One-Answer Big Cubes Question Thread

[Alex Knavel]

I am currently learning the 5x5, I believe I am using the reduction method.(Isn't that just making it into a glorified 3x3?) and I have EVERYTHING done except for my red and white edge piece, which for some reason is flipped in a parity that I deal with on the 4x4 (Here is a picture of it http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/images/edgeflip) but with all 3 edge pieces aligned correctly together but the is incorrect compared to the rest of the cube! Please help me out if you can. This cube Im solving is just an old Rubik's professor cube a friend(who can't solve it) gave me months ago cause he didn't need it, it was completely scrambled when I received it. I'm very happy to have gotten it almost solved/learned. I will apreciate it if anyone can help me out here!

 

[Berd]

I am currently learning the 5x5, I believe I am using the reduction method.(Isn't that just making it into a glorified 3x3?) and I have EVERYTHING done except for my red and white edge piece, which for some reason is flipped in a parity that I deal with on the 4x4 (Here is a picture of it http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/images/edgeflip) but with all 3 edge pieces aligned correctly together but the is incorrect compared to the rest of the cube! Please help me out if you can. This cube Im solving is just an old Rubik's professor cube a friend(who can't solve it) gave me months ago cause he didn't need it, it was completely scrambled when I received it. I'm very happy to have gotten it almost solved/learned. I will apreciate it if anyone can help me out here!

This sounds like an impossible position. You will need to reassemble it correctly.

 

[Reprobate]

I sometimes do that, just because white and yellow edge pieces are usually easier for me to find because of the color contrast. But if there's an easy obvious match, I'll take it.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

On 5x5 I've seen people (on freeslice) solve only the edges with white and yellow, a way of edges filtering. I've tried it and my edges are like 8s slower, but some people find it faster.

Is it worth it to filter the white and yellow during first 8 edges?

No, not even close to worth it. You should be able to do whichever edge pair is easiet regardless of color. Filtering edges takes time in itself, but even if it didn't take time, you're filtering out the easy cases. You're doing edges based on whether they're white/yellow rather than based on whether they're fast to solve. That's a huge negative.

One other negative to solving all white/yellow edeges during F8E on big cubes is that on 6x6, you can save edge pairing parity until LL to avoid triple parity, and if you're a white or yellow cross solver like most cubers, you deny yourself the chance to do so by solving all your white/yellow edges before L4E. It's to your advantage to have yellow/white edge pairs left during L4E, so that you can force the parity into your LL color and do only inner or outer OLL parity when you reach LL, rather than doing edge pairing parity and still having a 50% chance of getting OLL parity. Building on that idea, if you're going to filter colors, the best thing to do in terms of move count is to leave the edges (or at least one edge) that are the opposite of your cross color for L4E. You guarantee that you won't have triple parity by doing this.

 

[Dene]

No, not even close to worth it. You should be able to do whichever edge pair is easiet regardless of color. Filtering edges takes time in itself, but even if it didn't take time, you're filtering out the easy cases. You're doing edges based on whether they're white/yellow rather than based on whether they're fast to solve. That's a huge negative.

One other negative is that on 6x6, you can save edge pairing parity until LL to avoid triple parity. If you're a white/yellow cross solver, it's to your advantage to have yellow/white edge pairs left during L4E, so that you can force the parity into your LL color and do only inner or outer OLL parity when you reach LL, rather than doing edge pairing parity and still having a 50% chance of getting OLL parity. By solving all the white/yellow edges first, you have a 25% chance of triple parity on 6x6 instead of a 0% chance, unless you solve cross on colors other than white or yellow.

Hang on, what? This doesn't even make sense.

I generally try to do white/yellow, although I don't treat it as a hard-and-fast rule.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

Hang on, what? This doesn't even make sense.

Yep, worded it terribly. I rewrote it; is it clear now?

I generally try to do white/yellow, although I don't treat it as a hard-and-fast rule.

...why? Does it help your recognition? I really don't understand the appeal; being color neutral during edge pairing is so much easier than being neutral for cross, and the benefits to recognition from filtering feel negligible to me.

 

[Dene]

Oh ok now it makes sense. I had never even though of treating parity in that manner. I mostly try to avoid edge parity anyway (which can be done in most cases).

But anyway, all that means is you shouldn't do white/yellow edges on 6x6 if you use white or yellow cross, in case you get edge parity (which can usually be avoided anyway) and OLL parity. Those are pretty specific circumstances and in my opinion, it isn't worthwhile to make a decision which influences what you do every solve (edges), if it would be beneficial.

The reason I do white/yellow is because it improves recognition and removes ambiguity by providing a clearer task and removing indecision when there are lots of good pairs (or no good pairs). But I'm not silly about it, and if I see something good right in front of me I'll go for it. I probably only do all white/yellow edges in 25% of my solves. Usually I'd only do 6 or 7 white/yellow with one or two others.

Personally I don't know what many other bigcubers do, but I know Feliks doesn't do white/yellow (or at least he didn't in the past).

 

[Matt11111]

Hi. I just got my YJ YuSu in the mail, and was playing with it on the school bus on the way to school. An internal edge seems to have popped out. Should this be a point of concern? Should I look on the bus again to see if I can find it? The piece popped right as the bus pulled up at my school, so I didn't have enough time to look for it.

 

[Ordway Persyn]

I'd either look for it or buy a replacement piece, Having a Internal piece missing is just asking for a mid solve explosion.

 

[Matt11111]

OK, thanks!

 

[Tahrbo]

Is it possible to learn a method for solving a 5x5 cube without being able to solve a 3x3? Many people who know the 3x3 use reduction to solve a 4x4 or 5x5.

If one were to go in reverse, is it possible to learn a 5x5 first but not be able to use the method to solve the simpler 3x3?

 

[Dene]

Is it possible to learn a method for solving a 5x5 cube without being able to solve a 3x3? Many people who know the 3x3 use reduction to solve a 4x4 or 5x5.

If one were to go in reverse, is it possible to learn a 5x5 first but not be able to use the method to solve the simpler 3x3?

Not possible, no. Any method that can be applied to a 5x5 could be applied in simpler form to a 3x3, because the pieces are equivalent. Any way you go about solving the corners on 5x5 could identically be applied to the 3x3, and same for the middle edges.

 

[shadowslice e]

Is it possible to learn a method for solving a 5x5 cube without being able to solve a 3x3? Many people who know the 3x3 use reduction to solve a 4x4 or 5x5.

If one were to go in reverse, is it possible to learn a 5x5 first but not be able to use the method to solve the simpler 3x3?

If you're talking about a direct solving method, there's K4 and OBLBL but both of those concepts can be applied to the 3x3x3 to solve that as well but in quite a roundabout way in some cases.

 

[Tahrbo]

If I can solve a 7x7 cube, is it a certainty that I can solve a 9x9 cube? I had to learn some new algorithms when I went from a 3x3 to a 5x5, and I had to learn some newer algorithms still when I went from a 5x5 to 7x7. When I picture a 9x9, it seems like what I know about the 7x7 is enough for me to solve the 9x9.

When solving a 7x7 I solve the centers by pairs, filling in rows on a center and then moving on to the next centers. Would this suffice for solving a 9x9?

 

[Berd]

If I can solve a 7x7 cube, is it a certainty that I can solve a 9x9 cube? I had to learn some new algorithms when I went from a 3x3 to a 5x5, and I had to learn some newer algorithms still when I went from a 5x5 to 7x7. When I picture a 9x9, it seems like what I know about the 7x7 is enough for me to solve the 9x9.

When solving a 7x7 I solve the centers by pairs, filling in rows on a center and then moving on to the next centers. Would this suffice for solving a 9x9?

That should be fine. I presume you know the commutator to solve the last obliques on centers?

 

[Tahrbo]

That should be fine. I presume you know the commutator to solve the last obliques on centers?

Yes I do. Thanks, you've saved me $50-100 on a 9x9 cube.

 

[Christmas]

Im learning 5x5 and Im using Yau5. What should the breakdown be for sub 2:30 and sub 2:00?
Im currently averaging 2:45

Thanks

 

[penguinz7]

Im learning 5x5 and Im using Yau5. What should the breakdown be for sub 2:30 and sub 2:00?
Im currently averaging 2:45

Thanks

2:30; this is kind of guessing..
F2C: 15-20
F4E: 20-25
L4C: 35-40
L6E: 1:00ish
3x3: 15

2:00; (These are approximately my splits.)
F2C: 15
F4E: 15
L4C: 30
L6E: 50
3x3: 10

 

[Christmas]

2:30; this is kind of guessing..
F2C: 15-20
F4E: 20-25
L4C: 35-40
L6E: 1:00ish
3x3: 15

2:00; (These are approximately my splits.)
F2C: 15
F4E: 15
L4C: 30
L6E: 50
3x3: 10

Thanks! And damn haha my 3x3 stage is so slow gotta work on that

 

[PuzzledCuber]

I want to get faster at 5x5, could someone give me some tips? The method I am using is a basic reduction method.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1YcElqZkM0jpA7XHOe1oYg