3 ms·
I'm not sure that's true. I much prefer solving my 5x5x5 rather than my 4x4x4 because I always forget the algorithms for the extra parity that even cubes provid
by Extigy 9y ago
I'm not sure that's true. I much prefer solving my 5x5x5 rather than my 4x4x4 because I always forget the algorithms for the extra parity that even cubes provide. I don't think I could solve a 6x6x6 with the 5x5x5 algorithms I know.
- Zanni 9y agoIt's been a while so maybe I'm misremembering, but can't you solve a 4x4x4 by reducing it to a 3x3x3 and solving that? Pretty sure that's how I used to do it. Treat each 4 as a 3 with a fat middle: 1-2-1. Then solve the centers (2x2) and the edges (2x1) with standard moves and you've got, essentially, a 3x3x3.
- timjver 9y agoA 4x4x4 definitely has parity issues that don't arise on a 3x3x3.
- captn3m0 9y ago4x4x4 has parity problems, same as 5x5x5, but as the GP posted, the number of parity cases for 4x4x4 is higher, which makes it slightly more difficult. (I prefer solving the 5x5x5 for exactly the same reason).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]