• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Efficiency of 5x5 edges methods

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,911
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
masterNZ
Because Yau and Hoya build these edges in place.

It wouldn't be a fair comparison if you don't get to the same point in the solve.
That doesn't make sense as a fair comparison. Doing cross as part of edges is a restriction/benefit that is inherent in that method which isn't relevant to others. Furthermore, the OP specifically mentions not worrying about finishing the centres for certain methods, but having solved centres restricts what you can do with edges too.

Ultimately in means the whole point of this thread is silly. You can't look at the "efficiency" of edge solving in isolation from the method. Maybe edge movecount is lower, but centre solving is significantly impaired. Maybe edge movecount is much higher, but the cross+F2L is completed at the end. Efficiency could only truly be looked at when comparing whole solves and looking at a range of factors.
 

~Adam~

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,553
Location
Earth
WCA
2011GREE03
Efficiency could only truly be looked at when comparing whole solves and looking at a range of factors.
By getting to the point where there is parity and a cross solved with 2 scrambled centres you are comparing everything which matters between Hoya and Redux (I don't know Yau well enough) barring 4 moves to setup to solving last 2 centres for Hoya.

The 1st 4 centres are solved the same in both methods so we are ignoring that part.

The last 2 centres adds 4 moves for Hoya so you can feel free to add those to the totals.

Since Hoya has the cross solved it only makes sense to get to that point with Redux solves, unless of course people are intentionally building X-crosses during Redux solves.


I don't see any problems with these comparisons.

Mark is mainly looking at whether the difference in move count for the different part of the solve is made up for in the better look ahead with Hoya (from our conversation at UKC).


Am I missing something?
 

Dene

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
6,911
WCA
2009BEAR01
YouTube
masterNZ
By getting to the point where there is parity and a cross solved with 2 scrambled centres you are comparing everything which matters between Hoya and Redux (I don't know Yau well enough) barring 4 moves to setup to solving last 2 centres for Hoya.

The 1st 4 centres are solved the same in both methods so we are ignoring that part.

The last 2 centres adds 4 moves for Hoya so you can feel free to add those to the totals.

Since Hoya has the cross solved it only makes sense to get to that point with Redux solves, unless of course people are intentionally building X-crosses during Redux solves.


I don't see any problems with these comparisons.

Mark is mainly looking at whether the difference in move count for the different part of the solve is made up for in the better look ahead with Hoya (from our conversation at UKC).


Am I missing something?
Lookahead of centres matters, and could potentially be affected by whether you do all centres first, or whether you mix centres and edges. Also, lookahead into F2L could play a role: is time lost or gained (or neither) transitioning straight from last edges to CE pairs, as opposed to finishing centres then doing 3x3 as a whole? And potentially many other factors...

Personally I'm not really a fan of trying to compare methods that take different approaches in such simplistic terms as movecount.
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,676
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
mark49152
Thanks everyone for the solutions so far. I have a busy week but hope to find some time this weekend to go through them and do some initial comparison.

@Dene: Point taken, but please don't assume the results will be distilled down to a simple move count "score" with no other factors considered. I hope to learn something from the comparison and hope that it will be useful and interesting to other cubers too. I'm more interested in the solutions than purely move counts, and hope to see some more solutions posted. By going through different solutions I do believe it will be possible to make some quantitivative statements about the different approaches, but of course those would need to be set in the context not just of the overall methods, but the personal techniques/variations of different cubers, and the small sample set size. For example, both Adam and I would go in the simplistic "Hoya" bucket, but Adam solves four edges Hoya and the rest freeslice whereas I solve five edges Hoya and the rest AvG. So even Hoya solvers aren't directly comparable by total move count. By going through solutions I'd like to at least break it down to shorter phases and look at the efficiency of those individually.
 
Top