# OP 2.0 Beta

Discussion in 'Blindsolving Discussion' started by Jukuren, Mar 6, 2012.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

1. ### JukurenMember

179
0
Apr 3, 2010
Washington
WCA:
2011NANS01
Slanemia
So long time no see speedsolving.com
I thought of this on the drive home today.
Its a BLD method similar to OP... I'm sure this has been thought of already, like most everything else in cubing

It requires a more difficult memo, but!!!

you will be solving your edge cycles and corner cycles at the same time
making it a lot more move count friendly considering the fact that your using PLLs to swap pieces
and the other plus is there is no need for a Parity alg

I still belive that M2/OP corners is better then this for obvious reasons (or is it?). But if your into BLD (which i have been recently) its kinda a fun way to go about things.

you will need to know 8 PLLs (Jb, Ja, T, Y, Nb, V, F and Ra)

So lets get to it... i guess the best way to explain this would to just do a walk thru solve.

Scramble: D2 B2 U R2 U L2 U2 R2 F2 R2 U' F' R' L B U2 F L B' D' R2 U'
scrambled standard green in front white top

So for starters My buffer possition will Be UL & ULB
(everyone has different memo methods and you may not use the same letter system i use so to make things easy i will address pieces by their relitive position the first letter being the target sticker (if that makes any sense))

with blue in front yellow on top
so my edge cycle looks somthing like - FU, RB, LF, RD, (new cycle) UR, BL, FR, UB, BD, UR
Corner cycle looks somthing like - BRD, FRU, BUR, FLD, DLB, (new cycle) ULF, FDR, LFU

now normaly with OP this solve would take 18 Setup moves/PLL/Undo set up
But with this way we will accomplish the same thing with 10

and our solve will look more like
FU/BRD - RB/FRU - LF/BUR - RD/FLD - UR/DLB - BL/ULF - FR/FDR - UB/LFU - BD- UR

Down to buisness. Now remember we dont want to mess up our UL/ULB pieces when setting up our moves

1 - FU/BRD

F R F2 F2 R' F'

2 - RB/FRU

d' R R' d

3 - LF/BUR

F R' R F'

4 - RD/FLD

R F' R R' F R'

5 - UR/DLB

D2 F2 F2 D2

6 - BL/ULF

d2 R R' d2

7 - FR/FDR

R R'

8 - UB/LFU

F F'

So i lied.... instead of doing this in 10 steps we will do it in 9 for this solve. If your last two are edge only pieces (all corners are solved). We can do a 3 cycle to finish the solve. Or if you want you can just do 2 T perms...

9 - BD- UR

M' M

AND DONE!

let me know what you think

Christian Nansel

2. ### emoloverMember

Aug 15, 2010
Carmel, IN
WCA:
2009MAHO01
jak343434
It is neat but I think I will just stick with TuRBo edges and corners.

What do you propose as a memorisation system for this?

Last edited: Mar 6, 2012
3. ### JukurenMember

179
0
Apr 3, 2010
Washington
WCA:
2011NANS01
Slanemia
i have had a couple of successful solves.... and a bunch of fails. Have not really come up with a good way of doing memo. I have just been doing 2 separate journeys for my edges and corners and following them at the same time. But i lose my place a lot... but then again I'm not all that great at BLD to begin with

4. ### nickvu2Member

278
0
Sep 5, 2009
Seattle
WCA:
2007VUNI01
For roman rooms, maybe put one image in each location and use the same starting point for corners and edges. In essence you're setting up a matrix. Alternatively, you could continue through your rooms as normal, but train yourself to jump back and forth. Edge location 1, Corner location 1, Edge location 2, Corner location 2... It actually sounds doable.

5. ### evoglerMember

95
0
Mar 30, 2011
WCA:
2012VOGL01
Strictly from a competitive perspective, I'm not sure where this fits in. It seems a lot trickier than the original old pochmann (although I think it would be funny if we would up with OOP and New Old Pochmann). But it still seems a lot slower than straight 3-cycles. Who knows, though, I'm sure someone could get fast with it.

From the perspective of just having fun with cubes, though, I love this kind of stuff. I've played around a lot with the only-T-perm version of this, which makes for much longer and harder-to-remember setups. I don't think I've ever tried allowing myself all PLLs. I'll definitely enjoy messing with it, though I'm pretty sure I'll stick with standard 3-cycles for "serious" blindsolving.

6. ### Lucas GarronSuper-Duper ModeratorStaff Member

Have you heard of Dan Beyer's method a few years back?

Anyhow, this is one of a could of perfectly valid ideas, but I don't think they could take over simpler current methods in general. It also helps for a lot of current methods that corners are not so much in the way of other corners, and edge in the way of edges (as opposed to corners and edges, which can get very in the way of each other.)

Would you mind writing out a full solve in notation, say, so it could be viewed in alg.garron.us?

Last edited: Mar 7, 2012
7. ### evoglerMember

95
0
Mar 30, 2011
WCA:
2012VOGL01
Is that something other than BH?

8. ### aronpmMember

Sep 9, 2009
Setups are better if you use 22LL instead of PLL. But it's still not a good method; the movecount is too high (it's shorter than Old Pochmann, but that isn't exactly a claim-to-fame...) and the setups suck.

179
0
Apr 3, 2010
Washington
WCA:
2011NANS01