# New Blind Method (3EF)



## webyou (Aug 29, 2012)

This method is invented by my self and i call it 3EF (3Cycle Easy and Fast)
This method is based on 3cycle pieces together. And we can say it’s a Combination of Classic Pochmann, Turbo and BH.
In 3EF , algorithms take the form of a commutator. A commutator takes the form:
X[YZY’Z’]X’
In Turbo method, the two pieces that are going to be placed on their own position should be moved to U layer and then we execute the algorithm and after that we return the pieces to their own place But in this method we move only one piece to the U layer.
For solving corners we must move one of the corners to DFR (like old pochmann) and then use the BH’s method algorithms.
But the description: (Edges)
Our Buffer is UF.
As I told you this method is based on 3cycle pieces so first we should move the third piece to UL (X) and then we execute the related Moves (YZY’Z’) and then we return the piece that we brought to UL.(X’)
Let me explain it on an example solve:
SCRAMBLE = U' B' L B' L F2 L U' L F D2 L' U2 L' U' L2
Starting with the Buffer we have this cycle : ( using the BH’s algorithms)
UF -> DR -> BR = R' U R U R U R' U' R' U'
But I change the cycling by this way:
UF -> DR -> UL (BR) = B2 L [ r2 U M U2 M’ U r2 ] L’ B2
This means that the we take the position of the BR edge to UL and then instead of first cycle we execute the new cycle. And in the end we return the position of the BR (that was brought to UL ) to its own place.
In this method we Move all the third cycles to UL (like BR in my example) and we execute the algorithm and we return the piece. In this scenario the second piece which is cycling goes to its own place. (like DR in the example)
Now I solve the corners of my example 
Our Buffer is ULB
If we start from the Buffer we have this cycling:
ULB -> UFL -> DRB
I change it this way:
ULB -> UFL -> DFR (DRB) = D’-X'[L' U' L, D2] X –D
This means that we Move the DRB position to DFR position and instead of first cycle we execute this cycle.
In order to solve the Corners we move all the third pieces to DFR position and we execute the algorithm and we return them to their previous place.
This method has 18 algorithms for the corners and 20 algorithms for the edges. The number of algorithms are very very low for cycling 3 pieces.
It’s true that Turbo has less algorithms But we should move two pieces to U layer so it deserves more thinking.
methods that cycles 3 pieces have many many algorithms.
If the description was poor and you didn’t get the methods please ask questions or give me scrambles to solve them!
By the way algorithms are the same as BH that I took from the site, but i did some changes on them.
here is the link to the algorithms:
http://methods.ir/forum/3EF-CORNER.html
http://methods.ir/forum/3EF-EDGE.html
I’d be happy to hear your ideas.
Mohamad Aghaei


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 29, 2012)

This is what I did for corners when I was learning BH. If I knew he cycle, I would execute it, but if I didn't, I would set up the sticker to FDR or RDF. I don't think it's as advantageous for edges where there are often better setup moves to make.


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 29, 2012)

If you already know how to use commutators, this is kinda not useful if my understanding of the method is correct.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 29, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> If you already know how to use commutators, this is kinda not useful if my understanding of the method is correct.



Not useful as a method, but perhaps good while transitioning for those tough cases. I think maybe it's meant for people who don't understand comms and would just memorize the algorithms.


----------



## vd (Aug 29, 2012)

For everyone wanting to simplify BH, my advice is, do not do it! When I was learning BH some month ago, it seemed to me very hard and thus I commonly used 1 moves set-ups instead of doing the case I couldn´t recognize easily. Unluckily, i sticked to these set-up commutators and now, when I do BH almost without thinking, I still use these 10-12 movers instead of 8-10 movers. I try to make my BH better, but it is much harder now, when I average sub 1:20, then in the begining, when you don´t care bout times. And it slows me down. Your idea is indeed nice one, Mohamed, but I reccomend more just learning pure BH instead of any simplification.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 29, 2012)

vd said:


> For everyone wanting to simplify BH, my advice is, do not do it! When I was learning BH some month ago, it seemed to me very hard and thus I commonly used 1 moves set-ups instead of doing the case I couldn´t recognize easily. Unluckily, i sticked to these set-up commutators and now, when I do BH almost without thinking, I still use these 10-12 movers instead of 8-10 movers. I try to make my BH better, but it is much harder now, when I average sub 1:20, then in the begining, when you don´t care bout times. And it slows me down. Your idea is indeed nice one, Mohamed, but I reccomend more just learning pure BH instead of any simplification.



I have to disagree. If you're doing a blindsolve and you don't know a good way to do a cycle then it's much better to have a quick alternative like this than to struggle with a commutator you don't know well. Then after the solve you can figure out a good comm and use it in the future.


----------



## vd (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes, of course you are right here, noahaha. I probably wasnt clear enough, but I meant it that its not good to do this with purpose of actually learning it this way first...


----------



## cubernya (Aug 29, 2012)

So it's a fail version of Turbo/BH?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Aug 29, 2012)

So basically just because YOU think BH is too hard, we shouldn't do it?

It took me months and about 4-5 times to fully learn BH. I would go over EVERy case to learn it. If you don't want to put in the work, don't use it. Don't let your laziness rub off on us.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 29, 2012)

vd said:


> Yes, of course you are right here, noahaha. I probably wasnt clear enough, but I meant it that its not good to do this with purpose of actually learning it this way first...



I agree. It definitely does not hold up on it's own.


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 29, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> I have to disagree. If you're doing a blindsolve and you don't know a good way to do a cycle then it's much better to have a quick alternative



Just use BH. BH is intuitive and once you know all the subsets, you can come up with commutators on the spot.


----------



## Escher (Aug 29, 2012)

For all the people getting pissy, I think this is perfectly viable if you don't want to spend much time on BLD and want to not totally suck.

Not so sure it has enough of a distinction from other things to deserve being called a method itself, but at least you have compiled a set of algs, which is useful.


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 29, 2012)

Escher said:


> For all the people getting pissy, I think this is perfectly viable if you don't want to spend much time on BLD and want to not totally suck.
> 
> Not so sure it has enough of a distinction from other things to deserve being called a method itself, but at least you have compiled a set of algs, which is useful.


Nobody is getting "pissy". BH may have a steep learning curve but I didn't take too much dedicated time to get used to.


----------



## Czery (Aug 29, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Just use BH. BH is intuitive and once you know all the subsets, you can come up with commutators on the spot.



Why learn BH? Why not just use "freestyle"?


----------



## Escher (Aug 29, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Nobody is getting "pissy". BH may have a steep learning curve but I didn't take too much dedicated time to get used to.



I count about 6 posts above mine that seem a bit pissy.

You might not think it was 'too much' dedicated time because you're a dedicated speedcuber and you have a desire to improve as far as you can. If I wasn't already comfortable with freestyle corners (and still cared about cubing) then I'd probably just take this route.

If you just want to solve fairly efficiently with hardly any effort then I don't see what's wrong with taking this path - do people just have problems with it because the guy felt like he created something new?


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 30, 2012)

Escher said:


> If you just want to solve fairly efficiently with hardly any effort then I don't see what's wrong with taking this path


I guess so, but I still don't think BH takes lots of "dedication".


----------



## Forte (Aug 30, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> I guess so, but I still don't think BH takes lots of "dedication".



Well without a fair bit of practice, BH sucks lol


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 30, 2012)

Forte said:


> Well without a fair bit of practice, BH sucks lol


I can only speak of my anecdotal experience. I just did ~5 sighted solves/day for a couple of months and had it down to where I was as fast with it as I was with OP/TuRBo.


----------



## webyou (Aug 31, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> This is what I did for corners when I was learning BH. If I knew he cycle, I would execute it, but if I didn't, I would set up the sticker to FDR or RDF. I don't think it's as advantageous for edges where there are often better setup moves to make.


I created it for the corners at first , but for completing my method i create these algs for the edge .



drewsopchak said:


> If you already know how to use commutators, this is kinda not useful if my understanding of the method is correct.


the advantage of this method is that you can have 3 cycles with the least algs .



vd said:


> For everyone wanting to simplify BH, my advice is, do not do it! When I was learning BH some month ago, it seemed to me very hard and thus I commonly used 1 moves set-ups instead of doing the case I couldn´t recognize easily. Unluckily, i sticked to these set-up commutators and now, when I do BH almost without thinking, I still use these 10-12 movers instead of 8-10 movers. I try to make my BH better, but it is much harder now, when I average sub 1:20, then in the begining, when you don´t care bout times. And it slows me down. Your idea is indeed nice one, Mohamed, but I reccomend more just learning pure BH instead of any simplification.


of course my purpose wasn't simplifying BH , i just used its algs.



vd said:


> Yes, of course you are right here, noahaha. I probably wasnt clear enough, but I meant it that its not good to do this with purpose of actually learning it this way first...


surely for a person who wants to start BLD , learning the BH and understanding commutator is not easy at all , doesn't it?



theZcuber said:


> So it's a fail version of Turbo/BH?


why fail version ? why we don't say improve version ?



RyanReese09 said:


> So basically just because YOU think BH is too hard, we shouldn't do it?
> 
> It took me months and about 4-5 times to fully learn BH. I would go over EVERy case to learn it. If you don't want to put in the work, don't use it. Don't let your laziness rub off on us.


i didn't mean it , the people who created the previous method have such a ideas?
i just show the cuber what i created , maybe someone wants to do it , as the people who use Classic Pochmann for competition.
by the way it’s not laziness , it's new and easy and fast way for a solve .

--------
I did not and would not force anyone to use this , but I think it could be used as a method
It was not my intention to give the atmosphere than other methods to create, My only intention was to introduce a method that I have created.


----------



## vd (Aug 31, 2012)

I am sorry for being pissy, too... I kinda of misunderstood and now i admit, your idea is nice one and good for some beginners to know.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 31, 2012)

What if I have an ULB UFL RDF cycle? The table shows me an X.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 31, 2012)

Renslay said:


> What if I have an ULB UFL RDF cycle? The table shows me an X.



You don't need a setup move since RDF is already in the cycle.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 31, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> You don't need a setup move since RDF is already in the cycle.



But then the table does not tell me the corresponding algorithm (only for ULB UFL DFR). In that case, 3 = ULB UFL DFR cycle means that I acually have to learn 3 different algorithms. So, overall, I need to learn 18*3 (un-setupped) cases.

Or do I missing something?

And what if I have a ULB DFR UFL cycle? Do the inverse?


----------



## webyou (Sep 1, 2012)

Renslay said:


> What if I have an ULB UFL RDF cycle? The table shows me an X.


Sorry I got the mistake, I had to write them.
I've updated the list, you can see.




Renslay said:


> But then the table does not tell me the corresponding algorithm (only for ULB UFL DFR). In that case, 3 = ULB UFL DFR cycle means that I acually have to learn 3 different algorithms. So, overall, I need to learn 18*3 (un-setupped) cases.
> 
> Or do I missing something?
> 
> And what if I have a ULB DFR UFL cycle? Do the inverse?


well this is one of the errors of this method, in order to fix it you should move the UFL corner somewhere else , i mean somewhere that there is not a solved corner .


----------

