# Rowe's 51 solve reconstructed



## Pedro (Feb 27, 2008)

www.cubomagico.110mb.com/rowe.html

Just nice freestyle


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 27, 2008)

See, Rowe, freestyle, regardless of how much you hate it, is still faster than the original 3-cycle.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Feb 27, 2008)

Rowe is the best BLD cuber in the world! without a doubt. Great job Rowe!


----------



## joey (Feb 27, 2008)

Just to give my input on Rowe's solve (of which I reconstrcuted in paralell to Pedro)

Instead of doing:
B' U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' x R' U R U' x' U' B
U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' x R' U R U' x' U'

He could have done:
y' R2 D' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U' D R2 y

He said that he didn't think of that fast enough to do it, I think the solve would have been a good sub50 if he had done it that way.


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 27, 2008)

joey said:


> He could have done:
> y' R2 D' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U' D R2 y



Or F2 R2 F L2 F' R2 F L2 F

Or if you want to speed optimize: x U2 R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U x'

It's 3 shorter moves in HTM to achieve the same corner 3 cycle, and in my opinion faster to execute. Daniel and I have been optimizing our corner 3 cycles 

And I agree Rowe's solve was crazy fast. That's cool to think that sub-50 is possible on a BLD solve, including memorization!

Chris


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Feb 27, 2008)

I'd say, with near-100% confidence, that blindfold cubing times of ~40 seconds can be achieved (execution + memorization)


----------



## joey (Feb 27, 2008)

Yes, we know they can be. Rowe has gotten 40s, and two sub40 I think.


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Feb 27, 2008)

Wow, sub-40 already? What's the best time achieved so far?


----------



## joey (Feb 27, 2008)

Apparently 37.54 by Rowe. I remember he did a 38.xx while racing each other.

Marcus: Is your "new" method the same method Rowe is using here? Will you release details of your method?


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Feb 27, 2008)

I've only recently gotten back into blindcubing, but my goal is to combine orientation and permutation in a three-cycle method that is easy to apply in memory. I feel that accomplishing this style of approach is "optimal" for blindfold solving in the way that Fridrich is "optimal" for speedsolving. Solving pieces one at a time uses too many moves and solving orientation and permutation separately also has many elements of wasted efficiency. The hard part in such an approach is accounting for even cycles, because I am having issues figuring out an effective way to integrate them into memory approaches. It is also easy to run into the trap where you're looking at memorizing hundreds of algorithms. I haven't fully practiced the method yet either, but my best time with it is 1:05 (I had a few lucky cases faster than this but I don't count them), which isn't too bad. It's really only 40% complete or so (I have a lot of work to do for edge cycles) but I think it has some decent kick to it. I call it the "Omni" method simply because it aims to fully solve pieces with every algorithm. I'm also trying to figure out a very consistent way to handle parity issues.

I feel the more braindead a method is, the better. "Figuring out" what to do during execution is wasted time. Simply being able to go through your memory hooks and execute blindly is the fastest way to go.


----------



## joey (Feb 27, 2008)

If you want any help, please e-mail me at cardologist AT gmail.com
I am willing to help finding algs, looking for shortcuts etc.

I do hope you contact me


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Feb 27, 2008)

Might just take you up on that 

This week I am busy with midterms and interviews, but this weekend is relatively free and so I'm going to spend some time developing the method further.


----------



## alexc (Feb 27, 2008)

I think that M2 is really the only effective, easy, and fast method that solves one piece at a time. Stefan Pochmann I think averages sub 20 for the edges with M2. As for corners, R2 is not that good. Commutators are fast, but they require you to think a bit too much. Pochmann is out of the question, and I think TuRBo requires to much thinking. I'm thinking about just setting up into A perms, but that's not that easy either.  Why can't there be a corner method as good as M2. :confused:


----------



## Dene (Feb 27, 2008)

MarcusStuhr said:


> I feel the more braindead a method is, the better. "Figuring out" what to do during execution is wasted time. Simply being able to go through your memory hooks and execute blindly is the fastest way to go.



I certainly hope you are executing blindly  (note the pun  ).


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Feb 27, 2008)

lol, or rather, execute *mindlessly


----------



## dbeyer (Feb 27, 2008)

Which is why we are creating the method that we are creating. It's simple, efficient in HTM, yes it's a large system. But that's because to shave down the seconds on something like 4x4 or 5x5 blindfolded, for some of us without the elite memo and uber speedcubing prowess, we need to use fewest moves, and have everything prepared and on the table.

ZBf2l and ZBLL relative to the 3x3 seems a bit much to shave a few miliseconds and the time taken to learn the method.

BH relative to the task of solving a 5x5 blindfolded, can cut minutes off of the execution time, just in saving wasted moves. Every cycle is Optimal in turn metric, unless an (optimal+1) solution is there that is faster than the optimal.

Later,
DB


----------



## Valkor (Feb 27, 2008)

dbeyer said:


> Which is why we are creating the method that we are creating. It's simple, efficient in HTM, yes it's a large system. But that's because to shave down the seconds on something like 4x4 or 5x5 blindfolded, for some of us without the elite memo and uber speedcubing prowess, we need to use fewest moves, and have everything prepared and on the table.
> 
> ZBf2l and ZBLL relative to the 3x3 seems a bit much to shave a few miliseconds and the time taken to learn the method.
> 
> ...



Is it basically cycles of 3 with no setups from a set buffer? I have been doing a lot of thinking about how to make a system like that, so I would be very interested in more info if you are already have the algorithms figured out


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 28, 2008)

Dene said:


> MarcusStuhr said:
> 
> 
> > I feel the more braindead a method is, the better. "Figuring out" what to do during execution is wasted time. Simply being able to go through your memory hooks and execute blindly is the fastest way to go.
> ...


Whoah, hooks and executions? Who's being hanged?


----------

