# M2 question



## Jason Baum (May 20, 2008)

I started learning M2 today (never really looked at it much before), but I'm stuck. I am using DF as my buffer. My target is DB, so I do M U2 M U2. But my next target is UF, so U2 M' U2 M', which is just the inverse of what I did before. How would you deal with a case like this?


----------



## tim (May 20, 2008)

Jason Baum said:


> I started learning M2 today (never really looked at it much before), but I'm stuck. I am using DF as my buffer. My target is DB, so I do M U2 M U2. But my next target is UF, so U2 M' U2 M', which is just the inverse of what I did before. How would you deal with a case like this?



Your next target isn't really UF, it's DB again, because your m slice is off by an M2 move. You have to keep track of that. That's btw. the reason why it's a good idea to memorize in pairs.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 20, 2008)

Hey Jason!
In short, on the second time you shoot, _normally _you reverse where it has to go(where it has to go if the edges wern't all swapped).

But, since this is shooting in the M layer, you always shoot where it ACTUALLLY has to go, so don't worry about any intense thinking as of where it has to go.

so you would preform M U2 M U2 M U2 M U2, then continue the solve..


----------



## joey (May 20, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Hey Jason!
> In short, on the second time you shoot, _normally _you reverse where it has to go(where it has to go if the edges wern't all swapped).
> 
> But, since this is shooting in the M layer, you always shoot where it ACTUALLLY has to go, so don't worry about any intense thinking as of where it has to go.
> ...


Your post doesn't really make sense. From my reading, it's the opposite of what you are trying to say.

If you have a target of UF/DB (or flipped equivalents), and you have done an *odd* number of M2's beforehand, you have to shoot to the opposite piece. 
So in this case you had to shoot to UF, but you had done an *odd* number of M2's before it, so the real target was DF.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 20, 2008)

joey said:


> If you have a target of UF/DB (or flipped equivalents), and you have done an *odd* number of M2's beforehand, you have to shoot to the opposite piece.
> So in this case you had to shoot to UF, but you had done an *odd* number of M2's before it, so the real target was *DF*.



you mean DB.

so:
UF = DB
FU = BD
and vice versa.
but this is only on the 2nd, 4th, 6th etc pair.
when its the 1st, 3rd, 5th etc pair then UF = UF and DB = DB.
so on the even pair you flip, on the Odd you don't. 

when you solve with yellow on U and white on D
Odd (1st, 3rd) = yellow on top = solve normal (FU=FU)
Even(2nd, 4th) = White on top = Solve flip (FU=BD)


----------



## ajmorgan25 (May 21, 2008)

(Hate to go off topic real quick) 

I have a question about M2 real quick. Where do I actually learn how solve bld using M2? I went to this link but it seems more like a few example solves more than anything.

http://www.stefan-pochmann.de/spocc/blindsolving/M2R2/


----------



## dChan (May 21, 2008)

You have to understand blindfold cubing in the first place before you learn M2. Which is why Pochmann only provides some examples and a list of the algorithms. I think though, that his page is good enough to learn from without any aid besides some trvial things.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (May 21, 2008)

Yeah, I can do bld already...it's just that page really throws me off. It doesn't really explain anything.


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 21, 2008)

ajmorgan25 said:


> Yeah, I can do bld already...it's just that page really throws me off. It doesn't really explain anything.


It's not meant to explain everything. It just contains enough information for you to be able to understand M2.
It's not any worse at explaining M2 than Macky's page is at explaining PLL.


----------



## hdskull (May 21, 2008)

I still can't do it, lol.


----------



## martijn_cube (May 21, 2008)

i think M2 is pretty easy. i first learned to understand shooting with the T. and when i understood the basics of bld solving. i switched to M2. it's basicly the same as shooting with T. and the same as corners with Y. 
look where the buffer sticker need to go (*D*F), 
then put that sticker with setup move, lets say BL, at the target place UB.
then do M2, so now DF is at UB. then undo setup move and DF will be at BL.
now the U and D centers are swaped, but with solving the next sticker they will be normal again.
i hope this makes it a bit more understandeble.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (May 21, 2008)

tim said:


> That's btw. the reason why it's a good idea to memorize in pairs.



I just say "odd" and "even" during my solve. 

People make fun of me, but I can do the cube blindfolded faster than they can without the blindfold.


----------



## Stefan (May 21, 2008)

ajmorgan25 said:


> It doesn't really explain anything.


It does explain M2/R2 to people who already understand my older method. I agree on its own it's not a blindcubing tutorial, but that's not what it's supposed to be. Maybe one day I'll make a full tutorial for it.


----------



## ajmorgan25 (May 21, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> ajmorgan25 said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't really explain anything.
> ...



Thanks, that clears things up a bit. I'm supposed to know your *old* method. Now I'll have to go read that.


----------



## Jason Baum (May 22, 2008)

Thanks for the help guys, it makes sense now. I've been able to do M2 edges blind a couple of times, it's pretty fun! I don't think I'm going to switch to it, but it's fun to learn new methods. Actually, I just learned Pochmann as well and was able to do the whole cube BLD on my first try. I never really looked at Pochmann before either, I've been a 100% 3 cycle BLDer up until this point. But Pochmann was very easy to learn. My solve was ugly too- I had to fix parity and orient some leftover corners. Actually, I was amazed at how easy it is to fix parity using Pochmann. It hardly affects the solve at all! That's definitely one huge advantage it has over 3OP.

Kind of off topic, but how fast can you get using purely 3OP? I've been practicing BLD a lot recently, and I'd like to get sub 1:30 by US Nationals, and sub 1 way down the road. This is why I've been looking at other methods recently, but I think I might just stick with plain old 3OP. Right now, I can get sub 2 about 25% of the time. I've had a few sub 1:30 DNFs (1:22, 1:26, 1:28). My average time for both memo and solving range from about 50 seconds to a minute, and longer on harder scrambles. I'm at the point now where I can execute all of the set up moves without hardly any thinking at all, so I don't know if I want to switch to something else right now. So do you guys think I could get times in the low minute range, maybe even sub 1, using just 3OP, or should I force myself to learn something new?


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 22, 2008)

Jason Baum said:


> So do you guys think I could get times in the low minute range, maybe even sub 1, using just 3OP, or should I force myself to learn something new?


Good question. I don't really know what can be faster.
I did EO EP vs. M2 on alternating sighted solves, and EO EP was a bit faster. In actual solving, it should be even faster (3OP requires more looking in a sighted solve, since there is less opportunity for thinkahead).
I actually like my M2 algs, but unless further testing shows otherwise, I think I can only beat 3OP with freestyle.
My problem is memo, and its impact on solving. If I had Rowe's old 3OP memo times, I could average sub-1 But now Rowe's doing freestyle, and trying M2.

I'd say that you should have no fear of 3OP being too slow until you hit sub-90 consistently.


----------



## joey (May 22, 2008)

Well, 3OP is capable of sub-1, as Rowe first showed. Now Sinepi, Yu etc (I'm not sure which other sub-60er BLDers use 3OP) has done it too.

Lucas ^^ has pretty immense solving times with 3OP, like 3x.xx average! (I'm around 40.xx, but meh!)

Ps: I got a 23.xx sighted BLD solve!! (on a scramble of rowe's!) I wish I could average that, but I'm not sure how possible that is!


----------



## Stefan (May 22, 2008)

ajmorgan25 said:


> Thanks, that clears things up a bit. I'm supposed to know your *old* method. Now I'll have to go read that.


Let me clarify: If you understand my old method, you should understand my M2/R2 description. But I believe you don't need to understand or even know my old method for it. If you just have a good general understanding of blindcubing or at least cubing, then you might understand it, too. Erik's description of it can also help, he explains a bit more I think.


----------



## masterofthebass (May 22, 2008)

Stefan, when I started learning M2, for some reason, I gravitated towards Erik's site. Now, I'm one of the very few M2 users who use FD as their buffer (It's really weird watching tutorials of someone who uses DF ). I had absolutely no trouble learning the method, and can't see the problems that people are having. It may be that my memo system was very, very primitive, allowing for the adaptation. The idea of M2 is just based off of ABA'B' - BAB'A' commutators, where the B' and B cancel out. I find it ingenious how you came up with it, and wouldn't know what I would do without it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 22, 2008)

joey said:


> Lucas ^^ has pretty immense solving times with 3OP, like 3x.xx average! (I'm around 40.xx, but meh!)



Wow, Lucas - you're doing sub-40 solving time average? That's amazing! What kind of accuracy? And what are your overall times with that? Is Joey beating you on memo times, or are you actually as fast as or faster than Joey overall now?


----------



## Jason Baum (May 23, 2008)

I just had a 1:22 DNF with 31 second memo. When I looked at the cube, it was only off by six misoriented edges, and then I realized why the memo was so fast - I completely forgot to memorize EO 

Lucas and joey, your execution times for 3OP are pretty crazy! I need more practice.

Edit: Okay, wow. Two attemps after that one, I just got a 1:08.69. 29 second memo. The scramble was so easy though, so I'm not going to count it as my new best. Here's the scramble if you want to try it: L R2 B' F' R2 L2 B D2 B' R F U2 D F2 D B' D R F' B' L R' B' F D2


----------



## joey (May 23, 2008)

Jason Baum said:


> Lucas and joey, your execution times for 3OP are pretty crazy! I need more practice.


Oh, sorry for the confusion. I don't use 3OP, i do freestyle.

I'm getting 3x.xx sighted BLD more frequently.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 23, 2008)

I think Rowe is about the only one with execution times that fast with 3OP. Oh, except wasn't Danyang Chen doing 3OP on that video where he was under a minute on Chinese TV?


----------



## joey (May 23, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think Rowe is about the only one with execution times that fast with 3OP. Oh, except wasn't Danyang Chen doing 3OP on that video where he was under a minute on Chinese TV?



Both Lucas and Yu have fast 3OP too.


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 24, 2008)

Joey was talking about exec only. I do silly stuff like warmup solves with 47 memo and 35 exec, and I think I have the lowest value of (total time * exec / memo) for anyone sub-2 (around 60 seconds)... and my exec isn't even as great as it could/should be.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 24, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Joey was talking about exec only. I do silly stuff like warmup solves with 47 memo and 35 exec, and I think I have the lowest value of (total time * exec / memo) for anyone sub-2 (around 60 seconds)... and my exec isn't even as great as it could/should be.



Wow - that's amazing. I think you need to work on your memo, huh?

Sometimes I feel like I'm the opposite. For my 1:56 (my PB), I was around 220.4 seconds for that metric. And that was a REALLY fast execution for me.


----------

