# Fastest Method



## CubeLord (Jul 24, 2011)

What is the fastest method that isn't freestyle?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 24, 2011)

BH edges and corners?


----------



## CubeLord (Jul 24, 2011)

bh is freestyle


----------



## porkynator (Jul 24, 2011)

Turbo for edges is very fast, in my opinion.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jul 24, 2011)

CubeLord said:


> bh is freestyle


 
What? If BH is freestyle, than so is pretty much every other method that uses three cycles of any kind.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 24, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> What? If BH is freestyle, than so is pretty much every other method that uses three cycles of any kind.


 
"Freestyle" is very meta.


----------



## Erdos (Jul 24, 2011)

Considering "standardized" freestyle methods (that is, any method that more than, say, 3 people do and which have tutorials and premade algorithms), BH for corners. For edges, it's disputed between M2, TuRBo, and BH. However, by the time you get to BH/whatever, you'd probably have a unique set of algorithms you built on the way, slowly digressing into your own "non-standardized" freestyle method.

In terms of classification, I would classify all BLD methods as freestyle, since each basically do a particular set of commutators, 2-gen, etc. To separate the common ones from the 'self-improved' ones, I would introduce the term *"standardized"* and *"non-standardized"*. So M2/R2, BH, OP, 3OP, etc. are all standardized freestyle methods, and self-improved ones are non-standardized. However, there is of course still some discrepancy between the terms, but not clearly as much as simply using the term freestyle.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 24, 2011)

People don't call 3OP freestyle.


----------



## Erdos (Jul 24, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> People don't call 3OP freestyle.


 
Meh. That leads to a criteria for what makes a method freestyle and what doesn't make a method freestyle. And for simplicity, I'd just say all methods are freestyle, just that some people popularized their freestyle method.


----------



## Jorghi (Jul 24, 2011)

Ya but most color neutral people don't know how to use it O_O


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jul 24, 2011)

Jorghi said:


> Ya but most color neutral people don't know how to use it O_O


 
Talking about BLD solving here. Colour neutral can save you time but not much. Recog can be made faster for one colour only than all 6.


----------



## Erdos (Jul 24, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Talking about BLD solving here. Colour neutral can save you time but not much. Recog can be made faster for one colour only than all 6.


Or just 2 colors (opposite ends). Some people who do multi-color tend to recog by pairs (2, 4, or 6).


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

We need a term for _"BLD methods which work to solve position and orientation of pieces at the same time."_ I remember a debate about this happening a few months ago, but was a term ever decided on for this? I think having a clear term for this would help to alleviate a not insignificant amount of the terminology confusion and miscommunication in BLD solving right now.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

Erdos said:


> Meh. That leads to a criteria for what makes a method freestyle and what doesn't make a method freestyle. And for simplicity, I'd just say all methods are freestyle, just that some people popularized their freestyle method.



I choose correctness over simplicity. We already have criteria for it by the way - it's quite annoying that you'll ignore it for the sake of using the terms how you would like to instead of the general convention.

Also, if all methods are classified as freestyle the term becomes meaningless and redundant. You're being a bit stupid.



cmhardw said:


> We need a term for _"BLD methods which work to solve position and orientation of pieces at the same time."_ I remember a debate about this happening a few months ago, but was a term ever decided on for this? I think having a clear term for this would help to alleviate a not insignificant amount of the terminology confusion and miscommunication in BLD solving right now.



Yah, I remember. We decided that freestyle was the 3-cycles of orientation and permutation comm-heavy style of method.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Yah, I remember. We decided that freestyle was the 3-cycles of orientation and permutation comm-heavy style of method.


 
I like this, but what would we call the "Classic Pochmann" method? It too solves position and orientation of pieces at the same time, but is not strictly freestyle by the definition you listed.

Clearly freestyle and Pochmann have the "solve positions and orientations of pieces at the same time" part in common though. What would we call this property specifically? Of course there are many options, but I think this should be a standard definition that all people use such as to avoid confusion.

If I remember correctly the phrase "direct solve methods" or "direct solving methods" was mentioned before. Would people agree on this as a viable option?

So freestyle as Kir defines it and Classic Pochmann are both direct solve methods. That would be the main property that the two methods have in common.

Does the term sound good? Thoughts? Comments?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I like this, but what would we call the "Classic Pochmann" method? It too solves position and orientation of pieces at the same time, but is not strictly freestyle by the definition you listed.
> 
> Clearly freestyle and Pochmann have the "solve positions and orientations of pieces at the same time" part in common though. What would we call this property specifically? Of course there are many options, but I think this should be a standard definition that all people use such as to avoid confusion.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, I like the term for "direct solving methods" as being "non-orient first" or "non-redux" or whatever type methods. 

I wouldn't call M2 or Classic Pochmann freestyle though... because they simply aren't. There's more to freestyle than just direct solving. (Not much, mind )


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Ok, I like the term for "direct solving methods" as being "non-orient first" or "non-redux" or whatever type methods.
> 
> I wouldn't call M2 or Classic Pochmann freestyle though... because they simply aren't. There's more to freestyle than just direct solving. (Not much, mind )


 
I'd be fine with either "non-orient first" or "non-redux". Of those two I personally like "non-redux" the best.

I agree that Pochmann should not be classified as "freestyle", but I don't know why I agree. I don't think it's because of the 2-cycles, but perhaps that is the reason Pochmann doesn't count as freestyle? Is it a necessary requirement that a freestyle method use 3-cycles (a.k.a. "Freecycle" methods)?

I also take issue with the definition that freestyle is the "absence" of method. Even if you make up algs on the fly, you will eventually fall into a pattern of using certain algs in certain situations, which becomes a method (In case A I do either X, Y or Z - which is a method if you do this for all possible cases, in my opinion).

So perhaps freestyle is: "Using a mix of commutators and non-commutator algorithms to perform 3-cycles in a non-redux method."

This would exclude all 2 cycle methods, and for the time being I feel like I am ok with that. I can't easily think of a less structured method than Pochmann that would also solve via 2-cycles. Can anyone else? Does anyone disagree with the exclusion of 2-cycle methods from the freestyle definition?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I'd be fine with either "non-orient first" or "non-redux". Of those two I personally like "non-redux" the best.
> 
> I agree that Pochmann should not be classified as "freestyle", but I don't know why I agree. I don't think it's because of the 2-cycles, but perhaps that is the reason Pochmann doesn't count as freestyle? Is it a necessary requirement that a freestyle method use 3-cycles (a.k.a. "Freecycle" methods)?



I'm not sure. 3-cycles seems a little like an arbitary rule, but it seems like all the direct solving methods that don't _feel_ like freestyle methods are the ones that use 2-cycles.



cmhardw said:


> I also take issue with the definition that freestyle is the "absence" of method. Even if you make up algs on the fly, you will eventually fall into a pattern of using certain algs in certain situations, which becomes a method (In case A I do either X, Y or Z - which is a method if you do this for all possible cases, in my opinion).



Naaaah. I never saw it like this at all. Freestyle isn't a specific method or the absense of one, it's just a label that applies to a group of methods. It's a meta-method, like FreeFOP. 



cmhardw said:


> So perhaps freestyle is: "Using a mix of commutators and non-commutator algorithms to perform 3-cycles in a non-redux method."



If you like. It certainly seems to match how we're using the word.



cmhardw said:


> This would exclude all 2 cycle methods, and for the time being I feel like I am ok with that. I can't easily think of a less structured method than Pochmann that would also solve via 2-cycles. Can anyone else? Does anyone disagree with the exclusion of 2-cycle methods from the freestyle definition?



The only ones I can think of are M2 and Classic Pochmann and they certainly don't fit into the "freestyle" group. I was happy with our definitions until I wrote the next two paragraphs.

Personally, I don't mind a bit of ambiguity involved in the "freestyle" definition. If the definition is a bit less clear we can sort of fudge methods that feel incorrectly labeled due to strict definitions into "correct" groups.

Lets do an experiment and make up random BLD method #324; Solving with 3cycle algs by doing a 3cycle then the inverse to solve one piece at a time. Fake 2cycles. Technically it's freestyle, but we both know that it's not truly freestyle.


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 25, 2011)

Interesting conversation.

As for the original poster; it's quite accepted that the fastest 'ideal' BLD execution method is "speed-optimal 3-cycles". 


cmhardw said:


> So perhaps freestyle is: "Using a mix of commutators and non-commutator algorithms to perform 3-cycles in a non-redux method."


This sounds good. It condenses something like: "Combination of x, y and z" into just one term.

So "freestyle" could essentially apply to: "Solving 2 pieces at a time with a mixture of commutator and non-commutator 3-cycles?"

However, TuRBo by this definition is classified as 'freestyle', which I don't believe it should be.


----------



## Marcell (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Personally, I don't mind a bit of ambiguity involved in the "freestyle" definition. If the definition is a bit less clear we can sort of fudge methods that feel incorrectly labeled due to strict definitions into "correct" groups.


 
That sounds nice, but I simply doesn't seem to work in practice. I think the term "freestyle" has caused too much confusion and debate to be considered useful. We've been using it for quite a while but we still don't know what we really mean when we say it (see this topic for example).
I think that instead of trying to define "freestyle" for the hundredth time we should just stop using it - and then come up with a couple of consciously phrased and well-thought-out criteria that puts all the popular methods in reasonable categories.


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 25, 2011)

Gradually dropping "freestyle" seems seems to be an easy way out of the confusion.

I personally use the term "freestyle" quite regularly, because as I previously pointed out; it's more convenient than saying: 
"I use a combination of x and y, with a hint of z".

The problem with "freestyle" is its vagueness, if you're describing how someone solves the pieces, "freestyle" can be interpreted in a number of different ways.


----------



## lucarubik (Jul 25, 2011)

I also call freestyle to a combination of methods, but how would I call algs like M' U M U M' U M U? I dont know


----------



## riffz (Jul 25, 2011)

I've always considered freestyle to be any method that solves permutation and orientation of certain pieces at the same time, and that uses commutators/3-cycles to solve most of them.

I still like the term free-3-cycle more.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 25, 2011)

There are some tricks that can be added to speed-optimal 3-cycles to make it even faster


----------



## Stefan (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I'd be fine with either "non-orient first" or "non-redux". Of those two I personally like "non-redux" the best.


 
Ugh... I cringe. Those sound like _"non-unnatural"_ to me, a double negation. I'd rather have a positive word instead. Or none, and just mark the redux methods instead. (I still have the opinion that _"solving"_ is the natural thing to do, and _"first orienting according to some arbitrary definition of orientation and then permuting"_ is artificial, unnatural). "Direct" is my clear favorite if you really need to speak of the class of these methods excluding others (though do you really ever need that?).


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

Erdos said:


> Yes, because clearly by this thread, it's obvious that we've established such a standard to define freestyle, correct?



No. This definition already existed.



Erdos said:


> Not sure how I can put this in the least offensive way, but you're being too presumptuous, let alone a bit ignorant of other's opinions.


 
I'm not being ignorant at all. I considered your opinions and think they are stupid.


----------



## Erdos (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I choose correctness over simplicity. We already have criteria for it by the way - it's quite annoying that you'll ignore it for the sake of using the terms how you would like to instead of the general convention.
> 
> Also, if all methods are classified as freestyle the term becomes meaningless and redundant. You're being a bit stupid.


 
Yes, because by this thread, it's clear that we've established such a standard to define freestyle, correct? Not sure how I can put this in the least offensive way, but you're too presumptuous to assume that everyone agrees to, or even knows, your definition. You're being a bit stupid.

EDIT:


Kirjava said:


> I'm not being ignorant at all. I considered your opinions and think they are stupid.


I'm not talking about ignorance in not accepting other's ideas (double negative but you get the point). I'm talking about the fact that you assume your definition has become standardized or even accepted by more than, say, 10 people.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

lols, you deleted your post and made it again. see above for replies to the original version, see below for replies to the edit.



Erdos said:


> you're too presumptuous to assume that everyone agrees to, or even knows, your definition..





Erdos said:


> I'm talking about the fact that you assume your definition has become standardized or even accepted by more than, say, 10 people.


 
You're too ignorant to know that it's not *my* definition. It was a definition a group of cubers decided on. I'm not even sure if I was part of the discussion at the time. The fact that Chris knows exactly what I'm talking about implies that I'm not being too presumptuous at all.

You've been ignoring a few points I made too. I'd prefer you either countered them or acknowledged that I was correct.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 25, 2011)

I've always imagined "freestyle" as a direct solving 3-cycle method where you don't deliberately try to follow any rules about which cycle algs to use. You do whatever you think of, and if you get the same cycle in multiple solves, you might not even do the same thing every time.

I think it would be normal for a sufficiently serious and dedicated blindsolver to eventually start applying rules to their cycles (like only using comms, or only using speed-optimal/move-optimal algs) but at this point they have moved onto a specific method. Freestyle is by definition unorganized and "free". Also, I think the reason 2-cycle methods don't have the same feel as freestyle is that everyone immediately decides or learns the best setup moves for each case (because there are only 24). So, nobody who does 2-cycle methods decently fast is really solving freely, but instead reading off their list of pieces and doing a very specific thing for each one.

I do like the term "direct solving", btw. It captures the concept of solving a piece into place immediately, without being derogatory or circumlocutory.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I've always imagined "freestyle" as a direct solving 3-cycle method where you don't deliberately try to follow any rules about which cycle algs to use. You do whatever you think of, and if you get the same cycle in multiple solves, you might not even do the same thing every time.


 
I have never heard of anyone who solves like this. You use the best/easiest alg you know for that case, or make one up if you don't have one. Eventually you always end up using the same algs for each situation.

I really do think BH should be classed as a freestyle method.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I have never heard of anyone who solves like this. You use the best/easiest alg you know for that case, or make one up if you don't have one. Eventually you always end up using the same algs for each situation.



If we go by Michael's definition of "freestyle" then it seems that people would start off using freestyle when they first begin to solve pieces directly (without using an orient-first reduction step). However, once they begin to fall into patterns of using the same or similar cycles for specific cases, then at that point what they do is no longer "freestyle" but a defined non-standard method (i.e. personalized to them).

This "feels" right to me. I can definitely agree with this.



Kirjava said:


> I really do think BH should be classed as a freestyle method.



Personally I view BH more like Classic Pochmann, and I definitely do not consider what I do to be freestyle. In the same sense that Michael mentions that "freestyle" should contain some amount of freedom of decision, I feel BH is almost the exact opposite. For every cycle of any 3 pieces, there is, in my mind, a _correct_ cycle choice, the HTM (or WTM for edges) move optimal commutator that solves those 3 pieces. I sometimes do not choose the "correct" algorithm for speed reasons, but the times when I purposefully do not choose the move optimal algorithm are predictable and follow a pattern.

I would consider BH to be classified the same as Classic Pochmann, the only difference being that BH usually solves 2 pieces at a time compared to Classic Pochmann usually solving 1 at a time (cycle breaks being the exception to these rules).

Maybe this is where the confusion lies, as I don't know what term I would apply to the method type where I consider BH and Classic Pochmann to be essentially the same type of method. Perhaps they both could be called direct solving methods of "braindead application of pre-memorized algorithms for all possible cycle situations that could occur." This method type would be further broken down into two sub-classes: 2-cycle approaches, and 3-cycle approaches.

That's my take on it at least.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

Method classification is always difficult.

Really the term 'freestyle' has evolved over time. When it first appeared it just meant "not 3OP".

I believe it originally gained this term because of the heavy use of commutators in the early freestyle methods. Commutators being "just make stuff up" and "do w/e". 

Freestyle doesn't have to be free, and it's not the worst misnaming cubing has to put up with.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Eventually you always end up using the same algs for each situation.


Maybe; maybe not. I know that when I do Fridrich I sometimes use different algs for the same case (even OLLs/PLLs), for no real reason other than that I feel like doing a specific one. It could be the same for a BLD solver, especially when there are so many cases that a casual solver wouldn't easily end up going "oh, it's this specific case, I must do it this way".



cmhardw said:


> Maybe this is where the confusion lies, as I don't know what term I would apply to the method type where I consider BH and Classic Pochmann to be essentially the same type of method. Perhaps they both could be called direct solving methods of "braindead application of pre-memorized algorithms for all possible cycle situations that could occur." This method type would be further broken down into two sub-classes: 2-cycle approaches, and 3-cycle approaches.


We can call it something like "fixed" as opposed to free. So Classic Pochmann is a fixed, direct 2-cycle approach. (Whereas freestyle is a free, direct 3-cycle approach, and 3OP is generally a fixed, orient-first 3-cycle approach.)


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Maybe; maybe not. I know that when I do Fridrich I sometimes use different algs for the same case (even OLLs/PLLs), for no real reason other than that I feel like doing a specific one. It could be the same for a BLD solver, especially when there are so many cases that a casual solver wouldn't easily end up going "oh, it's this specific case, I must do it this way".



Sure, but why should this be a 'thing'? Most of the cases will be performed the same way.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> We can call it something like "fixed" as opposed to free. So Classic Pochmann is a fixed, direct 2-cycle approach. (Whereas freestyle is a free, direct 3-cycle approach, and 3OP is generally a fixed, orient-first 3-cycle approach.)


 
Wow! I really like this!

In my mind BH would be a fixed, direct 3-cycle approach. It has in common with Classic Pochmann that both methods are fixed, direct solve methods.

Free-3-cycle or Freecycle would be a free, direct 3-cycle approach under this naming.

Honestly, I feel that the combined use of the three categories of:
1) "free" or "fixed" 
2) "direct solve" or "orient-first/reduction"
3) "2-cycle" or "3-cycle"

cover most of the current BLD methods.

TuRBo would be a fixed, direct solve 3-cycle approach, so TuRBo is covered. M2/R2 would be fixed, direct solve 2-cycle approaches.

Are there any common methods I'm missing that can't be classified using the combination of these three categories? If people agree that this works, then I feel that a page should be created in the Wiki, as well as the naming for each of the current BLD methods. This would certainly help with some of the naming convention confusion for BLD methods.

Freestyle could then just mean "free" solving, with the other two parameters being left open to either "direct" or "orient first" as well as "2-cycle" or "3-cycle"

Sound good? Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms?


----------



## Marcell (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Honestly, I feel that the combined use of the three categories of:
> 1) "free" or "fixed"
> 2) "direct solve" or "orient-first/reduction"
> 3) "2-cycle" or "3-cycle"
> cover most of the current BLD methods.


 
I really like these! I too think that these cover the aspects of our current popular methods, and that's kind of how I'm thinking about them.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 25, 2011)

Chris, for wings, I still find myself sometimes using different move-optimal commutators for the same pieces on different solves. So move-optimal doesn't always mean fixed. It probably should always mean fixed, but if you're bad at it, which I still am with wings, it might be somewhat freestyle. Or would you consider someone who does BH commutators freestyle to not be doing BH, simply because they're coming up with them on the fly?

(An example: FDr -> LDf -> FUr might be done [D', f U f'] or [F' u' F, D]. Both perfectly valid BH commutators.)

I really need to work on this; wings are holding me back so much on big cubes.


----------



## Erdos (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> You're too ignorant to know that it's not *my* definition. It was a definition a group of cubers decided on. I'm not even sure if I was part of the discussion at the time.


I said "your" definition for simplicity's sake. Of course, there's a philosophical argument behind whether someone can even _have_ his or her own definition since a definition's an idea. Who really _has_ a definition? I wouldn't imagine you to jump to this argument, but whatever; to go over every technicality really defeats the purpose of the post to begin with.



Kirjava said:


> The fact that Chris knows exactly what I'm talking about implies that I'm not being too presumptuous at all.


Look more closely at his post. There's no indication that he "knows exactly what you're talking about." He simply agrees with your definition (again, I'm using "your" instead of using an abstraction without a modifier), or more accurately, he agrees to "your" definition with slight modifications. That hardly means he knows _exactly_ what you're talking about. And even if you take in only one person to account, that hardly counters your presumption that the definition was standard, or something that everyone knows.



Kirjava said:


> You've been ignoring a few points I made too. I'd prefer you either countered them or acknowledged that I was correct.


I really wasn't going to address your entire post since it's pointless to get into an argument I really wasn't planning to.. But I guess since you called me on it, I'll address the only thing I didn't so far, and that's on "my" definition of freestyle. My point _was_ to make it meaningless and redundant (redundant much?). That way, it'd eliminated all such vagueness and destroy the use of the term altogether, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in favor of abandoning the term in favor of clearer ones.

I'm doubtful that arguments across the internet can even make a difference, so this'll be my last post on the topic. Feel free to bash and have your last word on whatever you want. I'll try to be the mature one and stop this pointless digression.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

Erdos said:


> I said "your" definition for simplicity's sake. Of course, there's a philosophical argument behind whether someone can even _have_ his or her own definition since a definition's an idea. Who really _has_ a definition? I wouldn't imagine you to jump to this argument, but whatever; to go over every technicality really defeats the purpose of the post to begin with.



You said that I assumed that my definition had become standardised. 

I was using the standard definition.

The rest of your paragraph is flowery ********.



Erdos said:


> Look more closely at his post. There's no indication that he "knows exactly what you're talking about." He simply agrees with your definition (again, I'm using "your" instead of using an abstraction without a modifier), or more accurately, he agrees to "your" definition with slight modifications. That hardly means he knows _exactly_ what you're talking about. And even if you take in only one person to account, that hardly counters your presumption that the definition was standard, or something that everyone knows.



Look at this quote from Chris;

"I remember a debate about this happening a few months ago"

This is exactly what I was talking about. All of my definitions and references come from this debate.



Erdos said:


> this'll be my last post on the topic. Feel free to bash and have your last word on whatever you want. I'll try to be the mature one and stop this pointless digression.



Grow the hell up.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Chris, for wings, I still find myself sometimes using different move-optimal commutators for the same pieces on different solves. So move-optimal doesn't always mean fixed. It probably should always mean fixed, but if you're bad at it, which I still am with wings, it might be somewhat freestyle. Or would you consider someone who does BH commutators freestyle to not be doing BH, simply because they're coming up with them on the fly?
> 
> (An example: FDr -> LDf -> FUr might be done [D', f U f'] or [F' u' F, D]. Both perfectly valid BH commutators.)
> 
> I really need to work on this; wings are holding me back so much on big cubes.


 
This is good, as this issue means we need to solidify what it means when a method is "fixed." I sometimes do this as well, and it can depend on how I am holding the cube at the time. For example, if the previous alg had me do a y' from the initial orientation I would definitely use the [D', f U f'] alg (or, since I'm already at a y' rotation from solved I would really be doing [D', r U r'] y).

If the previous alg had me do a y rotation from solved, then I would use the [F' u' F, D] alg (only, since I would already be at a y rotation from solved it would really be [L' u' L, D] y')

I would say that since both are move optimal, and you alternate between the two, that this method is still "fixed." Even if one was move optimal and the other was not, say D2 l U2 l' D l U2 l' D, as long as you alternate between those two it is still fixed.

If lots of algs have mixes between move optimal variations and non-move optimal variations, and you swap between the two on any given case, then I would argue that your method is becoming more of a "free, direct solve, 3-cycle method" and thus more "freestyle" than BH.

So for example, for the cycle you gave if I consistently alternated between the 9 move alg and the 8 move alg (and I did this on a number of other cycles as well), then that is more of a "free" solving approach in my opinion than a "fixed" solving approach.

As to you saying that "you're bad at wings," what makes you say that? If using an approach that's a bit more free makes more sense to you, then do that. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that free and fixed approaches seem to be a preference to the individual. I'm the kind of person that does better with fixed approach methods. Like Stefan, I think the "braindeadness" of a fixed approach is an advantage for ease of solving. For some people it seems that having a freer method allows for more innovation during the solve, which can lead to solves with better flow, and thus faster solves. Mike, from what you're saying it seems like your method is still fixed, or are you alternating a lot between different algs on many different cases?

I say "free, direct solving, 3-cycle" variations of BH are maybe not strictly BH. In my opinion they're a modified version, or variation of BH - simple as that. I personally use a "fixed, direct, 3-cycle" variation of BH - I do not use strictly BH myself. I often use 9 move algs with better flow in place of the move optimal 8 movers. I do this for all piece types, but I do it in a predictable way, and I don't alternate between the 9 mover with better flow and the 8 mover with less flow. I just use the 9 mover with better flow. So, this is still a "fixed" approach, in my opinion, but it's also still a variation of what could be defined as "strictly BH." That's what works for me, though.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

I do not like the new definition of "freestyle" you have chosen. I think the 'classic' definition is more useful and deliciously meta. But eh, I can't stop you 

With this definition "freestyle" would likely be an undesired technique. Seems silly to me to associate it with something that people would be attempting to not use.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I do not like the new definition of "freestyle" you have chosen. I think the 'classic' definition is more useful and deliciously meta. But eh, I can't stop you
> 
> With this definition "freestyle" would likely be an undesired technique. Seems silly to me to associate it with something that people would be attempting to not use.


 
To be clear, the definition of freestyle that I used is really 4 different possible methods lumped into one. This would explain all the confusion about why different people interpret "freestyle" in different ways. To me "freestyle" just means that of the 3 attributes that describe a BLD method (freeness, directness, 2 or 3 cycles-ness), that the freeness attribute is set to "free."

So, "freestyle" could mean any of the following:
1) free, direct, 2-cycle methods
2) free, direct, 3-cycle methods
3) free, orient-first, 2-cycle methods
4) free, orient-first, 3-cycle methods

Currently it seems that people are picking one of the above 4 to stand for "freestyle," and this causes confusion when someone else picks a different one of these 4 to stand for "freestyle."

In a way everyone is right, as all 4 types are "freestyle." That's my take on it at least.

--edit--


Kirjava said:


> I think the 'classic' definition is more useful and deliciously meta.



Yes, I agree that the meta-ness of the 'classic' definition is sometimes very cool. However, sometimes freestyle talk comes across to me like this:



cmhardw said:


> "Well it's freestyle, so like freestyle your way through how totally freestyle it is, and the magic of freestyle is that the freestyle will solve your cube, like totally freestyle."


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> To be clear, the definition of freestyle that I used is really 4 different possible methods lumped into one. This would explain all the confusion about why different people interpret "freestyle" in different ways. To me "freestyle" just means that of the 3 attributes that describe a BLD method (freeness, directness, 2 or 3 cycles-ness), that the freeness attribute is set to "free."


 
Well the problem is that the "freeness" never had to be set to free. BH used to be a freestyle method, for example.

Heh, I remember the "Zen Freestyle" quote. Maybe never having the confusion myself I find it difficult to relate.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Well the problem is that the "freeness" never had to be set to free. BH used to be a freestyle method, for example.



I'm interested. I really like the 3 attribute definition of a BLD method, but I don't want to be the only one saying that this is how things should be. If you think that BH should fit as a freestyle method I'm interested to hear more. I would consider it "fixed" in the 3 attribute definition, but stepping outside of that construct (or maybe staying with that construct?) how would you classify BH as free?

I can see how the directness of a "direct-solve" method can be seen as a very free way to solve, and thus "freestyle." That seems to feel right on some intuitive level. Perhaps Freestyle could instead be defined as "direct-solving" rather than the "freeness" attribute being to to "free"?

Perhaps instead of using the characteristics of "fixed" and "free" would could instead use "fixed" and "flexible?"

Freestyle could be defined either as all possible "flexible" methods, or all possible "direct-solve" methods. This could depend either on the person's opinion, or on different definitions of what "freestyle" really means.

Opinions? Thoughts? Comments? I'm open to the discussion here, and I enjoy that this topic is being talked about in depth!


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I'm interested. I really like the 3 attribute definition of a BLD method, but I don't want to be the only one saying that this is how things should be. If you think that BH should fit as a freestyle method I'm interested to hear more. I would consider it "fixed" in the 3 attribute definition, but stepping outside of that construct (or maybe staying with that construct?) how would you classify BH as free?



I wouldn't. For me, freestyle does not mean free and never has done. 

Honestly, cubing has always had a broken lexicon with poorly named things - I never put any attempt to revising definitions because I thought it would be too difficult to get people to listen to me. There are many things to change.

I should say that I also like the 3 attribute based classification.



cmhardw said:


> I can see how the directness of a "direct-solve" method can be seen as a very free way to solve, and thus "freestyle." That seems to feel right on some intuitive level. Perhaps Freestyle could instead be defined as "direct-solving" rather than the "freeness" attribute being to to "free"?



Like I said before, for me freestyle doesn't have to be a "free way to solve". When the 3cycle direct solving methods started to emerge, everyone just made up their own algs and had their own systems. There was no set implementations so people just 'freestyled' it.



cmhardw said:


> Perhaps instead of using the characteristics of "fixed" and "free" would could instead use "fixed" and "flexible?"
> 
> Freestyle could be defined either as all possible "flexible" methods, or all possible "direct-solve" methods. This could depend either on the person's opinion, or on different definitions of what "freestyle" really means.



I think people will just end up using the word freestyle however they like, and revert to a more exact explanation (with the terminology you suggested) when it is needed.

Do you think being free/flexible is a good asset? I mean specifically for case execution. Surely having a set alg for a case is better than BSing one on the fly?

It might seem like I oppose progress here, I'm just giving my input.


----------



## riffz (Jul 25, 2011)

I feel like trying to redefine freestyle is somewhat pointless. It seems that its actual definition is quite vague and was used in the past to describe methods that we might not still consider to be "freestyle" today. Using the term "freestyle" seems to imply that the solver does not use the same techniques each time, which doesn't really describe any BLD method once you've practiced it enough. Perhaps we should just try to avoid using the word all together. 

The one person I can think of who actually solves in a way that I would consider to be truly "freestyle" is Ville. He does things like setting up 2 edge 2-cycles to an H perm instead of solving with 3 commutators, and other tricks that reduce movecount.

I'm also really liking the term "direct solving" to differentiate between methods like 3OP and Old Pochmann.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

I just thought I'd check that I wasn't going insane and that I had the correct classic definition.



> <+ThunderSparkle> define "freestyle" in the context of BLD methods
> <+j`ey> well, I just use it to mean cycling **** in anyway
> <+j`ey> so no O/P
> <+j`ey> just directly solving
> <+j`ey> 3-cycles


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I just thought I'd check that I wasn't going insane and that I had the correct classic definition.


 
If I can jump in here, so "freestyle" would be more like:
direct, 3-cycle methods (with the implication that either "free" or "fixed" are allowable for the third attribute)

This would make BH a freestyle method, then.

Am I on the right track with this? Or is freestyle meant to be even freer than that (a la Ville's approach to solving)?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

For sure. It's horribly named, but so is F2L.

I did make a sensible reply to your last post just above that in case you missed it


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 25, 2011)

Sorry if I'm not contributing much to this discussion; I guess I just don't feel like I have strong enough opinions on any of it to contribute much. But I figure I should answer Chris's questions to me.



cmhardw said:


> As to you saying that "you're bad at wings," what makes you say that?


The reason I say that is because I often spend too long (several seconds) figuring out what commutator I'm going to do next. That's awful - I should be able to think of what the next commutator is going to be before I finish the previous one, as I know you almost always do. I can usually do that with X and + centers (although they're not all optimal), but not with wings.


cmhardw said:


> Mike, from what you're saying it seems like your method is still fixed, or are you alternating a lot between different algs on many different cases?


My method is pretty fixed; it's actually only occasionally that I use different algs for a case. And sometimes it's as you say - I realize one works better without rotating the cube than another one does. But it's more often true that I didn't get instant recall on how to perform the commutator, so I had to think one up, and I thought of a different one from the one I usually come up with, if you know what I mean.

I think it's safe to say my method is pretty extremely fixed, overall. I just thought other people might be more "freestyle" with it, since I know I hit cases like that occasionally. For instance, I'm guessing Ville is probably so good that he instantly sees all of the possible optimal commutators for a given case, so he can choose between them based on what seems nicest at the moment. Which is outrageous, by the way.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Honestly, cubing has always had a broken lexicon with poorly named things - I never put any attempt to revising definitions because I thought it would be too difficult to get people to listen to me. There are many things to change.



I agree. Even the example between x, y, z directions and M, E, S directions. I know there is a precedent setting them as they are, but I think this is an example of the lexicon of cubing being inconsistent with itself.



Kirjava said:


> I should say that I also like the 3 attribute based classification.



I hope it sticks, I like it too.



Kirjava said:


> Like I said before, for me freestyle doesn't have to be a "free way to solve". When the 3cycle direct solving methods started to emerge, everyone just made up their own algs and had their own systems. There was no set implementations so people just 'freestyled' it.



Freestyle then seems more a mindset in applying a method or solving approach than a qualitative description of the method then. A person will "freestyle" method seems to be the connotation, rather than a person uses a method that can be described as freestyle. That makes sense to me in my own head, even if it doesn't much here 



Kirjava said:


> Do you think being free/flexible is a good asset? I mean specifically for case execution. Surely having a set alg for a case is better than BSing one on the fly?



The only example I can think would be using a Z perm/H perm to solve two 2-cycles of edges rather than breaking a new cycle twice. I know this isn't really inventing an alg on the fly, but it's breaking from the norm of cycle to the next piece (or break into a new cycle if you've reached the end of the current cycle).

As far as algs themselves, when I first began using commutators for 4x4 centers I definitely used what I would consider a freestyle approach. Whenever presented with a case I would try to use any setup I could to accommodate the limited number of commutator types that I knew. I don't think this counts as fixed, as I likely solved the same case in different ways each time I got to it until Daniel Beyer and I began working together to lay the foundation for BH as it appears today.

That's a tough question. Other than avoiding cycle breaks like Ville does, I don't think it would be an advantage to BS an alg on the fly. But perhaps those who are crazy fast at 3x3 BLD do this? I remember one cycle in the former 3x3 BLD WR solve by Haiyan that was a "3 move setup into a 'Wide setup into a toss-up' " case. That's such a crazy way to do the alg, but it was extremely finger tricky and fast to execute, which is why I assume Haiyan used it. The optimal alg in that was a 9 move commutator (compared to the 15 Haiyan used).

I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 25, 2011)

Double post ftw. It felt appropriate since I'm responding at length to two separate people. :/



Mike Hughey said:


> The reason I say that is because I often spend too long (several seconds) figuring out what commutator I'm going to do next. That's awful - I should be able to think of what the next commutator is going to be before I finish the previous one, as I know you almost always do. I can usually do that with X and + centers (although they're not all optimal), but not with wings.



I sometimes blank on an algorithm that I've known for some time too, I think that's normal.

I don't know why I like wings so much, but I really enjoy solving them. They tend to have the best flow for me, or at least it feels like they do. I like how they move, if that makes any sense? I actually am not that big of a fan of solving centers BLD, compared to wings that is. This might have to do with that fact that I solve wings last, so during the wing solution there is also the excitement of "I'm almost done with this solve (yay!)" 

Mike, do you practice wings less than centers? I imagine you practice them just as much as you do any other piece type, with the number of solves you do? Perhaps seeing a commutator for a case more quickly is partly due to Daniel and I constantly quizzing each other on how to do certain cycles. For example, how would you solve:

DFr -> URf -> BLd (This is one of my favorite case types btw)



Mike Hughey said:


> My method is pretty fixed; it's actually only occasionally that I use different algs for a case. And sometimes it's as you say - I realize one works better without rotating the cube than another one does. But it's more often true that I didn't get instant recall on how to perform the commutator, so I had to think one up, and I thought of a different one from the one I usually come up with, if you know what I mean.



Honestly, I think as long as the alg works it works. Yes I do see what you mean, though.



Mike Hughey said:


> I think it's safe to say my method is pretty extremely fixed, overall. I just thought other people might be more "freestyle" with it, since I know I hit cases like that occasionally. For instance, I'm guessing Ville is probably so good that he instantly sees all of the possible optimal commutators for a given case, so he can choose between them based on what seems nicest at the moment. Which is outrageous, by the way.


 
If this is what Ville does, then I wish I could do that too  For the most part I don't see alternatives for a particular case (unless it's an easy case like the one you posted DFr -> UFr -> ULf or something similar). When I get a case there's just a straight recall of "I do _this_ alg when I see that."


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Freestyle then seems more a mindset in applying a method or solving approach than a qualitative description of the method then.



This is a great way of looking at it that I hadn't considered before.



cmhardw said:


> A person will "freestyle" method seems to be the connotation, rather than a person uses a method that can be described as freestyle. That makes sense to me in my own head, even if it doesn't much here



Hehe, I understand what you mean.



cmhardw said:


> The only example I can think would be using a Z perm/H perm to solve two 2-cycles of edges rather than breaking a new cycle twice. I know this isn't really inventing an alg on the fly, but it's breaking from the norm of cycle to the next piece (or break into a new cycle if you've reached the end of the current cycle).



But this is something you do in that specific situation - it doesn't change. If you use techniques to avoid cycle breaks on certain cases it's not something you randomly choose to not do.



cmhardw said:


> As far as algs themselves, when I first began using commutators for 4x4 centers I definitely used what I would consider a freestyle approach. Whenever presented with a case I would try to use any setup I could to accommodate the limited number of commutator types that I knew. I don't think this counts as fixed, as I likely solved the same case in different ways each time I got to it until Daniel Beyer and I began working together to lay the foundation for BH as it appears today.



I think everyone goes through that phase at some point - while I don't think it's a good idea to make stuff up on the fly for speed, discovering comms yourself is something I wouldn't want anyone to skip.



cmhardw said:


> That's a tough question. Other than avoiding cycle breaks like Ville does, I don't think it would be an advantage to BS an alg on the fly. But perhaps those who are crazy fast at 3x3 BLD do this? I remember one cycle in the former 3x3 BLD WR solve by Haiyan that was a "3 move setup into a 'Wide setup into a toss-up' " case. That's such a crazy way to do the alg, but it was extremely finger tricky and fast to execute, which is why I assume Haiyan used it. The optimal alg in that was a 9 move commutator (compared to the 15 Haiyan used).



I'd like to say that the setup and comm was premeditated and not made up on the fly - but i couldn't possibly know. All i can see is that more thinking time means less execution time.

I'm not knocking it the technique for learning, but for actually attempting to set fast times it should be culled. (imo)



cmhardw said:


> I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question



You're eternally modest


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Jul 26, 2011)

Conjugation.


----------



## riffz (Jul 26, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> This is a great way of looking at it that I hadn't considered before.


 
I really like this definition.


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 26, 2011)

Great discussion going on, I would love to but I don't think I can contribute much to this.


cmhardw said:


> 1) "free" or "fixed"
> 2) "direct solve" or "orient-first/reduction"
> 3) "2-cycle" or "3-cycle"


I really like the idea of classifying a method based on these attributes. 


cmhardw said:


> Freestyle then seems more a mindset in applying a method or solving approach than a qualitative description of the method then.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 27, 2011)

*New page in the speedsolving.com Wiki*

Blindfold Method Classification

The formatting is atrocious, and I'm sure the language used in some cases is a bit too stilted, but it's at least a start. I am requesting help to make this page look better, and also for people to check the quality of the content itself.

I do _not_ claim any ownership over that page. I simply started it. If people find any errors or blatantly false statements, please just simply correct them by editing the page.


----------



## riffz (Jul 27, 2011)

What about someone who uses a fixed set of commutators/algs but uses multiple buffers? How do we distinguish that?


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 27, 2011)

riffz said:


> What about someone who uses a fixed set of commutators/algs but uses multiple buffers? How do we distinguish that?


 
I would argue that this would still be a "fixed" method. The actual algs used are pre-planned before the solve, so in that sense the method is still a fixed method.

I'm open to debate on this, of course, but that is my opinion in that situation.

--edit--
To make sure I understand correctly, are you implying perhaps a 4th attribute "fixed buffer" vs. "floating buffer"?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 27, 2011)

"The other definition that is often used for "freestyle" is simply a method that will solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time. In the method classification this would be all methods that are of the form: (Free or Fixed), direct, (2-cycle or 3-cycle) "

If you're using the 'classic' definition, it doesn't include 2 cycle methods. Should we change this?

Otherwise, nice page!


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> "The other definition that is often used for "freestyle" is simply a method that will solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time. In the method classification this would be all methods that are of the form: (Free or Fixed), direct, (2-cycle or 3-cycle) "
> 
> If you're using the 'classic' definition, it doesn't include 2 cycle methods. Should we change this?
> 
> Otherwise, nice page!


 
Sure, please feel free to change it! I would certainly agree with your definition.

This is not my project, I intended this to be for the community. I am not proposing this method on my own, I simply collected together feedback from others in this thread (and the debate a few months ago) and that feedback happened to combine together to become this classification system.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 27, 2011)

Couldn't help it, had to change
"Direct" methods will solve the position and orientation of pieces at the same time.
to
"Direct" methods will simply _solve_ the pieces.

Who using a direct method thinks he's permuting and orienting? I certainly don't. I don't think of permutation and orientation at all, I just solve. I find it a really really odd viewpoint to say you're permuting and orienting. That perspective is so 2003/2004.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 27, 2011)

Stefan, sounds great! I agree that viewing it as simply solving the pieces makes more sense! Thanks for your edit!

Please everyone, change what needs to be changed! What I wrote is simply a beginning. This page needs a lot of work to be a proper Wiki page in my opinion!

More edits/contributions/ideas/opinions! Please!


----------



## Marcell (Jul 27, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> To make sure I understand correctly, are you implying perhaps a 4th attribute "fixed buffer" vs. "floating buffer"?


Makes sense to me. Fixed buffer seems to be the 'default' choice on this one though, so it may be unneccessary to explicitly mention it, but the use of a floating buffer should definitely be indicated.


----------

