• 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 35,000+ people from around the world today!

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

Blind'r than Blind?

Which "blind" format would give you the fastest times?


  • Total voters
    22
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #1
Let's say you have a choice of 2 new formats for 3x3x3 blind solving:

In the first format, your cube is scrambled and then placed in a reference position with U=White and F=Green, inside a blackbox with openings just big enough to allow entry of your hands to perform the solving. An identically scrambled cube is then placed on top of this blackbox, and is also kept covered until you are ready to start. When you are ready to begin this "blind" solve, you must start the stackmat timer, and then remove the cover from the cube on top of the box, revealing the scrambled pattern for the cube you need to solve inside the box. You cannot look directly inside the box, or take that cube out during the solve, but you ARE allowed to touch and examine the reference cube on top of the box as often as you wish. However, you cannot make any face/slice turns at all on this reference cube, but cube rotations are fine. The only cube you are allowed to make turns on, is the cube inside the box. The solve is completed when you stop the timer, and the judge opens the blackbox to determine if the cube on the inside has been correctly solved.

In the second format, everything is exactly the same as the previous one EXCEPT that once the timer is started, and the cover is removed from the scrambled reference cube on top of the box, rather than going directly inside the box to begin the solve, you 1st take the reference cube from on top of the box, and begin analyzing it for cycles. No turns can be performed on this cube, but you ARE allowed to use paper and pencil to jot down your entire solution. Note that the timer is kept running during this analysis. After completing your mentally calculated hand-written solution, you place it on top of the box along with the reference cube. The judge then removes the scrambled reference cube so that you can no longer see it, and you can now place your hands inside the box to actually begin making the turns required to "blind" solve the cube on the inside. You may refer back to your hand-written solution on top of the box as often as you wish. The only cube you are allowed to make turns on, is the cube inside the box. The solve is completed when you stop the timer, and the judge opens the blackbox to determine if the cube on the inside has been correctly solved.

Which one of these formats would you choose to give you the fastest times?

...
 
Last edited:

Ranzha

Friendly, Neighbourhoodly
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
2,550
Likes
95
Location
Reno, Nevada, United States
WCA
2009HARN01
YouTube
RanzhaTheLoneVlogger
#2
Let's say you have a choice of 2 new formats for 3x3x3 blind solving:

In the first format, your cube is scrambled and then placed in a reference position with U=White and F=Green, inside a blackbox with openings just big enough to allow entry of your hands to perform the solving. An identically scrambled cube is then placed on top of this blackbox, and is also kept covered until you are ready to start. When you are ready to begin this "blind" solve, you must start the stackmat timer, and then remove the cover from the cube on top of the box, revealing the scrambled pattern for the cube you need to solve inside the box. You cannot look directly inside the box, or take that cube out during the solve, but you ARE allowed to touch and examine the reference cube on top of the box as often as you wish. However, you cannot make any turns at all on this reference cube. The only cube you are allowed to make turns on, is the cube inside the box. The solve is completed when you stop the timer, and the judge opens the blackbox to determine if the cube on the inside has been correctly solved.

In the second format, everything is exactly the same as the previous one EXCEPT that once the timer is started, and the cover is removed from the scrambled reference cube on top of the box, rather than going directly inside the box to begin the solve, you 1st take the reference cube from on top of the box, and begin analyzing it for cycles. No turns can be performed on this cube, but you ARE allowed to use paper and pencil to jot down your entire solution. Note that the timer is kept running during this analysis. After completing your mentally calculated hand-written solution, you place it on top of the box along with the reference cube. The judge then removes the scrambled reference cube so that you can no longer see it, and you can now place your hands inside the box to actually begin making the turns required to "blind" solve the cube on the inside. You may refer back to your hand-written solution on top of the box as often as you wish. The only cube you are allowed to make turns on, is the cube inside the box. The solve is completed when you stop the timer, and the judge opens the blackbox to determine if the cube on the inside has been correctly solved.

Which one of these formats would you choose to give you the fastest time?

...
Lol, I'd choose the second one.

I never practise BLD fully, but usually break it up into all edges, all corners, or 4 corners, 6 edges.
I've seen that taking notes (but not necessarily using them as reference) actually helps my solve.
 

Micael

Premium Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
644
Likes
1
Location
Quebec, Canada
WCA
2009BOUL03
YouTube
mboulet24
#5
The first one should be faster (than the second one). I would memo visually few pieces in seconds then solve them. Then do it again for few more pieces. It should not be a problem to memo 4 pieces in less than 4 seconds. One limitation can be the time of transition when hands go from one cube to the other.

Such event does not sound practicable in actual competition, but still sounds fun.
 
Last edited:

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,758
Likes
1,738
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
#7
Can we have option 2 without writing down anything? :p
The way it's worded, it's clear we can. We're "allowed" to use paper and pencil, but not required.

Actually, I'm thinking that the sub-30 BLD solvers (such as Haiyan and Ville) would find this a silly exercise, since in each case they would simply pick up the reference cube, memorize it, and then solve the one in the box, just like a normal BLD solve. I suspect most people would find it difficult to beat sub-30 times by taking advantage of one of these new proposed formats.

I must admit I'm finding it difficult to believe that I would be able to beat my current 1:15 best time from regular BLD with one of these alternate formats, too. So I suspect I'd do the same - just solve it regular BLD. So incidentally, that means I can't respond to the poll because I need a fourth choice: they'd both be exactly the same.

A fun idea, but I don't think it's practical because the way it's worded, a regular BLD solve probably beats any other approach, for those who are good at BLD.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
392
Likes
1
Location
Jakarta, Indonesia
WCA
2009ADIW01
YouTube
WicakTP04
#8
...inside a blackbox with openings just big enough to allow entry of your hands to perform the solving. An identically scrambled cube is then placed on top of this blackbox...
...but you ARE allowed to use paper and pencil to jot down your entire solution.

None of them is practical for multi BLD.
The box would be very large and the note would be very long :D
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #10
I must admit I'm finding it difficult to believe that I would be able to beat my current 1:15 best time from regular BLD with one of these alternate formats, too. So I suspect I'd do the same - just solve it regular BLD. So incidentally, that means I can't respond to the poll because I need a fourth choice: they'd both be exactly the same.
:) You DON'T have to decide if either one of those alternative formats is faster than the existing BLD format. This scenario was actually devised to prevent your existing method from biasing your answer. If you don't see any way to take advantage, of the visual crutches provided in either of those 2 alternative formats, then your answer would be - "I Don't Know" which of those 2 would be faster than the other, since you consider both to be exactly the same.

But this is being presented as a challenge, and MAYBE you can find some angle, that would make one of the formats faster than the other.
How about being able to actually see at any time, the original scrambled position of the corners using the reference cube in format#1? How about being able to focus 100% on the cycle solution, by jotting down like in format#2, instead of directing brainpower and attention on forming memory paths. How about using freestyle methods coupled with a visual on the reference cube as in format#1? How about jotting down part, and memoing the rest using format#2? Please do a little more reThinkering™:), and then make your response to this poll.

...
 

jms_gears1

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
1,303
Likes
0
WCA
2009MAUP01
YouTube
azureriot
#11
Honestly i think that Format two would be faster.
Instead of writing down notes. Why not just write down the pieces that you need to swap in the order you need to swap them.

Although as Mr. HUG, hey said For people who are say sub-30 its not going to matter much.
 

Faz

Former Clock NR Holder
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
4,251
Likes
105
Location
Melbourne, Australia
WCA
2009ZEMD01
YouTube
fazrulz1
#12
So, the second one is just BLD with pen and paper, which would be slower than just doing regular BLD for most people. I don't think many people would use the paper to be honest.

The first one is more interesting, and would allow for a stop-start method. I would get faster times with the first one, for sure.
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,758
Likes
1,738
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
#13
I must admit I'm finding it difficult to believe that I would be able to beat my current 1:15 best time from regular BLD with one of these alternate formats, too. So I suspect I'd do the same - just solve it regular BLD. So incidentally, that means I can't respond to the poll because I need a fourth choice: they'd both be exactly the same.
:) You DON'T have to decide if either one of those alternative formats is faster than the existing BLD format. This scenario was actually devised to prevent your existing method from biasing your answer. If you don't see any way to take advantage, of the visual crutches provided in either of those 2 alternative formats, then your answer would be - "I Don't Know" which of those 2 would be faster than the other, since you consider both to be exactly the same.

But this is being presented as a challenge, and MAYBE you can find some angle, that would make one of the formats faster than the other.
How about being able to actually see at any time, the original scrambled position of the corners using the reference cube in format#1? How about being able to focus 100% on the cycle solution, by jotting down like in format#2, instead of directing brainpower and attention on forming memory paths. How about using freestyle methods coupled with a visual on the reference cube as in format#1? How about jotting down part, and memoing the rest using format#2? Please do a little more reThinkering™:), and then make your response to this poll.

...
But you don't seem to understand, I have to actually come up with a solution to using one of the two other methods that will actually be faster than a regular BLD solve, or else my answer was correct. Because a regular BLD solve is a perfectly legal way to accomplish the two options you provided according to the rules you gave. You do realize that, correct? If you solve using an ordinary BLD method (except that you examine the outside cube, instead of the inside one), you're following all the rules you gave for these other options precisely, just not taking advantage of the new rules.

Edit: And by the way, I will try, at least some, to figure out a way to take advantage of one of the two methods to do better than a normal BLD solve. Maybe I'll think of something. I suppose that with the first one, doing first edges, then corners, or vice versa, might wind up a little faster for me than a normal BLD solve. But if that's all I do different, it seems a little pointless - surely there's something better?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,686
Likes
24
WCA
2004CHAN04
#15
There was a discussion among me and some of my friends (who are all blindsolvers using the 3OP method) when a certain someone was caught cheating in BLD events. This person used M2 and was able to peek under his blindfold during his solve. We noted that while this might be slightly difficult to pull off effectively with 3OP (you'd have to look around the cube for two pieces for each cycle, thus costing you time), this cheating method is not as much of a problem with 2 cycle methods like M2, since you only look for one piece at a time, and the piece you need to see is in the same position every time.

It won't be so simple with Format 1 (since the cube you can see isn't being solved as you're looking at it), but with the appropriate method I think it can be done so that you won't need a separate inspection phase. At the very least you'll have a reduced inspection phase, and then an execution phase that is slightly slowed down. Maybe you can OH the execution cube while you use your other hand to rotate the inspection cube so that you can see the relevant pieces, but M2 moves are tricky with one hand. I don't know, this is just an idea.

This is in contrast to Format 2, which does require a separate inspection phase (which can possibly be longer if you have to take notes), and for which I don't see how it can be faster than my normal BLD method. For some people it can be faster, but my memorization is already close to one pass memo anyway, and it's highly unlikely being able to take notes will save me any time.

So my answer would be Format 1, if I formulated a strategy and trained for it specifically. I'm a bit shaky on M2 though, and OH slows me down a lot, so I can't reliably test this hypothesis. Yet.
 
Last edited:
Top