# Thread: Rowe's 51 solve reconstructed

1. ## Rowe's 51 solve reconstructed

2. See, Rowe, freestyle, regardless of how much you hate it, is still faster than the original 3-cycle. :P

3. Rowe is the best BLD cuber in the world! without a doubt. Great job Rowe!

4. Just to give my input on Rowe's solve (of which I reconstrcuted in paralell to Pedro)

B' U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' x R' U R U' x' U' B
U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' x R' U R U' x' U'

He could have done:
y' R2 D' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U' D R2 y

He said that he didn't think of that fast enough to do it, I think the solve would have been a good sub50 if he had done it that way.

5. Originally Posted by joey
He could have done:
y' R2 D' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U' D R2 y
Or F2 R2 F L2 F' R2 F L2 F

Or if you want to speed optimize: x U2 R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U x'

It's 3 shorter moves in HTM to achieve the same corner 3 cycle, and in my opinion faster to execute. Daniel and I have been optimizing our corner 3 cycles

And I agree Rowe's solve was crazy fast. That's cool to think that sub-50 is possible on a BLD solve, including memorization!

Chris

6. I'd say, with near-100% confidence, that blindfold cubing times of ~40 seconds can be achieved (execution + memorization)

7. Yes, we know they can be. Rowe has gotten 40s, and two sub40 I think.

8. Wow, sub-40 already? What's the best time achieved so far?

9. Apparently 37.54 by Rowe. I remember he did a 38.xx while racing each other.

Marcus: Is your "new" method the same method Rowe is using here? Will you release details of your method?

10. I've only recently gotten back into blindcubing, but my goal is to combine orientation and permutation in a three-cycle method that is easy to apply in memory. I feel that accomplishing this style of approach is "optimal" for blindfold solving in the way that Fridrich is "optimal" for speedsolving. Solving pieces one at a time uses too many moves and solving orientation and permutation separately also has many elements of wasted efficiency. The hard part in such an approach is accounting for even cycles, because I am having issues figuring out an effective way to integrate them into memory approaches. It is also easy to run into the trap where you're looking at memorizing hundreds of algorithms. I haven't fully practiced the method yet either, but my best time with it is 1:05 (I had a few lucky cases faster than this but I don't count them), which isn't too bad. It's really only 40% complete or so (I have a lot of work to do for edge cycles) but I think it has some decent kick to it. I call it the "Omni" method simply because it aims to fully solve pieces with every algorithm. I'm also trying to figure out a very consistent way to handle parity issues.

I feel the more braindead a method is, the better. "Figuring out" what to do during execution is wasted time. Simply being able to go through your memory hooks and execute blindly is the fastest way to go.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•