# The Meyer Thread (4x4 Reduction Sub-Method)



## Mollerz (May 18, 2015)

So I've been meaning to post this for a long time, I've had the idea of making Meyer a better method but it's taken my a while to consider a few things. Meyer is just a variation on reduction similar to Yau that instead of solving cross during reduction you solve the first block instead.

I hope there are a lot of roux solvers that want to help develop this method as I think there is a lot of potential with it. Basics of Meyer for those that don't know: 2 Opposite Centres, First Block, Last 4 Centres, Edges, 3x3 finish. The main drawbacks that existed before were things like pure OLL parity algs were bad, but there are some really good ones now, and that leaving the UL edge unsolved messes up flow through edge pairing. I have a solution to that which makes Meyer more similar to Yau which involves solving the DR edge with orientation to UL. During edge pairing this stays here and you can see where all your edges for the second block end up so going from edges to second block flows really nicely.

Here's a video of me rambling for 10 minutes and doing a couple of walkthrough solves. I hope it's clear enough but if you have any simple questions feel free to ask them on the video. And hopefully we can turn this thread into something nice with a lot of information relating to Meyer!






Go explore and contribute!

P.S. This thread is dedicated to Isaac Walters, without whom this would never be possible.


----------



## TheBrutux168 (May 18, 2015)

I used to use Meyer, but there really weren't enough resources and I suck at 4x4 m slices so I moved to CFOP based methods instead. I will be giving Meyer another go


----------



## TDM (May 18, 2015)

What pure OLL parities do you use? I use:
Rw2 F2 r U2 r U2 x U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 r2 U2 R2 x'
Though it's probably faster to just look at the D layer before CMLL and then do a normal OLL parity.


----------



## Mollerz (May 18, 2015)

The video is up, the parity algorithms are in the description of that.

3-flip OLL Parity: (Rw' U' Rw' U2') (Rw' U2 Rw' U' Rw U2) (r U2 Rw U' Rw' U2 Rw' U2') (Rw' U' Rw')
Pure OLL Parity: r U2 r U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 r U2 r' U2 M r' U2 r'


----------



## ottozing (May 18, 2015)

Mollerz, how do you feel about doing just Lucas parity/some normal OLL parity alg before CMLL? I feel like it leaves a decent amount of room to force better CLL cases, or force good 4 flip EO meaning you can do COLL>ezpz EO (Unless it's a bad COLL ofc). Do you think using both this approach along with OLL parity after CMLL would also be something to consider?


----------



## Mollerz (May 18, 2015)

ottozing said:


> Mollerz, how do you feel about doing just Lucas parity/some normal OLL parity alg before CMLL? I feel like it leaves a decent amount of room to force better CLL cases, or force good 4 flip EO meaning you can do COLL>ezpz EO (Unless it's a bad COLL ofc). Do you think using both this approach along with OLL parity after CMLL would also be something to consider?



Yes absolutely, but it changes the way people lookahead from SB -> CMLL hence the suggested approach. Although I don't see any problem doing CMLL first and doing the pure 3-flip alg since it's very fast anyway. By doing OP after CMLL I think the solve as a whole flows better but of course that is subjective.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 18, 2015)

Someone finally made a tutorial!


----------



## Mollerz (May 18, 2015)

I want to emphasize that this isn't necessarily a tutorial, just some ramblings and a couple of walkthroughs. I might make some more walkthroughs and go over the M-slice pairing a bit more since this seems to be the weakest part of the solve from my point of view.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 18, 2015)

OK so for edge pairing, i do a y' x' so the corners of the block are in the back. I used the E slice to pair, and when i want to access the back slots, i do a triple-wide U (3U).


----------



## Mollerz (May 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> OK so for edge pairing, i do a y' x' so the corners of the block are in the back. I used the E slice to pair, and when i want to access the back slots, i do a triple-wide U (3U).



Yeah this is possible, but I think just doing the edge pairing directly on M allows the solve the flow a bit better.


----------



## Ross The Boss (May 18, 2015)

how do you feel about mixing up the order of opposite centers and first block construction? my fastest solves (i dont use this method, but i still use this step) seem to be those where i ignore the opposite center and just build the first block right out of the gate. i suppose that this helps with recognizing and finding the fb pieces because you are not having to switch back and forth from one colour to another in your mind (if you want to have some more freedom to work with second center pieces, then you can always just build FB square, then do the opposite center). but as with most things, this is case sensitive. building opposite centers first can be fine as well. 
and while we're on blocks, i (almost) always build the first center and an edge of FB at the same time. i usually do this by making two lines, both out of two FB center pieces and 1/2 of an edge. im sure most people do this, but if you dont, it's somethign to think about.

ps, i didnt watch the video (i might later) so sorry if im just spewing out reiterations.


----------



## biscuit (May 18, 2015)

This is really interesting... I'd love to see more walkthrough solves. Especially if it was done on a livestream so we could talk to you while you do it. *wink wink nudge nudge*


----------



## cuber8208 (May 18, 2015)

Have played around with it for a few solves now. Still getting used to M-slice edge pairing but once that is fixed I think that it will be okay. How are you recognising for OLL parity though without being able to see the DB edge? Also, I like that for FB you can align a lucky corner and dedge and then slice the last dedge into place, quite fast if your inner slice moves are fast


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 18, 2015)

DP: R2 (2r2' x) U2 2L U2 2R U2 M' U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2R U2 2R2 U2

Quite nice IMO, then you can do LSE to leave pure OP or DP at the end. Makes sense to me to take advantage of an edges-only last step to never do 2 parity algs in one solve.

Edit: I did a few solves over lunch btw, kinda cool even though I'm rubbish at Roux. I personally went for putting any paired dedge into UL, don't know if that's bad or not.


----------



## TDM (May 18, 2015)

cuber8208 said:


> How are you recognising for OLL parity though without being able to see the DB edge?


You can't. You have to look at the D layer.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 18, 2015)

1:09 ao 100 with meyer.


----------



## Mollerz (May 18, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> <snip>



I think that by mixing up the order the flow is bad. By being able to do your first block after 2 opposite centres helps the flow of the solve a significant amount. If your goal is to be as fast as possible with it, I think it is best to learn to get good by doing the block after the first two centres.




biscuit said:


> This is really interesting... I'd love to see more walkthrough solves. Especially if it was done on a livestream so we could talk to you while you do it. *wink wink nudge nudge*



I'm at a tricky point with streaming, regarding time and internet. I'm trying to figure it out 



cuber8208 said:


> Have played around with it for a few solves now. Still getting used to M-slice edge pairing but once that is fixed I think that it will be okay. How are you recognising for OLL parity though without being able to see the DB edge? Also, I like that for FB you can align a lucky corner and dedge and then slice the last dedge into place, quite fast if your inner slice moves are fast



As said before you just have to look at the D layer, I think the CFOP equivalent is having to look at 3/4 sides of the U layer for PLL recognition, to see if you have PLL parity, and not being able to do 2-side recognition.



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> DP: R2 (2r2' x) U2 2L U2 2R U2 M' U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2R U2 2R2 U2
> 
> Quite nice IMO, then you can do LSE to leave pure OP or DP at the end. Makes sense to me to take advantage of an edges-only last step to never do 2 parity algs in one solve.
> 
> Edit: I did a few solves over lunch btw, kinda cool even though I'm rubbish at Roux. I personally went for putting any paired dedge into UL, don't know if that's bad or not.



Sweet alg, this could also come in useful. It definitely came to mind the idea of leaving parity until the absolute latest point and always doing it in one algorithm, but I haven't explored that so much.

Also there is a very particular reason for putting the DR edge in UL instead of any paired edge. From my experience doing any paired edge basically leaves your SB in a potentially awful situation, where by there is a high chance after edge pairing you will have to look for the DR edge along with another corner and edge, or both "pairs", giving you more things to look for. By putting DR there, with orientation, you automatically know exactly where DR is before you've even begun edge pairing, and it will be there every time. I've done a lot of testing and when I've done this the Second Block is always far more efficient, and I don't have to look for as many pieces. It's really hard to explain but I really think this is the best thing to do, I definitely recommend trying it.


----------



## waffle=ijm (May 18, 2015)

TDM said:


> You can't. You have to look at the D layer.



you can if you try hard enough from the start of 3x3. (tracking is love. tracking is life.) 
And when you complete SB, you can already determine the number of bad edges (if odd then there's exactly 1 bad edge) and the best part is you don't even need to flip an incorrect edge.

more useful algs!

Justin Harder's 1Flip Double Parity r U2 r U2 l' U2 r U2 r' U2 M U2 r2 U2 r U2 r'


----------



## TDM (May 18, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> you can if you try hard enough from the start of 3x3. (tracking is love. tracking is life.)
> And when you complete SB, you can already determine the number of bad edges (if odd then there's exactly 1 bad edge) and the best part is you don't even need to flip an incorrect edge.


Yes, but that's _effort_.

Well it's not if you're good at it, but I only ever track pieces, rather than what's in what location, so I'm not used to that type of look ahead.

More useful algs!
Normal PLL parity is [Uw2 Rw2 U2: *r2*]
PLL parity on D is [Uw2 Rw2 U2: *l2*]


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 27, 2015)

Sorry for the bump, but is there a better parity alg for this case (http://alg.garron.us/?alg=&ini=2R2_U2_2R2_u2_2R2_2U2_M-_U2_M_U2&cube=4x4x4) instead of just setting up to pll parity?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 27, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Sorry for the bump, but is there a better parity alg for this case (http://alg.garron.us/?alg=&ini=2R2_U2_2R2_u2_2R2_2U2_M-_U2_M_U2&cube=4x4x4) instead of just setting up to pll parity?



U2 (r' l') F2 [R] U2 2R2 U2 [R'] F2 (r l) U2

But I'm weird (the moves in [] aren't even needed), and I don't know a good alg that doesn't just setup to the usual case. Also, alg.cubing.net has pretty much replaced alg.garron.us.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 28, 2015)

This method actually looks quite similar to the one that I proposed on the new concept/method/substep thread a couple of days ago (post #1030). The only difference is that i would also build a 1x3x3 block after the 1st block as this reduces the number of pairs that need to be completed and also the number of "hidden" pairs on the cube ("hidden" being the pieces that cannot be seen without rotating the cube). Having seen this method, i would not consider the method a new one but rather just a variant of this method.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jun 28, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> This method actually looks quite similar to the one that I proposed on the new concept/method/substep thread a couple of days ago. The only difference is that i would also build a 1x3x3 block after the 1st block as this reduces the number of pairs that need to be completed and also the number of "hidden" pairs on the cube ("hidden" being the pieces that cannot be seen without rotating the cube). Having seen this method, i would not consider the method a new one but rather just a variant of this method.



indeed. ive been doing averages with your method while referring to it as "shadowslice meyer." (it is honestly the most bad ass sounding method name ive ever heard of). i get like, 1:15.xx times with it. i pair the edges with M slices rather than E as you proposed, and i think the way the edge pairing step is set up has potential to be good. but im not used to it... nor am i used to edge pairing in general, but thats another story.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 28, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> indeed. ive been doing averages with your method while referring to it as "shadowslice meyer." (it is honestly the most bad ass sounding method name ive ever heard of). i get like, 1:15.xx times with it. i pair the edges with M slices rather than E as you proposed, and i think the way the edge pairing step is set up has potential to be good. but im not used to it... nor am i used to edge pairing in general, but thats another story.



Wow. There are people using this method other than me? I'm flattered to say the least... I was just playing around with a cube really...


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 29, 2015)

While we're here, why is there no page in the wiki about the Meyer method? At least, I've been looking for ages and not found any mention of it other than on 5BLD (Alex Lau)'s page in the wiki...

And he just mentions it in passing saying the 4x4x4 method he uses is only vaguely based on the Meyer method...


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 29, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> indeed. ive been doing averages with your method while referring to it as "shadowslice meyer." (it is honestly the most bad ass sounding method name ive ever heard of). i get like, 1:15.xx times with it. i pair the edges with M slices rather than E as you proposed, and i think the way the edge pairing step is set up has potential to be good. but im not used to it... nor am i used to edge pairing in general, but thats another story.



cool name, and seems to have potential! what do you normally average on 4x4?



shadowslice e said:


> While we're here, why is there no page in the wiki about the Meyer method? At least, I've been looking for ages and not found any mention of it other than on 5BLD (Alex Lau)'s page in the wiki...
> 
> And he just mentions it in passing saying the 4x4x4 method he uses is only vaguely based on the Meyer method...



Roux is uncommon enough, and meyer is even more so. Many roux users do not use meyer at all, and stick to either reduction or use yau or k4. (and rouxers are generally bad/dont care about 4x4).


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jun 29, 2015)

might switch getting used to m slice pairing and it gives more neutrality if the block is on red/blue or opposites then i can do meyer while if the block or center is on white, i can use yau


----------



## cashis (Jun 29, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Roux is uncommon enough, and meyer is even more so. Many roux users do not use meyer at all, and stick to either reduction or use yau or k4. (and rouxers are generally bad/dont care about 4x4).



upload some meyer solves


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 29, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> might switch getting used to m slice pairing and it gives more neutrality if the block is on red/blue or opposites then i can do meyer while if the block or center is on white, i can use yau



I personally always do block on blue white because it keeps the order of edges and centers and orientation constant, but I guess CN could work. 



cashis said:


> upload some meyer solves



how did you know i use meyer? I might once I get a little faster (once I can get an on-cam sub 1 ao 5).


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jun 29, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Wow. There are people using this method other than me? I'm flattered to say the least... I was just playing around with a cube really...



to be honest, i doubt im going to use your method as my 'main', as in, the one i'll compete with (but maybe once or twice to spice things up), but i'll certainly would like to see how fast i can get it.



PenguinsDontFly said:


> cool name, and seems to have potential! what do you normally average on 4x4?



usually 1:05.xx with a direct solving method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 29, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> to be honest, i doubt im going to use your method as my 'main', as in, the one i'll compete with (but maybe once or twice to spice things up), but i'll certainly would like to see how fast i can get



I would have been amazed anyway if anyone except me used this as their main method (and i don't even use it a fair bit of the time) so I was surprised enough that there was anyone who was even experimenting with this method other than myself.



PenguinsDontFly said:


> Roux is uncommon enough, and meyer is even more so. Many roux users do not use meyer at all, and stick to either reduction or use yau or k4. (and rouxers are generally bad/dont care about 4x4).



Uncommonness never usually has an effect on whether a method has a page in the wiki. Surely Meyer should at least be in the "experimental" section or at the very least be listed as a variant of reduction or even Yau...


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 29, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Uncommonness never usually has an effect on whether a method has a page in the wiki. Surely Meyer should at least be in the "experimental" section or at the very least be listed as a variant of reduction or even Yau...



I have actually heard that meyer came before yau and that yau is the variant. Either way, they are both redux.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 30, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I have actually heard that meyer came before yau and that yau is the variant. Either way, they are both redux.



that only furthers my point...


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 30, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> that only furthers my point...



oh wat yeah thats true....


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 3, 2015)

I vote we start a petition to get Meyer a page in the wiki.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 7, 2015)

cashis said:


> upload some meyer solves



ok! plz dont judge: im slow at 4x4. and srry for the out-of-frame-ness.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 7, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I vote we start a petition to get Meyer a page in the wiki.


 why dont you make one?


----------



## cashis (Jul 7, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ok! plz dont judge: im slow at 4x4. and srry for the out-of-frame-ness.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1EVHCB4KkE



gj, better than my mo3


----------



## Brest (Jul 7, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I vote we start a petition to get Meyer a page in the wiki.



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Meyer_method

Feel free to add more details. If you don't have an account, you can make one.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 31, 2015)

This method is amazing! Previously I used Hoya, but the more I use Meyer the better I like it.
I also got my new 4x4 and outperformed all my previous 4x4 solves, doing an average of 1:17.34 (with a 1:07.93 single best). I was around 1:20 - 1:40 previously.
So, thanks!


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 31, 2015)

Renslay said:


> This method is amazing! Previously I used Hoya, but the more I use Meyer the better I like it.
> I also got my new 4x4 and outperformed all my previous 4x4 solves, doing an average of 1:17.34 (with a 1:07.93 single best). I was around 1:20 - 1:40 previously.
> So, thanks!



Great to have another convert! Let's prove that this method can and will be fast


----------



## Berd (Jul 31, 2015)

Has anyone tested this for 5x5 and above? My 4x4 is broken right now


----------



## TDM (Jul 31, 2015)

Berd said:


> Has anyone tested this for 5x5 and above? My 4x4 is broken right now


Edge pairing is horrible and 3x3 stage is also very bad. This method is great for 4x4 but I can't see it being useful for bigger cubes.

Edit: just thought of how to do edge pairing better (don't use freeslice!), will do another solve which will hopefully not be 3 minutes.

E2: 3:07 down from 3:16, so no


----------



## WayneMigraine (Jul 31, 2015)

TDM said:


> Edge pairing is horrible and 3x3 stage is also very bad. This method is great for 4x4 but I can't see it being useful for bigger cubes.
> 
> Edit: just thought of how to do edge pairing better (don't use freeslice!), will do another solve which will hopefully not be 3 minutes.
> 
> E2: 3:07 down from 3:16, so no



I think Richard Meyer uses something like Meyer on 5x5? I found a video here where I think he builds a Roux block, then does centers and edge pairing, then finishes the solve.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 31, 2015)

Berd said:


> Has anyone tested this for 5x5 and above? My 4x4 is broken right now



I reckon the problem is in the roux 333 stage because m-slices get too hard to do efficiently on the bigger cubes :-/

The redux stage is still nice and ergonomic (more so than Yau5 or freeslice I think)


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 31, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I reckon the problem is in the roux 333 stage because m-slices get too hard to do efficiently on the bigger cubes :-/
> 
> The redux stage is still nice and ergonomic (more so than Yau5 or freeslice I think)



ross can M slice big cubes.


----------



## WayneMigraine (Jul 31, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ross can M slice big cubes.



Kaijun lin also does it very well (as is seen here)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 31, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ross can M slice big cubes.



Well, so can I but it's still nowhere near as fast as non slice moves.


----------



## Berd (Jul 31, 2015)

I can just about do slices on 5x5 but not any higher.


----------



## tukra (Aug 25, 2015)

I'm playing around with shadowslice Meyer. I like that more of the solve is direct. I'm wondering how people like to pair edges for this. I'm doing 1-3-3 but is there something better? Also what's a good way to deal with 2 edges left? What I'm doing is pretty slow (r l D2 l' U2 l D2 l' U2 r' and variants). I don't see any way to do the flipping thing reduction first solvers do without disturbing the solved blocks.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 25, 2015)

so can anyone generate some cmll + oll parity algs? im a lazy ***.


----------



## tukra (Aug 25, 2015)

Found 2 pair edge flip works between UF and UB w/o messing up FB and 2/3SB.
x' z' Uw' R U R' F R' F' R u


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2015)

tukra said:


> I'm playing around with shadowslice Meyer. I like that more of the solve is direct. I'm wondering how people like to pair edges for this. I'm doing 1-3-3 but is there something better? Also what's a good way to deal with 2 edges left? What I'm doing is pretty slow (r l D2 l' U2 l D2 l' U2 r' and variants). I don't see any way to do the flipping thing reduction first solvers do without disturbing the solved blocks.



well I pretty much do 1-3-3 as well to pair edges. For 2 edges left I do l U' F R' U' F' l' U' F' or the mirror


----------



## dboeren (Aug 25, 2015)

I'm new to 4x4s, what is 1-3-3? I tried looking on the wiki but could't find this notation. I'm using Roux for 3x3 (and the 3x3 stage of my 4x4) so Meyer seems a natural thing to check out.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 25, 2015)

dboeren said:


> I'm new to 4x4s, what is 1-3-3? I tried looking on the wiki but could't find this notation. I'm using Roux for 3x3 (and the 3x3 stage of my 4x4) so Meyer seems a natural thing to check out.



if you want to use shadowslice meyer, you must use 1-3-3. You pair 1 edge, then 3, and 3 again. if you want to use normal meyer, you can use 3-2-3, which is much faster. also, there are many 3-2-3 tutorials and stuff.


----------



## dboeren (Aug 25, 2015)

Thanks, I'll check out those tutorials. I expect it's probably going to be easier to start with vanilla Meyer (which will be more documented) before trying the shadowslice variant.


----------



## tukra (Aug 25, 2015)

dboeren said:


> I'm new to 4x4s, what is 1-3-3?



I learned pairing from Yau videos since the process is basically the same. Cyoubx has a good one. In Meyer you're pairing on the M slice with your FB on the left vs Yau where you pair on the E slice with the cross on the bottom. So it's just a different orientation.

For regular Meyer you have 3 edges paired from the FB. Make one more pair naively and put it at UL. Now there are 8 left and you pair just like Yau. You can use 3-2-3 or 6-2 pairing. See videos.

For shadowslice you have 5 edges complete leaving 7 unpaired. I pair one edge, put it at UL. Then 3-3 just like the first and last sets of Yau 3-2-3.


----------



## tukra (Aug 25, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> For 2 edges left I do l U' F R' U' F' l' U' F' or the mirror



I can't figure out how to get that to work. alg.cubing


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2015)

tukra said:


> I can't figure out how to get that to work. alg.cubing



it pairs edges in UF and UB but they must be in the same orientation (eg, both white up)

Or you could just look up the algs from Stadler which are probably more efficient for this case.

Also, more documented? I proposed the variant a whole month ago! Meyer only proposed his in 2008. ;-P


----------



## tukra (Aug 26, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> it pairs edges in UF and UB but they must be in the same orientation



Sorry if I'm being daft but when I put that alg into alg.cubing.net it doesn't look like the right thing. It changes 3 pairs, leaves some centers split and doesn't preserve the roux blocks. Maybe I made a mistake in transferring the notation but I can't tell what's wrong. Thanks for any help.

See: https://alg.cubing.net/


----------



## tukra (Aug 29, 2015)

What do you think about making the RF pair before finishing centers and then moving it to UL before pairing? It's easiest to make then and then you know right where it is when it time to finish SB.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 29, 2015)

tukra said:


> What do you think about making the RF pair before finishing centers and then moving it to UL before pairing? It's easiest to make then and then you know right where it is when it time to finish SB.



I prefer making just the DR edge and placing it at UL. I pair edges on the E slice, and if I made the pair, I would have topreserve it which is a pain.


----------



## tukra (Aug 29, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I prefer making just the DR edge and placing it at UL. I pair edges on the E slice, and if I made the pair, I would have topreserve it which is a pain.



Oh sorry, I meant as an extension of shadowslice variant. So you have both blocks complete except for RFD before doing M centers. Then move RF to UL, assuming pairing on M. Then when pairing is done you know right where RF is to finish SB. I'm wondering if people think this is efficient or not compared to regular shadowslice.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2015)

tukra said:


> Oh sorry, I meant as an extension of shadowslice variant. So you have both blocks complete except for RFD before doing M centers. Then move RF to UL, assuming pairing on M. Then when pairing is done you know right where RF is to finish SB. I'm wondering if people think this is efficient or not compared to regular shadowslice.



TBH, as far as I'm aware you can pair any edge and it will be just as efficient. All that really matters is personal preference so if you want to easily be able to track the piece it probably is best to leave it in UL where you can easily see it.


----------



## tukra (Aug 31, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> you can pair any edge and it will be just as efficient



Do you make that first non-block pair before or after centers? Is there a significant advantage vs the other way?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 31, 2015)

tukra said:


> Do you make that first non-block pair before or after centers? Is there a significant advantage vs the other way?



Not entirely sure what you mean but I when I use my method I do:
1) F2C
2) FB (normally F3P+ blockbuilding with corners- I form the pairs using the m-slice usually)
2) partial SB (3 pairs, insert 2 with a corner, one without, the one without doesn't actually have to be part of the SB)
3) Centres
4) move the 6th pair to RU
5) 3-3 edge pairing
6) 3x3x3 (form last CE pair+insert, CMLL, LSE)

This is my general solving order but there is some overlap in how I do things and I will sometimes blend steps as well.


----------



## tukra (Sep 1, 2015)

That answers my question. Making the 6th pair before finishing centers, instead of centers then 1-3-3. Thanks.


----------



## xchippy (Sep 1, 2015)

How is Meyer pronounced?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 1, 2015)

xchippy said:


> How is Meyer pronounced?



I've always said it like "mayor" but it might be "myer"


----------



## Mollerz (Sep 1, 2015)

Say the sentence "Oh my a rope!"

Like that.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 1, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> Say the sentence "Oh my a rope!"
> 
> Like that.



but that sounds so british! i'll keep saying it like mayor. lol


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 1, 2015)

So pronounce it like Maya/maia? Weird, I've only really ever used May-er but I've not ever really said it much


----------



## AlexMaass (Sep 1, 2015)

I honestly just say cubing terms however I feel like pretty much. I pronounce it My-er btw.


----------



## Mollerz (Sep 2, 2015)

I say it in the video a bunch at the start in the first post.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 16, 2016)

meyer solve: 38.45


----------



## Berd (Jan 17, 2016)

So with Meyer you do centers and first block before putting it on DB. Do you put in the final 'cross piece' like in yau or hoya?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 17, 2016)

Berd said:


> So with Meyer you do centers and first block before putting it on DB. Do you put in the final 'cross piece' like in yau or hoya?



yau I think. I do the last "cross" piece (any random edge) before rotating.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 3, 2016)

Do you use Roux for 3x3 and want to get into 4x4? Are you tired of CFOPers telling you that you'll never be good at big cubes? If yes, then look no further! The Meyer method is a Yau variation for Roux users! The steps are almost the exact same as the Yau method: first 2 centers, then instead of first 3 cross edges, you do first block, then L4C, L8E, and 3x3 stage to finish! With the Meyer method, you can expect to get times as fast as top Yau users!

1. Rw D' L2 F' U' R2 L' F2 B2 R' B2 F2 Fw' D2 B2 R U' R2 Fw R2 B2 D' U F2 R' Uw' U Fw' L' B2 Fw' L2 R' F' Rw2 B' Fw L' D' B

2. U2 Uw R2 U Uw2 L' U2 L' Rw2 U F2 B U2 Rw' L' D' Rw2 U' Fw' U2 Rw D R' U D' Fw F Uw2 L2 Uw2 U2 D2 Fw' L2 D2 L' Rw2 D L2 R2

3. Uw' R L2 D2 Rw' U B2 Rw U2 Rw' D2 Fw D B L2 U2 L' R2 B2 Fw' Uw2 F2 R' Rw2 F L2 Uw2 Fw U B2 L B U' F2 U2 B2 Fw' Rw B F'


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 4, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu-inpLd4AM
> 
> Do you use Roux for 3x3 and want to get into 4x4? Are you tired of CFOPers telling you that you'll never be good at big cubes? If yes, then look no further! The Meyer method is a Yau variation for Roux users! The steps are almost the exact same as the Yau method: first 2 centers, then instead of first 3 cross edges, you do first block, then L4C, L8E, and 3x3 stage to finish! With the Meyer method, you can expect to get times as fast as top Yau users!
> 
> ...



Actually, I believe Meyer was proposed first in around 2008 while Yau was sometime later (idk the exact year)


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 19, 2016)

do you guys just use 3-2-3 edge pairing as in Yau for edge pairing? if not, then how do you pair edges?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 19, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> do you guys just use 3-2-3 edge pairing as in Yau for edge pairing? if not, then how do you pair edges?


Yes, I use 3-2-3. Watch the video above to see exactly how I do it.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 19, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Yes, I use 3-2-3. Watch the video above to see exactly how I do it.


when I get some more time I will.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 21, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> when I get some more time I will.


anyway, when I have 2 pairs left, and theyre opposite each other, will the standard Yau alg Uw' R U R' F R' F' R Uw preserve the first block?
or do you use a different alg for that kind of thing?

also, sometimes I do 3-2-3, but more often I do 2 pair chain or just single pair(cause Im a nub)


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 21, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> anyway, when I have 2 pairs left, and theyre opposite each other, will the standard Yau alg Uw' R U R' F R' F' R Uw preserve the first block?
> or do you use a different alg for that kind of thing?
> 
> also, sometimes I do 3-2-3, but more often I do 2 pair chain or just single pair(cause Im a nub)


Yes, I use that alg. It will preserve the first block if you do edge pairing the same way I do (rotate y' x' and have FB on back bottom).


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 21, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Yes, I use that alg. It will preserve the first block if you do edge pairing the same way I do (rotate y' x' and have FB on back bottom).


okay, thanks.
the alg I used to use was D R F' U R' F D', and it sucked.
thanks participants of this thread for the 3-flip parity alg, It is very useful when recognizing bad edges!


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 14, 2017)

I feel like trying a few solves with Shadowslice-meyer, it seems to have serious potential... IDK though, I have gotten 1:08 with a 4x4 direct roux solving method similar to Kenneths big cubes method and stadler Method, but different from both


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I feel like trying a few solves with Shadowslice-meyer, it seems to have serious potential... IDK though, I have gotten 1:08 with a 4x4 direct roux solving method similar to Kenneths big cubes method and stadler Method, but different from both


buuuuuump. 
What do you guys do for the UL/DF edge when edge pairing? do you solve it first like Mollerz describes? or do you solve it during 3-2-3?


----------

