L' U' 2L' U2' 2L2 U 2L' // white
U' 4r U' 3r' U' 3r // 3x2
U2' 3r' U2' 3r // green / yellow
// finish cross
4r U2' 2r' U' R U 2r z' L // OB / cross
// -- My changes start here:
// -- Yellow edges (top)
z F R F' 3r // YG
F R' F' 3r U' R2 U 3l // YO
F R F' 3r' R' U' R U 3l' // YR
U' R2 U 2R U' R U 2r 3r2 F R' F' // YB
// -- Last 4 edges (equator)
r2 (U' R U F R2' F') 2l 3r' R (U' R U F R2' F') 3r // GR
x2 3l' (U' R2 U F R F') 2r // BO
2l2 (U' R U F R2' F') 2l2 // BR + GO
// -- Edge orientation
F R2 F' U' R' U // 2 edges
4r2' U' 4r2' R2 // This put the 4 E-edge in a convenient place
U F R' F' z' // 2 edges
// -- Left block
U2 L' R' U R U L U' L U2 L' U2 L
// -- Right block
U R2 U2 R U2 R U R U2 R' U R
// -- (long) ZZLL (but easy to remember)
U' R' U L U' R U L'
U R' U L U' R U L' U'
// first 2 centers
M' U2 M // orange 3x2
U' (x' z') U 2l z' U' x2' 2r // orange
U' x U x' 2l' U' x' 2l z 2r U' 2r' // red 3x2
(x2' y') 3l' U2' 2l L2' 2u L2 2u' // red
// 3 cross edges
z2 U' x' U2' 3l2 D' // YO
4r' 2r' U M2' 4r2 U' // WO
x' 3r' U 3r' U' 2l2' 2r2 x' F' L // GO
// finish centers
U2' 3r U' // blue 3x2
4r2 2r 2L' U' 4r' 2r U 2r 2L // blue
U 2L2 U x 2l2 // white 3x2
L' U' 2L' U2' 2L2 U 2L' // white
U' 4r U' 3r' U' 3r // 3x2
U2' 3r' U2' 3r // green / yellow
// finish cross
4r U2' 2r' U' R U 2r z' L // OB / cross
// -- My changes start here:
// -- Yellow edges (top)
z F R F' 3r // YG
F R' F' 3r U' R2 U 3l // YO
F R F' 3r' R' U' R U 3l' // YR
U' R2 U 2R U' R U 2r 3r2 F R' F' // YB
// -- Last 4 edges (equator)
r2 (U' R U F R2' F') 2l 3r' R (U' R U F R2' F') 3r // GR
x2 3l' (U' R2 U F R F') 2r // BO
2l2 (U' R U F R2' F') 2l2 // BR + GO
// -- Edge orientation
F R2 F' U' R' U // 2 edges
4r2' U' 4r2' R2 // This put the 4 E-edge in a convenient place
U F R' F' z' // 2 edges
// -- Left block
U2 L' R' U R U L U' L U2 L' U2 L
// -- Right block
U R2 U2 R U2 R U R U2 R' U R
// -- (long) ZZLL (but easy to remember)
U' R' U L U' R U L'
U R' U L U' R U L' U'
How could I have been lucky with my XXcross given that it's been mentioned a few times that doing 2 F4L pairs after F4L edge pairing is a partial step? I didn't even skip a pair. Also I don't think a 15 move ZBLL/ZZLL is long. If the article on ZBLL in the wiki is correct, it takes on average 12 moves to do ZBLL optimally. So I think it's safe to assume that it will require a few more moves to do ZBLL with better algorithms on average.
About your changes after cross (excluding LL): I'm not certain that EO, then left block, right block, is a good idea. The cross has already been completed and now you've chosen to sacrifice part of that for EO, whereas someone using CFOP is basic EOLL control might perform better in this situation. Here's my F4L solution after you've completed the edge pairing:
1st: R U R' U2 L' U' L
2nd: y' L' U2 L
3rd: y' U' L' U' L U L' U' L
4th: y' L U2 L2' U' L2 U' L' (basic EOLL control)
This gives me a total of 25 moves which isn't even that great I think. The number of moves I've used to solve F4L minus cross is the same number of moves you've taken to solve left block and right block without EO and cross. So even if you had a EO skip, I still might be able to produce a superior F4L solution by doing 4 pairs instead of LB and RB, because having an already completed cross is a somewhat great advantage for CFOP users but not so much for ZZ users. But not only this, I think my solution is probably more easier to execute and perhaps I would have less pauses in an actual solve with this solution. Reduction to <LUR> on a 555 after cross, centres and edge pairing is completed, isn't really worth it in my opinion, especially if you're not great at doing <LU> or <RU> moves on a 555.
About your changes after cross (excluding LL): I'm not certain that EO, then left block, right block, is a good idea. The cross has already been completed and now you've chosen to sacrifice part of that for EO, whereas someone using CFOP is basic EOLL control might perform better in this situation. Here's my F4L solution after you've completed the edge pairing:
1st: R U R' U2 L' U' L
2nd: y' L' U2 L
3rd: y' U' L' U' L U L' U' L
4th: y' L U2 L2' U' L2 U' L' (basic EOLL control)
This gives me a total of 25 moves which isn't even that great I think. The number of moves I've used to solve F4L minus cross is the same number of moves you've taken to solve left block and right block without EO and cross. So even if you had a EO skip, I still might be able to produce a superior F4L solution by doing 4 pairs instead of LB and RB, because having an already completed cross is a somewhat great advantage for CFOP users but not so much for ZZ users. But not only this, I think my solution is probably more easier to execute and perhaps I would have less pauses in an actual solve with this solution. Reduction to <LUR> on a 555 after cross, centres and edge pairing is completed, isn't really worth it in my opinion, especially if you're not great at doing <LU> or <RU> moves on a 555.
Hi Robert,
Thank you for you comments.
I understand that the XXCross is a step of your method. By lucky, I mean (U' y' R' U R // oWG) is a little lucky, isn't it ? Or maybe not, if you don't care about the colors.
And some ZZLL are 8 moves long. But that's not very important.
In the F4L (in your previous post), I see 3 cube rotations. I think you realize this is evil and intolerable for a ZZ user !
You might be surprised but for a 5x5 or 6x6 solve, except for the x-axis, I perform only 2 cube rotations.
Also, on average, ZZF2L requires a little less moves than (CFOP) F2L, plus the advantage of being <R,U,L>, but you know that.
Some precision about my 'method':
Usually, I don't do a complete cross. I make the white tredges and store them on the left with the correct orientation. Blue and Green are placed opposite to each other and form the line. Red and orange are also on the left, in correct relative position or not, it doesn't matter. No big difference with your method.
Then, I make the yellow tredges and store them on the right with random orientation. I orient them while forming the last 4 tredges. This is present in this solve.
An example : x2 3l' (U' R2 U F R F') 2r // BO
When the last 4 tredges are made, I do :
(4r2') U' 4r2' R2 // = (U' M2)
This put the 4 E-edge on top. It's easy to see which groups of tredges are badly oriented and to fix the orientation.
So, what you might see is that I orient only 4 tredges but in fact I orient them all during the solve.
Then, after (z') to place the cube in the final orientation, the DL tredge is always in DR or FR position, and the left tredges are always on the left in various positions. So, the look ahead and the transition to the left block is fast and very easy. There's no: hum… and now where are the pieces ?
Please continue to comment the method. Thank you.
Thank you for you comments.
I understand that the XXCross is a step of your method. By lucky, I mean (U' y' R' U R // oWG) is a little lucky, isn't it ? Or maybe not, if you don't care about the colors.
And some ZZLL are 8 moves long. But that's not very important.
In the F4L (in your previous post), I see 3 cube rotations. I think you realize this is evil and intolerable for a ZZ user !
You might be surprised but for a 5x5 or 6x6 solve, except for the x-axis, I perform only 2 cube rotations.
Also, on average, ZZF2L requires a little less moves than (CFOP) F2L, plus the advantage of being <R,U,L>, but you know that.
Some precision about my 'method':
Usually, I don't do a complete cross. I make the white tredges and store them on the left with the correct orientation. Blue and Green are placed opposite to each other and form the line. Red and orange are also on the left, in correct relative position or not, it doesn't matter. No big difference with your method.
Then, I make the yellow tredges and store them on the right with random orientation. I orient them while forming the last 4 tredges. This is present in this solve.
An example : x2 3l' (U' R2 U F R F') 2r // BO
When the last 4 tredges are made, I do :
(4r2') U' 4r2' R2 // = (U' M2)
This put the 4 E-edge on top. It's easy to see which groups of tredges are badly oriented and to fix the orientation.
So, what you might see is that I orient only 4 tredges but in fact I orient them all during the solve.
Then, after (z') to place the cube in the final orientation, the DL tredge is always in DR or FR position, and the left tredges are always on the left in various positions. So, the look ahead and the transition to the left block is fast and very easy. There's no: hum… and now where are the pieces ?
Please continue to comment the method. Thank you.
Last edited:
Similar threads
