Playing big cubes before playing with the 3x3?

[Jin]

I don't think this thread has been made before(i could'nt find it after searching)


Does playing with big cubes such as the 4x4,5x5,6x6 etc effect your times on the 3x3?

For example, after playing with the 4x4 , my 3x3 cubies look somewhat bigger and it feels smoother too.

 

[Mike Hughey]

For the Forum's weekly competition, I almost always start with the 7x7x7 and work my way down to the 2x2x2. I find that I get what are pretty good times for me on 3x3x3 with this approach - I usually do better than my overall average. I figure it's mainly just because of the warmup, but also there are all the 3x3x3 solves after reduction that I've done.

 

[deepSubDiver]

i feel that my 3x3 then turns a lot better (my big cubes are a little stiff), and that my fingers are used to apply more force to the cubies - which results in faster turns.

 

[LNZ]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway. And 3x3 solves on big cubes will always be slower than on a real physical 3x3.

This means that your fastest 3x3 solve will alwaysbe on a real 3x3.

 

[TMOY]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway..

Not true. On odd big cubes you actually need it because the corners and midges behave exactly like a 3^3, but on even big cubes you have no midges and thus no need to know how to solve 3^3 edges.

 

[Jake Gouldon]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway. And 3x3 solves on big cubes will always be slower than on a real physical 3x3.

This means that your fastest 3x3 solve will alwaysbe on a real 3x3.

None of this is true.

There are bigcube methods (k4, sandwich, centres last, etc) that don't require you to know how to solve a 3x3. Also, I have many sub-20 3x3 stages on 5x5, and I average that on 3x3.

What if you have a bad 3x3 and good 4x4+ size cubes?

 

[JLarsen]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway. And 3x3 solves on big cubes will always be slower than on a real physical 3x3.

This means that your fastest 3x3 solve will alwaysbe on a real 3x3.

What are you trying to say? Or maybe I should ask, why? He wants to know the effect of big cube solving on 3x3 solving. Anyway I second Mike's post. I has something very similar in mind when I saw this thread.

 

[ckcommando]

i use my 6x6 first, because:
it is harder to turn(warms up muscles)
it needs more concentration, so it makes the 3x3 seem much easier!

 

[rjohnson_8ball]

I think recognition on the bigger cubes will help the 3x3 solves later.

I find after I solve my 7x7 for a few hours, then go to solve my 3x3, my brain and hands believe the 3x3 has concave sides! I always get a kick out of that.

 

[fanwuq]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway. And 3x3 solves on big cubes will always be slower than on a real physical 3x3.

This means that your fastest 3x3 solve will alwaysbe on a real 3x3.

None of this is true.

There are bigcube methods (k4, sandwich, centres last, etc) that don't require you to know how to solve a 3x3. Also, I have many sub-20 3x3 stages on 5x5, and I average that on 3x3.

What if you have a bad 3x3 and good 4x4+ size cubes?

Not true either. If you can do k4 or cage, you can apply the exact same ideas to solve a 3x3.

 

[Jake Gouldon]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway. And 3x3 solves on big cubes will always be slower than on a real physical 3x3.

This means that your fastest 3x3 solve will alwaysbe on a real 3x3.

None of this is true.

There are bigcube methods (k4, sandwich, centres last, etc) that don't require you to know how to solve a 3x3. Also, I have many sub-20 3x3 stages on 5x5, and I average that on 3x3.

What if you have a bad 3x3 and good 4x4+ size cubes?

Not true either. If you can do k4 or cage, you can apply the exact same ideas to solve a 3x3.

SHHHHH! I'm trying to make a point here.....

I was just grasping for an example, and I don't actually know cage/k4, so I just made these arguments based on what I knew.

 

[Cyrok215]

This just gave me an idea, what if people started learning first with 4x4, Parity on 4x4 would seem extremely easy, and when they moved down to 3x3 it would seem very easy, kind of like when we solve a 2x2

 

[Lucas Garron]

To solve a big cube, you need to know how solve a 3x3 anyway. And 3x3 solves on big cubes will always be slower than on a real physical 3x3.

This means that your fastest 3x3 solve will alwaysbe on a real 3x3.

None of this is true.

There are bigcube methods (k4, sandwich, centres last, etc) that don't require you to know how to solve a 3x3. Also, I have many sub-20 3x3 stages on 5x5, and I average that on 3x3.

What if you have a bad 3x3 and good 4x4+ size cubes?

Not true either. If you can do k4 or cage, you can apply the exact same ideas to solve a 3x3.

SHHHHH! I'm trying to make a point here.....

I was just grasping for an example, and I don't actually know cage/k4, so I just made these arguments based on what I knew.

There's no homomorphism from 3x3x3 to 4x4x4. There are also 4x4x4 solutions that cannot be applied to 3x3x3. (There is one from 3x3x3 to any odd cube, though. Hence if you can solve a 5x5x5, in a mathematical sense, you have to be able to solve a 3x3x3.)
That's about as theoretical as this is going to get.

Why is this thread in this forum? Since when are we posting threads wherever we want?