Blindsolving Discussion and Help

[Tao Yu]

If M2 is a pretty popular 3BLD edges method, why does no one use R2 for corners?

Maybe because it's harder to learn. The R-slice targets are even more troublesome than M2 M slice targets and you need to learn a few more algs. For most people, who probably don't care too much about BLD, OP is fast enough.

People who do care about BLD probably just go from OP to 3-style directly, which isn't that hard really. R2 is useful though, if you want DFR as you buffer (which is actually a pretty good buffer).

As for people who care about BLD and use R2, well it's like using keyhole F2L because you can't be bothered to learn proper F2L. Really, switch to 3-style already.

 

[slinky773]

Maybe because it's harder to learn. The R-slice targets are even more troublesome than M2 M slice targets and you need to learn a few more algs. For most people, who probably don't care too much about BLD, OP is fast enough.

People who do care about BLD probably just go from OP to 3-style directly, which isn't that hard really. R2 is useful though, if you want DFR as you buffer (which is actually a pretty good buffer).

As for people who care about BLD and use R2, well it's like using keyhole F2L because you can't be bothered to learn proper F2L. Really, switch to 3-style already.

Fine, I'll go learn 3-style

 

[Sessinator]

If M2 is a pretty popular 3BLD edges method, why does no one use R2 for corners?

R2 user here.

Going to go with most of the points made in the post above, but I don't think R2 is hard to learn if you understand M2. I just think if you use OP and want to get faster, your time and effort would be better spent learning 3-style. There are a lot of good resources out there to do that these days. I learned R2 shortly after learning OP because I thought the concept was cool, and there weren't really as many easy to follow resources on BLD as there are now (when I learned BLD, Eric Limeback hadn't even finished up his M2/OP tutorial).

---

More on R2:

I think people underestimate R2.

Spoiler

I think it also provides a pretty nice transition into corner comms. Quite a few of the corner comms I know are variations of some of the R2 cycles.

Spoiler

DFR -> LBU -> UBR U' L' U R2 U' L U
DFR -> BLD -> UBR U' L U R2 U' L' U
DFR -> DLF -> UBR U' L2 U R2 U' L2 U

For example, they could be performed as a set up to one of these cases:

Spoiler

DFR -> BRU -> UFR
U' U' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U

Or as an L2 variation:

Spoiler

DFR -> LDB -> UFL
y U R' U' L2 U R U' L2 y'

Or from a different angle:

Spoiler

DFR -> BDR -> UFL
y'x U' L2 U R2 U' L2 U R2 x'y

So for me personally, being an R2 user has made it pretty easy to visualize some of the corner comms from an R2 standpoint.

I've also heard that having DFR and DF as buffers (for corners and edges) might make it a bit easier to set up to solve parity with 3-style since they are both on the same face (D).

I still stand by the original underlined point, but just wanted to say a bit about R2 since most of what I see posted about R2 is from people who don't have much (or any) experience using it.

 

[CyanSandwich]

^ I thought of you as soon as I saw the R2 discussion

I have one more question - how do you deal with an odd number of the middle wing targets?

If you solve corners then midges, and use OP/M2:

Solve corners, do a J(a) perm (i.e L perm)
Solve midges, do U' F2 U M2 U2 (Rw2 Uw2 F2 r2 F2 Uw2 Rw2) U F2 U
Then another J(a) perm

 

[Sessinator]

^ I thought of you as soon as I saw the R2 discussion

Ha yeah R2 users are pretty rare.

Also on a sidenote, I enjoy tracking your MBLD progress in the BLD Accomplishment Thread!

 

[CuberM]

^ I thought of you as soon as I saw the R2 discussion

If you solve corners then midges, and use OP/M2:

Solve corners, do a J(a) perm (i.e L perm)
Solve midges, do U' F2 U M2 U2 (Rw2 Uw2 F2 r2 F2 Uw2 Rw2) U F2 U
Then another J(a) perm

That's for 5BLD, right?

 

[CyanSandwich]

That's for 5BLD, right?

Yep. Just so you know:
Midges refer to the middle edges on big cubes. Wings are the outer edges. So even layered cubes don't have midges (only sets of wings) but odd layered cubes do.

 

[CuberM]

Oh okay, thanks so much!

 

[goodatthis]

Oh okay, thanks so much!

Looking to get into bigger BLD? just a tip, don't do too much at first. Make sure you do lots of sighted stuff first, and take breaks in between actual blindfolded attempts. I sort of got burned out from doing lots of BigBLD stuff right before nationals, none of which was successful. But BLD is still fun though!

also, 1/2K post!

 

[Lacr1m0sa]

M2 Question

Hello all. I am relatively new to blindsolving, and am looking into getting past OP for edges. So, I tried out M2. I like the method, but I've run into a problem multiple times in solves:

So, imagine this: You have two edges left to solve. You are offset by an M2. The last edge you need to solve is at BU. Normally, in a Spefz lettering scheme, you would do the Q parity alg. However, since you are offset by an M2, You must figure out which is opposite to Q. No biggie, it's just- wait... Your buffer.

I'm assuming this is a parity issue, but I have yet to figure it out. I would like to use M2; I do like the method. However, I just can't figure out how to solve it. Normally you would break into a new cycle, but if you do this in the situation I described above (with an M2), you would just get the same situation.

Thanks for your help,

-Nick

 

[slinky773]

Hello all. I am relatively new to blindsolving, and am looking into getting past OP for edges. So, I tried out M2. I like the method, but I've run into a problem multiple times in solves:

So, imagine this: You have two edges left to solve. You are offset by an M2. The last edge you need to solve is at BU. Normally, in a Spefz lettering scheme, you would do the Q parity alg. However, since you are offset by an M2, You must figure out which is opposite to Q. No biggie, it's just- wait... Your buffer.

I'm assuming this is a parity issue, but I have yet to figure it out. I would like to use M2; I do like the method. However, I just can't figure out how to solve it. Normally you would break into a new cycle, but if you do this in the situation I described above (with an M2), you would just get the same situation.

Thanks for your help,

-Nick

First off, what is a Q parity alg? Second of all, targeting BU means that you target Q even if you're offset by M2. This may seem weird, but think about it - the edge at BU or UB never moves when you shoot to any target except for A and Q. Shooting to A and Q never changes, even if you're offset by an M2. I use (y R' F R y' U R2 U' M2 U R2 U' y R' F' R y')

 

[Lacr1m0sa]

I use M2 D U R2 U' M' U R2 U' M D'. I didn't think about that; does that mean I only have to think about shooting to the opposite sticker for C/I and SW?

 

[slinky773]

I use M2 D U R2 U' M' U R2 U' M D'. I didn't think about that; does that mean I only have to think about shooting to the opposite sticker for C/I and SW?

Um, dude, that's the algorithm to shoot to S.

And yes, you only need to think about M slice opposites for C/I and S/W.

 

[Lacr1m0sa]

Ah, derp. I do a B2 and then perform the alg. Didn't feel like learning another one.

Thanks for the help!

 

[slinky773]

Ah, derp. I do a B2 and then perform the alg. Didn't feel like learning another one.

Thanks for the help!

Ah, that's actually not a bad idea for that alg.

No probs. I actually got confused with this stuff when I started M2, too, so I'm glad to help ^_^

EDIT: Wait, where did you find that alg? I just tried it out and it doesn't work. Completely messes everything up. You're best off using the alg I just posted.

 

[slinky773]

Here's a question:

I was messing around M2 cases recently and found that I could create an edge commutator by using M2 and one of the setup moves from M2, i.e. [R' U R U', M2]. Could you make an entire edge method based around using M2 as your interchange, some M2 setup moves as your insertions, and making commutators from that? The only problem I see might be the inner targets and the M-slice targets, but I don't think it's that bad of an idea. It's like Turbo-M2.

 

[Cale S]

Here's a question:

I was messing around M2 cases recently and found that I could create an edge commutator by using M2 and one of the setup moves from M2, i.e. [R' U R U', M2]. Could you make an entire edge method based around using M2 as your interchange, some M2 setup moves as your insertions, and making commutators from that? The only problem I see might be the inner targets and the M-slice targets, but I don't think it's that bad of an idea. It's like Turbo-M2.

That's usually known as advanced M2, and it's really helpful when applied to wings on big cubes. I don't use it for 3BLD very often, though.

 

[slinky773]

That's called advanced M2, and it's really helpful when applied to wings on big cubes.

Oh. Looks like I have invented something that was already there. I was actually about to go back and edit my post, saying that it's not actually that since you need setup moves before and after your commutator, but in that case I guess all of that is addressed.

 

[JasonDL13]

I'm just going to keep this question really short.

Is orienting the corners first a bad thing to do? I orient them and then permute them. And I don't really like it. I feel that it's going to be harder in Multiblind. However my memo system for them is good, but can't be applied to multiblind, 1 word = 1 orient. Average cube is about 4 words. Hard cube is 6 words.

 

[slinky773]

I'm just going to keep this question really short.

Is orienting the corners first a bad thing to do? I orient them and then permute them. And I don't really like it. I feel that it's going to be harder in Multiblind. However my memo system for them is good, but can't be applied to multiblind, 1 word = 1 orient. Average cube is about 4 words. Hard cube is 6 words.

Um, yes. I'm assuming you're using Old Pochmann. Just use sticker targets. It really shouldn't be that hard to just learn the memo system for that. Orienting before solving is really unnecessary.