# Hybrid edges method for 5x5x5 (and bigger)

#### bobthegiraffemonkey

##### Member
Hi everyone,

I started using this hybrid method for edge-pairing recently, got the idea from the method Dan Cohen uses for 4x4. Haven't seen it before and didn't find it with a search, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed already. Method is as follows:

(1. Solve all centers)
2. Place cross colour on D (use if you slice on E, adjust to suit if you slice on M)
3. Use freeslice to match cross edges and solve them into cross face as they are matched up
4. Continue with freeslice for another 2 tredges
5. Reset centers (you should now have 6 solved tredges, 4 of which make up the solved cross)
6. Place the last 2 solved tredges in BL and BR
7. Use AVG to finish edges
(8. Solve 3x3x3 from F2L step)

My thinking is that the BigCubes method is good to start with, but when it gets to the last 4 tredges it gets awkward (this used to be the method I used). 2-pairing works much better than freeslice for the last tredges, but before that I find it a little more awkward (maybe that's just me) and I find it awkward to work with edges from BL and BR, though I have minimal experience with AVG. This seems to get the most out of both methods, and AVG look-ahead is ridiculously easy when all remaining tredges are in FL, FR and U.

Let me know what you think of this. Personally, I set a new PB with it a couple of days ago, nearly my first sub-2. Still getting used to it though so it's easy to screw up. Seems to work well for 7x7x7 as well, and I don't see why it wouldn't work for 6x6x6 too (my V6 only has 2 pins left, will be fixed soon and I can give it a go).

Matt

#### abr71310

##### Member
I think it's quite a great idea - I just have a question though.

Since BigCubes discusses the same types of methods for the 7x7x7, would the above proposal work for the 5 "edges" (quintedges?... quedges... hahaha) on a 7x7x7 for the last 4?? (I'm kind of trying to visualize the shift... I can sort of see it but I'm kind of dumb and need confirmation)

I haven't been able to break 15 minutes and it's kind of annoying... especially final parity since it's always alternating AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY.

... yeah, I kind of suck at this.

#### Meep

##### Member
What makes the last four tredges awkward, and two pairing better? When you're down to the last four tredges, after you fix the centers, you could two-pair the rest of them =P Like, you could do the last four any way you want to. I personally just solve two of the last four tredges with whatever way I feel is best, then do the last two in one go lol.

With this method, though it would be ideal to do the cross ahead of time, I think it'd be too much trouble when there're likely many easier things to pair.

Just my thoughts~

#### bobthegiraffemonkey

##### Member
I think it's quite a great idea - I just have a question though.

Since BigCubes discusses the same types of methods for the 7x7x7, would the above proposal work for the 5 "edges" (quintedges?... quedges... hahaha) on a 7x7x7 for the last 4?? (I'm kind of trying to visualize the shift... I can sort of see it but I'm kind of dumb and need confirmation)

I haven't been able to break 15 minutes and it's kind of annoying... especially final parity since it's always alternating AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY.

... yeah, I kind of suck at this.
If you mean switching to 2-pair for the last 4 edges (I don't know the word for them either lol) it should work fine. I've used this method for the last 6 edges on a 7x7 and my times are around the same as they were (about 7 minutes). I'm not sure what you mean about the parity ... if you explain what you mean I'm sure someone here can help out.

What makes the last four tredges awkward, and two pairing better? When you're down to the last four tredges, after you fix the centers, you could two-pair the rest of them =P Like, you could do the last four any way you want to. I personally just solve two of the last four tredges with whatever way I feel is best, then do the last two in one go lol.

With this method, though it would be ideal to do the cross ahead of time, I think it'd be too much trouble when there're likely many easier things to pair.

Just my thoughts~
I think the look-ahead and recognition is better, but to an extent this is personal preference. 2-pairing is easy when you only have to look at FL, FR, and U edges, which is what this method achieves. I've always found the last 2 edges with the BigCubes method to be a bit clumsy and awkward. I just really struggle to keep track of what pieces are going where and what is the best thing to do next, and sometimes waste quite a few seconds trying to figure out what to do. Obviously if you can cope fine and prefer that method, there's no point switching.
The one advantage I can think of for BigCubes is that it deals with parity better. If the inner slices have parity and the outer ones don't, the BigCubes method can solve the inner slice parity while preserving the outer slices, while for 2-pair I solve the inner edges first and deal with any parity there before moving on to the outer edges. Solving the cross edges is a little awkward at first, I'll admit, but it should be pretty easy to adjust (I'm getting pretty used to it now, and will get better with practice).

Matt

#### Ranzha

##### Friendly, Neighbourhoodly
Since BigCubes discusses the same types of methods for the 7x7x7, would the above proposal work for the 5 "edges" (quintedges?... quedges... hahaha) on a 7x7x7 for the last 4?? (I'm kind of trying to visualize the shift... I can sort of see it but I'm kind of dumb and need confirmation)

I haven't been able to break 15 minutes and it's kind of annoying... especially final parity since it's always alternating AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY.

... yeah, I kind of suck at this.
I call the 6x6 ones "quadges" and the 7x7 ones "quidges." Lol.