My thought/intention was like Michael explains. And yes, referring to Chris' post.
So sticker solving would be what Chris calls freestyle and piece solving (the permutation part of) 3OP.
But perhaps not a good choice. In Swedish we have "bit" which means piece like in edge or corner piece,
sida (side) for sticker.
Although it's not an exciting term, I still think "direct solving" fits well for what we are trying to describe.
Anyway I am more inclined to agree with Mike's definition of freestyle as using floating buffers.
I would have to disagree though. I use floating buffers for all the edges on the larger cubes, and I certainly don't consider myself a freestyle solver in the sense that I have a "loose" or organic approach to my cycles. I still solve with the same BH techniques, just start from a different buffer whenever my cycles end.
I think the bigger issue is for us to come up with a meta-method name for methods that solve the position and orientation of a piece, or pieces, at the same time. From there we can then qualify this method with terms like "freestyle" or "fixed buffer" vs. "floating buffer."
So for example, and using my "direct solving" term, I could describe my generalized edges solving approach as being a 3-cycle direct solving approach, meaning that I solve position and orientation at the same time when orientation makes sense (central edges), and I do so with 3 cycles. To further qualify my method I could then say that I solve with "floating buffer BH."
Now, normally I would just say that I use BH, or that I use "floating buffer BH", but this tells you the further fact that I am saying that I use a 3-cycle direct solving approach as well (the meta-method).
How does something like this sound?
So Freestyle would mean that you are using a direct solving approach. You would then have to further qualify it as 2-cycle or 3-cycle freestyle if you wanted to be very precise. Or we could even let "Freestyle," with no qualifier, be an understood "3-cycle Freestyle" and this leaves M2/R2 and Classic Pochmann to be called the "2-cycle direct solving" approaches. There does not appear to be a "2-cycle freestyle" approach that is used right now, unless I am mistaken? This is because all 2-cycle direct solving approaches are currently very systemized, M2/R2, Classic Pochmann, U2 method for big cube centers, r2 method for big cube edges, etc.
How does this sound? I am proposing this as either a convention we can use, or a start to us coming up with a convention that everyone can agree on.
Chris
