# Advantages of blindfold methods



## blindfold cube (Sep 6, 2007)

Hey everyone,

I have a question. When i blindfold cube, i use the 3 cycle method. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this method? What other methods are out there? What are thier advantages and disadvantages?

Thanks


----------



## tim (Sep 6, 2007)

*pure 3-cycle* (as Macky's tutorial describes)

Advantages:
- solves two pieces at once
- easy to memorize with pure visual memorization

Disadvantages:
- requires two orientation steps
- high move count because of orientation
- many items to memorize
- difficult parity handling

*M2/R2*
Advantages:
- easy to memorize
- easy setup moves (only M2)
- fast execution with almost no practice

Disadvantages:
- solves only one piece at once

*Pochmann method*
Advantages:
- very easy to learn
- easy setup moves
- fast execution with almost no practice
- easy parity handling

Disadvantages:
- extremely high move count
- solves only one piece at once

*normal 3 cycles with no orientation and free setups*
Advantages:
- low move count
- solves two pieces at once

Disadvantages:
- difficult setup moves

*freestyle 3-cycle with commutators*
Advantages:
- very low move count
- solves two pieces at once

Disadvantages:
- needs much knowledge about commutators

Please don't take this list as a perfect one and post your suggestions


----------



## AlexandertheGreat (Sep 6, 2007)

How does freestyle 3-cycle work, as in for orientation? Is there just more flexible restrictions for set-up moves so orientation can change?


----------



## hdskull (Sep 6, 2007)

i'm interested in freestyle also


----------



## tim (Sep 6, 2007)

Yes, there's no restriction for setup moves for "freestyle 3-cycle" (are there any good names for it? ). Memorize the permutation of the stickers and use a buffer (as in pochmann's method). Then setup the pieces next to your buffer, 3-cycle and undo the setup moves.

Pssst: A small hint to avoid ugly setup moves: if your buffer piece is UF, you can use M' to switch the orientation of your buffer .


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 6, 2007)

cin said:


> *pure 3-cycle* (as Macky's tutorial describes)
> 
> Advantages:
> - solves two pieces at once
> ...



I don't think this is very fair to pure 3-cycle. First of all, you should consider that Rowe Hessler claims to use it and is having fantastic results with it - especially with his memorization times. I find that it's the easiest of all the methods to memorize - I'd list that as one of its advantages. For me, the Pochmann methods are harder to memorize because you have to memorize both colors of the edge pieces, to know their orientation. It's so much faster to be able to ignore orientation until later. And I would think that someone who's good at it could memorize edge orientation in about 1 second. (It takes me about 5, but I'm slow all around.) Another advantage is that orientation execution is REALLY fast. I'll agree with the high move count. The compensation is that those moves are very fast.


----------



## tim (Sep 6, 2007)

Mike Hughey said:


> For me, the Pochmann methods are harder to memorize because you have to memorize both colors of the edge pieces, to know their orientation.



You don't have to memorize both colors, just "a target" (eg. UF or FU), so there are only 11 pieces of information on average. I agree with you, that it's harder to memorize if you use pure visual memorization, but if you use a memory system (words, images etc.) there's no difference between EP of 3-cycle and EP of pochmann's method.

And with the orientation: You're right, it's really fast to memorize and execute the orientation, but you can't consider that as an advantage of 3-cycle, because the other methods don't have an orientation phase.

Anyway, there are still too less advantages of the 3-cycle method on my post.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 6, 2007)

cin said:


> You don't have to memorize both colors, just "a target" (eg. UF or FU), so there are only 11 pieces of information on average. I agree with you, that it's harder to memorize if you use pure visual memorization, but if you use a memory system (words, images etc.) there's no difference between EP of 3-cycle and EP of pochmann's method.
> 
> And with the orientation: You're right, it's really fast to memorize and execute the orientation, but you can't consider that as an advantage of 3-cycle, because the other methods don't have an orientation phase.
> 
> Anyway, there are still too less advantages of the 3-cycle method on my post.



Your correction to your list makes it much more reasonable for me, thank you. Your original list made it sound like it would be really unwise to use pure 3-cycle, which didn't seem fair since one of the fastest solvers in the world uses pure 3-cycle, and so do probably half of the top 10 BLD solvers in competition in the world (I think it's fairly safe to say that most of the Americans do - all except maybe Chris Hardwick).

By the way, when I'm doing 5x5x5 BLD, I actually still use pure 3-cycle for the middle edge pieces. But I need to use a memory system, since I don't do them until last (I can't rely on visual for these with the 5x5x5 - especially at my speed, since it's almost an hour between memorization and execution!). So what I do is this - I use 3 hexadecimal digits for the orientations, which I then find a "visual" word or phrase for to remind me of it (7cb would become "7 CB radios", for instance), and then for the permutations I assign letters a-j and do letter pairs after the first one, to make 3-cycle easy. So ADCJHIFEGBL could be "Adam will go to washington DC and JumpHigh IF the EaGle is BLack." So solving is easy because each 3-cycle is covered by one word or phrase. And as you can see this is only 6 pieces of information for the EP and 3 or possibly less for the EO, so I only have 9 (or less) pieces of information to memorize. But it unfortunately takes a while for me to come up with the phrase to memorize.

I think if you did what Chris Hardwick did, and memorized a phrase for every possible pair, you could make pure 3-cycle take only 6 pieces of information for EP and 3 for EO efficiently. But then I guess you could cut down Pochmann methods even better, by doing the same thing. You could treat "UF" as A, "FU" as B, "UR" as C, "RU" as D, etc. and have letters A-X for each piece. Then you could memorize letter pairs for pairs of pieces, instead of just individual pieces. That means more encoding/decoding, but you'd just have 6 total pieces of information to memorize with Pochmann methods.


----------



## Pedro (Sep 7, 2007)

Freestyle 3-cycle is not like that...that's more like "normal 3 cycles with no orientation and free setups" (I know it's a long name...couldn't think of anything better now )

I see freestyle cycling as what ChrisH does, with commutators...and very few setup moves...it's kinda interesting, solving can be really quick (once you're used to the "algs")...but I don't know if memo can be very fast...


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 7, 2007)

Someone have a link about M2/R2 method ?

And about freestyle cycling with commutators ?

With practice, I find bld quite easy but long with my method (standard 3 cycles, with orientation then permutation). I learn pochmann too, but it isn't much faster. (faster memorisation, slower solve). I want to imrove myself with a new and fast method.


----------



## AvGalen (Sep 7, 2007)

> I want to imrove myself with a new and fast method.


 Maybe you could invent one yourself and share it with us?

Erik has an M2/R2 tutorial on his website


----------



## tim (Sep 7, 2007)

deadalnix said:


> Someone have a link about M2/R2 method ?


http://www.stefan-pochmann.info/spocc/blindsolving/M2R2/
http://erikku.er.funpic.org/rubik/M2.html



deadalnix said:


> And about freestyle cycling with commutators ?


Any tutorials about commutators, unfortunately i don't know one.


----------



## KJiptner (Sep 7, 2007)

For Commutators you can check Joels Tutorial:
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~jnoort/index.php?location=commutators


----------



## Stefan (Sep 7, 2007)

deadalnix said:


> Someone have a link about M2/R2 method ?



http://www.google.com/search?q=M2/R2+method


----------



## deadalnix (Sep 7, 2007)

Thank everyone. Sorry StefanPochmann but google try to give me french answer, and it's not realy interresting (impressing the number of website where M2/R2 appear).

I will read everything. Thank again


----------



## clincher (Sep 8, 2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this the M2/R2 method:

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/blind.html
The first solve Andy Tsao


----------



## Davepencilguin (Sep 8, 2007)

Does anyone have a video of an actual blindfolded solve with the M2/R2 method?
My search on youtube has failed me...


----------



## Pedro (Sep 8, 2007)

clincher said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this the M2/R2 method:
> 
> http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/blind.html
> The first solve Andy Tsao



nope...that was a "normal" 3-cycles solve...


----------



## Pedro (Sep 8, 2007)

Davepencilguin said:


> Does anyone have a video of an actual blindfolded solve with the M2/R2 method?
> My search on youtube has failed me...



http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?t=1458

he's using M2...

dunno about one with R2 method


----------



## gillesvdp (Sep 8, 2007)

With classic Pochmann (T-perms), you can reach sub2.
- 30 seconds memo (can be faster with more practice)
- 1 minute and 30 seconds execution (can be faster if no delays)

Anyway, I think good times on blindfolded solves depend more on persons than on methods.
The reason is that memorization is a strictly personal skill. Some people find it easier to memorize 2 info at once (3 cycles), visually (any method) or more at once (any method - personally Pochmann).

Personally I memorize 3 info at once and use Pochmann. With good practice I can reach low 2 minutes and even sub2 minutes some times.
I think switching to 4 info at once will help me to lower my memorization time. But that will take a bit of time to implement. ^^


----------



## KConny (Oct 7, 2007)

When will TuRBo go public?


----------



## masterofthebass (Oct 8, 2007)

I would give Erik at least 1 day to relax. He'll make it public whenever he does. It should be pretty soon.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 9, 2007)

This is the general idea about turbo as I understood it:

1) Get 3 edges at 3 fixed positions (orientation doesn't matter so setups are short)
2) Cycle 3 edges using 1 of 8 different algorithms.

This way you solve 2 edges completely (orientation + permutation) at a time

I don't know anything about TuRBo corners


----------



## Joël (Oct 15, 2007)

tim said:


> *pure 3-cycle* (as Macky's tutorial describes)
> 
> *M2/R2*
> Advantages:
> ...



I would like to add that, allthough it looks like a 2-cycle method, this method is close to being a three cycle method. Let me explain:

A person solving the cube with commutator 3 cycles, might use algs like L' U2 L E2 L' U2 L E2. I used this alg and variations when I still did pure Pochmann with T/Jperms. Or... the same kind of thing can be done with M2, of course. For example U R U' M2 U R' U' (...) M2, which is a three cycle. It cycles FD RF BU. M2 uses exactly this idea, only you setup another edge at BU before doing the last M2.

IMO, M2 can be seen as a simplification of a 3 cycle method... It just breaks a more complex problem into two different steps, to make the whole thing easier. Just like speedcubers break down the LL in OLL/PLL to make things easier .


----------



## Erik (Oct 15, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> This is the general idea about turbo as I understood it:
> 
> 1) Get 3 edges at 3 fixed positions (orientation doesn't matter so setups are short)
> 2) Cycle 3 edges using 1 of 8 different algorithms.
> ...



You can check it out now 
Joel is right though, M2 is like 3 cycles (pure 3 cycles) just simplified and broken into 2 smaller easier steps, it already proved to be very fast. Kai Jiptner is the fastest one who uses M2 at the moment he did a 1:13 with it!(not R2).


----------



## KJiptner (Oct 15, 2007)

Erik said:


> Kai Jiptner is the fastest one who uses M2 at the moment he did a 1:13 with it!(not R2).



No this is wrong, but I'm probably the 2nd fastest one. The fastest one (i know) is Rafal Guzewicz, he finished 2nd at worlds and has a home record of 59 seconds. On usual solves he can do around 1:20-1:25, I think. He is using M2 edges and 3 Cycle corners.


----------



## Erik (Oct 15, 2007)

oh sorry then, but you still are one of the fastest BLD solvers with M2


----------

