# Thoughts about the BH method

#### abunickabhi

##### Member
ple of a 4 move set up and [U R' F R,D' R D R'] is a strange comm I don't understand. You can find list of these speed optimal comms in spreadsheets bestsiteever.ru has a list of links to them. Those are from Daniel Lin's list. Learning from these lists is fine if you understand comms for all of 3-style. Doing it completely intuitively leads to slow comms.

I feel like move optimal was focused on back when this was first published. Not
Back then there was no background to work on. So, mostly the methods that will develop would have been somewhat incorrrect or correct outright. We have settled down to UF/UFR after some iterations of thoughts and pro-cubers discussion.

The reason [R F' R' U':[R D R',U2]] comm is better than the move optimal comm. is the same reason CFOP is better than any other move optimal method like Waterman and Roux. It just that regrips is a big thing when it comes to accelerating up the execution of the solve.

#### abunickabhi

##### Member
Eh, well the point this entire method was to implement Commutators across the entire spectrum of 3x3x3 to 5x5x5. The point of BH is that there are 8 move Commutators in ABA'B' format. Then you expand upon that to recognize cancellations for A9s. Followed by cycles that are 10 move optimal. There is a special Cyclic shift 10 mover. Then your column cases for 11 moves. Finally 12 move cases.

Due to the symmetry of the cases, you can adjust your moves to find your intuitive finger friendly cases.

It was never meant to be a comprehensive list of algorithms. Moreso an overview of an understanding of Commutators to solve the cube.

Low move counts and efficiency lends to speed. But that same concept was meant to expand to x-centers, t-centers, wings, edges, corners, and even further big cube expansions.

It is not about memorizing thousands of cases. Rather you efficiently and accurately solve a case based on the relative positional relationships between the cubies you are solving sequentially.

That time could be better spent developing finger tricks and understanding of cancellations between cycles. Also actually practicing blind solves and sighted solutions with cycles.

Anyway just my take on it.

I agree my thousands of cases system violates the principle of BH which was to identify the root commutator types and scale it up to bigger cubes.
But due to the advent of tons of improvements people are putting up on improving a 3BLD solve like introducing advanced parity algorithms, 2e2e, floating buffers, weak swap and so on, 5style is just an attempt to bulldoze it up and make a comprehensive system that can shuffle 5 pieces at once.

It is just my take on it. Sorry if I sounded too opinionated.

#### PapaSmurf

##### Member
Back then there was no background to work on. So, mostly the methods that will develop would have been somewhat incorrrect or correct outright. We have settled down to UF/UFR after some iterations of thoughts and pro-cubers discussion.

The reason [R F' R' U':[R D R',U2]] comm is better than the move optimal comm. is the same reason CFOP is better than any other move optimal method like Waterman and Roux. It just that regrips is a big thing when it comes to accelerating up the execution of the solve.
The first bit I agree with. The proposed method will always be slightly worse or terrible compared to the finished method. And people are still optimising 3-style, with floating, more parity and 2e2e.
The second but I do not agree with. It's like we have better algorithms than 10 years ago, but have you seen Kian mansour? He's basically sub 6 without a stackmat and roux. In fact, I am convinced that roux is better than CFOP for the reason that it's about 10 moves more efficient.

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
It is not about memorizing thousands of cases.
I personally view modern 3style as an evolution of BH. The principles are very similar, except speed optimality (factoring in ergonomics) has been prioritised over move optimality. The method of learning is not much different. Learning 3style is about recognising patterns and understanding them, not brute force memorization of algs.

(I can't vouch for the 5cycles work posted here by @abunickabhi though - I haven't thoroughly studied his alg list to see how suited they are to intuitive learning, but my guess is that 5cycles won't have the same simple patterns as 3cycles, and the few cases I have looked at do support that view.)

#### dbeyer

##### Member
It is an evolution of the method. But it is really the same thing. You can see those same solutions with an understanding Commutators.
I personally view modern 3style as an evolution of BH. The principles are very similar, except speed optimality (factoring in ergonomics) has been prioritised over move optimality. The method of learning is not much different. Learning 3style is about recognising patterns and understanding them, not brute force memorization of algs.

(I can't vouch for the 5cycles work posted here by @abunickabhi though - I haven't thoroughly studied his alg list to see how suited they are to intuitive learning, but my guess is that 5cycles won't have the same simple patterns as 3cycles, and the few cases I have looked at do support that view.)
It is an evolution. However to be clear it is the same thing. Accurate, fast, efficient solutions.

You can so multiple solutions for each case. You can do a 9 mover for an 8 move solution. If that 9 mover is faster, by all means.

Once again though, the method of BH was designed for big cubes, and it was applicable to 3x3x3 as well.

Designed at a time 10 years ago when cubes still popped, and Mefferts and Olympicubes were the big cube options.

You recognize positional relationships and solve them accurately. Simple enough.

#### tx789

##### Member
Back then there was no background to work on. So, mostly the methods that will develop would have been somewhat incorrrect or correct outright. We have settled down to UF/UFR after some iterations of thoughts and pro-cubers discussion.

The reason [R F' R' U':[R D R',U2]] comm is better than the move optimal comm. is the same reason CFOP is better than any other move optimal method like Waterman and Roux. It just that regrips is a big thing when it comes to accelerating up the execution of the solve.
Yeah there have been a lot of developments over the last 10 years, But 3 style mostly set ups to 8 movers rather than solving move optimally. Do that 10 years ago might of looked different but could be done.
It is an evolution of the method. But it is really the same thing. You can see those same solutions with an understanding Commutators.

It is an evolution. However to be clear it is the same thing. Accurate, fast, efficient solutions.

You can so multiple solutions for each case. You can do a 9 mover for an 8 move solution. If that 9 mover is faster, by all means.

Once again though, the method of BH was designed for big cubes, and it was applicable to 3x3x3 as well.

Designed at a time 10 years ago when cubes still popped, and Mefferts and Olympicubes were the big cube options.

You recognize positional relationships and solve them accurately. Simple enough.
Hardware changes are a significant factor. 3 style is fine for big cubes now. f slice is very usable. Look at the 5x5 world record. It wasn't even sub 1 on v-cubes. Now it is low 40s for average. Those not many people are really trying to find the most optimal comms in the way 3BLD has since bigBLD is not very popular.

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Those not many people are really trying to find the most optimal comms in the way 3BLD has since bigBLD is not very popular.
True, but big BLD has made advances too. Compare modern comm lists to say Ollie Frost's from the time of his WRs. Many of Ollie's algs were low move count but involved rotations. As with 3BLD, today we see stronger preference for specific move groups with fewer rotations, at the price of less move efficiency.

#### schapel

##### Member
True, but big BLD has made advances too. Compare modern comm lists to say Ollie Frost's from the time of his WRs. Many of Ollie's algs were low move count but involved rotations. As with 3BLD, today we see stronger preference for specific move groups with fewer rotations, at the price of less move efficiency.
we're still far closer to move optimal comms than I'd like to think
when I commit to learning floating wings I'll optimize