# K4 or Reduction?



## rckclmb124 (Jan 6, 2009)

I have been using reduction for big cubes or almost a year and I picked up k4 two days ago. My times are the same using k4 and its variations. So from what limited information, I will answer questions if you need more, anyway do you think that I should switch to k4 or stick with reduction?


----------



## jcuber (Jan 6, 2009)

Try K4 for a month or two, see what happens to your times, switch back to reduction for a month or two, and see what happens to your times then. Before doing that though, I would suggest using only K4 for a week to see how much you like it, because if you like it, the more you will get better at it.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 6, 2009)

I use reduction as my main method, but I love doing k4. On 4x4, i'm about 10s slower (1:05) with k4 vs reduction (55). Keep at it, if you like it, there's not limit to how fast you can get.


----------



## byu (Jan 7, 2009)

I don't know what K4 is, can someone send me a good tutorial link to it? I'm very bad at reduction.


----------



## Unknown.soul (Jan 7, 2009)

K4 Method
It's in the Wiki.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 7, 2009)

rckclmb124 said:


> So from what limited information, I will answer questions if you need more


I have one: What are your times?


----------



## rckclmb124 (Jan 7, 2009)

4x4 
Reduction average is 1:53
K4 average is 2:00


5x5 
Reduction average is 2:55
K4 variation average is 3:00


7x7
Reduction average is 8:00
K4 variation average is 9:00


I have not done any on 6x6 yet, it pops alot and is very frusterating. But on the bigger cubes than 4x4 when I get to the last layer, on odd cubes I solve the rest of the 3x3 parts. On the 6x6 I would treat it as two 4x4s.


----------



## blade740 (Jan 7, 2009)

Reduction solvers are faster right now, but that doesn't make the method faster. K4 is potentially just as fast. Plus, as dan said, K4 is way more fun.


----------



## mrbiggs (Jan 8, 2009)

blade740 said:


> Reduction solvers are faster right now, but that doesn't make the method faster.



Then what does make the method faster?

Or are cubers doomed to a state of perpetual limbo, where any method is considered to be as good as any other no matter the results people get with it?


----------



## jcuber (Jan 8, 2009)

mrbiggs said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > Reduction solvers are faster right now, but that doesn't make the method faster.
> ...



No, because as every cuber knows, fridrich is faster than beginners method.


----------



## mrbiggs (Jan 9, 2009)

jcuber said:


> mrbiggs said:
> 
> 
> > blade740 said:
> ...



I don't see how you can say that with any certainty with your assertion above.

What makes Fridrich faster than beginners' method? (There is, obviously, and answer: lower move count. But needless to say, lower move count does not necessarily imply a faster method.) The answer, to me at least, is that people who use Fridrich are faster than those who use a beginners' method.


----------



## rckclmb124 (Jan 9, 2009)

Like Petrus has fewer moves than Fridrich. I am not saying that petrus is slower but more people are faster with fridrich than with petrus.


----------



## not_kevin (Jan 10, 2009)

mrbiggs said:


> jcuber said:
> 
> 
> > mrbiggs said:
> ...



Also (as an extension, and to almost conclusively prove Fridrich is faster than beginner's through empirical information), those who use Fridrich are faster at that than any beginner's method (LBL beginners, at least).


----------



## Kenneth (Jan 10, 2009)

I always used direct solving on bigger cubes because I can't think of anything more boring than reducing it to a 3x3x3 and then solve it.

Reduction, what to do then if you mess up the last alg and destroy 5-7 edges and 4 centres, start over? DNF? Using direct solving it is just a few algs to restore.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 10, 2009)

Kenneth said:


> I always used direct solving on bigger cubes because I can't think of anything more boring than reducing it to a 3x3x3 and then solve it.
> 
> Reduction, what to do then if you mess up the last alg and destroy 5-7 edges and 4 centres, start over? DNF? Using direct solving it is just a few algs to restoore.



I can't think of anything more boring than running straight for two hours... but that's what the best marathon runners do, so it can't be that bad 

An experienced reduction solver will know a few direct solve techniques, so they would be able to fix the cube quickly if they make an error like that. At the very worst (if you didn't know what you did wrong) you can fix the centers in 10 or so moves and then do the last four edges again. Some people are REALLY bad at this though, I've heard of reasonably fast people making a mistake on 4x4 or 5x5 and getting a time that's twice normal... I'm sure they are the type of people who know exactly one way to solve a cube and that's it, so if someone gives them a last layer (on 3x3) of the wrong color they have to restart


----------



## not_kevin (Jan 12, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Kenneth said:
> 
> 
> > I always used direct solving on bigger cubes because I can't think of anything more boring than reducing it to a 3x3x3 and then solve it.
> ...



I remember judging someone who got a 4:xx.xx time because he did U perm wrong 3 times and had to resolve the cube from the white face all four times.


----------



## Xprime7 (Apr 13, 2010)

Just a comment on 4x4 methods: Dan Cohen uses K4 and holds the single record, but Feliks Zemdegs uses reduction and holds the average record. so perhaps K4 has a larger range of times than reduction.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 13, 2010)

Xprime7 said:


> Just a comment on 4x4 methods: Dan Cohen uses K4 and holds the single record, but Feliks Zemdegs uses reduction and holds the average record. so perhaps K4 has a larger range of times than reduction.



lolol.


Spoiler



Dan's 36 wasn't with K4.


----------



## Diniz (Apr 13, 2010)

Anthony said:


> Xprime7 said:
> 
> 
> > Just a comment on 4x4 methods: Dan Cohen uses K4 and holds the single record, but Feliks Zemdegs uses reduction and holds the average record. so perhaps K4 has a larger range of times than reduction.
> ...



Dan doesn't use pure K4 in competition, but Dan's 36 was with K4/Reduction Hybrid


----------



## Truncator (Apr 13, 2010)

He explains it here:


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 13, 2010)

KBCM.


----------

