Older cubers discussions

[mark49152]

Brief progress update.

This month I'm focused on 5BLD as that's what's on at my next comp in two weeks. I have been trying to make time to do a couple of attempts each day. In the last 3 weeks I've managed 30 attempts, which although modest is still my most intensive ever spell of 5BLD practice . 13 of those were successes, with an average time including DNFs of 13:14. My times are not plummeting, but they are getting more consistent. My hope is to just get more consistent and accurate around the 13 minute mark, in the hope that I can fit 3 attempts into the 40 minutes allowed, and get lucky with one of them.

5BLD is a pretty taxing event. I find it much more tiring to do a few 5BLDs than the same number of 4-cube MBLDs, even though it's the same amount of memo.

 

[Mike Hughey]

5BLD is a pretty taxing event. I find it much more tiring to do a few 5BLDs than the same number of 4-cube MBLDs, even though it's the same amount of memo.

Fascinating. I find the opposite true. 4-cube multis are much more taxing for me than 5BLDs. And I'm slower at them too.

I've always felt like I'm doing something wrong with multi, since it seems so disproportionately harder for me than single-puzzle big BLD.

 

[mark49152]

Fascinating. I find the opposite true. 4-cube multis are much more taxing for me than 5BLDs. And I'm slower at them too.

I've always felt like I'm doing something wrong with multi, since it seems so disproportionately harder for me than single-puzzle big BLD.

That surprises me, and I haven't previously put much thought into why I find 5BLD more taxing than MBLD, as intuitively it seemed natural to me that it would be. Some factors:-

- Generally more information on the cube thus requiring more visual attention to discern the pieces of interest. For example, tracing corners and midges feels like harder work than tracing a 3x3 because of all the extra colour information surrounding the pieces.

- More piece types so more to to think about. By comparison, MBLD is just doing the same thing over and over.

- Longer cycles feel like harder work especially when there are late breaks to deal with and the missing targets are harder to identify.

- Centres feel like harder work because of the additional attention required to avoid shooting to the same target twice.

- Reviews are harder because it's not always easy to quickly identify the first pair in a group to jog the memory, especially with centres. For example, if I forget my second group of T-centres, I have to partly re-trace the first group to determine what the first pair of the second would have been. By contrast, it's fast and easy to review in MBLD because it takes only half a second to check the first pair and that's often enough to prompt recall.

- Execution is more fiddly, and involves more complex techniques and algs.

- Result is all or nothing, which can make it more frustrating to practise than MBLD.

This probably also explains why my accuracy is significantly worse for 5BLD (~40%) than for 4-cube MBLD attempts (~80%).

 

[Mike Hughey]

That's all very interesting, and most of it makes sense. But as for me, I find the following factors that totally push it in the other direction for me:

- I find twisted corners and flipped edges to be outrageously untidy. It leaves my 3x3x3 memo feeling like a mess, and I hate it. With a single big BLD I can put the corners in visual memory and just devote a single location to flipped middle edges. Much less mess; much less taxing.

- I find that the type of pieces being different often spurs my memory on things I've forgotten through visual recall - I can remember what a next piece was because of visual memory of that location. With multi cubes, they all run together so that's not possible.

- The repetitive nature of multi is something I find draining. The variety of pieces in big BLD keeps me interested and alert, so I'm more likely to do my best.

- I cycle through several separate rooms that I have set up for each big cube, but I have just a single route dedicated to multi. Probably all this says is that I just don't care as much about multi. But that's probably because I find it so much more unpleasant to do.

- I don't like corner/edge parity much. I suppose with my recent switch to solving edges first, parity is a little easier now, so maybe I should see how this has improved for me now.

- I never liked the fact that, with multi, as you get better the event doesn't get shorter. That doesn't affect a 4 cube multi, but it is part of why I don't like multi as much, so I don't practice it much. Which is probably really saying that the main reason I find multi more taxing may simply be that I don't practice it enough.

 

[newtonbase]

It looks like it depends on whether you view the intricacies of big blind as more interesting or hardier work.

I never liked the fact that, with multi, as you get better the event doesn't get shorter.

I hadn't thought about that before. It's a bit like the one hour endurance event in cycling but with a chance of added disappointment after the finish.

 

[mark49152]

It looks like it depends on whether you view the intricacies of big blind as more interesting or hardier work.

The intricacies make it both more interesting and harder work, for me, when comparing big BLD with MBLD attempts of similar size. Of course, large MBLD attempts are even more taxing, and somewhat boring .

Two things strike me about your counter points, Mike. The first is system. If you're used to more visual memory and reliance on different piece types to help your memory then yes that will give the advantage to 5BLD. It sounds like you generally have a better developed system for 5BLD than you do for MBLD. For me it's mostly the same. I rotate the same sets of rooms for big BLD and MBLD and use the same methods for memorizing targets, flips, twists and parities. I don't use any visual memory, nor audio. The only difference between my memo for these events is that the structured and consistent approach I take to MBLD memo and review doesn't translate so well to 5BLD for the reasons I gave above.

The second point is just practice, and I guess it's related anyway. The more time you put in and the more you care, the easier it gets, and the more you hone your system. I actually didn't practice either event much until the past year, preferring 3BLD and 4BLD instead. I started to practise MBLD about a year ago when I realised that relying on 3BLD skills was not enough when pushing for bigger numbers of cubes, and so I set out specifically to lay down a system to fix the problems I saw. My MBLD system is therefore quite methodically worked out, and I track all my progress against it, like split times and weaknesses. That encourages me to practise too. By contrast, my 5BLD system evolved organically. As I started to practise more, I tried to apply some of what I'd done for MBLD, with mixed success for the reasons described above. It's much more untidy and unreliable. To get significantly better at 5BLD, I probably need to rethink my system and make some changes, and that might make practising it more fun too, but for now it's still my #4 out of the BLD events.

 

[Mike Hughey]

All that makes sense, Mark. And I do think there's a lot to be said that whatever you've practiced most becomes what you enjoy most.

As for me, 5BLD is my #1 favorite among all WCA events! (And perhaps I should mention that I love 7BLD much more still?) And multi is my #4 out of the BLD events. So yeah, it's a difference in perspective and preference, clearly.

 

[mark49152]

I still have never got an obliques-only success in 6BLD .

Interesting discussion, thanks Mike. It's motivated me to try a few changes with 5BLD. I might try using a different memo order today if I get time.

Regarding preferences, at home I would say I enjoy 3, 4, M then 5. Competitively I prefer 4, M, 3 then 5 because I have a tendency to choke on nerves with 3BLD as a shorter event. Really those orders are just based on descending potential for frustration and shouldn't be interpreted that I don't like 5BLD. I enjoy the overall process of blindsolving equally for all events. Sighted events I barely practise at all these days.

I have a suspicion I might recall this conversation in a couple of years when 5BLD is my favourite because I'm still improving with it and have plateaued with everything else .

Mark @newtonbase, how is your progress? Did you start 4BLD yet? That was your plan after Worlds wasn't it?

 

[JohnnyReggae]

2 and a half years of speedcubing and timing my solves and I've eventually reached 50 000 timed solves. A goal of mine since starting was to get under 10 seconds, which I have managed .... once Although I'm coming closer more consistently lately so I suppose it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

As a hobby I have really enjoyed Speedcubing and just puzzle solving in general. I have a number of non-WCA puzzles and some I've made/modded myself.

Here's to another 50 000 solves, eager to get to 100 000 now

 

[newtonbase]

Mark @newtonbase, how is your progress? Did you start 4BLD yet? That was your plan after Worlds wasn't it?

I've only tried 4bld once so far. It's almost impossible for me to get the dedicated practice time I need so I've been working on different parts at a time. I have centres only successes and wings only. I do make an awful lot of execution errors but I'm sure I'll get there in time for Weston.
3BLD is going fairly well. I'm doing some time limited memo that has exposed my main weakness of slow visual memo. Although this lunchtime I've had nothing but DNFs which is frustrating. All practice helps though.
EDIT: 11 fails from 11 attempts. It's like being at a competition.

 

[Jason Green]

I still have never got an obliques-only success in 6BLD .

Interesting discussion, thanks Mike. It's motivated me to try a few changes with 5BLD. I might try using a different memo order today if I get time.

Regarding preferences, at home I would say I enjoy 3, 4, M then 5. Competitively I prefer 4, M, 3 then 5 because I have a tendency to choke on nerves with 3BLD as a shorter event. Really those orders are just based on descending potential for frustration and shouldn't be interpreted that I don't like 5BLD. I enjoy the overall process of blindsolving equally for all events. Sighted events I barely practise at all these days.

I have a suspicion I might recall this conversation in a couple of years when 5BLD is my favourite because I'm still improving with it and have plateaued with everything else .

Mark @newtonbase, how is your progress? Did you start 4BLD yet? That was your plan after Worlds wasn't it?

Very interesting conversations! I'm getting around 40% success on 3BLD so far, and it's hard to even imagine learning 4 or 5 BLD yet. Of course I'm the type who likes to focus on not too many things before moving on. I did solely 3x3 for about a year before I went to 4x4 after starting cubing. I still practice very little 5x5 even though it's fun because I want to be closer to 1:00 at 4x4. However BLD is definitely taking the majority of my practice time right now and it's really fun, I think I'm officially on the dark side... Maybe.

I've learned to never say never with cubing. When I started learning CFOP a couple years ago and watched bad mephistos videos, I remember thinking oh I'll never learn full OLL that's crazy. Also I remember him talking about limiting rotations was good, and being over a minute I really could not comprehend it mattered. Like how does half a second to rotate matter I thought! So I have no idea what I'll be into in the coming years. Who knows maybe someday I'll get a megaminx.

 

[newtonbase]

Very interesting conversations! I'm getting around 40% success on 3BLD so far, and it's hard to even imagine learning 4 or 5 BLD yet. Of course I'm the type who likes to focus on not too many things before moving on. I did solely 3x3 for about a year before I went to 4x4 after starting cubing. I still practice very little 5x5 even though it's fun because I want to be closer to 1:00 at 4x4. However BLD is definitely taking the majority of my practice time right now and it's really fun, I think I'm officially on the dark side... Maybe.

I've learned to never say never with cubing. When I started learning CFOP a couple years ago and watched bad mephistos videos, I remember thinking oh I'll never learn full OLL that's crazy. Also I remember him talking about limiting rotations was good, and being over a minute I really could not comprehend it mattered. Like how does half a second to rotate matter I thought! So I have no idea what I'll be into in the coming years. Who knows maybe someday I'll get a megaminx.

MegaBLD looks quite good fun!

 

[mark49152]

@newtonbase, @Jason Green : Glad to hear the 3BLD is going well.

I remember when I started 4BLD it was a major step up from 3BLD in difficulty, complexity and amount of memo. Definitely a challenge. Like sighted solving though, it has the bonus that 3BLD seems easy when you go back to it .

At lunch today I tried changing my 5BLD memo order. I used to memo in reverse of exec order just doing ad-hoc reviews until it seemed to have stuck. Now I have a more complicated scheme where I do (i) fast initial 3BLD memo, (ii) T-centres, wings then full review of 3BLD, all in execution order, (iii) quick review of everything in exec order without retracing, and (iv) rushed X centres, no review. All with images. Then execute X, T, wings, 3BLD. The rationale is that doing the memo and review in execution order will help with recall especially where I can link scenes. The two-phase 3BLD memo will help it stick better since that's what I have to hold in memory longest and that's what I do for MBLD.

Results so far - four DNFs . But the times were OK and I think I like the system better. It feels a bit more natural and I particularly like not memoing T and X centres consecutively.

 

[mafergut]

@JohnnyReggae Congratulations. Your progress is impressive for 2.5 years. I've been cubing for 4 years already and I have yet to get a 10.xx, much less a sub-10.

@Jason Green You still don't own a Megaminx? And what are you waiting for? Same with 6x6 and 7x7 and skewb and pyraminx and SQ-1 if you don't have any of those either.

I just finished my first skewb Ao1000 after learning Intermediate (letting the cases sink in took another 500 solves or so, which I discarded). It came in right under sub-10 (9.94), with best Ao100 at 9.22 and best Ao50 at 8.86. Wish I could do the same with Pyraminx in 3-4 days but that's more difficult without learning several methods and practising much more. Anyway, following Jason's advice I will try to focus on one event at a time and I think I can still save a second or so in skewb... before my vacation period ends and I go back to "little or no practise" status.

 

[h2f]

Wish I could do the same with Pyraminx in 3-4 days but that's more difficult without learning several methods and practising much more.

I've heard with LBL you can get the same result (sub 10) easily.

 

[mafergut]

I've heard with LBL you can get the same result (sub 10) easily.

I do keyhole and I have a hard time getting below 10 but it's been more than 1 year since I last practised. My PB Ao5 from 1.5 years ago was 9.57 but Ao100 was barely below 15 back then.

When I said it was not as easy as with skewb is because just changing from Sarah's beginners to intermediate makes up for more than 50% of the 5 seconds I improved at skewb in one week. I don't think it will be that simple with Pyra. My worst part of keyhole is inspection (I can just see the two middle layer edges and that's it) and then, after using the keyhole slot to orient all the bottom centers, I'm terrible at finding the 3rd middle layer edge and inserting it. I'm also terrible at fixing the tips. So my only meh step (I'm not that good either) is permuting the last 3 bottom edges. I will be glad to receive any specific advice. I know that at least @Logiqx is significantly faster that me at Pyra.

 

[newtonbase]

Someone has just posted your 10/10 square-1 MBLD video on Cyoubx's Friends @Mike Hughey. Very impressive.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Someone has just posted your 10/10 square-1 MBLD video on Cyoubx's Friends @Mike Hughey. Very impressive.

Thank you. The point of doing 10 was to prove I could really handle any scramble, not just a lucky cubeshape.

Square-1 BLD is such fun because it's so different - you have to decode one memorization as you encode another. That experience is a very different feeling from other BLD.

Unfortunately, I've forgotten my permanent memo. I hope to get it back again once I finish updating the weekly competition website.

 

[newtonbase]

Thank you. The point of doing 10 was to prove I could really handle any scramble, not just a lucky cubeshape.

Square-1 BLD is such fun because it's so different - you have to decode one memorization as you encode another. That experience is a very different feeling from other BLD.

Unfortunately, I've forgotten my permanent memo. I hope to get it back again once I finish updating the weekly competition website.

It would be interesting to see the method though I've yet to learn to solve one sighted.

 

[Mike Hughey]

It would be interesting to see the method though I've yet to learn to solve one sighted.

I just noticed the mobile version of this forum is not showing signatures. I was going to point out that the page describing my method is in my signature. But maybe you can't see my signature?

If not, you can find the link in the information section of my profile page.