# M2 Buffer?



## fanwuq (Jun 9, 2008)

I'm deciding to learn M2 for edge BLD.

What buffer should I use. What are the advantages of different buffers?

Also what is the difference between FD and DF...?
I'm transferring from Orient then 3-cycle, so I think in good and bad edges.


----------



## tim (Jun 9, 2008)

personal preference


----------



## alexc (Jun 9, 2008)

Doesn't really make a difference at all. I use FD, but I think most people use DF.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 9, 2008)

w00t Alex uses FD also! It's so awkward being one of the few who use FD. 


Anyway, there's no difference between FD and DF. I personally saw the F sticker going to B better than the D -> U. That's just my way of seeing it.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 9, 2008)

where do you get your preference? 
You must have some sort of reason to prefer it.

Edit: masterofthebass provided a reason. Is it the only one?


----------



## alexc (Jun 9, 2008)

@fanwuq 
Dan just explained why he preferred FD.

@Dan
Yeah, go club FD!!!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 9, 2008)

Erik uses FD, right? He seemed puzzled why Stefan used DF - to Erik, FD made more sense. But I read Stefan's page first, so I got used to DF, and I found it was too challenging to switch. So I use DF.

This is way too small a sample, but so far, the FD people seem faster than the DF people.

And fanwuq, you'll get over the bit of thinking in good and bad edges pretty quickly. I now have trouble remembering how to tell the difference.


----------



## joey (Jun 9, 2008)

FD DF, it's your choice. The setup moves are the same. It has no real influence, IMHO.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 9, 2008)

joey said:


> It has no real influence, IMHO.


Not so sure about that...

DB, anyone?


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 9, 2008)

I'm learning from Erik's site. But I'm thinking in cycles, not in solving stickers. So I couldn't figure out how to memorize it. I think I'll mess up flipping the wrong edge.
How to start a new cycle or deal with 2-cycles?

Could someone provide a sample solve (just edges) with FD as buffer?
Thanks!
I don't quite full understand this method, but I'm beginning to like it.


----------



## MiloD (Jun 9, 2008)

Does anyone here do U2 instead of R2 to swap UBL and UFR or another combo of U stickers? Works pretty well for me. I keep debating whether or not I should comit to a system or stick with visual. I did visual when I used to do 3OP but it takes a while for the information to seem relevent, which I think is the key for success.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 9, 2008)

Stop thinking in cycles!!!! M2 is beautifully simple in the face that you solve 1 sticker at a time. Thinking in cycles ruins the method.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 9, 2008)

How would you memorize for M2?
Does it work the same way as memorizing in 3-cycle?
How would you start a new cycle?
I also don't get the parity for M2.


----------



## hdskull (Jun 9, 2008)

Yea, I tried learning M2, and I found memorizing to be very hard since I'm way used to 3 cycle. haha. Tips would be appreciated, or a redirect link.


----------



## martijn_cube (Jun 9, 2008)

I use DF but maybe you can understand it a bit better with an example:
* at this point (*_DB_ *UF*), you are looking at the DB sticker for your next piece. but because your centers are switched you solve it like it's going to UF. so solve like it has to go to UF, and look at DB for the next sticker to solve.
- after DL i start a new cycle. just shoot to another piece that's not solved. most of the time i try to shoot to a piece that has a large cycle after that. so that i won't have 5 short 2 cycles.
- you can also notice that at the new cycle i start with RF, and end it with FR, i think when you have that that you solved all pieces. otherwise you will end with RF again. unless you start with 1 misoriented but permuted piece, then you will end with RF i guess. But i'm not really sure about this. But this is what i noticed.
- the fix switches the centers and the LU and BU edge.
- the opposite solving of the edges only happens when you have to solve an edge of the M layer, and it's your even solved edge,(2,4,6,)
- you use the fix when you have a odd number of edges to solve.
- that's way it's usefull to memo in pairs. this way you know when you eed to solve the opposite edge, and when to use the fix.
- i like to memo with PAOP or PPAO. this way i alway will now when it's an even or an odd edge.

*R2 L' B2 R' F D' L2 B' R2 F' D2 B2 F2 D' L R2 D2 L' B F2 U' L B' R D' *

*DL* U' L2 U M2 U' L2 U
*RU* x' U' R U M2 U' R' U x

*BU* F’ D R’ F D’ M2 D F’ R D’ F	
*_DB_ *UF* U2 M' U2 M'

*LB* r' U L U' M2 U L' U' r
*_UF_ *DB* M U2 M U2

*RD* x' U' R' U M2 U' R U x
*LF* x' U L2' U' M2 U L2 U' x

*DL* U' L2 U M2 U' L2 U
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*RF* x' U' R2 U M2 U' R2 U x

*BR* U R' U' M2 U R U'
*UL* L U' L' U M2 U' L U L'

*FR* U R U' M2 U R' U'
*Fix* - D’ L2 D M2 D’ L2 D


----------



## dolphyfan (Jun 10, 2008)

Lucas i am a fellow 3OP solver but if you learn with DB buffer I will also learn it!!! 
-Tony


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 11, 2008)

For the M slice edges, you have to think about them differently from the rest of the edges, right?
The rest of the edges aren't affected by the orientation of the centers.
So do you have to keep track of the orientation of the centers the whole time?

I still don't see how to start a new cycle. For 2 cycles, is there a nice way, or do you deal with them the same way as 3OP?


----------



## martijn_cube (Jun 11, 2008)

you don't really have to keep track of the edges. i depends on the memo method. you have to try to memo in pairs. and then you know that when you solve the (1st,3rd,5th,etc) sticker, your center is good. when you solve the (2nd,4th,6th,etc) sticker, your centers are switched. 
and if you solve an DB/BD or UF/FU sticker as an (2nd,4th,6th,etc) sticker then you have to swap. 
DB=> UF ---------BD => FU
UF=>DB ----------FU => BD

and for starting a new cycle, you just shoot to a sticker you haven't solved yet. most of the time you try to use U2(UB), if passible, because thats a very short 'alg'. just memo like it's one long cycle. just try my sample solve.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 11, 2008)

Considering I orient first with M2, of course I do DF. Now, lots of people tell me that my method sucks. Currently Rowe is the only one of those people actually faster than me officially.


----------



## blah (Jun 11, 2008)

I didn't feel like starting a new thread on a 'personal' problem so I just posted this here, since it falls under the same topic.

Question on M2: How would you solve this? I'm new to M2, had a couple of successful open-eyed solves but now I'm stuck. I use DF as my buffer.

cycle 1: DF RF LU BL DF
cycle 2: UB UF FL BR UB
cycle 3: RU DF UR
cycle 4: DR LD RD

Damn, it's a lotta cycles.

How should I memorize the cycles? E.g. for cycle 1, should I memorize DF first or DF last? or both? 'cause sometimes it starts with DF and ends with FD (like in cycles 3 and 4), so should I memorize cycles with the starting piece at the beginning and at the end, or only at the beginning (like 3-cycle)? (I have individual letters for each sticker)

Also, when I break into a new cycle, which new cycle should I break into and why? Is there a general rule that says which new cycle you should break into for ease of solving?

Explanation together with solution appreciated.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 11, 2008)

blah said:


> cycle 1: DF RF LU BL DF
> cycle 2: UB UF FL BR UB
> cycle 3: RU DF UR
> cycle 4: DR LD RD


What do you mean with cycle 3? Are you just trying to flip the piece at RU? Or maybe you meant DB? I don't see DB anywhere above. Also, this looks like it would have parity, so you'd have another piece involved, unless you got cycle 3 wrong. If I can understand what you mean with cycle 3, I'll be happy to update this post with the rest of my memorization and an explanation.

Sorry if I'm just being dense not understanding it.

For the first 2 cycles, if I were doing this, here is what I would memorize:
DF (RF LU) (BL UB) (UF FL) (BR UB)

I only sort of memorize DF in that I have a person associated with it; it helps keep the cubes straight when doing multi, but isn't very useful to memorize with a single cube. I memorize the rest in pairs. When breaking into a new cycle, I always go for the easiest piece to solve (so UB is best), but I also try to avoid the worst places (FU, BU, BD), and after that, the ones that require 4 setup moves (UR, UL, RB, LB). I don't waste a lot of time trying to figure that out, though; for me, it's more important to memorize fast than to try to optimize the solve. If I've already started memorizing a cycle and I see I could have done it better, I usually just live with it and keep going as is.


----------



## martijn_cube (Jun 11, 2008)

blah said:


> I didn't feel like starting a new thread on a 'personal' problem so I just posted this here, since it falls under the same topic.
> 
> Question on M2: How would you solve this? I'm new to M2, had a couple of successful open-eyed solves but now I'm stuck. I use DF as my buffer.
> 
> ...



First of all you should not memo DF or FD. don't memo the buffer.
so you should memo/solve like this: 
RF-LU 
BL-UB 
UF-FL 
BR-UB 
RU-DF?? 
UR-DR 
LD-RD
and now you can see that you have an Even number of edges to solve. so you don't have to use a Fix.
only the 3rd cycle is a bit strange. that shouldn't be DF. Do you have the scramble?

So you don't have to memo any cycles. just memo all the pairs as one long cycle. just keep shooting to all the pieces till you have solved all of them.

and for breaking in a new cycle. it's easy to use U2, because it's short. but i like it more to break in a long cycle. sometimes you can avoid having 3 cycles of like 3 stickers, just by starting another sticker and then you have one long cycle of all stickers.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 11, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Considering I orient first with M2, of course I do DF. Now, lots of people tell me that my method sucks. Currently Rowe is the only one of those people actually faster than me officially.



Yes... but Tim, look at Dennis and Derrick. They use Old Pochmann which is even that much worse. With your memo times, and execution times with the crappy method, if you were to learn the actual method, you would do much better.


----------



## blah (Jun 12, 2008)

Thanks guys. Yeah Mike you're right, my mistake, it was DB. And I think I've figured out how to memorize the cycles, it goes something like this, correct me if I'm wrong:

cycle 1: buffer A B C D E buffer*
cycle 2: F G F*
cycle 3: H I J H*
cycle 4: K L M N K*

Yeah I know there should only be 12 pieces/letters but whatever, it's just for illustration purposes. (Asterisks mean they could be flipped.)

Memorization: AB CD EF GF* HI JH* KL MN K* (in pairs)

The way I see it: Memorize all independent cycles with the same piece at the start and at the end (and also whether it's flipped or not), then combine all the cycles and memorize them as one long string of letter pairs, ignoring only the buffer. Is this correct?

And whether the lengths of the independent cycles are odd or even shouldn't matter right? If I understood M2 correctly, I only need to know if the sum of the lengths of all cycles is odd or even (which is easily detected by letter pairing).

This brings me to a new question: What do I do with the last K? Do I let the centers remain 'bad' or do I do an M2 to bring it back? And is this a case of corner-edge parity (which requires a PLL algorithm to solve, like in 3-cycle)?

Also another question: Do I need to worry whether my buffer is flipped or not? Because in the first place, it's not even part of my memorization, so how would I know if it's flipped or not? I'm thinking of using longer algorithms to flip the M slice edges on the spot, because I think this'll help me reduce confusion (I'm still having problems figuring out which edges are supposed to be flipped), but I don't think there's an algorithm that lets me shoot to FD (my buffer is DF), is there? Or should I just count the non M slice edges that were already flipped from the start and if it's an odd number it means my buffer is flipped, otherwise my buffer is not flipped?

I know it's a lotta questions, but I'm starting to get the hang of it and hopefully by next week I'll run out of questions to ask 

Edit: Oh yeah, @martijn cube: Do you mean M2 instead of U2?

Edit again: @Mike: why would you go for the pieces that require 4 setup moves when breaking into a new cycle? There are more pieces that require 3 setup moves than pieces that require 4. Is it for ease of keeping track of what you did?

Third edit: Would it be more efficient to use a H perm or Z perm (or any 2-2 edge swap algorithm for that matter) to solve cycle 3 and 4 simultaneously, or is M2 still more efficient? (this refers to the question in my last post)
cycle 3: RU *DB* UR
cycle 4: DR LD RD

Similar general question: if I have an independent cycle of only three pieces, would freestyle 3 cycle be more efficient than M2? (include thinking time and whatever else needs to be included instead of just move count)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 12, 2008)

blah said:


> Memorization: AB CD EF GF* HI JH* KL MN K* (in pairs)
> 
> The way I see it: Memorize all independent cycles with the same piece at the start and at the end (and also whether it's flipped or not), then combine all the cycles and memorize them as one long string of letter pairs, ignoring only the buffer. Is this correct?
> 
> And whether the lengths of the independent cycles are odd or even shouldn't matter right? If I understood M2 correctly, I only need to know if the sum of the lengths of all cycles is odd or even (which is easily detected by letter pairing).


Yes, all of that is correct. At least, that's the way I do it.



blah said:


> This brings me to a new question: What do I do with the last K? Do I let the centers remain 'bad' or do I do an M2 to bring it back? And is this a case of corner-edge parity (which requires a PLL algorithm to solve, like in 3-cycle)?


Yes, this is corner-edge parity. If you end this way, you should also have a 2-cycle of corners left over to go with it. Then there are all kinds of ways to deal with parity; you get to decide how you're going to do it.



blah said:


> Also another question: Do I need to worry whether my buffer is flipped or not?


Simple answer, no. It takes care of itself.



blah said:


> Because in the first place, it's not even part of my memorization, so how would I know if it's flipped or not? I'm thinking of using longer algorithms to flip the M slice edges on the spot, because I think this'll help me reduce confusion (I'm still having problems figuring out which edges are supposed to be flipped), but I don't think there's an algorithm that lets me shoot to FD (my buffer is DF), is there? Or should I just count the non M slice edges that were already flipped from the start and if it's an odd number it means my buffer is flipped, otherwise my buffer is not flipped?


This is correct. If you have an odd number of already flipped edges, your buffer will also be flipped at the end. I just flip them all at the very end, and if it's an odd number I include the buffer piece.



blah said:


> Edit again: @Mike: why would you go for the pieces that require 4 setup moves when breaking into a new cycle? There are more pieces that require 3 setup moves than pieces that require 4. Is it for ease of keeping track of what you did?


Sorry if I was unclear. I meant that I AVOID the pieces that require 4 setup moves. I go for the ones with 3 instead.



blah said:


> Third edit: Would it be more efficient to use a H perm or Z perm (or any 2-2 edge swap algorithm for that matter) to solve cycle 3 and 4 simultaneously, or is M2 still more efficient? (this refers to the question in my last post)
> cycle 3: RU *DB* UR
> cycle 4: DR LD RD


It's probably more efficient to do something like this, but it also requires more thinking (unless you practice it a lot and get good at it). Ultimately, M2 is not the most efficient way to solve a cube blindfolded, but it requires little thinking, which makes it fast. You get to decide what you would like to try to optimize. Maybe you want to add this to your approach - it's up to you.



blah said:


> Similar general question: if I have an independent cycle of only three pieces, would freestyle 3 cycle be more efficient than M2? (include thinking time and whatever else needs to be included instead of just move count)


That just depends on how good you get at freestyle. Someone with years of practice with freestyle will probably be able to beat someone who's good at M2, but it will certainly require a lot of practice to get there. But the actual answer to your question here is and probably always will be unknown.


----------



## joey (Jun 12, 2008)

I think solving an indepent cycle could be faster. Think about UR UF UL. That screams about to be solved indepentdently.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 12, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> M2 is not the most efficient way to solve a cube blindfolded, but it requires little thinking, which makes it fast.



That's why I'm switching to M2 instead of using TuRBo or speedBLD.


----------



## joey (Jun 12, 2008)

lol, speedBLD was never really a thought.


----------



## blah (Jun 13, 2008)

how is speedbld even related to to this thread? or how is speedbld even related to bld at all?


----------



## joey (Jun 13, 2008)

blah said:


> how is speedbld even related to to this thread? or how is speedbld even related to bld at all?





fanwuq said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > M2 is not the most efficient way to solve a cube blindfolded, but it requires little thinking, which makes it fast.
> ...



He mentioned it first! Also, speedBLD is related to BLD because
a) you memorise first
b) then solve it while blindfolded
In reality, speedBLD is a perfectly good BLD system!


----------



## Erik (Jun 13, 2008)

FD/DF it doesn't really matter, I chose FD because it's on the FRONT and you dont have to look under the cube, but in the end it doesn't matter, you'll still memorize a set of stickers and use the same 'algs' to solve it.
For all those 3 cycle guys wanting to learn M2.
I found them to be quite stubborn/ignorant/unknowing (of course I don't try to be mean) in learning the idea of breaking into new cycles and working with a buffer. It's like Fridrich solvers trying to switch to Petrus who refuse to stop thinking in pairs. Open your mind and set your BLD thinking back to square-1.


----------



## blah (Jun 13, 2008)

Actually I'm a Petrus solver that switched to Fridrich myself. And I had one hell of a time trying to start thinking in corner-edge pairs, took me long enough to be able to do F2L like I do it now.

@Erik: I don't get what you mean by stubborn/ignorant/unknowing, I'm not angry or anything, I just really don't get it. What questions do "3-cycle to M2" cubers often ask that makes you say that?


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2008)

Erik said:


> I chose FD because it's on the FRONT and you dont have to look under the cube



You don't have to look under the cube in order to see the sticker on DF?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 13, 2008)

blah said:


> Actually I'm a Petrus solver that switched to Fridrich myself. And I had one hell of a time trying to start thinking in corner-edge pairs, took me long enough to be able to do F2L like I do it now.
> 
> @Erik: I don't get what you mean by stubborn/ignorant/unknowing, I'm not angry or anything, I just really don't get it. What questions do "3-cycle to M2" cubers often ask that makes you say that?


I think 3-cyclers are used to this scenario:
5-cycle, 6-cycle: Do a 3-cycle, do another 3-cycle. First 5 cycle is finished. Start next cycle at different starting position.
So when a 3-cycler switches to M2 and gets a 5+6 cycle, he expects to solve the buffer piece at the end of the 5-cycle and then never look back at it.
I can also imagine a 3-cycler having trouble orienting a piece by using a buffer instead of an orientation alg.

I don't know M2, but I can imagine how it works and how it would confuse 3-cyclers. Just like M2-only solvers can look at an orient-first method and think "He did a lot of turning, but nothing happened yet => Will be DNF". This is especially funny when someone looks at a orient-first-3-cycler-doing-multi-blind like Clement Gallet. He orients all (9) cubes before he permutes them. To the untrained eye it looks like he is about to DNF all of them, then mysteriously starts turning them AGAIN to get some piece correct but still about to DNF them all, then starts turning them AGAIN and finishes most of them. This multi-step-process has even confused Stefan in the past


----------



## Pedro (Jun 13, 2008)

tim said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > I chose FD because it's on the FRONT and you dont have to look under the cube
> ...



yeah...I just look there once, at the beginning  (when I'm doing M2...)


----------



## blah (Jun 13, 2008)

oh you can actually do multibld like that? going through every cube 4 times separately to complete all 4 steps of eo co ep cp? i always had the impression that once you put a cube down you weren't allowed to pick it up again.


----------



## tim (Jun 13, 2008)

blah said:


> oh you can actually do multibld like that? going through every cube 4 times separately to complete all 4 steps of eo co ep cp? i always had the impression that once you put a cube down you weren't allowed to pick it up again.



You are not allowed to do it, since it's a bad idea.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 13, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> So when a 3-cycler switches to M2 and gets a 5+6 cycle, he expects to solve the buffer piece at the end of the 5-cycle and then never look back at it.
> I can also imagine a 3-cycler having trouble orienting a piece by using a buffer instead of an orientation alg.


What are you talking about? 



AvGalen said:


> I don't know M2, but I can imagine how it works and how it would confuse 3-cyclers.


Oh, sure... I looked at it once, and I understand its brilliance immediately. I've also taught someone old-Pochmann BLD without ever having attempted it, so somehow I knew about re-shooting.
(You forgot to mention that nonsense about re-shooting the first piece in a cycle with possibly opposite orientation from first time.)

However, I have had a sub-8 4x4x4 BLD DNF because I forgot to shoot the first piece in the cycle again, having been used to too much 3OP (this one's on YouTube, I think).




blah said:


> oh you can actually do multibld like that? going through every cube 4 times separately to complete all 4 steps of eo co ep cp? i always had the impression that once you put a cube down you weren't allowed to pick it up again.


We normally go by WCA regs, and those don't have anything against it.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 14, 2008)

blah said:


> Also another question: Do I need to worry whether my buffer is flipped or not?


Special offer, only valid today: Solve eleven edges, get one free!

FD/DF as buffer are completely equivalent, just different point of views. One might as well ask which hand should do the M2 turn. I might've caused the confusion by using FD when I first published the method and using DF when I later published it again (on my website). Of course I wish I could say causing this confusion and thinking was deliberate.


----------



## blah (Jun 14, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > Also another question: Do I need to worry whether my buffer is flipped or not?
> ...



Okay I don't know if it's meant to be sarcastic or anything, but I found it extremely funny (I've got a weird sense of humor?) and was instantly enlightened. Nice witty answer  Now I realize how trivial this is.

But on a side note, do M2 users often check if their buffer is flipped? The only reason I can think of is for safety purposes, so you'd know if you missed a flipped edge in the right position somewhere else on the cube?


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 14, 2008)

Granted, I'm very slow at M2 because I rarely practice it, but I use DB as my buffer when I do try it (I use commutators for permuting to the M slice, like Mike does). I like the setup moves as having to move pieces to UF. It feels faster and more comfortable to me. So don't joke about DB buffer users, to me it feels more natural ;-)

Chris


----------



## joey (Jun 14, 2008)

Have DB and DF as buffer. 4-cycle


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 14, 2008)

blah said:


> But on a side note, do M2 users often check if their buffer is flipped? The only reason I can think of is for safety purposes, so you'd know if you missed a flipped edge in the right position somewhere else on the cube?



I did this for a little while at first, but eventually decided it took too long and was too confusing, and wasn't worth the effort, so I stopped. If I could do it without having to think too much about it, I'd be tempted to, though - it is a nice extra check.


----------

