Is it possible for me to solve blindfolded...without algorithms?

[Escher]

ABA'B' is the only pre-memorised sequence you need

 

[miniGOINGS]

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me at all, I can solve all the cubes. I said the way I usually solve it but I always solve it many other ways. I just don't look at algorithms and memorize them. I admitted that speed solving isn't my thing(unless I come up with stuff that are really good) but am not interested in that.

So what is your thing again?

 

[alkanova]

Well... I think if you learn how commutators work, you should be able to get there. There are quite a few simple commutators for orienting pieces or 3 cycling pieces that basically don't require memorisation, IMO... If you understand how they work, you don't have to memo them, it's more about 'learning' than pure memorisation.

Btw, it sounds like you are somewhat afraid of memo-ing algs, so may I ask how you normally would memo an alg? You are not actually memoing the RLUDFB's, are you?

I don't memorize algorithm. I go more for intuition and concepts in all the cubes( i just experiment, trying to find better approaches to solve, it maybe the same as coming up with yuor own lousy algs but am fine with it XD). Yes I know commutators and conjugation I use them all the time.

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me at all, I can solve all the cubes. I said the way I usually solve it but I always solve it many other ways. I just don't look at algorithms and memorize them. I admitted that speed solving isn't my thing(unless I come up with stuff that are really good) but am not interested in that.

So what is your thing again?

sorry, what do you mean?

 

[miniGOINGS]

sorry, what do you mean?

The first part of your post answered my question. It just sounds like memorizing isn't your thing, and using algorithms isn't your thing, and speedsolving isn't your thing, so I was wondering what your thing was.

 

[alkanova]

Using M2/BH is pretty algorithmless. You only need to know the algorithms "M2", "R2", "U2 M' U2 M' ", "M U2 M U2", and however many orientation algorithms you choose to learn. The corners will just require very good intuition and understanding of commutators.

Using Old Pochmann and remembering 2 algorithms (You can get by on one if you want to lose a lot of speed and risk screwing the solve up) is the easiest, and will take you, like, what, an hour to memorize the two algorithms?

But if you can't commit to those puny algorithms, then you aren't putting enough effort into it. It's like not even bothering to remember your own phone number. There's a reason 99+% of the population can't do it with their eyes open.

Memorizing algorithms is not necessarily a scale commitment or effort -not even close to be an accurate one-. Just because I rather go towards doing the cubes without memorizing algorithms but using concepts and intuition, that doesn't mean I am not putting effort. I might have miss explained my question before, but you guys have just been bashing, you make me sound like a guy who just wants to solve the thing easily without much effort. I don't know if people here don't need to put any effort to get to solve the cube with just some commutators and intuition without even memorizing a single alg then reach under 1 min -which isn't fancy for speedcubing I know, but for me it's enough-,then go to all the cubes and experiment, but for me it took time,thinking and effort.

All I wanted to know is, if what I rely on (commutators,intuition..etc.) is enough for trying to go for Blindfold cubing. I don't know anything about it and I need just some guidance. If it takes understanding more concepts I am fine with it and I already said that I don't have a problem if what I have to memorize is the cube itself. I already close my eyes and try to keep an image of the cube-actually just the parts that matter- when I play around and use commutators with conjugation that are both several moves (looking at the cube with my eyes open just confuse me sometimes) If I have to take it further I'll sure try.

and thank you I'll try to go for what you mentioned and see if I can just understand them.

 

[shelley]

You can do it with 0 algs if you understand commutators and are comfortable with using them. It won't necessarily be easy, but it's doable. Good luck.

 

[joey]

How would you solve parity without 0 algs..

inb4 pre-move = parity

 

[shelley]

How would you solve parity without 0 algs..

inb4 pre-move = parity

Say you have a T perm on the top layer. Now do U. It can now be solved using 3 cycles.

Like I said, won't be easy, but it's doable.

 

[cmhardw]

...Yes I know commutators and conjugation I use them all the time.

All I wanted to know is, if what I rely on (commutators,intuition..etc.) is enough for trying to go for Blindfold cubing. I don't know anything about it and I need just some guidance.

To answer your question, can you perform (without looking at the cube) the following cycles using your understanding of commutators and intuition? The cycles I will give you will not require conjugation, but you may use it if it helps.

Corner BLD intuition test:
UBL -> FRU -> DFL
Here the first letter represents the particular sticker of that piece. So I am saying that the U sticker of UBL goes to the F sticker of FRU, which goes to the D sticker of DFL (which returns to the U sticker of UBL).

Edge BLD intuition test:
UB -> DF -> FR
So the U sticker of UB goes to the D sticker of DF, which goes to the F sticker of FR.

Performing those cycles would be a good test of how well you current knowledge of commutators/conjugates would hold up during a BLD solve without you having to memorize other algorithms (or learn new ways to perform commutators).

Chris

 

[joey]

How would you solve parity without 0 algs..

inb4 pre-move = parity

Say you have a T perm on the top layer. Now do U. It can now be solved using 3 cycles.

Like I said, won't be easy, but it's doable.

So err, I'm silly
Instead of thinking about it like that.. I thought of doing that U turn as a pre-move

 

[Feryll]

Using M2/BH is pretty algorithmless. You only need to know the algorithms "M2", "R2", "U2 M' U2 M' ", "M U2 M U2", and however many orientation algorithms you choose to learn. The corners will just require very good intuition and understanding of commutators.

Using Old Pochmann and remembering 2 algorithms (You can get by on one if you want to lose a lot of speed and risk screwing the solve up) is the easiest, and will take you, like, what, an hour to memorize the two algorithms?

But if you can't commit to those puny algorithms, then you aren't putting enough effort into it. It's like not even bothering to remember your own phone number. There's a reason 99+% of the population can't do it with their eyes open.

Memorizing algorithms is not necessarily a scale commitment or effort -not even close to be an accurate one-. Just because I rather go towards doing the cubes without memorizing algorithms but using concepts and intuition, that doesn't mean I am not putting effort. I might have miss explained my question before, but you guys have just been bashing, you make me sound like a guy who just wants to solve the thing easily without much effort. I don't know if people here don't need to put any effort to get to solve the cube with just some commutators and intuition without even memorizing a single alg then reach under 1 min -which isn't fancy for speedcubing I know, but for me it's enough-,then go to all the cubes and experiment, but for me it took time,thinking and effort.

All I wanted to know is, if what I rely on (commutators,intuition..etc.) is enough for trying to go for Blindfold cubing. I don't know anything about it and I need just some guidance. If it takes understanding more concepts I am fine with it and I already said that I don't have a problem if what I have to memorize is the cube itself. I already close my eyes and try to keep an image of the cube-actually just the parts that matter- when I play around and use commutators with conjugation that are both several moves (looking at the cube with my eyes open just confuse me sometimes) If I have to take it further I'll sure try.

and thank you I'll try to go for what you mentioned and see if I can just understand them.

Ah, I'm sorry. That last paragraph came out a little harsher than I expected. I was actually coming back here to edit in my post that if you are not just lazy, but just wanting to solve in intuitively, then that's a different question. Solving under 60 seconds is actually really good for no algorithms, as most of us (Including me) need a brain dump of memorized moves to get 'er done.

If I'm not mistaken, then BH would be your corners method, as it implies commutators, and 3OP would be a good edges method. I think you may have to work out a few cases, though.

Good luck!

 

[Samania]

You cant exactly do a blindfolded solve without intense memorization.

 

[alkanova]

require[/b] conjugation, but you may use it if it helps.

Corner BLD intuition test:
UBL -> FRU -> DFL
Here the first letter represents the particular sticker of that piece. So I am saying that the U sticker of UBL goes to the F sticker of FRU, which goes to the D sticker of DFL (which returns to the U sticker of UBL).

Edge BLD intuition test:
UB -> DF -> FR
So the U sticker of UB goes to the D sticker of DF, which goes to the F sticker of FR.

Performing those cycles would be a good test of how well you current knowledge of commutators/conjugates would hold up during a BLD solve without you having to memorize other algorithms (or learn new ways to perform commutators).

Chris

Thank you, so I did the first one without conjugating; though, I did flip it-the whole cube- forward and F became D to make a more familiar situation. I did the second one but in this one I did conjugate and I even had to put my fingers on the sides at the beginning so that I don't get confused. I am better with corners but I've been trying to become better with edges these couple of days by solving all the corners then using commutators for the edges.

 

[Dene]

You can do it with 3 algs.

Look it up, it's called Old Pochmann.

Y perm and T perm. What's the third alg for?

 

[rcbeyer]

You can do it with 3 algs.

Look it up, it's called Old Pochmann.

Y perm and T perm. What's the third alg for?

R perm, for adjusting parity after corners or edges, whichever was done first, when there is an odd number of swaps you do the R perm to fix parity

 

[Dene]

You can do it with 3 algs.

Look it up, it's called Old Pochmann.

Y perm and T perm. What's the third alg for?

R perm, for adjusting parity after corners or edges, whichever was done first, when there is an odd number of swaps you do the R perm to fix parity

Ok but you don't need to do that.

 

[rcbeyer]

You can do it with 3 algs.

Look it up, it's called Old Pochmann.

Y perm and T perm. What's the third alg for?

R perm, for adjusting parity after corners or edges, whichever was done first, when there is an odd number of swaps you do the R perm to fix parity

Ok but you don't need to do that.

you of course, are right -

i misspoke, R perm is generally used when you do old pochmann for corners/m2 edges

i should have said J-perm for purely old pochmann style solves

Y-Perm, T-Perm, and J-Perm are used for old pochman

sorry

 

[Dene]

J-PERM IS FOR WIMPS WHO ARE TOO SCARED TO DO REAL MEN SETUPS.

 

[Boxcarcrzy12]

Learn M2/Old Pochmann, the Algs are very easy,

 

[rcbeyer]

J-PERM IS FOR WIMPS WHO ARE TOO SCARED TO DO REAL MEN SETUPS.

not gonna lie - i lol'd a bit