• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

3 Blind Method Debate Thread

What is the best intermediate 3BLD method?


  • Total voters
    47

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
370
What is the purpose of an intermediate method? A stepping stone to more advanced methods.
I this is with the assumption that you're goal is becoming very fast/world class. I think you can can still become decently fast with intermediate methods ( as Tao Yu says the 40-60 range, maybe even sub-40 if you're persistent ). Personally, I want to be decently fast ( long term I'm shooting for mid 40s ) without the time investment of 3-style but still learning a better/more complex method than OP/M2.
Also how do intermediate methods have higher tps? 3-style should feel like algs too when your fast. Like f2l pairs.
Well, generally, knowing fewer algorithms inside and out will lead to higher TPS than learner tons of algorithms which you are less familiar with. Idk I'm probably wrong but I thought it was at least worth bringing up.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,996
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I this is with the assumption that you're goal is becoming very fast/world class. I think you can can still become decently fast with intermediate methods ( as Tao Yu says the 40-60 range, maybe even sub-40 if you're persistent ). Personally, I want to be decently fast ( long term I'm shooting for mid 40s ) without the time investment of 3-style but still learning a better/more complex method than OP/M2.

Well, generally, knowing fewer algorithms inside and out will lead to higher TPS than learner tons of algorithms which you are less familiar with. Idk I'm probably wrong but I thought it was at least worth bringing up.
People can get sub 40 with m2/op

Having high tps takes longer with 3 style but that is mainly due to pauses.

Honestly 3 style is easier than people think. Most of the work is drilling the comms.
 

sqAree

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Berlin
WCA
2015JAEH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I don't know all the intermediate methods mentioned in this thread, but mid 40s is definitely possible with Orozco, Eka or M2/OP (source: I averaged low 40s global with U2/Orozco before switching to 3-style). Those methods are similarly fast, and similarly complex, so it doesn't really matter what you pick.
Alternatively you can learn 3-style with low effort and average 40 seconds too, it's possible without putting in too much effort, just take the intuitive route and sometimes do solves.
 

Hazel

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,605
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
BH is supposed to mean using move (HTM) optimal algs for every case. This is really easy to learn since it's only about 30 cases or so after symmetry, but it's a bit of a weird term to have since there isn't really any practical application to using move optimal algs. Nevertheless, this is how it is defined on the speedsolving wiki, and how I've always seen it used.
Sorry, a bit of a tangent—if BH is only ~30 cases after symmetry, wouldn't it be relatively easy to learn BH and then slowly transition to faster "algs" until you're at real 3-style?
 

Tao Yu

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,168
Location
Ireland
WCA
2012YUTA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I this is with the assumption that you're goal is becoming very fast/world class. I think you can can still become decently fast with intermediate methods ( as Tao Yu says the 40-60 range, maybe even sub-40 if you're persistent ). Personally, I want to be decently fast ( long term I'm shooting for mid 40s ) without the time investment of 3-style but still learning a better/more complex method than OP/M2.

I feel like it's surprisingly difficult to think this way by the time you actually get to around sub minute. Learning 3-style at that stage is honestly such a pleasant experience. Learning the commutators is really interesting and teaches you a lot of new things about the cube, and every time you manage to use a comm in a solve it feels like getting a PLL skip (imagine 10 PLL skips per solve!). It even helps with memo somewhat - as your execution becomes faster you won't need to memo as clearly anymore because you don't need to retain it for as long. I see a lot of people go from 60 to 30 faster than they went from 1:30 to 1:00. It's just PB after PB after PB during that period.

Compare that to the alternative which is to spam TPS using an intermediate method and I think you'll understand why there aren't so many sub 40 eka or Orozco users who don't ever intend to learn 3-style.

Well, generally, knowing fewer algorithms inside and out will lead to higher TPS than learner tons of algorithms which you are less familiar with. Idk I'm probably wrong but I thought it was at least worth bringing up.

It's a reasonable assumption, but in this case it simply turns out that human beings are capable of more than you thought :p

One thing that does help is that there are a lot of algs with similar fingertricks.

Sorry, a bit of a tangent—if BH is only ~30 cases after symmetry, wouldn't it be relatively easy to learn BH and then slowly transition to faster "algs" until you're at real 3-style?

Yeah you can do this, and in fact this is how I learned it (from Brian Yu's tutorial on this forum). I would say that it's still kind of pointless to impose the move optimal restriction though. The approach that I would teach to someone wanting to get sub 30 as fast as possible is to just start with bad comms (that aren't necessarily move-optimal) that you come up with yourself and eventually transition to faster algs.
 

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
370
If you follow any of my content ( which I encourage you to do ) it's fairly clear that I advocate for method variety. I was kind of just hoping there would be more method variety in blind.
Yeah you can do this, and in fact this is how I learned it (from Brian Yu's tutorial on this forum).
This is very nice to know. Makes 3-Style seem much more accessible than making spreadsheets and learning hundred of algorithms. Will have to check out the guide.

However, given my goals, I think I'm going to grind out Ayam/Eka and see how far I can push it.
 

m0nkiem0nkie

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2020
Messages
8
I appreciate the topic started by the OP (Thanks Silky), for the reason that the intermediate methods are being highlighted as stand-alone 3BLD-methods, instead of being quite often mislabeled as just a stepping stone towards full 3-style.

For those that do want to achieve the highest level of blindsolving, by all means, skip the intermediate methods, but for the rest, consider the intermediate levels as viable options to provide you tons of fun and creativeness to solve the cube, all the while being quite efficient as well.

Answering Silky’s original request to debate the intermediate blind methods:
This would be more of a personal preference. I myself started with basic M2/OP and I gradually moved on to a combination of advanced M2 and EKA, solving 2 pieces at the same time shooting to various helper positions and this alone gives me sufficient pleasure to solve the cube numerous times, without ever getting bored.
 

Tao Yu

Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
1,168
Location
Ireland
WCA
2012YUTA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
If you follow any of my content ( which I encourage you to do ) it's fairly clear that I advocate for method variety. I was kind of just hoping there would be more method variety in blind.

I understand what you mean. I think it's pretty incredible for example in 3x3 that there are two competing methods at the top level - it just turns out that this isn't the case for 3BLD.

This is very nice to know. Makes 3-Style seem much more accessible than making spreadsheets and learning hundred of algorithms. Will have to check out the guide.

However, given my goals, I think I'm going to grind out Ayam/Eka and see how far I can push it.

All I'm saying is that when you get faster you might suddenly find an urge to learn 3-style. If it happens you should not resist the urge :p.

It doesn't have to be like learning hundreds of algorithms. I'm sure when you're using Eka or Ayam you'll wonder at times whether there is a faster commutator that you can set up to. If that happens I would recommend looking it up in a spreadsheet just to see what people came up with, even if you don't intend to memorize it - just for the curiosity. If you're interested in method variety you should be interested in these things (understanding how different methods work).

I think learning BH is probably a decent idea for you. It is basically an intermediate method and should improve your ability to come up with comms on the fly using setup moves. In fact now that I think of it, I think it has to be faster than Orozco and Ayam, and maybe even Eka.
 
Last edited:

dudefaceguy

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
253
It doesn't really matter if you start out by learning 3-style intuitively, the end goal is obviously to have all 818 speed-optimal algs memorized (and by the way, the top BLDers memorized optimized algs for every other buffer too which equates to ~2700 comms/algs, as well as many many other algs).

Being intuitive helps of course, but that doesn't mean that you can't TPS the hell out of it, it just means that it's easier to learn initially.
There is another good reason to learn intuitive 3Style: it's fun! I have no intention of being fast or even attending a competition, but intuitive 3Style is just so much fun - it is by far the most fun I've had cubing. I consider it as a method on its own, since I just do 3Style intuitively without any plans to drill the commutators or increase my speed. There are about 4 classes of commutators for edges and corners, and once you are familiar with all of the different classes you can easily construct a commutator on the fly. But of course most people will use it as a stepping stone, and in that sense it is an intermediate method on the way to full 3Style.

Jake Klassen has a good video comparing Eka and Orozco and his conclusion is that you shouldn't do either, but just go with intuitive 3Style. None of the intermediate methods are really faster than M2/OP, and you can get pretty fast with M2/OP, so only learn 3Style if you want to be truly world class or because it's fun.
 

abunickabhi

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
3,809
Location
Yo
WCA
2013GHOD01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I agree with Tao's argument that ZBLD does not look feasible. It is a weird way of trying to use a 3x3 speed solve step into BLD method pieces orientation and permutation. 3OP is a much convenient but its an ancient method and it is just better to do 3-style instead.

I think 3-style is an intermediate method too before people start doing full floating edges and 5-style edges, F R' S2 R F' R U S2 U' R' .
 

sqAree

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Berlin
WCA
2015JAEH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
There is another good reason to learn intuitive 3Style: it's fun! I have no intention of being fast or even attending a competition, but intuitive 3Style is just so much fun - it is by far the most fun I've had cubing. I consider it as a method on its own, since I just do 3Style intuitively without any plans to drill the commutators or increase my speed. There are about 4 classes of commutators for edges and corners, and once you are familiar with all of the different classes you can easily construct a commutator on the fly. But of course most people will use it as a stepping stone, and in that sense it is an intermediate method on the way to full 3Style.

Jake Klassen has a good video comparing Eka and Orozco and his conclusion is that you shouldn't do either, but just go with intuitive 3Style. None of the intermediate methods are really faster than M2/OP, and you can get pretty fast with M2/OP, so only learn 3Style if you want to be truly world class or because it's fun.

While I agree with your conclusion I want to point out to everyone that Eka and Orozco are certainly faster than M2/OP.
There is no debate about intermediate methods vs OP, but even just M2 is already slower than Eka and Orozco.
I can't be bothered to type out a long argument about that, so I will just mention that M2 IS basically some kind of special case of Orozco (with a bad buffer and helper), using Orozco with the recommended buffers will make the method a bit faster. Eka is accepted by everyone to be faster than Orozco as a standalone method, so no need to get into that.
 

BlindNerd

Premium Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
Messages
18
WCA
2014PAUL05
Why not just go from M2OP to 3style? Learning Orozco for edges would be optimising a beginner method, and for corners you are just learning some of 3style, yet going almost twice as slow. If you use Eka, you are just using bad 3 style. If you use OP, you get to learn the fundementals!!! and it is very easy. I believe you can debate OP vs intermediate methods. If we use the analogy of F2L, using an intermediate method would be like using keyhole before learning F2L, and M2OP would just be layer by layer.
 

sqAree

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
858
Location
Berlin
WCA
2015JAEH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Why not just go from M2OP to 3style? Learning Orozco for edges would be optimising a beginner method, and for corners you are just learning some of 3style, yet going almost twice as slow. If you use Eka, you are just using bad 3 style. If you use OP, you get to learn the fundementals!!! and it is very easy. I believe you can debate OP vs intermediate methods. If we use the analogy of F2L, using an intermediate method would be like using keyhole before learning F2L, and M2OP would just be layer by layer.
My post was about one specific aspect of blind methods, that is, the speed. What I meant is that there is no debate about OP being slower than the intermediate methods.
But of course OP is a very good starting point to learn the fundamentals, in fact I would recommend starting out with OP to any beginner!

While M2 was a very good stepping stone a few years ago, nowadays I don't see why anyone should use it. OP is enough to understand the fundamentals, after that you can maybe learn edge comms directly, or some sort of intermediate method that is better than M2. Remember, something like U2 or Orozco is just as easy as M2, but slightly faster and teaches you many things that you want to learn about 3-style anyway (in particular, you get to use the correct buffer from the beginning, and you get used to a variety of slice finger tricks that you wouldn't with M2).
Of course learning Orozco is never a waste of time, because it's a strict subset of 3-style. It might help some people with their transition to 3-style. Certainly, some people's progress might also be slowed down because they stay too long with Orozco without transitioning to 3-style. Still, it's a nice tool that might help some people, especially those who are intimidated by 3-style and still want to get there.
 

DNF_Cuber

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
1,893
Location
Beyond the grave.....
My post was about one specific aspect of blind methods, that is, the speed. What I meant is that there is no debate about OP being slower than the intermediate methods.
But of course OP is a very good starting point to learn the fundamentals, in fact I would recommend starting out with OP to any beginner!

While M2 was a very good stepping stone a few years ago, nowadays I don't see why anyone should use it. OP is enough to understand the fundamentals, after that you can maybe learn edge comms directly, or some sort of intermediate method that is better than M2. Remember, something like U2 or Orozco is just as easy as M2, but slightly faster and teaches you many things that you want to learn about 3-style anyway (in particular, you get to use the correct buffer from the beginning, and you get used to a variety of slice finger tricks that you wouldn't with M2).
Of course learning Orozco is never a waste of time, because it's a strict subset of 3-style. It might help some people with their transition to 3-style. Certainly, some people's progress might also be slowed down because they stay too long with Orozco without transitioning to 3-style. Still, it's a nice tool that might help some people, especially those who are intimidated by 3-style and still want to get there.
Learning Orozco definitely helped me learn 3 style corners. I still haven't learned 3 style edges though.
 
Top