VinnieDelMonte
Member
Introduction and background:
The purpose of this thread is to outline a big cube method (5x5+) I have been developing on and off over the past year and a half or so. I call it the 'slot method.'
It began as a gigaminx method, though it didn’t take long to see the potential in extending the concept into cubes.
The method functions similarly to Yau in that it solves the cross early on in the solve. (I actually hadn't heard of Yau when I first came up with the idea.)
Into the solve:
The method revolves, primarily, around a two part technique. The first I call setup. In this step, a 1xn bar is built from the center piece to the white edge. The second is slotting. This builds 1xn bars from a white edge and 'slots' them alongside the piece created by the setup. (To clarify, on a 5x5 or 6x6, the bars would be 1x3, on 7x7 they would be 1x4)
On gigaminx, the setup move is much more rigid due to the absence of M turns. Additionally, on even cubes, the setup move is omitted entirely.
To outline the process:
1. Solve the white center
2. Perform the setup move on three sides (I leave orange)
3. Use the slot technique to solve three cross edges and the lower portion of the centers
4. Complete the remaining non yellow centers
5. Solve the yellow center (Steps 4 and 5 may be interchanged on 5x5 depending on preference)
6. Pair the remaining edges
7. 3x3
The power in this method comes both from the fact that is easy to find centers to pair to an edge and in the flexibility of building the cross blocks.
Most naively, the process involves locating a single edge then pairing it with center pieces to form the 1xn block. The insertion of this piece is quick and easy. If construction of these blocks is performed on orange, simple (R u' R') moves can be used (akin to f2l). If they are built on the yellow face, similar moves (r U' r') or sledgehammers (r' F r F') may be used. For insertion on the back face, one may use R2 F2 R2.
Solving the final centers is not noticeably more difficult. As only partial centers are built in the early stages, full movement over the top layers is maintained. There are two ways of doing this, one which I prefer on 5x5 and one for larger cubes.
On 5x5, I solve yellow first. Then I perform a Z rotation and solve the remaining centers in a fashion similar to the half centers method proposed by Jacob Hutnyk. Bars can be entirely constructed and placed using only R and U turns.
On larger cubes, this is impractical so I prefer to hold the cube with yellow on top and build the bars using the F and U faces, solving yellow and orange as last two centers.
After that, the remaining edges can be solved either in the same fashion as standard reduction or treated as an extended last 4 edges using more advanced two pairing as one would use in 4x4. (Note, if solving in the traditional way where centers are not aligned, F L F' L' or F2 U F2 can insert the final cross piece from LU and UL respectively without disturbing the centers)
A more advanced look at the slotting process:
Firstly is the use of the setup move. In some cases, this may be merged with the slotting step (such as in the event that cross blocks are readily available. this would thereby solve one at a time). In others, the blocks may be built up differently (such as in the common 5x5 strategy wherein a 1x2 block is created off the center, then two more 1x2 blocks build a 2x3 block). Thus, edges can be paired in more of a traditional sense then inserted onto the already completed block.
We also have a variety of building and insertion methods available. For instance, rotating an edge can be done by simply placing it on UF and performing an F turn. Additionally, missing pieces are easy to insert as well, given the large work area we have. If, for example, a red cross edge is placed without any centers, a u2 allows for easy insertion of missing centers.
There is a huge potential for small tricks such as these. So, to sum this up, I'm looking for feedback and suggestions to see if this method is feasible and comparable to classic reduction. So far, I've managed to get within 30 seconds of my reduction average on 5x5 in 25 timed solves. (roughly a 2:30 reduction average)
Lastly, feel free to share this method if you like it and think it could be useful. The only thing I ask is that you link back to this thread.
The purpose of this thread is to outline a big cube method (5x5+) I have been developing on and off over the past year and a half or so. I call it the 'slot method.'
It began as a gigaminx method, though it didn’t take long to see the potential in extending the concept into cubes.
The method functions similarly to Yau in that it solves the cross early on in the solve. (I actually hadn't heard of Yau when I first came up with the idea.)
Into the solve:
The method revolves, primarily, around a two part technique. The first I call setup. In this step, a 1xn bar is built from the center piece to the white edge. The second is slotting. This builds 1xn bars from a white edge and 'slots' them alongside the piece created by the setup. (To clarify, on a 5x5 or 6x6, the bars would be 1x3, on 7x7 they would be 1x4)
On gigaminx, the setup move is much more rigid due to the absence of M turns. Additionally, on even cubes, the setup move is omitted entirely.
To outline the process:
1. Solve the white center
2. Perform the setup move on three sides (I leave orange)
3. Use the slot technique to solve three cross edges and the lower portion of the centers
4. Complete the remaining non yellow centers
5. Solve the yellow center (Steps 4 and 5 may be interchanged on 5x5 depending on preference)
6. Pair the remaining edges
7. 3x3
The power in this method comes both from the fact that is easy to find centers to pair to an edge and in the flexibility of building the cross blocks.
Most naively, the process involves locating a single edge then pairing it with center pieces to form the 1xn block. The insertion of this piece is quick and easy. If construction of these blocks is performed on orange, simple (R u' R') moves can be used (akin to f2l). If they are built on the yellow face, similar moves (r U' r') or sledgehammers (r' F r F') may be used. For insertion on the back face, one may use R2 F2 R2.
Solving the final centers is not noticeably more difficult. As only partial centers are built in the early stages, full movement over the top layers is maintained. There are two ways of doing this, one which I prefer on 5x5 and one for larger cubes.
On 5x5, I solve yellow first. Then I perform a Z rotation and solve the remaining centers in a fashion similar to the half centers method proposed by Jacob Hutnyk. Bars can be entirely constructed and placed using only R and U turns.
On larger cubes, this is impractical so I prefer to hold the cube with yellow on top and build the bars using the F and U faces, solving yellow and orange as last two centers.
After that, the remaining edges can be solved either in the same fashion as standard reduction or treated as an extended last 4 edges using more advanced two pairing as one would use in 4x4. (Note, if solving in the traditional way where centers are not aligned, F L F' L' or F2 U F2 can insert the final cross piece from LU and UL respectively without disturbing the centers)
A more advanced look at the slotting process:
Firstly is the use of the setup move. In some cases, this may be merged with the slotting step (such as in the event that cross blocks are readily available. this would thereby solve one at a time). In others, the blocks may be built up differently (such as in the common 5x5 strategy wherein a 1x2 block is created off the center, then two more 1x2 blocks build a 2x3 block). Thus, edges can be paired in more of a traditional sense then inserted onto the already completed block.
We also have a variety of building and insertion methods available. For instance, rotating an edge can be done by simply placing it on UF and performing an F turn. Additionally, missing pieces are easy to insert as well, given the large work area we have. If, for example, a red cross edge is placed without any centers, a u2 allows for easy insertion of missing centers.
There is a huge potential for small tricks such as these. So, to sum this up, I'm looking for feedback and suggestions to see if this method is feasible and comparable to classic reduction. So far, I've managed to get within 30 seconds of my reduction average on 5x5 in 25 timed solves. (roughly a 2:30 reduction average)
Lastly, feel free to share this method if you like it and think it could be useful. The only thing I ask is that you link back to this thread.
