Thats so cool; I also looked at your "How I BLD" link and I noticed you didnt assign letters to the buffer pieces so then you dont need as many letters!
carefull with that, you will need letters on your buffer piece for big cubes bld, not for the buffer sticker itself, but for the other stickers of those pieces. So you need 1 extra letter (or in my case numbers)
 
Is there a list with more than one optimum alg for a given case for the corner permutations of Beyer-Hardwick ?
Please, link.
For example, instead of using B, use F...
 
Should I learn m2 or op and how log does it usually take to learn

The hard part about learning BLD is using Speffz and actually memo-ing, so I would say go straight for M2. It's hard to say on how long it takes to learn, just commit yourself to it and you should have at least a success within a couple of weeks.
 
Am I allowed to request a special order for my multiblind cubes? E.g. if I want to solve my valk 3 first and my guanlong last, I will ask the organizers/runner/judge to arrange them so the valk 3 is to the left and the guanlong is to the right.
 
Am I allowed to request a special order for my multiblind cubes? E.g. if I want to solve my valk 3 first and my guanlong last, I will ask the organizers/runner/judge to arrange them so the valk 3 is to the left and the guanlong is to the right.
I don't think you can request any specific arrangement, but you can arrange them however you want after you start your attempt.
 
Am I allowed to request a special order for my multiblind cubes? E.g. if I want to solve my valk 3 first and my guanlong last, I will ask the organizers/runner/judge to arrange them so the valk 3 is to the left and the guanlong is to the right.

Don't think so, and to be honest I would not allow this if I were a Delegate or Judge.

Such a request being granted is akin to asking for a specific orientation during 3BLD - a seemingly marginal advantage that would grant any future competitors exactly the edge that may be separating them from getting a WR.

This would turn into a sort of loophole and intentional abuses thereof would become a regulations nightmare.

Mark's solution is simple and effective. Or you could start getting cubes of the exact same make and model just for MBLD, saving you the rearrangement time.
 
@mark49152 My question does not seem to be a violation of the regulations. A2e only deals with the orientation, which would be a bigger advantage imo (and a shame that the WR 41/41 was accepted with default orientation, but big respect to Kowalczyk).

A2e: The judge places the puzzle onto the mat in an arbitrary orientation and ensures that it is covered completely.

It seems to be an unpopular request though, so I will just practice random arrangements. And if I win the lottery I will surely buy 42 valk M cubes. lol
 
@mark49152 My question does not seem to be a violation of the regulations. A2e only deals with the orientation
I know, which is why your question wasn't answered with a simple link to the regs.

Although it's not explicit, IMO the spirit of A2e should still apply, which is that when the cover is removed, you just have a random pile of cubes with no help or advantage gained from the way they have been placed (or oriented) by the judge. As soon as you permit competitors to request arrangements of cubes, you introduce potentially unequal conditions.

See also Kamil's comment here: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...5-42-cubes-in-1-00-00-wr5.62814/#post-1209188
 
My question does not seem to be a violation of the regulations. A2e only deals with the orientation, which would be a bigger advantage imo (and a shame that the WR 41/41 was accepted with default orientation, but big respect to Kowalczyk).

Agree. In my opinion it's a big lacuna in regs. I wanted to pickup it after worlds. The regs say only about orientation the cube but not about order of lying it on the table. I think it should be more precise about it and say: "the cubes are put on the table in random orinetation and the order close to square".


Look at Shivam's last attempt: still the cubes are organized in groups of 8 though they touch each other in rows and it looks like they dont. As far as the regs are not clear it's allowed to do.
 
Last edited:
I guess it makes sense to not allow ordering of the cubes, but it needs to be made clearer in the regs. It threw me off a little when I first found out about it at a comp, since when I was solving at home I had a rough order for placing the cubes. I arranged them so I knew where the lower quality cubes were, then I could adjust my turning to them immediately and reduce the risk of unexpected lockups/pops. If I did an attempt with only good hardware I wouldn't care at all.
 
I guess it makes sense to not allow ordering of the cubes, but it needs to be made clearer in the regs. It threw me off a little when I first found out about it at a comp, since when I was solving at home I had a rough order for placing the cubes. I arranged them so I knew where the lower quality cubes were, then I could adjust my turning to them immediately and reduce the risk of unexpected lockups/pops. If I did an attempt with only good hardware I wouldn't care at all.
Exactly. Denying arrangement gives an advantage to rich people who can afford many uniform cubes. It really does take time to find the bad cubes and then arrange them after starting the timer, so time = money. It might or might not be more fair for the judge to arrange them randomly in a cubic shape, but it should at least be decided and mentioned in regulations. It's ridiculous that some people get 8x2 arrangements while others are denied such arrangements. The regulations are considerate in 3x3, 3x3feet (timer can be away from feet if I remember correctly) etc. It's an unnecessary disadvantage to get the cubes in cubic/square shapes, so maybe there should just be some basic regulations like: "Cubes are arranged randomly in 2x4 groups. If less than 8 cubes are attempted, cubes are arranged randomly in 2x3 or 2x2 groups.".
If allowed, I think a chronological order of cubes can easily be arranged. E.g. the competitor could hand in the cubes in his preferred order 1) valk M 2) shitty cube that locks up 3) guanlong 4) valk. Or he could arrange the cubes himself in 2x4 groups so that the scrambler keeps the arrangement while scrambling.
 
Last edited:
I think you maybe misunderstood me a little. I'm not against random cube arrangements, I just want it made clearer in the regs so that people know what to expect in competition. If I knew I was going to get random cube orders I would simply practise that at home first, just like I know to practise with random orientations after scrambling. I only got into a routine of arranging cubes before attempts because I didn't realise it was an issue, and finding out otherwise at a competition doesn't give me much chance to figure out how I want to approach that situation.
 
rich people who can afford many uniform cubes

MF3RS has a rather similar feel and performance to the Valk IMO, and is super cheap. See also: Qiyi Sail, Guanlong and Shengshou. Your excuse is invalid and derails the point of discussion, which is the order different cubes should be placed at. Saving money and / or getting sponsored are also good options.

It's ridiculous that some people get 8x2 arrangements while others are denied such arrangements

Uniform packing in order to make the arrangement of the cubes easier for the staff. Does not give anyone any sort of advantage because everyone has their own procedures for memo and revision, i.e.: Some review in pairs, some in 4-packs and some in 6-packs. As you pick up each cube and memorize them, you may rearrange your own packs in your own way. While a valid sub-point to consider, this is a matter of basic comp logistics when it comes to massive MBLD attempts.

It's an unnecessary disadvantage to get the cubes in cubic/square shapes,

Also logistics. Uniform and compact packing for more efficient usage of table real estate.
 
Back
Top