- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,923
- Location
- Indianapolis
- WCA ID
- 2007HUGH01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I've always done commutators in the past for 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 BLD edges and centers. While everyone was suggesting I should switch to r2, I wasn't logged in, so I didn't get to read the suggestions, because I was busy trying r2 on a 4x4x4 BLD. I had 8 DNFs in a row (my worst run ever!) before I finally got one, but then I got 2 in a row. My times: 20:49.07 and 20.36.84. And my DNFs were all in about the same range, running 20-24 minutes.
I know everyone is saying "r2 is the way to do", but I just thought I'd share my initial thoughts from trying both.
Advantages of r2 over commutators:
1. Less thinking - it's really much more automatic. When I'm doing the edges now, I feel more like I'm doing a regular solve instead of a BLD solve; it's almost no mental work at all. I still have to think a little when breaking into new cycles, but that's just because I'm still not totally used to the method.
2. It feels like I know what I'm doing. I'm almost constantly turning, with much smaller breaks between moves. I'm thinking that, if nothing else, it would make me look more impressive to spectators in a competition.
(Not that it matters anyway at the Virginia Open, since Chris will be done with all four of his 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 solves about the same time I'm starting my second cube.)
3. It provides some double-checks that aren't there with commutators. Other than when breaking into new cycles, you solve each position on the cube exactly once. If you find yourself solving a position that you remember having solved earlier, you know you've messed up somehow with your memorization. I REALLY like this aspect of it.
4. More consistent. This is probably just an aspect of #1 above. Since there's less thinking, times are very consistent using it - every solve takes almost exactly the same time.
Advantages of commutators over r2:
1. Fewer moves. It seems to me like if you're really fast at both methods, commutators should be significantly faster. And since I've done commutators for months, I'm still fast enough that my fastest times with commutators beat my times with r2. I'm really curious what would happen for Chris Hardwick if he switched. I have this feeling that he is so good now at commutators that he'd have a hard time ever beating his commutator speed with r2, just because of the advantage in number of moves.
Overall, it seems to me like the difference between r2 and commutators is much like the difference between Fridrich and, say, Petrus (insert your favorite "thinking" method here). Fridrich makes up for the fewer moves in Petrus with the fact that the moves can be executed so fast. The same seems to be true with r2.
I'm still debating as to whether I should switch to r2 for the Virginia Open or stick with commutators. I fully expected to stick with commutators, but now I'm having second thoughts.
Anyway, I'm curious what other people think about the difference between these methods.
I know everyone is saying "r2 is the way to do", but I just thought I'd share my initial thoughts from trying both.
Advantages of r2 over commutators:
1. Less thinking - it's really much more automatic. When I'm doing the edges now, I feel more like I'm doing a regular solve instead of a BLD solve; it's almost no mental work at all. I still have to think a little when breaking into new cycles, but that's just because I'm still not totally used to the method.
2. It feels like I know what I'm doing. I'm almost constantly turning, with much smaller breaks between moves. I'm thinking that, if nothing else, it would make me look more impressive to spectators in a competition.
(Not that it matters anyway at the Virginia Open, since Chris will be done with all four of his 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 solves about the same time I'm starting my second cube.)3. It provides some double-checks that aren't there with commutators. Other than when breaking into new cycles, you solve each position on the cube exactly once. If you find yourself solving a position that you remember having solved earlier, you know you've messed up somehow with your memorization. I REALLY like this aspect of it.
4. More consistent. This is probably just an aspect of #1 above. Since there's less thinking, times are very consistent using it - every solve takes almost exactly the same time.
Advantages of commutators over r2:
1. Fewer moves. It seems to me like if you're really fast at both methods, commutators should be significantly faster. And since I've done commutators for months, I'm still fast enough that my fastest times with commutators beat my times with r2. I'm really curious what would happen for Chris Hardwick if he switched. I have this feeling that he is so good now at commutators that he'd have a hard time ever beating his commutator speed with r2, just because of the advantage in number of moves.
Overall, it seems to me like the difference between r2 and commutators is much like the difference between Fridrich and, say, Petrus (insert your favorite "thinking" method here). Fridrich makes up for the fewer moves in Petrus with the fact that the moves can be executed so fast. The same seems to be true with r2.
I'm still debating as to whether I should switch to r2 for the Virginia Open or stick with commutators. I fully expected to stick with commutators, but now I'm having second thoughts.
Anyway, I'm curious what other people think about the difference between these methods.
