[Member Intro] Hello from outside the box!

[43Quintillionaire]

With a room for improvement because there is a number of setup moves and a number of algorithms tradeoff you can use.

That might work for you, it won´t work for me.

Why it might work for you: in a youtube comment you wrote: "The swapping algs of OP are performed repetitively by their nature. Speaking for myself, and anyone who shares my skill set and approach: I will never mess up a solve due to repetitive algs that have 3 extra turns, but I WILL mess up due to A-B memo confusion and double the number of setups to learn."

Why it won´t work for me: in the source of Classic Pochmann, Stefan is proposing Ja and Jb algorithms, among others. Those are redundant in my mind because I don´t mind executing a few easy extra setup moves instead of learning those algorithms. Heck, I don´t even know the proposed T algorithm because in 2005 I already knew its equivalent on Square-1 (thus learning a different algorithm for the same case is redundant in my mind, similarly to pre-memorizing setup moves). Thus the only algorithm I am using (besides U permutation for parity) is his modified T permutation (AKA Y permutation) which is acceptable for me. Guess what: executing errors during Y permutation are much more frequent for me than messing up setups moves (the latter basically never happens for me - I don´t have any issues with doing 5 easy setup moves on the fly (not that I use this many), however, I can´t even execute some 4-movers (remember, I don´t pre-memorize them) in the case of using BLD method with just 1 algorithm like BOP or Stefan´s earlier single algorithm method).

That´s actually a nice example of how every cuber is different


P.S. I just realized that both the "Old Pochmann" and "no parity pochmann" terms fit well for Stefan´s single algorithm method.

Yes, every cuber is different! Agree. Despite knowing the cube quite well and being able to solve it intuitively, I can't keep my algorithms straight. So, learning CFOP (or Roux, or whatever) is... taxing. Not impossible. But not worth my time, when I could be exploring symmetries and developing more unusual methods. It's an odd situation to be in. Thank you for taking the time to read the comments of my video! And thank you for all your thoughtful help and information these last few days. In my YT description, I put the exact instructions you gave me for finding Stefan Pochmann's original communication about his discovery

 

[bcube]

I should probably clarify a few things.

besides U permutation for parity

U permutation itself doesn't fix parity. T or R permutation does. We can generalize further and say that a single quarter turn of inner or outer layer toggles parity (i.e. even permutation to odd permutation and vice versa) in the fixed-corner model as illustrated in this post.

"no parity pochmann" terms fit well for Stefan´s single algorithm method

Stefan's single algorithm method is based on the fixed-centers model, and as such, inherently there must be a way to fix parity (T permutation in this case). "no additional parity algorithm pochmann" would be more precise description for his single algorithm method. 43Quintillionaire's idea is not based on the fixed-centers model, therefore there doesn't need to be a stage for parity fix at all.

 

[bcube]

So, learning CFOP (or Roux, or whatever) is... taxing.

I know what you mean. Luckily for me, I can solve the cube intuitively using both these methods without knowing tens of algorithms

But not worth my time, when I could be exploring symmetries and developing more unusual methods.

Lately this became my favorite way of thinking/solving. If you never heard of it, give it a try, I think you might like it.

 

[Deleted member 27249]

How Do you solve a Rubik's cube when you dont make blind?

 

[43Quintillionaire]

My method -- Like lots of early cubers in the 1980s, I noticed that I could easily manipulate edges without corners, but I couldn't figure out how to manipulate corners without affecting edges. So I developed my own corners-first method. I still use the method I developed as a kid. Corners first. Then two opposite sides. Then the middle layer. It's not fast. I mentioned that I didn't use cube notation for decades. I also didn't have a favorite side. I would start with whatever color looked nice that day. I think a lot about different ways to conceptualize the cube. The cube has a tri-axial symmetry that we simple, bi-laterally symmetrical humans like to ignore (but shouldn't). If you place a cube with its corner on a table (as if you were going to spin it like a top) you have a situation with 3 faces looking up at the ceiling, 3 faces looking down, and a strange zig zag equator. Some day I'll design a solve method based on that conception of a cube shape. Maybe someone already has. I like to think about how many ways 2 edge pieces can be related to each other (4). I have ideas for new BLD methods called 6-style and 9-style. I like to ask questions that don't seem like they could possibly have an answer, like, some day how could I hide an edge piece (frankly, there are far too many of them!) with the corners and use that in a solve method? In one of my sketches for a blindfolded method, instead of starting with a solved core (centers), I turn the whole cube so that one particular edge piece is solved, and then I solve the other 11 edges, the corners, and the centers. In another, I find 2 adjacent edge pieces that are already positioned correctly (this exists in most scrambles), and base the solve around them, moving centers and corners into position. This requires the kind of knowledge of moving centers found in Void Swap and no-parity-pochmann. It involves fewer moves (because 2 edges are already in place), but it has other issues... I have half a dozen BLD ideas jangling around in my head right now, waiting... Now and then, two strange ideas match up or collide, and BOOM, you suddenly have a big idea... Sorry -- I started by answering your question, and then went off on my own flight-of-fancy. This is what happens when you don't go to competitions and talk about the cube with real people! Don't worry -- I won't talk like this forever on this forum!

 

[43Quintillionaire]

I should probably clarify a few things.



U permutation itself doesn't fix parity. T or R permutation does. We can generalize further and say that a single quarter turn of inner or outer layer toggles parity (i.e. even permutation to odd permutation and vice versa) in the fixed-corner model as illustrated in this post.



Stefan's single algorithm method is based on the fixed-centers model, and as such, inherently there must be a way to fix parity (T permutation in this case). "no additional parity algorithm pochmann" would be more precise description for his single algorithm method. 43Quintillionaire's idea is not based on the fixed-centers model, therefore there doesn't need to be a stage for parity fix at all.

Thanks for this clarification. Right. The single algorithm method still does require a parity step, whereas the method I call "no parity pochmann" (also discovered by Stefan Pochmann, in 2005) has none. And I'll add: "No Parity Pochmann" might be the only BLD that requires zero adjustments to memo. In every solve: Each letter of memo is executed, and that's all there is. There are no special instructions, additional steps, or substitutions. No additional logic at all. I'm happy to be corrected on this assertion!

 

[bcube]

43Quintillionaire, I am sure you already know all of this, so I will address this post to the readers not familiarized with this stuff yet.

The single algorithm method still does require a parity step

It has to, mathematically there is no other way/possibility.

whereas the method I call "no parity pochmann" (also discovered by Stefan Pochmann, in 2005) has none

It has to (have none), mathematically there is no other way/possibility.

And I'll add: "No Parity Pochmann" might be the only BLD that requires zero adjustments to memo. In every solve: Each letter of memo is executed, and that's all there is. There are no special instructions, additional steps, or substitutions. No additional logic at all. I'm happy to be corrected on this assertion!

Unless I am missing something, you are not adding anything new, you are just rephrasing the same thing which is: "as long as centers are moving using 2-cycles [plus some other conditions], there is no parity step".

So yes, your assertion is correct.