Faster Scrambling Idea?

[SparkZer00]

..........

 

[Kit Clement]

I'm probably wrong, but doesn't that end up in performing more moves to the cube?

 

[MistArts]

I'd love this, but there's a problem.

 

[shelley]

Who else besides MistArts sees the problem with this idea?

 

[n00bcubix]

I think I might, but I won't speak yet.

 

[Kit Clement]

'Kay, now I just feel stupid. >.<

 

[JustinJ]

I think I might...? I won't post what I think it is yet though.

EDIT: Yes, I'm sure I see it now

 

[ConnorCuber]

I see the problem.

 

[byu]

I think I see the problem.

 

[Kit Clement]

Mmmmm... I think I have it now.

 

[ConnorCuber]

I think I might...? I won't post what I think it is yet though.

I think I might, but I won't speak yet.

Who else besides MistArts sees the problem with this idea?

I'd love this, but there's a problem.

Okay we're getting no where.... seriously, I'd love to know what the problem is

The problem is that you can start by solving the innermost layer, and then move up, so that its only like a 3x3, but 3 times (7x7)
a 2x2 and 2 3x3's (6x6)
a 3x3 two times (5x5)
and a 2x2 and a 3x3 (4x4)

 

[Ton]

4x4- 2 scrambles, 1st outer tier and then 1st inner tier

Than solve it like a 2x2 ( for the centers+edges)- so you skip the edges, so only use Rw, Lw etc, than solve it like a 3x3x3 ( no parities)

 

[JustinJ]

Anybody else thinking this would be a really cool way to do a relay?

And I still don't quite understand what you meant up there, but this could work if you did a 3x3 on the inner, then on the outer, then on the inner again, couldn't it? Or is that or something similar what you meant? It would save inexperienced big cube scramblers like myself confusion and inconsistency.

 

[MistArts]

4x4- 2 scrambles, 1st outer tier and then 1st inner tier

Than solve it like a 2x2 ( for the centers+edges)- so you skip the edges, so only use Rw, Lw etc, than solve it like a 3x3x3 ( no parities)

I'd like to see someone do that, that's essentially the equivalent of exactly reversing a scramble on any solve, which would require an absolute Genius to do or someone with an EXTREMELY complex method in my opinion. If this still seems like a problem, then the scramble length can be extended, as still the method of scrambling still in my opinion is much more efficient and faster than what is in use officially today.

With you method, the centers are "connected" in groups of three's in "corners", so not all positions can be reached. Also, the wings are connected to slices if you only do slice moves. Double layer moves would make it connected to the center-"corner".

We could do something like the megaminx though.

 

[shelley]

Try it on a 4x4. Scramble the outer layers first, then scramble the inner layers as a 2x2. Now solve the centers as a 2x2 (i.e. without turning outer layers) and see what happens.

 

[qqwref]

Hi, I scrambled my 5x5 like this and then solved it.

The time was 52.94. I humbly request the UWR.

Unless you think there's a problem with the scrambling method, of course... ;-)

 

[Unknown.soul]

I tried scrambling a 4x4 like a 2x2, then a 3x3. I attempted to reduce it to a 2x2, but the OLL and PLL are almost impossible to figure out.

 

[*LukeMayn*]

ROF2L

who can sub 15 a 4x4 first

 

[toast]

ROF2L

who can sub 15 a 4x4 first

I call it for now, with my crappy time:
39.50

BEAT ME NOW.

 

[peterbat]

Before I figured out my 5x5 I used to solve scrambles like this to "impress" my friends.