# 3 Blind Method Debate Thread



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

A thread to debate 3 Blind Methods. To preface, this thread will be mainly to debate intermediate blind methods ( e.g. Orozco, Eka, TuRBo, Ayam, ZBLD, Boomerang, etc. ), since there is an overwhelming general consensus that BH/3-Blind is the best method. Likewise it should be done looking at these methods as independent, stand alone methods not as stepping stone methods ( how they relate to advanced methods ).

I'd also like to facilitate discussion on whether or not intermediate methods which solve two pieces at a time ( specifically Eka, Aaym, and ZBLD ) could be viable alternatives to BH/3-Style.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

I don't think intermediate methods is that worth it tbh, just jump from M2/OP to 3 style even if it's hard, it's like F2L, you'll be really slow at first with F2L but you will eventually get used to it, anyway, I'll say Eka is the best intermediate method, let it begin now lol.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 26, 2020)

Ocrozco could work for a stepping stone to 3 style but really jump to 3 style and understand comms. If you want to learn Ocrozco don't learn the comps like algs. They're comms and you should understand them.

Use UF/UFR as buffers.


----------



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I don't think intermediate methods is that worth it tbh, just jump from M2/OP to 3 style even if it's hard, it's like F2L, you'll be really slow at first with F2L but you will eventually get used to it, anyway, I'll say Eka is the best intermediate method, let it begin now lol.


That is a hot take. I think learning an intermediate method is pretty important since learning comms right of the bat is pretty difficult/intimidating. Orozco works as a solid introduction to comms and advances quickly to Eka and Eka to 3-style. However it's a pretty long process that way, I suppose, which could be better spent just learning comms (?).


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> That is a hot take. I think learning an intermediate method is pretty important since learning comms right of the bat is pretty difficult/intimidating. Orozco works as a solid introduction to comms and advances quickly to Eka and Eka to 3-style. However it's a pretty long process that way, I suppose, which could be better spent just learning comms (?).


Lol yeah, maybe Orozco could be good as an introduction to comms.


----------



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I'll say Eka is the best intermediate method, let it begin now lol.


What's you rationale for Eka being the best ?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> What's you rationale for Eka being the best ?


Firstly, TuRBO and Ayam is less efficient than Eka since they setup like two pieces at a time and uses a long commutator between the conjugates, which makes the ergonomics ew, Eka is a *bit* like Orozco, but you solve 2 pieces at a time.
3OP is dead, like I think most people here can probably agree with that.
For ZBLD, hmm, seems good but I don't know enough about it to comment.


----------



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Firstly, TuRBO and Ayam is less efficient than Eka since they setup like two pieces at a time and uses a long commutator between the conjugates, which makes the ergonomics ew, Eka is like Orozco, but you solve 2 pieces at a time.


Yeah but Ayam better integrates freestyle which is really nice. Plus A-perm is really fast. For edges I'd say Eka is probably the best, not so sure for corners though. ZBLD also looks like it has quite a bit of potential.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> That is a hot take. I think learning an intermediate method is pretty important since learning comms right of the bat is pretty difficult/intimidating. Orozco works as a solid introduction to comms and advances quickly to Eka and Eka to 3-style. However it's a pretty long process that way, I suppose, which could be better spent just learning comms (?).


It isn't a hot take most too blders recommend going straight into 3 style with intuitive comms.

It isn't that hard.


Ayam is awful. To be honest there really is only two types of blind methods. 2e2c swaps and 3 cycles.

Ayam, Tubro and Eka are kind of the some. A set up move to a comm. So you reduce the comms you learn compared to 3 style


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> I'd also like to facilitate discussion on whether or not intermediate methods which solve two pieces at a time ( specifically Eka, Aaym, and ZBLD ) could be viable alternatives to BH/3-Style.



To first answer the part which is unarguable, the answer to this is no. People use 3-style in order to become as fast as they possibly can, without being afraid of having to do a lot of work. Eka, Ayam, and ZBLD can't be used for the same goal. 

Eka and Ayam work by setups to a limited set of 3-cycles. 3-style in a sense, is the same except you're not limited to what kind of 3-cycles you set up to. Pretty much by the definition of 3-style, you set up to the fastest ones, and thus it must be superior to Eka and Ayam (for the goal specified above).

ZBLD, as described in the Speedsolving wiki is absolute trash and the only reason I can think of that people would think it's good is because they don't know the steps:

1. Preorient edges
2. Simultaneously permute edges and orient corners by setups to 2GLLs
3. Permute corners

The fact that you have to do preorientation should be enough of a deal breaker (why not just do 3-style which does orientation and permutation at the same time?), but the second step is just hilarious. You've got to do all of the following at the same time:

1. Remember your memo corner orientation memo
2. Remember your edge permutation memo (note that you will have to go back and forth between edge and corner memo)
3. Visualize what a couple of setup moves do to corner orientation
4. Remember the correct 2GLL (remember this is completely non-intuitive).

I often get the feeling that when people talk about ZBLD they are thinking of something else because this method is just not good. If you're thinking of a different ZBLD, let me know.



Silky said:


> A thread to debate 3 Blind Methods. To preface, this thread will be mainly to debate intermediate blind methods ( e.g. Orozco, Eka, TuRBo, Ayam, ZBLD, Boomerang, etc. ), since there is an overwhelming general consensus that BH/3-Blind is the best method. Likewise it should be done looking at these methods as independent, stand alone methods not as stepping stone methods ( how they relate to advanced methods ).



I think you really can't discuss intermediate methods without considering the goals of a person who might use them. It doesn't make sense to ask how fast one of these methods would be if someone optimized the method and practiced it to the limits of its potential, because in practice, that someone would probably have switched to 3-style long before reaching that stage. And wanting to switch to 3-style eventually is not something that can be simply ignored imo, it's very common that people will want to leave that option open. 

If you're definitely not interested in using a intermediate method as a stepping stone, then I guess the goal has to be to get to a 40-60 average without much effort? I think this goal could be achieved with any of the listed methods, (although I wouldn't recommend any of the ones using preorientation: 3OP, Boomerang, and of course ZBLD). I would say Orozco, Eka and M2/OP probably have the best tradeoffs between speed and ease of learning, and I guess the slightly different levels of trade-off might satisfy different people's work ethic. 



Silky said:


> That is a hot take. I think learning an intermediate method is pretty important since learning comms right of the bat is pretty difficult/intimidating. Orozco works as a solid introduction to comms and advances quickly to Eka and Eka to 3-style. However it's a pretty long process that way, I suppose, which could be better spent just learning comms (?).



Difficult/intimidating is not a valid criticism and I'm not sure it's a hot take anymore since I've seem a few fast BLDers agree that it's at least a decent option. I can see the use of Eka and Orozco being useful for some people, but what I would say is if I had to train someone to get sub 30 3BLD as quickly as possible, I would absolutely go straight into intuitive 3-style at an appropriate time. My reasoning is based on a point I made above: 3-style is like Eka except you aren't limited to the 3-cycles you can set up to. If someone can learn to set up algs to Eka's set of 3-cycles, why can't they learn to set up to any 3-cycle?


----------



## Lilas ma (Sep 26, 2020)

Woohoo that's alot


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

Lilas ma said:


> Woohoo that's alot


Dude, that isn't contributing anything to the discussion xd


----------



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> Eka and Ayam work by setups to a limited set of 3-cycles. 3-style in a sense, is the same except you're not limited to what kind of 3-cycles you set up to. Pretty much by the definition of 3-style, you set up to the fastest ones, and thus it must be superior to Eka and Ayam (for the goal specified above).


Well I guess I'm primarily thinking about TPS. Since 3-Style is intuitive is there are more pauses due to the fact that it requires more thinking but with Eka and Ayam you can spam higher TPS due to the fact you're using pre-memorized algs and in general it just takes less thinking which would equate to less pauses. Is the differential in movecount so large that high TPS wouldn't make up for it ? And, correct me if I'm wrong, to my knowledge no one has memorized all of BH so you're not always using the most optimal algs.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> Well I guess I'm primarily thinking about TPS. Since 3-Style is intuitive is there are more pauses due to the fact that it requires more thinking but with Eka and Ayam you can spam higher TPS due to the fact you're using pre-memorized algs and in general it just takes less thinking which would equate to less pauses. Is the differential in movecount so large that high TPS wouldn't make up for it ? And, correct me if I'm wrong, to my knowledge no one has memorized all of BH so you're not always using the most optimal algs.


Uhm, almost all of the top BLDers memorized all of 3 style dude, also, I used to be in the less thinking > intuitive 3 style gang, but as I have said, learning 3 style is very beneficial in the long run and you get used to comms like you get used to F2L.


----------



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Uhm, almost all of the top BLDers memorized all of 3 style dude


Isn't, by definition, 3-Style intuitive, as in not having pre-memorized algs? Or I'm I just wrong here and people are memorizing all 818 algs for BH.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> Isn't, by definition, 3-Style intuitive, as in not having pre-memorized algs? Or I'm I just wrong here and people are memorizing all 818 algs for BH.


People come up with speed optimal algs intuitively and put them into spreadsheets. Other people learn the 818 gradually by those spreadsheets.


----------



## Silky (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> People come up with speed optimal algs intuitively and put them into spreadsheets. Other people learn the 818 gradually by those spreadsheets.


Well dang, I learned today.


----------



## sqAree (Sep 26, 2020)

It doesn't really matter if you start out by learning 3-style intuitively, the end goal is obviously to have all 818 speed-optimal algs memorized (and by the way, the top BLDers memorized optimized algs for every other buffer too which equates to ~2700 comms/algs, as well as many many other algs).

Being intuitive helps of course, but that doesn't mean that you can't TPS the hell out of it, it just means that it's easier to learn initially.


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 26, 2020)

Silky said:


> Isn't, by definition, 3-Style intuitive, as in not having pre-memorized algs? Or I'm I just wrong here and people are memorizing all 818 algs for BH.



The terminology is a bit confusing to be fair. The definition of 3-style is speed optimal 3-cycles, which means you use the fastest possible alg for each 3-cycle. There isn't technically a requirement to use commutators, nor understand your algs intuitively - speed is the only thing that matters. After all, the timer records nothing else. In practice, pretty much all 3-style algs can be written as commutators, and that turns out to be the simplest way to memorize them, so that's why 3-style is thought of as an intuitive method. Starting with commutators you come up with yourself is also a common way to start off with 3-style, but the goal is always to find and learn the fastest possible algs for each case, either by finding them on spreadsheets or discovering them by yourself. 

There are some (not many) 3-style algs which aren't very intuitive: I think your average 3-style user probably would not be able to explain to you how R2 f2 R2 U' R2 f2 R2 U' works, or how to write it as a commutator. 

All top cubers use 3-style at this stage, so you should watch some of their solves and see for yourself that they can use 3-style while turning both quickly and pauselessly. 

BH is supposed to mean using move (HTM) optimal algs for every case. This is really easy to learn since it's only about 30 cases or so after symmetry, but it's a bit of a weird term to have since there isn't really any practical application to using move optimal algs. Nevertheless, this is how it is defined on the speedsolving wiki, and how I've always seen it used.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 27, 2020)

If you want to be good at BLD. Learn 3-style if you don't want to be good stick with m2/op. 


What is the purpose of an intermediate method? A stepping stone to more advanced methods. 

Also how do intermediate methods have higher tps? 3-style should feel like algs too when your fast. Like f2l pairs. 

Thinking of BLD as pruely algs means you don't really understand what your doing. Comms are quick to learn if you understand them. Learning Orozco comms as algs means you don't understand your method and it'll take you longer. You'll feel like you have to learn twice as much since inverses will feel like a whole new alg.


----------



## Silky (Sep 27, 2020)

tx789 said:


> What is the purpose of an intermediate method? A stepping stone to more advanced methods.


I this is with the assumption that you're goal is becoming very fast/world class. I think you can can still become decently fast with intermediate methods ( as Tao Yu says the 40-60 range, maybe even sub-40 if you're persistent ). Personally, I want to be decently fast ( long term I'm shooting for mid 40s ) without the time investment of 3-style but still learning a better/more complex method than OP/M2. 


tx789 said:


> Also how do intermediate methods have higher tps? 3-style should feel like algs too when your fast. Like f2l pairs.


Well, generally, knowing fewer algorithms inside and out will lead to higher TPS than learner tons of algorithms which you are less familiar with. Idk I'm probably wrong but I thought it was at least worth bringing up.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 27, 2020)

Silky said:


> I this is with the assumption that you're goal is becoming very fast/world class. I think you can can still become decently fast with intermediate methods ( as Tao Yu says the 40-60 range, maybe even sub-40 if you're persistent ). Personally, I want to be decently fast ( long term I'm shooting for mid 40s ) without the time investment of 3-style but still learning a better/more complex method than OP/M2.
> 
> Well, generally, knowing fewer algorithms inside and out will lead to higher TPS than learner tons of algorithms which you are less familiar with. Idk I'm probably wrong but I thought it was at least worth bringing up.


People can get sub 40 with m2/op

Having high tps takes longer with 3 style but that is mainly due to pauses. 

Honestly 3 style is easier than people think. Most of the work is drilling the comms.


----------



## sqAree (Sep 27, 2020)

I don't know all the intermediate methods mentioned in this thread, but mid 40s is definitely possible with Orozco, Eka or M2/OP (source: I averaged low 40s global with U2/Orozco before switching to 3-style). Those methods are similarly fast, and similarly complex, so it doesn't really matter what you pick.
Alternatively you can learn 3-style with low effort and average 40 seconds too, it's possible without putting in too much effort, just take the intuitive route and sometimes do solves.


----------



## Hazel (Sep 27, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> BH is supposed to mean using move (HTM) optimal algs for every case. This is really easy to learn since it's only about 30 cases or so after symmetry, but it's a bit of a weird term to have since there isn't really any practical application to using move optimal algs. Nevertheless, this is how it is defined on the speedsolving wiki, and how I've always seen it used.


Sorry, a bit of a tangent—if BH is only ~30 cases after symmetry, wouldn't it be relatively easy to learn BH and then slowly transition to faster "algs" until you're at real 3-style?


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 28, 2020)

Silky said:


> I this is with the assumption that you're goal is becoming very fast/world class. I think you can can still become decently fast with intermediate methods ( as Tao Yu says the 40-60 range, maybe even sub-40 if you're persistent ). Personally, I want to be decently fast ( long term I'm shooting for mid 40s ) without the time investment of 3-style but still learning a better/more complex method than OP/M2.



I feel like it's surprisingly difficult to think this way by the time you actually get to around sub minute. Learning 3-style at that stage is honestly such a pleasant experience. Learning the commutators is really interesting and teaches you a lot of new things about the cube, and every time you manage to use a comm in a solve it feels like getting a PLL skip (imagine 10 PLL skips per solve!). It even helps with memo somewhat - as your execution becomes faster you won't need to memo as clearly anymore because you don't need to retain it for as long. I see a lot of people go from 60 to 30 faster than they went from 1:30 to 1:00. It's just PB after PB after PB during that period. 

Compare that to the alternative which is to spam TPS using an intermediate method and I think you'll understand why there aren't so many sub 40 eka or Orozco users who don't ever intend to learn 3-style.



Silky said:


> Well, generally, knowing fewer algorithms inside and out will lead to higher TPS than learner tons of algorithms which you are less familiar with. Idk I'm probably wrong but I thought it was at least worth bringing up.



It's a reasonable assumption, but in this case it simply turns out that human beings are capable of more than you thought 

One thing that does help is that there are a lot of algs with similar fingertricks. 



Aerma said:


> Sorry, a bit of a tangent—if BH is only ~30 cases after symmetry, wouldn't it be relatively easy to learn BH and then slowly transition to faster "algs" until you're at real 3-style?



Yeah you can do this, and in fact this is how I learned it (from Brian Yu's tutorial on this forum). I would say that it's still kind of pointless to impose the move optimal restriction though. The approach that I would teach to someone wanting to get sub 30 as fast as possible is to just start with bad comms (that aren't necessarily move-optimal) that you come up with yourself and eventually transition to faster algs.


----------



## Silky (Sep 28, 2020)

If you follow any of my content ( which I encourage you to do ) it's fairly clear that I advocate for method variety. I was kind of just hoping there would be more method variety in blind. 


Tao Yu said:


> Yeah you can do this, and in fact this is how I learned it (from Brian Yu's tutorial on this forum).


This is very nice to know. Makes 3-Style seem much more accessible than making spreadsheets and learning hundred of algorithms. Will have to check out the guide. 

However, given my goals, I think I'm going to grind out Ayam/Eka and see how far I can push it.


----------



## m0nkiem0nkie (Sep 28, 2020)

I appreciate the topic started by the OP (Thanks Silky), for the reason that the intermediate methods are being highlighted as stand-alone 3BLD-methods, instead of being quite often mislabeled as just a stepping stone towards full 3-style.

For those that do want to achieve the highest level of blindsolving, by all means, skip the intermediate methods, but for the rest, consider the intermediate levels as viable options to provide you tons of fun and creativeness to solve the cube, all the while being quite efficient as well.

Answering Silky’s original request to debate the intermediate blind methods:
This would be more of a personal preference. I myself started with basic M2/OP and I gradually moved on to a combination of advanced M2 and EKA, solving 2 pieces at the same time shooting to various helper positions and this alone gives me sufficient pleasure to solve the cube numerous times, without ever getting bored.


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 28, 2020)

Silky said:


> If you follow any of my content ( which I encourage you to do ) it's fairly clear that I advocate for method variety. I was kind of just hoping there would be more method variety in blind.



I understand what you mean. I think it's pretty incredible for example in 3x3 that there are two competing methods at the top level - it just turns out that this isn't the case for 3BLD. 



Silky said:


> This is very nice to know. Makes 3-Style seem much more accessible than making spreadsheets and learning hundred of algorithms. Will have to check out the guide.
> 
> However, given my goals, I think I'm going to grind out Ayam/Eka and see how far I can push it.



All I'm saying is that when you get faster you might suddenly find an urge to learn 3-style. If it happens you should not resist the urge .

It doesn't have to be like learning hundreds of algorithms. I'm sure when you're using Eka or Ayam you'll wonder at times whether there is a faster commutator that you can set up to. If that happens I would recommend looking it up in a spreadsheet just to see what people came up with, even if you don't intend to memorize it - just for the curiosity. If you're interested in method variety you should be interested in these things (understanding how different methods work).

I think learning BH is probably a decent idea for you. It is basically an intermediate method and should improve your ability to come up with comms on the fly using setup moves. In fact now that I think of it, I think it has to be faster than Orozco and Ayam, and maybe even Eka.


----------



## ZB2op (Sep 28, 2020)

the best intermediate 3bld method is eka. anyone who said orozco is dumb cus eka is just a better version. also just learn 3 style.
Wow people who said orozco are angry at me.


----------



## the dnf master (Dec 7, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> the best intermediate 3bld method is eka. anyone who said orozco is dumb cus eka is just a better version. also just learn 3 style


Yeah but the thing with eka is that it is harder than orozco, so if you do learn orozco as an intermediate method, there is no point in learning eka next since you can just go to 3 style.


----------



## h2f (Dec 7, 2020)

the dnf master said:


> Yeah but the thing with eka is that it is harder than orozco,



Why do you think it's harder? I'm curious. I use 3style with UF (earlier DF) and I've learnt it using Turbo and next modified Eka.


----------



## ProStar (Dec 7, 2020)

Imo the strategy for blind(and the one I'm going to use if I try to get good at BLD) is:

OP/OP
M2/OP
Orozco (maybe)
3-Style


----------



## ZB2op (Dec 7, 2020)

the dnf master said:


> Yeah but the thing with eka is that it is harder than orozco, so if you do learn orozco as an intermediate method, there is no point in learning eka next since you can just go to 3 style.


Eka is not harder than orozco IMO


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 7, 2020)

ZB2op said:


> Eka is not harder than orozco IMO


It is, you just have to remember setup moves and undo them which is a lot harder than 3 style


----------



## dudefaceguy (Dec 18, 2020)

sqAree said:


> It doesn't really matter if you start out by learning 3-style intuitively, the end goal is obviously to have all 818 speed-optimal algs memorized (and by the way, the top BLDers memorized optimized algs for every other buffer too which equates to ~2700 comms/algs, as well as many many other algs).
> 
> Being intuitive helps of course, but that doesn't mean that you can't TPS the hell out of it, it just means that it's easier to learn initially.


There is another good reason to learn intuitive 3Style: it's fun! I have no intention of being fast or even attending a competition, but intuitive 3Style is just so much fun - it is by far the most fun I've had cubing. I consider it as a method on its own, since I just do 3Style intuitively without any plans to drill the commutators or increase my speed. There are about 4 classes of commutators for edges and corners, and once you are familiar with all of the different classes you can easily construct a commutator on the fly. But of course most people will use it as a stepping stone, and in that sense it is an intermediate method on the way to full 3Style.

Jake Klassen has a good video comparing Eka and Orozco and his conclusion is that you shouldn't do either, but just go with intuitive 3Style. None of the intermediate methods are really faster than M2/OP, and you can get pretty fast with M2/OP, so only learn 3Style if you want to be truly world class or because it's fun.


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 18, 2020)

I agree with Tao's argument that ZBLD does not look feasible. It is a weird way of trying to use a 3x3 speed solve step into BLD method pieces orientation and permutation. 3OP is a much convenient but its an ancient method and it is just better to do 3-style instead. 

I think 3-style is an intermediate method too before people start doing full floating edges and 5-style edges, F R' S2 R F' R U S2 U' R' .


----------



## sqAree (Dec 18, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> There is another good reason to learn intuitive 3Style: it's fun! I have no intention of being fast or even attending a competition, but intuitive 3Style is just so much fun - it is by far the most fun I've had cubing. I consider it as a method on its own, since I just do 3Style intuitively without any plans to drill the commutators or increase my speed. There are about 4 classes of commutators for edges and corners, and once you are familiar with all of the different classes you can easily construct a commutator on the fly. But of course most people will use it as a stepping stone, and in that sense it is an intermediate method on the way to full 3Style.
> 
> Jake Klassen has a good video comparing Eka and Orozco and his conclusion is that you shouldn't do either, but just go with intuitive 3Style. None of the intermediate methods are really faster than M2/OP, and you can get pretty fast with M2/OP, so only learn 3Style if you want to be truly world class or because it's fun.



While I agree with your conclusion I want to point out to everyone that Eka and Orozco are certainly faster than M2/OP.
There is no debate about intermediate methods vs OP, but even just M2 is already slower than Eka and Orozco.
I can't be bothered to type out a long argument about that, so I will just mention that M2 IS basically some kind of special case of Orozco (with a bad buffer and helper), using Orozco with the recommended buffers will make the method a bit faster. Eka is accepted by everyone to be faster than Orozco as a standalone method, so no need to get into that.


----------



## BlindNerd (Dec 18, 2020)

Why not just go from M2OP to 3style? Learning Orozco for edges would be optimising a beginner method, and for corners you are just learning some of 3style, yet going almost twice as slow. If you use Eka, you are just using bad 3 style. If you use OP, you get to learn the fundementals!!! and it is very easy. I believe you can debate OP vs intermediate methods. If we use the analogy of F2L, using an intermediate method would be like using keyhole before learning F2L, and M2OP would just be layer by layer.


----------



## sqAree (Dec 19, 2020)

BlindNerd said:


> Why not just go from M2OP to 3style? Learning Orozco for edges would be optimising a beginner method, and for corners you are just learning some of 3style, yet going almost twice as slow. If you use Eka, you are just using bad 3 style. If you use OP, you get to learn the fundementals!!! and it is very easy. I believe you can debate OP vs intermediate methods. If we use the analogy of F2L, using an intermediate method would be like using keyhole before learning F2L, and M2OP would just be layer by layer.


My post was about one specific aspect of blind methods, that is, the speed. What I meant is that there is no debate about OP being slower than the intermediate methods.
But of course OP is a very good starting point to learn the fundamentals, in fact I would recommend starting out with OP to any beginner!

While M2 was a very good stepping stone a few years ago, nowadays I don't see why anyone should use it. OP is enough to understand the fundamentals, after that you can maybe learn edge comms directly, or some sort of intermediate method that is better than M2. Remember, something like U2 or Orozco is just as easy as M2, but slightly faster and teaches you many things that you want to learn about 3-style anyway (in particular, you get to use the correct buffer from the beginning, and you get used to a variety of slice finger tricks that you wouldn't with M2).
Of course learning Orozco is never a waste of time, because it's a strict subset of 3-style. It might help some people with their transition to 3-style. Certainly, some people's progress might also be slowed down because they stay too long with Orozco without transitioning to 3-style. Still, it's a nice tool that might help some people, especially those who are intimidated by 3-style and still want to get there.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 19, 2020)

sqAree said:


> My post was about one specific aspect of blind methods, that is, the speed. What I meant is that there is no debate about OP being slower than the intermediate methods.
> But of course OP is a very good starting point to learn the fundamentals, in fact I would recommend starting out with OP to any beginner!
> 
> While M2 was a very good stepping stone a few years ago, nowadays I don't see why anyone should use it. OP is enough to understand the fundamentals, after that you can maybe learn edge comms directly, or some sort of intermediate method that is better than M2. Remember, something like U2 or Orozco is just as easy as M2, but slightly faster and teaches you many things that you want to learn about 3-style anyway (in particular, you get to use the correct buffer from the beginning, and you get used to a variety of slice finger tricks that you wouldn't with M2).
> Of course learning Orozco is never a waste of time, because it's a strict subset of 3-style. It might help some people with their transition to 3-style. Certainly, some people's progress might also be slowed down because they stay too long with Orozco without transitioning to 3-style. Still, it's a nice tool that might help some people, especially those who are intimidated by 3-style and still want to get there.


Learning Orozco definitely helped me learn 3 style corners. I still haven't learned 3 style edges though.


----------



## Silky (May 6, 2022)

> I think learning BH is probably a decent idea for you. It is basically an intermediate method and should improve your ability to come up with comms on the fly using setup moves


@Tao Yu Can you explain how this works exactly (intermediate BH)? Are you just using L3C algs with setups? The BH youtube videos are no longer available, sadly.


----------



## Tao Yu (May 7, 2022)

Silky said:


> @Tao Yu Can you explain how this works exactly (intermediate BH)? Are you just using L3C algs with setups? The BH youtube videos are no longer available, sadly.


Okay, here's the crash course on BH for corners.

Disclaimer: Most of the people reading this would probably better off watching a 3-style youtube tutorial from NoahCubes, J perm, Jack Cai or Timothy Goh than learning this stuff. I'm just putting the information out there so you can make your own choice as to what you want to learn.

This assumes some familiary with commutators, J perm's tutorial is probably sufficient.

The premise of BH is this fact: if you get rid of mirrors, inverses, rotations, mirrored inverses etc there are only 15 unique corner cycles. If you learn how each of these 15 work in terms of commutators, you can do any 3-cycle on the the cube efficiently.

Here are the 15 cases and their HTM optimal solutions:

*Pure commutators (8 htm)*

These are a three move insert with a one move interchange. Everything other than the Per specials and Cyclic Shift are a setup to one of these cases so make sure you understand these well.

[R U' R', D]
[R' U' R, D]
[R U R', D2]
[R U' R', D2]
[R U' R', D']
[R U2 R', D']

*Cyclic Shift (10 htm)*

The commutator part of the cyclic shift is a sledgehammer insert with a D2 interchange. If you expand [R' F R F', D2], it reads as *R' F* R F' D2 F R' F' R D2. After adding the setup moves from the full alg, you get R F' D2 F R' F' R D2 *R' F*, which is just the alg, but with the first two moves copy pasted to the end. This is why it's called a cyclic shift.

[F' R: [R' F R F', D2]]

*Columns (11 htm)*

This case is a one move setup to an A9

[U' R2: [R U2 R', D]]

*Orthogonals* *(10 htm)*

These cases are a one move setup to a pure commutator, with no cancellations

[F': [R U2 R', D']]
[F: [R U2 R', D']]

*Per Special: (12 htm)*

The moves R' D2 L D2 R is simply the shortest way to insert UFL into DFR. The interchange is a simple D2

[R' D2 L D2 R, D2]

*A9 (9 htm)*

These are a one move setup to a pure commutator. Since it's possible to set up to many pure commutators, it takes some trial and error to figure out which setup yields a cancellation. Personally, I think it's easiest to just memorize the four cases here.

[R: [R U2 R', D2]]
[R2: [R' U2 R, D]]
[R2: [R U R', D2]]
[R2: [R U2 R', D]]

Keep in mind every 3-cycle case can be viewed in multiple ways, for example UBL-UFR-UBR is the same as BLU-FRU-RBU as well as LBU-RFU-BRU

To make it easier there are a number of simple rules you can use to tell what type of case you have:

*Pure Commutator: *two stickers are interchangeable by one move. The third is in a different layer and can be inserted into the other two in three moves.
*Cyclic shift: *all the stickers are on one layer, however it's impossible to interchange any sticker with the other in one move (htm)
*Per special: *all stickers lie on parallel planes and are on corners which are √2 distance away (ie diagonally apart) from each other on a unit cube.
*Columns: *two stickers are interchangeable by a 180 degree turn, and the third is on a different layer. However it's not possible to insert the third into the two interchangable pieces in 3 htm. (make sure it's not a per special first)
*Orthogonals: *all stickers are on corners which are √2 distance away (ie diagonally apart) from each other on a unit cube, but none are interchangeable in one move
*A9: *If it's none of the above.

So once you classify the case, you should know the type of setup, insertion and interchange required, and also the minimum number of moves required to solve it - this will allow you to solve the case in the optimal number of HTM moves.

For edges, I never learned BH so I will refer you to these pages: Link 1 Link 2 (there are 27 cases for edges). I've never heard of anyone who actually learned BH for edges though - usually I think people find it easier to find fast efficient algs intuitively for edges.


----------



## eyeoh (May 8, 2022)

tx789 said:


> Ocrozco could work for a stepping stone to 3 style but really jump to 3 style and understand comms. If you want to learn Ocrozco don't learn the comps like algs. They're comms and you should understand them.
> 
> Use UF/UFR as buffers.


I know Orozco cops a bit of stick from several (most?) top 3blders for being "trash", but for me (as a slightly older cuber), I believe it accelerated my journey and commitment to learning 3-Style since I initially wasn't sure if it'd be worth the effort for me. Orozco corners did indeed introduce me to understanding commutators after previously being intimidated by comm notation and thinking it wasn't for me. It also gave me a taste of what 3-Style corners would be like, and I discovered I liked what I saw!

A quick background of my progress - my mindset has more or less been to not get too addicted/attached to any intermediate methods (especially Orozco corners) before trying something slightly more advanced as a challenge to see if I'm capable of learning it. Basically, there was not a chance in hell that I'd be one of those 3blders who can do OP/OP at sub-2 or even sub-1 pace:

I'm not fast and my TPS isn't high, but I do enjoy learning good fingertricks (and love RUS U perms, both righty and lefty!) - I currently average sub-22 333 and sub-33 OH. I started cubing around July/August 2019 and got my first 3bld success (32:09!) around 3 months after 4 DNFs. In hindsight, I should have practised more sighted solves as well as separate corners and edges, but at the time, I thought "yolo".
Started learning M2/OP sometime after my 3:56 single and 5:15 mo3 PBs (with OP/OP - most of these and the following times are from separate sessions)
Started learning M2/Orozco sometime after 2:12 single and 2:39 mo3 (M2/OP)
Started learning M2/3-Style after a 1:35 single, 2:24 mo3 and also rolled 3:08 ao25 (M2/Orozco)
Finished learning 3-Style edges after a 2:16 mo3 and 2:48 ao25 (M2/3-Style)
In summary, I started Orozco corners roughly a year ago, 3-Style Corners about 7 or so months ago, and 3-Style Edges about 5.5 months ago (which I "completed" in Anki just over 3 months ago).

Full timed 3-Style solves commenced at the start of last month and there's no question about it being my most comfortable method now - the consistently faster execution times give me less pressure to memo quickly to still achieve similar times to what I had with M2/3-Style. This has been the same pattern with each new method I've moved on from.

I'm yet to set any new PBs with "full 3-Style" (without floating buffers; which I won't touch for the time being), but it's only been a month of solves and I know it'll just be a matter of time as the rust with memo is worked out.

While I sort of grok the anti-Orozco sentiment, I probably still mostly don't, because Orozco worked for me and is what I'd still recommend to past-me. Whether that means it's suitable for everyone else - maybe not, but it's probably suitable for at least _some_ people who might be similar to me in mindset and experience. I don't really understand the "don't learn Orozco as algs" refrain, because I guess I'm not familiar with that since I must have mostly learned them as comms because that's the logical way to learn them. But then again, when does a comm become an alg given that with enough "muscle memory" and speed, a lot of comms end up a bit like algs anyway?

That said, for those who have a natural affinity to 3bld and have a much faster/stronger grasp of 333 than me, it seems reasonable that learning 3-Style right after M2/OP is "easy". But for everyone else, perhaps dipping one's toes in the water with Orozco corners isn't as bad as it's made out to be? I mean, it's either that, or "where do I even start with these 378 corner comms?".


----------



## eyeoh (May 8, 2022)

Silky said:


> If you follow any of my content ( which I encourage you to do ) it's fairly clear that I advocate for method variety. I was kind of just hoping there would be more method variety in blind.
> 
> This is very nice to know. Makes 3-Style seem much more accessible than making spreadsheets and learning hundred of algorithms. Will have to check out the guide.
> 
> However, given my goals, I think I'm going to grind out Ayam/Eka and see how far I can push it.


I suggest skipping the spreadsheet, unless you're just referencing an existing sheet to find which comm is the current one that a blder is using. Go straight to choosing algs from bldbase.net and enter them into Anki flashcards. Don't even bother making your own sheet since that'll just be double handling - getting the comms into Anki is more important. Also, learn all the common keyboard shortcuts for Anki - it's a lot more pleasant to navigate via keyboard.

(I notice this comment I'm replying to was posted some time ago now - was any progress found with Ayam/Eka?)


----------



## Silky (May 10, 2022)

Tao Yu said:


> Okay, here's the crash course on BH for corners.
> 
> Disclaimer: Most of the people reading this would probably better off watching a 3-style youtube tutorial from NoahCubes, J perm, Jack Cai or Timothy Goh than learning this stuff. I'm just putting the information out there so you can make your own choice as to what you want to learn.
> 
> ...


So I ended up finding this thread which essentially outlines 3EF. This seems to be what I'm looking for, if I'm not correct. You memorize a comm for each of 18 cases URB->LFD->x. Then from here it's just set up into one of these 18 cases? Is this the idea that you're outlining?


----------



## Tao Yu (May 10, 2022)

Silky said:


> So I ended up finding this thread which essentially outlines 3EF. This seems to be what I'm looking for, if I'm not correct. You memorize a comm for each of 18 cases URB->LFD->x. Then from here it's just set up into one of these 18 cases? Is this the idea that you're outlining?


I've never heard of 3EF, but that sounds exactly the same as eka just with a URB buffer. It's a perfectly reasonable way to transition to 3-style, although UFR is usually considered to be a slightly better buffer than UBR

It has nothing to do with BH however.

To try and state it more clearly, here is how BH works:

You (intuitively) learn exactly 15 3-cycles (not 18). Then, to solve any 3-cycle, you figure out what rotation, inversion or mirror transformation (i.e. these are transformations don't add extra moves - they are not setup moves) required to turn it into one of those 15 cases. You do not do any setup moves in order to change the case into one of those 15 cases (the setup moves are already in the 15 cases themselves).

The 15 cases being the ones listed in my comment:

[R U' R', D]
[R' U' R, D]
[R U R', D2]
[R U' R', D2]
[R U' R', D']
[R U2 R', D']
[F' R: [R' F R F', D2]]
[U' R2: [R U2 R', D]]
[F': [R U2 R', D']]
[F: [R U2 R', D']]
[R' D2 L D2 R, D2]
[R: [R U2 R', D2]]
[R2: [R' U2 R, D]]
[R2: [R U R', D2]]
[R2: [R U2 R', D]]

Quick example solve:

Scramble: R B' L B R B' L B D2 B R2 B' U2 L2 B U2 L2 F 

Solution:
[B :[L2, BR2B']] //UFR->LUF->UBL -transformation of [R: [R U2 R', D2]] - 11th on the list
[B2:[BL2B', R]] // UFR->FLD->BLD - transformation of [R2: [R U2 R', D]] - 15th on the list
[U', R D R'] // UFR->UBR->RDB - transformation of [R' U' R, D] - 2nd on the list
[B'D:[R2, D'BDB']] //UFR->DFR->RUB - transformation of [F' R: [R' F R F', D2]] - 7th on the list

alg.cubing


----------

