Out with the Old, in with m2?

[PEZenfuego]

I am currently using old pochmann to solve the cube blindfolded and I suck. Plain and simple.

I have it down though. I am thinking about using m2 for the edges and keeping old pochmann for the corners.

But here is where the question comes in. Should I go ahead and learn m2 or wait until I'm good at old pochmann first?

Maybe this is a dumb question...but the only dumb questions are those which are easy to answer...or something like that.

Advice? Thanks!

 

[Weston]

M2 is a great method. I can sub 2 using M2. (wth 3OP corners)
I think you should learn it now because M2 was the first method I learned and I never encountered any problems.

 

[ManasijV]

I can sub 2 with Old Pochmann. The only reason I haven't changed to M2 is because I think I can do even better with this method (and I'm trying to modify it using no fixed buffer and adding 3 cycles) and if I do shift I might never feel like coming back to this. Well if you really only want to get faster then why not change? Its a simple method and it takes an hour to learn it at max.

 

[a small kitten]

You can sub 1 with M2 3OP lol. M2 is really straightfoward, so I think you should learn it after you have a decent success rate with old pochmann.

 

[Lucas]

Learn M2. But you should understand it.

If you know how to solve big cubes, it will help... M2 is all about aligning.

 

[a small kitten]

If you know how to solve big cubes, it will help... M2 is all about aligning.

What...

I was under the impression that all you need to do is a short setup move and M2 xD

 

[Lucas]

If you know how to solve big cubes, it will help... M2 is all about aligning.

What...

I was under the impression that all you need to do is a short setup move and M2 xD

Every setup move before doing M2 aligns the sticker that it is in the buffer with the target position. Except when doing special algoritms, you move the sticker that it is in the target position to UB (if the buffer is DF).

When I learnt M2, I didn't memorize any setup move, because I pair edges like this: http://hi-games.net/cube-6x6x6/watch?u=62
If you see that, I align the pieces of the big edge I am solving (without destroying the centers layers), and then do moves with the style of M, M2 or M'. In M2 method the same kind of setup moves are done to align the target position with the buffer, the setup moves are analog to the ones used in big cubes not to destroy the centers while solving.

 

[blah]

You can sub 1 with M2 3OP lol.

Yu can sub 1 with M2 3OP lol.

Spoiler

But he doesn't use it anymore

 

[yoruichi]

lol m2

 

[PEZenfuego]

Okay, so it sounds as though it isn't as difficult as I had initially thought. I'm going to go ahead and learn it, but I am certain that it won't help my times much. Practice will be the only thing I need to do that. I think that if I use M2, it will be longer before I hit that wall. The wall being the metaphor for the thing that stops me from reducing my times...So yeah, I'm going to learn it now, why not?

Anyway, thanks guys.

Yoruichi- You got me, I accidentally didn't capitalize the M. I suppose "m" isn't an appropriate letter for cube notation and therefore you have the right to be a **** and make fun of me for that mistake.

 

[yoruichi]

no i mean m2 method is lolz0rs