Prabal Baishya
Member
Oh!Nervousness. Forgetting everything when you don the blindfold. Silly execution errors. That sort of thing
Does this nervousness come only during comps? Or for some other reason?
Oh!Nervousness. Forgetting everything when you don the blindfold. Silly execution errors. That sort of thing
They would not be allowed as they are electronic. Btw this would belong in the One answer Blindfolded question thread.Good Day,
I am uncertain if I should post this here or on a different thread, but my question is, Last year during two competitions I competed in 3x3 bld, and for ear protection I used a pair of ear buds combined with a pair of Howard Leight head phones that were not connected to anything and had there battery's removed so that thy just served as normal ear protections. Are the Howard Leights still legal this year for blind-solving or not. I saw the changed WCA regulations regarding ear protection at the beginning of this year, but I for some reason was still confused as to know if I can still use the headphones of if I should get something else.
Thank you very much in advance for your time and help.
Thank you very much for the answer and tip. I am working on remembering the different threads for different questions.They would not be allowed as they are electronic. Btw this would belong in the One answer Blindfolded question thread.
Sorry, but I think that you are completely and totally wrong. The way you set up those pieces has nothing to do with whether or not you have/have to do parity. I think that every time it worked for you, you just didn't have parity. I would guess that the reason parity never works for you is that you are doing it in the wrong spot. If you solve edges first, you have to do parity before you move on and do your corners. Likewise, if you solve corners first, you do parity before edges.Something that I was going to say regarding OP/OP, is that I found a way to not have to worry about knowing if there is going to be parity, because you never have to do the parity alg, and what I mean is the following.
For the first month of knowing how to solve a 3x3 blind using OP/OP, I learned that there were times that you will have parity (obviously), and every time that I had parity and did the alg, I would have a unsolved cube.
After wondering how that was and experimenting, I found out that the reason for me was the way that I set up FD, RD, BD, and LD edges, meaning that instead of bringing the needed edge to the front, lifting it up to the top by doing a Lw', and doing a J-perm, like most people do (or what I believe most people do), I would bring the edge to the front and do the following setup alg R F L' R'/ T-perm / then undoing the setup alg. I found out that by doing it I never have to do the parity alg or worry about ever having parity again, no matter if you have a even or odd amount of edges/corners.
If anyone has had the same trouble then I hope that this helps, or if my reasoning is wrong please let me know. I only say the above because that is what worked for me in the past.
Thank you for correcting me, I was not completely positive on if I was 100% accurate on the methodology but that was my only thought to what I said.Sorry, but I think that you are completely and totally wrong. The way you set up those pieces has nothing to do with whether or not you have/have to do parity. I think that every time it worked for you, you just didn't have parity. I would guess that the reason parity never works for you is that you are doing it in the wrong spot. If you solve edges first, you have to do parity before you move on and do your corners. Likewise, if you solve corners first, you do parity before edges.
Edit: To make it a little more clear, if I have a case/solve where the parity alg would normally be needed (meaning if there is a odd number of edges/corners, as I am sure you already know), and I do the parity alg it messes up the cube to it being unsolved and a DNF.
I have done a lot of sighted solves and no matter if there are even or odd edges/corners I never have to do the parity alg, and I really do not know how that is.This doesn't make any sense. The way that you setup the pieces should have no effect on whether or not you need to perform a parity alg. The reason that parity exists is that two edge and two corners can be swapped, and setups don't address that problem. Have you tried doing a sighted solve with parity to see what is going on?
I have done a lot of sighted solves and no matter if there are even or odd edges/corners I never have to do the parity alg, and I really do not know how that is.
So I have done as you suggested and here is the solution: https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=z-_y2//...U_B2_D-_L2_U2_L-_R-_D_L-_R_B-_R-_D-_U_Fw-_Uw2Here is a scramble with parity: F' B2 U F2 L2 U2 L2 U B2 D' L2 U2 L' R' D L' R B' R' D' U Fw' Uw2. You can scramble in orientation you solve. Please write down your whole solution in alg.cubing.net to make it clear how your solve looks like.
Link to alg.cubing.net with T perm and Yperm written.
I know this is an old post, but U face buffers are definitely better than any other buffers.I want to get into 4BLD, using good buffers. After looking at the (few) reconstructions of solves on the RCDB, it seems like most of the interchange moves during comms are slices. Relatively few of them involve using the U layer. So my question is:
Could Fru be a better buffer than U face buffers? Why/why not?
The disadvantage of not having a U layer buffer would be that you lose those r U r'-type "insertions" that come between the interchanges. Would this be outweighed by having more comms with u/r slice interchanges?
I see. So which U face buffer is best? I'm quite inexperienced with centre comms, and don't know what advantages each piece has.I know this is an old post, but U face buffers are definitely better than any other buffers.
You would either be stuck with a terrible moveset, or you would rotate/set pieces up to the U face, which defeats the purpose of not using a U buffer.
The differences between them are really small, so I usually recommend using the same as your corner buffer. That way you can at least translate some of the comms.I see. So which U face buffer is best? I'm quite inexperienced with centre comms, and don't know what advantages each piece has.
Perhaps these thoughts are helpful:IMO this is no scramble with parity: for me parity is, when you have an odd-number of edges and an odd number of corners (not counting the buffer). In OP you will have an odd number off perms for edges and for corners (and therefore after edges the two corners swapped which you'll have to fix somehow).
An easy scramble with parity is: U
1. I do another J-perm that corrects the corners and they are there, where they have been after the scramble (so you could memo them in place). I also swap the edges which then are not in their right position anymore, but as I will have an odd number of J-perms to solve the corners, they will be swapped back in their right position at the end again.