# my direct solving method?



## rachmaninovian (Nov 17, 2008)

boo. http://rachmaninovian.webs.com/index.htm
help?


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 17, 2008)

I just helped by moving this from beginners to how-to's, guides, etc

Thanks for posting after all that discussion earlier!


----------



## mazei (Nov 17, 2008)

It looks kinda like a variation of the stadler method.


----------



## Neroflux (Nov 17, 2008)

modified cage.

geez rachel why did you release it.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 17, 2008)

Neroflux said:


> modified cage.
> 
> geez rachel why did you release it.



dear grandson, I still love you, its okay.


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 17, 2008)

mazei said:


> It looks kinda like a variation of the stadler method.



And stadler is a variation of my method that is a variation of Akimotos columns first. You may think K4 but K4 did not exist when I started to develop mine (spring 2006), it came onto the net a few monthts later so we must have developed during the same period. I would say also K4 is a variation of Akimotos method, he was first with puplishing this type of methods.

EDIT: After looking deep into the net I found it: http://rokumentai.akimoto3.com/rs12.htm

rachmaninovian I think is a bit of everything above and on top of that, Cage.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 17, 2008)

rachmaninovian sounds like a type of opening for chess.

And how are rachmaninovian and Neroflux related? I like to know if they really are grandson/grandmother.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 17, 2008)

er, rachmaninov is a composer-pianist's name, I was and still nuts about his piano playing/composing, therefore I used rachmaninovian as a username.

and...neroflux...argh long story 
just for fun, sgcubers family tree 

and the method...is called r4. woot. can't find a better name for it...any suggestions?  of course for 5x5 it'll be r5...

another edit:TMOY has a very similar method. the different steps are step 5 and 6.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 17, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> er, rachmaninov is a composer-pianist's name, I was and still nuts about his piano playing/composing, therefore I used rachmaninovian as a username.
> 
> and...neroflux...argh long story
> just for fun, sgcubers family tree
> ...



And I thought we had some weird off-topic topics on this forum


----------



## TMOY (Nov 17, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> another edit:TMOY has a very similar method. the different steps are step 5 and 6.


There are other small differences between our methods:
- (on 4^3 only) I do step 2 (corners) before step 1 (2 centers);
- I solve only 6 edges during step 3, and the 7th and 8th simultaneously during step 4;
- my step 7 is split in two: first I put all center pieces on the right pair of opposite sides, then I solve the pairs of opposite centers.
But I agree our methods are really very similar.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 17, 2008)

I really need help with the second step of r5: solving the 3x3 after solving the white and yellow centres. It is the slowest part of all!!! the F2L is excruciating slow...OLL/PLL is rather okay...but the F2L....


----------



## TMOY (Nov 17, 2008)

I see there is another difference between our methods
On 5^3 (and more generally on odd-sized cubes) during step 2 I still solve only corners. All middle edges are solved with the edge they belong to. (For the last 4 edges I first solve the wings, then for the middle edges I use my 3^3 corners first middle layer algs.)


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 17, 2008)

TMOY said:


> I see there is another difference between our methods
> On 5^3 (and more generally on odd-sized cubes) during step 2 I still solve only corners. All middle edges are solved with the edge they belong to. (For the last 4 edges I first solve the wings, then for the middle edges I use my 3^3 corners first middle layer algs.)



Then maybe the direct solving middle edges PLL's that I placed at this wiki page can come in handy.

Most are easy to find or already knowned but the Z-PLL is not that easy to find and much shorter than any other I know (most destroys some centres that you have to fix)


----------



## TMOY (Nov 17, 2008)

My last 4 edges are on the middle layer, not the top layer, sorry.
For "PLL parity", if you don't care about the centers you can go faster (Lw2 U2 l2 U2 Lw2).


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 17, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> I really need help with the second step of r5: solving the 3x3 after solving the white and yellow centres. It is the slowest part of all!!! the F2L is excruciating slow...OLL/PLL is rather okay...but the F2L....



Switch to Roux, then you can use the empty middle layer to move edges without having to mind the centres.

Much of the slowness will still be there because it is harder to look ahead on a 5x5x5 than it is on a 3x3x3, it shouldn't but all the extra pices adds confusion.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 18, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > I really need help with the second step of r5: solving the 3x3 after solving the white and yellow centres. It is the slowest part of all!!! the F2L is excruciating slow...OLL/PLL is rather okay...but the F2L....
> ...



hehe, I tried that long ago, it's still pretty hopeless  I guess....I'll just have to train brute force. maybe, I'll give the corner's first 3x3 method another try...


----------



## Athefre (Nov 18, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> mazei said:
> 
> 
> > It looks kinda like a variation of the stadler method.
> ...



Here are a couple of Gilles Roux's ideas posted on the Yahoo group:

2004:
_The method I found looks like this: 1) L and R sides. 2) M-edges. 3)
M-centers. It needs many slice moves and I'm still slow with it
(2:10). It requires about 140-150 moves._

2005:
_My method is different, it looks a bit like my 3x3x3 technique:
- 1x3x4 block on a side
- 1x3x4 block on the opposite side
- U corners
- 12 remaining edges
- last 4 centers
I can't reach good times (about 1:50 on average), perhaps because I
rarely practice._

Thom uses Gilles' 3x3x3 method so K4 may have been influenced by that 2005 post. It seems like Gilles came up with those steps himself basing them on his 3x3x3 method. Though he sometimes asked Akimoto and others questions about 4x4 move counts, he probably wasn't influenced by Akimoto's method.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 19, 2008)

Yet another direct solving structure portrayed as a new method.

This method/structure is not new, it has been available since 1997 at http://www.helm.lu/cube/solutions/revenge/index.htm where it is simply named "Rubik's Revenge Solution".

The K4 site was made because I belived it to be a very efficient and unknown direct solving structure for 4x4x4, and at the time direct solving pages for speedcubing didn't really exist.

Regarding your email...



> Hi Thom,
> May I ask for your permission to use your html code temporarily for your k4 method for my own method?
> I will come up with a new interface after I've finished learning html coding.




Would you have sent that email had Quadresence not prompted you? I belive the correct thing to do would have been to ask me *before* you went ahead and did it. I see that since this event, you started using all your own pictures and changed the credits page a bit. However, I am still not credited for anything.



> r' U2 l F2 l' F2 r2 U2 r U2 r' U2 F2 r2 F2, aka OLL parity




I also noticed that you didn't actually read my site while copying it...

Kenneth, Athefre; K4 was developed as a cage alternative in 2004/2005, I didn't even know columns at the time.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 20, 2008)

Sorry for everything.

I did say that it is an advancement of Denny Dedmore's solution, which is the same one at helm.lu. Just to let you check: http://www.alchemistmatt.com/cube/revenge/index.htm

I never said that it was a new method. I can't really call it modified cage, because I just did not feel right to call it modified cage, after a chat with per.
The reason why I released my version of it is because some of my friends wanted to learn a more advanced solution to Denny's method. If you had noticed, I did post a topic on centres last solving on this forum very long ago. Again, I did emphasize that it is not my method.

I've just put the website...offline for the moment. Sorry for being rude, Thom. I'm working on a new interface. I was using your html as a model. Sorry for being ignorant about such stuff. I sincerely apologize for my mistakes and ignorance.

about the "OLL" parity...I did see you mention it as a 2-cycle but I got used to calling it OLL parity. It just feels weird for me. =P In fact I have meticulously read everything in your site. 

Once again, I am very very sorry for what has happened. After all, as human and finite beings, we are bound to make mistakes. Perhaps the mistake I made was large and unforgivable. Please do forgive me for my mistakes. In any case, I know I am wrong, and I know that I owe you an apology. I'm just really really really really sorry.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 20, 2008)

The concept of cage methods is definitely not new. I was already using a similar method for my very first 4^3 solves in 1982  (Don't remember the details, sorry. But at this time I was not aiming for speed, I was just trying to solve it). It's simply the most natural extension to big cubes of the 3^3 corners first methods..


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 20, 2008)

You didn't say it was a new method, but claimed you created it - naming it something 'new' doesn't help the impression >_>.

As for copying the site, I wouldn't worry about it. It's not hard to churn out something like that, and I don't claim copyright - but a credit would have been nice. Alternatively, you could have just made it a forum post or a simpler webpage, maybe even on a single page. You obviously understand what you did, so I won't go on about it. You can imagine my surprise when seeing the webpage initially, though.

Anyway, it's good to see more people are looking into direct solving for big cubes. Keep it up!


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 25, 2008)

r U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r
l' U2 l U2 l U2 l U2 l'

U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r

Shorter than my original parity algs but these does not preseve middle layer centres (U and D). The first two saves 4 turns each, the last only one r2, but still =)

Have fun 

BTW, to fix opposite 1x2 blocks of centres do r2 f2 r2 f2 ... or faster r2 y r2 y l2 y l2


----------



## Kenneth (Nov 27, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> r U2 r' U2 r' U2 r' U2 r
> l' U2 l U2 l U2 l U2 l'



lol, forget those and try this instead:

r2 U2 r U2 r2
l2 U2 l' U2 l2



Ortega H OLL =)


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 25, 2009)

bump: the CNY holidays meant that I could revive my site.

http://rachmaninovian.webs.com

I did my best to credit all those involved as possible; if I had left any details out please do kindly tell me.

What is new - more algs! and some new pics.

Comments are appreciated. Once again I apologize for whatever wrong I have done in the past.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jan 25, 2009)

Thanks for posting this. I am going to try some of the center algorithms. I also plan on trying the 2 step 4x4 centers posted by TMOY. Right now I am working on fewest moves for the 4x4, and this is going to help a lot.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 27, 2009)

I do not believe that the system that I use for the middle edges are good for FMC; they are speed-optimized and not move optimized! xD if you want optimal algs you will have to generate your own algs...you will see that the middle edges are like a 2x2 that can be scrambled and solved with <R, L, U2, D2, F2, B2>. so erase of the edges of the 3x3, and setup the corners of the cube. note that not all algs generated will work; I had to go through hundreds of algs to find something that works, and is fingertrick friendly.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jan 27, 2009)

rachmaninovian said:


> I do not believe that the system that I use for the middle edges are good for FMC; they are speed-optimized and not move optimized! xD if you want optimal algs you will have to generate your own algs...you will see that the middle edges are like a 2x2 that can be scrambled and solved with <R, L, U2, D2, F2, B2>. so erase of the edges of the 3x3, and setup the corners of the cube. note that not all algs generated will work; I had to go through hundreds of algs to find something that works, and is fingertrick friendly.



Apperently some have helped, because I got an 89 turn solve. You're right that some need to be optimized more, but others have helped a bunch. But imagine if one day I could do 100 turns while speedsolving! I'd almost be guaranteed to have under 1 minute if I had a good cube. I will try to find better algorithms too. I'll help you optimize this method, because I think it could end up being better than reduction someday (not that it isn't already).


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 27, 2009)

somerandomkidmike said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe that the system that I use for the middle edges are good for FMC; they are speed-optimized and not move optimized! xD if you want optimal algs you will have to generate your own algs...you will see that the middle edges are like a 2x2 that can be scrambled and solved with <R, L, U2, D2, F2, B2>. so erase of the edges of the 3x3, and setup the corners of the cube. note that not all algs generated will work; I had to go through hundreds of algs to find something that works, and is fingertrick friendly.
> ...



I'm sure CLL and blockbuilding the first layer helped. I'm averaging about 130 turns without much thinking xD and again, I believe the speed of this method very much relies on how fast you can do each stage, not the move count..=D Any ideas on optimizing the method?


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jan 28, 2009)

rachmaninovian said:


> somerandomkidmike said:
> 
> 
> > rachmaninovian said:
> ...



I've got two things to say. First of all, if you lower your moves, then improve your look-ahead, you won't have to spend very much time on the steps anyway. When I am done the first layer and the opposite corners, it is usually done around 30 seconds. Considering that I just started using this method, I'd like to think that this is pretty good. I think with any method the speed of it relies on how fast you can do each stage. I think that statement is obvious. Second of all... have you tried block-building then CLL? Just kidding. I think to optimize it, you need to slow down the first few steps a little, so you can have some edges places already when solving the first layer. This can help your look-ahead for the next steps so you can use less turns. Also do center control when possible. Learn to recognize cases that are fast for center control. My best solve was a non-lucky solve where I just did all the steps in very few turns. I was not turning fast all but I did blockbuilding for the first layer, and center control when finishing the edges. I'll show EXACTLY how I solve it some other time, but right now I have to go sleep.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 28, 2009)

well...i tried doing your style and lookahead is hard...i'm abt 26-27s with first layer+corners and I don't know CLL =D the bad point abt this way is I cannot see the rest of the edges good enough..in my system onces the corners are solved I can lookahead very very well for the edges..i'd experiment more and get back to you.

EDIT: yes, I am currently experimenting with solving some of the opposite layer edges will inserting the first layer edges..in fact I am currently using it in normal speedsolving already. this gives me less pieces to solve thus less lookahead is needed..and I can execute as fast as i can =D
How do you exactly pair up the last 2 dedges of the R and L faces, and where do you pair them? right now as you know I leave one dedge to be solved with 15-16 algorithms which are in fact forms/conjulates of niklas, so I can lookahead to the midges easily..anyway take a look at step 4b on my page; I have updated it with some of TMOY's algs for oriented midges because in certain cases, oriented midges are a pain in the neck..so learning parts of other systems should prevent these bad cases(yet good cases for our friend here).


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jan 30, 2009)

I'd have to agree with you that it is the hardest part to see the other edges. It really takes a lot of practice (I am getting better at it). Once you practice for long enough, it does get easier. When I solve the last edges on both sides, the way that I do it varies depending on what is the fastest. Usually I will solve 2 edges at a time (a redge and a ledge). I think this way, you can have a better look-ahead. You can also do center-control a lot easier.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 30, 2009)

as you know, i solve the last...redge, I use conjulates/variations of niklas, so the only stuff I mess up is the r and l slice edges..and it is really easy to see the centres...
generally I try to lookahead to the next step so I'm compromising on my turning speed for that, but it is working well I guess. This i liken to my musical experiences, where i literally lookahead of where I am playing and thus I am able to sightread music well. In the same way, I try to minimize pauses and if I do pause I make my pauses worthwhile. This method very much relies on how much you can plan your solve on the spot to be efficient...
Also, I practise my execution speed for the algs of the last 2 midges...I think it is important that you can cut 1-2s there and give yourself a bit more time to think and process the fastest way to solve the centres. 

On another note: I do think that your variation does do a lot of difference to the move count; but I recommend that you solve whatever piece you see at the moment. It has been proved to be faster than trying to find the shortest solution. I believed I have read from somewhere that Per does that...and Thom Barlow as well for his building of a 1x3x4 block on the left. I do not believe in the efficiency of that (move count wise) but I believe in the speed potential of that. Maybe you should try that too and see whether you get faster =D

Here is a breakdown of a random solve:
1st 2 centres - 5.33s
corners - 11.47s
finish redges and ledges - 26.13s
finish cage - 10.44s
centres (a bit smooth) - 16.63s

I did each step without inspection (except first 2 centres)..so total was 1:10.00 which is around my average after a warm up.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Jan 30, 2009)

Just so you know, I do solve the first thing I see at the moment. I have tried many ways of solving the first layer and corners, and this is just the way that has given me the best times. I know that recognition is in most cases more important than the move count, but I think I could get just as good recognition (with a lot of work) using my variation. I just did a couple of solves using your first layer (when I was on the bus) and most of the times were over 2 minutes. I will continue experimenting, and tell you the results later.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Jan 31, 2009)

yea, I guess that different people will have different preferences..somehow I think it has to do with psychological stuff as well..I've mentally grouped my system into 5 parts (as above) and your system has 6 i think (first 2 centres, FL with empty dedge, LL corners, finish redges and ledges, finish cage, centres). not much diff..but wells..I took an average of 5 yesterday and I got 1:06.09, (1:02.83), 1:04.88, (1:18.89), 1:02.89 ---> 1:04.62. everything was nonlucky except the 2nd solve..I only needed to do 2-3 algs to solve the centres xD and the 4th solve i actually used the wrong alg to finish the midges...

On the other hand, I have been experimenting with pure cage which is FL, F3l (since you can ignore centres there are certain tricks you can do), LL corners+edges, and then final 5 centres. I'm able to get 1:40ish times sometimes (I don't know abt the average) and my pb with it is 1:32...I'm trying to see whether I can learn anything from pure cage that I can adapt to my system...

I guess that maybe one day our methods may become super hybridized xD


----------



## Tweker (Feb 4, 2009)

I love that method, thanks for sedins a MP when you put your site back online. I just started looking at it, I can't wait to be able to solve my professor with that method. I've seen on youtube that at first you didnt have that much alg. Whats the minimum number of alg needed to solve using your method? (I'm not realy good at learning alot of alg fast so with that much alg it will be a long time till I am able to solve it on my own) If there is a way to finish it with less alg at first, let me know, if not well I guess I'll have to work on all these algs :O


----------



## rachmaninovian (Feb 4, 2009)

yes...if you go thru my pages really slowly, you'd see that most of the "algs" are intuitive...like my algs from step 3a to 4a. if you go through them slowly on a cube I think it'll be very easy for you to remember as they flow very well and you might even come up with your own shortcuts  it is very much intuitive, believe me...for step 4b...I learnt one for each case so that is 16 algs to learn...note that I astericked those I use most often; they are the most fingertrick friendly ones.

now to centres for 5x5...learn the simple ones first..like single cubie switches and stuff..then slowly advance...up to now I'm still discovering and learning more centre algs...of course to be most efficient knowing everything is best  but it'll take awhile..and later on you will find that my centre algs are mostly intuitive..not all but you will be able to see that some are variations of the other..hope this LONG post helps 
if you are really anxious and want a simpler way to finish the middle edges and learn the simplest centre algs, you only need something like 7-8 algs to learn.. the system I am currently using for middle edges is definitely faster then that primitive method but I guess it is better for you to start of something simpler..


----------



## Neroflux (Feb 4, 2009)

im still stuck with keyhole experimenting.... what's keyhole?


----------



## rachmaninovian (Feb 4, 2009)

the empty dedge that you are allowed to not care with at first, to ease your solving of the 3rd to 7th dedge.

niao me lor, ask me before le, still liddat lor, i spank you i tell you, naughty stepgrandson, i'd get blah to whack you, and monkey sweat to scold you.


----------



## Tweker (Feb 4, 2009)

How do you do for the step4 with a 5x5x5? do you flip the edge( using the 4x4 alg) when they are not flipped corectly or there is an other way?


p.s. you were right, very intuitive, in fact, the only time I need to look at algs is part 4a and 4b, other then that I can go by myself and find it out  thanks alot for the tutorial, I love it


----------



## rachmaninovian (Feb 5, 2009)

you mean the case whereby I do M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2?

I do it as (r l') U (r l') U (r l') U2 (r' l) U (r' l) U (r' l) U2 =) but I'm trying to find another way as this way is REALLY slow..

and also, 4a is really intuitive...I found almost every single case myself...on the day I decided to switch methods for the middle edges =D I cheated on the last one; I ran ron's cube solver (3x3 one) to find a solution for that.


----------



## TMOY (Feb 5, 2009)

For that case, you can use U2 r U2 l' r' U2 l U2 then PLL parity.
(You can notice that this is simply my own double 2-cycle alg from which I removed the setup.)


----------



## rachmaninovian (Feb 5, 2009)

LOL i use the mirror of alg (which I found myself as well) for something else in my system...I am so adapting that alg to solve the last 2 dedges =D thanks TMOY =D

EDIT: I have found 13 movers for this case that are constricted to <U2, r, l>...i'd try the nicer algs and post them here.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Feb 6, 2009)

BUMP: 
Tweker: I found a nice alg for that case...

B2 r' U2 r2 U2 B2 r' B2 r2 B2 r2

which I would execute as (B2) (r' U2 r2 U2) (x') U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r2, which is really very fast =D

for 4x4 the <M U> one still works faster...but still centre control can be achieved using this alg.
now to add that to my page..


----------



## ostracod (Mar 6, 2009)

I've only recently started doing the 4 by 4 on a regular basis. I know the basic centres first, then edges, then 3 by 3, but of course, I HAD to make my own method. I call it F3L:

http://web.mac.com/teisenmann/revenge/F3L.html

I poked around here and saw the columns first method on this site:

http://rokumentai.akimoto3.com/rs12.htm

It seems like the method posted on this site doesn't allow for a lot of freedom during the later steps. Any thoughts?


----------

