# Freestyle method



## mr6768 (Sep 22, 2010)

Hi cubers ...
I've heard about some speedBLD solvers using a method called freestyle . I was wondering what's this method all about . generally what's the Idea ?!
and also I know a little bit about Commutators and i think some people use this for corners . 
any Ideas would be appreciated ...
Thank you


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 22, 2010)

I was going to link you to the Wiki page about Freestyle, but I was surprised by this. Basically freestyle is where you solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time. You can use a structured method like Pochmann or M2/R2 to do so, or you can just "freely" perform setup moves and PLL algorithms to do this more organically. BH is a type of free style method where you pre-memorize every possible case, and solve always using 3 cycles. Try looking up Classic Pochmann, or M2, as well as BH for an idea of some types of freestyle methods. Most people just use setup turns and PLL algorithms or other algorithms to solve each case.

Chris


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 23, 2010)

Usually, we use the term freestyle for method that orient and permut two piece at time. This isn't a method in itself, more a category of methods.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

Hey Amaury, how come DIADEM is not mentioned here? Didn't you post a website about it recently?

Chris


----------



## Weston (Sep 23, 2010)

The "freestyle" method I use is just to solve orientation and permutation of two pieces at a time by using 8 move commutators and setups + a few other algs for bad cases.
I don't use PLLs except for solving parity.


----------



## Joker (Sep 23, 2010)

Are freestyle users generally faster than M2/R2 users? Just curious.


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 23, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 23, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Hey Amaury, how come DIADEM is not mentioned here? Didn't you post a website about it recently?
> 
> Chris


 
Yes, here it is : http://www.francocube.com/deadalnix/DIADEM_en.php

But I didn't wanted to advertise too much as long as this is not exactly the topic.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

While this thread is here, and from rereading the OP this question is actually still on topic as far as I can tell.

What *exactly* do people consider to be freestyle? I think that most people would answer "An unstructured method whereby people solve position and orientation of either 1 or 2 pieces at a time, depending on the situation, using any means necessary (i.e. algs, commutators, double swaps, etc.)." But, my opinion is that although people think their method is unstructured, they are actually always solving similar situations in similar ways. So, in my mind, there *is* structure to all of people's varying versions of freestyle BLD. So a better wording might be:

"An structured method whereby people solve position and orientation of either 1 or 2 pieces at a time, depending on the situation, using any means necessary (i.e. algs, commutators, double swaps, etc.). Some particular variations of Freestyle may decide to chose one type of means (i.e. commutators, PLL algs with setups) and use this as the backbone for the method."

To me, this style definition makes freestyle a meta-method, not a single method. So, for example, Classic Pochmann, M2/R2, DIADEM, BH, speed optimizing algorithm lists for either corners or edges, these are all freestyle methods if we go by the above definition. They are simply variations on the main freestyle idea by choosing one particular means of solving, and making this means the backbone to the method.

This seems the most logical way to categorize methods, based on how people have been defining freestyle in the past. Do people agree? Am I a minority here, or do others feel roughly similar? Anything we can change for the better in terms of terminology? Does someone have a suggestion as to how we could define what freestyle is precisely, and how it fits into the scheme of other blindfolded methods besides the "meta-method" one I've proposed?

I was honestly a little dismayed by the fact that Freestyle BLD is a blank page on the wiki! 

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 23, 2010)

Freestyle *can* mean anything we want it to. I guess the question is: what do we want freestyle to mean? It's our jargon, we can make it mean anything we want to. 

I wonder if the freestyle "kings", such as Ville, use floating buffers. That would distinguish those people from things like Classic Pochmann, M2/R2, DIADEM, and BH. Somehow a method doesn't seem all that free if you're locked into specific buffers. But I don't know if floating buffers should be included in a definition of freestyle or not. Should it?

The thing that got me thinking about floating buffers again was square-1 BLD; it seems like many small cycles are more common on square-1 than they are on regular cubes, so I'm thinking maybe it would be better to use floating buffers instead of a BH-like approach, which is what I have been going for so far.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Freestyle *can* mean anything we want it to. I guess the question is: what do we want freestyle to mean? It's our jargon, we can make it mean anything we want to.



Yes, I completely agree! And, what better time to come up with a set definition than now? 



Mike Hughey said:


> I wonder if the freestyle "kings", such as Ville, use floating buffers. That would distinguish those people from things like Classic Pochmann, M2/R2, DIADEM, and BH. Somehow a method doesn't seem all that free if you're locked into specific buffers. But I don't know if floating buffers should be included in a definition of freestyle or not. Should it?



I would argue that this still makes Freestyle the meta-method, it is just qualified as either "floating buffer freestlye," or "fixed buffer freestyle." Just because we have not used these terms before, doesn't mean we can't now.

The alternative, of course, is to come up with a different term for "methods that solve position of orientation of pieces at the same time." But, since we're already using freestyle in a context like this, it seems to make sense to use the same term. Agreed or no?



Mike Hughey said:


> The thing that got me thinking about floating buffers again was square-1 BLD; it seems like many small cycles are more common on square-1 than they are on regular cubes, so I'm thinking maybe it would be better to use floating buffers instead of a BH-like approach, which is what I have been going for so far.


 
The plot thickens  If you reorient as well (with x2 rotations), then you'll have the most ridiculously amazing SQ-1 BLD method ever conceived! (Not that you don't already  )

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 23, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> If you reorient as well (with x2 rotations)...


 
That made me LOL.

Maybe...
No, it's just too ridiculous.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 23, 2010)

My opinion: Freestyle is not a method but rather a lack thereof. I just don't like the term, I think there's always a better one, for example "3-cycles" if that's what is meant. I especially disagree with Chris' above _"Basically freestyle is where you solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time"_. If I orient and permute separately and make up how on the fly, how is that not freestyle?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 23, 2010)

Freestyle methods are traditionally considered to be non-orient first.

I agree that the meta-method classification suits freestyle quite well.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> My opinion: Freestyle is not a method but rather a lack thereof. I just don't like the term, I think there's always a better one, for example "3-cycles" if that's what is meant. I especially disagree with Chris' above _"Basically freestyle is where you solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time"_.



I disagree slightly with this. I disagree with the idea that freestyle is a lack of method. I've heard this said before as well, but I think that people in fact *do* solve similar situations in similar ways every time they see it, regardless of whether or not they believe they have a set method. Perhaps a better way of of describing freestyle is a "loose" method that can be changed depending on the situation/grip-hand/memorization recall time/etc.? Although there are multiple options to solve each case, I'll bet that people will fall into patterns of using similar approaches in similar cases based on their style. This will eventually result in solving each individual case the same way, or one of two ways, every time they see it. I would still classify this loose association of case to solving approach as a fixed, purposeful method.



> If I orient and permute separately and make up how on the fly, how is that not freestyle?



That is a very good point. I suppose freestyle is a qualifier for the method, meaning that one has a loose or organic flow through each of the steps. Similar to how I have defined it above, they have possibly multiple ways of solving some or most of the cases, rather than exactly 1 way. M2/R2, DIADEM, BH, Classic Pochmann all have exactly one way to solve every case, thus they are not freestyle. However, if some or most of my cases can be solved in various ways, then that should be freestyle?

Based on this, you could call your description of a loose orient first approach as "freestyle 3OP."



Kirjava said:


> Freestyle methods are traditionally considered to be non-orient first.
> 
> I agree that the meta-method classification suits freestyle quite well.


 
I like the meta-method classification as well, but Stefan brings up a good point that "freestyle" is perhaps a poor choice of name for this meta-method. We need a good term for "methods that solve position and orientation of one or more pieces at a time." Perhaps direct solving? Seems logical.

Chris


----------



## MatsBergsten (Sep 23, 2010)

"Sticker solving" as opposed to "piece solving"??


----------



## Stefan (Sep 23, 2010)

MatsBergsten said:


> "Sticker solving" as opposed to "piece solving"??



Opposed? Those seem equal.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Sep 23, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Opposed? Those seem equal.


 
Piece for me is a corner piece or edge piece. Sticker for me is one side of one piece.
And I thought that came from your bld page  (Or Joel's description of your "Classic" method).


----------



## Stefan (Sep 23, 2010)

If that stems from me, then it means one specific sticker, for example the red sticker on the red/blue edge is not the same as the red sticker on the red/green edge. So when I solve one sticker, the whole piece gets solved. And of course if I solve one piece, then all stickers on it get solved. So "sticker solving" and "piece solving" are the same. Unless you think really only of stickers, not taking into account the others on the same piece. Like when speedcubing newbs start solving one side and not one layer. But I don't quite see what that has to do with orientation vs permutation.

You meant it as a reply to Chris asking for names to distinguish methods separating or not separating orientation and permutation, right? Which one would be which?


----------



## qqwref (Sep 23, 2010)

I think in a BLD context people generally use "piece" to mean "permutation only". So piece cycling or piece solving would be just solving the permutation (doing the orientation earlier, probably).


----------



## MatsBergsten (Sep 23, 2010)

My thought/intention was like Michael explains. And yes, referring to Chris' post. 
So sticker solving would be what Chris calls freestyle and piece solving (the permutation part of) 3OP.

But perhaps not a good choice. In Swedish we have "bit" which means piece like in edge or corner piece,
sida (side) for sticker. 

Anyway I am more inclined to agree with Mike's definition of freestyle as using floating buffers.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

MatsBergsten said:


> My thought/intention was like Michael explains. And yes, referring to Chris' post.
> So sticker solving would be what Chris calls freestyle and piece solving (the permutation part of) 3OP.
> 
> But perhaps not a good choice. In Swedish we have "bit" which means piece like in edge or corner piece,
> sida (side) for sticker.



Although it's not an exciting term, I still think "direct solving" fits well for what we are trying to describe.



> Anyway I am more inclined to agree with Mike's definition of freestyle as using floating buffers.


 
I would have to disagree though. I use floating buffers for all the edges on the larger cubes, and I certainly don't consider myself a freestyle solver in the sense that I have a "loose" or organic approach to my cycles. I still solve with the same BH techniques, just start from a different buffer whenever my cycles end.

I think the bigger issue is for us to come up with a meta-method name for methods that solve the position and orientation of a piece, or pieces, at the same time. From there we can then qualify this method with terms like "freestyle" or "fixed buffer" vs. "floating buffer."

So for example, and using my "direct solving" term, I could describe my generalized edges solving approach as being a 3-cycle direct solving approach, meaning that I solve position and orientation at the same time when orientation makes sense (central edges), and I do so with 3 cycles. To further qualify my method I could then say that I solve with "floating buffer BH."

Now, normally I would just say that I use BH, or that I use "floating buffer BH", but this tells you the further fact that I am saying that I use a 3-cycle direct solving approach as well (the meta-method).

How does something like this sound?

So Freestyle would mean that you are using a direct solving approach. You would then have to further qualify it as 2-cycle or 3-cycle freestyle if you wanted to be very precise. Or we could even let "Freestyle," with no qualifier, be an understood "3-cycle Freestyle" and this leaves M2/R2 and Classic Pochmann to be called the "2-cycle direct solving" approaches. There does not appear to be a "2-cycle freestyle" approach that is used right now, unless I am mistaken? This is because all 2-cycle direct solving approaches are currently very systemized, M2/R2, Classic Pochmann, U2 method for big cube centers, r2 method for big cube edges, etc.

How does this sound? I am proposing this as either a convention we can use, or a start to us coming up with a convention that everyone can agree on.

Chris


----------



## yoruichi (Sep 23, 2010)

freestyle = 3 cycle once and for all
the term is really silly


----------



## Sakarie (Sep 23, 2010)

Direct solving seems like good name as an opposite of orient+permute. But direct solving would a be category for BH, M2, R2 Classic Pochmann, Turbo, like everything except 3OP.

But does everything need names? My method is "commutators", or more specific "commutators with fixed buffer", or to be very precise "Commutators mixed with algorithms with fixed buffer". My method is of using the method "Speed-optimal threecycles". If we should be very specific, we will probably need a lot of names, and too many to be practical, since not many will remember what the "treble-method" will mean.

I use commutators, that's my method.


----------



## riffz (Sep 24, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I wonder if the freestyle "kings", such as Ville, use floating buffers.


 
Didn't you read the thread that Ville posted? He explained how he uses floating buffers. (kind of off-topic but I couldn't ignore this)

I don't like the term freestyle. It seems to imply that there is no set method for solving, but like Chris said, eventually you are bound to do the same thing each time you encounter a certain case.


----------



## beingforitself (Sep 24, 2010)

Just wanted to concur with the sentiment in this thread that the term "freestyle" as it is currently used is terribly vague and not really useful as terminology for thinking about blindsolving, despite it's common usage until now. In fact, I would go further to say that the term itself engenders vague thinking and misguided conceptions of "structured" versus "unstructured" solving that do not correspond terribly well with the reality of how existing methodologies actually work in practice.

As Chris said, a better way of thinking about BLD methods is to distinguish between the two umbrella groups of simultaneous and split solving of orientation/permutation, then discuss general methods within those umbrella groups, i.e., fixed buffer 2-cycle direct solving with PLLs (old Pochmann), fixed buffer direct edge solving with M2 (M2), unbuffered 3-cycle direct solving with optimal commutators (unbuffered optimal BH), split solving with commutators and PLLs (3OP), etc.

People should really just stop using the term "freestyle" at all and instead use more representative categories when talking about how they or other people blindsolve.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 24, 2010)

beingforitself said:


> People should really just stop using the term "freestyle" at all and instead use more representative categories when talking about how they or other people blindsolve.


 
I don't think this will happen.

It's generally agreed that F2L is a bad term. But we use it because we use it.


----------



## mr6768 (Sep 26, 2010)

so , for a method like BH which is based by commutators should we learn all the algs ? or they can be done intuitively by knowing how to do commutators ?


----------



## riffz (Sep 26, 2010)

mr6768 said:


> so , for a method like BH which is based by commutators should we learn all the algs ? or they can be done intuitively by knowing how to do commutators ?


 
They're all intuitive, but as you use them more and more you will automatically commit them to memory.


----------



## mr6768 (Sep 27, 2010)

really ? so how to learn commutators ? any tutorial or something ?! I've read joel van noort's commutator's page but it wasn't what i was looking for anyway


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 27, 2010)

mr6768 said:


> really ? so how to learn commutators ? any tutorial or something ?! *I've read joel van noort's commutator's page but it wasn't what i was looking for anyway*


 
You say that Joël's commutator tutorial, which is thoroughly written and illustrated with example applets, is not what you're looking for. Are you looking for a bad tutorial with unclear explanations or no illustrated examples?

Chris


----------



## Sakarie (Sep 27, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> You say that Joël's commutator tutorial, which is thoroughly written and illustrated with example applets, is not what you're looking for. Are you looking for a bad tutorial with unclear explanations or no illustrated examples?
> 
> Chris


 
What Chris means is that if you don't find that tutorial good, you probably won't find any guide good enough.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 27, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> What Chris means is that if you don't find that tutorial good, you probably won't find any guide good enough.


 
I was more so referring to the phrasing of his post. It's not that I think Joël's guide is the tutorial to end all tutorials, though I do think it is quite good. What bothered me is that mr6768 did not list any reasons as to why he does not like Joël's guide. Without knowing what about Joël's guide mr6768 did not like, I inferred that one or more of the characteristics of Joël's guide that we can see are possibly not what he's looking for. The characteristics I saw were an extremely thorough explanation of commutators, as well as example applets. I figured one of these was not satisfactory for the poster, since we were given no additional information about why the guide was not a good one for the poster.

@mr6768: We're more than willing to help you, but you must give us more information or ask us more detailed questions. Your post leads me to jump to the conclusion that you just want us to spoon feed you the easiest way to learn to do commutators without any necessary thought or work to understand them. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is the impression you gave, for me at least.

Chris


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 27, 2010)

@ mr6768: you could also take a look at Gilles Roux' beginner method.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 27, 2010)

I personally learned about commutators off this site. It has no pictured examples, but I found the explanations very clear.

Chris


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Sep 27, 2010)

Chris, I think what he's wanting is a list of commutators people use for BLD and how they use them. I'm guessing a detailed BH method with a plethora of examples of commutators (I don't know BH but I'm under the impression it's not a set method with only x, y, and z commutators; more like you can use any commutator you want) that are often used for bld.

mr6768, I'm with Chris on this one. You definitely need to ask more detailed questions, and you can't expect to be just given all your knowledge. Most of the "older" (in terms of time here / spent cubing, not necessarily age) cubers learned from toying with concepts, and as all cubers should, so should you.


----------



## mr6768 (Sep 30, 2010)

alright people, My bad ! for some reason I thought that joel's page is a beginner tutorial.
Anyway I have to confess that I haven't read the joel's tutorial completely.and I read it a while ago and I can't recall it .
I think I have to read it completely . 
thanks to you great guys for caring and helping (especially chris ) .

Is BH method just for corners ?!


----------



## riffz (Sep 30, 2010)

mr6768 said:


> Is BH method just for corners ?!


 
Nope:

http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/bhedges.html


----------



## That70sShowDude (Sep 30, 2010)

Some sub-1 'freestyle' BLD solver should make an example solves video.


----------



## mr6768 (Sep 30, 2010)

That70sShowDude said:


> Some sub-1 'freestyle' BLD solver should make an example solves video.


 
that would be nice


----------



## Sakarie (Oct 1, 2010)

That70sShowDude said:


> Some sub-1 'freestyle' BLD solver should make an example solves video.


 
R2 L2 U' D L D' R D' R2 U' L2 F' L2 F B' U B' D2 R2 D2 L R U R D

Corners: URB as buffer
U' L2 U R' U' L2 U R
R2 D' R U2 R' D R U2 R New cycle
y L' U' R' U L U' R d
U' L2 U L2 d L2 d' L2 U' L2 U x' U2 New cycle
yz R' U2 R' D' R U2 R' D R2 y' Setting up to parityfix

Edges: UF as buffer
D' M D R' D' M' D R
U' R' U R' U' R' U' R' U R U R2 U 
U' R U R U R U' R' U' R'
x' L U' M' U L' U' M U x' (Could've done L U' L' U' L' U' L U L U or z U R' U' R' U' R' U R U R z' instead)
M U L' U' M' U L U'

Parity:
M2 U R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U' M2

It wasn't sub-1, since there were a lot of new cycles in corners (and because I'm not usually sub-1...). But it has a lot of freestyle in it, the edges and parity. the 2-gen algorithms is variants of U-perm, that I did not make up on the spot, but learned as algorithms.


----------



## aronpm (Oct 1, 2010)

This wasn't a solve that I actually did blind, but this is a freestyle-ish solution, and it doesn't necessarily reflect what I'd actually do in a solve:

scramble: R2 D R' U' L B D L2 F' B' U R' B2 D2 R2 U2 D2 B U' R' F' L F' D' L2 
Corners: z R2 D2 R U R' D2 R U' R' z'
y U2 R2 D R U2 R' D' R U2 R U2 y'
x y U2 R U L2 U' R' U L2 U y' x'
y U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R y' (to leave UBR and ULB swapped for parity) ( 37 moves )

Edges:
B M2 U' L' U M2 U' L U B'
U' u2 M u2 M U
U2 L U' M' U L' U' M U'
U2 M2 U R U' M2 U R' U
U' x M' U' L U M U' L' U x' U
x2 y r U R' U' M U R U' R' x2 y
y' U M' U R2 U' M U R2 U2 ( 62 STM ) 

y2 L2 R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' r2 ( 16 moves )

So that solve is 115 STM. 

What I would actually do:


Spoiler



scramble: R2 D R' U' L B D L2 F' B' U R' B2 D2 R2 U2 D2 B U' R' F' L F' D' L2 
Corners: z R2 D2 R U R' D2 R U' R
D' F y' YPERM y F' D
F' y' YPERM R y
F2 LPERM F2
D L' y' YPERM y L D'
y U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R y'

Edges: R' B' R B M2 B' R' B R
U' L' U M2 U' L U
R U R' U' M2 U R U' R'
U2 M' U2 M'
(L U2) M U M U2 M' U M' (U2 L')
U2 M' U2 M'
U R U' M2 U R' U' 
B L' B' M2 B L B'
M2
B' R' B M2 B' R' B
U' L2 U M2 U' L2 U M2
y' U M' U R2 U' M U R2 U2

Parity: y2 L2 TPERM r2

Now you should understand why I am so slow (~1:00) despite having 15-20 second memorization.


----------



## lynx (Oct 1, 2010)

Nice...(",)


----------



## QCcuber4 (Oct 1, 2010)

Wow I thought BH was more complex, i'm working on it now, its pretty easy to understand in a way. What's DIADEM tho, never heard of that before, and 2-gens neither (or maybe I just know 2-gen under another term, w/e)


----------



## Sakarie (Oct 2, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> Wow I thought BH was more complex, i'm working on it now, its pretty easy to understand in a way. What's DIADEM tho, never heard of that before, and 2-gens neither (or maybe I just know 2-gen under another term, w/e)


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?18677-DIADEM-Method&highlight=DIADEM


----------

