Older cubers discussions

[mark49152]

Come on, guys! M2 is really just two relatively easy 11-move algs, for S and I targets. C and W are too trivial to count. Parity is just learning another setup. No way can alg learning effort be used as an excuse . The effort to learn these is really minor compared to the effort to learn BLD concepts, a letter scheme, memo techniques, etc.

The hardest thing to get used to in M2 is the odd/even target thing, not the algs, and it makes sense after a little practice.

You'll have M2 down in no time @bubbagrub and will wonder why you didn't do it earlier .

Of course OP is fine for those who really are just looking to get started in BLD with absolute minimal effort, but M2 is only a little more effort, for much greater benefits later.

 

[One Wheel]

Of course OP is fine for those who really are just looking to get started in BLD with absolute minimal effort, but M2 is only a little more effort, for much greater benefits later.

I still haven't finished learning M2, but I will say that I should have started with it instead of OP.

 

[JanW]

That's impressive! picking up comms and getting down to 2 min in less then 2 months! Im jealous. I've been casually doing sighted full 3 style solves here and there because it's really fun as you said. coming up with comms on the fly is addicting! But I'm still extremely slow at coming up with comms for it to be worth trying in a solve. Not enough of the process is second nature yet.

While I'm using comms to solve the cube, I'm still very far from what the pros would call using full comms. As I haven't learned any algorithms, I'm sure most of my comms are far from speed optimal. Actually, after a while I noticed how I settled down using only a quite restricted version of comms. With UFR as my corner buffer, I always make the 2 targets interchangeable on the B, D or L layer (mostly doable in 1 move, sometimes takes 2), then I know how to insert from UFR to all stickers on the UBR, UFL and DFR corner pieces. That's really all that is needed.

Only recently did I notice that some good lists of comms for UFR buffer are now available. There are some cases that are really bad with my current system. I might try to memorize new algs for those.

 

[Jason Green]

Glad you are excited about 3BLD @Jason Green
One thing to clarify with cycles which confuses people. If you get to a sticker on the buffer piece then don't solve it. If you get to a sticker on the piece that you started the cycle with then you do solve it.
Just got a 1:23.28 3BLD which I think is a PB. Will search this thread when I have more time. Must keep better records!

Thanks! The sticker you get to on the same piece you started could be the same sticker or a different one, either way it ends the cycle, correct? It's starting to sink in.

(it was admittedly an easy 10/6). So close to sub-minute! I'll get one soon!

This means you had 10 edges and 6 corners to memo, therefore no parity right? Haha, just want to make sure I'm learning blind speak correctly. I guess no more skimming through the blind posts like I usually do, it will make keeping up with the thread a little harder, you blinders talk a lot! (and I can tell I'm already starting to follow suit) :rolleyes:

Edit to add that when tracking edge cycles I'll free some fingers up once I've covered all the pieces on a particular face, I can just remember all those are done. Edge cycles are still the hardest part of the mechanics for me.

Great tip on freeing fingers when a face is done, that's the kind of obvious thing I needed someone to point out to me!

As far as M2/OP, I really "know" OP already, even though I am not doing memo or anything. I'll probably do some more written solutions like that and then start learning M2 soon, likely before I do any actual blind attempts I'm not sure yet. Problem with me sometimes is you can give me all the good evidence and reasoning in the world, and in the end I do whatever I feel like... not always a great quality to have.

 

[chtiger]

Come on, guys! M2 is really just two relatively easy 11-move algs, for S and I targets. C and W are too trivial to count. Parity is just learning another setup. No way can alg learning effort be used as an excuse . The effort to learn these is really minor compared to the effort to learn BLD concepts, a letter scheme, memo techniques, etc.

There's also BU, which might as well be an alg since it's a 6 move setup (13 moves total). Learning two long algs is ok, but three is where I draw the line. Kidding of course. Like Mike Hughey, it was 4BLD that pushed me over the edge to do M2 for 3BLD. I think everybody should just start with 4BLD, it's not that much harder than 3BLD

 

[JanW]

Thanks! The sticker you get to on the same piece you started could be the same sticker or a different one, either way it ends the cycle, correct? It's starting to sink in.

Yes. Whenever you hit any sticker on your buffer piece, you start a new cycle. And when you start a new cycle, you start by putting the buffer piece in the first slot of that cycle. So when you hit that piece again, you hit your buffer and should start a new cycle again (unless everything is memorized already, of course).

 

[mark49152]

There's also BU, which might as well be an alg since it's a 6 move setup (13 moves total).

True, but the setup is pretty intuitive. Or you can solve Q (BU) as A (UB) then flip that piece and the buffer: (U M')3 U M (U M')4. That might actually be easier to learn than the setup.

 

[kbrune]

Problem with me sometimes is you can give me all the good evidence and reasoning in the world, and in the end I do whatever I feel like... not always a great quality to have.

I know what you mean. No matter how many times I've heard the advide to do slow turning solves. I never end up doing it. I'll do 2 solves slowly and I'm back pretending my look ahead is better then Feliks'.

 

[pglewis]

I'd guess OP edges would be roughly the same difficulty as OP corners, and M2 was ~2-3x the work of OP corners for me. But I had the basics of OP corner mechanics down in a day, so 2-3 days to get comfortable with M2 for sighted solves in my case.

Q is longish as far as setup but I've always just visualized it as moving Q to V and then swapping from there, so at least there's no memorization cost for it. With C/W being short, I/S are really the only ones that initially gave me much trouble, and of course grasping the target reverse for C/I/S/W on even targets.

BTW: I still don't quite grok why Q never needs a separate alg for even targets.

 

[moralsh]

I learned OP like a month before my first comp (in 2013) and had 3 DNFs there around the 10 minute mark, two of them by just a twisted edge and the buffer. I learned M2 in that same comp and had my first success 7 months later at my next comp.

If any of you is afraid of BU, BD and FU, there are several ways to avoid it:
1) What I first used: just use UB, DB and UF and keep track of which of them are twisted to fix it in the end, you either have to twist 2 edges or four edges, very easy to do using one of the algs to twist 2 edges (M' U)*4 U (M' U)*4
2) set it up to another edge, if you have a BU -> LF Cycle you can do U (execute RU and LF) U'. The drawback to this method is that you have to understand that if the setup affect the other target, you have to keep track of where it goes, so it's easier to just do a setup that doesn't affect it. If you try to understand comms theory is very easy, if not it might be a bit complicated

I'd still go for learning the 3 algs or at least the BU and FU ones, as you can always execute BD rotating the cube to make it FU

 

[AlphaSheep]

I didn't bother learning the algs fire the FU and BD targets (I and S in my letter scheme). I read @mark49152's Advanced M2 thread before I even learned M2 (I used TuRBo before) and the trick that seemed easiest for me is the M method from a post by @Ollie. Its really just using an edge comm to solve pairs, but it's an easier way of thinking about them that makes so much sense to me. I actually found it easier to treat BD and FU targets that way right from the start than to learn the more common M2 algs.

The only tricky case is when I get SI or IS as my letter pair. The easy to handle these cases is to do U' to set up then solve as if the pair was SM or MS.

 

[mark49152]

BTW: I still don't quite grok why Q never needs a separate alg for odd targets.

Yeah that is a good question. Initially I also wondered this, given that the M slice is 180 degrees out on each even target. Then I realised, this is not true! The M slice is not 180 degrees out. Only the UF and DB pieces are swapped (and the centres of course, but we don't think about those). The UB and DF pieces don't get swapped and therefore it's unhelpful and confusing to think of the M slice as being 180 degrees out. It becomes easier if you try to forget that idea and think of it simply as UF and DB being swapped around when on an even target.

Also as @AlphaSheep says, with tricks S (BD) and I (FU) end up actually being the easiest targets to solve. Nevertheless you still need to fall back on the algs to solve them in the worst case, so my advice is to keep it simple and learn to solve with M2 one piece at a time with the algs before moving on to things like two-piece tricks, setting up to other cases, and other more advanced tricks.

 

[Selkie]

@kbrune - Ron van Bruchem suggested I try and catch up with Mats as he was aware we were both attending London Open. I met him earlier in the day but it was just fortuitous that Andy ( @Shaky Hands ) and I wanted another beer after having dinner with a group of about 30 cubers and Mats and a couple of others wanted one too. The 5 of us sat outside the bar had a few drinks and did some team solves and example crosses and chatted for a few hours. Really nice guy

 

[muchacho]

This Tuesday somehow (by somehow I mean by luck, I've been doing very little 2x2 for a long time) I managed to get a sub-6.5 average in the race to sub-x in 2x2, so I've decided to practice and try to finally graduate at sub-6.5. It took me almost 700 solves but I'm back to my fastest times, even a bit better, Mo100 PB: 6.256 (old was 6.486 from September).

 

[Shaky Hands]

@kbrune - Ron van Bruchem suggested I try and catch up with Mats as he was aware we were both attending London Open. I met him earlier in the day but it was just fortuitous that Andy ( @Shaky Hands ) and I wanted another beer after having dinner with a group of about 30 cubers and Mats and a couple of others wanted one too. The 5 of us sat outside the bar had a few drinks and did some team solves and example crosses and chatted for a few hours. Really nice guy

Yeah, that night was the first of 4 nights' drinking in a row for me on that London trip before Worlds. I didn't get back to the hotel before 01:00 throughout that trip! Mats was awesome. And on a separate note, it was good that I got an opportunity to meet Ron at Worlds.

 

[Selkie]

I don't know where all the 5x5 improvement has come from, surely it isn't all down to the WuShuang M. I 'think' I might be sub 1:55 globally now, about 8 seconds improvement in 10 days. A new 1:52.xy PB Ao12 and just had a PB single of 1:38.05

 

[Mike Hughey]

Starting to get more consistent with audio edge memo.

average of 12: 1:48.29 (σ = 11.85)
1) 1:44.98 [45.42] L' U2 R' F2 R' D2 L' F2 L D2 L' B R2 U' R' B' D' F D B' Fw
2) 1:29.17 [48.38] U2 F2 B' D2 L U L2 U' F U D2 F2 L2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U2
3) 1:58.81 [58.74] B U R' B' D' F' B L' D R' U' B2 D' L2 F2 D B2 U D2 B2 L2 Uw Fw
4) 1:46.29 [56.48] D U L2 B2 U B2 D2 F2 U' F2 U2 B' D' R B' D' F2 L2 F' U2 Lw'
5) 1:53.88 [42.82] L D' F' R2 L D R' D R2 B' U2 B2 R B2 D2 F2 R U2 R' B2
6) 1:49.97 [39.17] F2 D F2 D B2 U2 R2 F2 U' R2 B2 R' U' B U2 R2 D L' B' D B2 Uw
7) DNF (2:43.47 [1:40.29]) F L U' F2 B2 U2 L' U F R' B2 R2 L2 B' U2 F U2 R2 F' R2 D2 Fw
8) 1:59.19 [1:10.83] L2 R2 B' L2 F R2 F' R2 F' D2 B2 R' D L B D' U' R' D' B R2 Rw'
9) 1:18.25 [35.70] R2 U R2 D F2 R2 B2 D2 B2 F U2 L R' B' R D' R B2 U2 L2 Bw'
10) 1:31.94 [48.76] U2 F2 L B2 R' U2 B2 U2 L' R2 B2 D' B' D2 R' U' F D R F' R2 Bw2
11) 1:42.51 [52.05] F2 B' L D F R D' L2 F U' R D2 L2 B2 R L2 F2 L D2 R2 Uw'
12) 2:06.16 [1:10.99] R2 U2 L2 U F' U F' U' R2 D2 F2 R2 D2 R B2 R2 D2 L D2 Rw'

Still a long way to go, but it's improving fast.

 

[newtonbase]

The only tricky case is when I get SI or IS as my letter pair. The easy to handle these cases is to do U' to set up then solve as if the pair was SM or MS.

I do an x rotation then solve as AI or IA which is quicker but you still need an alg.

Yeah that is a good question. Initially I also wondered this, given that the M slice is 180 degrees out on each even target. Then I realised, this is not true! The M slice is not 180 degrees out. Only the UF and DB pieces are swapped (and the centres of course, but we don't think about those). The UB and DF pieces don't get swapped and therefore it's unhelpful and confusing to think of the M slice as being 180 degrees out. It becomes easier if you try to forget that idea and think of it simply as UF and DB being swapped around when on an even target.

I still don't understand it. Like gravity and women.

 

[h2f]

@Mike Hughey, what was the blindfold method before Stefan Pochamann discovered OP and M2? My question is connected with Matyas Kuti's case - I wonder how it was possible that he cheated? What method was he using or saying that he's using? Searching through the forum is a little bit hard.

 

[newtonbase]

@Mike Hughey, what was the blindfold method before Stefan Pochamann discovered OP and Turbo? My question is connected with Matyas Kuti's case - I wonder how it was possible that he cheated? What method was he using or saying that he's using? Searching through the forum is a little bit hard.

I've read an old thread on this and I think he was meant to be using his own secret method.