[Member Intro] Hello from outside the box!

[43Quintillionaire]

Hello world! I'm glad for the opportunity to introduce myself, and I also have a question below about a new method I've developed.

For the first 35 years of my cubing life, I did not know or use any form of turn notation. I was ten years old when the cube first hit the market, and I spent a full year teaching myself how to solve it, obstinately determined not to ask for help or read tutorials. At age 45, I spent 18 months working under the same DIY principle but teaching myself how to solve the cube blindfolded. (As part of that, I finally learned standard notation out of desperation. Turns out it's really handy!) My BLD method was basically a pre-cycles monstrosity, and when I subsequently read about Old Pochmann (I learned about 3-style later), I spent several days walking around in a daze over its simplicity. I find the cube utterly fascinating.

I have never been to a competition or event, although I find speed solving incredibly impressive. I myself am quite slow, but I know the cube pretty well from an outside-the-box kind of perspective.

My ulterior motive for posting now: I've developed what I believe to be an original, and simpler, version of Old Pochmann. It is parity-agnostic: It does not include, or require, a parity strategy -- in fact the solver does not even need to know if the scramble has the parity case, since the solve will proceed the same regardless.

I have a YouTube video ready to publish. I hope hope hope to give my method a good launch, and your answers to these questions would be a big help:

• Has anyone heard of a system like this before? (There are no pseudoswaps. Sorry, I don't want to give away the details yet!)
• What is the most useful way to post this on Speedsolving.com? A new thread in the blindsolving section?

Thanks, and I'm glad to be here!

 

[Hazel]

Heya, welcome to the forum!

Your BLD method sounds quite interesting. The right place to post it would be the dedicated "new method idea" thread, here: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/. I'll be excited to read over the proposal!

 

[bcube]

Hi 43Quintillionaire,

I've developed what I believe to be an original, and simpler, version of Old Pochmann. It is parity-agnostic: It does not include, or require, a parity strategy -- in fact the solver does not even need to know if the scramble has the parity case, since the solve will proceed the same regardless.

I have a YouTube video ready to publish. I hope hope hope to give my method a good launch, and your answers to these questions would be a big help:

• Has anyone heard of a system like this before?

Yes (see the last image on that page). You might also like to check the footnotes no. 2 and 3 from that page just to see what has been already proposed earlier.

 

[acrystal]

Welcome to the forums!

 

[Jared Burkhart]

Hi there!
I am excited to learn your method since I never really could understand blindfold! I hope to see it soon!
Welcome to the forums, and I hope you enjoy your stay!

 

[abunickabhi]

Yooooo welcome to SS!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

Hi 43Quintillionaire,



Yes (see the last image on that page). You might also like to check the footnotes no. 2 and 3 from that page just to see what has been already proposed earlier.

I am so grateful to you for reaching out to me. I see your discussions with Lucas. Has there been any movement on this method since Lucas's "passing the torch" comment on June 20, 2025? Because I've spent the last 2 years generating 93 million corner and edge algs for exactly what Lucas was talking about: Corners and edges sharing a common center swap. My corner algs have 17 turns max. They include EITHER just one whole-cube rotation (x,y,z) OR just one wide turn in the u,d,f,b family, and zero slices. In addition, I came up with a clever way for the OP system to have just 23 setup moves to learn instead of the usual 43. I am ready to put out my YouTube video this Saturday. But I don't want to step on any toes or claim credit for things I didn't originate. Maybe you and I could have a private chat? (Keep in mind I'm an old man and, despite being a software developer, I am not great with social media tech, and you could begin a chat and I might not see it or know it!)

 

[pi=3.14]

Welcome to the forums!

 

[Sub 20 Cuber]

Welcome!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

Hi there!
I am excited to learn your method since I never really could understand blindfold! I hope to see it soon!
Welcome to the forums, and I hope you enjoy your stay!

Thanks! My system does remove a little of the pain from OP -- I'll be curious to learn how much difference it makes to you!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

Heya, welcome to the forum!

Your BLD method sounds quite interesting. The right place to post it would be the dedicated "new method idea" thread, here: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/. I'll be excited to read over the proposal!

I may write this up tonight. Would you like a fully scrambled solve plan, along with my description of the method?

 

[43Quintillionaire]

I may write this up tonight. Would you like a fully scrambled solve plan, along with my description of the method?

Proposed!

 

[thecubicwizard]

Welcome to the forums!

 

[bcube]

Note that I am not a typical speed solver, nor a typical blind solver. That being said,

I am so grateful to you for reaching out to me.

Glad to hear that.

I see your discussions with Lucas. Has there been any movement on this method since Lucas's "passing the torch" comment on June 20, 2025?

Nothing I am aware of.

Because I've spent the last 2 years generating 93 million corner and edge algs for exactly what Lucas was talking about: Corners and edges sharing a common center swap. My corner algs have 17 turns max. They include EITHER just one whole-cube rotation (x,y,z) OR just one wide turn in the u,d,f,b family, and zero slices.

Cool. Let us know the details/results of your research.
Notice that in speed solving, move-optimality (algorithm length) is not the most important metric. Execution fluidity is a thing too. For instance, I doubt that all possible move-optimal algorithms are used in this video:

In addition, I came up with a clever way for the OP system to have just 23 setup moves to learn instead of the usual 43.

I am speaking for myself but I didn´t have to learn any setup moves, meaning I don´t know any setup move by heart. I am simply executing them on the fly without having them to be memorized beforehand (which works for me because I want to memorize the bare minimum).
Here you are using letter scheme to describe things. Some of us (me included) do not operate on the concept of letters - therefore these users don´t follow your explanation easily. I would suggest to use cube simulator whenever possible for clarity reasons.

But I don't want to step on any toes or claim credit for things I didn't originate.

If I wanted to give credit to someone, I would go with Stefan. To my knowledge, he was the first having the idea and also generating usable algorithms (details can be found at https://www.cubinghistory.com/archive/YahooGroups/YahooGroups.html when you select Blindfold Solving group and paste "just swapping 2 pieces" (without quotes) into the Subject field, then apply filters). Here is an excerpt:

Ok, here's one for corners:
D L B L' U' F' L B D B' U' B L2 F' R' D r2 u D

And here's a corresponding one (i.e. same center swaps) for edges again:
U L' R D F U r' B' U R U' R' U' r' d' R


P.S. something irrelevant to amuse you: if it took 2 or 3 years for you to find out your core idea is not original after all, you are quite lucky. I know a guy it took 45 years for him to finally find out his core idea is not original (although that is still questionable but that´s a different story)

 

[Deleted member 27249]

Hi same I understand Rubik's Cube to solved in One year because I dont understand tutorials for this reason and I develop in past CFBL a variant to CFOP.
But for me Is a problem solve 3bld I desire solve cube blind and maybe I see your Tutorial because now I understand a version of Old-Pochmann.
Welcome!

 

[micow46]

Welcome to the forums! Hopefully you'll see great bonds and great opportunities around the community!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

Hi all. I will be posting my BLD YouTube video this morning. I have pivoted FROM presenting the method as my own, TO presenting it as a method originated by Stefan Pochmann, with myself as a cheerleader who brings a lot of algs and setup moves. What is the best place in this forum for me to put the link? I could put it right here... I could put it in the new method-concept idea thread under my previous post... I could put it somewhere in the blindsolving area. Please advise! I believe this method is incredibly important for beginning BLD cubers, and hope to get some attention for it. Thanks!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

Just posted the YouTube video in https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/. Thanks everyone for your help!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

Note that I am not a typical speed solver, nor a typical blind solver. That being said,



Glad to hear that.



Nothing I am aware of.



Cool. Let us know the details/results of your research.
Notice that in speed solving, move-optimality (algorithm length) is not the most important metric. Execution fluidity is a thing too. For instance, I doubt that all possible move-optimal algorithms are used in this video:

I am speaking for myself but I didn´t have to learn any setup moves, meaning I don´t know any setup move by heart. I am simply executing them on the fly without having them to be memorized beforehand (which works for me because I want to memorize the bare minimum).
Here you are using letter scheme to describe things. Some of us (me included) do not operate on the concept of letters - therefore these users don´t follow your explanation easily. I would suggest to use cube simulator whenever possible for clarity reasons.



If I wanted to give credit to someone, I would go with Stefan. To my knowledge, he was the first having the idea and also generating usable algorithms (details can be found at https://www.cubinghistory.com/archive/YahooGroups/YahooGroups.html when you select Blindfold Solving group and paste "just swapping 2 pieces" (without quotes) into the Subject field, then apply filters). Here is an excerpt:

Ok, here's one for corners:
D L B L' U' F' L B D B' U' B L2 F' R' D r2 u D

And here's a corresponding one (i.e. same center swaps) for edges again:
U L' R D F U r' B' U R U' R' U' r' d' R


P.S. something irrelevant to amuse you: if it took 2 or 3 years for you to find out your core idea is not original after all, you are quite lucky. I know a guy it took 45 years for him to finally find out his core idea is not original (although that is still questionable but that´s a different story)

If you execute setups on the fly, the thing to know about "no parity pochmann" is: (1) Setups must not alter center stickers; (2) Setups can alter ANY piece except the current buffer. --Every setup in this system can be 3 turns or less and face-turn only.

 

[bcube]

If you execute setups on the fly, the thing to know about "no parity pochmann" is: (1) Setups must not alter center stickers; (2) Setups can alter ANY piece except the current buffer. --Every setup in this system can be 3 turns or less and face-turn only.

With a room for improvement because there is a number of setup moves and a number of algorithms tradeoff you can use.

That might work for you, it won´t work for me.

Why it might work for you: in a youtube comment you wrote: "The swapping algs of OP are performed repetitively by their nature. Speaking for myself, and anyone who shares my skill set and approach: I will never mess up a solve due to repetitive algs that have 3 extra turns, but I WILL mess up due to A-B memo confusion and double the number of setups to learn."

Why it won´t work for me: in the source of Classic Pochmann, Stefan is proposing Ja and Jb algorithms, among others. Those are redundant in my mind because I don´t mind executing a few easy extra setup moves instead of learning those algorithms. Heck, I don´t even know the proposed T algorithm because in 2005 I already knew its equivalent on Square-1 (thus learning a different algorithm for the same case is redundant in my mind, similarly to pre-memorizing setup moves). Thus the only algorithm I am using (besides U permutation for parity) is his modified T permutation (AKA Y permutation) which is acceptable for me. Guess what: executing errors during Y permutation are much more frequent for me than messing up setups moves (the latter basically never happens for me - I don´t have any issues with doing 5 easy setup moves on the fly (not that I use this many), however, I can´t even execute some 4-movers (remember, I don´t pre-memorize them) in the case of using BLD method with just 1 algorithm like BOP or Stefan´s earlier single algorithm method).

That´s actually a nice example of how every cuber is different


P.S. I just realized that both the "Old Pochmann" and "no parity pochmann" terms fit well for Stefan´s single algorithm method.