Random Blindfold Cubing Discussion

[A Leman]

People actually do this on 3Bld?

When I was oblivious about the ways of blindsolving and used the LBL method, someone bet me I couldn't solve the cube blindfolded. Determined to prove him wrong, I ended up getting it but the memo took 19 minutes of my lunch. Now I look back and wish my former self knew better since something like OP would have been much easier.

 

[vd]

Thats kind of an incredible achievement from my point of view. When I was so new to cubing that I used LBL method, I hardly imagine myself solving first layer blindfolded. Entire cube seems... well, way too hard.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

Isn't that just a solve + match-the-scramble relay?

Not quite, I didn't explain it as well as I could. You're not required to have the entire cube in a solved state at any point, just that every piece passes through its respective solved state at least once on the way to matching the scramble. Blindfolded.

 

[Ickathu]

When I was oblivious about the ways of blindsolving and used the LBL method, someone bet me I couldn't solve the cube blindfolded. Determined to prove him wrong, I ended up getting it but the memo took 19 minutes of my lunch. Now I look back and wish my former self knew better since something like OP would have been much easier.

wth? you took 19 minutes to speed blind a 3x3?

 

[qqwref]

Not quite, I didn't explain it as well as I could. You're not required to have the entire cube in a solved state at any point, just that every piece passes through its respective solved state at least once on the way to matching the scramble. Blindfolded.

That now sounds like an even sillier constraint

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

That now sounds like an even sillier constraint

But of course.

 

[rubixwiz031]

wth? you took 19 minutes to speed blind a 3x3?

Well, he said only memo took 19 mins.
But still thats insane.
I'm calling B.S.

 

[Noahaha]

Well, he said only memo took 19 mins.
But still thats insane.
I'm calling B.S.

If you're thoughtful it's possible. Don't forget that beginners method is easier because you can figure out how an alg moves pieces around. Also, you never have to trace many pieces at once, just each piece individually.

 

[A Leman]

Well, he said only memo took 19 mins.
But still thats insane.
I'm calling B.S.

It is quite possible actually since the algorithmns I used in LBL didn't affect many pieces at a time and as noah said that makes it easier.
If you want to try it now, you may be suprised. After you find a cross solution, track a couple corners at a time until you found where they all are, most of the edges probably didn't move and you are left with 16 pieces to follow. Spam RUR'U' which only effects 7 of those pieces and does not effect the other slots. Notice that RUR'U' 3cycles UR-UB-FR and swaps the 2 back corners and the slot corners. After that use R'U'R'U'R'URURU which only moves 3 edge pieces which means the corners stay safe.remember where to U-perm the top layer. nikolas and spam R'D'RD. I feel that alot of people can do that after studying it for 19 minutes especially if you always practice inspection seriously and stuck with LBL for waaay too long.

 

[Stefan]

If you want to try it now, you may be suprised. After you find a cross solution, track a couple corners at a time until you found where they all are, most of the edges probably didn't move

Just tried this twice, first time 7 out of the 8 edges moved and second time 6 out of 8 moved. Please explain how you solve the cross so that most of the edges don't move.

 

[DrKorbin]

Just tried this twice, first time 7 out of the 8 edges moved and second time 6 out of 8 moved. Please explain how you solve the cross so that most of the edges don't move.

It is simple - you just use algs that don't move most of the edges.
You can find more information here.

 

[DYGH.Tjen]

^Lol linking Stefan to his own site

I would like to understand a few algs I've come across when learning commutators (I think) for 3x3 edges, and I'll be using Speffz notation. First of all CAK. The alg is U'MUMU2M'UM'U. Which part is the insertion, and the interchange, and the setup? Is it even a commutator, or just an alg abusing the half-slice plane property thing of the 3x3?
Then we have CJM and CAG. What kind of comm do you suggest to do for these two cases? I found a setup-8-mover-undo for CJM; R[F'E2'F,U]R' (not sure whether notating it correctly ). Is this the optimal thing to do? For CAG, can someone provide me with the alg and explanation?

Then for 4x4 edges. This case Ufr>Ubr>Ulf, you can set it up with DL2D'r2DL2D2R2Dr2D'R2D (lowercase = inner slice, not wide turns). I found this solution: R2Dr2DL2D'r2DL2D2R2. Is this how you would do it? It's so half-turn heavy it's disgusting

If anyone can help with these, thanks in advance!

 

[DrKorbin]

I would like to understand a few algs I've come across when learning commutators (I think) for 3x3 edges, and I'll be using Speffz notation. First of all CAK. The alg is U'MUMU2M'UM'U. Which part is the insertion, and the interchange, and the setup?

U' M U M U2 M' U M' U = U' M U M U2 M' U2 U' M' U = U' M U [M U2 M' U2] U' M' U
So this is half slice plane commutator with setup move U' M U.

Then we have CJM and CAG. What kind of comm do you suggest to do for these two cases? I found a setup-8-mover-undo for CJM; R[F'E2'F,U]R' (not sure whether notating it correctly ). Is this the optimal thing to do?

Yes, it is optimal. I use, however, F [U' M2 U, R] F'.

For CAG, can someone provide me with the alg and explanation?

1) UF and UB are interchangeable with U2. [M D M', U2]
2) If you don't like <U, D, M>-generated algs, you can use A9: x' U [U M2 U', L] U' x

Then for 4x4 edges. This case Ufr>Ubr>Ulf, you can set it up with DL2D'r2DL2D2R2Dr2D'R2D (lowercase = inner slice, not wide turns). I found this solution: R2Dr2DL2D'r2DL2D2R2. Is this how you would do it? It's so half-turn heavy it's disgusting

Check your alg and your 3-cycle, and follow correct letter case for wings. There can't be UFr and UBr at the same time.
Your alg does UFr > ULf > URb. I would do something like z' D' [U' l2 U, L'] D z.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

U'MUMU2M'UM'U = [U' M U: [M, U2]], so yes, it's a comm. I'll let someone with the same buffer as you answer the rest.

 

[A Leman]

Just tried this twice, first time 7 out of the 8 edges moved and second time 6 out of 8 moved. Please explain how you solve the cross so that most of the edges don't move.

I did U-perm since that's what I knew

 

[DYGH.Tjen]

U' M U M U2 M' U M' U = U' M U M U2 M' U2 U' M' U = U' M U [M U2 M' U2] U' M' U
So this is half slice plane commutator with setup move U' M U.


Yes, it is optimal. I use, however, F [U' M2 U, R] F'.


1) UF and UB are interchangeable with U2. [M D M', U2]
2) If you don't like <U, D, M>-generated algs, you can use A9: x' U [U M2 U', L] U' x


Check your alg and your 3-cycle, and follow correct letter case for wings. There can't be UFr and UBr at the same time.
Your alg does UFr > ULf > URb. I would do something like z' D' [U' l2 U, L'] D z.

Domo arigatou, Mr. Oleg Gritsenko. Very well-explained, I appreciate it. Thanks again.

P.S. I might have tons of other BLD-related questions in the future.

 

[Noahaha]

As some of you may know I'm really, really bad at parity. I've been playing around recently with doing parity by solving two U-layer edges to opposite positions and then having a really easy setup to an OP-target or PLL. Given that you can pick which two pieces to swap and sometimes end up with an extra solved piece, I really don't see a disadvantage to this. In my opinion swapping the two edges in memorization requires just as much thinking as coming up with a setup move for normal parity during execution. I've never really made an effort to be good at parity, so I'd love some advice on this from someone who finds normal parity setups pretty automatic.

Also bear in mind that since my buffers are on different layers setup moves to PLLs/22LLs are not always straightforward.

 

[A Leman]

As some of you may know I'm really, really bad at parity. I've been playing around recently with doing parity by solving two U-layer edges to opposite positions and then having a really easy setup to an OP-target or PLL. Given that you can pick which two pieces to swap and sometimes end up with an extra solved piece, I really don't see a disadvantage to this. In my opinion swapping the two edges in memorization requires just as much thinking as coming up with a setup move for normal parity during execution. I've never really made an effort to be good at parity, so I'd love some advice on this from someone who finds normal parity setups pretty automatic.

Also bear in mind that since my buffers are on different layers setup moves to PLLs/22LLs are not always straightforward.

I don't know how much this will help you since I am Corners first, UF+UBR buffer and I think you are Edges first DF+UBL buffer, but the way I do parity is I always place my buffer corner in UFR or UBL.When I reach the end of my edge execution, I see an image that tells me which of 24 targets I have to swap and solve it algorithmicly from one of the 2 lists I formed for each case. This sometimes adds moves for making sure the corners are ready to swap, but removes all of the thinking.

The point I am making is that you should make a list for some targets so you figure out how to do the setup before you need to solve it which should help with any buffer choice.

 

[HEART]

What are most of your success rates? I notice that even the best DNF, but that's probably because they're obviously pushing themselves. My success rate is at about 90%, maybe 95%.

 

[vd]

What are most of your success rates? I notice that even the best DNF, but that's probably because they're obviously pushing themselves. My success rate is at about 90%, maybe 95%.

This seems like too much to me. Try to push yourself a little more and your times will indeed improve. My success rate at top speed is around 50-60%, perhaps.