[Unofficial] Michael Womack's cubing videos

[Michael Womack]

That was an extremely intelligent decision you made there . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yep it was

 

[ben1996123]

Yep it was

Yhep indeeed it wäs . :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[Michael Womack]

I need some help with my new 4x4 method

could this be a new 4x4 method?

 

[5BLD]

I suspect the movecount be quite high

 

[Michael Womack]

I suspect the movecount be quite high

Might just depending on scramble and the moves to solve it

 

[Rpotts]

I'd suggest putting up a short description of this method, many will be turned off because of the length of the video.

Also, lol at the last 3 posts.

 

[bluecloe45]

I don't think a usual high move count method will replace more frequently used methods such as Yau

 

[ben1996123]

Really?!?

No, high move count = faster time. That's why Feliks's's 3x3 solves are usually about 120 moves.

 

[Michael Womack]

No, high move count = faster time. That's why Feliks's's 3x3 solves are usually about 120 moves.

Who cares about move count this is a new method that could evolve into a better faster way think about it. Also think about the reaction when Robert Yau introduced his method.

 

[Ranzha]

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?15267-4x4x4-reduction-cross-idea

People related it to an already existing and already promising method.
This has no such link, nor is it feasible for speedsolving.

 

[Ranzha]

I don't get how my new method is related to that method

I posted that link because you posted this:

Who cares about move count this is a new method that could evolve into a better faster way think about it. Also think about the reaction when Robert Yau introduced his method.

That thread is Robert Yau's original proposition of his 4x4 method. People related Yau's proposed method to K4, movecounts were near those of the reigning Reduction method, and Yau became more and more feasible as a speedsolving method.

Your proposed 4x4 method has no potential in the speedsolving realm. If in three years I'm very wrong, I vow to apologise.

 

[Michael Womack]

I posted that link because you posted this:



That thread is Robert Yau's original proposition of his 4x4 method. People related Yau's proposed method to K4, movecounts were near those of the reigning Reduction method, and Yau became more and more feasible as a speedsolving method.

Your proposed 4x4 method has no potential in the speedsolving realm. If in three years I'm very wrong, I vow to apologise.

LOL thats why there are lots of 2x2 methods that branched off of the Ortega method

 

[ben1996123]

LOL thats why there are lots of 2x2 methods that branched off of the Ortega method

There are? Give me some examples.

 

[Michael Womack]

There are? Give me some examples.

Most of these http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Category:2x2x2_speedsolving_methods

 

[vcuber13]

can you do a written explanation?

 

[Michael Womack]

can you do a written explanation?

I could but it would realy make sense so video is better expination

 

[ben1996123]

I could but it would realy make sense so video is better expination

I'm not watching a video from you. I don't even know what the method is when I'm posting this. If a written explanation would make realy sense, make one.

 

[Michael Womack]

1. solve equator centers
2. solve equator edges
3. solve corners
3. finish placing in the edges
or
Solve the E layers then solve U and D centers then solve corners then do K4 for the remaining edges

 

[ben1996123]

1. solve equator centers
2. solve equator edges
3. solve corners
3. finish placing in the edges
or
Solve the E layers then solve U and D centers then solve corners then do K4 for the remaining edges

How do you do step 3 and step 3 without scrambling the E layers? What about the U and D centres in the first method?

 

[Michael Womack]

How do you do step 3 and step 3 without scrambling the E layers? What about the U and D centres in the first method?

K4 and for the centers the video tells you