That's exactly what virtually everybody else who is an advanced pianist/composer has been saying in this thread.
Every single sentence written here IS NOT just about this.
It is therefore unclear what you have been arguing against in your earlier posts.
It is no surprise that it is unclear to you. APPARENTLY you are a student who studies piano in Russia whos teacher is P2U an account who ran away. As soon as he ran away you created this account, so I don't really want to waste my time with made up identities.
Using the fingering for C in all other keys regardless of black-and-white structures of the keyboard is just ONE variation on that same theme.
And a variation can be inefficient and wrong compared to the proper way.
Any renovative ideas in Godowsky's transcriptions in terms of fingering and sound effects can be found in Liszt's bundles of Technical Exercises,
So very wrong, go study some more piano with your imaginary teacher.
albeit in a more condensed form.
Covering your ass with generalizations, boring.
I suspect Godowsky, who was basically self-taught, knew them and used them to expand his compositional resources, as did Busoni. What Chopin merely hinted at in his new style of piano playing Liszt carried to its limit.
Why don't you go study Godowsky and stop pretending to know about his works?
Very often, pieces as such distract the player from finding very simple but quite essential secrets the instrument can reveal to you by taking another approach.
Wrong, in pieces you have a contextual problem that needs to be solved. In scales you have a fixed system. One does not merely apply what they learn from technical scales directly to pieces with ZERO contextual observation. Those of you who pretend to know about piano think that this can be done, you are all a joke really.
Any renovative ideas in Godowsky's transcriptions in terms of fingering and sound effects can be found in Liszt's bundles of Technical Exercises,
So very wrong, go study some more piano with your imaginary teacher.
albeit in a more condensed form.
Covering your ass with generalizations, boring.
For example: how many thousands of pieces does one have to play to realize that if you "mirror" the hands in major scales (symmetric inversion), you get this:
C (-) from I to I (=Ionian) -> = C (-) From III to III (=Phrygian)
G (1#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> F (1b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
D (2#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Bb (2b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
A (3#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Eb (3b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
E (4#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Ab (4b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
B (5#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Db (5b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
F# (6#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Gb (6b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
F (1b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> G (1#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Bb (2b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> D (2#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Eb (3b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> A (3#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Ab (4b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> E (4#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Db (5b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> B (5#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Gb (6b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> F# (6#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Stop boring us with copy pastes from google.
This works both ways, so you can use one hand to solve technical problems in the other one in unexpected ways. One may also find out in this way how illogical the traditional fingerings for scales actually are. Minor scales have their own simple "regularities" and so do triads, chords, etc. Is this all really "a waste of time"? I'd say it's an incredible leap forward in understanding transcendental technique, much more effective than simply repeating pieces until you know them and until you have practised all the life out of them. 
This paragraph is full of hot air and tons of generalisations which have not been defined, thus is useless. You go study your technical scales good for you! I couldn't care less if you study wrong or not
