Best square-1 blindfold tutorial

[abunickabhi]

Solving a square-1 blindfolded is no easy task. It is considered much harder to learn compared to 3BLD.

There are four main tutorials out there for solving square-1 blindfolded:

1) Mike Hughey's method (You can find it in his signature on SS):
Published in 2010 or before ( with Christian Eggermont )
Pros He used this method successfully to get an almost impossible UWR of 10/10 MBLD of square-1 puzzle.
Cons Too much tracing needs to be done. Move count is more, algs not speed-optimal according to current hardware.

2) Gnarls method:
Published in Aug 2017
Pros Uses templates, so not every cube shape needs to be memorised.
Cons might fail for some cube shape cases.
its like OP/OP of sq-1 so more slice count.

3) Enoch's method (mixture of Gnarls and Mike's method):
Published in Jan 2018
Pro Most recent one and has a 30 minute video tutorial as well.
Documentation is good, and clear.

4) Raul's method (Documentation still unpublished)
Published in Nov 2020
Pros Super recent one, much easier, knowledge of 3BLD not needed
Cons No written or video tutorial yet, and if it is made, it will be in Spanish.

I am not able to assess which method is the best, and which approach should I give a shot in 2021. If anyone has gone through all the 4 methods, and know the pros and cons, it will be quite helpful for me, as it will save time and effort.

Also the UWR for sq-1 BLD is 44.83 with no proof (youku video link does not work). What is the UWR2 of sq-1, so that I will get to know which method has been fine tuned more.

 

[Scollier]

Also the UWR for sq-1 BLD is 44.83 with no proof (youku video link does not work).

The link works for me...

 

[Mike Hughey]

Other than my approach to get to square, all of the algs in my method can easily be swapped out with better ones. I was simply giving the algs I used in my method description, primarily for my own benefit when I forgot them, which I have done several times. The algs aren't really part of the method.

If I were learning it for the first time now and not trying to make my own method, I'd almost assuredly try to learn Enoch's, though. At the moment I've forgotten how to do it (I've forgotten most of the cubeshape prememorization, and I've forgotten a lot of the algorithms too, although there's really not that many of those to relearn), so if I ever decide to do it again, I probably will consider learning Enoch's method, although I might go ahead and memorize all the cubeshapes with his method, since that's not really all that hard to do.

 

[qunbacca]

@abunickabhi I think you might want to add another method to your list:

5) Speedblind

If you solve the square-1 frequently enough (talking about sighted solves here), there is typically a route you commonly use to get the square-1 back to cube for a given cubeshape. In speedblind all you need to do is trace each individual corner and edge pieces through that route during your memorization and you will know where each of them will end up after you do the restoration. To me this is a good alternative to methods 1-4. Additionally, you intuitively develop a sense of where each of the pieces would go for some of the more common cube shapes after practicing speedblind a fair amount.

 

[seungju choi]

Which is harder
2<pyra<skweb<4<mega<5<sq
in my feeling

 

[Mike Hughey]

I think megaminx is harder than 5x5x5. While the piece count might seem to favor megaminx, there are too many possible positions for each piece on megaminx, so memorization is much harder, in my opinion. The method of solving it is simple, but it's quite hard to actually do a solve, since memorization is so rough.

Square-1 method is hard to learn, but if you take the time to learn it well, it eventually becomes about as easy as 4x4x4, I think, and maybe even slightly easier. Certainly when I was good at Square-1 BLD, I was both faster and more accurate at Square-1 than at 4x4x4, despite having probably done more 4x4x4 BLD solves than Square-1 BLD solves.

Edit: Then again, I just saw your megaminx near miss BLD solve; looks like you're better at megaminx than I ever have been, so maybe I should defer to your judgment.

 

[seungju choi]

I think megaminx is harder than 5x5x5. While the piece count might seem to favor megaminx, there are too many possible positions for each piece on megaminx, so memorization is much harder, in my opinion. The method of solving it is simple, but it's quite hard to actually do a solve, since memorization is so rough.

Square-1 method is hard to learn, but if you take the time to learn it well, it eventually becomes about as easy as 4x4x4, I think, and maybe even slightly easier. Certainly when I was good at Square-1 BLD, I was both faster and more accurate at Square-1 than at 4x4x4, despite having probably done more 4x4x4 BLD solves than Square-1 BLD solves.

Edit: Then again, I just saw your megaminx near miss BLD solve; looks like you're better at megaminx than I ever have been, so maybe I should defer to your judgment.

Because I use Korean letters for mega, I could do it easily
I'm going on sq and little easier thanks to your advice

 

[qunbacca]

Which is harder
2<pyra<skweb<4<mega<5<sq
in my feeling

Mine would be 2<pyra<skewb<4<5<mega<sq-1

 

[abunickabhi]

Because I use Korean letters for mega, I could do it easily
I'm going on sq and little easier thanks to your advice

Korean for mega is nice idea. I tried learning Hangul, it is super easy to learn, but I must have forgotten most of it as I don't have practice and someone to speak to.

 

[Raul Low]

Hi!

Solving a square-1 blindfolded is no easy task. It is considered much harder to learn compared to 3BLD.

There are four main tutorials out there for solving square-1 blindfolded:

1) Mike Hughey's method (You can find it in his signature on SS):
Published in 2010 or before ( with Christian Eggermont )
Pros He used this method successfully to get an almost impossible UWR of 10/10 MBLD of square-1 puzzle.
Cons Too much tracing needs to be done. Move count is more, algs not speed-optimal according to current hardware.

2) Gnarls method:
Published in Aug 2017
Pros Uses templates, so not every cube shape needs to be memorised.
Cons might fail for some cube shape cases.
its like OP/OP of sq-1 so more slice count.

3) Enoch's method (mixture of Gnarls and Mike's method):
Published in Jan 2018
Pro Most recent one and has a 30 minute video tutorial as well.
Documentation is good, and clear.

4) Raul's method (Documentation still unpublished)
Published in Nov 2020
Pros Super recent one, much easier, knowledge of 3BLD not needed
Cons No written or video tutorial yet, and if it is made, it will be in Spanish.

I am not able to assess which method is the best, and which approach should I give a shot in 2021. If anyone has gone through all the 4 methods, and know the pros and cons, it will be quite helpful for me, as it will save time and effort.

Also the UWR for sq-1 BLD is 44.83 with no proof (youku video link does not work). What is the UWR2 of sq-1, so that I will get to know which method has been fine tuned more.

 

[abunickabhi]

Hi!

Excellent video. I do understand a bit of Spanish.

This is the fastest sq-1 BLD method out there for sure.

 

[Silky]

Excellent video. I do understand a bit of Spanish.

This is the fastest sq-1 BLD method out there for sure.

Exactly why would this be the fastest method?

 

[abunickabhi]

Exactly why would this be the fastest method?

Raul Low said this method resembles the speedsolving method more, so it is a faster blind method.

 

[NebraskanSpeedsolver]

@White KB should definitely try this. He's pretty good at squan

 

[lvcuber]

Excellent video. I do understand a bit of Spanish.

This is the fastest sq-1 BLD method out there for sure.

I can probably make a video in English for this method if I find the time.

 

[White KB]

@White KB should definitely try this. He's pretty good at squan

I'm 7th in the state at single and 6th best at average lol. I'm not even the best sq1r in town
Lol

 

[NebraskanSpeedsolver]

I'm 7th in the state at single and 6th best at average lol. I'm not even the best sq1r in town
Lol

That's still good, considering that I can't solve squan

 

[White KB]

That's still good, considering that I can't solve squan

Big sad. You should try it sometime!

 

[abunickabhi]

I can probably make a video in English for this method if I find the time.

Cool thanks, did you understand this sq-1 blind method in its entirety?

 

[lvcuber]

I didn’t watch the whole thing but I understood the gist of it. I’ll probably rewatch it a few times to grasp the method.