Blindsolving Failure Thread

[blah]

And Arnaud, I also thought of your idea, and I like it, but I feel like a single turn from solved should count as solved, since it would just be a +2 in competition. So I'd feel like I had to do 2 turns from solved, which would maybe be fun, but would be a lot of work.

There's a loophole that makes it easier for you actually: An M turn from the solved state is a DNF

I think Chris doesn't take advantage of this, but I do in a big way, and I think it's really helpful. (I'm always excited when I'm memorizing and start getting a lot of 3-cycles on centers.) So I just use commutators for the obliques, just like the other centers.

That's news. How can Chris not take advantage of anything to do with commutators?! I thought he was the commutator expert? Or am I misinterpreting whatever you're trying to say? And there's another thing I don't quite understand, what do you mean by "start getting a lot of 3-cycles on centers"? Don't you cycle all the centers with 3-cycle commutators? (I think that's what you told me some time ago, don't really remember anymore.)

I like the fact that it sounds good as a single word. Somehow, "chirals" doesn't feel as right, and neither does "skews" - you feel like you have to say "chiral centers" and "skew centers". I think "obliques" works alone because we've gotten used to hearing it when referencing abdominal exercises. Anyway, "obliques" rolls off the tongue nicely; I like it!

Given my limited vocabulary, I've only came across the word "chiral" once in my life, and I don't even know what it means in English; I only know what it means in organic chemistry (chiral centers, yeah, they're called that too in organic chemistry) because that's where I learned the word, and I hate organic chemistry. "Skew", on the other hand, just doesn't sound like "professional cubing jargon". So it's more of the fact that I don't like the other two (no offense to qqwref) than that that I like "obliques", besides, I came across "obliques" first (The double "that" is not a typo )

I was just about to submit this post, then I got what you meant about the 3-cycle thingy, I think. Do you mean a "complete" 3-cycle, i.e. A goes to B, which goes to C, which goes back to A? (I thought that was extremely rare? Or do you sorta "plan" the cycles so you end up with cycles like that?) That's a new technique I've never thought of, nor heard of or read about for that matter. Care to explain? Or are there any threads discussing this?

 

[Mike Hughey]

You've got the right idea, yes - a complete cycle where all 3 pieces are solved at once. Chris mentioned it in a thread a number of months back - he uses a fixed buffer for centers, like I do with wings. So he'll just break a new cycle like you would for r2 when he runs out. So that means the only time he'll get this is at the very end, and only once on a single solve. I on the other hand will move to a new buffer whenever I come back to the starting face as the second piece in my pair. So for me it can actually happen fairly often. I've had as many as 4 of these in a single solve on a 4x4x4 before! That is so nice when it happens. So I might get A -> I -> M (-> A), B -> J -> E (-> B), C -> F -> Q (-> C), etc. Or I might get a 5-cycle, which is just as nice for the last half of it.

You don't have to do anything to work for this - all you do is move to a new buffer whenever you come back to the original face as the second piece in a pair. Very easy and automatic.

I talked to Chris about this at Chattahoochee, and he said he had decided that the memorization benefits of a fixed buffer outweigh the potential of fewer commutators for him. But that's definitely not the case for me. So whenever I'm competing against Chris, I'm always secretly hoping for lots of these center 3-cycles - maybe I could actually beat him if the scramble were lucky enough!

I studied organic chemistry for years, so chiral is a word I'm very familiar with. (I was studying to be a PhD in organic chemistry until I decided that I hated chemistry and switched to computer science.)

 

[blah]

Well I do exactly what you do, Mike. In fact, it never occurred to me that you could do 3-cycle with a fixed buffer Maybe it's because I did 3-cycle on a 3x3x3 without a fixed buffer too. Most I got was 3 independent cycles, and that was probably only twice or thrice, not that I've been doing 4x4 BLD much though.

About memorization benefits, for me, I memorize much easier if there are independent cycles. I think I read somewhere on Wikipedia that "anomalies" in stuff that you're supposed to memorize makes you memorize better. I think we've all had that experience before? Like a phone number becomes easy to remember when it has a zero or two somewhere in it, if you get what I mean. The "breakage" itself serves as a memory booster sorta thing.

Speaking of this, I think I should mention this thing I do which strays from the "normal" method, it's not something I researched on or whatever, it just came naturally since my second or third solve. Whenever I see a 2-cycle coming, it's quite easy to anticipate for some reason, I make sure I get them involved in my main long cycle (there's always this longest main cycle right?) because I have a major problem seeing commutators that cycle pieces to the same face, and it's definitely less move efficient to do a separate commutator just to cycle 2 pieces anyway, does anyone else do this?

Chemistry haters FTW! (You quit midway through your PhD?! I find it quite romantic(?) that you suddenly decided chemistry sucked after you went that far.)

I realized I'm so on the wrong thread...

 

[Dene]

I studied organic chemistry for years, so chiral is a word I'm very familiar with. (I was studying to be a PhD in organic chemistry until I decided that I hated chemistry and switched to computer science.)

YAY! Chemistry ftl!
(Did you get that PhD by the way? I so look forward to getting mine in the near-ish future).

 

[Mike Hughey]

Speaking of this, I think I should mention this thing I do which strays from the "normal" method, it's not something I researched on or whatever, it just came naturally since my second or third solve. Whenever I see a 2-cycle coming, it's quite easy to anticipate for some reason, I make sure I get them involved in my main long cycle (there's always this longest main cycle right?) because I have a major problem seeing commutators that cycle pieces to the same face, and it's definitely less move efficient to do a separate commutator just to cycle 2 pieces anyway, does anyone else do this?

Wow, that's interesting. I'll have to think about that for a bit. I'm very comfortable doing commutators in a 2-cycle, as long as they're not directly opposite pieces. But I need to think through the implications of rolling all the 2-cycles together into the biggest cycle - that's a fascinating idea.

Chemistry haters FTW! (You quit midway through your PhD?! I find it quite romantic(?) that you suddenly decided chemistry sucked after you went that far.)

Yeah, I got my BS in chemistry and then spent 4 more years studying chemistry in graduate school at Purdue before I quit. I had completed all the coursework for a PhD, and had passed the qualifier exams so I was eligible for a Master's. Once I decided I hated it, my major professor offered to let me get my Master's instead, but then I realized I was going to have to do 2 published papers (probably in the Journal of Organic Chemistry) just to get the Master's, so I decided it wasn't worth it and quit altogether without getting an advanced chemistry degree. I then spent 3 1/2 more years earning my Master's in computer science. So I spent 11 1/2 years straight as a full-time college student.

YAY! Chemistry ftl!

LOL

 

[blah]

Wow, that's interesting. I'll have to think about that for a bit. I'm very comfortable doing commutators in a 2-cycle, as long as they're not directly opposite pieces. But I need to think through the implications of rolling all the 2-cycles together into the biggest cycle - that's a fascinating idea.

If you find it fascinating I'll just elaborate a bit more then. It's mostly towards the end when I find 2-cycles, when I "feel" I've got ~15 pieces done and one of the faces still has 2 (rarely, 3) "unused" pieces, one of them's probably in a 2-cycle so I skip one letter on that face and come back to the previous one later, it works almost every time, really, it's just a feel I guess, and also a bit of conscious looking at all the other pieces on a face as you go along. This way it stays in your memory better, imo, because you know you skipped something (an "anomaly") so you won't forget it easily later.

And I've got a nice solution for 2 opposite centers because I hate those cases It's just something I memorized and do blindly as an algorithm, though it's actually a commutator, and you can probably understand it easily and use it more flexibly than I do, for now I just set the 2 pieces up to the same position every time so I know nothing can go wrong. Check it out: rU'r' u2 rUr' u2. And of course there's the inverse. I always do it in the end when every other piece is solved if possible. If not, I just, as you put it, "roll" it into my main cycle.

So I spent 11 1/2 years straight as a full-time college student.

That's more years than I've ever received formal education, and I've gotten sick of it for quite some time now, you are one patient guy

 

[Mike Hughey]

That's more years than I've ever received formal education, and I've gotten sick of it for quite some time now, you are one patient guy

So you can see why I do silly things like 5x5x5 multis.

Thanks for the ideas; I'm going to work on them a bit - after I get my 7x7x7 and 6x6x6 BLD solves.

 

[masterofthebass]

Hey... also I just thought of something. Mike, if you reduce it to a 3x3, one of your daughters I'm sure would gladly solve it from there

 

[AvGalen]

Hey... also I just thought of something. Mike, if you reduce it to a 3x3, one of your daughters I'm sure would gladly solve it from there

Best idea!

That way Mike wouldn't even be the first Hughey to solve a bigcube

 

[Mike Hughey]

Hey... also I just thought of something. Mike, if you reduce it to a 3x3, one of your daughters I'm sure would gladly solve it from there

Best idea!

That way Mike wouldn't even be the first Hughey to solve a bigcube

Too late. (Check the Blindfold Accomplishment Thread.)

 

[joey]

4x4 BLD DNF.
14:14.25
20 centres correct.
7 edges correct.
All corners correct.
The only reason 7 edges were correct was because I was just going for a centres attempt! I just decided to memo 4 edges aswell And 3 others were already in place!
The centres weren't as bad as I thought. I still need to get used to this letter scheme, I usually have to go through the alpahbet each time!

 

[fanwuq]

The centres weren't as bad as I thought. I still need to get used to this letter scheme, I usually have to go through the alpahbet each time!

I'm starting to use all the letters too, and I fear I'll go through the alphabet too.

 

[Mike Hughey]

4x4 BLD DNF.
14:14.25
20 centres correct.
7 edges correct.
All corners correct.
The only reason 7 edges were correct was because I was just going for a centres attempt! I just decided to memo 4 edges aswell And 3 others were already in place!
The centres weren't as bad as I thought. I still need to get used to this letter scheme, I usually have to go through the alpahbet each time!

Cool! You're well on your way! I can't wait to see your first successful solve. That's not a bad time for everything but edges for your first time, too.

 

[joey]

Cool! You're well on your way! I can't wait to see your first successful solve. That's not a bad time for everything but edges for your first time, too.

I only decided to do centres only after I had memoed centres, so it probably could have been a lot faster, if I had decided that at the start. But yeah, it looks fun! wish I had started ages ago!

 

[alexc]

The centres weren't as bad as I thought. I still need to get used to this letter scheme, I usually have to go through the alpahbet each time!

I'm starting to use all the letters too, and I fear I'll go through the alphabet too.

I had to do that too when I just started using a new lettering scheme.

 

[fanwuq]

The centres weren't as bad as I thought. I still need to get used to this letter scheme, I usually have to go through the alpahbet each time!

I'm starting to use all the letters too, and I fear I'll go through the alphabet too.

I had to do that too when I just started using a new lettering scheme.

I'm planning to get used to my new letter scheme this weekend. How long did it take you?

 

[alexc]

Just a couple days and I was used to it.

 

[Pedro]

oh, man...55.99 DNF...

I "saw" the corners wrongly at the bottom...had a X perm, but did just a cycle...
memo was 22, so execution was really fast

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

Eh, 12 straight DNFs... but salvaged by a slow 1:28.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I missed both of my first 2 6x6x6 BLD attempts (both for the weekly competition). Both only off by 2 obliques. And then I accidentally solved it after the second attempt - I forgot I wasn't supposed to because I was trying to figure out where I went wrong. So now I can't have my first solve on it be BLD.