Older cubers discussions

[chtiger]

But, as you say, if I can understand and get the hang of M2, maybe I should go with that. OP will always be there for me if I cannot feel confortable with M2.

I think that's a good outlook to have. And M2 isn't much harder than OP, it's just a bit more effort to learn. So if you don't mind putting in the extra effort, then no reason to not try M2 first. The only additional thing to understand is the exchanging of BD/FU and UF/DB on even targets. And you have the BU/BD/FU algs to learn, plus the easy short algs for UF/DB. Parity also requires another fairly easy alg and is a bit more complicated, but nothing hard. If for some reason you can't get the hang of M2, you always have OP to fall back to.

With all the talk of 3BLD, I'm determined to practice more and get a sub 2:00 PB. Current PB is 2:01 using OP/OP. Not sure exactly what my M2 PB is, but it's 2:10-2:15. I usually alternate between the two when practicing, which isn't often.
Just did 3 attempts, and the number of targets were 13/9, 12/12(4 twisted corners!), and 13/9. Ugh, not going to get a PB on those scrambles.

 

[mark49152]

The move count is much less, but the time savings gets overstated in my opinion.

Who overstated the time savings of M2? I don't recall seeing any claims (at least on this thread) that struck me as being exaggerated.

I agree with your analysis, more or less. My M2/OP execution is indeed about 50, maybe 55-60 with hesitations, and breaks down to about 2 sec/edge and 3 sec/corner. So assuming each OP edge would take me about the same time as an OP corner, I'd expect to be about 12 seconds slower with OP edges, with an equivalent amount of practice. Maybe a bit more if using a PLL for parity too. I'm not fast but I do still care about 12 seconds.

However, that's not really the point. The only real case I've made why people should skip learning OP edges is that M2 is not significantly harder, but will serve you better in the long run. IMHO, it's a waste of time to learn OP edges, if you care at all about getting faster one day. Those few seconds you save on edges execution might be minor compared to your slow memo now, but after a year you might care about those few seconds and wish you'd not spent a year practising OP edges only to realise you now have to switch. And as you acknowledge, M2 is a good platform for adding tricks including comms, so that year can be spent not just practising M2 but developing a broader repertoire of edges tricks based on it.

As for memo, I agree that for most people starting out the memo will dominate their times. I've roughly halved my memo time in the last 3 months, and I hope that by my next comp I will reduce it further by an amount that exceeds my entire edges execution time .

 

[chtiger]

Who overstated the time savings of M2? I don't recall seeing any claims (at least on this thread) that struck me as being exaggerated.

I wasn't referring to anybody specific. Nobody ever mentions an amount, but there's a lot of 'it's a whole lot faster', 'it's so much faster', or even 'it's twice as fast'. I wanted to put a number to that, because when someone is new to blind, ~15 seconds isn't a whole lot faster. I was wanting others to have a better idea of what the actual differences are. If someone learns OP and gets a 10 minute solve, and they think they can just switch to M2 and be a whole lot faster, they are going to be disappointed when they only get 9:45. That's why I said the time savings is overstated, because when people recommend M2 and say it's much faster, it's to someone who is fairly new to blind where the time difference isn't really much faster, relatively speaking.

I agree with what you say in the rest of your post. After improvement, then that 15 seconds will be more significant. Like with me getting sub 2:00. So it's fair to say that if I had started with M2 and not spent any time practicing OP edges, then I'd have a sub-2 already. But since I learned OP first, I could also say if I had used the time I've spent practicing M2 to work on my memo instead, I'd also have a sub-2 . It depends on your personal goals and preferences. I've only recommended OP for someone who wants the easiest method and not really interested in a longer term commitment to see how fast they can get. M2 is definitely better for long term improvement.

 

[h2f]

I've decided to make ao100 in every day of the weekend starting from Friday. It's my first practice sessions for months. And I've found a lot of fun in it. Im in the middle of ao100 and I've realized that it's so much fun to solve the cube. Focused on getting better and better I've forgot about that feeling. It's great!

 

[mark49152]

I wanted to put a number to that, because when someone is new to blind, ~15 seconds isn't a whole lot faster. I was wanting others to have a better idea of what the actual differences are.

That's hard, because there's no actual difference, only estimates based on measurements and/or assumptions that will vary wildly between people. It's probably fair to say that the analysis above is reasonable in proportional terms. So after a decent amount of practice with M2/OP, exec is about half the solve, M2 edges are about half of exec, and OP edges would be about 50% slower - so M2 would result in solve averages about 10% faster than with OP edges. The faster you are, the bigger difference it will make - if slower then memo and pauses will dominate more; if faster then M2 TPS will approach that of your T-perm so move count will be more important, including the better scope for tricks, shortcuts and comms.

Similar arguments apply to comms I guess.

 

[h2f]

If I can give you an example of me: look at my last video. I'm solving the cube so slow, but it's all with comms and that's why it takes only 46 seconds. Movecount matters a lot. J or T perm you can do in around 2 seconds (with setups). With the same tps in 2 seconds you can do 2 edges with M2. So it matters a lot.

 

[muchacho]

This was the scramble of my FMC try at my last (first) comp:
R' D2 B' U' R' F2 L' D' B U D R2 U B2 R2 U' R2 D' L2 U2

And this was the solution I was meant to write down, but I wrote the last moves without testing if they were right, and the "solution" I wrote was off by the final M2:
y2 Uw B2 Lw2 x2 F U2 R' Rw' B'
U R' U Rw' U2 Rw' U' Rw U' Lw L' U2 R U' R'
y F R U R' U' F' y
R' U L' U2 R U' L R' U L' U2 R U' L
Rw2 R2 U Rw R' U2 Rw R' U2 Rw R' U' Rw2 R2 U2 Rw2 R2

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R-_D2...U_Rw_R-_U2_Rw_R-_U2_Rw_R-_U-_Rw2_R2_U2_Rw2_R2

 

[muchacho]

3 months passed since I did some Megaminx solves, I've done 9 and that gets me a new ao12 PB... Woohoo! ...9:35 ...embarrassing, I'm going to practice Mega until I get it down to 5-6 minutes (best so far is 7:46), or until my Yuxin 5x5 arrives.

 

[h2f]

This was the scramble of my FMC try at my last (first) comp:
R' D2 B' U' R' F2 L' D' B U D R2 U B2 R2 U' R2 D' L2 U2

And this was the solution I was meant to write down, but I wrote the last moves without testing if they were right, and the "solution" I wrote was off by the final M2:
y2 Uw B2 Lw2 x2 F U2 R' Rw' B'
U R' U Rw' U2 Rw' U' Rw U' Lw L' U2 R U' R'
y F R U R' U' F' y
R' U L' U2 R U' L R' U L' U2 R U' L
Rw2 R2 U Rw R' U2 Rw R' U2 Rw R' U' Rw2 R2 U2 Rw2 R2

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R-_D2...U_Rw_R-_U2_Rw_R-_U2_Rw_R-_U-_Rw2_R2_U2_Rw2_R2

Do you want a feedback? Are you going to do FMC solves?

A did today 170 solves. I got my best ao50 20.23. I think I'm back to my previous level.

 

[muchacho]

Yes, please. Anyway I won't use Roux for this, I'll try to learn some real FMC techniques for my next comp (that will be next year).

 

[h2f]

I must say that doing FMC I've started with Roux. I was solving with Roux almost half of the year to feel comfortable with Roux and FMC. I have 33 moves solution with pure Roux. And my first try at the competition was with Roux too - 49 moves.

Roux is very good techninique to start with FMC but it has its limits. And the limit is not M moves but the thing that orinetation of the edges you do in the end of the solves. This puts hard limits what you can do and causes Roux is inefficient. That's why I've stopped. But the advantage is that it teaches you to build blocks and operate them. If you take a look at the most common technique in FMC it goes like this: build 2x2x2 block, next build 2x2x3 block, orient edges, do one f2l, put last edge from f2l the way that all edges on top layer are in their places, find insertions. Doing EO after a block gives you more natural continutation and has a very few limits than in Roux. There's a tutorial written by Sebastiono Tronto where are necessery things are mentioned: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?49162-FMC-a-Candomplete-Tutorial

Look at your solution - it's quite decent. I wonder why you didnt finished second block with Rw? After FRU and Yperm it would give arrow but it gives me only 1 move shorter solution. So it's ok. My only advice - avoid rotation. Do them only in the beginning. I was doing the same, but I stopped. At the moment I scramble at the orientation I solve (green front yellow top) and I do no rotation. All is matter of practice.

 

[mafergut]

I'm convinced with your arguments in favor of starting directly with M2 edges!
Not sure that I will ever get fast like you guys (sub 2 minutes or even around 1 minute) but I think it's worth a try.

By the way, Jason, I already received my Yuxin timer and the audio cable and I couldn't make it work with csTimer either. If I connect the some headphones to the timer I can hear some strange frequency that seems to change slightly when the timer is running but not sure if that's what it's supposed to happen, anyway the csTimer page stays at --:-- and nothing happens.

 

[muchacho]

Thanks!

When speedsolving I don't pay attention to the last move of the SB, maybe that's why I didn't do it in that FMC attempt.

What I don't find very appealing is learning algs for last layer, do you think trying to learn Heise would take less effort/time (I would be ok averaging 45 moves or so)?

I'm convinced!
Not sure that I will ever get fast like you guys (sub 2 minutes or even around 1 minute) but I think it's worth a try.

4x4?

Megaminx? 5x5?

 

[mafergut]

4x4?

Megaminx? 5x5?

3BLD. I hope to get at least a bit closer to 1 minute with 4x4 (around 2:00 right now). Mega and 5x5 clearly no. I would be glad being close to 3-4 minutes on those. I just clarified my post as I see there are some additional posts between the OP/M2 argumentation and when I have finally answered.

 

[sqAree]

When I asked about if it's worth to skip OP for M2 directly Maskow told me I should just learn turbo (or however it's spelled).

 

[chtiger]

Second tip is to adjust for odd/even during memo, not exec. Always memo in letter pairs. On the second letter in each pair, if you hit C, I, S or W, memo the opposite instead - so W, S, I or C respectively. It's so much easier to do this during memo than exec. When you get to execution and you recall an S, you always execute it the same way, regardless of odd or even. So less thinking during exec, which is good, as fewer pauses and fewer mistakes. It also helps when you start bringing in other tricks and comms. Once you get in the habit of just swapping the letters during memo, you never have to think of where the M targets are.

I've got a question about this when using advanced M2. I try to get rid of the BU/FU/BD algs if possible, so for example if I get BU-FU, then I would do U and execute as RU-LU. If I replaced FU during memo with BD, then I'd have BU-BD and I'd do B' and execute as BR-BL, but that's not going to work. How do you deal with stuff like this? Do you have to remember to change it back to its original target if you're going to move it out of it's location. That seems more complicated. Or I am I doing something wrong or missing something simple.

 

[h2f]

I'm convinced with your arguments in favor of starting directly with M2 edges!
Not sure that I will ever get fast like you guys (sub 2 minutes or even around 1 minute) but I think it's worth a try.

I'm sure you will be sub 2 minutes very soon. You will see it. It's a matter of regular practice.

@muchacho - I don't know Heise so I cant answer. But In my opinion instead of learning algs learn how commutators work and solve like almost every FMC solver does - put the last edge without corner (or whit) and remaing corners solve with comms. If you do that directly it can gives you 8 moves per 3 pieces and 16 per 5 which is much better than algs. I know that only Michał Pleskowicz does last layer with ZBLLs but he knows tons of algs. Writing it - if I remeber well Heise is very good option for FMC. As well as Petrus.

Finished second Ao100 today - new PB ao100 20.74.

 

[muchacho]

So, learning commutators will be.

New PB already? I'll try an Ao100 tomorrow for sure.


Fun fact, I found Ryan Heise website way before starting cubing, because of http://www.ryanheise.com/colemak/ (but I decided to use Dvorak instead of Colemak).

 

[mark49152]

I've got a question about this when using advanced M2. I try to get rid of the BU/FU/BD algs if possible, so for example if I get BU-FU, then I would do U and execute as RU-LU. If I replaced FU during memo with BD, then I'd have BU-BD and I'd do B' and execute as BR-BL, but that's not going to work. How do you deal with stuff like this? Do you have to remember to change it back to its original target if you're going to move it out of it's location. That seems more complicated. Or I am I doing something wrong or missing something simple.

Suppose for FU-BU you do U and LU-RU. If you swap letters during memo, you can always use this solution regardless of whether FU occurs on an odd or even target. If it occurs on an even target, you are in fact solving BD-BU, because at that point BD is displaced to FU, but you don't need to care about that at exec time. You only have to think about that one pair. Being able to use comms for even-odd pairs as well as odd-even without thinking is very useful if you're adding comms to basic M2.

Now if FU occurs second in the pair, you must remember to swap it back. So if you had memoed as BU-FU you would always do B' and execute as BR-BL, but again that is regardless of whether the pair is odd-even or even-odd.

Whether it's more complicated or simpler depends how you think, I guess. Instead of having to remember to swap every M slice target if it occurs on an even target, you have to remember that if you're doing a comm or other 2-letter solution and the second in the pair is an M slice target, then you must swap it. For me personally, I find the latter simpler, as the swap depends only on the pair and not on its position in the sequence - each pair always has the same solution.

 

[Jason Green]

I'm convinced with your arguments in favor of starting directly with M2 edges!
Not sure that I will ever get fast like you guys (sub 2 minutes or even around 1 minute) but I think it's worth a try.

By the way, Jason, I already received my Yuxin timer and the audio cable and I couldn't make it work with csTimer either. If I connect the some headphones to the timer I can hear some strange frequency that seems to change slightly when the timer is running but not sure if that's what it's supposed to happen, anyway the csTimer page stays at --:-- and nothing happens.

Glad I'm not the only one I guess. Yeah Windows had the option to "listen to the input source" or something, and I could here stuff going on from the stackmat also.