# How does kuit pair 5X5 edges?



## shiqi peng (Jul 18, 2009)

same as the title


----------



## amostay2004 (Jul 18, 2009)

Who's kuit?


----------



## blah (Jul 18, 2009)

Freestyle AvG.


----------



## shiqi peng (Jul 18, 2009)

same as Erik？


----------



## blah (Jul 18, 2009)

Erik: AvG.
Kuti: Freestyle AvG.

I think...


----------



## shiqi peng (Jul 18, 2009)

what's free style avg?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2009)

Freestyle AVG = AVG, but without sticking to the same buffer piece throughout. Kuti will switch to another buffer immediately if he sees a match.


----------



## HASH-CUBE (Jul 18, 2009)

what's AVG? sorry if was so noob


----------



## 04mucklowd (Jul 18, 2009)

HASH-CUBE said:


> what's AVG? sorry if was so noob



Arnaud van Galen edge paring method on cubes bigger than a 3x3


----------



## blah (Jul 18, 2009)

04mucklowd said:


> HASH-CUBE said:
> 
> 
> > what's AVG? sorry if was so noob
> ...


Specifically, 5x5x5.

Most people wouldn't call it AvG on a 4x4x4, it's more like "2-at-a-time with a fixed buffer".

I believe no decently fast cuber uses AvG for 6x6x6s and 7x7x7s, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## HASH-CUBE (Jul 18, 2009)

oh i see, thanks for the tip, btw is there a good tutorial for that method?

thanks for the help again


----------



## blah (Jul 18, 2009)

HASH-CUBE said:


> oh i see, thanks for the tip, btw is there a good tutorial for that method?
> 
> thanks for the help again



YouTube. Erik explains it well. frk17 = Erik. Good luck learning it  Despite having more negative comments than the bigcubes.com method (at least that's what I've come across), I still prefer AvG  I can't comment on bigcubes.com because I've never taken it seriously yet, and I don't think there's a proper basis for comparison anyway, but of course, I may be wrong. They each have their pros and cons, both have been proven to be capable of WR times, at the end of the day, I believe it boils down to personal preference and cubing style.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2009)

blah said:


> I believe no decently fast cuber uses AvG for 6x6x6s and 7x7x7s, correct me if I'm wrong.


There's a video of Kuti using AvG (his version) on a 7x7x7. It was something like 4:38, which I would say is decently fast, wouldn't you? And that was a while ago, when it was considered a much faster time than it is now.

Doesn't Erik also use AvG for the bigger cubes? I would somehow doubt he would switch for the bigger cubes.


----------



## blah (Jul 18, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > I believe no decently fast cuber uses AvG for 6x6x6s and 7x7x7s, correct me if I'm wrong.
> ...



Yeah I've seen that video of Kuti, it was a while ago. I didn't know he was using AvG because I hadn't started 5x5x5 back then.

As for Erik, his FAQ video on YouTube says "bad edge-pairing method" or something along those lines


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 18, 2009)

This isn't youtube, we don't say "read the title" or something similar here. Maybe if you explained to us what you were asking and put a little more thought into it you would get an easier answer. :fp


----------



## Rama (Jul 18, 2009)

shiqi peng said:


> kuit



:fp
I know a Mátyás Kuti who uses his own method for pairing up the edges wich looks like Arnauds method.

Ps. For using no capital letter when typing down a name I present you a nice facepalm: :fp


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 18, 2009)

Rama said:


> I know a Mátyás Kuti who uses his own method for pairing up the edges wich *looks like* Arnauds method.


So you've watched him in person. And it does look on your video like he's doing Arnaud's method except not keeping the same buffer the whole time. Is that true, or is his method actually a little different from that? Curious minds want to know. 

It's definitely clear from the video that the centers aren't freesliced - he's never more than one turn away from solved centers.


----------



## Erik (Jul 21, 2009)

Guys... please get some sources or actual knowledge before claiming stuff.
Matyas does NOT use AVG nor AVG without buffer. He does do 2 at a time mostly but more freestyle and he tends to complete a semi-edge and creating another one rather than just making semi-edges all the time. He showed me in Sweden in 2007.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 21, 2009)

1st: Very bad topic post. Please get at least the name right when you ask a question like that. An explanation why you asked that question would have been useful as well

2nd: Hash-Cube: When someone tells you he uses method xyz, you shouldn't ask "how does method xyz work". You should use the search function and find http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1447&highlight=avg+edge+pairing and http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13550&highlight=avg+edge+pairing and many more

And to clear up something that has been asked many times:
http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/4speedsolve21.html is probably the best source for 2-at-a-time edge pairing on 4x4x4. I discovered this method myself, but learned how to look ahead from his tutorial

I have always used 2-at-a-time edge pairing on 5x5x5 (and 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 later) but was horribly slow at it because of bad look ahead, parity endings (multiple), weird cases, etc. I tried to find a way to prevent all of that and found out that having a semi-pair in a fixed buffer give much better look ahead, only 1 parity case at the end and basically no weird cases. That is all there is to it. *AVG edge pairing is just 2-at-a-time edge-pairing from a fixed buffer with a semi-pair*. According to personal preference many people 
* don't start with a semi-pair, but switch to one once they have some semi-pairs done
* don't use a fixed buffer but "freestyle" from different buffers
* use less setupmoves that require pairing to an opposite, not adjacent position (d2...d2 instead of d...d')
* use a different slice to pair (I use E, but I think M is better)


----------



## Zava (Jul 21, 2009)

blah said:


> 04mucklowd said:
> 
> 
> > HASH-CUBE said:
> ...



well, I do 2 at a time on 6x6 (first 4x4, then 5x5 pairing, AVGish idea but a lot more freestyle) and I think I'm decently fast  also Mátyás did his 5x5 edges method on the 7x7.

also, I have an edge pairing tutorial of the method I used to use, it is the same as Mátyás' method. I'm sorry, but it's in hungarian  but if someone is interested, I can do an english version too.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik said:


> Guys... please get some sources or actual knowledge before claiming stuff.
> Matyas does NOT use AVG nor AVG without buffer. He does do 2 at a time mostly but more freestyle and he tends to complete a semi-edge and creating another one rather than just making semi-edges all the time. He showed me in Sweden in 2007.



That's why I asked Rama - I figured he would know. Thank you for clearing it up - you answered my question, so now I hopefully know for sure. (Of course, I got in trouble before because I trusted what I thought was a good source on Haiyan Zhuang's BLD method, and it was apparently wrong. I still feel bad about that.)

Now how about you Erik, do you use AVG for 6x6x6 and 7x7x7? Obviously you're the best person to ask about that.


----------



## Erik (Jul 21, 2009)

Yes I do but in my opinion the bigger the cubes get the worse AvG is and the better Bigcubes pairing becomes. Still I have to do AvG since I suck even worse at Bigcubes pairing. I'm barely sub-5 on 7x7 with it and like 3:30 on 6x6 compared to 4:45 with AvG on 7 and 3:05 on 6


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 21, 2009)

Erik said:


> Yes I do but in my opinion the bigger the cubes get the worse AvG is and the better Bigcubes pairing becomes. Still I have to do AvG since I suck even worse at Bigcubes pairing. I'm barely sub-5 on 7x7 with it and like 3:30 on 6x6 compared to 4:45 with AvG on 7 and 3:05 on 6



Thanks for that - now I know for sure.

I've been trying to get better at Bigcubes pairing for 6x6x6 and 7x7x7, but I'm still about a minute slower with Bigcubes pairing than with AvG. But it is getting better.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 21, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I do but in my opinion the bigger the cubes get the worse AvG is and the better Bigcubes pairing becomes. Still I have to do AvG since I suck even worse at Bigcubes pairing. I'm barely sub-5 on 7x7 with it and like 3:30 on 6x6 compared to 4:45 with AvG on 7 and 3:05 on 6
> ...


I have discussed this a bit with Erik, but I haven't really evaluated this. I would like to know how the bigcubes methods scales when puzzles get bigger. I cannot even do it on a 5x5x5 so I cannot so for sure if it would be better than AVG on > 5x5x5. For AVG scaling is simply a matter of this formula (indication only): (number of edges to pair / 2) * 7.
So for a 5x5x5 it would be (24/2)*7 = 84, for 6x6x6 it would be 126 and for 7x7x7 168.
Untill this weekend I assumed bigcubes would be better because you can take better advantage of lucky cases, but I am really not sure anymore.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 21, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Untill this weekend I assumed bigcubes would be better because you can take better advantage of lucky cases, but I am really not sure anymore.


That's a very mysterious-sounding comment - what happened this weekend that made you not sure anymore?

I also figured bigcubes would allow you to take better advantage of lucky cases. If the methods are equal, in the situation on a 7x7x7 where all 4 pieces are in the freeslice (and even better when they're in the proper direction on the freeslice), you almost get an entire free edge. That may not happen often, but it seems like even 3 of 4 would make a huge difference. Does it not work out that way somehow?

To me, it seems like it's only situations like this that give bigcubes an advantage. I really don't see any reason for it to be any better on 5x5x5. Although I know Dan says bigcubes is better than AvG for lookahead, to be totally contrary to your viewpoint.


----------



## blah (Jul 21, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> Although I know Dan says bigcubes is better than AvG for lookahead, to be totally contrary to your viewpoint.



I've asked Dan about it. And I think it's a different sort of lookahead altogether (if there were lookaheads of different sorts in the first place).

IMHO, AvG is better in terms of "short-term" lookahead whereas bigcubes.com is better in terms of "long-term" lookahead. With AvG, you _always_ know what your _immediate_ next move is, that's what I call short-term lookahead. With bigcubes.com, you trace and remember semi-pairs that are already formed so that you can use them to your advantage later (not immediately), that's long-term lookahead. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 22, 2009)

@Mike: What changed is my incredible improvement on 7x7x7 last weekend where I did a 1:30 pairing

@Mike+blah: Dan just really dislikes AVG and is amazing at bigcubes-method so he isn't the best one to ask. I really like AVG and only know the concept of bigcubes (haven't ever done it) so I am not the best one to ask as well.
For AVG you have to find 1 wing at a time. After you found it you immediately know what the next wing will be and you can start looking for it while solving the previous wing. That is why I think lookahead is so good for AVG. Also, you only move a couple of pieces so keeping track of previously semi-solved pieces will be easy
For bigcubes you need to find 3 pieces and while solving them you have to find 3 more pieces at the same time. That means lookahead isn't as good, BUT because you can store/remember already formed tredges at fixed locations lookahead does become increasingly easy.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 22, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> @Mike: What changed is my incredible improvement on 7x7x7 last weekend where I did a 1:30 pairing


Ah, so that's it. Now I understand. Anyway, I can't see where AvG is more than just a little less inefficient that Bigcubes on even the larger cubes - it's only the lucky cases that will help you. I think quite a few can often come up, but it's still not enough that I can believe it affects the solve by very many extra moves.

Anyway, Arnaud, you should really learn the Bigcubes pairing method. I'm sure you'd find it fun to play with. You can just do the "hybrid" method, pairing the first 8 and then switching to AvG for the rest; that way you can do it without learning any new algorithms. I suspect you'd really enjoy it for an occasional change.

I don't remember all the other algorithms anymore, but I still occasionally do the Bigcubes/AvG hybrid for fun on bigger cubes. I just did a 7x7x7 average of 5 with Bigcubes/AvG pairing this morning, and it was (barely) under 10 minutes. I keep hoping I'll eventually get close to my AvG speed, although I doubt I'll ever get faster.


----------

