Older cubers discussions

[chtiger]

Not yet. I'm learning step by step. I can solve corners BLD, with about 3/4 success rate, and am working on edges now. I can just about solve edges with M2 sighted, and once I feel I have all the algs down, I will learn the letters and memo for edges. For the last few solves I have memorized corners, then solved edges sighted, then closed eyes and solved corners without looking at them again, to test whether I can recall the corner memo after doing something else.

Yeah I agree about comp times - official PBs will always be nice but I care more about my times at home. Comps are just for fun. For BLD I just want an official success and don't care about the time.

It's probably too late to suggest OP edges to you since you almost have M2 learned, but for the others here, if your main goal is to get a success, then I'd recommend OP edges instead of M2. It's much easier to learn, understand, and execute, in my opinion.

 

[Logiqx]

It's probably too late to suggest OP edges to you since you almost have M2 learned, but for the others here, if your main goal is to get a success, then I'd recommend OP edges instead of M2. It's much easier to learn, understand, and execute, in my opinion.

Thanks for the tip. When I eventually get around to 3BLD, I'll start with OP edges and corners.

 

[chtiger]

Thanks for the tip. When I eventually get around to 3BLD, I'll start with OP edges and corners.

I should've mentioned I was (maybe wrongly) assuming that the other posters here know the CFOP PLL algorithms. If you use Roux or another method or don't know the PLL's, then that would add 4 longish algorithms to learning OP edges. If you already know T, Ja, Jb, and Ra PLL algorithms, then there are no algorithms to learn for OP edges.

 

[mark49152]

It's probably too late to suggest OP edges to you since you almost have M2 learned, but for the others here, if your main goal is to get a success, then I'd recommend OP edges instead of M2. It's much easier to learn, understand, and execute, in my opinion.

Thanks for the tip. OP edges are what I used last time I tried BLD a year or two ago, because they seemed easier. This time I took Noah's advice and went for M2. There are a few new algs and a bit of complication around the M slice edges, but nothing too challenging, and it does save a lot of moves, so I can see why he recommends people jump straight into it. Once you've learned OP corners and grasped the general principle, M2 builds on that without being wildly more difficult. I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from looking at it. (Noah's tutorials are awesome, by the way.)

 

[chtiger]

Thanks for the tip. OP edges are what I used last time I tried BLD a year or two ago, because they seemed easier. This time I took Noah's advice and went for M2. There are a few new algs and a bit of complication around the M slice edges, but nothing too challenging, and it does save a lot of moves, so I can see why he recommends people jump straight into it. Once you've learned OP corners and grasped the general principle, M2 builds on that without being wildly more difficult. I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from looking at it. (Noah's tutorials are awesome, by the way.)

You're right. I shouldn't have said OP edges was much easier, but it is without a doubt easier, assuming you already know PLLs, and also assuming you first learn and understand OP corners. Once you understand OP corners, there is really nothing new to learn or understand for edges. It's the same thing just with different buffer, target locations, and pieces not to disturb during setup moves.

I looked into M2 a while back and it didn't seem worth the trouble for the amount of time it would save me. I average about 3:30 now, and if I learned M2 and practiced it for a month+, then I'd estimate my average would be 3:15 (with more DNFs). If I was averaging 1:00, then that time savings would be more significant. So I guess the faster you are or plan on being, the more benefit you get from M2, which is why I'd just recommend OP for beginners who just want a success and aren't really concerned with time.

I just started learning 4bld, which essentially uses M2 (called r2 for 4bld), so I actually watched Noah's M2 videos yesterday, and gave up again. I decided to just learn r2 on the 4x4, and then in the future I may come back to M2 for 3bld and see what the real time savings are. I searched the forums a bit, but couldn't find anything specific on how much time it saves.

 

[mark49152]

I looked into M2 a while back and it didn't seem worth the trouble for the amount of time it would save me. I average about 3:30 now, and if I learned M2 and practiced it for a month+, then I'd estimate my average would be 3:15 (with more DNFs). If I was averaging 1:00, then that time savings would be more significant. So I guess the faster you are or plan on being, the more benefit you get from M2, which is why I'd just recommend OP for beginners who just want a success and aren't really concerned with time.

I don't expect to get fast, but I would like to have three attempts within the 12 minute cut off. Or two at least. So far I have not timed myself so I have no idea how slow I am, but I do quite like the idea of saving ~10 T-perms' worth of moves. That 20-25 secs could make a difference and it's fewer moves to fumble too. If M2 really seemed that difficult I'd drop it, but it seems OK to me. Or maybe it will just be a mess and I'll never get those M edges right What is it you found so difficult about it?

 

[MarcelP]

Or maybe it will just be a mess and I'll never get those M edges right

That is exactly why I did not like M2. OP edges is way more straight forward and less prone to mistakes. I did not mind the extra moves of the T-perm.. it's good practice on the T-perm .. LOL and when you average 6 minutes all that matters is getting a result anyway. In OP edges you do not have to remember if you are on an even or odd turn. You only have to remember if there even or odd edges (or corners).

 

[mark49152]

That is exactly why I did not like M2.

OK, I'll report back in 3 weeks whether I like it or not

 

[h2f]

I just started learning 4bld, which essentially uses M2 (called r2 for 4bld), so I actually watched Noah's M2 videos yesterday, and gave up again. I decided to just learn r2 on the 4x4, and then in the future I may come back to M2 for 3bld and see what the real time savings are. I searched the forums a bit, but couldn't find anything specific on how much time it saves.

The thing is that M2 and r2 are the same. The only difference is that you cant solve UF and DB on 4x4 with M2 algs and there's new sticker FD - you solve it doing setup to BU and doing alg form M2. Learing r2 you are learning M2 and vice versa. I am average blinder (sub-1:50) but if you want to solve 4bld I recommend learing M2 first.

About time savings - M2 is equal to turbo. In his tutorials Maskow tried to compare OP, Turbo and 3style. He made solves on the same scramble with different methods and excluding memo time and he got this:
Old Pochmann: 53.83
TuRBo edges/Old Pochmann corners: 34.35
TuRBo edges/3style corners: 23.00
3style: 18.37 (slow - hard scramble).
He is damm fast with OP. As you can see, if M2 is like a turbo, M2 is about 1,5-2 times faster than OP. I've switched to M2 a year ago after I've decided to make 4bld and 5bld. And it took me about 2-3 weeks to get a success but after few months doing a few solves per day (or doing no solves) I've dropped my times to sub-3. That's all I want to say.

 

[chtiger]

I don't expect to get fast, but I would like to have three attempts within the 12 minute cut off. Or two at least. So far I have not timed myself so I have no idea how slow I am, but I do quite like the idea of saving ~10 T-perms' worth of moves. That 20-25 secs could make a difference and it's fewer moves to fumble too. If M2 really seemed that difficult I'd drop it, but it seems OK to me. Or maybe it will just be a mess and I'll never get those M edges right What is it you found so difficult about it?

If you are preparing for a comp with a 12 minute total time for 3 solves, then doing M2 instead of OP edges may be the difference in getting in that 3rd solve.

For me, dealing with the M slice targets was the main deterrent. I didn't want to learn the algorithms and have to worry about the odd/even target thing. I don't think it was too difficult, it was more that I didn't think learning it plus all the practice it would take to get good (for me) at it was worth the estimated 15 seconds it would improve my times. Of course this is based on me already being familiar with OP edges, so that wouldn't apply to people learning blind for the first time.

 

[chtiger]

The thing is that M2 and r2 are the same. The only difference is that you cant solve UF and DB on 4x4 with M2 algs and there's new sticker FD - you solve it doing setup to BU and doing alg form M2. Learing r2 you are learning M2 and vice versa. I am average blinder (sub-1:50) but if you want to solve 4bld I recommend learing M2 first.

About time savings - M2 is equal to turbo. In his tutorials Maskow tried to compare OP, Turbo and 3style. He made solves on the same scramble with different methods and excluding memo time and he got this:
Old Pochmann: 53.83
TuRBo edges/Old Pochmann corners: 34.35
TuRBo edges/3style corners: 23.00
3style: 18.37 (slow - hard scramble).
He is damm fast with OP. As you can see, if M2 is like a turbo, M2 is about 1,5-2 times faster than OP. I've switched to M2 a year ago after I've decided to make 4bld and 5bld. And it took me about 2-3 weeks to get a success but after few months doing a few solves per day (or doing no solves) I've dropped my times to sub-3. That's all I want to say.

Thanks for posting these times from Maskow. It's misleading to say M2 is 1.5-2 times faster. It's more accurate to say it is 15-20 seconds faster. It's not going to improve people by same percentage, it will improve by a fixed amount. For example, if Maskow's OP/OP time was 90 seconds, then his Turbo(or M2)/OP time would not be 45-60 seconds, it would be 70-75 seconds.

I tried a 4bld solve yesterday sighted and looking at algs, and I still had messed up after the 5th center piece. I may be over my head with trying 4bld. Doing so many slice moves is really hard for me to execute. If I continue, I'll probably take your advice and just learn M2 first.

 

[mark49152]

For me, dealing with the M slice targets was the main deterrent. I didn't want to learn the algorithms and have to worry about the odd/even target thing. I don't think it was too difficult, it was more that I didn't think learning it plus all the practice it would take to get good (for me) at it was worth the estimated 15 seconds it would improve my times. Of course this is based on me already being familiar with OP edges, so that wouldn't apply to people learning blind for the first time.

Maybe you should give it another go. It's really not that hard. It took me maybe 10 sighted solves to understand how it worked. There are only two algs that are neither intuitive nor trivial (I and S if you use Speffz) which is an insignificant investment of time compared to what I have learned for every other event. The only complication with the M targets is remembering to swap I/S and C/W whenever they occur as second letter of a pair, which if you do it during memo doesn't require extra thinking during execution. As a novice I have no problem creating a letter sequence for M2 and executing it blind with pretty good accuracy. If I screw up at the comp it will most likely be because I recall the sequence wrongly or fumble the cube, and that is just as likely with any method.

I'm only a beginner and will happily eat my words if it turns out M2 ruins my chances, but at this point I'm more concerned about my inability to remember a dozen letter pairs. That's the hard part.

On a different topic, I broke my 4x4 single PB of 1:08.87 today - five times in 12 solves, and not one of them was below 1:08.00. Freaky...

 

[MarcelP]

On a different topic, I broke my 4x4 single PB of 1:08.87 today - five times in 12 solves, and not one of them was below 1:08.00. Freaky...

Wow.. indeed. You are on fire with 4x4.. That's for sure..

 

[mark49152]

Wow.. indeed. You are on fire with 4x4.. That's for sure..

After neglecting it for a while I'm now averaging about the same as October last year when I put in a load of practice and reached 1:22. Breaking single PB five times so close together is very unusual and has now given me very distorted ao12 and ao5 PBs .

Are you doing much 4x4/5x5 these days?

 

[Logiqx]

Impressive times Mark. I'm trying to do 20 solves a day on 4x4 and my best is usually between 1:15 and 1:20.

I had my first sub-1:30 session on 4x4 yesterday (20 solves) with an average of 1:28.96.

I very nearly broke through 10s on Pyra but it went a bit downhill after 60 solves - 9.79 Ao50 / 10.09 Ao100

 

[MarcelP]

Are you doing much 4x4/5x5 these days?

No, not even 5 solves every week for the weekly context. I am just about to do some more (training for Ducth open)

I very nearly broke through 10s on Pyra but it went a bit downhill after 60 solves - 9.79 Ao50 / 10.09 Ao100

Still very awesome

 

[h2f]

Thanks for posting these times from Maskow. It's misleading to say M2 is 1.5-2 times faster. It's more accurate to say it is 15-20 seconds faster. It's not going to improve people by same percentage, it will improve by a fixed amount. For example, if Maskow's OP/OP time was 90 seconds, then his Turbo(or M2)/OP time would not be 45-60 seconds, it would be 70-75 seconds.

I tried a 4bld solve yesterday sighted and looking at algs, and I still had messed up after the 5th center piece. I may be over my head with trying 4bld. Doing so many slice moves is really hard for me to execute. If I continue, I'll probably take your advice and just learn M2 first.

I'm sure you will choose the best method for you. If M2 looks hard to you, do OP. I hope you will successfull soon. There's a method for 4bld based on OP but it's hard because you need to make around 1 thousend moves to solve the cube. I know the cuber who did it on the competiton...

The main factor to save time in blindsolving is a memo time.

Anyway good luck.

 

[Schmidt]

3X3X3: 18.79 20.16 (16.92) (21.24) 21.20 = 20.05
4X4X4: 48.38 (1:43.97) 1:44.54 1:45.39 (2:14.63) = 1:46.10

You so Pro!

 

[MarcelP]

You so Pro!

Ah, thanks. Fixed that. If I would have had a sub 1 you all would hear about it.. LOL I think 1.21 is my PB or so.

EDIT: btw, all the solves had at least one parity and some double parity.. still great average for me.. I must be getting faster without practice

 

[mark49152]

I had my first sub-1:30 session on 4x4 yesterday (20 solves) with an average of 1:28.96.

Nice one, good progress. The ABHC average cut makes a nice target!

I set my personal targets based on your analysis of relative solve times, using the IQM of 4.89 for 4x4 relative to 3x3. However, I do think 1:25 on 4x4 is an easier target than 17.5 on 3x3, at least for me. Perhaps the steep slope of the 4x4/3x3 line just shows that there are lots of people who focus much more on 3x3, and for someone who puts serious practice into both events they should expect to be nearer the left side, so closer to 4x. Thoughts?

Also, back to the BLD topic, I did some ao12s with M2/OP sighted execution only, so measuring execution without any regard to memo or delays due to recall. Here are my results:-
- Full solve 1:48
- M2 edges and parity 1:06
- OP corners 0:40

So my ratio of edges to corners is 1.65. @chtiger, I know you are faster than me, but it would be interesting to compare your ratio, using OP edges and corners, if you are interested. (Remember to include parity with edges.)

I thought the results were interesting because even though there are 11-14 edge swaps to 7-9 corner swaps, typically, I expected that to be cancelled out by the shorter edge swap alg, but clearly not. it might be partly explained by the fact I have practised corners for longer. And the longer edge setups must be a factor.