Which 4x4 Edge Pairing Method Do I Use?

[Musturd]

I came up with this myself, but I'm sure it's already been discovered (and has a name).

So I solve the white and yellow centers first.
Then I rotate the cube with a z'
From here I only pair up half of each center (in a vertical line from this position) with Rw and Lw turns (ignoring position).
After that step I connect edges just doing Rw and Lw turns and swapping completed sets with incomplete sets on the left and right sides of the cube.
After pairing up 8 edges, I actually solve the rest of the centers.
Then I solve the other 4 edges, two at a time.

Is this called the 8-2-2 pairing method? Or is it called something else?
Also, please let me know if this is horribly inefficient, so I can change my ways.

If someone doesn't understand what I'm talking about I can try to do an example solve.

Thanks

 

[Jake Gouldon]

It's what Nakajima use(d/s, did he quit completely?) and essentially freeslice for 4x4.

 

[Musturd]

It's what Nakajima use(d/s, did he quit completely?) and essentially freeslice for 4x4.

Thanks.
(I'm not sure if he quit or not)

 

[Escher]

Actually I thought that Nakaji completed centres as normal (or at least got them until one slice turn away from solved), then began freeslicing and storing each edge on the U layer, and then doing a z2 and continuing storing on U layer until finishing the final four whichever way he felt like.

You seem to be doing something a bit different; I've seen Oliver Perge do something on 5x5 that's a little similar, where you finish centres properly but during edge pairing you can mess up the E/M layer however you like as long as you keep them in vertical/horizontal lines, and then you fix them before final four.

 

[Jake Gouldon]

You are right, it is VERY similar to what Nakajima did, but not exactly the same. Isn't that second thing you mentioned freeslice?

 

[Escher]

You are right, it is VERY similar to what Nakajima did, but not exactly the same. Isn't that second thing you mentioned freeslice?

I'm not sure; I always thought that freeslice = BigCubes, whereby the centres can always be returned to solved with u/u'/u2 and/or d/d'/d2.

 

[Jake Gouldon]

Oh now I see what you mean, but I would find re-completing the centres annoying and time-consuming.

 

[Escher]

Oh now I see what you mean, but I would find re-completing the centres annoying and time-consuming.

Yeah, Oliver said that was a bit of a problem, but with good lookahead you could see how to solve them in less than 5s easily. He said that overall it saved loads of moves during edge pairing as you can use R2 or whatever to flip edges rather than a flipping alg... I'm not going to switch anytime soon, but it sounds kinda cool (though I guess it would probably be better for bigger cubes than 5x5 or 4x4).

 

[masterofthebass]

I tried doing this center thing for 7x7 a while back, but it just seemed too slow. Instead I just do other things to avoid flipping the edges.

 

[Escher]

I tried doing this center thing for 7x7 a while back, but it just seemed too slow. Instead I just do other things to avoid flipping the edges.

Avoid or reduce? By grouping stuff that needs to be flipped? Or avoid by inserting stuff into the E/M slice differently?
Or am I on the wrong track?