# 4x4x4 move count



## Wacky (Mar 10, 2008)

I was wondering, how many moves does it typically take for to solve using:
- Cube reduction
- K4
- Cage method?



I recently got my hands on a rubik's revenge recently, and it's taking me quite a long while to solve it. But that's not abnormal since I take ages to solve anything.

I have yet to learn any of the established methods for solving the revenge yet**, so I'm looking for a method to learn and get quick at. 

At the moment I've only tried figuring it out by myself. I've tried 4x3x1 blocks x 2 then corners then edges and then centres, sort of like Roux, and something like keyhole F2L then corners and 3 cycle / 2 cycle edges till cows come home. These may/may not have potential to be fast so I'd like to compare on basis of move count.

Thanks,


----------



## MistArts (Mar 10, 2008)

Redux: 200
K4: 165
Cage: Never tried but I gues 300+


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 11, 2008)

MistArts said:


> Redux: 200


Definitely not.
I just tried a solve and got 121.

Reduction (up to 3x3x3) takes about as many moves as the 3x3x3 stage itself (which then also has parity sometimes), and you should be able to do sub-150 easily during speedcubing.


----------



## watermelon (Mar 11, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > Redux: 200
> ...


I agree. I just tried a reduction solve and got 119 (not counting the parities).


----------



## mizzle (Mar 11, 2008)

I use a Rouxby4 method, actually. Start with L and R centers, then build them into 1x3x4 blocks.

Follow with U corners, then intuitively pair up the remaining edges using r U2 r'.

After, fix the parities. The OLL parity first, and you can fix it with (l U2 l' U2)*2 (r U2)*2 r'.

Then, you place your edges, and all you've got left is the M centers. You can do that with simple commutators really quickly.

There's a better way to do the middle stuff, but you can get by with the beginner way pretty easily.


----------



## Erik (Mar 11, 2008)

I don't think move count says a lot on 4x4, I know I use a bit more moves than necessary on pairing but I'm not really slower than others. Also if your method uses a lot of slice moves like K4 it is slower of course than if you can do double layer turns...


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 11, 2008)

Erik said:


> I'm not really slower than others.



Yes, that's correct.


----------



## Wacky (Mar 11, 2008)

Interesting.. So the cube reduction method can give quite low move counts? I would have thought that a method that directly solves the revenge would have had less duplication so would be faster.

Hadn't thought of the slice moves being slower issue either...

Oh, and how do you pair up all the edges intuitively using just rU2r'? What I usually do is solve all the edges except two whereupon I get some kind of parity which I fix using T-perm for edges [L2 u' L2 d F2 R2 u R2 d' F2, similar to what you had above] + set up moves (which can be a 15 move algorithm and there's probably a better way of doing things -_-)

The move count.... er, sorry, I'm a bit tired today so I kinda lost count.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 11, 2008)

I'm using the advanced version of the one mizzle describes (you could say it's in the K4 group of methods) where the "middle part" is build D + F centres (or B, it's same thing after a y2) by pairing two D and two F into the r slice and then the same for the l slice. then use the emty side (B) as keyhole to biuild and place the FD dedge. End by solving the B side by building and insert triplets of two centres and one edge, that part sounds advanced but cases are pretty few so it's done fast and compleatly intuitive.

LL I do CLL and a three step ELL where the last step always also handles parity if there is one. The from the beginning completly scrambled LL = no reduction whatsoever is done to it when I get there, I do in sub 40 turns. F4L in 80-90.

So my move count is about 125 on average.

I was planning to learn to do oreint four pairs (triplets) and then reach columns first by using EG but found I did not save any turns by doing that, I was still at 125


----------



## mizzle (Mar 11, 2008)

That's an interesting approach. I may have to look into that.

As for intuitive pairing, (r U2 r') pairs up whatever's at DF with whatever's at UB, and it goes within the slices, so DFr's piece gets paired with UBr's. You can pretty simply pair any first edge, then stuff it in UL or UR for safekeeping, then do another. Stuff that in UR or UL, and do a third. Use (r U2 r') for the rest.

What I'm working on now, though, is always doing the UR and UL actual edges first off, so I have two complete sides done. I then move as many white pieces to D as I can (my D color), and fix DF and DB. Finish off UF and UB with a single alg, and all I've got left is my 3 or 4 centers.

I got a 1:12 non lucky at the Berkeley competition with the old way of doing things. I'm pretty convinced this new way should prove better. I just have to actually learn the algs and practice...


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 11, 2008)

I newer stuff anything, thats double work. I put all pieces I'm working on directly into place. So each pice is only operated once.


----------



## philkt731 (Mar 11, 2008)

this is kind of off topic, but I didn't want to make a new topic for it. Do you think it would make an ES 4x4 run faster/smoother if you sanded the corners of the centers? Because mine is constantly locking up and I'm pretty sure its the corners of the centers thats doing it


----------



## Pedro (Mar 11, 2008)

I did a solve counting the number of moves
got this:
33 - centers (Pochmann way)
47 - edges (6 at a time)
57 - 3x3 part, no parity


----------



## philkt731 (Mar 11, 2008)

i just did a solve also:
centers: 24
edges: 34
3x3: 45 (no parity)
wow that seemed like a very easy solve... 103 moves!?!?


----------



## MiloD (Mar 11, 2008)

I just got 108 not counting parity
and 193 for 5x5


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 12, 2008)

Records or your best trys?, whats your averages including paritys? Make a 10(12) average and let me know, I'm really intrested, how many turns do I save from solving directly?


----------



## qqwref (Mar 12, 2008)

I just got 147. With OLL parity, but still, what am I doing that's WAY more inefficient than you other reduction guys? (And why hasn't anyone beat my big cube FM records on gelatinbrain, eh?)


----------



## MiloD (Mar 12, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> Records or your best trys?, whats your averages including paritys? Make a 10(12) average and let me know, I'm really intrested, how many turns do I save from solving directly?



I just did 3 more 4x4's and 1 5x5...and they were 104, 110, 111 and 199 on 5x5 not counting 4x4 parities. Judging from how the solves went I think I am probably at 120-135 during a speed solve on 4x4 and 200-220 on 5x5. My 3x3 stage is usually really good with petrus on a big cube. usually < 50 moves.


----------



## jcuber (Oct 15, 2008)

What's the K4 method?


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Oct 16, 2008)

I just did a solve using K4, and I got 130 turns... I'm out of practice, and I used to get between 100 and 120 (full step) consistently... Some people should get their facts straight. The cage method uses about 25% more turns than Reduction.


----------



## Kenneth (Oct 16, 2008)

jcuber said:


> What's the K4 method?



http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4x4x4_Speedsolving_Methods


----------



## rachmaninovian (Oct 16, 2008)

118 with centres last method.. stole some mike bennett's idea for the middle edges, but the top and bottom layer are very much ortega style.


----------

