Blindsolving Discussion and Help

Is it better to try and succeed at solving a 2x2 BLD before attempting 3BLD?
Or is there no advantage/it's not helpful?
 
So, I've been keeping myself busy learning full BH (thanks to all the help on these forums), and am also in the process of creating my own full list of cycles (about 1/4 way done. I find it very helpful to write one rather than just to look at one by someone else). I certainly know enough to at least solve with it, which is what I've been doing.

However, recognising certain commutators tend to take me a while, though, especially when blindfolded, and especially with corners (my execution time is still about 1.5x slower than my previous with M2/OP, entirely because of pauses, methinks. To be fair, though, it's only been ~5 days since I started learning seriously, two of which I was away and didn't have to time to do BLD).

I'm not exactly sure how to word my question, but I'll try anyway and risk embarrassing myself in front of semi-anonymous strangers:
How should I go about practising to cut down on these looong pauses? (I've been doing all of the following for the last few days, all of which were allotted about the same amount of time per day, with minor progress)
- Should I just keep on typing out my list (borrowing comms from other lists where necessary), which I think should bring me a bit more immediate understanding of the commutators I use (and, that way when I've completed with it, I have a comm for every case)?
- Should I practice without my blindfold, solving the cube with only commutators, forcing me to practice coming up with/recalling commutators on the spot, also putting more emphasis on the sticker locations rather than the letter pair involved?
- Should I practice with my blindfold, which means I'll also have to focus on memorising, but also means I have to, well, come up with/recall the comms blindfolded (duh), and I'd be associating the comms with letter pairs rather than only sticker locations.
- Should I stop being stupid by asking questions like this on the forum, and continue doing exactly what I've been doing: don't focus on just one of the above only, but instead all of the simultaneously? (this, of course, means I don't get to, say, finish my letter pair list as quickly, and it means I'm likely to improve at the same rate, which isn't very encouraging)
- Other?

Not sure how much help I can possibly get on such a problem, nor do I know how many others have experienced having ~1/2 of their solve times being blank pauses, but I'll post anyway. :S
Sorry about my incoherent writing.
 
@Philippieskezer: For me, what worked was to break the commutators into small groups, and drill them. I did that by going alphabetically - see my earlier post. By drilling about 20 at a time, you learn them rather quickly and they become pretty automatic. What I would do is: close my eyes and do the first commutator. Then open my eyes to make sure I got it right. Then close my eyes and do the inverse, to solve the other direction on that pair. Then open my eyes again and check to make sure it's solved. Treat it as a time attack: you should be able to do 20 commutators in about 2 1/2 minutes before moving on to the next set of 20. It probably won't take many iterations to get that fast.
 
Phlippieskezer said:
Bunch of good questions.
Click to expand...

I can’t say for sure what is best for you, but I can explain what I have done to learn comms.

1. These are good questions to ask and there is nothing to be embarrassed about.
2. I have a notebook dedicated to my cubing Ideas(great thing to have). I made a page where I wrote down the cycles that would take way too much time to figure out. Then I went back to that list and drilled those algs (and tried to understand them more).
3. I organized other people’s lists to make it easier for me to find the algs based on my letter scheme, but I didn’t consult them that often. Even if you finish your list, will you completely remember it? It is better to understand how they work.
4. I practiced my comms on sighted solves alot, but because of that my memo still has room for improvement. I now feel that memo is more important than method if you want fast results. The plus was that I went through more cycles/day that way and found the tricky ones.
5. When I think of a letter pair, I know exactly where the stickers are that I am shooting to and then recognize the A and B that I need for that geometry. Think-ahead is IMPORTANT. While you are doing one cycle, plan for the next.
Other- A way to practice comms that I used was to go through my letter-pairs alphabetically. I would need to stop and pick-up where I left off at first, but now I can go straight through them.
 
A few questions about BH corners, sorry for asking so much:

1. In byu's tutorial, he says "We see that LFU and FRU are interchangeable with U', and URB and FRU are interchangeable with R'." Does it matter if your interchange is U (instead of U') and R (instead of R')? I think it works even though you have to use a different A, but I just want to make sure.
2. Does the interchange (1 move one, not the 3 move insertion) have to interchange the BUFFER with a another piece? Or any two pieces in the cycle? (URB is my buffer)
3. If so, can you please give an example? (or just the cycle so I can try to figure it out)
4. Can you please give an example of using a pure commutator when the cycle uses pieces that are not all in the U layer? (as in some in the D layer) (or just the cycle so I can try to figure it out)

Thank you very much!
 
Riley said:
A few questions about BH corners, sorry for asking so much:

1. In byu's tutorial, he says "We see that LFU and FRU are interchangeable with U', and URB and FRU are interchangeable with R'." Does it matter if your interchange is U (instead of U') and R (instead of R')? I think it works even though you have to use a different A, but I just want to make sure.
2. Does the interchange (1 move one, not the 3 move insertion) have to interchange the BUFFER with a another piece? Or any two pieces in the cycle? (URB is my buffer)
3. If so, can you please give an example? (or just the cycle so I can try to figure it out)
4. Can you please give an example of using a pure commutator when the cycle uses pieces that are not all in the U layer? (as in some in the D layer) (or just the cycle so I can try to figure it out)

Thank you very much!
Click to expand...

1. The direction of the interchange depends on the direction of the cycle an where you're inserting to.
2. Any two pieces in the cycle. For now ignore buffers and just think about the shapes of cycles.
3. If your buffer is ULB, the cycle ULB>RDF>FDL has the interchange between RDF and FDL, neither of which are the buffer. If your buffer is RDF though, the interchange will include the buffer.
4. ^
 
Thank you very much, Mike Hughey and A Leman. I think the issue isn't as much understanding the commutators as much as it is thinking of them quickly. I'm fairly familiar with commutators (especially as a K4 user), except maybe cyclic shifts (I'm not very familiar with the terminology).

@Mike Hughey: I have read your previous post, but your latest one does help it relate more to my question, thanks. Anyway, I think I'll try what you described. I've never actually done "time attacks" before... It makes sense, although it seems a bit daunting (doing time attacks with 500+ algs...), but I'll try it anyway.

@A Leman: 2. I actually carry a notebook everywhere I go. It's not dedicated to cubing, but I do write some cycles in there now and again, especially when I'm not near an electronic device with the rest of them.
3. Well, I wouldn't really be able to make a list of commutators if I didn't understand them, no? :P I like to think it makes me see alternatives. A commutator I make up on the spot because I'm pressed for time is often different than a commutator I'm writing into a list lazily without worrying about time. I definitely agree that it's good to understand them, though.
4. Great. I've been doing likewise (my sighted freestyle solves are actually faster than my M2/OP sighted solves ever were at the moment (~40-50sec). Blindfolded, not so much). Indeed, my memo needs a lot of work as well (being ~2:30). Honestly, that might have a lot to do with my pausing as well. Also, although I've been writing down my comms, I never actually bothered focusing on the ones I found difficult. D'oh! Definitely not a bad idea to do so (and possibly post the ones I really detest here for alternatives?).
5. Makes sense. I'll try it; thanks.
Other: A little extension from what Mike Hughey said, thanks.

Also,
@Riley: I think I know enough to answer these questions, so:
1. Yes, it works. It really depends on where you plan on making the inserts, though.
2. No. It can be any two pieces.
3. (URB as buffer) A very simple one, IMO: [L', B' R' B]
4. i.e. [F' U F, D2]
 
Last edited:
Thanks Noah and Phlippieskezer. One question for Noah... On your cycle ULB > RDF > FDL, is the algorithm: R U2 R' D R U2 R' D'? The only thing this is that my buffer is URB, so in the cycle URB > RDF > FDL, in which I don't see how to 3 move insert URB to RDF.
 
Riley said:
On your cycle ULB > RDF > FDL, is the algorithm: R U2 R' D R U2 R' D'? The only thing this is that my buffer is URB, so in the cycle URB > RDF > FDL, in which I don't see how to 3 move insert URB to RDF.
Click to expand...

I know the question is for Noah, but... It looks like the commutator you have there actually solves ULB > FDR > LFD, not ULB > RDF > FDL. This is because of your insert. I would personally use [F' U2 F, D] to solve this case.

Also, for URB > RDF > FDL:
[F' U F, D]
 
Riley said:
Thanks Noah and Phlippieskezer. One question for Noah... On your cycle ULB > RDF > FDL, is the algorithm: R U2 R' D R U2 R' D'? The only thing this is that my buffer is URB, so in the cycle URB > RDF > FDL, in which I don't see how to 3 move insert URB to RDF.
Click to expand...

Your cycle solves ULB>FDR>LDF. The correct answer is to use F' U2 F as an insertion instead. URB>RDF>FDL can have F' U F as an insertion with a D' interchange.
 
Phlippieskezer said:
@Mike Hughey: I have read your previous post, but your latest one does help it relate more to my question, thanks. Anyway, I think I'll try what you described. I've never actually done "time attacks" before... It makes sense, although it seems a bit daunting (doing time attacks with 500+ algs...), but I'll try it anyway.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong - I figure normally you should only be doing 18 (or maybe 36, including the inverses) algs at a time - break it down into small groups to work on at a time. Get them down to 2 1/2 minutes or so, then go to the next group.

I really did do whole time attacks for all BH corners and for all BH edges, but only a few times, and only because I'm weird like that. There's really no need to do them all at once.
 
Mike Hughey said:
Don't get me wrong - I figure normally you should only be doing 18 (or maybe 36, including the inverses) algs at a time - break it down into small groups to work on at a time. Get them down to 2 1/2 minutes or so, then go to the next group.

I really did do whole time attacks for all BH corners and for all BH edges, but only a few times, and only because I'm weird like that. There's really no need to do them all at once.
Click to expand...

All right. Sounds good. I think what I'll do then is do time attacks as I make my list (one day, write out 18 buffer-x-other comms, and time attack them, then next day, write out 18 buffer-y-other comms, and time attack them, and so on). Will require more patience, as I don't purely focus on the list, but that's okay.

Thanks for all the advice (everyone).

On another note, it's what I've been using for a while, but is Roman Rooms (which I use just for edges; audio for corners) good for singles, or should I try something else (and keep my Roman Rooms list for when I MBLD)? It's been serving me fairly well so far (definitely better than sentences did, at least), but was just wondering if it's worth keeping even when/if I get fast at memo.
 
Last edited:
Phlippieskezer said:
On another note, it's what I've been using for a while, but is Roman Rooms (which I use just for edges; audio for corners) good for singles, or should I try something else (and keep my Roman Rooms list for when I MBLD)? It's been serving me fairly well so far (definitely better than sentences did, at least), but was just wondering if it's worth keeping even when/if I get fast at memo.
Click to expand...

Roman Rooms can be okay for singles, and I know there have been a few fairly good people who have used it, but you want to be careful not to limit the amount you can do in a sitting or in a day. If you really want to get good, you'll want to get where you can easily do 100 or even 200 solves in a day (not that I've done it often, but you want to at least be able to!), which requires either having lots of rooms, reusing a small number of rooms many times, or just going without a room. I've chosen to just go without a room; I just fit all my images for edges into a single story and go with it. I would think even reusing rooms should work fine, since a 3x3x3 goes so fast you hopefully don't have time for the memo to stick very permanently.

I think most of the really fast (sub-30) people have rather loose, unstructured methods of memo; I suspect there's something to that correlation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

abunickabhi
FTO Blindsolving discussion
Replies
6
Views
916
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
S
Miscellanious Puzzle blindsolving discussion
Replies
16
Views
3,097
Daniel Lin
D
L
Is there a way to tell if you have 3bld parity without doing memo
Replies
1
Views
39
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
CrossPetrus
Blindsolving Help
Replies
4
Views
895
CrossPetrus
CrossPetrus
abunickabhi
Transfer learning between official blindsolving events
Replies
2
Views
1,003
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
Back
Top