Does anyone else just memorize the whole cube+colors for 3BLD? I do!

[Thom S.]

If he made a video explaining it wouldn't that be enough proof?

2 Answers

No, it wouldn't. His video contained a beginners method solve. He can make a convincing tutorial with all the information how to do it without actually doing it. If I do something, stage it and then explain how I did it in a logical manner without actually archieving it, it would be the same thing.

Have you seen his video? I see Underwaters explanation now and I think there is nothing more to add to it

 

[Duncan Bannon]

Here is the video you guys wanted. I moved the cube around so that the audience would know if it was a DNF before I did, and that in excitement in the past I often forget to show the cube.

I must be honest. I didn't think this was possible, but because of my lack of blind info, I made no comment. To me I do think that this video was a clear demonstration of the method. I think a tutorial would be pretty cool. I do believe you have to think that the video posted earlier was quite suspicious. I must honor the fact that you did go all out insane cuber "so you think my blind solves are think" on us and respected us with out being rude.

 

[Hazel]

Awesome! I'm impressed. I've been wanting to try this for a while How are you able to concentrate on tracing the pieces for that long without draining your brain?

 

[teboecubes]

I'm skeptical, but more open-minded than to assume you're lying, and I'm actually curious about non-traditional blind methods since this discussion started.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I no longer believe you're doing what you originally seemed to be describing. I don't believe you're memorizing the colors; I believe you're using the colors to memorize a solve by tracing the pieces during memorization, then executing your memorized solution. That's just normal speedBLD; it's just that you're using beginner's method instead of CFOP.

I see that as the only reasonable explanation for why you would take 45 minutes to memorize, but only 90 seconds to solve. If you were memorizing the starting colors, then tracing as you solved, the memorization/execution split would be the opposite of this - almost all the time would be spent solving.

I will acknowledge there might be some amazing mathematical property I don't know about that makes tracking the pieces while solving really easy, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I really suspect this is just a normal speedBLD solve.

 

[Ollie]

The scramble you showed us isn't the same one that you applied to the cube, when you compare this with what the cube looks like at 1:30 and 1:41. I think the scramble in the video actually looks like:

F L2 B' U2 B D2 B' U2 L2 F' R2 B2 D2 R D' U2 R B2 R2 B' D2 U'

Edit1: Mistakes happen, for sure.

After that I can't really follow what you are doing (can't/don't want to/need to sleep), maybe someone would like to reconstruct it. But it seems like you don't do anything for the first 10 seconds:

z2
D R y' R2 y' R2 y' R' D' y' R' y R R' D' R

It still looks shady. But not conclusive.

Edit2: You get the benefit of the doubt, although if you are doing it blindfolded then I'm guessing that you're either doing it in a speedBLD kind of way, or simply you have rehearsed the scramble beforehand.

 

[adimare]

None of this makes any sense. If you have such an advanced "mental cube" that you can execute a solve as messy as the one you did in your head, why does it take you 45 min to memorize the initial state? Can't you just apply the scramble to your mental cube and start solving immediately?

You're either doing speedBLD and don't understand that that's what you're doing (meaning, in the 45 min you're not memorizing the cube, you're planning and memorizing a solution), or you're being disingenuous about the whole thing.

 

[Kit Clement]

If you really want to convince me, I'd need an unedited video of the entire 45m-1hr of this attempt. Scramble sequences here are super shady, and it looks like you're doing absolutely nothing for a long time in this solve.

Started to reconstruct this, but it's late, and my head hurts from all the xyz compound rotations. I think the scramble Ollie provided might be off by twisted corners or something, because it stopped matching the scramble eventually. Have fun, whoever may want to pick this up.

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F_L2_B-_U2_B_D2_B-_U2_L2_F-_R2_B2_D2_R_D-_U2_R_B2_R2_B-_D2_U-&scheme=japanese&alg=x2_y2_ D_R_y-_R2_y-_R2_y-_R-_D-_y-_R-_y_R_R-_D-_R_y_z-_R3_x-_U2_R_x-_R_U-_y_x-_R_y_x_z-_L_F_x-_y_z-_R2_U2_R2_x_U

 

[asacuber]

Ohhh I realise what you are doing now lol. I thought it was pure speedbld

 

[Duncan Bannon]

I would just like to point out the fact that is wasn't @Megaminxer that was "proved" wrong but rather your guy's assumptions that he was tracking pieces vs basically 1 looking the solve. He never claimed to track pieces. We(myself included) assumed he was tracking the pieces. But your now angry at him that your assumption wasn't correct. /rant

 

[Ollie]

Feliks was caught cheating in his earliest 3x3x3 videos, you're fine here.

My reasons for being skeptical/cynical are:

• You're describing a method where you're making things much, much harder for yourself than you need to.
  
• Your memo times should be much, much faster with a year of practice. Otherwise, you defy everything we know from experience.
  
• Your video conveniently cuts the whole of memorization and uses a different scramble to the one you said.
  
• Your original video isn't a good bid demo because we can't see your face.
• Your solution looks far too inefficient to be legit. After a year of practice, you could be much better at cross, even with your method being much harder.

I'm almost certain you practiced a solution sighted off camera and you're recording only the execution blindfolded. I'm sorry to be harsh, I want you to succeed here. But we're a very skeptical group, that's what makes us great as a community.

We want to teach and help each other. But this just looks suspicious and we've had a fair share of cheaters, on this forum and in competition.

 

[Chree]

I'm still skeptical. In your demo video, at 2:58, you does U2 U2 y' and continue to solve the pair. And it's not the only time I thought I saw unnecessary U's and rotations (which only echoes other people's skepticism, I know).

Why would you memorize doing U2 twice before rotating and doing another alg that still starts with another U? Not only is it inefficient, but it is strikingly similar to what a person would do if they needed to see the color of a piece on the back during a sighted solve.

 

[Chree]

I don't memorize Us, again I believe people don't understand my method. I only memorize the colors on the cube, imprint them onto a mental cube, and then solve that cube as normal. Unnecessary U moves will exist because I am inefficient just like in a normal solve.

So the U's exist so that you can mentally see a side of the piece that you've memorized?

 

[Kit Clement]

I am not looking to get any recognition for speed/BLD ability beyond the proof of that my method works, and your accusations not only attack my dignity but my method. I am not a good speedsolver! I just wanted to get my idea out so people better than me could use it! There is NO REASON for me to fake this.

If you're going to the lengths of doing a BLD solve using a speedsolving method, then it's far more practical/useful to memorize the solution than colors for improving the speed of the solution itself, resulting in good speedBLD results. If you just want to do a BLD solve, it's far easier to learn methods designed for this. So this may come off harsh, but I'll ask anyway: what purpose does this method have? And how does your video or any future video you could make help others to use this method? I don't know what else you could say in a tutorial of this method but "practice visualizing things in your head" or "just visualize the cube at every turn," which I don't think is something easily learned, or may even be more of an innate than learned skill.

It's this angle that really makes me question why you would post this video anything other than for personal recognition, not for the benefit of others.

Do you guys really want me to do this

Not really. We are just expressing our skepticism of such methods and what we would need to see to be convinced of such a method. I'm sure your method is possible given enough concentration/focus, but that doesn't mean we're highly skeptical of a video that jump cuts and has vast opportunities to cheat.

 

[Chree]

Not really. We are just expressing our skepticism of such methods and what we would need to see to be convinced of such a method. I'm sure your method is possible given enough concentration/focus, but that doesn't mean we're highly skeptical of a video that jump cuts and has vast opportunities to cheat.

Even without jump cutting, that video still wouldn't convince me. Proper competition conditions might, though... BLD blockers, etc. Even if he spent 30 minutes sitting down staring at a cube, all he has to do is spend the next minute peaking at it underneath his blindfold (which is of a style notoriously capable of being peaked under).

I think the thing I find most unbelievable about this whole thing is that this thread wasn't posted on April 1st.

 

[Mike Hughey]

The reason for all this suspicion is because solving a "mental cube" like you're describing would be a spectacular feat - something on the level of a world record BLD solve in difficulty or more. In fact, I personally doubt it's humanly possible, much as I have doubts about the more extreme claims of photographic memory that have never been proven to be truly humanly possible.

I admit that is just doubt on my part and not certainty. If it is possible it would be wonderful and amazing to prove it. And then I would wonder if it requires some lucky genetic fluke to be able to do it, or if there is some kind of trick that makes it possible for ordinary people to learn to do it.

The attention you're getting here is why you might be motivated to make such a claim. If you could really do this, it would be something quite extraordinary. It's possible you just haven't realized yet how extraordinary your claim actually is.

 

[bubbagrub]

I have a suggestion, which might help prove you can do what you're describing:

Record a video without a cube. Make sure we can see your hands. Bring up a new scramble on screen (on a timer that doesn't show the state of the scrambled cube). Work out, from the scramble, the state of the scrambled cube, and then describe it ("top face goes red, yellow, green...", etc.) I assume that wouldn't take 45 minutes, so you could record the entire thing without cuts or edits.

Would that work?

 

[CLL Smooth]

I’m still waiting for that sub-10 Ao12 jskyler. Wait minute... what decade is this? Please don’t take anything I say seriously.

 

[WombatWarrior17]

Bad attention is not fame, I would rather be an outlier in the community than a hated one, which is what I have become.

You haven't become hated, we are just very skeptical of this, all you need to do is prove that what you're saying is true.

 

[Chree]

Gee, thanks. That makes all of my hard work seem worth it, I was only looking to add something to the community just as an idea. By that nature shouldn't we be questioning the legitimacy of people like TheGreyCuber and Mike Hughey (not to fire shots at those two super awesome guys whom I both consider mentors) if we are so willing to delegitimize non-competition environments? A full uncut video will be up shortly.

The only person I've seen launch anything close to legitimate hate was adimare, but that's just sort of how he rolls, so I wouldn't take it personally. Ollie might've used a 4-to-8-letter word at the outset, but that was also just an expression of skepticism. Kit, Mike, myself, and others just want to be convinced... like the saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made an extraordinary claim which, if true, is amazing. But so far, nothing you've shown and none of your explanations have satisfied the perfectly reasonable doubts we have. For instance, my question above hasn't been answered, because your explanation still lacks sense in the context of your method. I'm sorry if that's hurting your feelings. I know what it's like to be really proud of something only to have others shrug it off as nothing. But like Ollie said, we are an extremely skeptical community. If you had been around these forums a while longer, none of this would've been a surprise to you. This sort of thing happens at least once a year. You're just the lucky winner, is all.