# Switching from M2 with new Pochmann to 2 Cycle..



## Lotsofsloths (May 19, 2008)

Currently I know M2 edges with "New Pochmann" corners, which is basically you orient them, then permute them using the J Perm.

But "New Pochmann" corners is a little bit to slow, and 3 cycle corners sounds fast and fun!

only thing about it is parity, if someone could explain M2 and 3 cycle corners parity, that would be great!


----------



## alexc (May 19, 2008)

Perfect, this is exactly the methods I use! Here's how I handle a parity:

1. Finish edges and I know there is an odd parity.
2. Do F2 U' F2 M2 F2' U F2', this fixes UF and DB and the M centers AND switches UR and UL
3. Do CP. There will be two corners switched at the end. 
4. Set up the two switched corners on U and figure out which permutation alg I have.
5. Execute the alg.
6. Undo the setups.

That's it!


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 19, 2008)

I use DF as my buffer though(for edges)


----------



## Dene (May 19, 2008)

Why not try R2? Does anyone really use R2?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 19, 2008)

Dene said:


> Why not try R2? Does anyone really use R2?



IMO its too many set-up moves..


----------



## Pedro (May 19, 2008)

yep, that's what M2 uses

it's just what Alex said
you can also permute other edges on the parity fix, depending on which 2 corners you have to swap


----------



## alexc (May 19, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> I use DF as my buffer though(for edges)



So? (message to short.)


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 19, 2008)

Ohh, sorry, thought it was a different parity alg, thanks alot!
in the next week I will start getting used to it...while learned COLL.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 20, 2008)

Wow, Alex! I never thought of dealing with parity that way, and I've never seen that algorithm before. What a clean, easy way to deal with it! I've already tried it on 5 scrambles with parity, and got 4 right, and the 5th I just messed up some other corners, but my parity fix was right. It was practically instant to learn this method instead. I think I've actually already switched to this method for dealing with parity. Thank you!

Is this method for dealing with parity common knowledge somewhere? I don't remember ever reading it anywhere.

Thanks again for showing me a better way to deal with parity!


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

Huh Mike? How have you been doing parity?


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 20, 2008)

joey said:


> Huh Mike? How have you been doing parity?



Basically, not too different from how I did it with Macky's 3-cycle. Usually a T-perm followed by 2 2-cycles of edges (H perm usually), and I had to figure it out every time. I have hated parity for a long time. Now it's suddenly very easy. (Except that I still need to get used to doing all my PLLs BLD; I really am not as comfortable as I should be with all of them yet. I messed up an F perm this morning and ruined an otherwise good solve.)

It's so nice now - parity isn't a problem anymore.

Again, where did you come up with the F2 U' F2 M2 F2' U F2' algorithm? Is it on some website somewhere, or did you come up with it yourself? I see it isn't on Stefan's website, since he sets his parity fix up to work well with R2 instead.


----------



## masterofthebass (May 20, 2008)

Mike, this is the main parity fix for people using Y perm corners. It switches the 2 edges that get swapped during the y perm. There's also another fix that swaps UB and UF, if you prefer not to have Vs and Ys. This would be
M' F2 M' F2


Also, I think this parity fix I got from Erik's M2 tutorial.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 20, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> There's also another fix that swaps UB and UF, if you prefer not to have Vs and Ys. This would be M' F2 M' F2



Wow, I was really bad at this before. Thanks, Dan - I'm probably going to use that algorithm most of the time instead - UB and UF is even better for me in most cases. But if I use both, I can probably always avoid F perms and just use T perms instead.  There are clearly a bunch of nice fixers like this - Erik's site actually has yet another one that swaps UB and UL (so I'm not sure you found it there). I probably should have read Erik's web page more carefully. 

I feel about as stupid now as I did when I discovered about 6 months ago with 3x3x3 speedsolving 2-look OLL that orienting edges before orienting corners was way faster and easier than orienting corners first, then edges (I had always done it the latter way to begin with). When I switched to orienting edges first (like most people do), I shaved 2 or 3 seconds off my times almost instantly.

The added speed with handling parity is great, but even better than that is the fact that it's so much less mentally taxing to do parity solves now. This makes it much easier to do averages of 10 BLD. (I almost got one today; I needed just one more non-DNF and messed it up.  It would have been my personal best, too.)


----------



## martijn_cube (May 20, 2008)

i hear you all talk about parities, but when i'm using M2 the only thing i can get is the Odd number of M2 algs. so that i need to switch the centers one more time. i do this with D'L2D M2 D'L2D. that's the only fix i use. the corners are always good(old pouchmann). i first solve the edges and then the corners. i also orient the BU, BD, and FU edge. so when i'm finished with the edges there all good.
do you get parities because your using some shortcuts or something?


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

That is parity.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 20, 2008)

yeah ok, but this is the only one i get in a solve. some people have others i guess. but is this because they don't orient all the M-layer pieces?(just use the same alg for UB and BU, etc)


----------



## Stefan (May 20, 2008)

Dene said:


> Does anyone really use R2?


I do, and maybe a handful others.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 20, 2008)

martijn_cube said:


> yeah ok, but this is the only one i get in a solve. some people have others i guess. but is this because they don't orient all the M-layer pieces?(just use the same alg for UB and BU, etc)


I always treated it as a more traditional parity by not solving the last edge piece, whatever it was. Then my centers were always correct, but I'd have 2 edges and 2 corners to swap. A really stupid way to do it, I know now, but previously I didn't know any better.



StefanPochmann said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone really use R2?
> ...


Does anyone really fast (say, sub-1:30) use R2?


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


Mondo uses it. And really, is sub1:30 *that* fast anymore


----------



## Stefan (May 20, 2008)

joey said:


> And really, is sub1:30 *that* fast anymore


Well, so far only 16 people have done that officially. Gosh I need to practice, soon I'll drop out of the top 100 with my lousy 3:03. Oh hey, I could still become the first sub1:30 German. Tim, Kai, Dennis and Lucas are inside 1:32-1:38.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 20, 2008)

joey said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone really fast (say, sub-1:30) use R2?
> ...


Really? That's quite interesting!



joey said:


> And really, is sub1:30 *that* fast anymore


Yes, we all know it's slow compared to you! But you still need to do it in competition. 

And Stefan, I feel your pain. I figure I'm dropping out of the top 100 next weekend (an even lousier 3:17), but I'm hoping to get back in it in two weeks at Cincinnati. I figure sub-1:30 is going to be required to stay in the top 100 by the end of 2009 or so. I'm trying to figure out a plan to get there.


----------



## Dene (May 20, 2008)

It's wierd how no one has taken on R2. I personally would like to but I'm never practising BLD these days >.<


----------



## Stefan (May 20, 2008)

Someone else recently told me he got a 1:35 average-of-10 with M2 and R2 and I think he'll keep improving.


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > And really, is sub1:30 *that* fast anymore
> ...


Gimme a break, it's been six months since I competed! I hope I can break sub1:08! Or maybe sub1:00.62, because sub-1 is too hard 


(I wasn't trying to put anyone down, about saying 1:30 isn't fast!)

EDIT (me and stefan posted at the same time)


StefanPochmann said:


> Someone else recently told me he got a 1:35 average-of-10 with M2 and R2 and I think he'll keep improving.


Care to mention his name? (if he is ok with it)


----------



## Stefan (May 20, 2008)

Don't know whether he'd be ok with it, he mailed me privately.


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Don't know whether he'd be ok with it.



Ok, well I hope you give this site to him, see if he wants to sign up!

Unless, it is someone here, who is being a sneaky little devil!


----------



## martijn_cube (May 20, 2008)

i'm using old pochmann for corners now. do you think it could be faster if i used R2? i'm just at the beginning of bld solving so it's still easy to switch. Erik says on his site that R2 isn't as beautifull as M2. but i think i will look in to it. i really love the short 'alg'. less chance to mess up the alg.
Stefan: what do you think are the pros/cons of R2 over old pochmann, and vice versa?

edit: sorry for typing your name wrong.


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

StefanPouchmann: What do you keep in this pouch of yours?


----------



## Dene (May 21, 2008)

Lol, just what I was thinking. How could you spell it wrong when the name is right there?


----------



## martijn_cube (May 21, 2008)

mmm. sorry. didn't look at that. lol. just always typed it like that. my bad


----------



## Stefan (May 21, 2008)

martijn_cube said:


> Stefan: what do you think are the pros/cons of R2 over old pochmann, and vice versa?


R2 is faster but requires learning a few algorithms and the toggling R slice might confuse you, depending on your memorization method.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 21, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> martijn_cube said:
> 
> 
> > Stefan: what do you think are the pros/cons of R2 over old pochmann, and vice versa?
> ...



i just had my first bld solve with M2/old pochmann. the old pochman with the Y-perm is pretty easy. but i want to start to use the PAO system for my memo, so have to learn the algs. so it doesn't really matter if i would learn the R2 algs or the old pochmann algs.

if i had to choose between old pochmann, R2 or 3cycle. what do you recommend? i like the fact that i never have parities with the old pochmann.


----------



## joey (May 21, 2008)

martijn_cube said:


> if i had to choose between old pochmann, R2 or 3cycle. what do you recommend? i like the fact that i never have parities with the old pochmann.


I don't know where you get this idea that you don't get parity with old pochmann. You do.

In terms of speed, it's probably
3-cycle > R2 > old pochmann.
But really, it's hard to know about R2, cos hardly anyone uses it.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 21, 2008)

i think because i solve it the simple way. just solve every sticker with a cycle, also the flipt corners. maybe thats why i don't have parity.

i first solve the edges, and then the corners. and from the 30 solves(ok thats not really very much) i wrote down, all of then were without corner parity. so maybe if you flip the last two corners with one alg that would be the parity? what other parity can you get on the corners?

and i think i will also look into the 3cycle for the corners.


----------



## joey (May 21, 2008)

You can't avoid parity it is as simple as that. You will have parity, but maybe you don't really understand it.


----------



## Harris Chan (May 21, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Someone else recently told me he got a 1:35 average-of-10 with M2 and R2 and I think he'll keep improving.



Don't tell me it's Nakajima haha.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 22, 2008)

joey said:


> You can't avoid parity it is as simple as that. You will have parity, but maybe you don't really understand it.



mm that's indeed possible.


----------



## Stefan (May 22, 2008)

Harris Chan said:


> Don't tell me it's Nakajima haha.


Ok I won't.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 23, 2008)

martijn_cube said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > You can't avoid parity it is as simple as that. You will have parity, but maybe you don't really understand it.
> ...




But can you tell me what kind of parities i can get with the old Pochmann for the corners, or explain it a bit more?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 23, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Harris Chan said:
> 
> 
> > Don't tell me it's Nakajima haha.
> ...


Haha, Nakijima is amazing.
(post #1020289 with the same exact message)


----------



## Stefan (May 23, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> (post #1020289 with the same exact message)


What? Now I'm confused.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 25, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > (post #1020289 with the same exact message)
> ...



Haha, Nakaijima is amazing.
](post #1020290 with the same exact message)


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 25, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Lotsofsloths said:
> ...


I think your counter is faulty. I calculate that it your last post was post #1028539 with the same message.


----------

