• 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!

D2 method for solving corners blindfolded

Do you think this is a useful method for blindsolving?


  • Total voters
    26
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
9
Likes
6
Location
The Netherlands
WCA
2012VERS03
Thread starter #1
Hi everybody, about half a year ago I invented a method for solving the corners blindfolded based on the swapping move D2. Now before you say 'Hey but isn't that just R2?' please read on. This method is different from R2 because D2 is (unlike R2) very intuitive and easy to learn, and both easier and faster to execute than R2. It is meant to be an intermediate method that is almost as easy as OP, but a lot more efficient, similar to what M2 is for edges.
I've been using this method for some time now, and also used it in competition. I really like it, and will continue using it until I finish learning 3-style (which I am trying to learn now). After several people asked me what I was doing, I decided to make a tutorial on it. This is my first ever tutorial, so please leave a comment on what you think about it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,675
Likes
3,209
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
mark49152
#2
Nice. It's similar to R2 but transposed to D2. I used something similar on U2 for a while, so that I could retain my OP buffer and parity fixes. I think D2 has actually the best ergonomics of the three, although the transition to 3-style might be more difficult with a DBL buffer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
120
Likes
27
Location
Gasteiz -> Madrid, Spain
WCA
2009ORTI01
YouTube
Dgraciarubik
#5
I use U2, which is obviously the same as you did. That way i could transition from LBU buffer (which I learned for OP for some reason...) to UBL which is better because I am planing to learn 3-style at some point. Also, U2 works better for me in terms of parity, I just do U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U after finishing the edges with M2 and then I do the last corner of U2 with OP. If you want my algs for U2 just tell me, I have an small excel file with all of them.

Btw, I average between 1:05 - 1:40 because my memo is terrible and I don't practice that much, but I went down from 1:20 - 2:10 with Old Pochmann-M2.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#7
I use U2, which is obviously the same as you did. That way i could transition from LBU buffer (which I learned for OP for some reason...) to UBL which is better because I am planing to learn 3-style at some point. Also, U2 works better for me in terms of parity, I just do U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U after finishing the edges with M2 and then I do the last corner of U2 with OP. If you want my algs for U2 just tell me, I have an small excel file with all of them.

Btw, I average between 1:05 - 1:40 because my memo is terrible and I don't practice that much, but I went down from 1:20 - 2:10 with Old Pochmann-M2.
I'm interested! Having a better buffer to transition later is a good idea.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
9
Likes
6
Location
The Netherlands
WCA
2012VERS03
Thread starter #8
I could see myself using this after I get down OP corners. Same with M2.
Well you can also directly start with this method. I directly started using M2 for edges without learning OP, so you don't need to get OP down first. On the other hand, OP for corners can actually be useful for solving parity when using 3-style, so you do probably want to learn it (unlike OP for edges, which you never use after switching to a different method)
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
9
Likes
6
Location
The Netherlands
WCA
2012VERS03
Thread starter #9
I use U2, which is obviously the same as you did. That way i could transition from LBU buffer (which I learned for OP for some reason...) to UBL which is better because I am planing to learn 3-style at some point. Also, U2 works better for me in terms of parity, I just do U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U after finishing the edges with M2 and then I do the last corner of U2 with OP. If you want my algs for U2 just tell me, I have an small excel file with all of them.

Btw, I average between 1:05 - 1:40 because my memo is terrible and I don't practice that much, but I went down from 1:20 - 2:10 with Old Pochmann-M2.
Sounds cool! The algs are simply the reflections of the algs I use (so R becomes R', D becomes U', U becomes D' etc.) so that is easy enough. For parity: both D2 and U2 require an algorithm after finishing the edges (4 moves for D2, 8 for U2) and both require a PLL algorithm after finishing the corners (although for U2, you use the PLL alg to solve the final target, at D2 you need to execute the final target and execute a PLL alg). So U2 is indeed a bit better for parity.
For switching: I have no idea if it is nice to use DLB as buffer for 3-style, but I do indeed think ULB is better, becuase it is on the U face. Do you have an explanation why ULB is the best buffer (and why not URF) for 3-style?
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
120
Likes
27
Location
Gasteiz -> Madrid, Spain
WCA
2009ORTI01
YouTube
Dgraciarubik
#10
Do you have an explanation why ULB is the best buffer (and why not URF) for 3-style?
Not really, I think I'm just used to that.

I'm interested! Having a better buffer to transition later is a good idea.
Ok, I am attaching a file to this post with the algorithms, you should be able to check them even if the couple of notes are in spanish.
 

Attachments

Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
490
Likes
78
Location
Madrid, Spain, Spain
WCA
2010BENI02
YouTube
naker115
#11
Sounds cool! The algs are simply the reflections of the algs I use (so R becomes R', D becomes U', U becomes D' etc.) so that is easy enough. For parity: both D2 and U2 require an algorithm after finishing the edges (4 moves for D2, 8 for U2) and both require a PLL algorithm after finishing the corners (although for U2, you use the PLL alg to solve the final target, at D2 you need to execute the final target and execute a PLL alg). So U2 is indeed a bit better for parity.
For switching: I have no idea if it is nice to use DLB as buffer for 3-style, but I do indeed think ULB is better, becuase it is on the U face. Do you have an explanation why ULB is the best buffer (and why not URF) for 3-style?
actually ive found DLB is more UFR turn friendly, or at least UBL is more R turn friendly, if you give prioirity to R/LUD type comms, but the difference is so little it shouldnt be worth mentioning, either way thats only for my style
UB and UF defenetly most MU friendly tho
and since you want to have adjacent buffers for parity UB UBL/ UF UFL best options imo
I use U2, which is obviously the same as you did. That way i could transition from LBU buffer (which I learned for OP for some reason...) to UBL which is better because I am planing to learn 3-style at some point
why dont you just use LBU as U2 or freestyle buffer, why do you need to change it to UBL
i guess now its too late to ask but...
see you tomorrow question mark
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
120
Likes
27
Location
Gasteiz -> Madrid, Spain
WCA
2009ORTI01
YouTube
Dgraciarubik
#12
why dont you just use LBU as U2 or freestyle buffer, why do you need to change it to UBL
i guess now its too late to ask but...
see you tomorrow question mark
Nope, not going to el escorial.

I do try some freestyle solves from time to time and I generate comms on the go while solving and I found more appealing to do that when using UBL more than LBU.
 

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top