Older cubers discussions

[h2f]

It's also a great platform for incrementally adding new comms that interchange on other faces/slices wherever that gives significant optimisation; but in many cases the M slice comms are simply not worth replacing.

My first list of edge comms was based only on M slices. Thats the big advantage of M2 that gives an easy way to learn comms. But few weeks ago, when I saw Ishaan's list, I've decided to go a little bit further and I've started adding E and S moves. I was surpriesed that the 3cycles can be done in so many ways.

 

[mitja]

I am starting to play with the same concept with xcentres. Did any of you try. I figure, if I am just starting to learn centres. I want to bring all setups and undoes to muscle memory as centres are new to me. But, should I just jump to advanced way, solving two at the time,by setting up one centre to target and solving the second one and undo the first. So 3 cycling( advanced M2 way) immidiately and try to put that in my memory from start.

 

[openseas]

Why don't you try it on 3x3 first. It is much easier to follow the concept. But the concept is a 3-cycle. And what is nice, i would call it intuitive 3-cycle. I browsed through many 3-cycle algs for edges and compared them with this advanced M2 cycles. And many are simmilar, many are also shorter and optimized, but eventuality not that much longer to be worth memorizing as a must. I prefere this intuitive aproach.

Thanks. I do use 3 style combined advanced M2 for 3BLD but got confused with l layer setting up to UBr. Understood now, thanks!

 

[mark49152]

But few weeks ago, when I saw Ishaan's list, I've decided to go a little bit further and I've started adding E and S moves. I was surpriesed that the 3cycles can be done in so many ways.

Me too. I use lots of E and S comms when solving untimed but am not yet comfortable enough to use them under time pressure.

I am starting to play with the same concept with xcentres. Did any of you try. I figure, if I am just starting to learn centres. I want to bring all setups and undoes to muscle memory as centres are new to me. But, should I just jump to advanced way, solving two at the time,by setting up one centre to target and solving the second one and undo the first. So 3 cycling( advanced M2 way) immidiately and try to put that in my memory from start.

Yes I use lots of the same ideas. Especially for D layer - the most efficient way to solve a D target in U2 is to set it up to the U layer. With buffer Ubr, I use l2 to set up Dbl to Ufl then solve it together with a side piece.

 

[openseas]

Thanks. I do use 3 style combined advanced M2 for 3BLD but got confused with l layer setting up to UBr. Understood now, thanks!

@mark49152 / Thanks! (Experiment completed!)

Summary for l slice targets (FDl, UFl, BUl):
1. When l slice targets come first, setup to UBr then [r2, x x x], xxx is for normal r2 for the first target.
2. When l slice targets come second, setup to UBr then [x x x, r2], xxx is for normal r2 for the first target.
This works everything but U & r layer targets

 

[h2f]

Me too. I use lots of E and S comms when solving untimed but am not yet comfortable enough to use them under time pressure.

I use E moves in a normal solves and I've started working on S moves. They seem so awkward but if top blinders use them they must be efficient.

This works everything but U & r layer targets

For U and r layer targets works as well. For example Dfl-Urb you can do l' U2 setup and do it as Ubr-Ulf. For Dfl-Bdr: l' U2 and r2 (first target in Ubr) D r (U R2 U') r' (U R2 U') D' r2 (second target in Dbr). Only dealing with Fur is a little bit harder but I used to do U l' U2 to setup it to Ubr-Ruf.

 

[mark49152]

This works everything but U & r layer targets

The best way to think of it is that it works for anything but you do need to think about whether the setup moves the other target too. If after the setup both targets are in a configuration that is much easier/nicer to solve than it was before, you're good to go.

Example: FDl URf. Do l' U2 to setup FDl to UBr. Note that URf has now moved to ULb so you need to solve it there instead. (As an alternative you could just do l' U' setup and they are just as nice to solve...)

 

[newtonbase]

Just did my 23rd 4 cube MBLD. I've only got all 4 on the 11th attempt. It's getting a little annoying. Errors are mostly in execution and least often in recall but I'm able to get pretty much anything wrong. Not sure how to tackle this.

 

[h2f]

Whats your time, Mark @newtonbase? I've found a little bit harder to get 5 cubes than 5bld though it's almost the same amount of information to memorize.

 

[mark49152]

Just did my 23rd 4 cube MBLD. I've only got all 4 on the 11th attempt. It's getting a little annoying. Errors are mostly in execution and least often in recall but I'm able to get pretty much anything wrong. Not sure how to tackle this.

What kind of execution errors?

 

[mitja]

Yes, I was trying that today. I wish to use something for U layer but thats not an option

The best way to think of it is that it works for anything but you do need to think about whether the setup moves the other target too. If after the setup both targets are in a configuration that is much easier/nicer to solve than it was before, you're good to go.

Example: FDl URf. Do l' U2 to setup FDl to UBr. Note that URf has now moved to ULb so you need to solve it there instead. (As an alternative you could just do l' U' setup and they are just as nice to solve...)

I also like this one:
BUl-FDl - setup by F2 B2 then BDr-FUr solution: x F R U R’ d R U’ R’ d’ x' B2 F2
and opposite one is also possible.

 

[openseas]

Yes, I was trying that today. I wish to use something for U layer but thats not an option

I also like this one:
BUl-FDl - setup by F2 B2 then BDr-FUr solution: x F R U R’ d R U’ R’ d’ x' B2 F2
and opposite one is also possible.

Thanks, Guys! More I play with it, can understand where all those setups impacts other targets and how to handle. Now I understand way better than before with advanced M2 / U2 / r2. Really helpful!

Then, I realized that all M2 (or M/M'), I can solve two targets (just like using commutators) under any circumstance - just matter of efficiency. Need more practice on 5BLD as well with this. I want to cut down quite a bit of time for 5BLD to be qualified for US Nats (4BLD - 10 min, 5BLD - 20min) within 5 months. Time for more practice!

 

[mark49152]

Good luck @openseas!

 

[newtonbase]

Whats your time, Mark @newtonbase? I've found a little bit harder to get 5 cubes than 5bld though it's almost the same amount of information to memorize.

Around 20 minutes. But it can vary.
5BLD has much harder tracing and execution so I'd expect it to be slower. I got 5 cubes on my second attempt but 4 cubes fits my available practice time better.

What kind of execution errors?

Sloppy stuff usually. I executed UB instead of UD today. I've undone setups wrongly. I've lost track of what I'd done so done parity twice etc. Better focus would help which I think is easier in competition.

Thanks, Guys! More I play with it, can understand where all those setups impacts other targets and how to handle. Now I understand way better than before with advanced M2 / U2 / r2. Really helpful!

Then, I realized that all M2 (or M/M'), I can solve two targets (just like using commutators) under any circumstance - just matter of efficiency. Need more practice on 5BLD as well with this. I want to cut down quite a bit of time for 5BLD to be qualified for US Nats (4BLD - 10 min, 5BLD - 20min) within 5 months. Time for more practice!

20 mins is tough.

 

[mark49152]

Sloppy stuff usually. I executed UB instead of UD today. I've undone setups wrongly. I've lost track of what I'd done so done parity twice etc. Better focus would help which I think is easier in competition..

Yeah if you're in a distracting environment that will not help. Do you keep it simple during execution? On here you've mentioned various more advanced things like comms, tricks and UB UL swap during memo. If your execution accuracy is suffering maybe you should strip it down to basics until you've fully nailed that, and add advanced stuff incrementally while maintaining accuracy.

 

[newtonbase]

Yeah if you're in a distracting environment that will not help. Do you keep it simple during execution? On here you've mentioned various more advanced things like comms, tricks and UB UL swap during memo. If your execution accuracy is suffering maybe you should strip it down to basics until you've fully nailed that, and add advanced stuff incrementally while maintaining accuracy.

It's certainly a poor environment and I don't use a blindfold or ear protection.
I don't switch targets in MBLD as I memo in execution order (edges first). I do use some advanced M2 stuff and the odd corner comm but nothing too fancy. Maybe I should just take an extra minute or two on execution.

 

[mark49152]

It's certainly a poor environment and I don't use a blindfold or ear protection.
I don't switch targets in MBLD as I memo in execution order (edges first). I do use some advanced M2 stuff and the odd corner comm but nothing too fancy. Maybe I should just take an extra minute or two on execution.

Yeah I'm not sure what to suggest apart from keep it simple, take your time and keep focused. My MBLD errors are almost always lapses in focus.

I plan to start switching UL and UB in memo but want to be consistent for all events. I think it would confuse me otherwise. For MBLD that means I'll have to change my memo order. We'll see how it goes.

 

[h2f]

I must get better in mbld. I memo 5bld in around 9 minuts - 5 cubes should take same time but they take around 20.

 

[SpartanSailor]

As you guys moved from 3BLD to either MBLD or bigger cubes, which order did you do it?
1. Moved up in size--from 3 to 4 to 5 BLD
2. Add 3x3 cubes for MBLD with 2, then 3 cubes, etc...

Just curious. I'm a ways away from going beyond my basic 3BLD, but I feel like I would go to 2 or 3 cubes using a well developed 3x3 blind solving pattern before I added new complexity by added larger sized cubes.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I went to larger sized cubes first. This was back in 2007; bigger cubes interested me more than multi, and also multi was more of a sideshow-type event, while big BLD seemed impossible, but was taken more seriously by a few people (mainly Chris Hardwick and Daniel Beyer).

Fun moment from the wayback machine - my first ever 4x4x4 BLD success, which I did for the Speedsolving.com weekly competition:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-2-3-3oh-4-5-bf-sq1-mg.1103/page-2#post-10488

(I stumbled on that link looking to be sure I was right about this - I was pretty sure the order was that I did big cubes BLD first, but I wanted to be sure. I'm positive my first attempts at both were for the Speedsolving.com weekly competitions.)

And with a little more searching, I also came up with this - results from the first time I ever competed in the Speedsolving.com weekly competition (as I recall, I talked to Arnaud at the US Open and he suggested I should compete, so I did the next week):
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...tition-results-rankings.607/page-2#post-11543

That thread is the very first results thread there ever was for our competition. It's kind of fun to go back and see its humble beginnings.