rezaqorbani
Member
Last edited:
3BLD Buffer
- Thread starter rezaqorbani
- Start date
RayLam
Regular
Hey 
Liping Jia told me that he has changing buffers,gonna use ufl and uf.By now i havn't know Yuxin wang's buffers and would tell you soon
Liping Jia told me that he has changing buffers,gonna use ufl and uf.By now i havn't know Yuxin wang's buffers and would tell you soon
ChickenWrap
Veteran
That is a nice chart, but just because something is more popular doesn't mean it is faster or better. It is similar to how most people use different BLD orientations but any given one isn't faster.
szalejot
Regular
But BLD orientation does not affect solve, and buffer placement affects algorithms and commutators (one can be more fingershortcut friendly than other).
As you can see fastest BLD solvers are using different buffer placement, but all 7 fastest use DF as edge buffer. All next 9 use UF as edge buffer. Coincidence...?
RayLam
Regular
agree
ChickenWrap
Veteran
I completely agree, but if you watch solves, you can see that the fastest BLD solvers don't use the same commutators for the same cases. There are so many possibilities that no matter what buffer you use, you can make it work (especially if you don't expect to be world-class).
Morgoth890
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2013
- Messages
- 16
Do the top BLD solvers always start from the same buffer? Like if the buffer is already solved from the beginning, or if a new cycle begins, will they do some formula to put an other cubie in their buffer?
I had a look at some reconstructions on cubesolv.es and i think a special formula was done for that when the buffer was solved from the start.
I learned BH corners recently and i'm using floating buffers: I start by ULF, but if it's already solved i will just do my commutators based on the next non-solved corner (searching clockwise in the U layer and then in the D layer).
I don't really understand why you would absolutely want to start your commutators from the same position as it requires you to do one additional formula after each new cycle, and if you understand the mechanisms behind commutators you should be able to solve 3-cycles from any buffer.
Is it for easier fingertricks on specific buffers? Or to be able to recognize/execute formulas quicker?
I would imagine that with the amount of practice top BLD solvers put in, it would be more efficient to solve from any position, maybe with one "favorite" buffer, but without adding one formula for each cycle.
I had a look at some reconstructions on cubesolv.es and i think a special formula was done for that when the buffer was solved from the start.
I learned BH corners recently and i'm using floating buffers: I start by ULF, but if it's already solved i will just do my commutators based on the next non-solved corner (searching clockwise in the U layer and then in the D layer).
I don't really understand why you would absolutely want to start your commutators from the same position as it requires you to do one additional formula after each new cycle, and if you understand the mechanisms behind commutators you should be able to solve 3-cycles from any buffer.
Is it for easier fingertricks on specific buffers? Or to be able to recognize/execute formulas quicker?
I would imagine that with the amount of practice top BLD solvers put in, it would be more efficient to solve from any position, maybe with one "favorite" buffer, but without adding one formula for each cycle.
DrKorbin
Veteran
Those next 9 are just lazy noobs. Also UWR (single and avg5) belongs to Maskow. I think UF has the same potential as DF.
A Leman
Veteran
His list on the left is not showing speed and should not be numbered. He is just grouping buffers. Before Kaijun Lin's recent solves, all of the top 5 used the UF buffer.
porkynator
Veteran
And then there's that guy who uses UR for edges. Not even on the M layer, lol. He's such a noob.
If you are wondering why, it's because I've never really switched method. My transitions (OP->turbo and turbo->commutators) have always been smooth; whenever I learned a new alg, I implemented it in my solves. I tried to change to UF once, but I gave; I thought the gain wasn't worth the effort. So I still use OP buffers.
We can say I still use (an advanced version of) OP.
Also, I'm surprised only a few cubers use adjacent buffers, which is in my opinion the best choice (it makes parity suck less).
If you are wondering why, it's because I've never really switched method. My transitions (OP->turbo and turbo->commutators) have always been smooth; whenever I learned a new alg, I implemented it in my solves. I tried to change to UF once, but I gave; I thought the gain wasn't worth the effort. So I still use OP buffers.
We can say I still use (an advanced version of) OP.
Also, I'm surprised only a few cubers use adjacent buffers, which is in my opinion the best choice (it makes parity suck less).
Nicck
Member
Floating buffers would be cool.
But... you would have to memorize the locations of cycle breaks, perhaps include buffers in your memo, and deal with double transpositions arising from cases where more than one of your cycles are even (and executing these double transpositions as the products of two three cycles would negate the benefits of using floating buffers in the fist place).
But.. perhaps clever ways of doing these things just haven't been discovered yet, because nobody's searching for them.
Also, floating buffers (meaning no restrictions on which pieces can act as buffer pieces) seems like a more pure approach to blindsolving, but complications could make their implementation much less attractive.
Interesting stuff...
But... you would have to memorize the locations of cycle breaks, perhaps include buffers in your memo, and deal with double transpositions arising from cases where more than one of your cycles are even (and executing these double transpositions as the products of two three cycles would negate the benefits of using floating buffers in the fist place).
But.. perhaps clever ways of doing these things just haven't been discovered yet, because nobody's searching for them.
Also, floating buffers (meaning no restrictions on which pieces can act as buffer pieces) seems like a more pure approach to blindsolving, but complications could make their implementation much less attractive.
Interesting stuff...
Angel Lim
Regular
The chart doesn't tell the whole story.
If I were to redo it, I'd make sure my buffers were on the same layer.
If I were to redo it, I'd make sure my buffers were on the same layer.
Nicck
Member
For convenient more convenient parity fixes? (pll edge-corner double transpositions)
Angel Lim
Regular
Yeah.
TMOY
Veteran
"would" ??? Why are you speaking of them just as if nobody had ever tried to use them ? Floating buffers ARE cool period
And for double 2-cycles, there are many cases where you can easily setup them into a H-perm/Z-perm/(M2U2)^2/(L2U2)^3 (for edges) or H-perm/E-perm/triple sexy move/triple sledge (for corners), or probably others which, just as you say, haven't been discovered yet.
L
lucarubik
Guest
and how does it work, ive been thinking of using UL, does it make you use S turns too much or is it even more M/E slide friendly wich is what im looking for, also are you using R turns more than L ones or the other way around?
porkynator
Veteran
Recentyl I started using many S moves, and I find them convenient. Try R U R' (S R2 S') R' U' R' (I do S and S' with my right middle finger).
I think I use M less than one using UF or DF. E moves should be about the same.
I'm not sure if I use more R or L moves.
L
lucarubik
Guest
that one i'd solve it as RU 2 gen R' U R U R, U2, maybe thats the only reason why my R move count is almost double than the L one, its defenetly a great buffer, still cant decide if worth changing tho
abunickabhi
Legend
Good list compilation , but I think the concept of buffer is growing out to be a bit irrelevant , considering how many targets the top 100 solvers , are learning to float to.....
porkynator
Veteran
No, I use Uf/UFr. When I started 4BLD and 5BLD many of my 3BLD algs did not work on bigger cubes, so I decided to "start from scratch" with the buffer that I thought made more sense. I don't use S moves for BigBLD, but I have not optimized my algs at all.
Similar threads
