# Arnaud's 5x5x5 Edge-Pairing method: Examples



## AvGalen (Sep 6, 2007)

I thought it would be a good idea to demonstrate how I solve the edges on the 5x5x5. I think this method is at least as fast as the bigcubes.com method. I average around 60 seconds with the "advanced" variation of my method.

The basic idea is to use the 2-at-a-time method that is used by a lot of people on the 4x4x4. If you don't know it, I suggest you learn it first from bigcubes.com. For the 5x5x5 you don't match a wing with another wing, but you match a wing with it's center-edge. If a wing is matched with it's center-edge I call this a semi-pair. If you try this method on a 5x5x5 you will see that it works very good sometimes, but very bad other times, especially if you try to use 4-at-a-time or 6-at-a-time. This is because a center-edge has 2 wings. To avoid those problems you start with a semi-pair and keep it there all the time. If a semi-pair is not available directly after doing centers you have to creat one, which is really easy. The way I perform the edge-pairing is that 0. I put the semi-pair on the upper half of the Left-Front tredge-spot. This means my "1st working wing" is in the lower part of the Left-Front tredge-spot.
1. I then put the first edge-center at the Front-Right-spot
2. I then do a d-move to form a semi-pair at the Front-Right-spot. The "2nd working wing" has been moved to the Right-Back-spot
3. I then replace the first edge-center at the Front-Right-spot with the 2nd edge-center.
4. I then do a d-move to form another semi-pair at the Front-Right-spot. The next "1st working wing" is now at Left-Front again.
There are 3 special cases "Parity before the end", "flipped wing", "full 3-cycle" and they can be handled in different ways. Analyze the examples to find out how I do that.

I have developed a scramble that keeps the centers solved, the edges scrambled pretty well and that is easy and fast to execute. To follow my examples you should have a 5x5x5 cube with a "regular" Blue-Orange-Yellow colorscheme. The scramble should be executed with white on top and green on front. DFRBLU are outer face moves, dfrblu are double layer moves. I don't use slice moves at all.

To make it easier to clarify any questions that people might have I will update this first post with general information. I will use the next five posts for the following examples: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert, Other additions such as an example with parity and a worse beginning.

OK, lets get started:

Scramble (57 moves in total, but a wrote them in an easy to follow manner)
*r U r' U r U2 r'*
*F' U*
*l' U2 l U l' U l*
*L2 R2 F2 B2*

*r U r' U r U2 r'*
*F' U*
*l' U2 l U l' U l*
*L R' F2 D' B2*

*r U r' U r U2 r'*
*F' U*
*l' U2 l U l' U l*


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 6, 2007)

*Beginner*

Beginner (117 moves used): Pre-setup to Up-Back, put at Front-Right using (F' U2 F) or (R U R')

Red-White: D B2, (F' U2 F)
Green-Red: B, d (R U R') d'

White-Red: U2, (F' U2 F)
White-Green: B, d (F' U2 F) d'

Orange-Yellow: D2 B2, (F' U2 F)
Blue-Yellow: U2, d (R U R') d'

Green-Yellow: U', (R U R')
Yellow-Blue: U2, d (F' U2 F) d'

Green-White: U, (R U R')
Easy piece (will not match yet) Yellow-Green: d (R U R') d' (special case "Parity before the end")

Yellow-Green: U', (R U R')
Red-Yellow: D B2, d (F' U2 F) d'

Blue-Orange: D2 B2, (R U R')
Yellow-Red: U2, d (F' U2 F) d'

Orange-Green: U, (F' U2 F)
Green-Orange: d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special case "flipped wing")
Red-Blue: x' y (special case "full 3-cyle")

Yellow-Orange: D B2, (R U R')
Easy piece (will not match yet) Red-Green:U d (F' U2 F) d' (special case "Parity before the end")

White-Orange: B' (F' U2 F)
Red-Green: d (F' U2 F) d'
Orange-Blue: y2 z' (special case "full 3-cycle")

Blue-White: U2 (F' U2 F)
White-Blue: d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special cases "flipped wing" and "full 3-cycle")
Orange-White: (special case "full 3-cycle")


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 6, 2007)

*Intermediate*

Intermediate (86 moves used): Put at Front-Right in few moves

Red-White: F D' F'
Green-Red: B', d R U R' d'

White-Red: U F' U' F
White-Green: B, d F' U2 F d'

Orange-Yellow: B R2
Blue-Yellow: d R U' R' d'

Green-Yellow: R
Yellow-Blue: d F' U F d'

Green-White: F D' F'
Red-Blue: d' F U' F' d (special case "Parity before the end")
Red-Yellow: B, d R U R' d'

Blue-Orange: D R
Yellow-Red: d F' U F d'

Orange-Green: B R2
Green-Orange: d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special case "flipped wing")
Yellow Green x2 (special case "full 3-cycle")

White-Orange: D R
Red-Green: d' L' U L d (special case "Parity before the end")
Orange-Blue: d R' D2 R d'
Yellow Orange: y' x (special case "full 3-cycle")

Blue-White: F D F'
White-Blue: d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special case "flipped wing")
Orange-White: (special case "full 3-cycle")


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 6, 2007)

*Advanced*

Advanced (75 moves used): Put at Front-Right in fewest moves (4u means the top 4 layers or D y)

Red-White: 4b R' (= F z' R')
Green-Red: d R' D2 R d'

White-Red: B R2
White-Green: d F D F' d'

Orange-Yellow: B' R2
Blue-Yellow: d F' U' F d'

Green-Yellow: U' R'
Yellow-Blue: d F D2 F' d'

Green-White: 4b' R (= F' z R)
Red-Blue: d' F' D F d2 (special case "Parity before the end")
White-Orange: F' U' F d'
Red-Green: z2 (special case "full 3-cycle")

Blue-White: D R
White-Blue: d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special case "flipped wing")
Orange-White: x' (special case "full 3-cycle")

Red-Yellow: B' R2
Blue-Orange: d F' U' F d'

Yellow-Red: R'
Orange-Green: B d R U R' d'

Green-Orange: R 4b' R (= R F' z R)
Yellow-Green: d' L' U2 L (special case "Parity before the end")
Yellow-Orange: d2 R' D2 R d'
Orange-Blue: (special case "full 3-cycle")


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 6, 2007)

*Expert*

Expert (73 used): Put at Front-Right in fewest moves (4u means the top 4 layers or Dy), use 4-at-a-time on the final edges

Red-White: 4b R' (= F z' R')
Green-Red: d R' D2 R d'

White-Red: B R2
White-Green: d F D F' d'

Orange-Yellow: B' R2
Blue-Yellow: d F' U' F d'

Green-Yellow: U' R'
Yellow-Blue: d F D2 F' d'

Green-White: 4b' R (= F' z R)
Red-Blue: d' F' D F d2 (special case "Parity before the end")
White-Orange: F' U' F d'
Red-Green: z2 (special case "full 3-cycle")

Blue-White: D R
White-Blue: d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special case "flipped wing")
Orange-White: x' (special case "full 3-cycle")

Red-Yellow: B' R2
Blue-Orange: d F' U' F d'

Yellow-Red + Orange-Green: R' d y
Green-Orange + Yellow-Green: F' U2 F R U R'
Yellow-Orange: y' d2 L' U L
Orange-Blue: d2 F D2 F' d'

I would actually recommend against using this method on this example. As you can see it is pretty difficult to see what is happening and you only save a couple of moves. I just included this to show that it is possible.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 6, 2007)

*Other additions*

Reserved room to be used later for parity and other additions.

For now it is important to know that (with an unlikely exception, the single edge flip) you will have 50% chance of no parity and 50% chance of the "edge flip/swap" that is explained on this page. If you get it during the solve (not at the end) you shouldn't use this parity fix! For beginners there is an easier algorith to change that parity into a 3-cycle: (d B2)*5. Again, only use the parity fix at the end of the edge-pairing step!


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 7, 2007)

thanks for this Arnaud. I didn't realize the only difference in your method (from beginner to advanced) is just the insertion moves. Now I just have to work on execution and practice these moves. Hopefully I can get it down to be able to sub-2, but with a 30+ second 3x3, it seems almost impossible.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 7, 2007)

Finally, someone writes a reply 

The difference is not just the insertion moves!

For beginner you "pre-setup" at Up-Back, you don't do that for intermediate and further. This saves a lot of moves, but it also means there are a lot more insertion moves. With a bit of practice these insertion moves will be easy and short (intermediate) or even easier and shorter (advanced) if you use some cube rotations/4-layer-turnes.

Another difference are the way you handle (special case "Parity before the end"). For beginner you just solve 1 single piece piece instead of 2. For intermediate and further you solve 3 pieces instead of 2 (with some added moves)

And the way you solve the final parity is different, but that doesn't happen with this scramble.

I think the limit for this method will be around 40 seconds (about 2 moves per second). I can do it in 60, Erik did it in 52 at the Chech Open and has improved a lot since then.

Just remember, don't look at the pieces you are solving, always look for the next center-edge. If you do it correctly you don't stop at all during the 24 semi-pairs and you have only looked at the Front-Left-Down Edge-Wing once!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 7, 2007)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, Arnaud! I hadn't had the chance to actually try out your examples to see how they went.

Thank you very much for this - it comforted me by satisfying me that I'm doing it right - my solution would have looked very much like your Advanced one, except for the fact that I would have gone wrong on the very first move by setting up with F D' F' instead. I have everything else optimized by turning the cube, but somehow I missed this one. (I would even get it right if it was on the other side - funny how you develop blind spots for things like this!) So that might help me a little.

One thing I wonder about: If you have a case of pairs of what BigCubes.com calls the "double edge flip", do you have any simpler way of solving them other than to do the algorithm they have there? For that matter, I guess just a "single edge flip" could happen as well. If I ever encounter that (which happens often enough I've had it a number of times - once even with 2 pairs in a single solve!), I just perform that algorithm when I get to the end. But I was wondering if there's a better way that you know of.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 8, 2007)

"double edge flip" and "single edge flip" are extremely rare. Basically they will only occur if they were already there after doing centers. They will never be formed during the edge-pairing as long as you keep using a semi-pair as your starting position.

If they do happen to occur, fix them directly at the beginning of the edge-pairing phase with the following moves:

Single edge flip:
* Put the wrong edge at the Front-Right (mostly without a move by using cube rotations)
* Make sure the Front-Left *doesn't* have a semi-pair (that is why you should do this as soon as possible. Most of the time there isn't a semi-pair at Front-Left or an L or L' move will do)
* Just do what you would do in (special case "flipped wing") with two added double layer u turns so d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' becomes *d u' (F' U2 F) (R U R') u d'* 
* You have used 10 moves for 2 semi-pairs

Double edge flip:
* Put the wrong edge at the Front-Right (mostly without a move by using cube rotations)
* Make sure the Front-Left has the other wrong edge (2 moves at most)
* Just do what you would do in (special case "flipped wing") with two added double layer u turns so d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' becomes *d u' (F' U2 F) (R U R') u d'* 
* You have used 10-12 moves for 4 semi-pairs

Yes, that's right it's the same!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 8, 2007)

Okay, Arnaud! Thanks! I see that for the "double edge flip", this really isn't any different from doing the BigCubes.com solution, but for the "single edge flip", this is a real savings, so that's helpful. The only problem I see with it is that I would think it would be easy to not notice that one of these is around when starting the edges, and since it's so rare, it doesn't seem worthwhile to actually look for it. But I guess the idea should be that, as soon as you spot one, you can stop what you're doing, fix that, and then go back to what you were doing.

Yes, I know those are extremely rare, but believe it or not I actually had a solve once where I was using your method and I had 4 of them (2 "double edge flips") in the same solve. I couldn't believe my bad luck. But I see now that it's not really all that big of a deal.


----------



## Jack (Sep 8, 2007)

If you knew the double edge flip, that would be really good luck! You could put them all in the E ring, do u d' then flip two edges diagonal of each other, solving four full edges (or eight semi pairs)!


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 8, 2007)

Mike, you complete understood my points!

And I have to agree with Jack. That would have been an extremely LUCKY case!

I think the odds of getting a single-edge-flip is about once every 12 solves.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 9, 2007)

I see what you mean now. I guess it really was pretty easy even the way I knew how to do it, and now it's even easier to think about.

Arnaud, I was wondering if you ever considered the following possible optimization to your method. The idea is, instead of just using "d" to pair up the first piece in a pair, also allow "d2", IFF it turns out that would require less setup moves. I would give examples, but right now I don't have time to put one together - I can try later (if you don't immediately shoot the idea down because of something I'm missing). I tried to find one in your example, but unfortunately, in your example, it doesn't really help. You can see an example of it for the very first pair (one setup move instead of 2 from your advanced example), but unfortunately in that case, the second piece is in the way and so it doesn't really help (or hurt). But often times I think it helps, and I've been playing with it again since you posted this, and I think it might really be possible to make this work and pay off. Have you ever tried it?


----------



## Jack (Sep 10, 2007)

I do that sometimes, mainly if the the edge is already in that spot, or if it is in the FR but flipped (so that R2 will put it in BL correctly). The only problem is when you have the middle edge you will need after doing d2 in the FR or BL spots, and you have to do three moves to take it out before doing d2.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 10, 2007)

Jack said:


> I do that sometimes, mainly if the the edge is already in that spot, or if it is in the FR but flipped (so that R2 will put it in BL correctly). The only problem is when you have the middle edge you will need after doing d2 in the FR or BL spots, and you have to do three moves to take it out before doing d2.



Right. That's what always kept me from doing it before. But you can check for those 2 edges right away when it happens, and if it's not there, you can go ahead with it. And if it IS there, you can either take 3 moves to get it out, which I think is just as good as moving it to the normal place, or you can just move it to the normal place. Question: am I right that if the edge is already in the right spot for d2, it takes 3 moves to get it in the right place for d? Or is there a way to get it there that's quicker than 3 moves?

If you need just one move to get it to the correct place for d2, and it's not in the FR but flipped position, you can look ahead for the other piece you'll need, and get it out of the way before making the move to setup for d2. Once I discovered that this week, I started deciding it was worth more attention. I'm starting to really like it now. I'll probably use it for this week's competition (which means my times will probably get worse again - oh well).


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2007)

I have put quite a lot of time in analyzing the allowance of d2 (and d') matching. In most cases (8/10) it will be ok, but in the other cases very bad things happen to look-ahead, move count and overal flow. Because the gains are marginal and the risk is high I recommend against using d2 and d'.

You can see some examples in the final fases of the expert-stage. You will immediately see how messy it becomes and how few moves it saves.


----------



## pjk (Sep 10, 2007)

I will be giving it a shot soon. How are you holding the cube when you scramble?

Thanks


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 10, 2007)

About the scramble: White on top, Green on Front like all "official" scrambles. Have fun.

Question: am I right that if the edge is already in the right spot for d2, it takes 3 moves to get it in the right place for d?
Answer: Yes, that would require 3 moves or more. I would do y R U F' y'.

About d2: An example of how it could backfire: d R U R' d' U' R B' U'. If you would do b' to lign up for d2 you have a big problem. If you would use 1 extra move (U R') you avoid the problem. Besides, U R' is probably faster then doing B' and d is definately faster than d2

The best example of how this could backfire is this: F2 d' F2 d' F2 R2 d' R2 u F2 u' F2 d2 F2 R U'. What would you do after the B' move?

There are also case where it would actually be faster and save moves (simple example: d2 R' U2 R B U B' d2) but the wins are minimal and the loss can be very great.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 11, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> About d2: An example of how it could backfire: d R U R' d' U' R B' U'. If you would do b' to lign up for d2 you have a big problem. If you would use 1 extra move (U R') you avoid the problem. Besides, U R' is probably faster then doing B' and d is definately faster than d2
> 
> The best example of how this could backfire is this: F2 d' F2 d' F2 R2 d' R2 u F2 u' F2 d2 F2 R U'. What would you do after the B' move?
> 
> There are also case where it would actually be faster and save moves (simple example: d2 R' U2 R B U B' d2) but the wins are minimal and the loss can be very great.



(I would just like to say in advance - sorry for the long post. I hope it's not too inappropriate for me to post this.)

Yes, I know of these cases. And I can see how they would make you reject the idea, especially considering how smooth your lookahead is.

However, my lookahead isn't nearly as smooth. I can usually get 6 or 8 pieces put together in any given solve with the same kind of smoothness that you manage, but invariably just as I think I'm going great, I hit a piece I just can't "see". I'll look at it 3 or 4 times, and still not see it. By the time I've found it, I've wasted 10 seconds, and then I waste 10 seconds more getting going again. Which is the primary reason why I'm a minute and a half slower than you.

Anyway, at my speed, I'm finding that just taking an extra half-second to "double-look-ahead" allows me to use d2 (or actually, in my case, r2, since I use the M-slice - I'm translating everywhere here to the E-slice) very effectively, and fixes all the issues that can come up.

For instance, in your first example d R U R' d' U' R B' U', if you're "double-looking-ahead", you can see the problem coming and do D' first, then B', and you're in great shape! d2 R D2 R' d2. Same number of moves as with d - not an improvement, but at least not so bad. I guess it's bad that there are so many double moves, but with an Eastsheen, it's just about as fast as a single move. The bad thing is having to do the double lookahead, but really you only need to worry about what 2 spots look like: FR and BL. If they aren't problems, you won't have any problems.

As for your second example, I would probably have already noticed I was doing my last pair, so I wouldn't even try for d2. But if not, I'd probably just undo the B' move, and do it the regular way. (I wonder if there's a good algorithm for this position? There probably is, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to learn it. But if this method works out well, maybe it is.)

If you weren't on the last pair, say with your case twice with a z' thrown in: F2 d' F2 d' F2 R2 d' R2 u F2 u' F2 d2 F2 R U' z' F2 d' F2 d' F2 R2 d' R2 u F2 u' F2 d2 F2 R U', now you can just do it like you would with d, only with d2:
B' d2
F U F' (special case "parity before the end") (and now you can see what piece you need to swap with at the BR location)
B U' B' d2
and you got all 4 in just 9 moves.

There are some cases where d2 clearly hurts you, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be possible to be selective and just use d2 in the best cases.

For instance, with your original example in this thread, we could do something like this:
4b R' (recognize that BL is "poisoned", so just do the regular d method here)
d R' D2 R d'

B R2
d F D F' d'

B' R2
d F' U' F d'

U' R'
d F D2 F' d'

R (not "poisoned" this time at FR or BL, so give it a try)
d2 F U2 F' (special case "parity before the end")
U R' U' R d2 (this worked out the same as with d - 10 moves total, so no advantage, but at least no disadvantage)
y (special case "full 3-cycle")

R2 B
d R U R' d'

U' R (not "poisoned", so try it)
d2 D' B' D B d2 (well that didn't work out well because the D slice wasn't well positioned, but the step that's about to come is compensation)

R2 (I love this case, because it's so easy to see! You can see it coming a mile away - such an easy setup move)
d' F' D2 F (special case "parity before the end")
d2 F D F' d'
z2 (special case "full 3-cycle")

R
d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' (special case "flipped wing")

So this one works out no better than usual. But it's honestly a pretty unlucky case for using d2.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, but I'm having real luck with allowing d2 as well as d. I've had some of my best times ever with it now. I think that's mainly because it's forcing me to double-look-ahead, and I think that's proving to be good practice for my lookahead. So I'm planning on using it for a while, even if only as a training tool.

I realize your method's biggest advantage is its simplicity - you have very few decisions to make, so you can concentrate on looking for the right piece. And introducing d2 complicates things significantly. So probably when you're as fast as you are, it mostly doesn't help. But I still think it might be worth allowing it in the good cases, if you can narrow those down to a manageable set of rules. For instance, if you have a "flipped wing" you can do with d2 - that one might be worth it, since it's so easy to see and there are no complications.


----------



## dbeyer (Sep 11, 2007)

Psst, Arnaud ... I do

RUR' x UR'U'R x'


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 11, 2007)

Mike, I will get back on your examples but I don't have a 5x5x5 with me. 

Daniel: There are a lot of ways to do that flip. Personally I don't use d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d'. I use the inverse d (R U' R') (F' U2 F) d' because it gives me the best look-ahead.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 11, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> Mike, I will get back on your examples but I don't have a 5x5x5 with me.
> 
> Daniel: There are a lot of ways to do that flip. Personally I don't use d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d'. I use the inverse d (R U' R') (F' U2 F) d' because it gives me the best look-ahead.



That's funny. I was just constantly quoting d (F' U2 F) (R U R') d' in my messages because that's what you used in your examples, and I didn't want you to have to translate. I also always use d (R U' R') (F' U2 F) d' (although actually I use r (U L' U') (F' L2 F) r).


----------



## Jack (Sep 11, 2007)

For flipping an edge I just do R F' U R' F. It takes a bit less moves, but I don't really know anyone else who uses it...


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 11, 2007)

> The bad thing is having to do the double lookahead, but really you only need to worry about what 2 spots look like: FR and BL.


d R U R' d' U' R B' U' proves that you also have to look ahead at DB.



> F2 d' F2 d' F2 R2 d' R2 u F2 u' F2 d2 F2 R U' z' F2 d' F2 d' F2 R2 d' R2 u F2 u' F2 d2 F2 R U', now you can just do it like you would with d, only with d2:
> B' d2
> F U F' (special case "parity before the end") (and now you can see what piece you need to swap with at the BR location)
> B U' B' d2


I would have never seen that while going for speed. My solution would have been straightforward: U R' B' d' (F U2 F') d2 (R U' R') d' (12) or U R' B' d' (U F U' F') d2 (R U R') d' (13).

The light is very bad right now (and it's late) so I can't do your full solve. I will do that another time......................which was just now. I have analyzed your d2 solve (only deviates twice) and it works perfectly. I don't see the advantage though:
1) You have to think about where you are going to bring the piece FR or BR
2) You have to check for poisoned pieces
3) You have to rotate the cube more
4) You have to do d2 + d2' instead of just d+d'
As I mentioned before there are some cases where d2 is better, but the gain is very little and the lose is too high. Having said all that, if d2 works for you then you should use it.



> I just do R F' U R' F


I saw that "alg" when I first studied 2-edges at a time (on 4x4x4), but I could never remember it and I don't like the first two moves[/quote]


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 12, 2007)

Arnaud, the more I look at this, the more convinced I am that you're right that d2 is almost always not worth it, intellectually. I think it just costs too much time to try to look ahead like that to make it work, and when you're sub-3 minutes (like you are), there's no way it's worth it. (Except maybe in a couple of special cases you could remember, where it's always easy, such as the "flipped wing". Since there's no other piece involved, it's ALWAYS safe.)

On the other hand, I'm just now starting to get sub-4 minutes, and at my speed the world is very different. I'm starting to realize that the big advantage of using d2 as well as d is that I now have 2 quick options to get the pieces in line for the slice move, and I can choose the one I can see quickest. That speeds me up. I'm finding that often I don't get a chance to look at the "poisoned" spots, but that's okay because I simply undo the move, move the poisoned piece out, and redo the move, and then do d2. For me, as slow as I am, that's faster than figuring out how to get the piece to where I can do d. So I've had some great times. I just had my first average of 10 less than 4 minutes yesterday (3:54), and my two best times ever (my best was 3:32 - still more than 3:30, I'm afraid). I know my average last week in the competition was better than this average, but I have to say that the competition was a really lucky set for me - I was still averaging over 4 minutes for sure before I started using d2 as well as d. So I'll probably keep using it for a while, until I start to realize I'm being slowed down by it. It will be interesting to see if I can get under 3 minutes with it before I have to switch.

And after my first sub-4 average yesterday, I finally can start thinking about sub-3! Way cool! (Maybe I'm not doomed to be painfully slow forever?)


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 12, 2007)

> figuring out how to get the piece to where I can do d


I think this is the reason I am relatively good at this method. As soon as I have spotted the correct edge-center for the d-move I stop thinking about it. My hands will move that piece to the FR-position with the correct orientation. While my hands are moving my head/eyes just circle around the cube Front-> Left -> Back -> Right -> Up -> Down to find the next edge-center. I found this order to be best. That is why I said


> Just remember, don't look at the pieces you are solving, always look for the next center-edge. If you do it correctly you don't stop at all during the 24 semi-pairs and you have only looked at the Front-Left-Down Edge-Wing once!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 12, 2007)

I know - and I've watched you do it, so I've seen how well it works. But I just can't seem to get good at it. I probably just need to try harder, though. I'm sure it's mainly a matter of practice, like most cubing things.

Of course, if I keep allowing d2, that will work against me ever learning to do it your way. Which is why maybe I shouldn't try it. But I'll probably try anyway. (That's probably why I'm so slow to improve.)


----------



## Pedro (Sep 13, 2007)

Arnaud, I think there's something written wrong on the intermediate part...I tried 2 times and when I get to
Orange-Yellow: B R2
Blue-Yellow: d R U' R' d'
it doesn't work...if it was R U2 R' instead, it would solve the blue-yellow, but then everything would be different

am I doing something wrong?


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 13, 2007)

I can't check it now, hopefully tonight.

I also thought it would be a good idea to point people to a video tutorial that I made for the beginners method (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOpWRIfdJvc) and for two example solves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlx7ZWn054)

I have checked it 3 times. 2 times it was unsolved and 1 time it was. I am going to the Polish Open tomorrow at 5 am, so I need to sleep now. I will check/correct on tuesday!


----------



## hdskull (Sep 18, 2007)

thanks a lot for sharing, i'm gonna try this out as soon as i get a 5x5x5. i think i used a 4x4 method on a 5x5 my friend owns and i solved everything except 2 edges are flipped on opposite sides, haha. i'll learn this someday. 

thanks.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Nov 22, 2007)

omg grrrr im glad u posted these solutions arnaud because they are very helpful to some people. just not me.... they just DONT work for me i did the moves EXACTLY like the way they should be done in the ADVANCED solve and it totally screwed up some edges and made no sense??? any reason why this happened? is their undoing certain setup moves that wasnt posted or something im missing here?? thanks arnaud and i hope you can answer these question for me


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Nov 22, 2007)

okay phew nvm Arnaud i tried the solve ONE more time and i got it. i think i get it now. and i never knew you should setup the next Middle Edge at the Up back position BEFORE doing the d move. also i learned how to deal with 1-2 special cases that always confused the hell outta me. Thanks Arnaud!!


----------



## Cuber123 (Jan 5, 2008)

could someone do me a huge favor and type in the parity algorithms here? I clicked the link to bigcubes.com but the java windows wont load on my computer.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 5, 2008)

I don't want to "steal" from other sites, so I hope they don't mind (< 10 lines is citation right)




> from http://bigcubes.com/5x5x5/lastedges.html
> (Dd) R U R' F R' F' R (Dd)' and (Dd)' L' U' L F' L F L' (Dd)
> (Uu)2 (Rr)2 F2 u2 F2 (Rr)2 (Uu)2 and (F2) (Rr) D2 (Rr)' F2 U2 F2 (Ll) B2 (Ll)'
> (Uu)' (Dd) R U R' F R' F' R (Dd)' (Uu)
> ...


----------



## Tomarse (Jan 10, 2008)

Your knowledge of the 5x5x5 is very impressive, you go very into detail nicely done mate.


----------



## fredqbr (Jan 24, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I don't want to "steal" from other sites, so I hope they don't mind (< 10 lines is citation right)



don't worry about them : http://tinyurl.com/2vz9l2


----------



## Rama (Jan 26, 2008)

Sub 2:20 now with AVG and I get quite a few sub 2:10's.

I started since Erik was at my place and I just do 2 to 3 solves a day, so this method really rocks!


----------



## rxdeath (Feb 19, 2008)

fredqbr said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to "steal" from other sites, so I hope they don't mind (< 10 lines is citation right)
> ...



i like your method quite a bit as well. i like the idea of only looking for centers, since there are half as many. 

the knowledge on bigcubes.com is for everyone to use, feel free to quote/use anything on there anytime you like. the knowledge on bigcubes.com is owned by no one, including you, frederick. 

f, you've made 5 posts, all of them negative, this on here and on eriks thread. maybe you should get over yourself and quit crying that you didn't make a decent website or work hard enough to get a v-cube.


----------



## Rama (Feb 25, 2008)

Yesterday I got my first sub two solve (1:59.40) since the UK Open and this time I used the AVG method, I really like it now, since now I know the technique! (slow turning, you'll get faster when there are little more centerwing-edges to look for)


----------



## pajodaep (Mar 3, 2008)

a friend told me about this forum. he said it was a different method by van galen. he's doing sub-2:30 now because of this method. and omg, i tried it myself, this method is really fast, the recognition, the consistency. i can now do the tredges without pausing. you also eliminate the annoying last 4 tredges usually encountered from the bigcubes.com method.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 3, 2008)

At Dutch Open 2006 I actually beat Erik on 5x5x5. It took a couple of months, but after that he started doing my method and his times went down like crazy. Now he is the WR-holder


----------



## pajodaep (Mar 3, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> At Dutch Open 2006 I actually beat Erik on 5x5x5. It took a couple of months, but after that he started doing my method and his times went down like crazy. Now he is the WR-holder



same thing happened to me. Neil Ortega (a fellow filipino cuber) was the one who told me about his forum. i was always faster than him with the 5x5. then, all of a sudden, he became really fast, and i couldn't beat his times! he kept gettin a lot of 2:4x.xx solves, i remained sub-4 back then. it was like, woah! what happened.? he also improved in the 4x4! And that was like an exponential improvement. then, he told me he was using this method for the tredges. 

ei, why don't you make a site for this and publish this? I mean, you created this method. this method ought to be officially called the Van Galen Method or something... lolz. great help really. thanks a lot. now, i'm excited to join another competition and change my 5x5 times. ;p


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 3, 2008)

This method doesn't need it's own site. All it needs are the text-version here and the video-version on youtube. I just tried googling edge pairing and the text-version and video-version are among the top 10 results.

And people are already calling it AVG-edges, which is fine by me.


----------



## Dene (Mar 3, 2008)

I just wonder... what are the alternatives to pairing edges like this? I can't think of any? It's all fairly similar anyway isn't it? I guess I don't quite do it like this at the moment, I do more of a freestyle, by looking for edges where there are already two connected if possible, and finding the third, and I don't fix centers until later. I'm not that fast, but that's only because I don't have the best lookahead, I've been working on centers though, best time sub70!! (yea, I'm so fast, woo  ).


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2008)

I consider my method to be the alternative to the method everyone seems to use: bigcubes.com

That method adds 2 wings to a center and puts the completed tredge outside the workarea. After doing that 8 times the centers of the workarea are restored and algs are used to complete the final 4 tredges.

I consider my method better because the look-ahead is better. It uses just slightly more moves on average if you have parity at the end and slightly less moves if you don't. There is only on alg to learn to fix the parity and it is short and fast.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 4, 2008)

Arnaud, your analysis of the bigcubes.com method is only if you follow the instructions exactly. I personally don't do that exact method, but I use the freeslice to my advantage. I actually just end up pairing a bunch of semi-pairs in the slice, and pair up w/e I see. It allows me to look for multiple pieces, granted that I keep track of the pieces in the working slice. My lookahead could actually be better, because your looking for multiple pieces, instead of just 1/12. Mines more like 4/24.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2008)

I don't know enough about the bigcubes method (I never tried it) and your variation makes it even more difficult to compare.

But saying that 4/24 is better than 1/12 for look-ahead is simply not true. I could easily have changed my method to not include a fixed semi-pair in the buffer which would give it a 2/12, but that doesn't work as well.

The look-ahead with my method is so good because you typically know which 1/12 (actually that is more like 1/10) is going to be the next piece at least 5 moves (like d RUR' d') ahead. There is almost never a point during the solve where you don't know what you are going to do next.


----------



## Dene (Mar 4, 2008)

Well I don't know about the bugcubes.com method *goes and looks it up*, I taught myself how to do the 5x5x5 (easy if you know 4x4x4) and have done it freestyle from the start. I did try my alternative method that I use for 4x4x4 (2 centers, 8 edges, 4 centers 4 edges) but it didn't work out with all the U/U' turns when doing the 4 centers. I just look for any 2 that are already paired and look for the third. I'm still working on it, and it's slow. The hard part is that it's hard to practise, because you really need the centers setup, and scrambling with that is a prick. I just continue to work on centers and am letting that loosen up my cube nicely, and help my fingers get used to the size (I got a 59.56 centers yesterday!!).


----------



## joshuali (Mar 8, 2008)

which is better 
using the d slice or r slice


----------



## RobinBloehm (Mar 8, 2008)

depends on your 4x4 style, I would say use the same on both cubes, that'll help getting used to it.
In my opinion r slice is better, if you have got a really good look-ahead and never have to glance at the piece in the buffer position, cause you cannot see that when using r-slice and have to make quite strange moves with your hands to see it.
I, myself, use the d-slice as Arnaud does and I'm quite happy with that, cause I use it for the 4x4, never practiced 5x5 that much, but it feels exactly the same. It is a litte bit easier with a less perfect look ahead.

Well, okay, Erik uses the r-slice, maybe I will switch to that, too, because I'm a bit unhappy with shooting from D while using d-slice. r-slice-technique is more symmetric, but as long as my look-ahead isn't good enough there is no need to switch.


----------



## Dene (Mar 8, 2008)

It doesn't take long to get used to changing slices. I switched in a matter of maybe 10 solves.


----------



## CoCo (Mar 16, 2008)

It's my first post so... Hello guys!! 

Anyway. I've tried this method and i'm dissapointed !

Up to me the "bigcubes" or Erik's method is faster. I have no idea how it's happening, When I solve using arnaud's method my times are about 30 sec worse than normal (My avg is sub 3 min, pairing about 80 sec) . The strangest thing is how it happens. I execute moves just as at bigcubes' method (i mean as slow and smooth as i can). The number of moves are similar.

Was your start the same as mine? 

Sorry for my language


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 18, 2008)

CoCo said:


> Up to me the "bigcubes" or Erik's method is faster. I have no idea how it's happening....


That's weird, because Erik uses my method. Only he uses the M-slice where I use the E-slice.

Without a video, I don't think I can help you get faster


----------



## CoCo (Mar 25, 2008)

You're right !  I was wrong;P 
I've watched erik's tutorial but i didn't see that's your method. I thought that's usual 2-at time. 
Anyway ,I've got a video but propably you won't see antyhing on it ;P

Here you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5iBcJhNHrY

I'm using usual 2-at time. 

After few tries i've realized my mistake. i wasn't consistent. when i got one of the special cases i was starting pairing using my old method.
I'll record how i'm doing your method when i achieve some good times.


----------



## Leviticus (Apr 17, 2008)

So AvG, (this might be a stupid question, please forgive me) What about if your going to replace the semi-pair with a center edge, but the center edge is in that E-ring? do you bring down a "trash edge" or what?


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 17, 2008)

Leviticus said:


> So AvG, (this might be a stupid question, please forgive me) What about if your going to replace the semi-pair with a center edge, but the center edge is in that E-ring? do you bring down a "trash edge" or what?


I don't understand completely what you want, but I guess you are talking about the cases I call "parity before the end" in this topic


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 17, 2008)

I think i understand what he was meaning. Leviticus, you have to make sure that the piece that you are replacing isnt' in the layer you are slicing in. You just need to bring that edge into the U or D layer, or just move the other pieces out of that slice. It doesn't matter what type of edge you bring done, just bring another one down...


----------



## Leviticus (Apr 18, 2008)

Ok thanks, i got it today, i thought it would be a stupid question


----------



## Leviticus (Apr 19, 2008)

1 more question does it matter if you slice using 'u' instead of 'd'? Is there any advantage using one or the other


----------



## aznblur (Apr 20, 2008)

Leviticus said:


> 1 more question does it matter if you slice using 'u' instead of 'd'? Is there any advantage using one or the other



Just preference really.


----------



## Harry (May 7, 2008)

Wait, there is a move in your tutorial 4b/4u, etc. Does that make the layer stays the same?


----------



## Alex DiTuro (Jul 9, 2008)

The scramble isn't working for me. I pretty much get a scrambled 3x3x3 because all the edge pairs are together. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 9, 2008)

You didn't perform the l and r moves correct.
L means you only turn the layer on the left
l means you turn both layers on the left (the two outermost layers)
same for R and r

Big letters mean only the outer layer, small letters mean the two outermost layers


----------



## genwin (Jul 9, 2008)

i'm beginning to feel comfortable with the beginners method(not fast but i'm happy with it)... so how do i go from beginner to intermediate?? without the "pre-setup" moves, i'm getting stuck and ending up doing the beginners method...


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 9, 2008)

After I get backup from US Open I will make a video tutorial. That will be online in about a month from now.

In the mean time, check out Eriks video tutorial on youtube and continue practising the examples here


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Oct 1, 2008)

So, this seems to be the edge pairing method that most of the fast guys use now?


----------



## Leviticus (Oct 1, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> So, this seems to be the edge pairing method that most of the fast guys use now?



Pfft No. Bigcubes FTW!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 1, 2008)

Leviticus said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > So, this seems to be the edge pairing method that most of the fast guys use now?
> ...



Some do, some don't. I'd guess it's about 50/50.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 1, 2008)

Of the really fast guys (continuously sub 1:45) I only know Erik and Mátyás. But I have had many cubers come to me at a competition saying "I use your method for 5x5x5" so I guess it is about as popular as bigcubes already. I also think most "new" 5x5x5 speedsolvers are using AVG-edges (Ron and many other experienced 5x5x5 solvers are just to stubborn to switch).

Erik uses AVG, Dan Cohen doesn't. Both have greatly improved the WR lately.


----------



## Swoncen (Oct 29, 2008)

I didn't read the whole thread but is someone using a method where one complete edge is paired at a time? It's also 2 at a time, but for the same edge.. I do that but I just started to cube with bigcubes and I'm very slow.


----------



## pjk (Oct 29, 2008)

Swoncen said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but is someone using a method where one complete edge is paired at a time? It's also 2 at a time, but for the same edge.. I do that but I just started to cube with bigcubes and I'm very slow.


In that sense, that isn't really the AvG method, and it really makes no sense to do it that way. Why do it that way when you can pair 2 at a time just as easy? I'd suggest you go through and work through all of Arnaud's examples to get an idea of the method.

While we're on this note, I have tried the AvG method except doing 6 at a time. It works, but the look-ahead is quite bad. Since a big advantage to the AvG method is look-ahead, it isn't very logical to do it that way.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

pjk said:


> Swoncen said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't read the whole thread but is someone using a method where one complete edge is paired at a time? It's also 2 at a time, but for the same edge.. I do that but I just started to cube with bigcubes and I'm very slow.
> ...



Adding 2 "wings" to a "mid-edge" is usually referred to as the bigcubes.com method (find out why yourself). It requires slightly fewer moves, needs more algorithms and look-ahead isn't as good as my method. It depends on personal style and preference which method you like better. Sub 1:25 averages have been reached with both methods.

And doing 6 at a time works and can give very fast single times if you get nice cases and long cycles. But most of the time 2 at a time (with the semi-pair buffer) will be faster because of the better look-ahead and because there aren't as many bad cases.


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 5, 2009)

Ok I think I understand what you mean by "2 at a time"..
As in .. pairing 2 tredge pieces at once right? A center-edge and one wing edge..
But what does doing 6 at a time mean?
Does this mean doing two whole wings at once, or 3 edges with a center-edge and wing piece?

And are there any written (or video) tutorials for this method?

Thanks


----------



## blah (Jun 5, 2009)

Zaxef said:


> Ok I think I understand what you mean by "2 at a time"..
> As in .. pairing 2 tredge pieces at once right? A center-edge and one wing edge..
> But what does doing 6 at a time mean?
> Does this mean doing two whole wings at once, or 3 edges with a center-edge and wing piece?
> ...



YouTube: frk17


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 5, 2009)

blah said:


> Zaxef said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I think I understand what you mean by "2 at a time"..
> ...



Ok, his"5x5 edge pairing tutorial" explained 2 at a time pretty well, but not 6..

Also.. when you're doing 2 at a time - What do you do when the "second working wing" (The one that starts on the front right bottom - then you do the d move to match the first working wing with it's center - but then I can't put the correct center in Front-Right because it's the buffer center (on Front Left) in order to match the wing when I do d') is the same color as your Front Left buffer center and wing?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 8, 2009)

2 at a time on 5x5x5 is just an adaptation of 2 at a time on 4x4x4
6 at a time on 5x5x5 is just an adaptation of 6 at a time on 4x4x4. I recommend reading Chris tutorial 

Zaxef: this topic includes that case in the example. Please read through the examples

And please find my videos on 5x5x5 on youtube.com/avgalen


----------



## JLarsen (Jun 8, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> thanks for this Arnaud. I didn't realize the only difference in your method (from beginner to advanced) is just the insertion moves. Now I just have to work on execution and practice these moves. Hopefully I can get it down to be able to sub-2, but with a 30+ second 3x3, it seems almost impossible.



This makes me chuckle. I just watched this guy get a 1:17 megaminx solve on my computer, then I see this.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 9, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > thanks for this Arnaud. I didn't realize the only difference in your method (from beginner to advanced) is just the insertion moves. Now I just have to work on execution and practice these moves. Hopefully I can get it down to be able to sub-2, but with a 30+ second 3x3, it seems almost impossible.
> ...



Yeah, and Dan isn't even all that good at megaminx compared to 5x5x5.

I'd like to point out that I've improved on 5x5x5 at approximately the same rate as Dan since then. I'm still almost exactly half his speed.


----------



## Mr Cubism (Jul 16, 2009)

"... so how do i go from beginner to intermediate?? without the "pre-setup" moves, i'm getting stuck and ending up doing the beginners method..."




AvGalen said:


> After I get backup from US Open I will make a video tutorial. That will be online in about a month from now.
> 
> In the mean time, check out Eriks video tutorial on youtube and continue practising the examples here




Is there ANY (I can´t find any) nice "5x5x5 edge pairing AVG intermediate vid tutorial" on youtube? If not, please Arnoud, make one when you have time...please!


"A Arnoud vid says more than 1000 words"


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 16, 2009)

I have been planning on creating one for ever, but I never have time

Erik made a video tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/frk17#play/uploads/62/B6hmvCbNkpg
http://www.youtube.com/frk17#play/uploads/61/3iIjaNlpeF4


----------



## Zaxef (Jul 16, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> I have been planning on creating one for ever, but I never have time
> 
> Erik made a video tutorial:
> http://www.youtube.com/frk17#play/uploads/62/B6hmvCbNkpg
> http://www.youtube.com/frk17#play/uploads/61/3iIjaNlpeF4



Both of those links just bring me to Erik's channel and play his 7.08 record solve


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 4, 2010)

Bump:

I was wondering: What are the chances that before you finish, you'll be left with a cycle of 4 wings on 2 tredges?


----------



## Toad (Jan 4, 2010)

Robert have you made your edge pairing tutorial that you promised me yet...?


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jan 4, 2010)

Not much. That's all I know.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 4, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> Robert have you made your edge pairing tutorial that you promised me yet...?



OFF-TOPIC: I'm making the 4x4x4 one (text version) "as we speak".


----------



## Mr Cubism (Jan 17, 2010)

I have just started to learn AVG´s (superb) 5x5 edge-pairing method (but with Rw turns instead of Dw turns) and I have a question about these cases. I have tried to figure out the best way, but I´m not shore. If there are better/smarter ways, please tell me!


----------

