On 2/3/06, cmhardw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, should the centers first method be scrapped entirely in favor of
> a cage method? That would allow me flexibility to fix the orientation
> parity (the only one!) and also commutators are very easy to come up
> with on the fly once you have practice and experience with them. So
> with mastery it seems to me that maybe a cage method is a better
> choice in the long run than a centers first method.
Definitely. Because you are directly solving more pieces, there is greater
potential for speed. The resolving to a 3x3 portion of centers first
approaches is very abstract compared to directly solving each piece or group
of pieces.
However, I think a hybrid of the two will be the best in the end. Maybe I'm
biased ;), but I see more promise in beginning with two 1x3x4 blocks, then U
corners, then finishing edges/taking care of parities, then solving 4 M
centers. The speedsolve OLL parity alg for this is 13 moves long, all l/l'
r and U2. Finishing the edges is largely in the air, but it can be done any
number of ways. The way that I found that I use is to pair them up, then
orient, but I think perhaps directly placing 2 at a time may have good
results, as well, as may finishing one slice, then the other. Either way,
if more people were to use this sort of approach as opposed to centers
first, I'm sure much progress could be made.
Chris
-Mike
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
