# easiest and best way 2 learn blindfold



## Rubixcubematt (Aug 13, 2008)

hey everyone. I was just wondering what is the best method of blindfold solving there is and how i should learn it. should i start with a 2x2 coz that is just basically the corners of a 3x3 then move to a 3x3????


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 13, 2008)

If there was one method that is both easy and best, wouldn't everyone use that method?

Try searching the forum for these blindfolded methods and figure out what suits you:
Classic Pochmann
M2 / R2 Pochmann
Orient first 3-cycle
TurBo
Freestyle commutators

There are many others, like those by PJK and Bill McGaugh (hope I spelled that one correct) which are very easy, but don't qualify as "best".


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Aug 13, 2008)

I would recommend you give 2x2x2 a shot first. I started with 3x3 but i know now that it would have been somewhat easier had i started with 2x2. 2x2 BLD is very very easy.


----------



## Kian (Aug 13, 2008)

i think the easiest of the common methods to learn is old pochmann, as it requires just a bit of intuition and a few perms you already know. as for the best, that's certainly up for debate, you'll see great bld cubers using different methods.


----------



## shelley (Aug 13, 2008)

2x2 BLD is a joke. Yeah, it is like the corners of a 3x3, but you also get to cheat on cube orientation because a 2x2 has no centers. IMO, don't bother with learning 2x2 BLD if your eventual goal is learning 3x3 BLD. Learn 3x3 first; it makes you learn more of the basic techniques, getting used to a fixed orientation, dealing with parity, etc.

People say classic Pochmann is easiest to learn. It is quite simple, but I started out learning 3-cycle orient/permute and didn't have too much trouble with it. You might argue that it's more efficient as well, because with 3-cycle methods you're solving two pieces of a cycle at a time rather than just one.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 13, 2008)

Ooohh, "classic Pochmann". I like! I request that from now on, people call it that, and when they say "old Pochmann" I'm entitled to punch them in the face.

Oh and I'd say 3-cycle orient/permute "halfsolves" two pieces at a time (unless I misunderstood).


----------



## Kian (Aug 13, 2008)

haha, well i stand corrected then. Classic Pochmann it is. wouldn't want to be punched in the face.

But honestly, I do feel like it's easier to understand and grasp for a beginner than 3 cycle is. You should see what works for you, though, maybe your experience will differ from mine or that of anyone else.


----------



## choipster (Aug 13, 2008)

I started with Bill McGaugh's method (i think) via a tutorial on youtube. Had some good experiences with it and got some completed solves, though they were real slow at around 15 minutes. I then moved onto to Macky's 3-cycle method, using his tutorial on Cubefreak. 20 attempts and 0 solved cubes later, I decided to take a break  I almost had one, but messed up on the last move >_< i blame it on my stupid friend who kept knocking on my door telling me to go to the campus diner and get food with him. but no real loss, would've been timed at around 11 minutes... Hopefully now that I'm back into cubing, I'll be able to smash that time lol. Good luck, mate.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 14, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Ooohh, "classic Pochmann". I like! I request that from now on, people call it that, and when they say "old Pochmann" I'm entitled to punch them in the face.
> 
> Oh and I'd say 3-cycle orient/permute "halfsolves" two pieces at a time (unless I misunderstood).


Is their a formal proces for making these kinds of requests? I would like to make some as well:

If anyone ever says "I used to peel of the stickers...."' we should all be allowed to peel of their clothes and put them back in an order we like.

If anyone ever starts a topic that should have been avoided by using the search we should all be entitled to make that person really get lost.

If anyone ever sends spam we should all be allowed to print that out and make that person eat it.

That's it for now, but if that proces works I have some more requests to file.

I like the idea that "orienting first" "halfsolves" the "fully unsolved pieces" and that "3-cycle permute" halfsolves them fully. (not always just 2 pieces though. At the end of a cycle it halfsolves 3 pieces and in parity cases it halfsolves 4 pieces.) And orienting first could also solve a fully unsolved piece if it wasn't a "really fully unsolved piece " to begin with.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 14, 2008)

I like "Classic Pochmann." ("Pochmann Classic"? Then we could make things like "Diet Pochmann" and "Pochmann Light" and "Pochmann X-Treme" and "Cherry Strawberry Watermelon Pochmann")

But I don't like "halfsolve." How about something like "orisolve" and "permsolve"? Except preferably better-sounding.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 14, 2008)

I don't know about Cherry and Strawberry, but Watermelon Pochmann could happen

Orisolve sounds good to me.
Permsolve doesn't. I actually dislike permute because beginners don't understand the word. PP sounds nice  and could mean permute piece or place piece

But maybe orfix and perfix sound better?


----------



## brunson (Aug 14, 2008)

Lucas, before this thread I would have bet my eye-teeth that you'd grow up to be a mathematician or an engineer or a scientist or something. Now I see you're be in marketing. Eeew.


----------



## blah (Aug 14, 2008)

Actually, now that I know classic Pochmann (ooh, I'm loving this new "jargon"), M2/R2 and a bit of TuRBo, and that I've read Stefan's thread about how he came up with his methods, I'm really starting to wonder if I should've learned freestyle 3-cycle from the start, in fact, I'm starting to wonder if everyone should do/have done so.

Why did Olly/Macky create an artificial orientation step in the first place? Does it really make execution easier? I imagine myself to have learnt BLD much more quickly had I not spent so much time getting confused over orientation definitions. And with the definitions come the setup restrictions, which makes setup moves faster and slower at the same time. For corners, I can see how orientation makes things much easier, but for edges, I think it's debatable. I dunno.

All these thoughts are running through my head now because I've had a couple of bad experiences trying to teach people 3OP, and had a couple of them give up on learning BLD, which makes me sad. Maybe everyone should start learning freestyle 3-cycle from the start, so they'll get used to sticker permutation from the start (and not have to go through the whole agonizing cubie-sticker transition like I did), and so far the hardest part for me teaching BLD has always been the orientation part, people just don't see why the "default orientation definitions" work, maybe I'm just bad at explaining, I dunno, but I always end up forcing them to memorize a certain color scheme thingy (e.g. if blue/green is on F/B then it's bad, or something like that) and accept it as it is. And then they get all confused when they're trying to do setup moves because they put too much effort into being overly cautious with setup move restrictions.

Had they learned to cycle stickers instead of cubies in the first place, I see them understanding the whole concept of BLD much more quickly because they're already familiar with U perms and A perms. And I think I explain setup moves pretty well. So with freestyle, this whole teaching-learning 2-sided process becomes much more efficient, no?

So what do you guys think? Should we start promoting freestyle 3-cycle to newbies from the start?


----------



## shelley (Aug 14, 2008)

Does anyone have a Watermelon Pochmann tutorial? Sounds yummy.


----------



## blah (Aug 14, 2008)

Get Mitchell Stern and Stefan to come up with something, then we'll have Watermelon Pochmann.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 14, 2008)

blah said:


> Actually, now that I know classic Pochmann (ooh, I'm loving this new "jargon"), M2/R2 and a bit of TuRBo, and that I've read Stefan's thread about how he came up with his methods, I'm really starting to wonder if I should've learned freestyle 3-cycle from the start, in fact, I'm starting to wonder if everyone should do/have done so.
> 
> Why did Olly/Macky create an artificial orientation step in the first place? Does it really make execution easier? I imagine myself to have learnt BLD much more quickly had I not spent so much time getting confused over orientation definitions. And with the definitions come the setup restrictions, which makes setup moves faster and slower at the same time. For corners, I can see how orientation makes things much easier, but for edges, I think it's debatable. I dunno.
> 
> ...


I don't know Olly, but I am pretty sure that Macky wasn't born when orient first/3-cycle permute was invented.

And I would only recommend freestyle 3-cycle to those that are serious about blindfolded solving. It requires more thinking about setupmoves and/or more algs to learn. Knowing about commutators would also really be helpfull and I consider those to be pretty advanced (but so is explaining why/how orientation restrictions work)


----------



## Rubixcubematt (Aug 14, 2008)

sounds good at the moment. i was already starting 2 try 3op but i was confused. then things clicked but i will probably start with a 2x2 with a certain colour in back left corner so that its the same colour scheme every solve


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 14, 2008)

Rubixcubematt said:


> sounds good at the moment. i was already starting 2 try 3op but i was confused. then things clicked but i will probably start with a 2x2 with a certain colour in back left corner so that its the same colour scheme every solve


 
That sounds like a well planned and easily achievable approach. Start easy, improve gradually!


----------



## Rubixcubematt (Aug 14, 2008)

thanks avgalen


----------

