# R2, 3 cycle, or Pochmann for corners?



## alexc (Feb 17, 2008)

Hi everyone,
I have been debating lately about whether to stick with 3 cycle or switch to either Pochmann or R2 for corners. I have tried sighted solves with all the methods and I think they all have potential to be fast. However, I have several things I don't like about each method. Pochmann is nice, but I think that the move count is a little high. R2 is good, except it is not as intuitive as M2. I don't think 3 cycle is very good for multi bld, which I really want to get into. Could several people who use each method post some of their thoughts, sighted and blindfolded times, and anything else they want to say about their method? Thanks!


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Feb 17, 2008)

Pochmann was tough to get used to, but I perfer it over 3-cycle [which I've only used like 2 or 3 times] and I've never tried R2... I like pochmann :]

Needless to say I don't know quite enough to contrast the methods very deeply.


----------



## joey (Feb 17, 2008)

Pochmann is nice, but the move count is just way too high to reach acceptable speeds.
R2 is faster, but you're right, you do need to learn several algorithms.
3-cycle is fast, but again, for multibld you need to memo twice as much.

Really, I can't decide for you. I've just said what I think.


----------



## alexc (Feb 17, 2008)

joey said:


> Pochmann is nice, but the move count is just way too high to reach acceptable speeds.



I thought you used Pochmann?!


----------



## joey (Feb 18, 2008)

I used to. Then I switched. Now I'm faster!


----------



## Pedro (Feb 18, 2008)

joey said:


> I used to. Then I switched. Now I'm faster!



switched to...?

I think the best way is "freestyle"
you memorise the stickers, like old Pochmann or R2, but you use commutators or setup the stickers into A perms, when that's easy

I've tried this a few times (including multi bld), and it works

I even got a 1:53, but that was an easy case 

it's good for multi too, because you memorise just the stickers, so it's not much information


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 18, 2008)

Come on, joey and Pedro! For 3OP you memo _exactly_ same information, thus the same amount!


----------



## alexc (Feb 18, 2008)

Joey, what method do you use now?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 18, 2008)

Commutators ftw?

R2 is by Pochmann... why isn't it called Pochmann, then?


----------



## alexc (Feb 18, 2008)

I think commutators require too much thinking. Like Kai Jiptner said, "blindsolving is for braindeads"


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2008)

alexc said:


> I think commutators require too much thinking. Like Kai Jiptner said, "blindsolving is for braindeads"



What about practice? Most of the commutators are already second nature for me.


----------



## alexc (Feb 18, 2008)

tim said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > I think commutators require too much thinking. Like Kai Jiptner said, "blindsolving is for braindeads"
> ...



You use commutators?? :confused: Maybe practice does help, but right now I have a tournament coming up in 5 weeks or so and I don't think it's the best time to switch to a method which requires a lot of practice to get good at.


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2008)

alexc said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > alexc said:
> ...



Actually i don't use them yet, but it took me just an hour to get used to them and i can already use all commutators which doesn't require a setup move without delays.


----------



## alexc (Feb 18, 2008)

I tried out some methods. I am pretty sure I will still use 3 cycle w/ visual memory as my regular blindsolving method. For multi, I will use either commutators or just set up the pieces in A perms, etc. I tried a few sighted solves. I mostly used A perms, but I occassionally threw in an easy commutator. I really like commutators, but I have trouble doing them when the interchangeable slice isn't U or D. Using free setups with A perms was also good. The setup moves were sometimes short, but sometimes long, too. I think that I will use A perms or other corner algs when the setups are good, and use commutators when the setups are bad. Lastly, does anyone know good algs for the following corner cycles: (1 3 7) (5 7 3) Thanks!


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 19, 2008)

alexc said:


> Lastly, does anyone know good algs for the following corner cycles: (1 3 7) (5 7 3) Thanks!



(R2' U)(L2' U)(R2 U')(L2' U)(R2' U2 R2')

R'FRF'R'FRF'R'FRF' A R'FRF'R'FRF'R'FRF' A'
Where A is U2, D, D', D2

RU'R'U2RUR' A RU'R'U2RUR' A'
Where A is D, D', or D2

R2'UR2U'R2 also works

etc...


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Feb 19, 2008)

Pochmann method!!!


----------



## dbeyer (Feb 22, 2008)

Which Pochmann method? Hmm, Derrick R2 is a Pochmann method. Before you make a post where the emoticon takes of half of the characters to complete the post, think about what you really have to say.

R2, 3-cycles, 2-cycles ... what about BH? ...


----------



## tim (Feb 22, 2008)

dbeyer said:


> R2, 3-cycles, 2-cycles ... what about BH? ...



What does BH stand for?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 22, 2008)

tim said:


> dbeyer said:
> 
> 
> > R2, 3-cycles, 2-cycles ... what about BH? ...
> ...



Guessing "Beyer-Hardwick", maybe? Maybe this is the optimized commutators method?


----------



## Erik (Feb 23, 2008)

Why not try TuRBo?


----------



## alexc (Feb 23, 2008)

Erik said:


> Why not try TuRBo?



Oh, I didn't think of that. It's kind of a lot of algos to learn and I don't know if it will be any better than R2.


----------



## Erik (Feb 23, 2008)

It's only 18 algs of which I'm sure you know at least like 6 or 8


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 23, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > What does BH stand for?
> ...




maybe... 

Chris


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 23, 2008)

Erik said:


> Why not try TuRBo?




Erik, I do recommend to people the TuRBo method, I think it has incredible potential to be fast. I like how it allows you to memorize just a few short, fast, sequences to use to permute and orient all the time. I may have convinced Andrew Kang to learn TuRBo, not sure if he stuck with it, but I at least got him very interested in the idea. So you may soon have another fast TuRBo solver added to the ranks.

I also like TuRBo method, but for my own solving I have to say that I prefer the BH method (wait for a bit to see it) 

Chris


----------



## Erik (Feb 23, 2008)

great Chris! I've got some improvements to it too I think now  (though i have forgotten all algs now )


----------



## Joël (Feb 23, 2008)

alexc said:


> I tried out some methods. I am pretty sure I will still use 3 cycle w/ visual memory as my regular blindsolving method. For multi, I will use either commutators or just set up the pieces in A perms, etc. I tried a few sighted solves. I mostly used A perms, but I occassionally threw in an easy commutator. I really like commutators, but I have trouble doing them when the interchangeable slice isn't U or D. Using free setups with A perms was also good. The setup moves were sometimes short, but sometimes long, too. I think that I will use A perms or other corner algs when the setups are good, and use commutators when the setups are bad. Lastly, does anyone know good algs for the following corner cycles: (1 3 7) (5 7 3) Thanks!



I am assuming you use Macky's numbering scheme:

1: UFL, 2: UFR, 3: UBR, 4: UBL, 5: DFL, 6: DFR, 7: DBR, 8: DBL.

So (1 3 7) = UFL -> UBR -> DBR:

*y U2 (R'F'R2 FR) U2 (R'F'R2 FR) y'*

I use this commutator for pretty much all the 3 cycles with 2 corners in the U layer and 1 corner in the D layer. The (R'F'R2 FR) sort of swaps the URF and DRF corners. Then a U, U or U2, and (R'F'R2 FR) swaps two other corners. For example:

(R'F'R2 FR) U (R'F'R2 FR) U'

(5 7 3): I'd do y (RUR'U') * 3 D2 (RUR'U') * 3 D2 y'


----------



## dbeyer (Feb 23, 2008)

Nice Joel, check this one out:

L2 U [R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U'] U' L2
Hence:
L2 U R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U2 L2, it's optimal in HTM, and pretty nice considering its RLU


----------



## Joël (Feb 23, 2008)

dbeyer said:


> Nice Joel, check this one out:
> 
> L2 U [R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U'] U' L2
> Hence:
> L2 U R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U2 L2, it's optimal in HTM, and pretty nice considering its RLU



R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U'... I've seen it before... So what is the logic behind that?

<U'R2U, L2> = U' R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2. So R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U' is just a shifted commutator...

I might use that too, now that I understand why it works .


----------



## KConny (Feb 23, 2008)

(R2 D' R2' D R2 U2)*2 or (U2 R2 D' R2' D R2)*2 should do the trick.


----------



## dbeyer (Feb 24, 2008)

That's 12 Moves though. It's a good substitute though. I'm actually amused by Joel's solution.


----------



## Joël (Feb 24, 2008)

dbeyer said:


> That's 12 Moves though. It's a good substitute though. I'm actually amused by Joel's solution.



I was actually not amused by it when I found it. My hands just could not get the order in which the faces where moving... But after some practice, I started to like it!

I don't really like KConny's move with the D D' moves, but I like it a lot when mirrod in the E layer, (R2UR2U'R2 D2') * 2.

I guess these things are very personal .


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 24, 2008)

I really like KConny's move (got it from Macky's tutorial when I first started BLD). It's one of my fastest algorithms. But that probably just shows how slow all my algorithms are.


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Feb 26, 2008)

How does the Turbo method work?

I've been developing a new system of my own -- it still has a few kinks to work out, but I've been able to get very good times with it. It is inspired by freestyle commutators but perhaps more braindead in nature. I've always had trouble finding a good method that is both fast and effective and yet easy to compress down in memory and easy to unpack. Does Turbo solve these issues?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 26, 2008)

MarcusStuhr said:


> How does the Turbo method work?
> 
> I've been developing a new system of my own -- it still has a few kinks to work out, but I've been able to get very good times with it. It is inspired by freestyle commutators but perhaps more braindead in nature. I've always had trouble finding a good method that is both fast and effective and yet easy to compress down in memory and easy to unpack. Does Turbo solve these issues?



TuRBo is freestyle 3-cycle with standard resolution for each cycle (what I like to call "restricted freestyle" ). 3 pieces are brought to 3 positions a layer, and their stickers are cycled with one of a few algs (depending on the location of the stickers to be cycled). It's on Erik's old site.


----------



## KJiptner (Feb 27, 2008)

TuRBo:

for Edges: http://erikku.er.funpic.org/rubik/turboedges.html
for Corners: http://erikku.er.funpic.org/rubik/turbocorners.html

I'm working on it btw.


----------



## alexc (Feb 27, 2008)

Kai, will you switch to TuRBo?


----------



## KJiptner (Feb 28, 2008)

alexc said:


> Kai, will you switch to TuRBo?



I'm experimenting.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 29, 2008)

Joël said:


> <U'R2U, L2> = U' R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2. So R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U' is just a shifted commutator...


It's also a pure commutator: [R2, U L2 U'].


----------



## Joël (Feb 29, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> Joël said:
> 
> 
> > <U'R2U, L2> = U' R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2. So R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U' is just a shifted commutator...
> ...



Oh.. Of course  .


----------



## Inusagi (Mar 10, 2008)

joey said:


> Pochmann is nice, but the move count is just way too high to reach acceptable speeds.
> R2 is faster, but you're right, you do need to learn several algorithms.
> 3-cycle is fast, but again, for multibld you need to memo twice as much.
> 
> Really, I can't decide for you. I've just said what I think.



When you say that 3-cycle and R2 is fast, which one do you mean is faster?


----------



## joey (Mar 10, 2008)

Some would say 3-cycle is faster, but this again is similair to Fridrich vs. Petrus, not enough people use R2 to really see how fast it is.


----------



## RobinBloehm (Mar 10, 2008)

In my opinion you should consider the differences in memorization, sticker-wise memorization (R2, Pochmann) might take longer for some-people than piece-wise memo + some orientations.


----------



## joey (Mar 10, 2008)

RobinBloehm said:


> In my opinion you should consider the differences in memorization, sticker-wise memorization (R2, Pochmann) might take longer for some-people than piece-wise memo + some orientations.



I don't understand why you phrase it like that? You initially hint that sticker memo is harder. Sticker-memo isnt harder. Some people prefer to sticker memo, some people prefer piece-wise + orient.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 10, 2008)

he's not saying it's harder or not...

he said:


> sticker-wise memorization (R2, Pochmann) *might take longer for some-people* than piece-wise memo + some orientations.


----------



## Inusagi (Mar 10, 2008)

I am new at blind, so if I am rigth, the difference is the memorization, not the entire solve? Rigth?


----------



## jeff081692 (Mar 12, 2008)

Does anyone know what the average move counts are for each method?


----------



## Pedro (Mar 12, 2008)

Did some sighted solves, couting moves

#1
CO: 49
CP: 54 (parity left)
Total: 103

#2
CO: 26
CP: 31 (parity left)
Total: 57

#3
CO: 41
CP: 22 (parity left)
Total: 63

#4
CO: 42
CP: 22 (parity left)
Total: 64

#5
CO: 14 (lucky one )
CP: 47 (no parity)
Total: 61

so, average was:
CO: 34,4
CP: 35,2
Total: 69,6


----------



## Marcell (Mar 12, 2008)

R2:
#1: 59 (+parity)
#2: 81 (+parity)
#3: 62
#4: 85 (+parity)
#5: 74 (+parity)
Av: 72,2

Pochmann(on the same scrambles):
(Using 11 moves for the L-perms and 17 for the Y - thx for correcting)
#1: 118
#2: 130 
#3: 120
#4: 148
#5: 134
Av: 130
(without cancellations)


----------



## alexc (Mar 13, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > Pochmann is nice, but the move count is just way too high to reach acceptable speeds.
> ...



Idk, I use 3 cycle now, and it is pretty fast. No clue about R2.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 13, 2008)

Marcell said:


> Pochmann(on the same scrambles):
> (Using 14 moves for T-perm, 11 for L and 18 for Y)



Hmm, you use T-perm for corners? And why 18 moves for Y?


----------



## Pedro (Mar 13, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Marcell said:
> 
> 
> > Pochmann(on the same scrambles):
> ...



T-perm for edges, I think...

don't know where the 18 moves come from


----------



## Blue Transaparent (Mar 14, 2008)

Guys, Im new with BLD, i've tried the 3 cycle method and suceeded after more than 3 dozen attempts. 

Now i'm trying my hand with Pochmann method. i've watched vid tut for this, and i noticed that "T" perm and "J" perm are commonly used. if i understand it correctly, J perm are used if the Edge Orientation/Permutation if the peice is on the "M" area (UF UD BF BD), is this correct? 

and once i saw from the half a dozen vid "T" permutation is enough for use in CP and EP? and less chances of parity?

i think with Pochmann method, by using less algos reduces the margin for error which i really like. i'm not after speed anyway.

can someone help me out with this query. thanks


----------



## Joël (Mar 16, 2008)

Blue Transaparent said:


> Guys, Im new with BLD, i've tried the 3 cycle method and suceeded after more than 3 dozen attempts.
> 
> Now i'm trying my hand with Pochmann method. i've watched vid tut for this, and i noticed that "T" perm and "J" perm are commonly used. if i understand it correctly, J perm are used if the Edge Orientation/Permutation if the peice is on the "M" area (UF UD BF BD), is this correct?



That's about right, allthough I (and I guess most people) also use J's for other targets, suchs as RD (setup with D' l'). And for some targets in the M layer, I still set it up to a T-permutation. It depends on you own preferences.


----------



## Marcell (Mar 16, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Hmm, you use T-perm for corners? And why 18 moves for Y?



No, you're right, I don't use T for the corners, I don't know why did I write it there.
And you're right again, it's 17 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'). Seems that I'm unable to count (I have just discovered that I counted the moves like this: "One, two, three, five, six...").

So: sorry and thanks for the corrections. I guess I should take a look at my posts before sending them. Will do.


----------



## tim (Mar 16, 2008)

Marcell said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, you use T-perm for corners? And why 18 moves for Y?
> ...



Actually just 15:
R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R


----------



## alexc (Mar 16, 2008)

tim said:


> Marcell said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



Yes, that alg is useful, it allows you to cancel out a few moves for Old Pochmann, but it still does little to reduce the overall ridiculously high move count.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 16, 2008)

alexc said:


> Yes, that alg is useful, it allows you to cancel out a few moves for Old Pochmann


I don't understand. That alg *is* what my old method uses for corners. It never used the Y-perm.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 16, 2008)

Hmm, I think Marcell might've used a variation of my old method. I published it using the 15 moves alg exclusively. Marcell, are you actually using the 17 moves Y-perm and the two J-perms (targeting UBR and UFL)?

Never thought about selling the method like that. But it makes the corners part equivalent to the edges part (in the edges<->corners duality sense that Lucas so adores). And with three targets, the average setup length is likely to drop (even though none of them alone are as good as the RDF target alone).


----------



## Marcell (Mar 16, 2008)

Yes, I'm using (used to use, actually) a variation of your old method with the two L(or J)-perms and the Y-perm for corners.


----------



## alexc (Mar 16, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that alg is useful, it allows you to cancel out a few moves for Old Pochmann
> ...



Oh, it is? I use that alg for targets RDF, FDL, LBD, and BDR. However, for something like LDF, I just do D R Y perm R' D'.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 16, 2008)

alexc said:


> for something like LDF, I just do D R Y perm R' D'.


For that I'd use:
D2 (R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F) D2

Or with the J:
F (R' U L U' R U2 L' U L U2 L') F'

Also try these:
FUR: (U L' U2') (R U' R' U2' L) (R U' R')
FLU: (U' R U' L U L') (R' U2 L U L' U')
UBR: (R' U) (L' U2') (R U' R' U2 R) (L U')
LUF: (x U' L U L') (U2 R' U' R U') x' (U L' U' L U')


----------



## ROOT (Mar 30, 2008)

i use all three combined, except instead of R2 i do D2, but that depends on the situation.


----------

