# Where to learn how to blindsolve



## xkheldar (Jul 5, 2008)

Does anyone know any good site or videos(prefer videos) that teaches how to solve a 3x3 blindfolded?

Much Appreciated


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jul 5, 2008)

Watch This guy's videos


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 5, 2008)

http://stefan-pochmann.de/spocc/blindsolving/3x3/
http://cubefreak.net/blindfoldcubing_guide.html

Knock yourself out.


----------



## Jai (Jul 5, 2008)

xkheldar said:


> Does anyone know any good site or videos(prefer videos)


I'd say to go for the text and animations (website) for this. This is one of those things you might need to read over and over and watch the animations a few times to understand. Plus, there's no time limit on websites, unlike videos.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 5, 2008)

This may be a question that doesn't fit in, but could somebody show me a guide to solve the 4x4x4 bld fast? Cause I don't want to learn a slow method (and get used to it), and then learn a faster one. Just show me the fastest.


----------



## joey (Jul 5, 2008)

I don't suggest seerusgod's videos.

There are some 4x4 BLD guides in the how-to section.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 5, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> Just show me the fastest.


The fastest? Be more specific.


----------



## blah (Jul 5, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> Just show me the fastest.



The fastest, hmm... Is Fridrich, Petrus or Roux the fastest for speedcubing?

Fridrich:
1. Theoretically slower in terms of move count.
2. Practically faster because of near-zero pauses throughout the solve.
3. The fastest way to get fast, requires relatively less practice vis-a-vis Petrus/Roux.

Petrus/Roux:
1. Theoretically faster in terms of move count.
2. Practically slower because of thinking time.
3. Takes relatively more practice to get fast.

You be the judge.

In big cubes BLD, Petrus/Roux is equivalent to full commutators for corners, edges and centers; Fridrich, on the other hand, is equivalent to "all the other methods" i.e. 3OP corners, Old Pochmann corners, R2 corners, r2 edges, r2 centers (this is all I know, let me know if there are more).

The difference between speedcubing and big cubes BLD is in big cubes BLD, the fastest guys use full commutators (equivalent to Petrus/Roux). If you think it's gonna cost you a lotta time and effort to get there (like I do), then go for the faster ways to get fast ("the other methods"). Does this answer your question? (Edit: if you wanna know why the commutator guys are faster than the "other methods" guys, it's because the "other methods" guys haven't reached the non-stop zero-thinking execution nirvana yet, whereas the commutator guys have, so commutators are currently faster both in theory and in practice.)

For edge commutators, try Chris' guides in the how-to section. Link: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=201.

For center commutators, I recommend Mike's guide at http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2207. (I didn't learn it there, I figured it out on my own, but I've read it and it's very similar to the way I think of commutators, so I like it.)

For the general underlying principles of commutators, which is gonna be very helpful when you try cubes bigger then the 4x4x4 and don't feel like learning more commutators, read this: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=697. I like it because it's the universal laws of commutators and applies to any and every situation so you can always come back to these principles when you get stuck. Only thing that you might not be comfortable with (though I am), is that it's all pure theory, and I think a few examples.

For r2, try Erik's page for a little explanation and Lucas' page for more algorithms.
Erik: http://erikku.er.funpic.org/rubik/r2.html
Lucas: http://cube.garron.us/BLD/r2/index.htm

For R2, Old Pochmann and 3OP corners, I'm pretty sure you know where to find resources if you've come as far as 4x4x4 BLD.

I know it seems stupid that I've provided almost every resource available for 4x4x4 BLD, but I don't want you to miss out on anything because I think they're all helpful in one way or another, so I've tried my best to provide a short description for every link so you know what you want to read first, and what you want to leave towards the end when you're more familiar with the basic stuff. Yeah.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 5, 2008)

Thank you sooo much. I owe you a lot.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 6, 2008)

joey said:


> I don't suggest seerusgod's videos.



For the 4x4, or 3x3?



StefanPochmann said:


> Inusagi said:
> 
> 
> > Just show me the fastest.
> ...



Well, the ones that use less time...


----------



## joey (Jul 6, 2008)

I don't suggest either.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 6, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Inusagi said:
> ...


There's no "fastest" method, so your request cannot be fulfilled.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 6, 2008)

I meant fasest (the ones that use less time) that excist. Move count, or the one people have improved on.


----------



## joey (Jul 6, 2008)

I know, he is saying that doesn't exist, it depends on the person.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 6, 2008)

The one most people have improved on...


----------



## Stefan (Jul 6, 2008)

Alright, let's stop walking in circles. blah already provided a good overview of the pros and cons of the usual methods, so decide from that what you want to do. Like blah already said: You be the judge.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 6, 2008)

I know, but I just wanted you to know what I was talking about. That's all


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jul 6, 2008)

joey said:


> I don't suggest seerusgod's videos.



Using his videos, i did my first BLD after about 4 hours (split over almost 2 days), and on my second attempt.

I must admit though, i'm not happy with the EO/EP step in that method, and want to find a different method of doing those...


----------



## joey (Jul 6, 2008)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't suggest seerusgod's videos.
> ...


Doesn't mean it is a good method! Maybe for a begginer... but even so, I wouldn't suggest it.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 7, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > I don't suggest seerusgod's videos.
> ...



...?

Less time is pretty hard to determine, as well.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 7, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Inusagi said:
> 
> 
> > joey said:
> ...



It's an explanation of what I ment in page 2.


----------



## tim (Jul 7, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> Swordsman Kirby said:
> 
> 
> > Inusagi said:
> ...



It was clear, what you meant, but you wasn't specific enough .


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 7, 2008)

The one people has improved on the most, I don't really understand what's not clear...


----------



## xkheldar (Jul 7, 2008)

Its so hard to understand the tutorials. Any help?


----------



## Stefan (Jul 7, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> The one people has improved on the most, I don't really understand what's not clear...


I think that's not even a valid English sentence, certainly I don't understand what that's supposed to mean. But I suspect that even if you correct it, it'll still be ambiguous.


----------



## xkheldar (Jul 8, 2008)

I decided to use the three cycle method at cubefreak.
I get how to do the edge orientation now.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 8, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> I think that's not even a valid English sentence, certainly I don't understand what that's supposed to mean. But I suspect that even if you correct it, it'll still be ambiguous.



We may both agree that my English is worse then many people, but what is soo wrong with that sentence?


----------



## blah (Jul 8, 2008)

As I see it: Grammar, and pretty much nothing else.

I think what Stefan means is that there _is_ no one method that has been improved on the most, because the 4x4x4 BLD event itself isn't very well developed in the first place. Besides, this isn't speedcubing, so there isn't a single method that solves the entire cube. People mix and match different methods for different "piece types" and find the best combination of methods that works for them, so you _could_ have made your question clearer by asking which method is the best for each "piece type", but I think I've answered that question way earlier in this thread anyway (I hope).

If you _really_ want an answer for your question, it's commutators, because that's the method that's been there since the start of big cubes BLD. But then again, there really isn't much to develop for commutators, except maybe find more algorithms, and that's why there's BH.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 8, 2008)

blah said:


> As I see it: Grammar, and pretty much nothing else.
> 
> I think what Stefan means is that there _is_ no one method that has been improved on the most, because the 4x4x4 BLD event itself isn't very well developed in the first place. Besides, this isn't speedcubing, so there isn't a single method that solves the entire cube. People mix and match different methods for different "piece types" and find the best combination of methods that works for them, so you _could_ have made your question clearer by asking which method is the best for each "piece type", but I think I've answered that question way earlier in this thread anyway (I hope).
> 
> If you _really_ want an answer for your question, it's commutators, because that's the method that's been there since the start of big cubes BLD. But then again, there really isn't much to develop for commutators, except maybe find more algorithms, and that's why there's BH.



You answed my question enough already in this thread. 

If there are different ways to mix different methods for "piece types", then why didn't he tell me?


----------



## blah (Jul 9, 2008)

I thought that was sorta trivial? 'Cause that's what people do for 3x3x3 BLD? The best example is M2 edges + 3OP corners.


----------



## Inusagi (Jul 9, 2008)

blah said:


> I thought that was sorta trivial? 'Cause that's what people do for 3x3x3 BLD? The best example is M2 edges + 3OP corners.



If you tried to answer my question, then I just wanted you to know that you didn't.


----------

