# Sub-3 on 5x5



## pcharles93 (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm kinda stuck on 5x5 now. I was just wondering how to get consistent sub-3's on it. I use the one tredge at a time pairing method. My centers are around 1:00-1:20. I get the white center, then the yellow, then the last 4 centers. The 3x3 part is about 45 seconds for me.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 30, 2008)

5x5x5, more so than any other puzzle we currently have in competitions, requires a lot of lookahead.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm stuck too - right about the same place as you. I think mainly I need to stop doing the crazy BLD solves and practice 5x5x5 more if I want to get unstuck, though. And I'm probably not going to do that.


----------



## cpt.Justice (Jun 30, 2008)

Also, color neutrality can shave a couple of seconds off of your time, and it doesnt really take much practice on 5x5 (compared to on 4x4 and 3x3)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 30, 2008)

cpt.Justice said:


> Also, color neutrality can shave a couple of seconds off of your time, and it doesnt really take much practice on 5x5 (compared to on 4x4 and 3x3)



Yeah, I missed that before - you should definitely start doing that - you can probably switch to color neutrality pretty much instantly (for the centers) - I did. It's really easy on 5x5x5.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 30, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> cpt.Justice said:
> 
> 
> > Also, color neutrality can shave a couple of seconds off of your time, and it doesnt really take much practice on 5x5 (compared to on 4x4 and 3x3)
> ...



Meh, white or yellow is generally easy enough. Full color neutrality is easiest on 2x2x2, though.


----------



## cpt.Justice (Jun 30, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > cpt.Justice said:
> ...



He asks how to solve it faster, not how to solve it easier... There WILL be times when other centers are both faster and easier than white/yellow, so why not use it? You do after all have 15 secs inspection.

And I cant see how full color neutrality is easier on 2x2 than on puzzles like the pyraminx or 2x1 (or the 1x1 for that matter)


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 30, 2008)

For a sub-3 minutes average you should aim for:

60 seconds for centers
80 seconds for edges
40 seconds for 3x3x3

This is based on my personal experience, corrected for the fact that others seem to be slower on edges and faster on 3x3x3.

My times now are about
40
55
40

Please give your times for reduction so we can analyse your strong and weak points. Also, posting a video might help


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 30, 2008)

Okay, Arnaud, how about me? I'd really love to make it through the qualification round at the US Open, but I'm too slow now to make it, most likely. My actual averages are a little below 3:10, but when I take splits, it slows me down (I think it distracts me from lookahead on the next step. I recently did an average of 10/12 with these splits:
60
91
47
(total 3:18, so probably close to 10 seconds worse than my normal averages)

You know I'm pretty slow at 3x3x3; I figure 47 is pretty reasonable given my 3x3x3 speed. And apparently from your numbers, my centers aren't so bad (although I feel like I'm not very good at them, and take way too many moves to get them done). And you've seen that my move counts for edge matching aren't much worse than yours (a little worse, but not much). So it seems like my best bet is to improve edge matching lookahead.

It seems like I will do great on 3 or 4 matches in a row, and then hit one where I just can't find the piece. I'll look right at it 3 or 4 times before I finally "see" it. It's like a temporary blindness. Any suggestions on how to overcome this? Whenever it happens, I figure it costs me 5 to 10 seconds - about 3 or 4 seconds to find the piece, then another second or 2 for breaking my rhythm, then usually a few more seconds on the next one because it takes me a bit to get back into looking ahead. When I have sub-2:45 solves, they're generally cases where this happens either not at all or just once during the solve.

Any advice would be appreciated; I've been stuck around 3:10 for quite a few months now.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 30, 2008)

Try training just 1 part of the reduction. Just scramble and solve only centers 25 times in a row. That should only take about 30 minutes. Try to see the entire first center (1+8 pieces) during the 15 seconds of inspection (speed-blind style).

Also, try only solving edges 10 times in a row. While solving I actually say which piece I am trying to find out loud. Green-Red, White-Orange, etc. Never look at the pieces that are at FL and FR because those are the pieces you are currently solving (assuming E-layer for pairing). If you cannot find the next piece just start looking in a fixed order so you cannot miss it (I use clockwise top-to-bottom order). And as always: Don't look at the pieces you are solving, look at the next pieces and try to remember where already solved pieces are as much as possible. I never know where the piece is exactly, but most of the time I know if it is in top, middle or bottom layer. Just that basic knowledge reduces the searching time by a factor of 2.5


----------



## MTGjumper (Jun 30, 2008)

I need to practice my edge pairing on 5x5x5 more. I really am awful at edge pairing; my look ahead is poor, and I often have pauses of 5+ seconds looking for certain edge pieces. Also, I let myself down in that I don't know how to efficiently pair up the edges after the first 8 (whereby I move them to the U and D faces, so they're out of the way). That takes up lots of time as well, where I just repeat the 4x4x4-switch-two-edge-pieces algorithm ~4 times.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 30, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> While solving I actually say which piece I am trying to find out loud. Green-Red, White-Orange, etc.


I have noticed that when I try to do this, my times tend to be slightly slower, but then after practicing that way for a few solves, if I stop doing it, I seem to get a lot faster. Some of my best times have been after that. It is also true, though, that I've never defined a proper order for the colors. I'm going to try forcing myself to do this with a proper order (so I know which direction the piece needs to go) for a bunch of edge pairing solves. Maybe that will help.



AvGalen said:


> ...try to remember where already solved pieces are as much as possible. I never know where the piece is exactly, but most of the time I know if it is in top, middle or bottom layer. Just that basic knowledge reduces the searching time by a factor of 2.5


I've never seen any of the good people talk about doing this, but I've always wondered how much that might be true. I have this sneaking suspicion that people like Erik probably have the locations of most of the middle edge pieces memorized by the third or fourth pairing. It seems like you could get pretty good at this with a lot of practice.

Thanks, Arnaud, you've given me some good things to work on - I really appreciate the advice. I'm going to do exactly as you say. It will give me something to do with my nice mid-sized 5x5x5 V-cube when I'm not working on big cubes BLD. (The 5x5x5 is no longer a big cube. )


----------



## Dene (Jun 30, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> I'm kinda stuck on 5x5 now. I was just wondering how to get consistent sub-3's on it. I use the one tredge at a time pairing method. My centers are around 1:00-1:20. I get the white center, then the yellow, then the last 4 centers. The 3x3 part is about 45 seconds for me.



I would recommend you work on centres. They are easy to practise as already mentioned. Get that to 40-60 seconds, and you will be cutting 20 seconds of your times  . My problem is edges. I think it's about time I learned AVG edges.


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> I think it's about time I learned AVG edges.


If you already know 2-at-a-time pairing for 4x4x4, you can learn AVG edges in 1 minute 

Mastering it takes a little longer though


----------



## Dene (Jun 30, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's about time I learned AVG edges.
> ...



Ummmm I don't think that I do... I just improvise 4x4x4 edges like I do with 5x5x5 >.< . Whatever I see, I pair.


----------



## alexc (Jun 30, 2008)

Well, I just started 5x5 yesterday and my single best is 3:0x and my average of five is 3:21. I have about 60 second centers 90 edges and 30 3x3. I think I want to get 45 centers, 1:15 centers, 20-30 3x3 at the US nationals, so that I can average around 2:20-2:30.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 30, 2008)

I actually worked on centers before edges. I think I got my centers times down to around 40s before I really worked on edge-pairing (which is done freestyle anyway).

And yes, color neutrality is very useful; I don't think I would've gotten sub-30 centers if I weren't color neutral.


----------



## clincher (Jul 1, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's about time I learned AVG edges.
> ...



Best method ever. I think xD
I find that method really useful


----------



## pjk (Jul 1, 2008)

Do avg's of 12 centers, do avg's of 12 edges, do avg's of 12 3x3 stage. Then do avg's of 12 whole solves. Make the best of situations. I use AvG for pairing, except my first 2 full edges go into the 2 back slots so that I don't need to search in those spots. I'm avg'ing around 2:35 right now, here is my breakdown:
43
77
35

I am not too fluid right now, but when I get fluid solves, my times are closer to 2:20 (edges are simply better). I dropped from 3:00 avg to 2:40 avg or so in like 2 days of practice, probably only 2 hours worth of 5x5 practice each day.


----------



## Leviticus (Jul 1, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> For a sub-3 minutes average you should aim for:
> 
> 60 seconds for centers
> 80 seconds for edges
> ...




My times are similar to yours, heres my breakdown:
45-55
55-65
30-35

So about 2.10-2.30

But i sometimes do incredible solves (< 2.10)


----------



## pcharles93 (Jul 1, 2008)

Wow, your centers are so consistent, 45-45?


----------



## Leviticus (Jul 1, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> Wow, your centers are so consistent, 45-45?



:L 45-55. I sometimes get really good centres like 35-40 but thats occasionally.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 1, 2008)

Dene said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


That gives bad look-ahead, more weird cases and probably results in needing more algs for the last edges (parities). The whole point of AVG edges is that you work from a fixed position (buffer) so you basically get a large chain of edge-pairing with very good look-ahead.


----------



## cpt.Justice (Jul 1, 2008)

Where can I learn AVG edges then? 
I tried using 6-pair on the 5x5, but it took me about a minute longer than the pairing shown on bigcubes.com :S


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 1, 2008)

cpt.Justice said:


> Where can I learn AVG edges then?
> I tried using 6-pair on the 5x5, but it took me about a minute longer than the pairing shown on bigcubes.com :S


 
I really hope that smiley means that you already know where you can learn it, but because you talk about 6-pair (basically a bad idea unless you are really good and lucky) I figure you don't:
http://speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=761
http://speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1447


----------



## Dene (Jul 1, 2008)

Mr. van Galen: Sometimes I go for long chains if I see them. I don't think my lookahead is too bad - I can generally see the next pair I will go for before I do it. The only problem is it involves a bit of rotating.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 1, 2008)

Going for long chains can save a couple of moves, but it can also backfire very bad (dFL -> dFR -> dBR -> dFL) especially if you don't "memo" the pieces that are already in the chain. You might end up looking all over the cube before you realize the chain is bad and all you needed was a B-turn for a nice 3-cycle.


----------



## starcuber (Nov 2, 2015)

AvGalen said:


> For a sub-3 minutes average you should aim for:
> 
> 60 seconds for centers
> 80 seconds for edges
> ...



some times i sub 1 centers but for edges i am terrible it takes me 2 minutes so i get 4 5 minutes so is there anything i can do to sub 80 seconds for 5x5


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 2, 2015)

starcuber said:


> some times i sub 1 centers but for edges i am terrible it takes me 2 minutes so i get 4 5 minutes so is there anything i can do to sub 80 seconds for 5x5



nice 7 year bump


----------



## collppllzbf2lll (Nov 2, 2015)

starcuber said:


> some times i sub 2 centers but for edges i am terrible it takes me 4 minutes so i get 45 minutes so is there anything i can do to sub 80 seconds for 5x5


practice


----------

