[Help Thread] Blindsolving

[Habsen]

I would recommend to learn an advanced edge method first as it will improve a larger fraction of the pieces you have to solve. M2 is a great method, however, if you think about learning 3-style later, I would prefer Orozco with UF as buffer and BU as helper. It is very similar to M2 and by learning this you already know 24 of 440 3-style algs. Most top BLDers agree that UF/UFR is one of the best buffer combinations. So UFR is highly recommended in this case.

 

[ProStar]

I would recommend to learn an advanced edge method first as it will improve a larger fraction of the pieces you have to solve. M2 is a great method, however, if you think about learning 3-style later, I would prefer Orozco with UF as buffer and BU as helper. It is very similar to M2 and by learning this you already know 24 of 440 3-style algs. Most top BLDers agree that UF/UFR is one of the best buffer combinations. So UFR is highly recommended in this case.

Orozco is for corners, not edges. And just because your buffer is something different for M2 doesn't mean you can't ever change it to UFR if you do continue to 3-style.

I'd also like to here the opinions of @sigalig and @porkynator (best 3BLDers I know of on the forums)

 

[Cuberstache]

Orozco is for corners, not edges.

This is wrong. Orozco works the same exact way for edges as it does for corners: Using 3-style algs to solve one piece at a time rather than two.

 

[sqAree]

People who say you shouldn't learn M2/OP are stupid. It's a great next method after full OP. Also think hard before you commit to 3-style, even though everything is a commutator you still have to learn them and know the few hundred different ones, you can't just make them up on the spot

You confuse being stupid with being right.
M2 is just a pretty bad method, even if you don't want to commit to 3-style right away, there are other (strictly better) alternatives, like Eka and Orozco (which both have their own advantages and disadvantages, but are in every regard better than M2).

 

[Habsen]

You confuse being stupid with being right.
M2 is just a pretty bad method, even if you don't want to commit to 3-style right away, there are other (strictly better) alternatives, like Eka and Orozco (which both have their own advantages and disadvantages, but are in every regard better than M2).

Can you explain why you think Orozco is so much better than M2?

 

[sqAree]

Can you explain why you think Orozco is so much better than M2?

Sure, you can think of M2 being a special case of Orozco, with DF buffer and UB helper. Thanks to that almost all the algs share the same interchange (M2) that sometimes cancels with each other, but apart from that the algs are significantly worse than those of the UF buffer (even if you fingertrick the M2 correctly and don't always do the doubleflick that causes like 2 regrips per alg).
And the learning difficulty is probably around the same for both methods, considering that M2 needs a few special algs as well and that many UF-Orozco algs follow the same principle, just with a U2 interchange. I can see it can be argued that M2 is more braindead (good for beginners) in the sense that with Orozco you have to learn the inverses for every alg too and alternate between inverses and normal algs, but I'd argue it's actually even more braindead for Orozco because you have to do that every single time, whereas with M2 there are a few targets that require this so you have to be more attentive generally.
And last but not least, even if you don't plan to get into 3-style any time soon, Orozco equips you with the first full sticker set of comms for the best buffer already, for free, while time spent with M2 is like, wasted, in the long run.

 

[dudefaceguy]

you can't just make them up on the spot

Well ... you definitely can. Just not extremely quickly. My execution is about 1:45 after about 2 weeks of intuitive 3-style. I'm not looking to set any records though - any competent speed cuber would be way faster than me even using my janky made up techniques.

3 style is extremely fun, so I say dive right in and just start learning it.

 

[Habsen]

Sure, you can think of M2 being a special case of Orozco, with DF buffer and UB helper. Thanks to that almost all the algs share the same interchange (M2) that sometimes cancels with each other, but apart from that the algs are significantly worse than those of the UF buffer (even if you fingertrick the M2 correctly and don't always do the doubleflick that causes like 2 regrips per alg).
And the learning difficulty is probably around the same for both methods, considering that M2 needs a few special algs as well and that many UF-Orozco algs follow the same principle, just with a U2 interchange. I can see it can be argued that M2 is more braindead (good for beginners) in the sense that with Orozco you have to learn the inverses for every alg too and alternate between inverses and normal algs, but I'd argue it's actually even more braindead for Orozco because you have to do that every single time, whereas with M2 there are a few targets that require this so you have to be more attentive generally.
And last but not least, even if you don't plan to get into 3-style any time soon, Orozco equips you with the first full sticker set of comms for the best buffer already, for free, while time spent with M2 is like, wasted, in the long run.

You made some interesting points. I am not fully convinced though. I guess that is because I am not thinking of plain M2 but "advanced" M2, e.g. with the nice algs that handle pairs of FU/BD with L/R layer stickers more efficiently. You may be right when we compare Orozco to plain M2. Which helper would you use for UF-Orozco? I am asking because I still think that learning M2 is easier. Only 3 non-trivial algs (FU, BD, BU).
Anyway, I am definitely recommending Orozco over M2 when 3-style is a realistic goal in the future, as you can see in my previous post.

Btw, thank you for hosting my first (and so far only) competition this year in Berlin.

 

[sqAree]

You made some interesting points. I am not fully convinced though. I guess that is because I am not thinking of plain M2 but "advanced" M2, e.g. with the nice algs that handle pairs of FU/BD with L/R layer stickers more efficiently. You may be right when we compare Orozco to plain M2. Which helper would you use for UF-Orozco? I am asking because I still think that learning M2 is easier. Only 3 non-trivial algs (FU, BD, BU).
Anyway, I am definitely recommending Orozco over M2 when 3-style is a realistic goal in the future, as you can see in my previous post.

Btw, thank you for hosting my first (and so far only) competition this year in Berlin.

UF-Orozco should be done with UB helper (it's the fastest sticker set for UF). For 4BLD wings, I'd recommend BUr though (because r/r' is significantly easier on big cubes than E/S slice variants).

I think comparing Orozco with advanced M2 doesn't make sense at all. How advanced can your M2 be? There is no universal definition of what is "advanced M2". Sure, you can add tons of tricks and comms to basic M2 to make it far better than other intermediate methods, but at some point you're basically using 3-style (albeit a bad version of it), so it's not too surprising it surpasses Orozco and the like. I can do the same with Orozco and add tons of comms to catch up. However, in the end the advanced M2 person is left with a worse buffer.

But you're also right that M2 - might - be a bit easier to learn than Orozco, however not sure if the difference is all that huge. There is also a method called U2, which is basically UF-Orozco except that you setup to a U2-interchange all the time; which cancels out just like the M2 in M2 does, then you have a method that is exactly the same as M2 regarding its difficulty but still has the benefit of faster algs and a better buffer. Although at that point you're so close to using Orozco that you can as well use Orozco, but that's beside the point (I actually took the route of switching from M2 to U2 and from there to 3-style so I know what I'm talking about, however, these days I know better and wouldn't really recommend U2 anymore because of it's inferiority to Orozco which is where I'm coming from).

After all, if you're dedicated enough to dive into 3-style, having to switch from a worse buffer / method might not stop you anyway.

I want to add that it's the general consensus among the top BLDers that M2 is bad (source: many postings from different people over the past few months / years in the BLD Support Group on Facebook). I hope that my argument that now consists of reason as well as appeal to authority can convince some people. ^^

PS: You're welcome, it was a pleasure to organize that competition and give everyone (near Berlin or from far away) the chance to compete!

 

[Habsen]

UF-Orozco should be done with UB helper (it's the fastest sticker set for UF). For 4BLD wings, I'd recommend BUr though (because r/r' is significantly easier on big cubes than E/S slice variants).

I think comparing Orozco with advanced M2 doesn't make sense at all. How advanced can your M2 be? There is no universal definition of what is "advanced M2". Sure, you can add tons of tricks and comms to basic M2 to make it far better than other intermediate methods, but at some point you're basically using 3-style (albeit a bad version of it), so it's not too surprising it surpasses Orozco and the like. I can do the same with Orozco and add tons of comms to catch up. However, in the end the advanced M2 person is left with a worse buffer.

But you're also right that M2 - might - be a bit easier to learn than Orozco, however not sure if the difference is all that huge. There is also a method called U2, which is basically UF-Orozco except that you setup to a U2-interchange all the time; which cancels out just like the M2 in M2 does, then you have a method that is exactly the same as M2 regarding its difficulty but still has the benefit of faster algs and a better buffer. Although at that point you're so close to using Orozco that you can as well use Orozco, but that's beside the point (I actually took the route of switching from M2 to U2 and from there to 3-style so I know what I'm talking about, however, these days I know better and wouldn't really recommend U2 anymore because of it's inferiority to Orozco which is where I'm coming from).

After all, if you're dedicated enough to dive into 3-style, having to switch from a worse buffer / method might not stop you anyway.

I want to add that it's the general consensus among the top BLDers that M2 is bad (source: many postings from different people over the past few months / years in the BLD Support Group on Facebook). I hope that my argument that now consists of reason as well as appeal to authority can convince some people. ^^

PS: You're welcome, it was a pleasure to organize that competition and give everyone (near Berlin or from far away) the chance to compete!

Thank you for your detailed argument. You have given me something to think about.

I think we can conclude that learning Orozco for edges would be a good next step for the thread opener, using UF as buffer and UB as helper (not BU as I initially recommended).

 

[porkynator]

Orozco is for corners, not edges. And just because your buffer is something different for M2 doesn't mean you can't ever change it to UFR if you do continue to 3-style.

I'd also like to here the opinions of @sigalig and @porkynator (best 3BLDers I know of on the forums)

I am not the best to judge here, since I didn't use any of the intermediate methods mentioned in this thread (I did OP/OP -> OP/Turbo -> 3-style).

From what I've heard, Orozco seems to be a very good intermediate method, because it offers a smooth transition to 3-style. The transition from M2 might be slightly harder (especially if you plan to change buffer), but far from impossible.
Going straight to 3-style is also possible, but it takes more work and one might lose motivation midway through it. Learning an intermediate method and gradually transitioning to 3-style makes practicing more fun in my opinion, because you can apply immediately what you learn

 

[gibon187]

I've read all of your comments, coming to conclusion i will at first learn orozco for corners and stick to OP for edges for while to get into it (with orozco ofc) and then go for 3-style corners. Then figure something out with edges, cause as @sqAree said, there is no point at all to learn this.

btw. @sqAree can i dm you for further questions or something?

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

I just learned orozco for corners and I was wondering if anybody had tips for me. I didn't memorize the algs, I do them semi intuitively (is that bad?).
I am having trouble especially with the Q and N stickers. Everytime I solve one of them I always mess it up for some reason.

Thanks!

 

[sqAree]

I've read all of your comments, coming to conclusion i will at first learn orozco for corners and stick to OP for edges for while to get into it (with orozco ofc) and then go for 3-style corners. Then figure something out with edges, cause as @sqAree said, there is no point at all to learn this.

btw. @sqAree can i dm you for further questions or something?

Sure, go ahead. ^^

 

[lucarubik]

I used to use use 3OP yes that is a thing M2 and got into 3style, first corners then edges with little trouble, and all the information there was back then was that beyer hardwick sheet and a 3 min brian yu "tutorial"
alsoi did change buffers to UB and it wasnt too inpactfull since neither UB nor BU had letters i had to unlearn. 3OP doesnt use a fixed buffer
i think you might regret not going for it stirght away and with the best buffers, first corners then edges or the other way around.

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

Please don't everybody speak at once...

 

[VIBE_ZT]

Hello SS forum, I've got a quick question about 4x4 blindfolded.

So, I have recently begun learning the Eka method for 3BLD edges, and I really love the method. I'm hoping that I can use it as a stepping stone to learn more comm sets, and eventually "full" 3-style.

But I can only solve 4x4 blindfolded with U2, R2, and OP.


So my question is....

Does there exist any so-called "intermediate" methods for 4x4 blindfolded that aren't full 3-style? Something like a Orozco or Eka equivalent for 4x4 Blindfolded?


Thanks! I'm deeply sorry if this has been asked before on this thread, I must have missed it.

 

[EliteCuber]

Hi everybody,

I've been trying to learn Blindfold solving, and I did read couple online tutorials (One from cubefreak.net for example). The problem is, I have no idea what the tutorials are talking about and I haven't been able to learn anything so far.

How should I start off?

did u learn old pochman? u should learn that first. Jperms tutorial is the best.

 

[PetrusQuber]

did u learn old pochman? u should learn that first. Jperms tutorial is the best.

You are replying to a post from 12 years back. Please check the date of the post before you reply.

 

[lucarubik]

cubefreak.net thats maki's site thats where I learnt from!
macky*