Interesting idea?

[jackolanternsoup]

Uh.. Well I was being random one day and thought it would be cool to solve centers on big cubes using the center swithiching 'trick' (M E M' E' on a 3x3x3) by replacing the Ms and Es with r, l, u and d...

Would that actually be possible or is it just too many things to factor in? I think someone with mega memory can . Imagine solving 6 centers at a time; that'd be fast..

Go Chris Hardwick

 

[deadalnix]

Set ups will be very weird !

I think commutators are more powerful for these cases.

 

[jackolanternsoup]

Yeah Lol. you're right.. approximately 6-12 setup moves every time..

 

[blah]

Which makes it less efficient than commutators in terms of moves per solved piece. The reason no one really uses 5 cycles in BLD is because of retardedly long setup moves that's enough to confuse anyone, and how do you go about "setdown-ing" your setup moves? That'd be fun But I can picture the efficiency, two algs to solve all the edges on a 3x3x3, I'd love that.

 

[MistArts]

Which makes it less efficient than commutators in terms of moves per solved piece. The reason no one really uses 5 cycles in BLD is because of retardedly long setup moves that's enough to confuse anyone, and how do you go about "setdown-ing" your setup moves? That'd be fun But I can picture the efficiency, two algs to solve all the edges on a 3x3x3, I'd love that.

That is you have 4 3-cycles...What if you have those 2 cycles?

 

[blah]

Well according to my experience, half the time you don't. Make it 2.5 algs then... But what am I arguing about? No one uses 5-cycles

 

[deadalnix]

I use for 333 corners. They are only 20 cases if you want only an U and a D move as set-up. You can end your corner permutation in 2 algs, and with orientation in 2 alg that I use too, it's quite effiscient.

 

[blah]

Ooh sweet I didn't know anyone did that Now you've gotta teach me those algs, or at least link me to where you got them? I know there's a stickied thread here but I'm pretty sure you've got other sources if you've got as many as 20 algs just for CP! (Ever considered switching to an edges-first method for regular speedsolving?)

 

[deadalnix]

I made the method myself.

You can find it there : http://www.francocube.com/deadalnix/speedblind.php but in french. If you are lokking for alg, it should not be a problem.

Don't be affraid by the number of sequences : many are only mirror or standard set-ups moves.

I have posted this method somewhere in this forum but it wasn't a big success. If you are motived to make an english version, tell me.

 

[joey]

Thing is, you have to orient first. boo! I wish 5 cycle commutators were easy to make

 

[deadalnix]

You cans olve the corner including orientation and permutation in 4 algs each time. And no need to think too much.

How do you do a 5-cycle commutator ?

 

[blah]

Thing is, you have to orient first. boo!

Hmm... Good point there. I did a brief mental calculation and I believe 4-step full corner solution is definitely (THIS is how you spell "definitely", I've seen tooooo many posts with misspellings, no personal attack to anyone, just my little rant ) gonna be faster in terms of move count compared to old Pochmann, don't think anyone's gonna doubt that. As for freestyle, I think it's gonna take a LOT of practice to get to the point where you don't take more than 2 seconds to think how to set up the stickers. And then there's R2, which I guess no one else but Stefan himself uses? Don't know much about R2, can't comment, sorry.

So, as compared to all the other corner-solving methods I know of (tell me if there's any I've missed or haven't heard of), I think 4-step full corner solution is a pretty "fast way to get fast" once you're familiar with the algs, which comes naturally with practice. (Freestyle is the slow way to get fast.)

Any other opinions on this?

 

[AvGalen]

Thing is, you have to orient first. boo!

Hmm... Good point there. I did a brief mental calculation and I believe 4-step full corner solution is definitely (THIS is how you spell "definitely", I've seen tooooo many posts with misspellings, no personal attack to anyone, just my little rant ) gonna be faster in terms of move count compared to old Pochmann, don't think anyone's gonna doubt that. As for freestyle, I think it's gonna take a LOT of practice to get to the point where you don't take more than 2 seconds to think how to set up the stickers. And then there's R2, which I guess no one else but Stefan himself uses? Don't know much about R2, can't comment, sorry.

So, as compared to all the other corner-solving methods I know of (tell me if there's any I've missed or haven't heard of), I think 4-step full corner solution is a pretty "fast way to get fast" once you're familiar with the algs, which comes naturally with practice. (Freestyle is the slow way to get fast.)

Any other opinions on this?

Perfect summary!

 

[joey]

Umm. I don't take more than 2s to setup stickers. Some cases I still solve using old pochmann, I admit, because I need to learn algs/commutators for some nasty cases, but most cases I don't take 2s to think.

edit: Mondo uses R2.

 

[blah]

@joey, how long have you been using freestyle corners? I've tried it once, sighted, and I was lost at my first three pieces I really couldn't picture myself seeing the setup moves blindfolded so I gave up And do you mean the Ryosuke Mondo? I don't know any other. I'm perplexed. Why would anyone want to use such an error-prone method (my opinion) such as R2 for multiBLD? Or does he use it for normal BLD only?

@deadalnix, Q1: How long did it take you to learn them all? Q2: Can you please take an average of 12 corners-only BLD solves and post it up here? Thanks. I wanna see how long it takes to memorize and process all that information. I did an average of 30 before, the thread's somewhere on this sub-forum, I got an average of 46.xxs, but that was long ago, I probably average ~40s now, not too sure.

And @Arnaud, thanks So does that mean you're switching to this 4-step corners thingy?

 

[tim]

And do you mean the Ryosuke Mondo? I don't know any other. I'm perplexed. Why would anyone want to use such an error-prone method (my opinion) such as R2 for multiBLD? Or does he use it for normal BLD only?

error-prone method? I don't see where you can make any mistakes. I use the old pochmann method for corners which is almost identically to R2. And i haven't done any execution mistakes within the last 100 bld solves.

 

[joey]

I agree with tim, I don't see why you think it is error prone?
I dunno how long I've been doing freestyle. Several months? 4? 5?

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

Why would anyone want to use such an error-prone method (my opinion) such as R2 for multiBLD?

Why do you think it's error prone? Why is 3-cycle, old-Pochmann, and any other commonly used method not error-prone? If anything, R2 has very simple cycles.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Actually, the one thing that made me wonder about trying R2 was the fact that I thought it might be less error-prone than any of the other well-known methods out there. Especially for multiBLD.

But I haven't ever actually tried it - not even a single solve. I should someday.

 

[blah]

Okay, my bad. Wrong assumption, I take that back. Then why is it that not many people use R2, other than the fact that half the corners are in R?