TuRBo Edges versus M2 Edges

[rubikmaster]

I know tons of people who are super fast with just M2 and OP, but I think TuRBo is easier to understand, faster, and yeah easier transition into full 3 style.

I really appreciate your anwser. Which corner method would you recommend for more advanced BLD solvers who aren't ready to make the switch to BH yet? (sorry for going off-topic)

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

I really appreciate your anwser. Which corner method would you recommend for more advanced BLD solvers who aren't ready to make the switch to BH yet? (sorry for going off-topic)

There is R2, but most people say its an
unnecessary step. Other than that, there arent really any intermediate corner methods. OP TuRBo or OP M2 can get low 1 minute times.

 

[rubikmaster]

There is R2, but most people say its an
unnecessary step. Other than that, there arent really any intermediate corner methods. OP TuRBo or OP M2 can get low 1 minute times.

Yeah, I've been thinking about how weird it is that people usually just switch from OP to 3-style, from the most basic to the most advanced method. R2 seems pretty cool, even though people seem to have mixed opinions about it. I still need to look into it. I've looked into 3OP but it looks uncomfortable and I feel like R2 would be superior in terms of speed. But I think I'm just gonna stick with TuRBo/OP for now.

 

[Sessinator]

Yeah, I've been thinking about how weird it is that people usually just switch from OP to 3-style, from the most basic to the most advanced method. R2 seems pretty cool, even though people seem to have mixed opinions about it. I still need to look into it. I've looked into 3OP but it looks uncomfortable and I feel like R2 would be superior in terms of speed. But I think I'm just gonna stick with TuRBo/OP for now.

On the topic of R2 corners...

I learned R2 (in late 2008) mostly because...
1. At the time there weren't as many great resources for comms/3style/BH out there.
2. OP corners got boring - R2 seemed more fun!

Now that there are more accessible resources for learning the most advanced method, R2 isn't really worth your time to switch to. If you actually want to start to get more serious with bld and learn a faster execution method for corners, it's probably best to use your time making the switch to 3style/comms/BH.

Also I think it's safe to say that a switch from OP to 3OP corners would be going a step backwards. Having to memorize both the orientation and permutation of pieces, and then having to orient and permute them separately is more work than is necessary.

As daunting as it may seem at first, comms start to make sense with practice. Try to find a comfortable learning pace to get through the cycles. You don't have to learn them all at once. You can work at it gradually! Start with a few cases and try to incorporate them into your solves alongside your old corner method. It might be useful to have a list that another blder has made at hand. You could use that list to cross-check solutions for cycles that you come up with, and in doing so perhaps learn more efficient or finger-trick friendly ways to construct them. It might also be useful for checking out solutions to tricky cases. Also, make sure to force yourself to use the comms that you've learned in your solves. It may slow you down initially, but it should pay off in the long run.

 

[rubikmaster]

On the topic of R2 corners...

I learned R2 (in late 2008) mostly because...
1. At the time there weren't as many great resources for comms/3style/BH out there.
2. OP corners got boring - R2 seemed more fun!

Now that there are more accessible resources for learning the most advanced method, R2 isn't really worth your time to switch to. If you actually want to start to get more serious with bld and learn a faster execution method for corners, it's probably best to use your time making the switch to 3style/comms/BH.

Also I think it's safe to say that a switch from OP to 3OP corners would be going a step backwards. Having to memorize both the orientation and permutation of pieces, and then having to orient and permute them separately is more work than is necessary.

As daunting as it may seem at first, comms start to make sense with practice. Try to find a comfortable learning pace to get through the cycles. You don't have to learn them all at once. You can work at it gradually! Start with a few cases and try to incorporate them into your solves alongside your old corner method. It might be useful to have a list that another blder has made at hand. You could use that list to cross-check solutions for cycles that you come up with, and in doing so perhaps learn more efficient or finger-trick friendly ways to construct them. It might also be useful for checking out solutions to tricky cases. Also, make sure to force yourself to use the comms that you've learned in your solves. It may slow you down initially, but it should pay off in the long run.

Well, the main reason I was thinking of switching to R2 later on was because I thought it could speed up the process of achieveing sub-2 and most people say you shouldn't even consider BH until you're at 1:30, so I thought it could be a beneficial step up. Or at least, an okay-ish method for someone who doesn't plan to get super fast at BLD.

But I think I'm going to take your advice and start gradually incorporating BH for corners in my solves once my times begin to stagnate, even if they may be way slower than 1:30 at that point, since it will benefit me in the long run. The thing that was sort of off-putting about BH was the sheer amount of time I'd have to put into it to fully learn it. But slowly learning new cases as I go along makes a lot more sense than trying to master R2.

Thanks for the insightful response.

 

[Renslay]

I really appreciate your anwser. Which corner method would you recommend for more advanced BLD solvers who aren't ready to make the switch to BH yet? (sorry for going off-topic)

I'm using the Boomerang Method.

 

[TDM]

If you're thinking of learning R2: all the setups use <L, U>. I think L2 could be faster than R2.

 

[Tao Yu]

It's not actually that hard to switch from M2/OP to 3-style directly. The only reason I would recommend learning another method in between is if you want to use different buffers. Or if you don't plan on ever learning 3-style.

Boomerang has a preorientation step just like 3OP, so I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[tseitsei]

M2 is actually a very good method to move to 3-style from.

Because you can do it gradually by adding easy 3-style cases first and then add more and more as you progress. You dont have to do all that in one big chunk but you can continue to improve gradually

I learned 3-style almost accidentally for edges. I just started learning advanced M2 and then just kept adding more tricks to my solves as I "invented" them. And the one day I just noticed that I was practically solving 3-style already...

 

[Sessinator]

But I think I'm going to take your advice and start gradually incorporating BH for corners in my solves once my times begin to stagnate, even if they may be way slower than 1:30 at that point, since it will benefit me in the long run. The thing that was sort of off-putting about BH was the sheer amount of time I'd have to put into it to fully learn it. But slowly learning new cases as I go along makes a lot more sense than trying to master R2.

Thanks for the insightful response.

No problem! Though I don't think it would take long at all to learn R2, there are some drawbacks such as having to keep track of where you are on the R slice which is similar to how you must keep track of the M slice with M. Though it's not much of a problem with practice.

In retrospect I'm happy with my decision at the time to switch from OP to R2. It isn't really necessary to do so, but I think R2 provided a nice transition for me into comms in a way that's similar to how M2 and advanced M2 provides a nice transition to edge comms. I like the way the R2 method works a lot more than how the OP corner method works. I put some brief thoughts on R2 a while back in another post here.

It's not actually that hard to switch from M2/OP to 3-style directly. The only reason I would recommend learning another method in between is if you want to use different buffers. Or if you don't plan on ever learning 3-style..

Another good point to bring up! I switched from having DF/ULB as buffers to DF/DFR as buffers when I switched to R2. I've heard having adjacent buffers can make it more convenient to set up to do some more advanced parity fixes, though I haven't looked into much.