Fastest Method

[Kirjava]

I do not like the new definition of "freestyle" you have chosen. I think the 'classic' definition is more useful and deliciously meta. But eh, I can't stop you

With this definition "freestyle" would likely be an undesired technique. Seems silly to me to associate it with something that people would be attempting to not use.

 

[cmhardw]

I do not like the new definition of "freestyle" you have chosen. I think the 'classic' definition is more useful and deliciously meta. But eh, I can't stop you

With this definition "freestyle" would likely be an undesired technique. Seems silly to me to associate it with something that people would be attempting to not use.

To be clear, the definition of freestyle that I used is really 4 different possible methods lumped into one. This would explain all the confusion about why different people interpret "freestyle" in different ways. To me "freestyle" just means that of the 3 attributes that describe a BLD method (freeness, directness, 2 or 3 cycles-ness), that the freeness attribute is set to "free."

So, "freestyle" could mean any of the following:
1) free, direct, 2-cycle methods
2) free, direct, 3-cycle methods
3) free, orient-first, 2-cycle methods
4) free, orient-first, 3-cycle methods

Currently it seems that people are picking one of the above 4 to stand for "freestyle," and this causes confusion when someone else picks a different one of these 4 to stand for "freestyle."

In a way everyone is right, as all 4 types are "freestyle." That's my take on it at least.

--edit--

I think the 'classic' definition is more useful and deliciously meta.

Yes, I agree that the meta-ness of the 'classic' definition is sometimes very cool. However, sometimes freestyle talk comes across to me like this:

"Well it's freestyle, so like freestyle your way through how totally freestyle it is, and the magic of freestyle is that the freestyle will solve your cube, like totally freestyle."

 

[Kirjava]

To be clear, the definition of freestyle that I used is really 4 different possible methods lumped into one. This would explain all the confusion about why different people interpret "freestyle" in different ways. To me "freestyle" just means that of the 3 attributes that describe a BLD method (freeness, directness, 2 or 3 cycles-ness), that the freeness attribute is set to "free."

Well the problem is that the "freeness" never had to be set to free. BH used to be a freestyle method, for example.

Heh, I remember the "Zen Freestyle" quote. Maybe never having the confusion myself I find it difficult to relate.

 

[cmhardw]

Well the problem is that the "freeness" never had to be set to free. BH used to be a freestyle method, for example.

I'm interested. I really like the 3 attribute definition of a BLD method, but I don't want to be the only one saying that this is how things should be. If you think that BH should fit as a freestyle method I'm interested to hear more. I would consider it "fixed" in the 3 attribute definition, but stepping outside of that construct (or maybe staying with that construct?) how would you classify BH as free?

I can see how the directness of a "direct-solve" method can be seen as a very free way to solve, and thus "freestyle." That seems to feel right on some intuitive level. Perhaps Freestyle could instead be defined as "direct-solving" rather than the "freeness" attribute being to to "free"?

Perhaps instead of using the characteristics of "fixed" and "free" would could instead use "fixed" and "flexible?"

Freestyle could be defined either as all possible "flexible" methods, or all possible "direct-solve" methods. This could depend either on the person's opinion, or on different definitions of what "freestyle" really means.

Opinions? Thoughts? Comments? I'm open to the discussion here, and I enjoy that this topic is being talked about in depth!

 

[Kirjava]

I'm interested. I really like the 3 attribute definition of a BLD method, but I don't want to be the only one saying that this is how things should be. If you think that BH should fit as a freestyle method I'm interested to hear more. I would consider it "fixed" in the 3 attribute definition, but stepping outside of that construct (or maybe staying with that construct?) how would you classify BH as free?

I wouldn't. For me, freestyle does not mean free and never has done.

Honestly, cubing has always had a broken lexicon with poorly named things - I never put any attempt to revising definitions because I thought it would be too difficult to get people to listen to me. There are many things to change.

I should say that I also like the 3 attribute based classification.

I can see how the directness of a "direct-solve" method can be seen as a very free way to solve, and thus "freestyle." That seems to feel right on some intuitive level. Perhaps Freestyle could instead be defined as "direct-solving" rather than the "freeness" attribute being to to "free"?

Like I said before, for me freestyle doesn't have to be a "free way to solve". When the 3cycle direct solving methods started to emerge, everyone just made up their own algs and had their own systems. There was no set implementations so people just 'freestyled' it.

Perhaps instead of using the characteristics of "fixed" and "free" would could instead use "fixed" and "flexible?"

Freestyle could be defined either as all possible "flexible" methods, or all possible "direct-solve" methods. This could depend either on the person's opinion, or on different definitions of what "freestyle" really means.

I think people will just end up using the word freestyle however they like, and revert to a more exact explanation (with the terminology you suggested) when it is needed.

Do you think being free/flexible is a good asset? I mean specifically for case execution. Surely having a set alg for a case is better than BSing one on the fly?

It might seem like I oppose progress here, I'm just giving my input.

 

[riffz]

I feel like trying to redefine freestyle is somewhat pointless. It seems that its actual definition is quite vague and was used in the past to describe methods that we might not still consider to be "freestyle" today. Using the term "freestyle" seems to imply that the solver does not use the same techniques each time, which doesn't really describe any BLD method once you've practiced it enough. Perhaps we should just try to avoid using the word all together.

The one person I can think of who actually solves in a way that I would consider to be truly "freestyle" is Ville. He does things like setting up 2 edge 2-cycles to an H perm instead of solving with 3 commutators, and other tricks that reduce movecount.

I'm also really liking the term "direct solving" to differentiate between methods like 3OP and Old Pochmann.

 

[Kirjava]

I just thought I'd check that I wasn't going insane and that I had the correct classic definition.

<+ThunderSparkle> define "freestyle" in the context of BLD methods
<+j`ey> well, I just use it to mean cycling **** in anyway
<+j`ey> so no O/P
<+j`ey> just directly solving
<+j`ey> 3-cycles

 

[cmhardw]

I just thought I'd check that I wasn't going insane and that I had the correct classic definition.

If I can jump in here, so "freestyle" would be more like:
direct, 3-cycle methods (with the implication that either "free" or "fixed" are allowable for the third attribute)

This would make BH a freestyle method, then.

Am I on the right track with this? Or is freestyle meant to be even freer than that (a la Ville's approach to solving)?

 

[Kirjava]

For sure. It's horribly named, but so is F2L.

I did make a sensible reply to your last post just above that in case you missed it

 

[Mike Hughey]

Sorry if I'm not contributing much to this discussion; I guess I just don't feel like I have strong enough opinions on any of it to contribute much. But I figure I should answer Chris's questions to me.

As to you saying that "you're bad at wings," what makes you say that?

The reason I say that is because I often spend too long (several seconds) figuring out what commutator I'm going to do next. That's awful - I should be able to think of what the next commutator is going to be before I finish the previous one, as I know you almost always do. I can usually do that with X and + centers (although they're not all optimal), but not with wings.

Mike, from what you're saying it seems like your method is still fixed, or are you alternating a lot between different algs on many different cases?

My method is pretty fixed; it's actually only occasionally that I use different algs for a case. And sometimes it's as you say - I realize one works better without rotating the cube than another one does. But it's more often true that I didn't get instant recall on how to perform the commutator, so I had to think one up, and I thought of a different one from the one I usually come up with, if you know what I mean.

I think it's safe to say my method is pretty extremely fixed, overall. I just thought other people might be more "freestyle" with it, since I know I hit cases like that occasionally. For instance, I'm guessing Ville is probably so good that he instantly sees all of the possible optimal commutators for a given case, so he can choose between them based on what seems nicest at the moment. Which is outrageous, by the way.

 

[cmhardw]

Honestly, cubing has always had a broken lexicon with poorly named things - I never put any attempt to revising definitions because I thought it would be too difficult to get people to listen to me. There are many things to change.

I agree. Even the example between x, y, z directions and M, E, S directions. I know there is a precedent setting them as they are, but I think this is an example of the lexicon of cubing being inconsistent with itself.

I should say that I also like the 3 attribute based classification.

I hope it sticks, I like it too.

Like I said before, for me freestyle doesn't have to be a "free way to solve". When the 3cycle direct solving methods started to emerge, everyone just made up their own algs and had their own systems. There was no set implementations so people just 'freestyled' it.

Freestyle then seems more a mindset in applying a method or solving approach than a qualitative description of the method then. A person will "freestyle" method seems to be the connotation, rather than a person uses a method that can be described as freestyle. That makes sense to me in my own head, even if it doesn't much here

Do you think being free/flexible is a good asset? I mean specifically for case execution. Surely having a set alg for a case is better than BSing one on the fly?

The only example I can think would be using a Z perm/H perm to solve two 2-cycles of edges rather than breaking a new cycle twice. I know this isn't really inventing an alg on the fly, but it's breaking from the norm of cycle to the next piece (or break into a new cycle if you've reached the end of the current cycle).

As far as algs themselves, when I first began using commutators for 4x4 centers I definitely used what I would consider a freestyle approach. Whenever presented with a case I would try to use any setup I could to accommodate the limited number of commutator types that I knew. I don't think this counts as fixed, as I likely solved the same case in different ways each time I got to it until Daniel Beyer and I began working together to lay the foundation for BH as it appears today.

That's a tough question. Other than avoiding cycle breaks like Ville does, I don't think it would be an advantage to BS an alg on the fly. But perhaps those who are crazy fast at 3x3 BLD do this? I remember one cycle in the former 3x3 BLD WR solve by Haiyan that was a "3 move setup into a 'Wide setup into a toss-up' " case. That's such a crazy way to do the alg, but it was extremely finger tricky and fast to execute, which is why I assume Haiyan used it. The optimal alg in that was a 9 move commutator (compared to the 15 Haiyan used).

I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question

 

[cmhardw]

Double post ftw. It felt appropriate since I'm responding at length to two separate people. :/

The reason I say that is because I often spend too long (several seconds) figuring out what commutator I'm going to do next. That's awful - I should be able to think of what the next commutator is going to be before I finish the previous one, as I know you almost always do. I can usually do that with X and + centers (although they're not all optimal), but not with wings.

I sometimes blank on an algorithm that I've known for some time too, I think that's normal.

I don't know why I like wings so much, but I really enjoy solving them. They tend to have the best flow for me, or at least it feels like they do. I like how they move, if that makes any sense? I actually am not that big of a fan of solving centers BLD, compared to wings that is. This might have to do with that fact that I solve wings last, so during the wing solution there is also the excitement of "I'm almost done with this solve (yay!)"

Mike, do you practice wings less than centers? I imagine you practice them just as much as you do any other piece type, with the number of solves you do? Perhaps seeing a commutator for a case more quickly is partly due to Daniel and I constantly quizzing each other on how to do certain cycles. For example, how would you solve:

DFr -> URf -> BLd (This is one of my favorite case types btw)

My method is pretty fixed; it's actually only occasionally that I use different algs for a case. And sometimes it's as you say - I realize one works better without rotating the cube than another one does. But it's more often true that I didn't get instant recall on how to perform the commutator, so I had to think one up, and I thought of a different one from the one I usually come up with, if you know what I mean.

Honestly, I think as long as the alg works it works. Yes I do see what you mean, though.

I think it's safe to say my method is pretty extremely fixed, overall. I just thought other people might be more "freestyle" with it, since I know I hit cases like that occasionally. For instance, I'm guessing Ville is probably so good that he instantly sees all of the possible optimal commutators for a given case, so he can choose between them based on what seems nicest at the moment. Which is outrageous, by the way.

If this is what Ville does, then I wish I could do that too For the most part I don't see alternatives for a particular case (unless it's an easy case like the one you posted DFr -> UFr -> ULf or something similar). When I get a case there's just a straight recall of "I do this alg when I see that."

 

[Kirjava]

Freestyle then seems more a mindset in applying a method or solving approach than a qualitative description of the method then.

This is a great way of looking at it that I hadn't considered before.

A person will "freestyle" method seems to be the connotation, rather than a person uses a method that can be described as freestyle. That makes sense to me in my own head, even if it doesn't much here

Hehe, I understand what you mean.

The only example I can think would be using a Z perm/H perm to solve two 2-cycles of edges rather than breaking a new cycle twice. I know this isn't really inventing an alg on the fly, but it's breaking from the norm of cycle to the next piece (or break into a new cycle if you've reached the end of the current cycle).

But this is something you do in that specific situation - it doesn't change. If you use techniques to avoid cycle breaks on certain cases it's not something you randomly choose to not do.

As far as algs themselves, when I first began using commutators for 4x4 centers I definitely used what I would consider a freestyle approach. Whenever presented with a case I would try to use any setup I could to accommodate the limited number of commutator types that I knew. I don't think this counts as fixed, as I likely solved the same case in different ways each time I got to it until Daniel Beyer and I began working together to lay the foundation for BH as it appears today.

I think everyone goes through that phase at some point - while I don't think it's a good idea to make stuff up on the fly for speed, discovering comms yourself is something I wouldn't want anyone to skip.

That's a tough question. Other than avoiding cycle breaks like Ville does, I don't think it would be an advantage to BS an alg on the fly. But perhaps those who are crazy fast at 3x3 BLD do this? I remember one cycle in the former 3x3 BLD WR solve by Haiyan that was a "3 move setup into a 'Wide setup into a toss-up' " case. That's such a crazy way to do the alg, but it was extremely finger tricky and fast to execute, which is why I assume Haiyan used it. The optimal alg in that was a 9 move commutator (compared to the 15 Haiyan used).

I'd like to say that the setup and comm was premeditated and not made up on the fly - but i couldn't possibly know. All i can see is that more thinking time means less execution time.

I'm not knocking it the technique for learning, but for actually attempting to set fast times it should be culled. (imo)

I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question

You're eternally modest

 

[reThinking the Cube]

Conjugation.

 

[riffz]

This is a great way of looking at it that I hadn't considered before.

I really like this definition.

 

[Zane_C]

Great discussion going on, I would love to but I don't think I can contribute much to this.

1) "free" or "fixed"
2) "direct solve" or "orient-first/reduction"
3) "2-cycle" or "3-cycle"

I really like the idea of classifying a method based on these attributes.

Freestyle then seems more a mindset in applying a method or solving approach than a qualitative description of the method then.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[cmhardw]

New page in the speedsolving.com Wiki

Blindfold Method Classification

The formatting is atrocious, and I'm sure the language used in some cases is a bit too stilted, but it's at least a start. I am requesting help to make this page look better, and also for people to check the quality of the content itself.

I do not claim any ownership over that page. I simply started it. If people find any errors or blatantly false statements, please just simply correct them by editing the page.

 

[riffz]

What about someone who uses a fixed set of commutators/algs but uses multiple buffers? How do we distinguish that?

 

[cmhardw]

What about someone who uses a fixed set of commutators/algs but uses multiple buffers? How do we distinguish that?

I would argue that this would still be a "fixed" method. The actual algs used are pre-planned before the solve, so in that sense the method is still a fixed method.

I'm open to debate on this, of course, but that is my opinion in that situation.

--edit--
To make sure I understand correctly, are you implying perhaps a 4th attribute "fixed buffer" vs. "floating buffer"?

 

[Kirjava]

"The other definition that is often used for "freestyle" is simply a method that will solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time. In the method classification this would be all methods that are of the form: (Free or Fixed), direct, (2-cycle or 3-cycle) "

If you're using the 'classic' definition, it doesn't include 2 cycle methods. Should we change this?

Otherwise, nice page!