Blindfold Failures Thread

[Mike Hughey]

Well, I needed some place to post the results of my 7x7x7 BLD attempts. And I just finished my first one:

DNF (2:06:25.20, 1:02:45 memorization)

If you do an R, it is off by 33 pieces. Which sounds terrible, but if you look at the cube, it looks practically solved. The pieces are mostly in strips. It looks like I missed an R as an undo of a setup move. 9 wings wrong, 6 central edges wrong, 6 oblique centers wrong, and 12 other centers wrong.

My memory was totally secure and never a problem at all. The obliques were definitely harder than the rest, but it felt like I got more comfortable with them as I went.

This is definitely harder due to the different color scheme; I wish I could replace the stickers with my standard color scheme.

I want my first successful solve to be a BLD solve. So I'm thinking I'll just apply a new 100-move scramble to the current unsolved cube. Sound like a good way to go? The only negative is that I won't know exactly what scramble I solved.

This was definitely a lot of fun to do - I can't wait for my next try! Tomorrow!

[Swordsman Kirby]

5x5 20:xx fail
6 cubes fail (three times)
5 cubes fail (two times)

Haven't succeeded on more than 4 yet.

This is definitely harder due to the different color scheme; I wish I could replace the stickers with my standard color scheme.

What color scheme do you use?

[Johannes91]

This is definitely harder due to the different color scheme; I wish I could replace the stickers with my standard color scheme.

What color scheme do you use?

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/sh...1003#post41003

[Dene]

Nice try Mr. Hughey, just one rotation off! Next time for sure, yea?

[Lucas Garron]

Hmm, I tried to convince Michael to call his the "BLD Experiences Thread," to no avail.

I'll mention that I had 6 attempts to beat the puny ER of 1:17, and failed all of them. (Winning a competition with the only success of the six was worth nothing to me, as I'm ranked fourth in the the nation with that time...)
And I only seem to get worse at BLD. All my recent 4x4x4 BLD solves are worse failures than my first attempt ever.

Also, trying out new memory methods didn't help - my brain won't memo nearly fast enough.

However, I'm trying rushed-memo solves, and it might be working.

Mike: How about almost-solving? But you'd have to be very careful... How about solving "into" a scramble using your BLD method (exec turning practice)?
Also, are you using r2 for obliques?

(And why is everyone calling them obliques? I'm flattered that my term has taken off so far, but qqwref's "chiral" is pretty good, and some other terms like "skew" also work pretty well...)
(But if we do go with +o and -0, maye I suggest "PLO" and "MO" for pronunciation? )

[Mike Hughey]

Hmm, I tried to convince Michael to call his the "BLD Experiences Thread," to no avail.

I realized this was "politically incorrect" when I started it, but somehow it just still seemed like the best name. Sorry if I've offended anyone.

All my recent 4x4x4 BLD solves are worse failures than my first attempt ever.

That's okay - it just means you're learning. You'll soon suddenly have some spectacular success and make a big jump, I'm sure. If you don't give up. Please don't give up.

Mike: How about almost-solving? But you'd have to be very careful... How about solving "into" a scramble using your BLD method (exec turning practice)?

Actually, I realized that this morning. This morning I solved all of it except a single 3-cycle of outer wings. Now I'm going to apply the first few moves of my next scramble, then use a commutator to solve the 3 wings (it's still easy to see where they need to go), then apply the rest of the scramble. It's a great idea, and should work perfectly. Problem solved.

And Arnaud, I also thought of your idea, and I like it, but I feel like a single turn from solved should count as solved, since it would just be a +2 in competition. So I'd feel like I had to do 2 turns from solved, which would maybe be fun, but would be a lot of work. I think I'm going with the solving into a scramble idea instead.

Also, are you using r2 for obliques?

No. Maybe I should, but I like commutators for centers because since there are 4 interchangeable center pieces, you can often get 3 cycles that solve all 3 pieces at once. I think Chris doesn't take advantage of this, but I do in a big way, and I think it's really helpful. (I'm always excited when I'm memorizing and start getting a lot of 3-cycles on centers.) So I just use commutators for the obliques, just like the other centers.

(And why is everyone calling them obliques? I'm flattered that my term has taken off so far, but qqwref's "chiral" is pretty good, and some other terms like "skew" also work pretty well...)
(But if we do go with +o and -0, maye I suggest "PLO" and "MO" for pronunciation? )

I like the fact that it sounds good as a single word. Somehow, "chirals" doesn't feel as right, and neither does "skews" - you feel like you have to say "chiral centers" and "skew centers". I think "obliques" works alone because we've gotten used to hearing it when referencing abdominal exercises. Anyway, "obliques" rolls off the tongue nicely; I like it!

[Stefan]

Now I'm going to apply the first few moves of my next scramble, then use a commutator to solve the 3 wings (it's still easy to see where they need to go), then apply the rest of the scramble.

An alternative:
1. Superflip of middle edges.
2. Repair those three wings.
3. Scramble.
4. Superflip of middle edges.

And I was hoping you US guys would get your V-cubes with a huge delay so I'd get the headstart I need to get in shape. Sigh.

[Swordsman Kirby]

And I was hoping you US guys would get your V-cubes with a huge delay so I'd get the headstart I need to get in shape. Sigh.

Don't dawdle!

[blah]

And Arnaud, I also thought of your idea, and I like it, but I feel like a single turn from solved should count as solved, since it would just be a +2 in competition. So I'd feel like I had to do 2 turns from solved, which would maybe be fun, but would be a lot of work.

There's a loophole that makes it easier for you actually: An M turn from the solved state is a DNF

I think Chris doesn't take advantage of this, but I do in a big way, and I think it's really helpful. (I'm always excited when I'm memorizing and start getting a lot of 3-cycles on centers.) So I just use commutators for the obliques, just like the other centers.

That's news. How can Chris not take advantage of anything to do with commutators?! I thought he was the commutator expert? Or am I misinterpreting whatever you're trying to say? And there's another thing I don't quite understand, what do you mean by "start getting a lot of 3-cycles on centers"? Don't you cycle all the centers with 3-cycle commutators? (I think that's what you told me some time ago, don't really remember anymore.)

I like the fact that it sounds good as a single word. Somehow, "chirals" doesn't feel as right, and neither does "skews" - you feel like you have to say "chiral centers" and "skew centers". I think "obliques" works alone because we've gotten used to hearing it when referencing abdominal exercises. Anyway, "obliques" rolls off the tongue nicely; I like it!

Given my limited vocabulary, I've only came across the word "chiral" once in my life, and I don't even know what it means in English; I only know what it means in organic chemistry (chiral centers, yeah, they're called that too in organic chemistry) because that's where I learned the word, and I hate organic chemistry. "Skew", on the other hand, just doesn't sound like "professional cubing jargon". So it's more of the fact that I don't like the other two (no offense to qqwref) than that that I like "obliques", besides, I came across "obliques" first (The double "that" is not a typo )

I was just about to submit this post, then I got what you meant about the 3-cycle thingy, I think. Do you mean a "complete" 3-cycle, i.e. A goes to B, which goes to C, which goes back to A? (I thought that was extremely rare? Or do you sorta "plan" the cycles so you end up with cycles like that?) That's a new technique I've never thought of, nor heard of or read about for that matter. Care to explain? Or are there any threads discussing this?

[Mike Hughey]

You've got the right idea, yes - a complete cycle where all 3 pieces are solved at once. Chris mentioned it in a thread a number of months back - he uses a fixed buffer for centers, like I do with wings. So he'll just break a new cycle like you would for r2 when he runs out. So that means the only time he'll get this is at the very end, and only once on a single solve. I on the other hand will move to a new buffer whenever I come back to the starting face as the second piece in my pair. So for me it can actually happen fairly often. I've had as many as 4 of these in a single solve on a 4x4x4 before! That is so nice when it happens. So I might get A -> I -> M (-> A), B -> J -> E (-> B), C -> F -> Q (-> C), etc. Or I might get a 5-cycle, which is just as nice for the last half of it.

You don't have to do anything to work for this - all you do is move to a new buffer whenever you come back to the original face as the second piece in a pair. Very easy and automatic.

I talked to Chris about this at Chattahoochee, and he said he had decided that the memorization benefits of a fixed buffer outweigh the potential of fewer commutators for him. But that's definitely not the case for me. So whenever I'm competing against Chris, I'm always secretly hoping for lots of these center 3-cycles - maybe I could actually beat him if the scramble were lucky enough!

I studied organic chemistry for years, so chiral is a word I'm very familiar with. (I was studying to be a PhD in organic chemistry until I decided that I hated chemistry and switched to computer science.)