# Big Cube BLD Discussion



## cmhardw (Nov 10, 2009)

Hi everyone,

I've noticed that there are often very interesting posts related to big cube single BLD, and they are always spread out across various different threads. I'm posting this thread so that hopefully we can gather all of that interesting information into one easy to find place.

Consider this thread as a spring board thread for all things big cube BLD related. By Big Cube BLD I mean solving a cube larger than 3x3x3 blindfolded. It can be a "one answer question thread" for big cube BLD, or a place to discuss methodology or theory as well.

So, if you have something interesting to say relating to big cube BLD, post it here!

Chris
---------------------------------------------------

To start off, I've noticed that recently a lot of us are posting our time breakdowns for all steps for 4x4x4 BLD, but it's buried inside of the Blindfold Accomplishments thread. Well, to start off this thread let's all collect our time breakdowns here and maybe it will be easier to discuss!

4x4x4 BLD solve:

Scramble: L' F' U' F' Uw2 B2 D' B' Fw2 Uw' Rw Fw Uw2 F Rw' U2 L2 Rw D R' B U2 F' Uw' R' Fw2 Uw' B2 D Uw2 U2 Rw B' F' U' Rw Fw U2 B2 F'

Total memorization time: 2:38.34
Total solving time: 3:21.05
Total overall time: 5:59.39

1) 06.69 orient the cube
2) 1:02.03 Memorize centers
3) 1:17.98 Memorize edges
4) 11.64 Memorize corners
5) 21.45 Solve corners (with the exception of parity)
6) 1:23.86 Solve centers
7) 09.02 Fix corner parity
8) 1:26.72 Solve edges


----------



## Chuck (Nov 10, 2009)

Nice, Chris!

My latest breakdowns:

1. Orient: 00:08.00
2. Memo Centers: 02:24.40
3. Memo Edges: 01:25.20
4. Memo Corners: 00:28.00
5. Solve Centers: 02:24.40
6. Solve Edges: 02:13.00
7. Solve Corners: 00.44.00

TOTAL: 09:47.40 (04:26.00)

Memorizing and solving centers are new things for me, so they took longer than the edges.

I can see from your breakdowns that you're memorized very fast, was it without any reviewing?

Do you solve edges with commutators too?


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 10, 2009)

One thing that I've been looking into is x-center cases. Chris and I try to view the x-centers as extentions of the 3x3 corners. Likewise the t-centers are the extentions of the 3x3 edges.

This works well, until you get into the extra 128 cases that are not present on the 3x3 corners. 

Cases such as Urb -> Fld -> Ldf
Urb -> Brd -> Rdb
Especially Urb -> Rbu -> Bur
84 cases are not present because no cycle involves two pieces from the buffer.
2 more cases are lost because you can never cycle all 3 pieces on the buffer cubie.
42 more cases are lost because two stickers from the same non-buffer corner can be in the same cycle.

The original 378 corner extention cases are directly proportional from the optimal 3x3 algorithms.
However, there are some tricks that we have already found for certain cases that we didn't optimize. 

Such as the Urb -> Rdb -> Brd
r' (3U')l(3U) r (3U')l'(3U)

Lets look at this classification. 
We have already discussed the AnI relationship in times past.

URB and DBR are adjacent non-interchangeable cubies.
However URB is interchangeable with BRD and RDB

So Urb is interchangeable with Brd and Rdb

View one of the x-centers that is paired on a corner extention as the interchangeable with the buffer. Now view the other as the lone cubie to be inserted.

Urb and Brd are interchangeable on the r slice. So we need to insert the Rdb into the Urb. Insertions and interchanging must be done on parallel planes as we've seen before. So lets try this neat trick, the deep turns will help you see what's going on.

r' interchanges the Urb and Brd.
now we need to insert on and L/R planes. Is that really possible? (3U') brings both the Urb and the Rdb to the l slice. Now you can insert, (3U')l(3U). Interchange again, and undo the insertion. 3-cycle of x-centers complete.

Urb -> Rbu -> Fru and its inverse
Urb -> Bur -> Lub and its inverse
these six cases can all be solved in similar manner.

I am really curious about the Urb -> Rbu -> Bur case. Is this case optimal at 10 moves? =/


----------



## Chuck (Nov 10, 2009)

Reading Mr. Beyer's post, suddenly I feel so noob...


----------



## Muesli (Nov 10, 2009)

Chuck said:


> Reading Mr. Beyer's post, suddenly I feel so noob...


_You_ feel like a noob?!

I've just started learning


----------



## LarsN (Nov 10, 2009)

Wow, this took me a while to decifer, but I think that's because of some mistypes. If I'm wrong then it's simply because I don't understand.



dbeyer said:


> One thing that I've been looking into is x-center cases. Chris and I try to view the x-centers as extentions of the 3x3 corners. Likewise the t-centers are the extentions of the 3x3 edges.
> 
> This works well, until you get into the extra 128 cases that are not present on the 3x3 corners.
> 
> ...



And then the alg is for 4x4 and won't work for 5x5 which I used to test the case. On 5x5 it's:
r' (4U')l(4U) r (4U')l'(4U)

It's not because I tried to be rude. But if I'm correct then these corrections might help people understand. And I really like that alg


----------



## HASH-CUBE (Nov 10, 2009)

i know the concept of solving a big cube blindfolded, but i don't dare to, at least i can't memorize much :S

but i might in the future 

cool idea that we all gather here to discuss this, specially if someone has questions


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 10, 2009)

*Mixing Visual Memory with Image Memory?*

Ok, so this is something I have been thinking about a bit recently. What got me thinking was the fact that Ville is so incredibly fast with visual memo on big cubes, and also that Rafal admits that he sometimes uses visual mixed with memory methods for big cubes. I've been thinking about creating an image that, when it comes up, means that I have the next part memorized visually. I've noticed that sometimes I do see a neat pattern traced out by the cycles of the cube, or maybe for some reason the images I have to interact are all inanimate objects that for whatever reason don't fit well together and just become a list of three inanimate objects from left to right. Perhaps in this case I could memorize in my journey location some sort of marker that tells me "hey the next stuff is visual!" and then that could spark the fact that I have to remember what came visually after the last piece I memorized via images.

I wonder if Rafal or Ville would be willing to comment on how they use visual in their memorization. Seeing as how I tend to always solve slower when memorizing the whole cube visually (3x3x3), as compared to using images I would only do this occasionally. I think the "visual marker" image would be the best way to still memorize with images, but occasionally have a short burst of visual memory added to this.

Does anyone have any opinions on this? Of course I'm interested to hear from Ville and Rafal, but also how do you pure visual, or pure images, memorizers feel about mixing the two methods? I'm fairly positive on the idea, but I haven't actually tried to do it yet during a solve.

Chris


----------



## LarsN (Nov 10, 2009)

I can see what your getting at Chris. Only I see it from the opposite perspective. Sometimes when I use visual memo I get some cycles that doesn't have nice patterns. These I have to remember "brute force" which means repeatting them a lot, which obviously makes my memo time longer. At the moment I'm thinking of that as lack of practise, but maybe an image would help with these cases?

But then I would go back to learning a lot of images, which was the reason why I started using visual instead.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Nov 10, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> Does anyone have any opinions on this? Of course I'm interested to hear from Ville and Rafal, but also how do you pure visual, or pure images, memorizers feel about mixing the two methods? I'm fairly positive on the idea, but I haven't actually tried to do it yet during a solve.
> Chris



Even if I'm not Ville or Rafal  I am still a neighbour to both their countries 

I mix memory methods sometimes, when, like you say, the normal method does not feel good or visual seems to be very easy. But I have not thought of the concept of a "marker" for switching method. I do not use images (yet) but just "silly sentences", but the same thing you note that for me the letters does not build sentences well. If there are pairs of consecutive opppsite cubies or some centers in a row on lower left corner or so I change method. But mostly just for the trailing cubies in a cycle, I do not swap back to sentences again.


----------



## mande (Nov 10, 2009)

I did a memo on Chris' scramble since I have a terrible cube, and was sure to DNF even if the cube was good.

Orient: 7s
Centre memo: 3:30
Edge memo: 6:40
Corner memo: 00:30
Total memo = 10:48

My solve time is generally about 20 minutes which I consider pretty hopeless, so I was hoping I could pick up a few tips here. I use pure commutators for centres and edges and do corners like on 3x3. The parity solve is the last thing I do (if applicable). For centres, I get two centres (with successive positions in the cycle) onto the U face, then perform a commutator aqa'q' where q is either U, U' or U2 (depending on the positions of the two centres on the U face). For edges, it is quite similar. I setup two edges (successive edges in the cycle) in positions (preferably on U face) such that I can move 1 to the other's position in just one move (its hard to explain in words). Then I do a commutator with the q move being the move required to do what I just said. For corners, I just use 3OP like I do for 3x3.
I memo using letter object combinations. I just make up stories on the flow and do not have fixed words for fixed letter pairs.
Any comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated (if anyone understands what I have written ).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 10, 2009)

Wow, Chris, that sounds like a totally cool idea! The only problem I can see with it is that I'm so conditioned now to do the images, I think it would be hard to swap. But I'm going to have to think about it a bit - it seems like it could be so powerful.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 11, 2009)

I tried Chris's scramble. It was kind of a disaster for me time-wise, although I solved it. Memorization did not go well for me at all - it's apparently a bad night for me (bad news because I'm about to do the weekly multi ). (I was also treating this solve as my solve for the Time Machine Competition.) Anyway, here were my breakdowns for Chris's scramble in post #1:

Total memorization time: 5:34.22
Total solving time: 4:54.61
Total overall time: 10:28.83

1) 14.54 orient the cube
2) 1:56.02 memorize centers
3) 2:28.21 memorize edges
4) 33.92 review memorization
5) 21.53 memorize corners and pull on blindfold
6) 28.53 solve corners except parity
7) 1:45.56 solve centers
8) 14.45 fix corner parity
9) 2:26.07 solve edges

Since it was a bad solve for me, it's not necessarily a good measure of my relative times; it seems like these breakdowns are most useful on good solves, not average or bad solves. So it's probably not very useful data.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 11, 2009)

dbeyer: to find the optimal solution I believe that you can set parameters and check on Clement Gallet's wonderful solver.  However it only runs on mac/linux


cheers


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 11, 2009)

Would anybody be interested in looking up the optimal algorithm for 
Urb -> Rbu -> Bur

I've found several nice 10 move solutions.
On a 4x4:
(3L) y [rU2r' u' rU2r' u] y' (3L)'
U x [uR2u' r' uR2u' r] x' U'

For clarificaiton, I am not giving the directional solution but rather the components fully written in SABA'B'S' form
S: U x
A: uR2u'
B: r'

A nice trick to look at for this case, [Urb, Fld, Ldf]

Fld and Ldf are in the same corner orbit around the DFL corner.
So lets view the Urb as the lone cubie.
r' and we have interchangeability with the Urb and Fld on the F plane.
r2 and we have interchangeability with the Urb and the Ldf on the f slice.

So we see our insertion and interchanging points for an A9 cancellation.
Obviously, they are on the F plane and f slice. Now lets make this a finger trick friendly case. Quite simply by doing an x cube rotation. Preserving r turns, and transforming F and f turns into U and u respectively.

x r' U2 r'u'r U2 rur2 x'

Enjoy,
Later,
DB


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 13, 2009)

dbeyer said:


> Would anybody be interested in looking up the optimal algorithm for
> Urb -> Rbu -> Bur



I have a truly marvelous demonstration of a 9 mover for this case which this margin is too narrow to contain. 

Actually I really did discover a way to do this cycle in 9 turns, but as a side effect it also does a 3 cycle of x-centers around the corner diagonally opposite through the cube.

I'll try to see if the idea I am using for my 9 cycle can be done in a such a way as to avoid the "side effect" cycle on the back of the cube.

Chris


----------



## V-te (Nov 13, 2009)

I'm not really a BLD cuber, but may I ask Mike and Chris, How do you memorize so fast? I assume it has to do with intelligence, or memo system righ?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 13, 2009)

V-te said:


> I'm not really a BLD cuber, but may I ask Mike and Chris, How do you memorize so fast? I assume it has to do with intelligence, or memo system righ?



Having a memory system certainly helped me to speed up my memorization quite a bit, but there are people who are truly out of this world fast at memorization using either pure visual (pure rote memory) techniques, or a mix of this and more standard memory techniques.

Part of it also is practice. There is a certain "fudge factor" when memorizing that you have to learn to fight through. For example, when you memorize something and you know that you know it, but you can't recall it. Then you REALLY think hard and finally it comes to you. You get a lot of that, but you have to learn to fight through and recall it faster and faster with each practice solve. BLD is what I practice, I don't really speedsolve much anymore compared to what I used to. Like anything, the more you practice the better you get at it. Now if only I could figure out how Ville and Rafal achieve their level of craziness 

If you're interested in journey/image memorization techniques here is a link to what I use.

Chris


----------



## siva.shanmukh (Nov 13, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> dbeyer said:
> 
> 
> > Would anybody be interested in looking up the optimal algorithm for
> ...



That will add some moves to it. Won't be 9 anymore.  anyway is it something this:

y U' r' f r' f' r2 U y'

anyway I liked dbeyer's version : written in SABA'B'S' form
S: U x
A: uR2u'
B: r'


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 13, 2009)

siva.shanmukh said:


> That will add some moves to it. Won't be 9 anymore.  anyway is it something this:
> 
> y U' r' f r' f' r2 U y'



Wow, no your alg is much more efficient at the pseudo-cycle than mine. My pseudo cycle was:
U' r U2 f' U2 r' U2 f U'



> anyway I liked dbeyer's version : written in SABA'B'S' form
> S: U x
> A: uR2u'
> B: r'



Yes but it is a 10 mover  Daniel and I were just talking to try and see which strategy would be more fruitful: try to prove there does not exist a 9 mover for this case somehow, or, hopefully, discover something amazing that only takes 9 moves to solve this case!

Chris


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Nov 13, 2009)

Chris could you possibly make a complete tutorial on this subject and put it in your website and can you try to make the format like Joel Van Noort's website please? it's just an opinion i hope youthink about it thanks very much


----------



## siva.shanmukh (Nov 13, 2009)

xXzaKerXx said:


> Chris could you possibly make a complete tutorial on this subject and put it in your website and can you try to make the format like Joel Van Noort's website please? it's just an opinion i hope youthink about it thanks very much



I can't find right now, but there is a thread in which Chris explainied a BLD method of his in this forum.


----------



## siva.shanmukh (Nov 13, 2009)

cmhardw said:


> siva.shanmukh said:
> 
> 
> > That will add some moves to it. Won't be 9 anymore.  anyway is it something this:
> ...



Oh, just realized that you are not counting the cube rotations(makes sense)
That makes my pseudo cycle 7 moves long right?
Now to stop the other 3 cycles, I replaced the f and f' with U' f U and U' f' U respectively making it 11 move 

y U' r' U' f U r' U' f' U r2 U y'

Can't go ahead. I will think later about this.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Chris, that is the alg I found. Haha, yeah, great minds think alike I suppose.
All this algorithm does on a 3x3 is move the 6 centers of the core about the solved 3x3 cube. We are breaking the 3x3 core into 4 quadrants per face, and doing a few setups for the same effect on the 4x4. 
Adding some extra moves too because we are trying to move certain pieces.

Okie doke gonna think on this. I have a competition tomorrow. Wish me luck Chris.

Later,
DB


----------



## Chuck (Nov 15, 2009)

*5x5x5 BLD Parity?*

I need help really bad.

I just did a 5x5x5 BLD. This is the first time I do it again after my first successful solve about 2 months ago. On my first 5x5x5 BLD, I didn't got any odd target, so I hadn't encountered any 5x5x5 BLD parity.

But I had it on this solve, which was hand-scrambled by me.

I got the breakdowns:

1. Memo x centers: 03:04.10
2. Memo + centers: 03:42.40
3. Memo middle edges: 01:14.30
4. Memo wing edges: 02:21.40
5. Memo corners: 00:52.30
6. Refresh all: 04:36.30
7. Execution: 18:09.00
(too bad I didn't timed each execution steps)

TOTAL 33:59.90 (15:50.80).

It could've been my new PB by 38 seconds, but it's not :fp, because I got this:

[My BLD scheme is Red on Front & Yellow on Top, BOY]







FYI, I use M2 for middle edges, r2 for wing edges, and Classic Pochmann for corners. These are the detailed execution steps:

1. Solve x centers
2. Solve + centers
3. Solve middle edges > odd items/parity (fixed it with U'F2U M2 U'F2U)
4. Solve wing edges > even items/no parity
5. Solve corners > odd items/parity (no fixing)

So, where did I made mistake?
I'm very very sure I memorized all items correctly.

Please, I hope anyone would kindly help me.
Thank you.


----------



## Zava (Nov 15, 2009)

probably when fixing middle layer edges parity, you forgot to "fix back" wings?


----------



## Chuck (Nov 15, 2009)

I never do a sighted solve with 5x5x5...

How do we fix back wings?


----------



## Zava (Nov 15, 2009)

umm, like: you do a J perm to fix corner-edge parity, but this way, you swap the 2-2 wings like on your latest attempt. in this case you just have to set them so they're diagonal (for example: if the blue is the R on the picture, then: RUR'), and do an 5x5-safe PLL parity, like:
(y, then) Rw2 Fw2 U2 r2 U2 Fw2 Rw2 or
(y, then) r2 U2 r U2 r2 U2 r2 U2 r U2 r2 U2
and after this, you just have to undo the setup.
I hope this solves your problem  also I hope I understood the problem and could answer it correctly


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 15, 2009)

Yes, I suspect that's the problem. Since I do it differently, it's hard for me to be specific to your case. When I do corner parity on 5x5x5, I always use a T-perm, swapping opposite edges with the corners. Then I do Bw2 Rw2 U2 b2 U2 Rw2 Bw2 to correct the edges.


----------



## Zava (Nov 15, 2009)

my parity on the 5x5 is like: (corners: hungarian version of pochmann, freestyle, 3op, whichever is the easiest, when I get parity I always keep UFR and UBR swapped, and M2 for edges)
so, I end up with UB-DF swapped, and UFR-UBR. what I do is:
F2, then Rw2 U2 Rw U2 Rw2 U2 Rw2 U2 Rw U2 Rw2 (which does a pll parity on UF-UB, and as a side effect, does a H perm) F2, then a T perm. I find it quite handy


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 15, 2009)

My parity fixes swap the URB corner and UR edge, which are my buffers with a random corner and a desigated edge. 

I always swap the UR and UB if there is a parity. Then I can use an advanced Pochmann concept. Basically a bunch of PLL conjigations with cancellations.

It leads to a 1 turn setup max, and if I'm setting anything up you're limited to a single turn on the U, L, F faces. And this limitation isn't exactly a bad thing by no means.

Anyway, how do I always end swapping the UR and UB? Wouldn't you need to do extra setups? I'm confused.

Technically it's in the method of approach that I use. If there is parity. I am left with a lone edge that needs to be swapped with the UR. I do one extra 3x3 commutator on the edges. Buffer -> Parity edge -> UB. Leaving the Buffer corner and one lone corner, needing to be swapped. This is the perfect Pochmann scenario. 

Now somebody asks, wouldn't it be easier to just do some setups, rather than an extra commutator? Look at all the extra moves. Well perhaps you might be right. This system that I use is engineered for success on big cubes. Nicely setting up the Edge and the Corner into a PLL case is not always that easy. Especially with a BH solve, where you have 462 2-cycles.
22 edges, choose 1, 21 corners, choose 1. 22x21 = 462.

I guess for an abbreviation, you could call this sub-step to my system 
Permute Last Corner. PLC. 

On 3x3 one thing must be done in conjuction with PLC to keep the cube solved. Likewise on 4x4 one different thing must be done with PLC to keep the cube solved. On a 5x5, since this contains both the 3x3 and 4x4, both steps must be done.

Okay. For all intensive purposes, I'll simplify this as a description of my method. I've created an algorithm set that swaps the URB with any of the other 21 corner cubie stickers. Tada!

All 21 algorithms swap the UR and UB. So to allow myself to just perform the algorithm and be done with the solve, I use a commutator to control the last two edges to be the UR and UB. Simple.

On the 4x4. All of the algorithms would swap the UR and UB wing sets. So I use a fast algorithm to swap them back. (3L)2 U [r2U2 xU2r2U2x' U2r2] U' (3L2) 

Also, a little side note. The algorithm does affect 4x4 and 5x5 center orientation of the U layer. All of the PLC algorithms turn the U centers by one quarter turn.


----------



## Chuck (Nov 16, 2009)

Zava said:


> umm, like: you do a J perm to fix corner-edge parity, but this way, you swap the 2-2 wings like on your latest attempt. in this case you just have to set them so they're diagonal (for example: if the blue is the R on the picture, then: RUR'), and do an 5x5-safe PLL parity, like:
> (y, then) Rw2 Fw2 U2 r2 U2 Fw2 Rw2 or
> (y, then) r2 U2 r U2 r2 U2 r2 U2 r U2 r2 U2
> and after this, you just have to undo the setup.
> I hope this solves your problem  also I hope I understood the problem and could answer it correctly




Wow, thank you so much, Balázs! 
That is exactly the solution to my problem.

So from now on if I get middle edge parity, I will solve it with U'F2U M2 U'F2U and then BU'B' Rw2 Fw2 U2 r2 U2 Fw2 Rw2 BUB' at the end.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 16, 2009)

Chuck ...
This is my alg
(4L)2 U [r2 U2x U2r2U2 x'U2 r2] U' (4L)2
and for you
(4R)2 U' [r2 U2x U2r2U2 x'U2 r2] U (4R)2


----------



## LarsN (Nov 22, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> Yes, I suspect that's the problem. Since I do it differently, it's hard for me to be specific to your case. When I do corner parity on 5x5x5, I always use a T-perm, swapping opposite edges with the corners. Then I do Bw2 Rw2 U2 b2 U2 Rw2 Bw2 to correct the edges.



What?! Why havn't I seen that alg before? I always use T-perm aswell, but I've always used 2 coms to fix the wingedges. Even though the coms are very nice, this is so much better! Thanks


----------



## Micael (Nov 22, 2009)

Here were my breakdowns for 4x4 BLD. I have been doing this two weeks now, so still a beginner.

Total memorization time: 8:54
Total solving time: 10:49
Total overall time: 19:43

1) 0:25 orient the cube
2) 2:13 Memorize centers
3) 3:52 Memorize edges
4) 0:43 Refresh
5) 1:41 Memorize corners
6) 1:52 Solve corners
7) 4:08 Solve centers
8) 4:49 Solve edges


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 23, 2009)

By the way, if you take time to notice, Chris doesn't waste much time at all on orienting the cube. Realistically no orienation is better than any other.

Just you'd be just as randomly lucky to find the best orientation by tossing the cube up in the air with your eyes closed and then memorization begins when you catch the cube and open your eyes.

Later, 
DB


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 23, 2009)

I don't buy it, Daniel. I agree that it doesn't make as much difference as one tends to think it makes, but a few seconds choosing a good orientation can cut two or sometimes even three commutators off of your total solve. If you can choose a better orientation in a few seconds, that's bound to save a very significant amount of time. So I intend to continue trying to choose a best orientation.

However, that being said, if you spend too long orienting, you can't possibly come out ahead. I feel terrible if I go over 15 seconds orienting. (Although sometimes I do, because I'm stupid. )

I guess I should also mention that I use floating buffers on centers, which I believe gives me a significant advantage over Chris on some solves, since I have fewer commutators to do. It seems like proper orientation helps more if using floating buffers than it does when using a fixed buffer - with floating buffers you're more likely to cut an extra commutator off the total solve due to proper orientation.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 23, 2009)

You can't dwell or harp finding the best center orientation. Because that "perfect" choice later on down the yellow brick road could wind up with an ugly corner solution, and 1 large cycle on wings, and 2 other small cycles around the cube that you have to search for.

Expect to solve the centers in 8-9 commutators.
Wings in 12, and Corners in 4.
Therefore expect to solve the cube in an average of 25 commutators. The balance of the system comes into play, because you could get a better center solution, but wind up with 14 wing commutators and 5 corner commutators. Still you'd most likely then get 6-7 center commutators. Averaging 25 commutators.

Later,
DB


----------



## Chuck (Nov 27, 2009)

*Odd Cubes Edge Monoflip?*

Dear all,

How do you flip edge that flipped in position on odd cubes?






Obviously we can't use M'UM'UM'UM' U2 M'UM'UM'UM'.

Thank you


----------



## yoruichi (Nov 27, 2009)

u cant?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 27, 2009)

Chuck said:


> Dear all,
> 
> How do you flip edge that flipped in position on odd cubes?



I use monoflip commutators:
R' e' R2 e2 R' U2 R e2 R2 e R U2

And if you use some foresight you can use cyclic shifts of this style commutator to cover other cases:
e' R2 e2 R' U2 R e2 R2 e R U2 R'


----------



## yoruichi (Nov 27, 2009)

why cant u just do the M move one?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 27, 2009)

yoruichi said:


> why cant u just do the M move one?



I flip these central edges first, so I have not yet solved centers. The MU alg is not supercube safe, so I opt for supercube safe commutators.

I think the time saved by memorizing these pieces visually, and solving first with longer commutators far outweighs the other option of memorizing them and having to retain the memory of them being flipped until all centers all solved, and then use a faster/shorter alg. My opinion of course, but I have tried both ways and I greatly prefer to flip first with longer commutators.

Chris


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 27, 2009)

*BH method update:*

I know this topic is not a new topic, it has been covered by blah (Chester) on this forum, and if my memory serves me correctly it was first suggested by Stefan Pochmann around 2003-2004 on the Yahoo Group, but Daniel and I have also now looked very seriously into optimizing centers via a cube rotation on odd cubes. Basically, we now orient the 5x5x5 cube in such a way as to optimize solved centers, just like on an even cube like 4x4x4. This creates a situation where you need to rotate in such a way as to avoid center parity.

Anyway, we both know that this topic has been covered many times before, but Daniel has come up with an incredibly simple way to intuitively solve, and memorize, all 12 even center parity cycles, and I have come up with a way to quickly identify whether or not the centers are in an even or odd parity state seeing only two faces (U and F).

We both admit that it is certainly possible that both our recognition and solving/memory methods have already been discovered by others. However, we're both very excited about this and are now making it part of the BH method. Since the methods are so easy to apply, and so intuitive, we are going to implement them always in our 5x5x5 solves.

A writeup will soon follow on our methods. Again, I want to make it very clear that we both realize that others before us have already analyzed this and have already optimized this. Consider this only Daniel and my take on the same subject.

Chris


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 27, 2009)

Chris and I have been talking about previous cube theories. Pochmann after his groundbreaking 5x5 blindfolded solve years ago, suggested this idea. Back then it was incredible to even solve a Rubik's cube blindfolded.

Earlier this week, I commented on taking too long to find that perfect orientation. I said it would be better to just toss it up in the air and start memorizing the 4x4 as it falls in yours hands. You are just as likely to get a good solve.

However, on the 5x5 we are binding ourselves to a simple rule. Solving the 6 centers before memorizing the cube. If you were to solve big center blocks on the 5x5 like you would on the 4x4, you would save time. Lots of time. Several images and algorithms on average in a x/+ center memo.

All that you have to do is avoid center parity. That is directly solving each piece ignoring the 3x3 centers, you will wind up with an odd number of permutations between the centrals and corners. Whether on a 3x3 or 5x5.

So on a 3x3 if you add up the edge permutation and corner permutations, you will always add up to an even number, generally around 20.
If you were to solve within your color scheme, but incorrectly about a set of centers, you will wind up with center parity.

There is a 50% chance you can solve your cube and not have center parity.
24 cube rotations, 12 of them are without parity, if you directly solved the cube using your color scheme, ignoring centers.

1 case is of course your preferenced cube orientation. 
Such as myself I have Red on Top, and Blue to the Front, 
Chris has Yellow on Top, and Green to the Front.
The other 11 cases without parity can be solved in 11 moves.
We want you to be able to use these other 11 rotations to help optimize your 5x5 memorization. Rectifying and solving the central-most centers can be done in as little as 4 moves.

We have systemized this method. It's profoundly easy, and can save dozens of moves, and several letter pair images on the 5x5 bld attempt. Here is an extention to the BH method ...

Coming soon ...


----------



## aronpm (Nov 27, 2009)

Hi, I have a question about using r2 in 4x4x4 BLD. While I've been learning r2 I've been thinking of the edges like the stickers in 3x3x3 BLD using M2. So, BU would be the same as UBl. Also I use colours instead of positions. This has been working well for me, but I've been having trouble checking what piece would be next. Tracking the piece around the cube is really tedious, and I'm wondering if there is a general rule for pieces outside the r and l slices.

As an example, I have RB (FRd piece) and I know how to shoot there. My problem is what the next piece is. I know it is whatever is in RB, but I often get mixed up between whether that piece is FRd or FRu. My hypothesis is that if the piece I'm shooting starts with a front/up/back/down colour, the piece should be the most counter-clockwise piece in that slot. So in the FR edge, starting with FRu, it goes counter-clockwise to FRd, so that is the most counter-clockwise edge in the slot, and that is the next piece. So when I've shot to RB, my next piece is GY, so I'd apply my idea in reverse, because the first colour _isn't_ one of the up/front/back/down colours. Shooting to GY (the LDb piece) which is the buffer, YR (FDr). This is assuming that using M2, the buffer is DF and not FD like some people use.

I think if you hold a slot in the front with either a F/U/B/D colour on top if it's a side edge or a F/U colour on top if it's a r/l slice edge, then the left piece is the top and the right piece is the front sticker. But for me it would be easier to check with the counter-clockwise idea, on the side edges at least. 

I think my hypothesis works, but could someone else try it and tell me if it works for them? Sorry for the long post but it was hard for me to explain this.

PS: I won't be trying a 4x4x4 BLD solve for quite a while because I don't have enough memory routes set up, and I fail hard at the centres.


----------



## Zava (Nov 27, 2009)

yoruichi said:


> why cant u just do the M move one?


maybe because of what Chris said, or Chuck thought of the (UM')*4 (M'U)*4 as the MU flip


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 27, 2009)

With regard to the new ideas by Chris and Daniel, here's the old thread by blah on the subject:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=61837

Also, somewhere in those posts is the link to Stefan's original post on the idea.

Also, deadalnix has an interesting idea there for how to very quickly and easily limit yourself to non-parity cases. I'm thinking that might be the way I would go with it.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 27, 2009)

Oh, yes we are basing our recognition of parity and non-parity cases on the orientation of the UFR corner. Looking at the U face, then the F face, you can determine if you have parity or not. If there is parity, you can do a simple cube rotation that preserves the major block that you solved. Such as preserving the block on the L face, you'd do a x cube rotation fixing parity.

There are 12 cube states that do not have parity. We tried counting them at first and then we laughed when we were missing a case. 

2x2 Swaps on the M, E, and S slices. 
3 Algs. 
M'E2ME2, EM2E'M2, and xEM2E'M2x' 
respectively. M'EM2E'M' might actually work for the S slice ...
I tried something earlier that I visualized incorrectly.

Then 3 cycles.
URB, UFR, ULF, and UBL, and the inverses of these.
Solving these 8 cases are very intuitive.
Finally, the solved cube state. -- the Missing case lol.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 27, 2009)

Basing our recognition off of the UFR corner, and looking at the U centres point, then the F centres point (courtesy of deadalnix's vocab). 

You follow the UFR corner heirarchy. IF you have a U/D center on the U layer, THEN you must have an F/B center on the F face. If you have a F/B center on the U layer, THEN you must have an L/R center on the F face. Lastly IF you have an L/R center on the U layer, THEN you must have a U/D center on the F face.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 27, 2009)

Now, solving the 3 cycles. Its very intuitive, and can be solved using 4 moves, and no cube rotations. We are going to use M and E turns, to solve these other 8 cases.

Looking at the center point of the U layer.

Think U goes x. X goes to y.
Let x be F, R, B, or L. Let Y be one of the adjacent centers of the first choice.
IF x is F/B THEN y must be L/R.
IF x is L/R THEN y must be F/B.

Continuing.
2 centre points are mutually on the M slice, and E slice. The F and B centre points.

So we permute from the Buffer Layer, the U layer.
Buffer to x to y.
X may be F, B, L or R. When X is on the M slice, perform the M slice quarter turn that permutes the U centre point to the X.
F/B are on the M slice to begin with.
If x is L/R, then a quarter turn on the E slice must be made to bring the centre point to the M slice.
The L/R centre point must take place of the F/B centre point during permutation.

Such as U to F to R to U. 
M inserts the U's centre point to the F face.
E' will bring the R centre point to the F face.
M'E will complete the commutator of centre points.

so there are 8 combiniations.
ABA'B'
Starting from any point in the AB commutator, you can go from left to right, or from right to left.
Leading to 
ABA'B'
.BA'B'A
.A'B'AB
.B'ABA'
.B'A'BA
.A'BAB'
.BAB'A'
.AB'A'B

Exchange A and B for M and E. Here are the 8 cases.
If you have any further questions please ask.

Later,
DB


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 29, 2009)

I think it is a good idea to solve the centers, that's great! 

But how do you, dbeyer and cmhardw, think when you claim that "Cubeorientation is unimportant! You might as well get a hard/good solve anyway!" 

Why don't you say exactly the same thing for 5x5? Me myself, I think that you raise the chancesof getting a better solve if you do a better cube orientation. But I can't see why you think it do on 5x5, but not on 4x4?


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Nov 29, 2009)

I have been thinking about this, and at first it looked like a good idea, especially for bigger cubes, because the advantage you'd get would be bigger in terms of number of solved pieces.

On the other hand, on bigger cubes you would spend more time counting pieces and deciding on the best orientation. I don't know what takes/wins more time.

I have also been thinking about the "center parity". You're saying you have to avoid it, but you can also use an algorithm to solve the parity at the end of the solve. As I use Old Pochmann for corners, I would end up with the UB edge and the UL edge swapped. When you notice you have a center parity, to make the fix easier, swap the Lsu and the Bmu center pieces.

Now there are a few parity cases. You can have the centers an M/M'/S/S'/E/E' move off, or you could have a "Z-perm" in the M-slice, E-slice or the S-slice, with the other 2 centers being swapped.

With M S M' S' and similar trivial algorithms, and M' E2 M E2 and similar you can always reduce the parity case to the case where the centers are an M-slice off. Then you fix it with Uw Fw' Bw Lw Fw Bw' Uw2 Rw2 Dw Rw Lw' Fw' Rw2.

Although all this might seem as if it takes too much time, I think it's not that bad.

Example solve (on 5x5):
Scramble: U2 Bw F2 Uw2 R2 Dw2 Lw U' B2 Uw Dw' Bw' R' Fw2 U' Fw Dw' Lw' Bw2 Fw2 F' U' Rw Fw' Uw' L' F' Fw B2 Rw F Bw Fw' Rw2 F2 D2 R2 Lw' D R2 Lw' Dw2 Rw' F' U2 L Uw2 Lw' Fw B2 F' Dw L2 Lw F' Fw2 B' Bw' D2 B2

Hey, I see lots of D-colors on F, let's do x'.

Solve (with U2 for centers, M2/r2 for edges and Old Pochmann for corners)

D2 R (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) R' D2
D F' (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) F D'
F2 D (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) D' F2 
F R' (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) R F' 
D' (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) D
R' F (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) F' R 
F' R' (R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R) R F
U' (to fix U-centers)
l F' l b2 l' F l b2 l2 U2
f u' f' U2 f u f'
f u2 f' U2 f u2 f'
U l u l' U2 l u' l' U'
D l B d2 B' l' U2 l B d2 B' l' D'
f' d f U2 f' d' f
U2
l' u' l U2 l' u l
l d l' U2 l d' l'
l' u2 l U2 l' u2 l
r2 f2 r' B' r f2 r' B r' U2
l d2 l' U2 l d2 l'
D2 l B d2 B' l' U2 l B d2 B' l' D2
d l d' l' U2 l d l' d'
U' r' d r U2 r' d' r U
f' d' f U2 f' d f
U2 r' u2 r U2 r' u2 r U2
U2
M u M' U M u' M' U M u M' U2 M u' M' U2 (don't know a better alg for this)
U S' d S U2 S' d' S U'
U' r' E' r U2 r' E r U
f' E f U2 f' E' f
U2
M d' M' U2 M d M'
M u M' U' M u' M' U' M u M' U2 M u' M' U2
f E2 f' U2 f E2 f'
f' E' f U2 f' E f
M d M' U2 M d' M'

I have now solved all B-centers, except Bmu. This center will be swapped with Lsu in the center parity fixing algorithm. That's why I'm going to shoot it to Lsu instead.

M' u M U2 M' u' M
U' r E r' U2 r E' r' U
d M d' M' U2 M d M' d'
f E f' U2 f E' f'
D M d2 M' U2 M d2 M' D'

Here is the actual Lsu piece, I'm going to shoot it to Bmu.

U S u S' U2 S u' S' U'
f E f' U2 f E' f'
U (to fix U-layer again)

B' R B M2 B' R' B
B L2 B' M2 B L2 B'
M2 F R U R' E R U' R' E' F'
M2
B L B' M2 B L' B'
U R2 U' M2 U R2 U'
B L' B' M2 B L B'
B' R2 B M2 B' R2 B
M2
D' L2 D M2 D' L2 D (U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U wouldn't work here, because it puts the Bmu center in Bmd)
B M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2 B'
l B' R' B R' U R U' r2 U R' U' R B' R B l'
L B L' B' r2 B L B' L'
L U' L' U r2 U' L U L'
B L B' r2 B L' B'
R' U R U' r2 U R' U' R 
F d R U R' d' R U' R' F' r2
B' R B r2 B' R' B 
U R2 U' r2 U R2 U'
F d R U R' d' R U' R' F' r2
l' B' R' B R' U R U' r2 U R' U' R B' R B l
U' L U r2 U' L' U
r2
R B' R' B r2 B' R B R'
B L' B' r2 B L B'
B L2 B' r2 B L2 B'
l2 B' R' B R' U R U' r2 U R' U' R B' R B l2
U' L' U r2 U' L U 
B' R' B r2 B' R B 
U R' U' r2 U R U'
U R U' r2 U R' U'
B' R2 B r2 B' R2 B
U' L2 U r2 U' L2 U
U' L' U r2 U' L U
r2 D' L' F l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2 F' L D
M' E2 M E2
Uw Fw' Bw Lw Fw Bw' Uw2 Rw2 Dw Rw Lw' Fw' Rw2


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 29, 2009)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> With M S M' S' and similar trivial algorithms, and M' E2 M E2 and similar you can always reduce the parity case to the case where the centers are an M-slice off. Then you fix it with Uw Fw' Bw Lw Fw Bw' Uw2 Rw2 Dw Rw Lw' Fw' Rw2.


This is quite impressive. I knew there were algorithms that should be able to fix the parity cases, but I wasn't sure how to construct them easily. How did you come up with this? Since I always use a T-perm to solve my corner-centraledge parity cases, I would need a different one. In any event, I really suspect I'm slow enough that this sort of solution would almost never be worth the effort for me. 



Sakarie said:


> I think it is a good idea to solve the centers, that's great!
> 
> But how do you, dbeyer and cmhardw, think when you claim that "Cubeorientation is unimportant! You might as well get a hard/good solve anyway!"
> 
> Why don't you say exactly the same thing for 5x5? Me myself, I think that you raise the chancesof getting a better solve if you do a better cube orientation. But I can't see why you think it do on 5x5, but not on 4x4?



You are of course exactly right. Chris indicated to me in a PM that Daniel was really just trying to make a point with hyperbole that 4x4x4 is not worth spending very much time choosing an orientation - you shouldn't spend very much time choosing. (In other words, even though Daniel said this, I don't think he really meant it - he was exaggerating.) I believe this is equally true with 5x5x5. When you get to 6x6x6 and 7x7x7, you can probably spend a little longer choosing orientation, since the savings are greater. But with 4x4x4 and 5x5x5, you can't afford to spend very long, and it's about equally important on both, based on my experiments. (However, it would be interesting to see someone actually do the math and calculate how much it really helps.)

*Here's how I think I'm going to try it the first time for 5x5x5 (either tonight or tomorrow):*
1. Orient the cube in my normal orientation. Then count the number of center pieces that are solved. If the count is 10 or greater, then I will probably not even try to do this - I will just use my normal orientation. If that many centers are solved, I suspect it's not worth the effort. (I thought about 11, but with experimentation, it seems like 10 is probably a really good number.) This takes me about 10 seconds, and it takes about 2 of those to orient the cube in the normal orientation. If I get 10 or greater, I'll write this one off as a case where I lose by trying this - I will be 8 seconds slower because I wasted time counting centers. A shame, but not too bad.
2. Memorize centers and edges as normal for 5x5x5.
3. Memorize center fix. I've worked out a simple way to do this using an image, so I can use this comfortably for multis on big cubes. But I think I may not need it for a single 5x5x5, based on my experiments so far.
4. Memorize corners.
5. Pull on blindfold.
6. Solve corners.
7. Do center fix.
8. Solve the rest normally.

I've tried about 10 attempts doing steps 1 and 3-7 (skipping steps 2 and 8), and it takes me an average of about 1:40 to do all of that, of which about a minute is the corners. I suspect that's a win over solving the extra centers, so I'm going to give it a try.

Chris or Daniel, any suggestions on a better approach? I really think this could work okay for me. I'm still not sure it's going to save me much time on average, but it seems like it will probably save me a little, so it's worth trying it for a while.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how this works out on 7x7x7, though. It seems like it could help a lot there!


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Nov 29, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > With M S M' S' and similar trivial algorithms, and M' E2 M E2 and similar you can always reduce the parity case to the case where the centers are an M-slice off. Then you fix it with Uw Fw' Bw Lw Fw Bw' Uw2 Rw2 Dw Rw Lw' Fw' Rw2.
> ...


Cube explorer 

With some more effort I could probably find a faster and easier to memorize algorithm, but this should do for now. For me the concept of being able to solve the parity at all is more important now, making it fast will come later


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 30, 2009)

Indeed. I used to count centers solved, and look for solved wings. Now I just accept that this is what my expected value is.

I can attain the expected value of 8 solved x-centers by a simple method. Permute a 1x2 block or "/" diagonal of x-centers. Then I preserve this block, and rotate about that axis to solve another 1x2 block or "/" diagonal block.

There I've solved 4 cubies. Now I expect another 4+ cubies to solve themselves on the other 4 faces. Which is reasonable. I expect that the other 4 faces each contain one of their proper x-centers.

On a 4x4, there are 3 independent variables.
x-centers, wings, and corners.

You are able to reduce the image count, and solve time quite simply by orienting the non-super cube to solve large amounts of x-centers.

By orienting the cube state to solve x-centers before memorization, your expected value of wings and corner permutations remain the same.

using the same system as described before, and applying it to +centers you have the same expected value of solved pieces, ignoring other portions of the cube.

You can find an orientation for +centers that solves an average of 8+ cubies.
Likewise for x-centers. However, when you take these two variables, and center point permutations into account, and only being able to choose one orientation, you are do not have the net expected value of 16+ center cubies solved.

When you use the simple system for non-parity centre point permutations, you are able to increase your gains in solved cubies. Meanwhile, during these center optimizations, you are maintaining the basic structure of your amd expected value of solved cubies on the wings, centrals, an corners.

All 12 orientations without center parity, the solving structure will be different, but the other parity structures remain the same.

Anyway, good luck.
I just was overexagerating the random toss up approach. By solving blocks, you can know that you've increased your chances of meeting or exceeding the expected value of solved cubies.

Later,
DB


----------



## dbeyer (Dec 2, 2009)

5x5x5 Blindfolded
1. Uw B' Bw L B D Uw' Rw' D' Rw' U F L2 Fw U' Rw2 R B2 R Uw U' Lw' B2 Rw B' Dw2 R' D' U2 Lw Rw Dw B' L2 B2 Dw' B2 L2 D U' Fw' L' Lw Rw' Bw2 Uw B2 Dw2 Fw Rw Dw' Uw' R Uw Lw R' Uw2 Rw2 Uw 

Scrambling from the Official orientation. White U / Green F.
I solve with the color scheme Red U / Blue F. I chose orienting to Blue U / White F. (So x' cube rotation)

ME'M'E -- Solving Centers.

U' lul' U lu'l'; Urb -> Ubl -> Lub
b2 r'F2r b2 r'F2r; Urb -> Ful -> Dlb
f'U2f u f'U2f u'; Urb -> Ruf -> Bur
b UfU' b' Uf'U; Urb -> Lfu -> Rdb
U2lU' r2 Ul'U' r2 U'; Urb -> Dbr -> Blu
Bw r2 BwlBw' r2 Bwl'Bw2; Urb -> Fdr -> Brd
ldl' U2 ld'l' U2; Urb -> Lbd -> Ulf
r'd2r U r'd2r U'; Urb -> Bdl -> Ufr

x-centers complete, 8 commutators, 65 moves.

U' Mu'M' U MuM'; Ur -> Lu -> Ub
U f2 US'U' f2 USU2; Ur -> Ru -> Df
yM2 U'r'U M2 U'r(4D); Ur -> Lb -> Dl
r'Er U2 r'E'r U2; Ur -> Ul -> Lf
U M' uR'u' M uRUw'; Ur -> Bu -> Rb
r' ER2E' r2 ER2E r'; Ur -> Dr -> Fl
r BM'B' r' BMB'; Ur -> Br -> Uf
ER'E' r' ERE' r; Ur -> Rd -> Fr
D'r2D M D'r2D M'; Ur -> Db -> Fd
U M' UlU' M Ul'U2; Ur -> Bl -> Fd

+centers complete, 10 commutators, 83 moves

L2B'L b L'BL b' L; URb -> DBr -> LFu (9
RF'R' b' RFR' b; URb -> DFl -> RDb (8
r2Dr U rD'r U' r; URb -> LDf -> BUr (9
UF'U' b2 UFU' b2; URb -> DLb -> RFd (8
l'D2l U' l'D2l U; URb -> FDr -> UBl (8
f R2 fL2f' R2 fL2f2; Urb -> RUf -> LUb (9 brealomg into new cycle
L'b2L B2 L'b2L B2; URb -> BLu -> BRd (8
R'F2R b' R'F2R b; URb -> LUb -> FLd (8 breaking into a new cycle
U'lU R U'l'U R'; URb -> FRu -> BDl (8
r' F2 Db'D' F2 DbD' r; URb -> FUl -> UFr (10
y U' R U'l2U R' Ul2U2 y'; URb -> DRf -> RBu (8
d L'U2L d' L'U2L; URb -> LBd -> FLd (8

wings complete, 12 commutators, 101 moves.

y U MD'M' U' MDM' y'; UR -> BD -> UB
U MD2M' U' MD2M'; UR -> UF -> DF
E' FUF' E FU'F'; UR -> FR -> LF
R BMB' R' BM'B' ; UR -> BR -> LB
L E'RE L' E'R'E; UR -> LD -> LB

yM' U2MU2 M' U2M.y' R'E'R U2 R'ER (cancellations of U2.y' U2 = U4y' = y')
*Centers Solved -- Using non supercube safe alg.
R2 y M'UM'UM'U2 MUMUMU2 y' R2
Edges complete, 7 commutators, 55 moves. (5 commutators + 1 alg, 54 moves.)

F R2 FL2F' R2 FL2F2; URB -> RUF -> LUB
B R2 BL'B' R2 BLB2; URB -> FDR -> BRD
yR2 DL'D' R2 DL(4U)' y; URB -> DLB -> LFU
U' R' D2 R'UR D2 R'U'R2 U; URB -> FLD -> DRF

Corners complete, 4 commutators, 35 moves.

Every set of pieces averaged sub-9 turns per commutator.
8.27 moves/commutator. 41 commutators.
4 additional moves to solve centers.
343 moves. Cube complete.

This is my system. Chris would solve very similarly. Enjoy.
Later,
DB


----------



## dbeyer (Dec 2, 2009)

Oh comparing methods. 
M2,r2,U2 + 2-cycle corners vs BH.
Trying-to-speedcube's example. 728 moves.
My example. 343 moves. 

I used half the moves ... rightfully so too based on the concepts of the methods.
I didn't have parities. I actually was fortunate to have 0 parities. However, still compare the move count. This isn't a hard system.

Ehh ... oh well
Later,
DB


----------



## Jude (Dec 7, 2009)

Ok, I have a question about 4x4x4 centre commutators, I hope this is the right place to ask it.

I just solve 2 at a time doing 3 cycles, starting with the buffer Ubl.

My question is, what do I do if my first cycle goes something like Ubl --> Lub --> Ubl? Normally what I do is I make it Ubl --> Lub --> Uxy where Uxy is a piece that is already correct on the U face. For the first time ever today however, I had a scramble where the best place to hold it had 0 correct centres on the U face, so I wasn't sure what to do. In the end I did Ubr (which was a piece of the same colour as Ubl) --> Lub --> Ubl and then started my next cycle with the buffer piece Ubr. However, at the end of the solve I was just 2 centres off (one of which was Ubl) so I thought what I did might not work.

Hope I made that clear, thanks.


----------



## peterbat (Dec 7, 2009)

Jude said:


> Ok, I have a question about 4x4x4 centre commutators, I hope this is the right place to ask it.
> 
> I just solve 2 at a time doing 3 cycles, starting with the buffer Ubl.
> 
> ...



You can either start with the next piece over (like Ubr) as your buffer, and then use a three cycle at the end (your U-layer centers will be done at that point). Or you could not change buffers and do a cycle

Ubl --> Lub -->(some random center that needs to be solved).

That's breaking into a new cycle. You just have to remember to close off the cycle at the end with the same (some random center) you started with. You may have to do this more than once:

Ubl --> Lub --> (random center 1)
...
Ubl --> (random center 1 ) --> (random center 2)
...
Ubl --> (blah) --> (random center 2)

Or you may end up with

...
Ubl --> (random center)

at the very end. But if it's at the very end, all the other U face centers will be solved at that point, so you can just use one of those in your last cycle.

That make sense?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 7, 2009)

Whenever I hit my buffer face with the second piece in a pair, I just keep going as if I didn't. So I would have done Ubl (which is my starting buffer piece) -> Lub -> Ubr, and then keep going with Ubl as my buffer for the next pair, using the piece that's at Ubr.

If I hit my buffer piece with the first piece in the next pair, I just stop there and start with the new piece as my buffer piece. So I use floating buffers - I move them each time I hit this. I like this because it means I have 1/2 commutator less to do each time this happens. (Of course, it's only really a savings with an even number of them - I have to get 2 cases like this to save a commutator.) But as a result, on a typical 4x4x4 BLD, I seem to average somewhere between 1 and 2 commutators saved. And the way I memorize, it really doesn't cost me anything on memorization. I've tried to convince Chris this is a good way to go, but I can't seem to convince him - I guess with his memory technique, it's not as clearly a win.


----------



## blah (Dec 7, 2009)

peterbat said:


> Ubl --> (blah) --> (random center 2)


Huh?


----------



## dbeyer (Dec 7, 2009)

I can actually see how that would save moves on centers.
However, I still suggest keeping a buffer for the other piece types.



Later,
DB


----------



## dbeyer (Dec 7, 2009)

Choosing an orientation with less U centers solved would actually heighten the chances of commutators saved (as long as you can find an orientation that solves an equal amount as a dominate U layer orienation). You would have to solve more U centers. Which each U layer center, not permuted has an equal chance of being the middle or the end piece in a cycle.
Such that;
[Buffer -> Middle -> End].
You also still chance that the very last cycle is a 2-swap (But solved in 3-cycles).

Oh guys, check this thought out.
Centers, I know you all probably use U layer centers to for your buffer reference.

Check out this thought.
Perhaps B/F face buffers?
Pros--
Insertions on the L/R face. Such as u'[R]u to insert the R sticker to the Fru.
Toss up cases on the U layer. such as rU2r' to insert the U sticker to the Fru.
Easy interchanging on the u/r slices.
those fast 11 move cases can just be rotated with x to set the Fru to the Urb.
On 4x4 here is a few fast cases.
r' (3F)'l(3F) r (3F)'l'(3F)
u (3L)d'(3L)' u' (3L)d(3L)'

Anyway ... 
Later,
DB


----------



## Jude (Dec 7, 2009)

peterbat said:


> Jude said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I have a question about 4x4x4 centre commutators, I hope this is the right place to ask it.
> ...





Mike Hughey said:


> Whenever I hit my buffer face with the second piece in a pair, I just keep going as if I didn't. So I would have done Ubl (which is my starting buffer piece) -> Lub -> Ubr, and then keep going with Ubl as my buffer for the next pair, using the piece that's at Ubr.
> 
> If I hit my buffer piece with the first piece in the next pair, I just stop there and start with the new piece as my buffer piece. So I use floating buffers - I move them each time I hit this. I like this because it means I have 1/2 commutator less to do each time this happens. (Of course, it's only really a savings with an even number of them - I have to get 2 cases like this to save a commutator.) But as a result, on a typical 4x4x4 BLD, I seem to average somewhere between 1 and 2 commutators saved. And the way I memorize, it really doesn't cost me anything on memorization. I've tried to convince Chris this is a good way to go, but I can't seem to convince him - I guess with his memory technique, it's not as clearly a win.




Ah, thanks very much guys. So (assuming white is on top), if the first white piece we find is only the 2nd in a cycle, we don't put it into Ubl but actually Ubr, then just continue until our cycle is done. Then, when we start the next cycle instead of starting from Ubr as I normally start my 2nd cycle, I start from Ufr (where I start my 3rd). I think as I typed that out it came out wrong and I may have over complicated it, but I understood what you two have said.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 7, 2009)

dbeyer said:


> Oh guys, check this thought out.
> Centers, I know you all probably use U layer centers to for your buffer reference.


Yes, I certainly do.



dbeyer said:


> Check out this thought.
> Perhaps B/F face buffers?
> Pros--
> Insertions on the L/R face. Such as u'[R]u to insert the R sticker to the Fru.
> ...


Cool idea. Not sure I have the energy to research it immediately, but it is a cool idea! Actually, the thing that was most motivating me on that idea earlier was 6x6x6 BLD. I have the mod with the glued pieces, but without the pins, so I have the problem with the center coming out of alignment. The way my cube is rigged, and the way I hold my cube, that means the slice turn around the F/B axis is the one that can get out of alignment. (Which incidentally means I'm always kind of cheating on 6x6x6 BLD - once my inner centers are solved, I can immediately tell whether or not my cube is properly oriented by which slice comes out of alignment. ) So if I can choose pieces such that I minimize inner f/b slice turns, I win big.


----------



## peterbat (Dec 7, 2009)

blah said:


> peterbat said:
> 
> 
> > Ubl --> (blah) --> (random center 2)
> ...



Right. But if blah is already solved, shoot to waffle=ijm.

EDIT:



Mike Hughey said:


> Whenever I hit my buffer face with the second piece in a pair, I just keep going as if I didn't. So I would have done Ubl (which is my starting buffer piece) -> Lub -> Ubr, and then keep going with Ubl as my buffer for the next pair, using the piece that's at Ubr.



That's what I do too -- I don't know why I just started to describe breaking into a new cycle (which I only do once all the U layer centers are solved). So when all my U layer centers are solved, I start a new cycle somewhere else. Suppose Lfu is unsolved, and has to go to Dbr. I would then *still* use Ubl as my buffer, and perform the commutator Ubl --> Lfu --> Dbr, even though Ubl is already solved. This isn't as efficient as what Mike does (he would just use Lfu as his buffer, if I'm understanding him correctly), but it's marginally more brainless, and I take brainless whenever I can get it (for now at least)


----------



## Sakarie (Dec 7, 2009)

Why do you want to change buffer all the time? So when you gets to shoot to another place in your bufferside, let's say the U-face, you might save 1 letter/image for every time, which means that you might save 4 letters. But that's only if they're are the first in a cycle, which means that you in average saves 2 letters/images, saving one commutator. 

The cons are that 
1. You still have to memorize that you chang buffer, which means that there's still som memorizing to do.

2. You have to learn how to do commutators from all of the U-face centers. It might not be hard, but I would think there's more to gain if you know the commutators from one center very fast, instead of saving very little (in my eyes), for knowing them from everywhere?

I do not use this tecnique myself, so there might be some misunderstanding and misthoughts from my side. Just to make sure, this is no accusation at the method, it's just a question, since I don't understand.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 7, 2009)

It's a good question, and those two reasons are the reasons Chris doesn't do it. (Mainly the first reason.)

But for me:
1. The extra memorization isn't extra at all. I already "waste" a person at each location which tells which buffer it is, and I find that that takes almost zero time to memorize.
2. Since I don't do BH for centers, but instead do intuitive commutators with setup moves, and I've practiced moving buffers for so long, I find that they're just as fast to do from any buffer.

So I guess it needs to be like it is for me in order to pay off any. But I like it.


----------



## Pitzu (Dec 23, 2009)

I was interested in making a statistics like this:
Rubik's Cube: Blindfolded until 2005 All Persons
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ars=until+2005&show=All+Persons&single=Single
32 persons

Rubik's Cube: Blindfolded until 2006 All Persons
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ars=until+2006&show=All+Persons&single=Single
91 persons

4x4 Cube: Blindfolded until (almost)2009 All Persons
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ars=until+2009&show=All+Persons&single=Single
38 persons

4x4 Cube: Blindfolded until 2010 All Persons
What do you think?


----------



## MatsBergsten (Dec 27, 2009)

Pitzu said:


> I was interested in making a statistics like this:
> Rubik's Cube: Blindfolded until 2005 All Persons
> 32 persons
> Rubik's Cube: Blindfolded until 2006 All Persons
> ...



Do you want to guess / estimate the number of persons that will have solved
the 4x4 BLD after 2010? And do you want my guess or do you want a comment
on whether it is possible to use the statistics from 3x3 BLD as an estimator?

My guess is 50. 
My opinion is that the 3x3 statistics does not help much. If you want to use it,
why not take the growth from 2008 to 2009 then?


----------



## MatsBergsten (Dec 27, 2009)

dbeyer said:


> Now, solving the 3 cycles. Its very intuitive, and can be solved using 4 moves, and no cube rotations. We are going to use M and E turns, to solve these other 8 cases.



I have now tried to understand and use this (once in the Forum comp and failed )

But what I fail to find in your explanations are the cases *with* parity. To rotate three centres and double along M2/E2/S2 is easy (that is change orientation within the subgroups (?) with/without parity). But how do you swap from a parity case to one without parity during orientation.


----------



## Sakarie (Dec 27, 2009)

MatsBergsten said:


> dbeyer said:
> 
> 
> > Now, solving the 3 cycles. Its very intuitive, and can be solved using 4 moves, and no cube rotations. We are going to use M and E turns, to solve these other 8 cases.
> ...




Why all this talk about orientation? You're not supposed to orient the centers?

To answer what I think is your actual question, I think you just have to apply an algorithm. If you have "centers/corner/middle-edges-parity" (since it's actually the same thing, just variants of on another) you have to not solve the centers, and afterwards apply an algorithm changing the pieces you want to. Changing a fourcycle of centers and two corners ain't that hard, and can be done with the algorithm trying-to-speedcube mentioned Uw Fw' Bw Lw Fw Bw' Uw2 Rw2 Dw Rw Lw' Fw' Rw2.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 30, 2009)

I'm new to big cube BLD and solved a 4x4x4BLD for the first time yesterday (yay!). Currently I make up phrases using letters for centres and I find that really easy. For edges I've been memorizing number sequences - this takes quite a while (as the numbers go up to 24!), and although it's not a problem for me to recall the numbers it takes far longer than memorizing my centres. I'm worried that if I try doing letters for edges as well I'll start mixing up centes and edges when I recall. Has anyone got any tips for not confusing centre and edge memos whilst using the same memo method for both?


----------



## MatsBergsten (Dec 30, 2009)

kinch2002 said:


> I'm new to big cube BLD and solved a 4x4x4BLD for the first time yesterday (yay!). Currently I make up phrases using letters for centres and I find that really easy. For edges I've been memorizing number sequences - this takes quite a while (as the numbers go up to 24!), and although it's not a problem for me to recall the numbers it takes far longer than memorizing my centres. I'm worried that if I try doing letters for edges as well I'll start mixing up centes and edges when I recall. Has anyone got any tips for not confusing centre and edge memos whilst using the same memo method for both?



First: congratulations!
Secondly, I use exactly the scheme with letters for cubies and make silly sentences
on the fly. I also use the same set for both centres and edges (and corners on Multi). 
I have not mixed them up, you probably have a little visual help to keep them apart
(at least I have). For 5x5 I use two sets (men / women) for the different types of centres. 
Only when I tried 6x6 BLD and 7x7 BLD did it start to get confusing (a little).


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 30, 2009)

Thanks Mats, I'll assign letters to my edges as well and try that system tomorrow. I've had 33 and 26 mins as my two solves but hopefully I'm getting much quicker at setting up/doing commutators every time. I had a think about 5x5x5BLD today and most of it seems pretty similar to 4x4x4BLD so I might even try that in the next few days.


----------



## joelwong (Mar 28, 2010)

*how to memo 4x4 edges*

since there are two edges, i do not understand how the youtube guy memos the edges. Let us say i hold the cube with green top yellow front the piece in the buffer is red of red green. how do i know which one needs to be solved after it??

help please


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Mar 28, 2010)

Your buffer is DFr, right?

In your head do 2 possible ways to put that piece in its spot; in this case you could do F' R, or you could do D R2. D R2 puts the piece in URf with red on top and green on the right, which isn't what you want. So the correct move would be F' R, which puts the piece in URb with green on top and red on the right. So the piece has to go to URb.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 21, 2010)

*memo/execution sequence*

Due to a lot of dnf's lately I started thinking about the sequence of which I do memo/execution. At the moment I do it in this order:

Memo:
wingedges
x centers
+ centers
middle edges
corners
(middle centers)

Execution:
(middle centers)
Corners
Middle edges
+ centers
x centers
wingedges
(corner/edge parity)

It happens a lot that I forget part of the memo for wing edges or that I get some huge memo pausing with them. This has caused at least half of my dnf'ing lately.

How are your thoughts on the sequence of memo/execution? Would it be better to execute in the same order as memo?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 21, 2010)

I've always liked going in reverse order, as you do. My order for 5x5x5 BLD is:

Memo:
choose orientation and memorize it (middle centers)
central edges
+ centers
wings
X centers
corners

Execution:
corners
(middle centers)
X centers
wings
+ centers
edge parity
central edges
corner parity

It's a little funny, I guess. I do middle centers after corners because I memorize an image for my middle centers, and it sticks pretty well, while the corners are something I want to have be purely short-term memory, so I don't want anything between memorizing and executing them. I should probably execute + centers before wings, but I've gotten used to this and I haven't bothered to change. With 7x7x7 BLD, I always do all the centers first and then the wings, so I can do edge parity right away after doing the wings (so I don't have to remember to do it later). I might try that on my next 5x5x5 BLD solve - it shouldn't be that hard to switch.


----------



## kinch2002 (Apr 21, 2010)

My order is
Memo:
+ centres
x centres
wings
middle edges
corners

Execute:
corners
+ centres
x centres
wings
edge parity
middle edges
corner parity

So I basically execute in the same order as I memo apart from corners. I find I don't have much problem recalling any particular set any more than the others, because they're all being memoed for the same amount of time. I've been thinking about switching some stuff to be backwards so that it will be fairly short term - possibly making middle edge execution straight after corners, but I think I'd then get problems with non-centre-safe algs (for m-slice pieces). As it is, I'm happy enough.

I have a bigcubebld-related question too...I use r2 for wings, and do the really slow way of doing the l-slice wings (moving to UBl using l-slice, then flipping the edge using B' U R' B U', r2, flip edge back, then undo first move). I hate doing this because I can't even turn the algs fast and I'm sure they're extremely inefficient. Is there any way of doing these pieces (presumably paired with the next/previous piece) without using on-the-fly comms?


----------



## DaijoCube (Apr 21, 2010)

BLD big cubes is amazing. My only question : can anyone do it, or you must be an authist to memo so many cubes?!

I did 222 BLD in less than an hour. I watched a tutorial for 333 BLD, but did not have the time to attempt the solve. I'm scared for the 3x3x3 already


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 21, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> BLD big cubes is amazing. My only question : can anyone do it, or you must be an authist to memo so many cubes?!



Absolutely anyone can do it. All it takes is some interest to keep trying, and learning good techniques for it (all available on this forum).

Chris


----------



## TMOY (Apr 21, 2010)

For 5^3 BLD, I use the following order:

Memo:
midges orientation
midges permutation
wings
centers (+ and x together)
corners orientation
corners permutation

Execution:
corners orientation
corners permutation
midges orientation
midges permutation
wings (including parity)
centers (+ and x together)
corners/midges parity

Since I tend to forget to execute the corners/midges parity at the end, I will probably switch to executing it during the midges permutation. The fact that it messes up one unsolved center is not a problem as long as I keep track of it (with a slignt adaptation of my 4^3 corners parity alg, I get a J-perm on corners+midges which has as a side effect a J-perm on the U center).


----------



## joey (Apr 21, 2010)

DaijoCube said:


> My only question : can anyone do it, or you must be an *authist* to memo so many cubes?!



What word are you trying to say here?


----------



## DaijoCube (Apr 21, 2010)

joey said:


> DaijoCube said:
> 
> 
> > My only question : can anyone do it, or you must be an *authist* to memo so many cubes?!
> ...



Some word I wanted to translate myself from french to english 

Obviously, I failed.


----------



## joey (Apr 21, 2010)

I was just hoping it wasn't "autistic" or something :/


----------



## Micael (Apr 21, 2010)

joey said:


> I was just hoping it wasn't "autistic" or something :/



I speak french and I am sorry to confirm it Joey, he should mean "autistic".

@DaijoCube: The first time I saw a bld solve, I thought the guy had something special. Now I think that anyone can do it.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Apr 22, 2010)

[email protected]

Anyway, my order for 5x5BLD is:

Memo:
+-centers
x-centers
Centrals
Wings
Corners

Solve:
Corners
+-centers
x-centers
Centrals
(parity)
Wings
(parity)


----------



## Sakarie (Apr 22, 2010)

I memo

Corners
Middle edges
Wings
x-centers
+-centers
(centers)

Execute 
(centers) 
x-centers
+-centers
corners
middle edges
parity
wings


----------



## Parity (Apr 26, 2010)

I watched BYU 4x4x4 BLD video and he didn't show how to memorize.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 26, 2010)

Parity said:


> I watched BYU 4x4x4 BLD video and he didn't show how to memorize.



If you don't know how to memorize, don't even bother.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Apr 26, 2010)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=785


----------



## Parity (Apr 26, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Parity said:
> 
> 
> > I watched BYU 4x4x4 BLD video and he didn't show how to memorize.
> ...


It is different then memorizing 3x3x3.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 26, 2010)

Not really.


----------



## Parity (Apr 26, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Not really.



That statement is still implying that they are.


----------



## Zane_C (Apr 26, 2010)

Parity said:


> I watched BYU 4x4x4 BLD video and he didn't show how to memorize.



I'm pretty sure he did, in part 3. Only briefly though and only the centers.


----------



## Zane_C (May 1, 2010)

When orienting the 4x4 to get the most centers solved. 
Does anyone know in the best orientation what is the minumum amount of centers to be solved on a scramble? Did that make sense.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (May 1, 2010)

I think you meant: What is the minimum number of centers you can solve on a 4x4 with optimal reorienting?


----------



## Zane_C (May 1, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> I think you meant: What is the minimum number of centers you can solve on a 4x4 with optimal reorienting?


Yes I think so.


----------



## MatsBergsten (May 1, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> trying-to-speedcube... said:
> 
> 
> > I think you meant: What is the minimum number of centers you can solve on a 4x4 with optimal reorienting?
> ...



If you just want an answer, I'd say 4 or 5 (from experience combined with some thinking, but no proof)


----------



## Zane_C (May 1, 2010)

MatsBergsten said:


> Zane_C said:
> 
> 
> > trying-to-speedcube... said:
> ...


Yeah that sounds reasonable, thanks.


----------



## Sakarie (May 1, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> MatsBergsten said:
> 
> 
> > Zane_C said:
> ...



I remember Istvan saying it was 5, don't know if he was correct thou.


----------



## Slash (Jun 4, 2010)

Sorry if someone have asked it before me, but I'm too lazy to read back.
So, how do you do reorienting on 5x5? I mean, the parity cases. I know the M'EME' types and the EM2E'M2 types, and I know an alg for void cube which swaps 2 edges and four centers on M slice, but it messes up my centers (MU'MU'MUMUMU2MUMU)
It's enough if you give me a link of the earlier post(s) about it.
Thanx


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 4, 2010)

I don't think anyone reorients to anything other than a non parity case.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 4, 2010)

masterofthebass said:


> I don't think anyone reorients to anything other than a non parity case.



That's certainly true for me. To me the big breakthrough that led to my using reorienting on 5x5x5 was the realization that you could quickly and easily determine what the non-parity cases were, and then only consider those cases when reorienting.


----------



## Slash (Jun 4, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone reorients to anything other than a non parity case.
> ...



Thank you. I thought that too because you've always said that reorienting is very easy. Although I think I'll try to think about parity algs on sooo boring lessons in the next 1 week I still have to go to school


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 7, 2010)

I have a question:

Does anyone have a good method (other than just being good enough to remember what you've used) to find the last cycles for wings where there are multiple cycles? I have a good counting system based on my locations that allows me to easily figure out whether or not I'm missing any pieces, but then I sometimes have a terrible time actually finding those cycles. This past week I had a 23 minute 5x5x5 BLD attempt (normal for me is about 15 minutes) and two 12 minute 4x4x4 BLD attempts (normal is about 7 minutes), all because I spent 5 or 6 minutes just memorizing the wings. I really need to find a way to fix this.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jul 8, 2010)

This might be a bit far-fetched, but how about breaking down the 24 edges into for example 6 groups of 4 edges, and remembering which pieces in the group are have been memorized and which haven't with a hexadecimal system?

This probably would take a lot of time to master and would cut your usual time down, but it would also get rid of your very slow attempts.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I have a question:
> 
> Does anyone have a good method (other than just being good enough to remember what you've used) to find the last cycles for wings where there are multiple cycles? I have a good counting system based on my locations that allows me to easily figure out whether or not I'm missing any pieces, but then I sometimes have a terrible time actually finding those cycles. This past week I had a 23 minute 5x5x5 BLD attempt (normal for me is about 15 minutes) and two 12 minute 4x4x4 BLD attempts (normal is about 7 minutes), all because I spent 5 or 6 minutes just memorizing the wings. I really need to find a way to fix this.



Nah, that is a real hard one. When faced with this problem (not finding an unused edge) I scan through all edges visually (first upper layer, then middle and last down) and skipping those I have used already. Doing this I rely on a sort of combination of visual and "pure" memory (when this does not work I have to go through the memory cycle for each candidate and that takes time). So I'm also interested in a better "sieve".


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I have a question:
> 
> Does anyone have a good method (other than just being good enough to remember what you've used) to find the last cycles for wings where there are multiple cycles?



I would also be interested in this. I personally have a hierarchy of wing pseudo-buffers. Whenever a cycle ends with my main wing buffer I go to a secondary pseudo buffer and memorize a new cycle. Daniel has been trying to convince me to break into cycles, but I have not yet tried it. Probably laziness on my part, as from hearing Daniel talk about it I think it could definitely be fast.

Anyway, when I complete a cycle, but by my count I know a small cycle is left, I visually trace the cycles from each of my pseudo buffers until I encounter "new stuff". So I guess like Mats said I just use pure memory or visual memory. Since it's very likely that a lot of my pseudo buffers are contained in one cycle, or at least other cycles, sometimes I can narrow out whole groups of them quickly. Either way, though, it usually involves me visually tracing cycles on the cube multiple times before I discover the "left over" cycle(s). Not exactly super efficient in my opinion.

Chris


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jul 8, 2010)

How about tapping the pieces you _haven't_ memorized yet instead of the pieces you _have_ memorized? That just takes a little time and makes it a lot easier to find the last cycles.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jul 8, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I personally have a hierarchy of wing pseudo-buffers. Whenever a cycle ends with my main wing buffer I go to a secondary pseudo buffer and memorize a new cycle.



Sorry Chris, but I probably don't understand what you mean by this. If you choose a new buffer you must have the exact problem of (quickly) deciding if that one has been used in earlier cycles?? How does a hierarchy of buffers help? Could you please explain a little more.


----------



## blah (Jul 8, 2010)

How about going through every edge from A like normal people do? It really isn't that slow. In fact, it probably won't take more than a minute to find a wing that you haven't used...

Edit: Yes, especially good for you letter-pair people. You need to trace 3 wings max to know if you've already used it.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 8, 2010)

MatsBergsten said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > I personally have a hierarchy of wing pseudo-buffers. Whenever a cycle ends with my main wing buffer I go to a secondary pseudo buffer and memorize a new cycle.
> ...



Hey Mats,

I guess I never thought about it really. When testing a new pseudo-buffer I visually trace the cycles through and see if what I'm tracing seems familiar at all. I sometimes think about the images that would come up when using those letters, and sometimes I just focus on what "area" of the cube am I tracing. For example, am I mostly around the UFR corner, or the DFL corner? Or am I mostly closer to the U layer, or D layer?

Again, I'm not arguing *for* my method. I think my method is inefficient, and I am also interested in new approaches for this. Chester, I will have to try the alphabetical approach, as that seems even more systematic than my approach.

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 8, 2010)

Chester, it seems like your method and Chris's are very similar; it's just that you're more systematic about it than Chris is. I do something very similar to Chris, except that I actually break into new cycles instead of changing the buffer. I have standard pieces that I go to first when looking for a new cycle. The worst solves are ones where all my most common backup pieces get used and I'm casting around looking for more - I don't have a complete hierarchy that goes through all the pieces; instead I have a few that I always use.

I should probably really start using the alphabetical approach, at least for bad solves. It should at least prevent the 7 and 8 minute wing memo times.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike, slightly off topic, but I've been thinking about this a lot as well. How do you memorize the central edges and corners on a 5x5x5? Do you use the exact same method as what you use for 3x3x3? I recently read that you visualize your images for 3x3x3, but not within a journey location. I might have to try this as well, though I think it might feel a bit weird to not be using my journeys at first.

I have been using my single syllable words for both central edges and corners when doing a 5x5x5, but I end up with a phrase that is longer than the 10 second auditory memory loop - and this defeats the whole purpose of using single syllable words in the first place.

After reading your recent posts I've debated trying to visualize my edge images in black space, pretty much what I think you're doing for 3x3x3, and then continue to use single syllable words for the corners.

Does that sound like a viable approach to you, based on your experience? Of course you don't have to answer if your approach is secret, but I figured I would ask 

Chris


----------



## LarsN (Jul 8, 2010)

I've had a few DNF's or long solves because of trouble finding the last wings too. It hasn't happened a lot lately, but I think that's because it's faster to go over the cube visually and find wings that aren't memo'ed yet.

I've just started to use a special person/action memo for the first 8 wings, and I've experienced that it is harder for me to find the missing last cycle because I don't have the first 8 visually in my memo. But it helps my solves because wings are the first part I memorize and the last part I execute.

I don't have an idea for a good system that helps with this problem. Just wanted to share my experience


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 8, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Mike, slightly off topic, but I've been thinking about this a lot as well. How do you memorize the central edges and corners on a 5x5x5? Do you use the exact same method as what you use for 3x3x3? I recently read that you visualize your images for 3x3x3, but not within a journey location. I might have to try this as well, though I think it might feel a bit weird to not be using my journeys at first.


I do corners the same on 5x5x5 as on 3x3x3 - auditory loop (like you), memorizing at the end and solving at the beginning. For central edges, I put them in long-term memory locations, same as with wings and centers. I memorize the central edges first and solve them last, so they're actually my longest-term memory of all. I even do this on 7x7x7, so it's often 40 minutes to an hour between memorizing and solving them!



cmhardw said:


> I have been using my single syllable words for both central edges and corners when doing a 5x5x5, but I end up with a phrase that is longer than the 10 second auditory memory loop - and this defeats the whole purpose of using single syllable words in the first place.


It's funny how I just slowly moved into an auditory solving method for corners. I didn't really set out to do it, but it just sort of happened. I have still never set up a single syllable word list, but I use abbreviated versions of most of my long images, so it works almost as well; probably half of my images are represented by single syllables when doing corners. I should probably stop being lazy and memorize a proper list - it would probably save a second or two off the average solve for corners, which would be significant for 3x3x3.



cmhardw said:


> After reading your recent posts I've debated trying to visualize my edge images in black space, pretty much what I think you're doing for 3x3x3, and then continue to use single syllable words for the corners. Does that sound like a viable approach to you, based on your experience?


So as you can probably tell by now, that's pretty much exactly what I do, except that I don't have a properly-prepared single syllable word list. So yeah, I think it's viable.  For me, I make a single story for the edge images, all run together. The biggest problem for me is that sometimes that's pretty long, but I find that it cuts down so much on memory recall delays during the solve that it's worth doing. This was one of my biggest breakthroughs in multiBLD; I store a full story of all the edge images in a single location when doing multi (but at a proper location in multi, whereas it's with no location in singles).



cmhardw said:


> Of course you don't have to answer if your approach is secret, but I figured I would ask


Don't be silly - I don't keep method secrets. I like talking about the methods far too much to ever do that.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 8, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I memorize the central edges first and solve them last, so they're actually my longest-term memory of all. I even do this on 7x7x7, so it's often 40 minutes to an hour between memorizing and solving them!



Wow, I didn't realize that you memo'd and solved in that order for central edges! Are you using an ABCD memo and DCBA solving, palindromic I guess?



Mike Hughey said:


> I should probably stop being lazy and memorize a proper [single syllable word] list - it would probably save a second or two off the average solve for corners, which would be significant for 3x3x3.



If you do, avoid the mistake I did. Don't memorize a single syllable word list, but rather memorize two lists. For each letter pair, have an object and a verb. This way you can combine the phrases as object-verb-object-verb. I wish I had not made my list a hodge-podge of objects and verbs, and converting my single syllable word list to an object-verb list is my biggest future blindfold cubing goal. Sadly I am not very well on track for this though *cough*laziness*cough* :-s



Mike Hughey said:


> So as you can probably tell by now, that's pretty much exactly what I do, except that I don't have a properly-prepared single syllable word list. So yeah, I think it's viable.  For me, I make a single story for the edge images, all run together. The biggest problem for me is that sometimes that's pretty long, but I find that it cuts down so much on memory recall delays during the solve that it's worth doing. This was one of my biggest breakthroughs in multiBLD; I store a full story of all the edge images in a single location when doing multi (but at a proper location in multi, whereas it's with no location in singles).



That's reassuring, I might have to try that as well. I'll probably practice it on 3x3x3 until I get a bit more used to it, then transition it to my 5x5x5 solving as well.



Mike Hughey said:


> Don't be silly - I don't keep method secrets. I like talking about the methods far too much to ever do that.



Good to know, and yes I also share the same thought. I would much rather debate methods than keep them secret. The method I used to use before Daniel and I began discussing and sharing ideas on the way to BH was a lot less efficient than what I use now. Without collaborating with Daniel I would certainly be slower than I am now. Also, Mike I consider you the King of BLD, as your craziness and dedication to it I think are not closely matched by very many people. So, thanks for the advice, as I think you have more actual experience with BLD solving than most everyone, including me.

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 8, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > I memorize the central edges first and solve them last, so they're actually my longest-term memory of all. I even do this on 7x7x7, so it's often 40 minutes to an hour between memorizing and solving them!
> ...


Yes, I do that with almost everything. For multi, I solve the cubes in the reverse order of memorization. (Even for relays, and 7x7x7 multi.) And for the central edges, it makes it particularly nice, because all the centers are already solved, so I can use almost all the same algorithms that I use for 3x3x3, even though I do a lot of optimized ones. The only place where I have to be careful on bigger cubes with centrals is parity - there are a few cases where I can mess up centers if I do them the same as on 3x3x3. But they're easy to catch.



cmhardw said:


> Also, Mike I consider you the King of BLD, as your craziness and dedication to it I think are not closely matched by very many people.


*Chris Hardwick* just said *that* about *me*!?!?! My life is complete.


----------



## aronpm (Aug 8, 2010)

This thread needs a bump. 

Here are some 4x4 BLD example solves: (I probably wouldn't solve wings or corners exactly like this, _yet_ )

*Example solve #1:* 

Scramble: B' R' f r2 B R' F' u R2 f' U2 R u' F B' L r u2 B' u2 F D' u L2 r' B' L u f D' f' R2 u B f2 r' R2 L2 B f2


Spoiler



Orientation: z2 y'

Centers:
Ubr->Dfr->Flu: (U' l' U) r2 (U' l U) r2

Swap buffer to Ufl

Ufl->Rfu->Bru: x' (l' U l) d' (l' U' l) d x
Ufl->Fdl->Drb: x l (U' r U) l' (U' r' U) x'
Ufl->Lbu->Fru: L2 d (r U' r') d' (r U r') L2
Ufl->Bul->Lfu: x' F' d (r U' r') d' (r U r') F x
Ufl->Rdf->Ldb: y d2 (r' U r) d2 (r' U' r) y'
Ufl->Bld->Dbl: y2 x B2 u2 (l U l') u2 (l U' l') B2 x' y2

Ufl<->Lfd: y' r U l' U' r' U l U' y
Ubr<->Dlf: U' l2 U r2 U' l2 U r2

Wings:
DFr->LDb->BUl: U' L2 U' r U L2 U' r' U2
DFr->LUf->RBd: U' r U' R' U r' U R U2
DFr->DLf->LBu: B' U' L2 U r2 U' L2 U r2 B
DFr->DRb->FDl: l' U' R2 U' r2 U R2 U' r2 U2 l
DFr->URf->FUr: x U R' U' r U R U' r' x'
DFr->BRu->FLu: R' U' r2 U' L' U r2 U' L U2 R
DFr->BLd->RUb: L y U' L2 U r U' L2 U r' y' L'
DFr->FRd->RDf: R U' r2 B' R2 B r2 B' R2 B U R'
DFr->DBl->UBr: l B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B r2 l'
DFr->LFd->UBr: B L2 B' r2 B L2 B' r2
DFr->RFu->BDr: r2 U' R U r' U' R' U r'
DFr->ULb->RFu: R y U' L2 U r U' L2 U r' y' R'

Corners:
UBR->FRD->FUR: y D R' D' L D R D' L' y'
UBR->UFL->LDB: R D' R' U2 R D R' U2
UBR->DLF->FLU: x F R2 F' L F R2 F' L' x'
UBR->ULB->DBR: D2 L2 D R2 D' L2 D R2 D
UBR->LBU->URF: x' R' D' R U' R' D R U

Parity:
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U R U R' F'
y Uw2 Rw2 U2 r2 U2 Rw2 Uw2


Memo:


Spoiler



Centers: AJ VT BQ PR FO UM LH (visual memo for 2swaps) => probably something like "AJ is seeing the vet; someone is barbequeing a pear; a giant (FI FO FO FUM) is eating Leah"
Wings: MF OX IP QB SC TJ LW RU HE NE VG KV => "Uwe Meffert riding an Ox; IP-cops quibbling about something; scientists are fighting TJ; lawyer is solving with Roux; He-Man hurts his knee; *not gonna say this*"
Corners: RC DM IJ KQ P => "Rice damn injured koq p"



*Example solve #2:*

Scramble: F B' D2 u2 R u' B' F2 R' u f D2 U' R D' U2 r2 f2 F' D2 f L' B' r2 U2 r2 B' D B' R' F' L D2 R' f' r' B' u U' R' 


Spoiler



Orientation: x' y2

Centers:
Ubl->Fur->Dfr: x U' l U r U' l' U r' x'
Ubl->Rfu->Lbu: y l' U' l u2 l' U l u2 y'
Ubl->Bru->Ldb: x' u' l' U2 l u l' U2 l x
Ubl->Fdl->Rdf: y d l' U2 l d' l' U2 l y'
Ubl->Dlf->Rbd: yx d2 l' U l d2 l' U' l x'y'

Ubl<->Bdr: x' U' l' U r U' l U r' x
Ufl<->Frd: U' r U l' U' r' U l
Urf<->Dbl: U l2 U' r2 U l2 U' r2

Wings:
DFr->FDl->BUl: U2 l' U2 r2 B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B U2 l U2
DFr->DRb->ULb: U2 R2 U' r2 U R2 U' r2 U'
DFr->UBr->RFu: r2 B' R2 B r2 B' R2 B
DFr->URf->LUf: y' U R2 U' r U R2 U' r' y
DFr->LFd->FUr: U L' U' r U L U' r'
DFr->RUb->FLu: L' y r U' L2 U r' U' L2 U y' L
DFr->FRd->BDr: x z' R U2 R' u' R U2 R' u z x'
DFr->BRd->DBl: B2 U R' U' r2 U R U' r2 B2
DFr->RDf->LBu: R2 U r U L U' r' U L' U2 R2
DFr->LDb->BRu: R' L2 y' r U R2 U' r' U R2 U' y L2 R
DFr->UFl->DLf: U2 r2 U' L2 U r2 U' L2 U'

Corners:
UBR->FDL->DFR: z L2 U' L2 U L2 D2 L2 U' L2 U L2 D2 z'
UBR->RFU->DRB: z' R' F U2 F' R F R' U2 R F' z
UBR->BLD->LUF: F R' D2 R U R' D2 R U' F'
UBR & ULB: y (RUR'U')*2 L' (URU'R')*2 L

Parity:
D' L' F l' U2 l' U2 x U2 l' U2 x' r U2 r' U2 l2 F' L D


Hopefully there are no errors.


----------



## Zane_C (Aug 8, 2010)

Making examples looks like fun, I might do it sometime in the distant future.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 12, 2010)

Hey everyone,

I've been thinking about why I DNF 5x5 BLD so much recently, and I think I know a big part of it. I am not correctly applying setup turns, as well as the undoing of the setup turns. I often find that when I need to do a double turn setup turn that I do a quarter turn only, or vice versa. Also, sometimes I do the setup turn, and then when I am supposed to undo it I actually reapply the same setup turn rather than undoing it.

I know that practice will fix this, but I am trying to figure a way to make this portion of the solve more accurate. I find that I don't ever really seem to mess up the 9 mover, or 11 mover, cases as they are chunks of theory in my head. I fully understand how the setup moves cancel and apply to the core 8 move alg. However, the 10 move algs that are just straight setup, then 8 mover, then undo the setup seem to be the cause of my DNFs recently.

Has anyone else noticed a similar trend in their solves? Just trying to bring this up as a friendly discussion in case others are experiencing the same thing.

Chris


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Aug 12, 2010)

I think the best way to avoid this problem is to visualize the pieces you want to cycle in your head, and then to visualize the places you want the pieces to be for the 8-mover in your head.

Then you will easily see not only the correct setup move needed, but also how to undo the setup move. I think this will clear things up a lot. Maybe it will even speed up your solves because you won't have to remember which setup move you did; you can just visualize the setup and the undo apart from each other!


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 13, 2010)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> I think the best way to avoid this problem is to visualize the pieces you want to cycle in your head, and then to visualize the places you want the pieces to be for the 8-mover in your head.



Hey Maarten,

Thanks for the advice, and I will definitely try this on my next few solves. I guess I will try to take a "snapshot" of where the pieces start. Then imagine the core 8 move alg I need to use to execute them, and take a "snapshot" of that as well. I'll try to post how it goes after trying it a couple times. It only seems to be the 10 move cases from what I've seen. 9, 11, and 12 movers just don't seem to bother me, only 10 movers.

Chris


----------



## Keroma12 (Aug 13, 2010)

Could anybody give me a rough idea of how long it might take me to learn to do a 4x4x4 blindfolded? It took me about 5 days to figure out my method for 3x3x3 and my first success was my 5th. I now average around 8 minutes.

I know it's hard to judge this when you don't even know me, but a rough estimate and maybe some advice would be nice!


----------



## MrMoney (Aug 13, 2010)

Keroma12 said:


> Could anybody give me a rough idea of how long it might take me to learn to do a 4x4x4 blindfolded? It took me about 5 days to figure out my method for 3x3x3 and my first success was my 5th. I now average around 8 minutes.
> 
> I know it's hard to judge this when you don't even know me, but a rough estimate and maybe some advice would be nice!



Think of 444 BLD as 3 individual steps that include their own distinct methods for being solved. IF you want to be able to solve a 444 BLD you need to have basic understanding of many of the 3BLD methods.

The steps are as following:

Centres: Solved with commutators 
Edges: Solved with r2 
Corners: Solved like Old Pochman corners or even better BH commutators

In each of the steps you need to watch out for afew problems that might arise, and know how to tackle them. This includes parity in all the steps.

To even begin to grasp 4BLD, learn abit about 3BLD using commutators for corners and M2 for edges


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 13, 2010)

Keroma12 said:


> Could anybody give me a rough idea of how long it might take me to learn to do a 4x4x4 blindfolded? It took me about 5 days to figure out my method for 3x3x3 and my first success was my 5th. I now average around 8 minutes.
> 
> I know it's hard to judge this when you don't even know me, but a rough estimate and maybe some advice would be nice!



One general rule of thumb for big cubes blindfolded as well: the more prep-work you do beforehand, the easier each individual solve will be. This mostly applies to your memory methods. You can just memorize each solve visually by tapping the pieces and remembering the shapes that they trace out. If you have a strong natural memory then this method works just fine. If you're memory is not naturally as strong, you can spend some time beforehand prepping a structured memory method and this will help make each individual solve easier to do.

You can, for the most part, expand your usual 3x3x3 BLD method to fit the 4x4x4. Start off by telling us which 3x3x3 method you use for both corners and edges. We can start you off from there.

Chris


----------



## Keroma12 (Aug 13, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> You can, for the most part, expand your usual 3x3x3 BLD method to fit the 4x4x4. Start off by telling us which 3x3x3 method you use for both corners and edges. We can start you off from there.
> 
> Chris



I figured out my method on my own for 3x3, but I've been told it is old pochmann: I orientate the edges and corners, then solve the corners 1 at a time while swapping two edges each time, then solve the edges 1 at a time while swapping two corners each time.

I'd like to figure out my own method for 4x4 too (I got into cubing because of the challenge of figuring stuff out, not for speed), and I am sure I can do the centres and corners. The only thing troubling me is how to go about the edges. Some tips would be nice (what order to do stuff or something), but please don't tell me exactly what to do; that takes the fun out of it !

Thanks MrMoney and Chris!


----------



## riffz (Aug 13, 2010)

Keroma12 said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > You can, for the most part, expand your usual 3x3x3 BLD method to fit the 4x4x4. Start off by telling us which 3x3x3 method you use for both corners and edges. We can start you off from there.
> ...



Okay. I have to say this, whether it is helpful to this discussion or not. You DO NOT need to orient pieces when using Old Pochmann. It is a huge waste of time and incorporates the weaknesses of both Old Pochmann and 3OP.

If you are planning to learn 4x4 BLD, I would recommend that you learn how to use M2 for edges in 3BLD, because r2 is pretty much the exact same thing and is a VERY easy way to solve edges on a 4x4.


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 17, 2010)

*4x4 BLD execution example:*



Zane_C said:


> Making examples looks like fun, I might do it sometime in the distant future.



This is an example 4x4 BLD solve hence the title, there are a lot of moves that could be made more finger trick friendly, but to make it simpler I've left out some rotations I would normally use.

My memo is quite bad, so don't expect a memo demo.

*Scramble:* (Scramble in the orientation you would normally solve in)
D Uw' U' Rw' Fw' F2 U R2 Fw' F L Rw Fw' F D2 Uw U' F' L R U' Rw' Fw2 Uw' Fw R B2 Fw R D2 Rw' B2 Uw U Rw' U' L2 B' D' L'

*Orientation:*
z' y2

*Corners: (BH)* (These corners are center friendly so can be done first thing) The brackets are just breaking up the commutators.
URB > DFL > UFL: (R') D R' F2 R D' R' D F2 D' (R2)
URB > BDR > BLU: (L2) D2 L' U2 L D2 L' U2 (L') 
URB > DFR > UFR: y' (D2) L2 D R2 D' L2 D R2 (D) y
URB > LBD > RFU: (F2) L' F' R2 F L F' R2 (F') 

*Centers: (Commutators)*
There's quite a bit of moves that can be eliminated by simply solving a different center but I find it can help solving centers in blocks.

Ubr > Bru > Fdl: [F] u2 (l' U' l) u2 (l' U l) [F']
Ubr > Lfu > Fdr: [F'] y' (r U r') u (r U' r') u' y [F]
Ubr > Dbr > Lfd: [D'] y' (l F2 l') b2 [l F2 l') b2 y [D]
*Ubr is solved, buffer is now Ufr:*
Ufr > Dfl > Bdl: (r B2 r') f2 (r B2 r') f2
Ufr > Rdb > Bdr: [B'] y (r U' r') d' (r U r') d y' *
Ufr > Rdf > Dfr: [D] y (r F2 r') f2 (r F2 r') f2 y' [D']
Ufr > Rfu > Blu: [R] y (r U2 r') u (r U2 r') u' y' [R']

Wings: (r2)
There are some cancelations that can be made here, but I've left them out.

1) DFr > DBr: r2 F R U R' d R U' R' d' F'
2) DFr > ULf: B L' B' r2 B L B'
3) DFr > UBl: B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B
4) DFr > ULb: L U' L' U r2 U' L U L'
The buffer is solved, a new cycle can be quickly made via shooting to UBr:
5) DFr > UBr: r2
6) DFr > FRu: B' R2 B r2 B' R2 B
7) DFr > UFr: F d R U R' d' R U' R' F' r2
8) DFr > URb: B' R B r2 B' R' B
9) DFr > FLd: B L2 B' r2 B L2 B'
10) DFr > FRd: U R U' r2 U R' U'
11) DFr > DRf: B' R' B r2 B' R B
12) DFr > DBl: (l) B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B (l')
13) DFr > DFl: (l2) B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B (l2) 
14) DFr > UFl: (l') B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B (l) 
15) DFr > FLu: U' L' U r2 U' L U
16) DFr > DLf: U' L2 U r2 U' L2 U
17) DFr > BRu: U R' U' r2 U R U'
18) DFr > BRd: R B' R' B r2 B' R B R'
19) DFr > UBr: r2
Again, we must start a new cycle of wings. For this example I will be shooting to URf:
20) DFr > URf: R' U R U' r2 U R' U' R
21) DFr > BLu: L' B L B' r2 B L' B' L
22) DFr > DLb: B L B' r2 B L' B'
23) DFr > URf: R' U R U' r2 U R' U' R
A new cycle must be made, there are only 2 pieces that need to be swapped, in this example I will shoot to DRb:
24) DFr > DRb: U R2 U' r2 U R2 U'
25) DFr > BLd: U' L U r2 U' L' U
26) DFr > DRb: U R2 U' r2 U R2 U'

Conclusion:
There are 26 edge targets. 26 = even = no parity. 
Coincidently there have been zero parity issues on this solve, if the edges were odd, the parity alg is as follows:
r2 D' L' F l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2 F' L D*


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 23, 2010)

What algs do people commonly use for center switching in 5BLD?


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> What algs do people commonly use for center switching in 5BLD?


 
Are you referring to the central most center algs? These are the ones you use to "fix" the orientation on a re-oriented solve. Or are you referring to x-centers or t-centers?

Chris


----------



## Faz (Sep 23, 2010)

Hmm, yeah I was wondering, do the top 5x5BLDers reorient?


----------



## MrMoney (Sep 23, 2010)

Will someone explain x + and the other types of centres? And the edges in for example 5x5x5. Which are called what? Sorry if this has been answered.


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 23, 2010)

The centers that make a plus cross are "+ centers"
The centers that make and x cross are "x centers" (so 4x4 has x-centers)
The central edges can be called "centrals" (the normal edges that are on a 3x3)
The out edges are "wings" (the edges on a 4x4)

And about my question I'm reffering to just orienting the cube to get lots of centers solved (like one would do with the 4x4), and then from there switch the central most centers. I might have it wrong and I don't be planning on doing this anytime soon, just curious.


----------



## aronpm (Sep 23, 2010)

I did re-orienting on my first real 5bld attempt but it took ages to find a good one that wasn't parity, so I just don't reorient now. But that's _me_, and as we know I haven't gotten many 5bld solves...


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> Hmm, yeah I was wondering, do the top 5x5BLDers reorient?



I know that Mike and I both do. I think Mats does as well, and I don't know about Spef, Chester, Tim Sun, aronpm, or the others.



Zane_C said:


> And about my question I'm reffering to just orienting the cube to get lots of centers solved (like one would do with the 4x4), and then from there switch the central most centers. I might have it wrong and I don't be planning on doing this anytime soon, just curious.


 
Considering the central centers to be pieces, there are 24 different ways that they can be permuted. Half of these cases are "parity" cases, or better said half of the cases are odd permutations of the centers. The half that are even permutations of the centers (i.e. no parity) can be solved with 4 move commutators.

I only re-orient to the even parity cases, as I don't know a quick or efficient center parity alg (which will necessarily have to change the parity of central edges as well).

The way I recognize is to split the unsolved cases into two groups. The first group I consider to be the "three cycles" and the second group the "double swaps", the third group is the solved case alone or no reorienting.

There are 8 "three cycle" cases, and they are the following:
U -> F -> R (and so also D -> B -> L)
U -> F -> L (also D -> B -> R)
U -> R -> F (D -> L -> B)
U -> R -> B (D -> L -> F)
U -> B -> R (D -> F -> L)
U -> B -> L (D -> F -> R)
U -> L -> F (D -> R -> B)
U -> L -> B (D -> R -> F)

To solve a three cycle case I only use M and E turns. I must bring the U center down to either the F or B face via the M layer. But before doing that, I must move the face it is supposed to go to onto either the F or B face with an E layer turn. The way I know which face to turn the E layer to, is to turn it to the one that is the other piece in the cycle.

For example let's do the case: U -> R -> B (D -> L -> F)
To me this case is only U -> R -> B, and I never pay attention to the 3 cycle on the other side of the cube.
I know that the U center must move to the R face, but I have to bring the U center down to either F or B only. I know that I need to bring it down to the B face, because B is the other location in the three cycle.

So first I must move the R center to the B face by doing the turn E. Now I bring the U center down to the B face by doing M'. Lastly I just undo in the proper order to make this a commutator, so then follow with E' M

This makes that case E M' E' M

Every other case is done in a similar way.

The "double swap" cases could also be called the "double turn" cases. There are 3 of these. They make one of the M, E, or S slices appear to be a double turn away from solved. To solve this you use a strategy very similar to a half slice-plane for 3x3x3 BH edges. Let's look at the case:
(U <-> D) and (F <-> B)

This is basically the centralmost centers being an M2 away from solved. To solve this I swap the F and B centers on the E slice by doing E2. Then I bring the U and D centers into the E layer by doing M. Interchange the U and D centers (now on the F and B faces) by doing E2. Then undo my M layer turn with M'.

The whole commutator is E2 M E2 M'

The same idea for the other two double swap, or "double turn," cases.

Chris


----------



## TMOY (Sep 23, 2010)

aronpm said:


> I did re-orienting on my first real 5bld attempt but it took ages to find a good one that wasn't parity, so I just don't reorient now. But that's _me_, and as we know I haven't gotten many 5bld solves...


I don't reorient either. I solve centers by first putting all +- and x-centers of the same color on the same face whichever it is, and then swapping whole centers (excluding the centermost piece) at once.
The advantage is taht I get to choose between 720 possibilities for solvong centers instead of just 24, without veven the parity issue.


----------



## Henrik (Sep 23, 2010)

As far as I know Lars Nielsson reorients to what ever looks best. 
I think he even does it with parity. But I am not sure about this.

I know Daniel Shepperd and I don't reorient.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 23, 2010)

Henrik said:


> I know Daniel Shepperd and I don't reorient.


 You are indeed right. I will probably try it at some point as I think I'd be able to do it already. I just haven't got round to it yet!


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 23, 2010)

Thanks a lot Chris.


----------



## Chrish (Oct 8, 2010)

Is it viable to do memo the 4x4 visually, or are there too many pieces to keep track of?

I've only practiced visual for 3x3, therefore is the only method I'm able to do. I'm wondering if I'm able to do the 4x4 like this, or if I would have to adapt to learn some journey/story kind of method.

Thanks


----------



## aronpm (Oct 8, 2010)

Just try it. If you can, then good. If you can't, I suggest image pairs + routes.


----------



## LarsN (Oct 13, 2010)

Henrik said:


> As far as I know Lars Nielsson reorients to what ever looks best.
> I think he even does it with parity. But I am not sure about this.


Slow answer sorry, but I only just noticed this.
I do reorient to what ever looks best. My official 14:44 had center parity. But Henrik found me a nice parity alg to do the trick. After that I love reorienting the centers 



Chrish said:


> Is it viable to do memo the 4x4 visually, or are there too many pieces to keep track of?
> 
> Thanks



Yes it is possible with visual only. I do it for all bld. 4x4x4, 5x5x5 and I'm getting really close to the 7x7x7 too. Multi is not good with visual though.
It seems very hard to do at first, but gets better with practise (like anything else).


----------



## Marcell (Oct 13, 2010)

LarsN said:


> But Henrik found me a nice parity alg to do the trick.


Would you mind sharing it?

Also, 5x5 in 14:44 with visual memo? Men, our brains certainly are different.


----------



## LarsN (Oct 13, 2010)

Marcell said:


> Would you mind sharing it?



Ofcourse not 

Fw Uw2 Rw Uw' Rw' Fw M Fw' Rw Uw Rw' Uw2 Fw' M2
It switches UF and UB middle edges, Fu and Bu +centers and moves the middle centers an M'. For the same effect but moving the centers an M, do the inverse alg. Which is basicly the same only starting with M2 and doing M' in the middle part.


----------



## Marcell (Oct 13, 2010)

Thanks a lot! I'll have to reconsider reorienting.


----------



## Henrik (Oct 13, 2010)

LarsN said:


> Ofcourse not
> 
> Fw Uw2 Rw Uw' Rw' Fw M Fw' Rw Uw Rw' Uw2 Fw' M2
> It switches UF and UB middle edges, Fu and Bu +centers and moves the middle centers an M'. For the same effect but moving the centers an M, do the inverse alg. Which is basicly the same only starting with M2 and doing M' in the middle part.


 
Or do E2 first. and end with E2


----------



## LarsN (Oct 13, 2010)

Henrik said:


> Or do E2 first. and end with E2


 
Or just E and E' (or S) for other interesting effects  clever ... I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 13, 2010)

LarsN said:


> Or just E and E' (or S) for other interesting effects  clever ... I hadn't thought of that.


 
Lars, thanks for sharing your alg. This post gave me an idea as well. For a "parity" center state you could also memorize the cube off by a quarter turn of the E layer (or M layer), and then make that your first turn during the solve. This would complicate memorization slightly, but with practice one might get used to it? Perhaps? Just a thought. I will try to learn the parity alg, and see if it would help during my solving - I currently only orient to even parity center states.

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 13, 2010)

LarsN said:


> Fw Uw2 Rw Uw' Rw' Fw M Fw' Rw Uw Rw' Uw2 Fw' M2
> It switches UF and UB middle edges, Fu and Bu +centers and moves the middle centers an M'. For the same effect but moving the centers an M, do the inverse alg. Which is basicly the same only starting with M2 and doing M' in the middle part.


 
Wow, that's really nice (and fun!). I might have to try it.

But I have to admit that lately I've had several really fast successes where I decided before I started that I wouldn't reorient. It seems like often it puts me in a slow mood to reorient - I take the whole solve too leisurely when I reorient, but if I attack it with the standard orientation, I seem to naturally go a little faster. My sub-14 for this week's weekly competition was done that way.


----------



## Sakarie (Oct 13, 2010)

The algorithm 
Uw M' Uw M' Uw2 M' Uw M' Uw M' Uw' M' Uw' M'
moves centers an M-move, and two extended edges UF and UL. I'm not using it (except for on void cubes), but maybe someone else finds it useful.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Oct 20, 2010)

Hmm, I just noticed this discussion, interesting 

Yes, I use reorientation, but I tend to spend too much time on figuring out the optimal
orientation, sometimes I've noticed using more than a minute on that (in hard cases).

So lately I have started to reorient less, only if I immediately see something promising.
Otherwise I just go for what I've got without reorientation.
I will surely look into both Lars' and Arvids algs and see if they suits me. But is not
TMOY:s approach a good try too? Of course you have to memorize another moment to
fixing all centers after joining them. Do you have any nice algs for that, Francois? I
would like to try that too.


----------



## TMOY (Oct 21, 2010)

My algs for swapping whole centers (except of course the centermost piece) are the following. (My notations for multiple inner layers: for example Ew means the wide E slice (all three inner layers), lw means tha wide inner slice (left inner slice + middle slice.)
For swapping two opposite centers (F and B): l2 uw2 l2 Ew2 lw2 d2 lw2.
For swapping two adjacent centers (F and U): l Ew' L2 Ew l' r' Ew' L2 Ew rw U' l' r U M U' l r' U (anyone has a better alg for this one ?)
Note that I use visual memo for centers, so planning where I want to put each center doesn't slow my memo down.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 21, 2010)

TMOY said:


> For swapping two adjacent centers (F and U): l Ew' L2 Ew l' r' Ew L2 Ew' rw U' l' r U M U' l r' U



I don't get this one. Can you make it work in alg.garron.us?


----------



## TMOY (Oct 21, 2010)

Sorry, I typed it wrong. It should be correct now.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 21, 2010)

And just so not everyone needs to learn a new notation:
2L e' L2 e 2L' 2R' e' L2 e (2R M') U' 2L' 2R U M U' 2L 2R' U
(really, this is not hard and helps to prevent mistakes and confusion (and is way more convenient))


----------



## PalashD (Oct 22, 2010)

I am sure this is already answered but I would have to dig up some thread to get it answered. So I am asking here.

I am using r2 to solve 4x4x4 edges. But I have a problem. If the target edge is in r or l then I am stuck. Either I have to use horiffiyingly long setups or do some other commutators. What is generally done in such a case? 

M2/r2 is awesome if you have to solve edges in R and L but in r or l I just like the UBr edge


----------



## Marcell (Oct 22, 2010)

l-slice:
l* (set up to UBl) UR'U'lU'RU r2 U'R'Ul'URU' l*'

r-slice:
F d R U R' d' R U'R' F' r2 and its inverse, or
D r'UR2U' rUR2U' D' r2 and its inverse

also,
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?10300-4x4-Blindfolded-tutorial


----------



## PalashD (Oct 23, 2010)

Marcell said:


> l-slice:
> l* (set up to UBl) UR'U'lU'RU r2 U'R'Ul'URU' l*'
> 
> r-slice:
> ...


 
I will have to memo algs!! 
I would rather repeatedly do the parity switch like Pochmann edges. I dont even have to care about parity then!


----------



## Marcell (Oct 23, 2010)

PalashD said:


> I will have to memo algs!!


Yeah. A whole bunch of them. Two, to be exact.
Horrifying, ain't it?


----------



## PalashD (Oct 23, 2010)

Marcell said:


> Yeah. A whole bunch of them. Two, to be exact.
> Horrifying, ain't it?



Lol! Yeah! that is a lot. As I hate memorizing algs! Commutators are better and sexy.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 23, 2010)

PalashD said:


> Lol! Yeah! that is a lot. As I hate memorizing algs! *Commutators are better* and sexy.



You didn't even look at those algs.


----------



## PalashD (Oct 24, 2010)

Stefan said:


> You didn't even look at those algs.


My bad! They are commutators only(though long ones) I will try figuring them out myself.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 5, 2010)

Apologies if this has been posted before, but I don't remember this being discussed before.

At the advice of Mike, I have been doing post-mortems on my DNF solves for big cubes BLD. It has led to some surprising discoveries of what I am doing wrong in my solves, and has even led to me completely re-lettering my R face and inner r face pieces to something that works better for me.

The downside to how I was doing my post mortems is that I was just trying to reconcile my memorization with the scramble, and with what I *thought* I executed. This could often take a lot of time, sometimes as long as an hour to finally reconstruct the error in my solve. Since I don't want to take up to an hour to know what I did wrong, so that I might fix it on the next solve, I took a look at DNF reconstruction from a more theoretical standpoint. This led me to the method I use now, which is *much* faster.

Please forgive this bastardized notation, if it offends people enough I will try to put it into more mathematically precise notation.

*Method to quickly do a post mortem on a DNF solve*

Definitions:

Let _ denote the identity permutation. This is the permutation that has absolutely no effect on the cube (not necessarily in the supercube sense).

Let [X] denote the *actual* permutation performed on the scrambled cube once you put on the blindfold. More generally this can also denote performing permutation X on the cube, no matter which state it is in. For example [(AB)] would mean to perform the transposition of swapping the pieces in location A and location B on the cube. *The current state of the cube does not matter*.

[X]' denotes the inverse of permutation X. Specific to this method [X]' is the permutation that will setup a solved cube such that [X] will bring it back to the solved state.

[(scramble)] denotes a permutation that is equivalent to the scrambling algorithm. Usually this will be only applied to the pieces in question, and will not be the *actual* scrambling algorithm. More on this below. As a side note, the actual permutation memorized is [(scramble)]'

[(DNF)]' denotes the permutation that will *solve* the state your cube is in after removing the blindfolded and seeing that it is a DNF. Similar to the [(scramble)] permutation this is only applied to the particular piece type being examined. This would be equivalent to the cycles you would *memorize* in order to solve the DNF state of the cube.

---------------------

In the following notation permutations and cycles are read and performed on the cube from left to right. The following equation is always true.

[(scramble)] [X] = [(DNF)]

If [(DNF)] =  then [X] is the correct solution to the scramble.

We now seek to solve for *[X]'*, which is the permutation that will *setup* a solved cube into a state that can be solved with an equivalent series of cycles to the ones that you actually performed on the cube during your DNF solve.

Apply [(scramble)]' on the left on both sides of the equation.
[(scramble)]' [(scramble)] [X] = [(scramble)]' [(DNF)]
 [X] = [(scramble)]' [(DNF)]
[X] = [(scramble)]' [(DNF)]
[X]' = [ [(scramble)]' [(DNF)] ]'
[X]' = [(DNF)]' [(scramble)]

Keep in mind that, if applied to a solved cube, [X]' will setup a state that can be solved using *an equivalent permutation* to what you actually performed on the cube to bring it to a still unsolved state. You may still have to analyze this equivalent permutation to figure out what you actually executed on the cube.

----------------

Example: Let's say that the scrambling algorithm sets up the cube into a state such that the cycle (ABCDEFGH) will solve the cube. In this case 
[(ABCDEFGH)] = [(scramble)]'

This will also be your memorization of the cube, assuming you memorized correctly.

Let's say that after putting on the blindfold and applying your solution that you open your eyes to a DNF cube  The cycle (EFD) will solve your DNF state.

Now the issue is to know what you did incorrectly during your solve. To do this we will apply [X]' to a solved cube.

[X]' = [(DNF)]' [(scramble)]
[X]' = [(EFD)] [(AHGFEDCB)]

After applying [X]' to the solved cube, it is in such a state that the cycle (ABCFGH) will solve the cube. (ABCFGH) is [X], and is *an equivalent permutation to what you performed on the cube during your DNF solve*. In this case it is easy to see that during the solve you did not execute the cycle (ADE), perhaps you recalled it but did not execute, etc..

A quick note about actually applying this method. Since your cube will already be in the DNF state after removing the blindfold, write down the cycle that will solve your DNF state. This cycle is [(DNF)]'. Notice that the start of our equivalent permutation to [X]' from the above equation is also [(DNF)]'.

So a way to remember to apply this method is to do the following:

Your cube, after the DNF, is in the state realized after applying [(DNF)] to the solved state.

Starting from [(DNF)] you would apply [ [(DNF)]' ]^2 [(Scramble)] to the cube.
[(DNF)] [ [(DNF)]' ]^2 [(Scramble)]
[(DNF)] [(DNF)]' [(DNF)]' [(Scramble)]
 [(DNF)]' [(Scramble)]
[X]'

So basically from your DNF cube, perform the algorithm that solves the DNF state *twice*. Then perform the cycles you memorized on the cube *in reverse*. You can also just perform the scrambling algorithm, but keep in mind whether or not you did a reoriented solve as this needs to be taken into account as well.

Chris_


----------



## aronpm (Nov 5, 2010)

Chris, great guide! Thanks for posting this, I'll definitely try it later 

So it works for cycle errors, but can it help for setup move errors, or are they just be considered cycles?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 7, 2010)

Sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering whether it can be used for centers at all. For instance, if you finish with an orange and a blue center wrong, what are you supposed to do for [(DNF)]'? There are several cycles which would work; will they all give the same result?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering whether it can be used for centers at all. For instance, if you finish with an orange and a blue center wrong, what are you supposed to do for [(DNF)]'? There are several cycles which would work; will they all give the same result?


 
Yes it does still work in this case, I have tried it. The reason is that the first thing executed on the solved cube is [(DNF)]'. Since the centers are indistinct, all possibilities to "swap" those two centers via 3-cycles appear equivalent after execution of the 3 cycle.

--edit--
The more I think about this though, I wonder if this method can be "tricked" into not correctly identifying the error, *because* the centers are indistinct. I would never shoot to two centers on the same face during a solve, though, so perhaps this is enough to ensure that the method cannot break down when used as described. I will try to think on this more, that's a very good point.
--edit--

Also, you can apply this method to all piece types simultaneously if you have a bad DNF. Your [(DNF)]' would include cycles spanning all piece types that were unsolved, and you would use the actual scrambling algorithm for [(scramble)]. I may also include a short write-up of how, specifically, to handle using this method on a re-oriented 4x4x4 (or 5x5x5) solve. I still find it very useful to reconstruct my solve using this approach even on a re-oriented solve.

@aronpm: I have not yet tried to see what happens when using this method with a setup move error. I'm wondering if the resulting [X] from such solves will have certain characteristics that would identify when the setup move error occurred. I will try to construct a purposeful DNF this way, and see what happens to [X] in that case.

Chris


----------



## MiloD (Nov 7, 2010)

Really cool BLD autopsy method! It's like turning your cube inside out. As far as setup move errors, I think since the "inversion" is based on what you memorized, setup move errors(along with everything affected by those errors) would be smeared across the cube when applying [[(DNF)]']^2, since there is no tie between the two. So if there is a one turn error on a 3x3, 8 pieces are affected, 2 adjacent turns and 13 pieces are affected, etc. Trying to pin down the exact setup move errors from this information sounds hard or impossible, especially on big cubes. But what is there to learn from those errors anyway?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Sounds like a good idea, but I'm wondering whether it can be used for centers at all. For instance, if you finish with an orange and a blue center wrong, what are you supposed to do for [(DNF)]'? There are several cycles which would work; will they all give the same result?


 
Michael,

I better understand what you're saying now, and can see that the method does not appear to work for centers.

I just constructed a scramble/DNF solution combo that the method cannot discover.

[(scramble)]' = (A EJ MQ)

This would be the memorization for me of the solve. It is shooting to the 1st location on each of my L,F,B faces, but shooting to the 2nd location on the R face (the 1st location is solved).

I purposefully performed the following DNF solution: (A EI MQ) which shoots to the 1st location on every face.

This leaves me with the following DNF state:
[(DNF)'] = (JM)

I see what you mean now that depending on my choice of 3 cycle for [(DNF)]' I will end up with different pieces cycled afterward. You can't just swap those pieces back (treating [(DNF)]' as a pure transposition) because this means that afterward you apply [(scramble)] and just end up with the scrambled state you originally stated with.

My only thoughts right now are that, looking at the DNF state of (JM) necessary to solve, and reconciling it with the memorization of (A EJ MQ) I would see that in the J location there is *still* a piece with the same color as the M location that J was supposed to shoot to. Not only that but the piece in the M location has the same color as the face containing the J location. This would seem to suggest that I shot the buffer not to J, but to another location on the same face that was already solved. This took the piece with the same color as the J location and sent it to M, which is why the M location has a piece of that color at the DNF state.

I feel like going back to the drawing board about this and seeing if there is a different method by analyzing the colors of the pieces in the DNF location, and reconciling this with the scramble, to see if you can discover what happened that way.

Also, and here's another thought,

[(scramble)] [X] = [(DNF)] is always true

If we perform [(DNF)] on a solved cube, then the cycle that will solve that position is [(DNF)]'.

Well in the case of this faked scramble we know [(scramble)]' = (A EJ MQ) and [X] = (A EI MQ)

[(scramble)] [X] = [(DNF)]
[(A QM JE)] [(A EI MQ)] performed on a solved 4x4x4 supercube leaves the cycle (M IJ) to solve.

So the [(DNF)]' that we *should* choose is (M IJ), but so far I see no way to know that this is the one to pick over the other options. Even if I did make the assumption before the scramble that I shot to a piece before J on the R slice, what if the [(DNF)]' was (ML)? This would mean that I would have 3 possible options of pieces before L on the R slice to use in [(DNF)]', and I wouldn't know which to pick.

Michael, do you have an ideas of either how to adapt this method to centers, or to come up with a different method that works for centers?

Chris


----------



## qqwref (Nov 7, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Michael, do you have an ideas of either how to adapt this method to centers, or to come up with a different method that works for centers?


Mm, I don't think I do. The main problem here is that you can't reliably invert [(DNF)] when it involves centers - there are multiple inversions of the same cycles. And I think this means that _several different single mistakes_ could lead to the same DNF. So there may not be a way to conclusively figure out the error at all.

Here's an interesting idea: imagine using a cube that is somehow marked as a supercube, but which you treat like a normal cube during the solve. You would hand it in solved supercube form to the scrambling table. Perhaps you could use some kind of non-colored markings for the centers, like dots on the URF and DLB corners and then dots on one corner of each center sticker; these dots don't have to be visible during solving (they could be dots of some fluorescent material). Then we still have [X]' = [(DNF)]' [(scramble)], but now [(DNF)]' can be directly calculated (but [(scramble)] needs to be the scrambling algorithm itself) and applied to a solved supercube - hopefully one with a more obvious coloring. So then you could get [X]', which you could then compare with a scrambled cube (or with your memo) to see the differences between the cycle solutions of those two cubes.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Mm, I don't think I do. The main problem here is that you can't reliably invert [(DNF)] when it involves centers - there are multiple inversions of the same cycles. And I think this means that _several different single mistakes_ could lead to the same DNF. So there may not be a way to conclusively figure out the error at all.



Yes, I agree that this creates an issue for using this method on centers. However, if the DNF state is off by only two "swapped" centers, then you know that there are only 6 possible mistakes you could have made. The [(DNF)]' cycles that you would use *must* include the two unsolved pieces in the cycle, and must give the appearance of a "two-swap" after performing the 3 cycle. There are only 6 possible cycles that can do this. So I would say that the method will at least narrow down the possible mistakes to 6 options, and would be worth exploring.

When you end up with more than 2 pieces unsolved, you never know if one of these "2-swap" cycles was used or not in the process of creating the DNF state. So for anything more than 2 centers off I would certainly not attempt to use this approach.



qqwref said:


> Here's an interesting idea: imagine using a cube that is somehow marked as a supercube, but which you treat like a normal cube during the solve.


 
I really like that actually! I may actually practice this way on my supercube when at home. This way I could discover any mistakes in the centers much more easily. I would need to fix up a better cube than my current 4x4x4 supercube so that I could still get decent times on it, but that is a great idea I think! You would just solve the supercube in the regular cube sense as you said. Neat!

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Nov 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> hand it in solved supercube form to the scrambling table [...] these dots *don't have to be visible* during solving


 
Yeah, they *have* to be *not* visible. Visible supercube markings are and should remain forbidden.

Btw, "during solving" not just the dots should be invisible


----------



## qqwref (Nov 9, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Yeah, they *have* to be *not* visible. Visible supercube markings are and should remain forbidden.


I wasn't only referring to competition solves, although I do agree that pieces on a competition cube should not be distinguishable etc. Although I can see why someone would want to precisely mimic a competition setup when they practice, perfectly reliable reconstruction may be more important to some people.

Incidentally, dots are nice because trying to recognize specific centers on purpose would take some conscious effort, so I wouldn't expect anyone to accidentally do it, as opposed to certain other supercube coloring schemes (like yours). You can draw dots with a Sharpie or similar non-permanent marker; if I recall correctly such dots tend to come off rather quickly (within a day) on typical stickers.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 9, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I wasn't only referring to competition solves


 
Ok... I was just alarmed cause you talked about handing it to the scrambling table. Didn't want any newbs to infer they can mark their cubes like that in competition (on the other hand, newbs probably can't blindsolve a 4x4x4 anyway, super or not).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 9, 2010)

So to bring up a different subject - how fast are you guys at sighted solving using your BLD method? I'm amazed by how long it takes me. My best time for 4x4x4 so far is about 5:30, which is not much faster than my best time BLD. I tried a 5x5x5 sighted with my BLD method today, and saw a bigger difference: 7:38.08. So that's about twice as fast as my typical BLD solve. (I've long believed that 5x5x5 BLD should be not much slower than 4x4x4 BLD if you're perfect at it, so somehow this does not surprise me.) How does everyone else do with this?


----------



## TMOY (Nov 9, 2010)

I just did one solve for each. Both were normal, nonlucky solves.
For 4^3: 4:32.33, about half my average 4BLD time
For 5^3: 7:38.77, about 1/3 of my average 5BLD time.
The difference doesn't surprise me because I make much more pauses during execution for 5BLD than for 4BLD.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 9, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Didn't want any newbs to infer they can mark their cubes like that in competition (on the other hand, newbs probably can't blindsolve a 4x4x4 anyway, super or not).


I don't think it is necessary to worry about what beginners will infer in this thread


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 9, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I tried a 5x5x5 sighted with my BLD method today: 7:38.08.


 


TMOY said:


> For 5^3: 7:38.77, about 1/3 of my average 5BLD time.


 
Wow, that's close!


----------



## aronpm (Nov 9, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> So to bring up a different subject - how fast are you guys at sighted solving using your BLD method? I'm amazed by how long it takes me. My best time for 4x4x4 so far is about 5:30, which is not much faster than my best time BLD. I tried a 5x5x5 sighted with my BLD method today, and saw a bigger difference: 7:38.08. So that's about twice as fast as my typical BLD solve. (I've long believed that 5x5x5 BLD should be not much slower than 4x4x4 BLD if you're perfect at it, so somehow this does not surprise me.) How does everyone else do with this?


 
Just trying 1 solve: 
4bld: 3:09.66. This is probably what I average for execution BLD.
5bld: 5:33.90. I'm not sure about my 5bld splits because they vary too much but this is normal I guess. (omg sub3 corners+centers)


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 11, 2010)

Just did a sighted 5BLD.
6:52.17, in a solve it is 9+ minutes.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 11, 2010)

I know this changes topic a bit, but I am continuing a post in the 45th weekly competition thread here so that I will not continue to thread hijack that thread.

*4x4x4BLD splits:*

Solve 1)
Close DNF (off by a 3 cycle). At the end I cleared two double swaps using my original buffer, when it was actually a floating buffer for the first cycle. The pacing felt very natural to the same pace I used on my weekly scrambles.

Memo 3:58.65
Solve corners and centers (no corner parity): 1:16.39
solve wings: 1:16.39 (no joke!)
Total solving time: 2:32.78
Total time: 6:31.43

Memo:solving ratio ---> 1.56:1

Solve 2)
Successful solve

orient cube: 2.08
memo centers: 1:38.78
memo wings: 1:25.74
memo corners: 8.22

solve corners (leaving parity): 17.56
solve centers: 1:04.95
fix corner parity: 9.11
solve wings: 1:04.86

Total memo time: 3:14.82
Total solving time: 2:36.48

Total overall time: 5:51.30

Memo: Solving ---> 1.25:1

Solve 3)
DNF off by 3 wings
Wing memo: (M LF OW)(N GP HU AC IK *X*B SR DJ)(*X*T)
[(DNF)]' = (V TX)
[X] = (M LF OW)(N GP HU AC IK TB SR DJ)(VX) = Which means I executed what I memorized, leaving (V TX) to solve.

Shot to x twice. Last cycle should have been (VT)

orient: 6.88
memo centers: 53.64
memo wings: 2:24.11
memo corners: 8.77

solve corners: 21.05
solve centers: 51.51
solve wings: 1:13.50

total memo time: 3:33.40
total solving time: 2:26.06

Total solve time: 5:59.46

Memo : Solving ---> 1.46 : 1

Solve 4
Successful

orient: 2.21
memo centers: 1:09.04
memo wings: 2:10.64
memo corners: 12.30

solve corners: 26.59
solve centers: 1:06.53
solve wings: 1:26.64

total memo time: 3:34.19
total solving time: 2:59.76
total time: 6:33.95

memo : solving ---> 1.19 : 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------

*5x5x5 BLD splits:*

Solve 1)
Very close DNF, off by 3 edges.

wing memo: (Q CK ON UA LT GJ)(E *XH* B)(M IW FR SD)
[(DNF)]' = (B HX)
[X] that I actually executed for wings was: (Q CK ON UA LT GJ)(E *HX* B)(M IW FR SD)

orient cube: 5.12 (no re-orient)
memo t-centers: 1:29.88
memo x-centers: 1:29.08
memo wings: 2:34.09
memo corners (images): 1:28.60
memo centrals (words): 1:11.03

solve centrals setting up parity: 1:11.59
solve corners setting up parity: 33.31
solve t-centers: 1:05.97
solve x-centers: 1:01.76
fix corner/centrals parity: 11.83
solve wings: 2:30.23

Total memo time: 8:17.80
Total solving time: 6:34.69
Total time: 14:52.49

Memo:solving ---> 1.26:1

Solve 2)

Here is an example of a solve with recall delays, and a fairly bad DNF

Centrals memo: (A PO BG EW TS SX CS)
Mis-memorized and shot to S three times!!!   This would be one too many, as I broke into a cycle at location S, but still  
What I think the memorization should have been (did not save the scramble): (A PO BG EW TS RX CR)
centrals [(DNF)]' = (AS)(CR)
[X] that I actually executed based on "correct" memo = (A PO BG EW TR XR)

After realizing that I shot to S too many times, in my frenzy to figure out what happened apparently I forgot to shoot to S _at all_ lol

Wings memo: (Q HP DW GM)(E RU JV NB)(F XT)(IS)(A CK *O*)
wings [(DNF)]' = (F AO)
wing [X] = (Q HP DW GM)(E RU JV NB)(F XT *O*)(IS)(A CK)

For the double swap to solve the two odd cycles I should have done (IS)(AO) but apparently I did (IS)(FO) 

orient: 8.44
memo t-centers: 1:14.98
memo x-centers: 1:06.27
memo wings: 2:38.84
memo corners (images): 45.91
memo centrals (words): 52.37
memo center cycle: 3.24

solve center cycle and orient permuted but disoriented pieces: 17.48
solve centrals: 2:17.20
solve corners: 38.51
solve t-centers: 2:55.30
solve x-centers: 1:10.03
solve wings: 1:40.52

Total memo time: 6:50.05
Total solving time: 8:59.04
Total time: 15:49.09

Memo:solving ---> 1 : 1.31

Solve 3:
Successful solve

orient: 4.48 (no re-orientation)
memo t-centers: 1:56.50
memo x-centers: 1:12.68
memo wings: 2:06.81
memo corners (images): 28.51
memo centrals (words): 1:03.56

solve centrals: 45.25
solve corners and setup for parity: 35.48
little more parity setup: 20.94
solve t-centers: 1:33.35
solve x-centers: 1:03.64
fix corner/central parity: 8.47
solve wings: 2:14.83

Total memo time: 6:52.54
Total solving time: 6:41.96
Total time: 13:34.50

Memo : Solving ---> 1.03 : 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try to add more as I do more solves over the next day or two.

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 11, 2010)

See, Chris? Your solving times are very similar to mine, except for wings, where you completely blow me away! I always knew my wings were bad, but I had no idea they were that bad. I've learned the first 8 letter pairs (I know it's different from you, but I still find it easiest to learn BH alphabetically), and I switched to using what you call "drop and slide" for several of them - it's a nice alternate approach! 244 more to go!


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 11, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> See, Chris? Your solving times are very similar to mine, except for wings, where you completely blow me away! I always knew my wings were bad, but I had no idea they were that bad. I've learned the first 8 letter pairs (I know it's different from you, but I still find it easiest to learn BH alphabetically), and I switched to using what you call "drop and slide" for several of them - it's a nice alternate approach! 244 more to go!


 
Hey Mike,

Yeah I do agree now that my splits seem to be closer to what you've been describing. That's so strange that it _feels_ like a 2:1 split on most every solve, even when it's obviously not. I will still try to _view_ my solves as having this type of split, because it has led to slightly higher accuracy, and my pb single! I'll just know that it's not the actual split.

Also, I do recommend to learn BH for the wings. I know that general opinion is that "BH is too slow, just learn freestyle." I posted about this in the weekly competition #45 thread, but if only either Daniel or I were faster at memorizing then I think BH would be a more credible method. As it stands now, since both of us memorize at not-world-class speeds, I think people attribute our slower overall time to mean that BH is slower. To be fair to Daniel his memorization is *far* faster than mine. I remember him memorizing the 5x5x5 sub-6 on a somewhat consistent basis on one of our meetings where he came to NC. If he hadn't de-facto retired, he probably would have quickly surpassed my times from that point forward.

I'm hoping that with my splits, if I can get enough good times, then I can prove that idea wrong.

By the way, I posted a bad DNF solve time break down edited into my first post. I mis-executed the last double swap during the wings, but this means that I still did the same number of _turns_ that a regular solve would contain. My solve time for wings on that solve was 1:40.52. That wing solve felt _really_ good, so I'm thinking that at my fastest I am sub-2, and probably average between 2:00-2:30 for wing execution, using move optimal BH of course.

I am obviously very biased, but yes I think using move optimal BH would help speed up your wing times quite a bit! I know you are already learning it, but the more you learn the better I would say 

Chris


----------



## riffz (Nov 12, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> See, Chris? Your solving times are very similar to mine, except for wings, where you completely blow me away! I always knew my wings were bad, but I had no idea they were that bad. I've learned the first 8 letter pairs (I know it's different from you, but I still find it easiest to learn BH alphabetically), and I switched to using what you call "drop and slide" for several of them - it's a nice alternate approach! 244 more to go!



Were you using r2 previously? And by BH wings do you mean to say that you are using DFr as your only buffer? 

I recently relettered my wing edges for 4x4 as I plan to start practicing 4BLD. I chose the scheme in such a way that almost every alg is the same as my 3x3 algs, except for replacing M moves with l or r. So other than cases involving adjacent wings and ones that I use <M,U> and <R,U> algs for, I basically know all the 3-cycles I'll need for 4x4 without really practicing them.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 12, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I've learned the first 8 letter pairs (I know it's different from you, but I still find it easiest to learn BH alphabetically)



I learned corners alphabetically, learning each case separately, using Mnemosyne. I plan to do the same with edges and wings.



cmhardw said:


> I am obviously very biased, but yes I think using move optimal BH would help speed up your wing times quite a bit! I know you are already learning it, but the more you learn the better I would say


I think optimal BH for edges/wings would speed up solving quite a lot! I started making lists of edge/wing commutators and I'm amazed at how much quicker it is than M2/r2. I definitely have to switch soon.

Going a bit off of this topic, Chris, are _all_ of your algs optimal? Personally I think using some speed-optimal algs is better for some cases, but often the optimal alg is very fast.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 12, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Going a bit off of this topic, Chris, are _all_ of your algs optimal? Personally I think using some speed-optimal algs is better for some cases, but often the optimal alg is very fast.


 
Hi Aron,

I'm not brazen enough to say that every single one of my algs are move optimal. After (was it Mats?) showed us the 4x4x4 x-center alg 3U r' 3U' l 3U r 3U' l' I knew that there were possibly some very strange, and very amazing, shorter ways to do certain cases! I do use that style alg in my solving by the way, and I've come to start calling them "Pseudo-slice" algs, or commutators that use "Pseudo-slicing". I can understand the logic behind it, and it uses the concept of building a pseudo slice and then turning that pseudo slice one turn to perform the first part of the cycle. All very neat stuff!

I would say that, based on the work Daniel and I have done over the years to slowly but surely refine cases 1 by 1 to be shorter and more move optimal, that I do at least 90% optimal algs when considering all piece types. I'd like to say even 95%, but since we haven't searched any cases via computer for optimality then I don't know if I haven't yet discovered a new concept similar to pseudo-slicing that is more optimal on some case types.

I'll give you one perfect example of where I do purposefully choose a sub-optimal alg that is faster. For BH corners, no B9 alg is optimal. Every corner B9 case is actually optimally 8 turns with a standard commutator. Take the case:

UBL->UBR->BLD

This is move optimal at 8 turns with something like: y' [L D L', U'] y
However, the B9 alg of: U2 R' D2 R U' R' D2 R U' is much faster for me, and I will use this on a real solve.

Sometimes for the wing case: UBl -> DLb -> FLu I will do the 10 move: b2 [U, R' u' R] b2 rather than the optimal:
y' L' u2 L' D' L u2 L' D L2 y

The 10 mover just has a better flow to me, even though I know that the 9 mover is optimal. To be honest it irks me that for UBl -> DLb -> FLu that I don't think of the 9 mover first on a solve, but instead the 10 mover, even though I know it's an A9 case.

So yes, not _all_ of my algs are optimal by choice during a solve. I would say that I don't often substitute an alg for a faster sub-optimal length one though. Also, I don't know which new cycling and slicing concepts of which I don't know haha. So I may be using a sub-optimal alg for certain cases and not even know it.

Chris

P.S.

Ubl -> Bdl -> Ldb
3U r' 3U' l 3U r 3U' l'
This amazing alg works by the following logic, by the way:

It's really D b' D' l D b D' l'
The idea is that we could move Ldb to Ubl via the turn b', but since we also will need to then move Bdl to Ldb (which is now at Ubl after the b' turn) via the move l then we need to do some clever pseudo slicing. If you just do b' l b l' then you will also effect pieces on D, F, and R. Herein lies our problem.

First we imagine that the b layer is a pseudo-slice. The pieces Ldb, Lub, ULb, Ubl, Ubr, URb, Rub, Rdb all form the backbone of our "pseudo-slice." Now we want to turn the layer b' such as to send Ldb to Ubl. However this messes up the *l* slice at Ubl and Dbl. We want the effect at Ubl, but *not* at Dbl. To avoid this, we will pseudo slice the b face. The remaining portion of the b face pseudo slice are the pieces DFr, Dfr, Dbr, DBr. We will first do the turn D so that we align this 4x1 block with our "C" shaped backbone already in place on the b layer. This creates the b face pseudo slice, which we will turn with b'. This b' sends Ldb to Ubl, which is part of our cycle. The only effect *on the original l layer* is to change the Ubl location. The *l* layer pieces that were at DFl, Dfl, Dbl, DBl are at DRf, Drf, Dlf, DLf respectively after the *D* turn. Now we break up our pseudo slice on the b layer, and *restore the original l* layer with D'.

Next we bring Bdl to Ubl with the turn *l* (remember that the b slice is offset by a turn, so that what is now at Ubl will end up in Ldb after we undo the b face turn). After the *l* turn we need to do the turn b to bring Ubl back down to Ldb, but this will destroy the Dbl location on the *l* slice. To fix this we now *reform* the pseudo-slice b layer with D again. This also moves the 4x1 portion of the inner *l* slice from DFl, Dfl, Dbl, DBl to DRf, Drf, Dlf, DLf respectively. Now undo the pseudo-slice b layer turn with b. Reform the correct *l* slice with the turn D', and lasty restore the *l* slice with *l'*.

It maybe sounds worse in description than it is, but this alg is absolutely beautiful in its execution. I personally execute it with the triple layer turns, but I had to write it in regular outer layer turns so that I could come to an understanding of how it works.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 12, 2010)

riffz said:


> Were you using r2 previously? And by BH wings do you mean to say that you are using DFr as your only buffer?


Yes, I was using r2, except that for the bad middle slice edges, I was already using commutators (although they were not necessarily optimal, so I'm still relearning a lot of those). And yes, I'm doing BH wing, using DFr as my only buffer - at least to start with.



riffz said:


> I recently relettered my wing edges for 4x4 as I plan to start practicing 4BLD. I chose the scheme in such a way that almost every alg is the same as my 3x3 algs, except for replacing M moves with l or r. So other than cases involving adjacent wings and ones that I use <M,U> and <R,U> algs for, I basically know all the 3-cycles I'll need for 4x4 without really practicing them.


I know I should do this as well, but I haven't gotten around to doing it. Currently, my scheme is very different and I think it will be quite confusing and difficult for me to change. I suppose I could reletter the 4x4x4 now as I learn these, but it seems like it will be so painful to do it.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 12, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I know I should do this as well, but I haven't gotten around to doing it. Currently, my scheme is very different and I think it will be quite confusing and difficult for me to change. I suppose I could reletter the 4x4x4 now as I learn these, but it seems like it will be so painful to do it.


 
Mike, I would say to just do the re-lettering. If you don't, you may end up making memory errors occasionally where you interpret a piece in the scheme that you _would like_ to have, not in your actual scheme. This is the problem I was facing with my R and inner r layers.

Also, riffz and Mike, Daniel Beyer uses a wing lettering scheme that matches his 3x3x3 edges like you're talking about. For example the UF edge piece for me is yellow/green and the yellow sticker is D, the green sticker is E. For Daniel he would do something along the lines of calling UFr D and UFl E, and he would recognize which piece goes where based on whether the yellow/green edge he just came upon is oriented or not _if it were a full 3x3x3 edge group_.

If you guys are considering it, I would say it would probably be worth it. Don't underestimate the ability of your subconscious mind to worm it's way into your memorization if you're using a scheme that _it_ doesn't like. At least that's my experience anyway. And lettering changes usually only take me about 2-3 weeks before the new scheme feels completely natural, and I start to actually even "forget" the old scheme. For changes I made over a year ago or more ago, like when I re-lettered my B and D faces, I can't even hardly remember the feeling of memorizing with my old scheme. In my old scheme Bul was N, but now Bul is M. The thought of Bul being N to me now just feels wrong, and there is no confusion with the older scheme.

My $0.02

Chris


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 15, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Hi Aron,
> 
> I'm not brazen enough to say that every single one of my algs are move optimal. After (was it Mats?) showed us the 4x4x4 x-center alg 3U r' 3U' l 3U r 3U' l' I knew that there were possibly some very strange, and very amazing, shorter ways to do certain cases! I do use that style alg in my solving by the way, and I've come to start calling them "Pseudo-slice" algs, or commutators that use "Pseudo-slicing". I can understand the logic behind it, and it uses the concept of building a pseudo slice and then turning that pseudo slice one turn to perform the first part of the cycle. All very neat stuff!
> 
> I would say that, based on the work Daniel and I have done over the years to slowly but surely refine cases 1 by 1 to be shorter and more move optimal, that I do at least 90% optimal algs when considering all piece types. I'd like to say even 95%, but since we haven't searched any cases via computer for optimality then I don't know if I haven't yet discovered a new concept similar to pseudo-slicing that is more optimal on some case types.


 
I suspect this is what you mean: Turbo for centers on 4x4

But I don't think it's necessary to use computers to get any case optimal. If you just put some time for every case, you'll probably see the optimal solution without greater problems.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> I suspect this is what you mean: Turbo for centers on 4x4



Yes that's it! Also, those cases can be done by the same process as what I described for the Ubl -> Rdb -> Bdl case. It's all about forming and unforming a pseudo slice to do each turn.



> Ubl -> Rbu -> Ful: l' Uu r Uu' l Uu r' Uu'



Is really doing the following:
1) Form a pseudo-slice out of the b layer by starting with the turn D' 
2) send Ful to Ubl with l' affecting only the Ubl part of the _real_ b layer.
3) unform the l face pseudo slice (which reforms the real b layer) with D.
4) bring Rbu to Ubl with the turn b
5) reform the b layer pseudo-slice with D'
6) set-down the piece at Ubl to Ful with the turn l. This will only affect the Ubl portion of the _real_ b layer.
7) unform the pseudo b layer slice (which reforms the real b layer slice) with D
8) set down Ubl to Rbu with b'

All told the alg is: D' l' D b D' l D b'



> But I don't think it's necessary to use computers to get any case optimal. If you just put some time for every case, you'll probably see the optimal solution without greater problems.


 
Here are a couple of cases that Daniel and I have always wondered about:

Ubl -> Lub -> Bul
and UBl -> ULb -> BLu

Are these both optimal at 10 moves, or at fewer than 10 moves?

Chris


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 16, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Here are a couple of cases that Daniel and I have always wondered about:
> 
> Ubl -> Lub -> Bul
> and UBl -> ULb -> BLu
> ...



I can't find anything that could indicate that there are shorter solution than 10 moves. If any-one else finds it, I'll take back the "we don't need computers"...


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 22, 2010)

I made an observation today about my BAB'A'B mistakes on commutators sometimes. Recall that B is the interchange move and A is the, usually 3 move, insertion.

I have found that I only really make this mistake when the interchange B is a double turn. When the interchange B is a single turn, I can see that B and B' turn the interchange layer/slice in opposite directions. There's very much a _to_ and _fro_ motion that I pick up on intuitively. When the interchange B is a double turn it seems that I somehow, on some subconscious level, forget that the first B turn was done, and then interpret the rest of the commutator as ABA'B' putting in the unnecessary interchange turn at the end.

I have found it difficult to implement Mike's counting technique in general, as I have developed a sort of flow of my algs when I execute them, and it feels strange to count as well. However, since I seem to often DNF BAB'A' algs that use a double turn B interchange, then I will force myself to count on cases where I notice that 1) I interchange first for the commutator, and 2) The interchange turn is a double turn.

It's surprising how effective post mortems are to your solving improvement! Sometimes it takes a while to notice a pattern, like this one. However, when you do notice the pattern it is very much an epiphany "Ah HA!" moment! This type of thing really leads me to believe that witness testimony and memory is less accurate than we would like to believe. I strongly _believe_ that what I do every solve is correct, but the DNF cube that stares me in the face afterward would probably tend to disagree with me.


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 5, 2010)

I'm just wondering what methods people here use to memorise centers on a 4x4. I solve them first and have been using a combination of audio and visual and I've found it to be slow. Thanks.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Dec 5, 2010)

I'm getting interested in learning 4x4 BLD, but i'm not sure what method to use....whats the easiest method?


----------



## Faz (Dec 5, 2010)

Zane_C said:


> I'm just wondering what methods people here use to memorise centers on a 4x4. I solve them first and have been using a combination of audio and visual and I've found it to be slow. Thanks.


 
I use the auditory loop for centers.

I've always thought of memo in layers. For example, for 4x4BLD, I can make images for wings, then use the auditory loop for centers, and then on top of that, use visual for corners.


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 5, 2010)

Sounds good, I suppose I just need to work on my auditory memory.


----------



## riffz (Dec 6, 2010)

Centers would be too much for me to memo using auditory loop, but that's maybe just me. I'm thinking when I start practicing 4BLD I'll use auditory for corners, journey for centers and edges.


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 6, 2010)

riffz said:


> Centers would be too much for me to memo using auditory loop, but that's maybe *just me*. I'm thinking when I start practicing 4BLD I'll use auditory for corners, journey for centers and edges.


 
Well I also struggle with it, That's why I throw in some visual to aid me.


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 10, 2010)

Anyone know of any bldcubebld tutorials on youtube made by current cubers? I found a couple made by people a few years ago that have pbs of like 20 mins for 4bld. I'm thinking of doing a tutorial for comm centres and r2/M2 edges. Or maybe I'll start out with a less ambitious clockbld tutorial. Any thoughts?


----------



## Yes We Can! (Dec 10, 2010)

That'd be really awesome 
I'm thinking about starting to do 5x5 BLD but first I'd need a proper centers method 
As you are pretty experienced I would think you would do a good job.
Definitely do it!


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Dec 10, 2010)

What, you're still using T-perm? >_>


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 10, 2010)

Yes said:


> That'd be really awesome
> I'm thinking about starting to do 5x5 BLD but first I'd need *a proper centers method*
> As you are pretty experienced I would think you would do a good job.
> Definitely do it!


Like comms


----------



## Yes We Can! (Dec 10, 2010)

I understand comms but I'm not very safe with those, so I couldn't imagine doing that BLD!


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 10, 2010)

Yes said:


> I understand comms but I'm not very safe with those, so I couldn't imagine doing that BLD!


 I find them easier bld than sighted because I remember setups (and which 3 pieces I'm cycling) much better when I'm bld.


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 10, 2010)

gogo D-Shepz


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 10, 2010)

I think it would be good if there was a thorough center tutorial by a top 4BLDer. I personally would be interested a clock BLD tutorial too.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 10, 2010)

kinch2002 said:


> *I find them easier bld than sighted* because I remember setups (and which 3 pieces I'm cycling) much better when I'm bld.


 
Completely agree with this. Commutators are so much easier to do and to visualize for me when blindfolded. Doing them sighted always seems a bit harder for me.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 10, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Completely agree with this. Commutators are so much easier to do and to visualize for me when blindfolded. Doing them sighted always seems a bit harder for me.


 
I remember when I finished my first ever 4x4x4 BLD attempt in competition, at the 2007 Virginia Open. Daniel Beyer was sitting next to me, and I was off by just one 3 cycle or something. I remember staring at it when I was done, and in the overwhelmingness of it all, I couldn't even do the commutator to fix it. After I stared at it for about a minute, Daniel took it from me and fixed it. I'm sure if I had just memorized the letters and closed my eyes, it would have been easy to fix, but I couldn't handle fixing it while looking at it.

When I started learning 4x4x4 BLD, I always did commutators with my eyes closed, even from the very first try. I never actually watched them. It's only lately that I've started trying to get good at doing them while watching, and it's still harder for me.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 11, 2010)

I was considering making some BLD tutorial videos.

Don't take that as a promise


----------



## Faz (Dec 11, 2010)

aronpm said:


> I was considering making some BLD tutorial videos.
> 
> Don't take that as a promise


 
Will there be talking?


----------



## aronpm (Dec 11, 2010)

Obviously...


----------



## ariasamie (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know anything about M2, BH or bigcubes BLD
Currently I know pochmann and I want to first improve my memory method from images to full Person Action Object, master it using pochmann and then move to advanced methods.
If I do that, is it going to be useful for M2 , BH or bigcubes BLD?


----------



## riffz (Dec 11, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> I don't know anything about M2, BH or bigcubes BLD
> Currently I know pochmann and I want to first improve my memory method from images to full Person Action Object, master it using pochmann and then move to advanced methods.
> If I do that, is it going to be useful for M2 , BH or bigcubes BLD?


 
You should at least learn M2 before you spend all that time on improving your memo. M2 is SO much faster than T perm, and it's very easy to learn.


----------



## ariasamie (Dec 11, 2010)

riffz said:


> You should at least learn M2 before you spend all that time on improving your memo. M2 is SO much faster than T perm, *and it's very easy to learn.*


thanks for encouraging me. but once I wanted too learn it all the video tutorials on youtube sucked. I wish I can find a good written one, print it and take it with me on the vacation of new year.


----------



## Toad (Dec 11, 2010)

D-Sheppz please make a 4bld tutorial! I'd love it


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 11, 2010)

Ok I have a slight problem. I'm leaving uni on Monday morning and I don't think I can finish a 4bld tutorial before then. I might try to film stuff at home, but it's much less likely to happen. If all else fails, you'll have to wait until January.


----------



## Marcell (Dec 11, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> thanks for encouraging me. but once I wanted too learn it all the video tutorials on youtube sucked. I wish I can find a good written one, print it and take it with me on the vacation of new year.


 
http://stefan-pochmann.info/spocc/blindsolving/M2R2/


----------



## Sakarie (Dec 11, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> thanks for encouraging me. but once I wanted too learn it all the video tutorials on youtube sucked. I wish I can find a good written one, print it and take it with me on the vacation of new year.


 
Or this one, which I think is even better, with the M-slice "stuff".. http://www.cubefreak.net/bld/m2_guide.html


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm not sure how to go about distinguishing the layers on a 7x7. I know you can just count them with your fingers, how much does this slow the execution down? Should I just spend a lot of time turning it so I get used to it? so I can determine the layers by the _feel_. I assume I just need to get the feel of it as counting seems pretty bad.


----------



## Faz (Dec 13, 2010)

Yeah, 7x7 shouldn't be too hard to work out slices if you've solved it enough.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 13, 2010)

I was doing 7x7x7 by feel by the end of the solve the first time I tried it. And keep in mind that my first successful solve of a 7x7x7 was done BLD. 

It's really not hard - just go for it, and you'll find that you can. You might wind up counting the first few times until you do get a feel for it, but it shouldn't take long. It seems particularly easy somehow with the pillowed shape to tell what slice you're turning. Well, it does to me, anyway.


----------



## Toad (Dec 13, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> It seems particularly easy ... Well, it does to me, anyway.


 
That doesn't mean much when it comes to BLD though Mike...


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 13, 2010)

I counted the 7x7x7 slices for my first couple solves. The short answer is that it slows you down. A *LOT*. I now just go by the feel of it. Mike's right about the pillowed shape, after you get used to it you can just tell a difference by feel between turning 2 layers and turning 3 layers. Turning 4 layers at a time I still have to go slowly to make sure I'm not accidently turning only 3, but even then it has a different feel because the middle-most layer is thicker than any other layer.

So perhaps try counting at first to make sure that you are sure about your turns, but as Mike said, you may stop counting partway through that same solve. Good luck!


----------



## blakedacuber (Dec 13, 2010)

aronpm said:


> I was considering making some BLD tutorial videos.
> 
> Don't take that as a promise


 
YESS please make some for 3BLD AND atleast


----------



## jaesga (Dec 24, 2010)

Hi, i wish someone could help me. 
Does anyone have any algorithm to make a T-Perm on the 5x5 but just with the middle edges?? Like the image below... (permuting the corners in blue, and the edges in red)
Thanks!!


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 24, 2010)

jaesga said:


> Hi, i wish someone could help me.
> Does anyone have any algorithm to make a T-Perm on the 5x5 but just with the middle edges?? Like the image below... (permuting the corners in blue, and the edges in red)
> Thanks!!


I can't see the image but I think I know what you mean.
Just do a T perm first. That will leave you with 2 sets of wings to switch.
Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2 switches the UF and UB sets of wings over so rotate accordingly


----------



## Zane_C (Dec 24, 2010)

jaesga said:


> Hi, i wish someone could help me.
> Does anyone have any algorithm to make a T-Perm on the 5x5 but just with the middle edges?? Like the image below... (permuting the corners in blue, and the edges in red)
> Thanks!!


 
If this is for parity, fair enough. The post above is what you want.
If this is so you can use Old Pochmann edges on a 5x5, perhaps you should consider M2.


----------



## jaesga (Dec 24, 2010)

@kinch2002 thanks, thats exactly what i was looking for.
@Zane_C: I am considering moving to M2, but is hard because i used to memorize pieces instead of stickers, so first i think i am going to permute middle edges as I do in 3x3 cube.

Thanks for your responses!


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 24, 2010)

jaesga said:


> @kinch2002 thanks, thats exactly what i was looking for.
> @Zane_C: I am considering moving to M2, but is hard because i used to memorize pieces instead of stickers, so first i think i am going to permute middle edges as I do in 3x3 cube.
> 
> Thanks for your responses!


Oh I assumed you were already using M2. With M2 you can still get that parity (but only once at the end of course). It would be a bit of a nightmare doing the parity every single time for Old Pochmann, but it would work I guess.


----------



## riffz (Dec 24, 2010)

Yea, using Old Pochmann in that manner on a 5x5 will be agonizingly slow.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 24, 2010)

Note that such a T-perm (with any alg, not just this one) will affect unsolved centers. This should be taken into account if you solve centers after midges and/or corners.


----------



## Keroma12 (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm going to try a 5x5 soon, and so far I've decided on:
corners - old pochmann
+ centers - commutators
x centers - commutators
outer edges - commutators

For the central edges, should I do M2 or commutators? and why?


----------



## aronpm (Dec 29, 2010)

Keroma12 said:


> I'm going to try a 5x5 soon, and so far I've decided on:
> corners - old pochmann
> + centers - commutators
> x centers - commutators
> ...


 
If you're doing x centers as comms, why not corners?


----------



## MrMoney (Dec 29, 2010)

Yesterday I had time to try two 4BLD. Both failed. The first failed after I was doing the last 7 corners. 6 were done with comms, the last with OP. Guess I forgot my y-perm ^^ All centers were OK and all edgepairs were nicely done. So I guess it would have been my first success (had a 23min DNF 4 pieces once).

What I am struggeling with is knowing if I have overseen a cycle in edges/centers. Right now I go through the whole alphabet and see if I have a memo for all of them. This just takes alot of time and confuses me. Need to get some practise on this


----------



## TMOY (Dec 29, 2010)

Keroma12 said:


> I'm going to try a 5x5 soon, and so far I've decided on:
> corners - old pochmann
> + centers - commutators
> x centers - commutators
> ...


 If you're already doing (almost) everything else with comms, you can also use them for midges, they work in a similar way.


----------



## Keroma12 (Dec 29, 2010)

aronpm said:


> If you're doing x centers as comms, why not corners?



I've tried comms on corners, but I just didn't seem to be getting the hang of it. I might try again later, but for now I feel more comfortable with old pochmann.


----------



## ilikecubing (Dec 30, 2010)

How much more memorisation does 4x4 and 5x5 BLD require than 3x3 BLD

Is it twice,thrice or even more than that? both for 4x4 BLD and 5x5 BLD


----------



## peedu (Dec 30, 2010)

ilikecubing said:


> How much more memorisation does 4x4 and 5x5 BLD require than 3x3 BLD
> 
> Is it twice,thrice or even more than that? both for 4x4 BLD and 5x5 BLD


 
Depends on how you memorize.

Just to give some idea...

If all pieces of 3x3 are out of the place and no new cycles are needed, then you memorize 11 letters for edges and 7 for corners, total 18.
Under the same assumption 4x4 would require 7 for corners, 23 for edges and 23 for centers.
total 53.
5x5 - 7 for corners, 23 for +edges, 23 for xedges, 23 for winglets, 11 for central edges.
total 87.

Of course this is not always the case, you can reduce the centers of 4x4 by selecting the orientation.

Take 3x3 - 20, 4x4 - 50, 5x5 - 85 and I hope it is accurate enough for an answer to your question.


Peedu


----------



## MrMoney (Jan 2, 2011)

Hi guys,

I am thinking about attempting a 5´bld. I am wondering how to solve it. I am thinking:

Solve:
x-centres -commutators
+-centres -commutators
midges - m2
dedges - r2
corners - BH corners / OLD PC if parity

So I am wondering, what type of paritys can you have at 5BLD? And what "extra" is there to know then the 444?


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 2, 2011)

For r2 dedges it's just the same as at 4x4.

Corners and midges depend of each other. If you have no corner parity, you have no midge parity either. If you do have corner parity, you also have midge parity.
For that I do: Corners + Y-Perm (make sure that the centers don't get affected if you do corners first). Then I do my solve with midges last. After that: U' F2 U m2 U' F2 U, that fixes the m-slice and the UL and UB midge. Then I do y2 R U R' U' (Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2) U R U' R' y2. And after that a Y-Perm is left.

I hope it helps. Concerning the centres I don't really know, because I don't use comms.


----------



## TMOY (Jan 2, 2011)

More precisely, the dependencies between parities are:
- corners + midges + x-centers + +-centers;
- wings + +-centers.
If you do centers before the parity fixes, you won't have to worry about center parities, as long as you make sure that your parity algs permute only centers of the same color.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 2, 2011)

(Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2). These moves that Corny wrote are good ones. They switch the UB wings with the UF wings. So use a PLL to solve the corners and whole edges (midges and wings). That should leave you with 2 sets of wings to switch using the above alg.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 21, 2011)

Ugh... Why is 3x3x3BLD so awkward and weird? I figured this thread was as good a place as any to post this sentiment. I like 4x4x4 BLD, and even doing the 3x3x3 part of 5x5x5BLD is kinda fun. But 3x3x3BLD by itself is just hard to wrap my brain around. Stupid permuted but disoriented pieces lol.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 21, 2011)

Agreed. But it's even worse when you try to do multi. So you don't know the half of it.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 21, 2011)

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who has these thoughts sometimes, thanks Mike! By the way, we should ban permuted but disoriented pieces. They're totally not cool enough to play... seriously


----------



## aronpm (Jan 21, 2011)

Pretend your 3x3 is a 5x5 and you skipped centers and wings


----------



## LarsN (Jan 21, 2011)

Yeah, I like bigbld better than 3x3x3bld too. I do more 5x5x5bld solves than 3x3x3bld. I even feel that I memo the 3x3x3 part faster on the 5x5x5, like I'm on a roll or something. My memo gets warmed up by the other memo stages. Maybe I should consider warming up for 3x3x3bld with some 5x5x5 memoing


----------



## kinch2002 (Jan 28, 2011)

Finished writing r2 and corner tutorials for 4bld. I'll record them in the next few days, and then put them all up together with the centre comms video and maybe one on memo too.

I wrote it during a particularly boring 2 hour lecture on Elasticity and Plasticity


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 28, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Finished writing r2 and corner tutorials for 4bld. I'll record them in the next few days, and then put them all up together with the centre comms video and maybe one on memo too.
> 
> I wrote it during a particularly boring 2 hour lecture on Elasticity and Plasticity


 
Oh yes yes please. It'll be nice to have a full video tutorials for 4BLD.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 28, 2011)

It'll be even nicer to have full video tutorials with (Daniel's) English accent <3


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jan 28, 2011)

kinch2002 said:


> Finished writing r2 and corner tutorials for 4bld. I'll record them in the next few days, and then put them all up together with the centre comms video and maybe one on memo too.
> 
> I wrote it during a particularly boring 2 hour lecture on Elasticity and Plasticity


 
WEEEEEEEEEEE .

Feels like Christmas.
I need to start learning 4x4x4 BLD..supposed to know how to do it by Nationals


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 6, 2011)

I have a quick question for all you multi- and BIG cube BLD people, and this seemed the most appropriate place to ask. How comparable is a single 7x7x7BLD solve to a 10 cube 3x3x3 multi? They're almost the exact same number of journey locations for me (maybe 11 cube 3x3x3 multi would be a closer fit). I'm curious about the memo + execution time. If I can get my 7x7x7 BLD down to sub-hour, would that mean that I would have a decent shot at getting a 10-11 cube 3x3x3 multi also in sub-hour?

Thanks in advance for those who can help provide some insight here.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 6, 2011)

My latest 7bld attempt: 56:35 (28:31 memo) (DNF obviously)
I haven't done 10 cubes in a while but scaling down my 13/13 I'd guess around 11:20 memo, 10 exec (=21 minutes)

I think 7bld can't be compared to multi because there are different kinds of pieces. Centers are really hard to memo, compared to wings/edges or corners. 

I think you could definitely do sup10 sub60 though.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 7, 2011)

It takes me somewhat less time to memorize a 7x7x7 than it takes me to memorize 10 3x3x3s. The reason isn't locations - they're about the same number of pieces/locations. The reason is that there are too many disjointed things to memorize for individual cubes for me. For each 3x3x3, I have to memorize edges, corners, flipped edges, and twisted corners. That makes 40 discrete sets of information for ten cubes. For a 7x7x7, I just need to memorize 2 sets of obliques, 2 sets of wings, 2 sets of X centers, 2 sets of + centers, a set of central edges, perhaps flipped central edges, a set of corners, and perhaps twisted corners. A total of 12 sets of information. It's larger amounts of information for each set, but the fact that there are fewer sets seems to help me. Somehow, reviewing that information is easier for me on a 7x7x7 than it is reviewing for 3x3x3s.

Lately, I've been doing lots of 3x3x3 multis with 9 cubes. I'm averaging around 25 minutes memorizing 9 cubes. On a good 7x7x7, I should be closer to 20 minutes memorizing. I'd say I get through the task of memorizing them in about the same time as a 7x7x7, but I take longer going over the memorization on the 3x3x3s than I do for the 7x7x7. So I actually get going on the 7x7x7 quicker.

For execution, the 7x7x7 is definitely slower than the 3x3x3s, for me. You can go through the 3x3x3s really fast; the 7x7x7 takes longer. Switching to BH wings has helped a lot on execution for 7x7x7, though - it's really helpful to minimize the move count on 7x7x7, where that's not quite as important on 3x3x3.


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Feb 8, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I have a quick question for all you multi- and BIG cube BLD people, and this seemed the most appropriate place to ask. How comparable is a single 7x7x7BLD solve to a 10 cube 3x3x3 multi? They're almost the exact same number of journey locations for me (maybe 11 cube 3x3x3 multi would be a closer fit). I'm curious about the memo + execution time. If I can get my 7x7x7 BLD down to sub-hour, would that mean that I would have a decent shot at getting a 10-11 cube 3x3x3 multi also in sub-hour?
> 
> Thanks in advance for those who can help provide some insight here.


 
Hey Chris.
Yes, if you do a 7x7x7 BLD, its about the same like 10 cubes blindfolded.
But if you do a 7x7x7 BLD in sub-1 hour, you can do more 3x3x3s in sub-1 hour. Just the execution part of the 3x3x3 is soooo much easier and faster. Also finding the correct pieces is easier on a 3x3x3. Its even "harder" on a 5x5x5 (compared to a 3x3x3). But if you just talk about the information part, so all the information you have to memorize and compare a 7x7x7 to 10 3x3x3s, you are right.

Dennis


----------



## LarsN (Mar 8, 2011)

I've been doing a little experiment lately. People always say that you should memo piece cycles and not piece position. I decided to test if this was true and found that bigcube centers would be an area which might have some potentiel, because they are not as restricted as other piece types.

Then I developed a memo method (I did not want to do this visually!) and I found that memo was not a problem at all. I didn't suspect it to be, but it seems that memo will be at least as fast or maybe even faster than cycle memo. Here is my memo from my last test solve on 4x4 centers:

"Han Solo attacks Kristoffer (my cousin)"
"Cinderella falls dead on the body of an alien"
"Belle (beauty and the beast) lies dead at the foot af a pilot"

Each person and the persons action defines the colors of the four positions on a face of the cube. Not doing an action is also an action. I place the three images in the same room (in this case my living room) because I need to be able to random access the faces.
Very little information is needed to remember the colors of all 24 pieces. This is why I believe that memo could be faster then cycle memo with practice.

The hard part is of course execution. I've only had two attempts so far, but they where not as slow as I feared. The problems I encountered so far:

- It takes some time to find the cycles to solve. I believe that this time will reduce with practise but not likely to be as fast as prepared cycle memo.
- Remembering which pieces you have already finished. This is a big hurdle for me, but of course I need more practice.

Both my first attempts were successful and I feel very comfortable about the memo part. But I was wondering if anybody had ideas on how to approach execution in a better way. I doubt that this will become my main method, but I would like to test it some more. Maybe it will be useful for a 7x7x7bld because of all the centers.


----------



## TMOY (Mar 8, 2011)

I always memo centers by position, precisely because it makes memo significantly faster.
For execution, I don't do cycles. I just solve a whole center, then another one, and so on.


----------



## LarsN (Mar 8, 2011)

TMOY said:


> I always memo centers by position, precisely because it makes memo significantly faster.
> For execution, I don't do cycles. I just solve a whole center, then another one, and so on.



Oh, I didn't know that anybody did this. How do you solve the centers?


----------



## Marcell (Mar 8, 2011)

Yeah, could you elaborate? The last thing I heard about this was that there is no efficient solving method for this kind of "static" memo.


----------



## Zane_C (Mar 8, 2011)

LarsN said:


> I've been doing a little experiment lately. People always say that you should memo piece cycles and not piece position. I decided to test if this was true and found that bigcube centers would be an area which might have some potentiel, because they are not as restricted as other piece types.
> 
> Then I developed a memo method (I did not want to do this visually!) and I found that memo was not a problem at all. I didn't suspect it to be, but it seems that memo will be at least as fast or maybe even faster than cycle memo. Here is my memo from my last test solve on 4x4 centers:
> 
> ...


 
Interesting read. The execution seems like it would take a lot of thinking, but as you said, practice would reduce the effort. 
Even if the memo was somewhat faster than regular cycling memo, the slowed execution could be a major downfall.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 8, 2011)

Richard Patterson had the idea to come up with a 1296 image system that would allow you to encode all the pieces in one orbit on the same face using only 1 image. Also, 1296 is not that many images compared to our current lists, usually around the 550's.

I don't personally have any experience with how to deal with the solving phase, but I do like the idea of solving one face at a time. Is there anyway to implement that using 3-cycles rather than 2-cycles? I'm not even sure there would be one buffer location when solving one face at a time, as it wouldn't be very often that the buffer spot was the color you needed to cycle.

Very interesting. If a good method came out for this that was worth switching to, I would definitely begin building a 1296 image system though. I feel if you're going to do this, then go all out.


----------



## TMOY (Mar 8, 2011)

Marcell said:


> Yeah, could you elaborate? The last thing I heard about this was that there is no efficient solving method for this kind of "static" memo.


 Depends on what you call "efficient". Solving with static memo 'is slower than solving by cycles, but if you lose less time on execution than you're saving on memo it's still efficient enough.

Let's say I'm solving a 4^3 (for bigger cubes it works the same way). I start with a center with 2 or 3 cubies of identical colors (if any, if there's none the scramble sucks anyway) and put the remaining ones on it using niklas, solving some other cener cubies in the process if possible. Then I do the same on a 2nd center, and so on. If the centers are not solved at their correct places, I use whole center swaps at the end to fix them. 

The main difficulty of the method is to keep track of everything you're doing to centers, but with practice it's not that hard.



cmhardw said:


> I don't personally have any experience with how to deal with the solving phase, but I do like the idea of solving one face at a time. Is there anyway to implement that using 3-cycles rather than 2-cycles? I'm not even sure there would be one buffer location when solving one face at a time, as it wouldn't be very often that the buffer spot was the color you needed to cycle.


 
I think it's definitely possible to use 3-cycles, I just haven't practised them yet. For the buffer, I use a floating buffer anyway.


----------



## LarsN (Mar 8, 2011)

I tried a solve doing a face at a time. It seemed just as difficult as regular 3-cycling. I think I will stick with 3 cycles for a time and try to improve.



cmhardw said:


> Richard Patterson had the idea to come up with a 1296 image system that would allow you to encode all the pieces in one orbit on the same face using only 1 image. Also, 1296 is not that many images compared to our current lists, usually around the 550's.


 
1296 images, is that for a 3x3x3 (4 corners and 4 edges) or 4x4x4 (4 centers, 4 corners and 8 wings)? I don't really get it.

My system has 441 persons doing 1 of four action types to define 4 centers on a face.


----------



## riffz (Mar 8, 2011)

LarsN said:


> I tried a solve doing a face at a time. It seemed just as difficult as regular 3-cycling. I think I will stick with 3 cycles for a time and try to improve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
An image for every possible configuration of 4x4 centers on a given face.

6 possible colours per piece, and 4 center pieces per face gives 6^4 = 1296

I haven't heard of any efficient method for solving pieces after memorizing the current state of the cube in this way, but it would be amazing to memo centers using only 6 images.


----------



## LarsN (Mar 9, 2011)

riffz said:


> but it would be amazing to memo centers using only 6 images.


 
That's what I do with my memo. Using only 441 images/persons. You can check the example from my earlier post or I can explain if anybody is interested.


----------



## rock1313 (Mar 15, 2011)

Theres a problem I always encounter in big cube centers. When I memorize a piece in one face and then later I memorize the piece in the same face but accidentally memorize the same piece I memorized before and at the end of my memorization. I know something is wrong but it takes me ages to find out what is the problem. For example I memorized the letter N and at I know at the end of the memorization I have done something wrong. I go through my memorization and eventually I found out I memorized 2 N's instead of 1. 

How can I keep track of center pieces I've already memorized and don't memorize the same piece twice.


----------



## Marcell (Mar 15, 2011)

Use your fingers: put one finger on the center piece you memorized last on each sides. (It is neccessery that you always start from the same piece and move in the same direction.)


----------



## rock1313 (Mar 15, 2011)

Marcell said:


> (It is neccessery that you always start from the same piece and move in the same direction.)


 
I never thought of it that way. 

Thanks


----------



## MrMoney (May 9, 2011)

Yes said:


> Corners and midges depend of each other. If you have no corner parity, you have no midge parity either. If you do have corner parity, you also have midge parity.
> For that I do: Corners + Y-Perm (make sure that the centers don't get affected if you do corners first). Then I do my solve with midges last. After that: U' F2 U m2 U' F2 U, that fixes the m-slice and the UL and UB midge. Then I do y2 R U R' U' (Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2) U R U' R' y2. And after that a Y-Perm is left.


 
About 5BLD, am I correct in this?:

Can anyone write this even simpler? I am sorry but it still is not very clear to me. Do we do pairs of corners untill last corner, then midges with Ui F2 U m2 Ui F2 U, then y2 R U R' U' (Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2) U R U' R' y2 and at last the last corner?

I have been checking for parity in all my 5BLD attempts and just done a mental U before memorizing ^^


----------



## Zane_C (May 9, 2011)

MrMoney said:


> About 5BLD, am I correct in this?:
> 
> Can anyone write this even simpler? I am sorry but it still is not very clear to me. Do we do pairs of corners untill last corner, then midges with Ui F2 U m2 Ui F2 U, then y2 R U R' U' (Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2) U R U' R' y2 and at last the last corner?
> 
> I have been checking for parity in all my 5BLD attempts and just done a mental U before memorizing ^^


It's very unnecessary to have to think about the U center being rotated. Here's the approach that I use:

Memo: xcenters > +centers > wings > corners > midges.
I use images for everything except for the midges.

Solving:
*1. Midges: M2.*
These are the last pieces to be memorised so can be executed straight away. 
I'm not confident enough with edge comms to use UF as my buffer, however I'm thinking about switching to UF and solving difficult cases with M2 - but instead shooting to DB. 

You will first need to make sure the algs you use are center friendly. 
Instead of shooting to UF with U2 M' U2 M', use a commutator such as [M D2 M'] U2 [M D2 M'] U2 M2. 
Instead of shooting to DB with M U2 M U2, use a commutator such as x [M' U2 M] D2 [M' U2 M] D2 M2 x'. (I know, they're bad.)

You will know if you have parity because you memo the corners before the midges. 
If you have parity, solve all the midges except leaving UB and UL swapped.

*2. xcenters: Comms.*
Solve normally.

*3. +centers: Comms.*
Solve normally.

*4. Wings: r2.*
Solve normally.

*5. Corners: BH/OP. *
On the last corner target you will be forced to use either Y, J or L-perm. This will solve the last corner and also swap the UL and UB midges into their correct positions. 
However, the UL and UB wing pairs are swapped in the process. Fix this by: B U' B' (Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2) B U B'.

Feel free to ask if you're still unsure on something.


----------



## MrMoney (May 9, 2011)

Thanks Zane, it is really clear now. When doing midges I always do commutators for the UF and DB cases.


----------



## Zane_C (May 27, 2011)

I'm interested in what approach the 5BLD solvers here use to flip midges. I find that using center friendly conjugates is slow.


----------



## aronpm (May 27, 2011)

I use m' U m' U m' U2 m U m U m U2

Not sure if the correct notation is m or M.

It's center-safe, if your centers are solved. If not, it messes them up.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (May 27, 2011)

M. In my method I begin to solve the corners so I learned to know that with M fingers work differently. 







```
anti hero anti commercial
```


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 27, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I use m' U m' U m' U2 m U m U m U2
> 
> Not sure if the correct notation is m or M.
> 
> It's center-safe, if your centers are solved. If not, it messes them up.


 
That's what I use too. Flipping those central edges is always the very last thing I do with a 5x5x5 BLD solve, if I have them.


----------



## Zane_C (May 27, 2011)

Thanks, I think I will start executing all the midges last. That way I don't have to try and think of center-safe comms for every single case, I can just incorporate other algs into it.


----------



## cmhardw (May 27, 2011)

I flip midges as the very first part of the solve (just after moving central centers if the solve was a re-oriented solve). I use commutators and cyclic shifts of commutators (setup moves are never necessary).

To flip UF and UR I would do:
R' E' R2 E2 R' U' R E2 R2 E R U

To flip UL and FR I would do a cyclic shift with:
E' R2 E2 R' U2 R E2 R2 E R U2 R'

It's really the commutator: 
R' E' R2 E2 R' U2 R E2 R2 E R U2

but I start at the second move and wrap around. This way setup moves are not necessary.

To flip UL and FL I would start at the third move and wrap around with a cyclic shift:
R2 E2 R' U2 R E2 R2 E R U2 R' E'

For 4 midges flipped I'm still using the mono-flip style alg, but done 4 times. I've been lazy honestly and haven't tried to come up with a shorter mono-flip style alg that actually flips 2 edges at the same time.

I would say there is no reason to hang onto the midge flip information until the end of the solve. Sure you all are using faster algs than I am (because I need algs that are fully supercube safe). But at the same time, for any 2 edges flipped case I can solve it in 12 moves. I also can memo the flips visually and do them immediately after putting on the blindfold. That's just my opinion of course. I prefer to use longer moves for the saving in memo time. I feel the net time loss/gain is actually a time gain this way.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 27, 2011)

Chris, I can see where this is a quite useful way of handling those pieces! The reason I've never worried about storing them and doing them last is because of my silly penchant for doing big multis and relays BLD - for those, I have to memorize the flipped pieces in long-term memory anyway, so I haven't bothered to do better for the simpler single-cube cases. But it might save a few seconds...

Funny how your style is hampered by your supercube quirk, and my style is hampered by my multi quirk.


----------



## Zane_C (May 27, 2011)

Thanks for sharing your style and those commutators Chris, I like how your ways of doing things are always unique.


----------



## TMOY (May 30, 2011)

I use a similar alg to Chris's to flip two adjacent edges. For other cases:
L E L' B2 L E' L' B2 E B2 E' B2 flips FR and BL
B2 L E L' B2 L E' L' B2 E B2 E' flips FR and BR
Both are just two 3-cycles merged together, none of these 3-cycle is center-safe but their effects on centers happen to cancel 

To flip more than two midges at once, I've found nothing better than (MU)^20 (for 4 midges)) for the moment.


----------



## Zane_C (Jun 5, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Would I "memo" that new letter for the new cycle? Like, say I choose A and break into that along with MV, I memo AMV*************?


Good question. Yes, you can memo the buffer as a letter, it can be done visually too. 

Referring to your example: what you probably shouldn't do, is memo this as the letter-pair AM. 
If you did this, you wouldn't be executing one whole letter pair for each comm, you would instead be executing the second letter of one image, then the first letter of the next image.
So for each time you switch buffer, perhaps you can just have that letter as it's own separate image.


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 20, 2011)

TMOY said:


> I use a similar alg to Chris's to flip two adjacent edges. For other cases:
> L E L' B2 L E' L' B2 E B2 E' B2 flips FR and BL
> B2 L E L' B2 L E' L' B2 E B2 E' flips FR and BR
> Both are just two 3-cycles merged together, none of these 3-cycle is center-safe but their effects on centers happen to cancel



That's a very cool way to handle those cases!



TMOY said:


> To flip more than two midges at once, I've found nothing better than (MU)^20 (for 4 midges)) for the moment.


 
Wow, I like that a lot! If I'm not mistaken, that's supercube safe.

This analysis uses my blindfold lettering scheme, as I am at work and need to make this post brief. If anyone wants me to, I can translate it into Speffz. I also did (M' U)20 instead of (MU)20

t-centers: (APXECDMUHB) 10-cycle identity
x-centers: (ABDC) 4 cycle identity
wings: (QNJE)(IFRM) two 4-cycle identities for an overall 4 cycle identity
corners: (ABDC) 4 cycle identity
midges: (APXQ-flip)(CD-flip) 8 cycle identity with a 4 cycle identity, an overall 8 cycle identity. Every 4 cycles will flip the midges at UL, UB, DF, DB and return the UR and UF midges to solved.

Performing (M' U)20 will perform an identity on all pieces types, except for midges where it will leave UB, UL, DF, and DB flipped.

I imagine you already knew this, but I wanted to write this in case others, like myself, were wondering about if this alg was supercube safe. I may actually switch to this - I'll have to try it in a solve and see how it goes. Very cool, thanks for posting this!


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 21, 2011)

So I just made a real huge "discovery" while doing 5bld sighted.

I was on + centers, and I remember how many people seem to say they hate them. Well, I find them to be extremely easy! I also normally have trouble in 4bld with U/D face comms (not face interchange comms, just comms involving those two faces + 1 more)

Well, I had some U/D face comms, and I just realized I can easily solve it if I approach it like I would an M2 case. Walah! Worked. I now also realized the same concept can be applied for x centers for 4bld. I sincerely doubt I'll ever screw up U/D face comms anymore. I now believe my only possible DNFs from center comms will be finger slips, or face interchange comms (specifically, U/D faces)

Anyway this is a HUGE leap for me and this has greatly helped me.

I shall be doing an attempt tomorrow, I'm tired tonight.


----------



## Julian (Jun 21, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> So I just made a real huge "discovery" while doing 5bld sighted.
> 
> I was on + centers, and I remember how many people seem to say they hate them. Well, I find them to be extremely easy! I also normally have trouble in 4bld with U/D face comms (not face interchange comms, just comms involving those two faces + 1 more)
> 
> ...


Could you explain? I'd love to learn.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 21, 2011)

Take a look at this example. Replacing M2 with l2

[l2, b' R b]


I just notice that the l2 will do the interchange, and move that D face into the U, which solves that D face piece. Now the insertion will move that R face piece into place, and undo.

If you understand M2 I shouldn't need to explain that example. But whatever.

Also another (this is most likely not optimal)
[l2, R' b' R b]


----------



## aronpm (Jun 21, 2011)

Lucas already has that on his website


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jun 21, 2011)

I've never seen his website, nor knew he had one. I've never known Lucas to be a person to go to, to ask about big cube BLD...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 21, 2011)

Lucas was doing big BLD early, when it was still uncommon for people to do it. So even though he doesn't practice it much, he's pretty knowledgeable about it.

And I agree with you - I think + centers are very easy. I always love when I get to them in a 5x5x5 BLD solve - I get to speed up during them. The fun thing is that obliques on bigger cubes are even easier! The only problem with obliques is sometimes I mess up and pick the wrong orbit.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jun 21, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> And I agree with you - I think + centers are very easy. I always love when I get to them in a 5x5x5 BLD solve - I get to speed up during them.


 I was trying to comm on the 5x5 centers and the + centers where fun to do.
Sorry for being nubish at BigBLD

I have a feeling this is going to consume my life. Thursday marks the start of the end. haha



Spoiler



I am going on a 4 day trip in a car, Basically going to make my Letter pair list and start doing some BLD.
Just some cases for corners are hard to find solutions for (Optimally that is)
Rather excited, Found super awesome Buffer for edges and am just super pumped. I still have no idea how I am going to deal with parity. I think I can identify it


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 21, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> I am going on a 4 day trip in a car, *Basically going to make my Letter pair list and start doing some BLD.*



Yay!   :tu


----------



## Marcell (Aug 3, 2011)

Does anyone use AUF turns to keep the buffer position for centers in place when the buffer is filled? I'm experimenting with floating buffers but I found that my speed and accuracy decrease too much when using the 2nd, 3rd and 4th buffer position on the U face.


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 3, 2011)

Marcell said:


> Does anyone use AUF turns to keep the buffer position for centers in place when the buffer is filled? I'm experimenting with floating buffers but I found that my speed and accuracy decrease too much when using the 2nd, 3rd and 4th buffer position on the U face.


That's an interesting thought. Personally I just change buffer positions. I'd like to switch to a system where I only use one buffer piece, because then I can hopefully get used to all the different possible cycles rather than working them out on the fly like I do atm. So I think I might have a go at this idea.


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2011)

Marcell said:


> Does anyone use AUF turns to keep the buffer position for centers in place when the buffer is filled? I'm experimenting with floating buffers but I found that my speed and accuracy decrease too much when using the 2nd, 3rd and 4th buffer position on the U face.


 
I planned on learning speed-optimal comms from Ulb buffer and doing that. I got about half of them written down, but never finished because I got bored of 4bld.


----------



## Marcell (Aug 3, 2011)

aronpm said:


> I planned on learning speed-optimal comms from Ulb buffer and doing that. I got about half of them written down, but never finished because I got bored of 4bld.


 
Interesting, I was under the impression that move-optimal algs are more or less the fastest algs for centers. I don't know why, I guess I haven't really tried anything else. Could you show me some examples where the your alg is faster than the move-optimal commutator?


----------



## aronpm (Aug 3, 2011)

Marcell said:


> Interesting, I was under the impression that move-optimal algs are more or less the fastest algs for centers. I don't know why, I guess I haven't really tried anything else. Could you show me some examples where the your alg is faster than the move-optimal commutator?


 
Well, I guess it depends. I prefer <U,Uw,r,l> comms for centers, and minimal rotations, so for example I would rather do [R2:[Uw r Uw', l']] than z' [d, l' U l] or z [u, r' D r] (the first also has less slice moves)


----------



## Marcell (Aug 3, 2011)

Not bad! Have you got these algs somewhere, could you maybe give me your list? I might look into this more and finish it...


----------



## rock1313 (Aug 17, 2011)

Zane_C said:


> You will first need to make sure the algs you use are center friendly.
> Instead of shooting to UF with U2 M' U2 M', use a commutator such as [M D2 M'] U2 [M D2 M'] U2 M2.
> Instead of shooting to DB with M U2 M U2, use a commutator such as x [M' U2 M] D2 [M' U2 M] D2 M2


 
No wonder I keep on getting DNFs in 5x5 bld


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 10, 2011)

I'm certain this is already known, but I can't believe I never thought of this before.

X-center Per-Special (12 moves) done as a two move setup to an 8 move commutator:
l' F2 l U2 l' d2 l U2 l' d2 F2 l


----------



## RyanReese09 (Sep 11, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I'm certain this is already known, but I can't believe I never thought of this before.
> 
> X-center Per-Special (12 moves) done as a two move setup to an 8 move commutator:
> l' F2 l U2 l' d2 l U2 l' d2 F2 l


 
When we were on facebook going over 4bld, I'm certain we went over this (you asked me what I would do in this situation)


----------



## toastman (Sep 14, 2011)

So, I've been learning TuRBo recently on the 3x3. (The setup moves are tricky, much practice required). As an aside, I wondered what would happen if I tried a variant of these algs on a 4x4: Try this:

U' R U R' U' [R'r] U R U' r' U (Do the R'r thing like an M' on a 3x3)

Viola, you've just done a 3-cycle of edge pieces.

I'm sure the rest of the TuRBo algs could be converted this way, maybe even finger-trick friendly.

1) Is this of any use?
2) Is such an approach feasable? Say, as an alternative to r2?


----------



## aronpm (Sep 14, 2011)

toastman said:


> So, I've been learning TuRBo recently on the 3x3. (The setup moves are tricky, much practice required). As an aside, I wondered what would happen if I tried a variant of these algs on a 4x4: Try this:
> 
> U' R U R' U' [R'r] U R U' r' U (Do the R'r thing like an M' on a 3x3)
> 
> ...


Check out the 3-cycles on Kir's K4 page. (the notation there is: r is a slice, Rw is a wide turn). There are more cases because you can have 2 targets on the same edge pair.

You definitely could use it as an alternative to r2 but I don't know if it's worth it, because r2 is so simple, and the movecount for r2 is probably about the same.


----------



## toastman (Sep 14, 2011)

aronpm said:


> Check out the 3-cycles on Kir's K4 page. (the notation there is: r is a slice, Rw is a wide turn). There are more cases because you can have 2 targets on the same edge pair.
> 
> You definitely could use it as an alternative to r2 but I don't know if it's worth it, because r2 is so simple, and the movecount for r2 is probably about the same.


 
Ah, I see. Damn there are a lot of cases. Thanks dude!


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 14, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> When we were on facebook going over 4bld, I'm certain we went over this (you asked me what I would do in this situation)


 
Yeah, I think I do remember that. I guess I always just thought of this as using the 3 turn setup l' F2 l (which gives the same algorithm as long as you do the cancelation that results). I just never noticed that the 3 turn setup had a cancellation until just now.


----------



## CubingSpree (Sep 16, 2011)

is there any 4x4 BLD Tutorial and textbased one?


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 16, 2011)

this might seem a bit off, but Is there a super cube safe T perm?


----------



## Hershey (Sep 16, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> this might seem a bit off, but Is there a super cube safe T perm?


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzofrt8i7go


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 16, 2011)

hurm, after thinking about ifor a bit you can't have a super cube safe T perm.
the video just confirmed my suspicion.


----------



## CubingSpree (Sep 16, 2011)

hey i said that is there any 4x4 BLD Tutorial and textbased one?..... no any answer :/


----------



## Julian (Sep 16, 2011)

CubingSpree said:


> hey i said that is there any 4x4 BLD Tutorial and textbased one?..... no any answer :/


Seriously? It's been an hour.

Daniel Sheppard (kinch2002) on youtube.


----------



## Mossar (Dec 30, 2011)

I've solved maybe five 444 blindfolded, my best is 9:22 and now I noticed that I've got problems with centers. I solve centers with U2 method and it's very nice, because it's so easy to understand. But I have to use inner slices all the time so my execution time is very long. I start after memo at 4 minute and I end it probably at 8 :/ It is TOO LONG. Maybe it is better to do L Lw' instead of l' ? How do you execute with U2?


----------



## kinch2002 (Dec 31, 2011)

I agree - 4 minutes just for centers isn't ideal. Consider using comms. Move count gets halved that way


----------



## Cubenovice (Dec 31, 2011)

I've only just started working towards 4BLD and I found that comms for centers are not that hard.
It helps a little when you already know commutators though.

Two good resources:
- Mike's write up on big cube BLD centers
- Daniel's Youtube tutorial


----------



## jonlin (Apr 4, 2012)

This is a discussion, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet
I just realized Daniel Tammet would be amazing at big cubes blind if he tried, learned to cube, learned blindfold solving.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 5, 2012)

jonlin said:


> This is a discussion, right?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet
> I just realized Daniel Tammet would be amazing at big cubes blind if he tried, learned to cube, learned blindfold solving.


 
This has already been discussed fairly heavily in other threads on this forum. I think one of the best posts about this was by Stefan here. My suspicion is that if Daniel were good enough to be decent at the cube-solving part of it, and if he were motivated, he could be fairly decent at big cubes BLD, but I suspect it would take him an awful lot of focus and years of effort to match Marcell Endrey's recent awesome 5x5x5 BLD record. I seriously doubt he has a significant innate advantage over Marcell (or even me) for big cubes BLD.

(And by the way, much congratulations to Marcell - it's an incredible achievement!)


----------



## Mossar (Apr 29, 2012)

I've got a problem with 555 bld. Everything I do as in 444, inner edges with M2 method, but I don't know how to execute inner centers. Friend told me to use this comm:

l E l' U2 l E' l' U2 and the inversion.

But it's very hard to make setups of it to some cases. Can somebody help me and find easier way to solve it? I doesn't have to be commutators, it can be 1-piece algorithm.


----------



## DrKorbin (Apr 29, 2012)

You can use U2 for T-centers. It is similar to U2 for X-centers (that is, centers that 4x4x4 has), but a bit more complicated because of some exceptions.

Anyway, you can use not only l E l' U2 l E' l' U2, but l U' l' E* l U l' E* (where E* = E, E' or E2), S' U' S u* S' U S u*, or even M d2 M' U2 M d2 M' U2, tons of them.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 30, 2012)

You can also adapt M2 for T-centres.


----------



## drewsopchak (Apr 30, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> You can also adapt M2 for T-centres.


 
Center pieces are the best part of big bld. So many comm/solving options.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 30, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Center pieces are the best part of big bld. So many comm/solving options.


 
Agreed . Now I just need more time to practice it, my best 5BLD so far was off by 3 centres so not even a success.


----------



## sukesh12 (May 15, 2012)

Mixing memory method feels great. I use letters for centers, visual for edges and letters again for corners.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 15, 2012)

sukesh12 said:


> Mixing memory method feels great. I use letters for centers, visual for edges and letters again for corners.


Now mix up your memo methods within each set of pieces, and it might just be awesome.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 15, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> Now mix up your memo methods within each set of pieces, and it might just be awesome.



Hi Daniel,

could you give asome more insight on your mixing of memo?

Do you mix randomly like for instance start a sentence, some visual pieces, continue sentence or do you mix very specific: first few pieces visually, then rest of the set of pieces with sentences/ story?

I do the latter for 3 BLD corners, hoping to build up to full visual corners.


----------



## DrKorbin (May 15, 2012)

sukesh12 said:


> Mixing memory method feels great. I use letters for centers, visual for edges and letters again for corners.


What is your average time of memo and for execution?


----------



## kinch2002 (May 15, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Hi Daniel,
> 
> could you give asome more insight on your mixing of memo?
> 
> ...


I don't have a specific method of memo mixing.
Edges - I always memo these in sets of 4. By default they are memoed with letters made into a short phrase covering the 4 letters. However, if I think the first 2 pieces are really easy visually (e.g. adjacent) or if I spend too long thinking of a phrase, then I'll do the 4 letters visually.
Centres - These are memoed as a 3 (including buffer) then in 2s. New cycles (and therefore new buffer) start with another 3 letters. I memo with a complete mix of letters and visual. I guess I just do visual if it's an easy one and letters otherwise. Occasionally I'll chuck a few numbers in there, because I still know my numbering system that I used the first time I solved (it follows the same order as the letters).
Corners - always just audioloop made from mashing together all the letters (rather than one-syllable sounds). I have to audioloop rather than any visual at all because I can't actually solve a load of 9+ movers by simply knowing the visual cycles - I learnt them straight from letter pair to alg.


----------



## Gabig (Jul 17, 2012)

Hi guys,
I just get bored with 3x3 and wanna solve 4x4  I learn methods (r2/U2) but still don't have really good idea for memorization.
Edges and corners are not a problem, probably I will use memo from 3x3, but I don't how to do with centers.
I thought about letter pairs, I heard it's the best. What do you think? If you are using it how do you place letters on cube? By layers? Or by faces? For example ABCD on top, EFGH on left, etc...


----------



## Julian (Jul 17, 2012)

Gabig said:


> Hi guys,
> I just get bored with 3x3 and wanna solve 4x4  I learn methods (r2/U2) but still don't have really good idea for memorization.
> Edges and corners are not a problem, probably I will use memo from 3x3, but I don't how to do with centers.
> I thought about letter pairs, I heard it's the best. What do you think? If you are using it how do you place letters on cube? By layers? Or by faces? For example ABCD on top, EFGH on left, etc...


In case you weren't aware, there's double the memo required for edges, so won't be able to simply use your 3BLD method. Letter pairs do work very well. It really doesn't matter at all how you place the letters on the cube. Just organize them in a way that makes sense to you, you'll get used to it over time.


----------



## Gabig (Jul 17, 2012)

Julian said:


> In case you weren't aware, there's double the memo required for edges, so won't be able to simply use your 3BLD method.



Well, why not? I would use 24 letters (23 without buffor) 
In 3x3 I use letter for every sticker not every edge so the number is almost the same.


----------



## Mikel (Jul 18, 2012)

Gabig said:


> Well, why not? I would use 24 letters (23 without buffor)
> In 3x3 I use letter for every sticker not every edge so the number is almost the same.



But there are still twice as many edge pieces on the 4x4 than the 3x3, so you will have to memorize and solve twice as many.


----------



## Gabig (Jul 18, 2012)

Mikel said:


> But there are still twice as many edge pieces on the 4x4 than the 3x3, so you will have to memorize and solve twice as many.



yeah, i know, but method would be good
today I tried method Person>action>object with letter pairs, it's quite good, finally I had 3 short stories (person>action>object) and remember without problem, now it's time to add edges and corners


----------



## Cube-Fu (Jul 18, 2012)

Personal shout out to Matt; congratz on the 5bld smash, who'd of thought a girraffe monkey could've used his hooves like that?


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 29, 2012)

*4x4x4 5x5x5 Blindfold paritywith examples*

When I was looking for info on solving big cubes blindfolded I found that you have to browse trough lots of threads to find good ways of dealing with parities.
Zane once started a thread for novice blindfolders but also that thread doesn't pop right up when searching for something like 4x4x4 blindfold parity.
I would like to start another thread specifically for big cube parities that is easy to find via the search function.

I was thinking of a thread title like "4x4x4 5x5x5 blindfold parity" so it is the first thing that pops up when using the search function.
In the thread we could collect parity info, links to existing usefull threads and example solves.

What do you guys think? Could this be usefull or shouldn't we make it too easy 

Here's already a 5x5x5 example solve with parity I prepared earlier today.

This is scramble 1 from this weeks BLD race 2012-30
Bw2 R Uw U2 F2 L R2 D' F L2 Dw2 U' B' L' Bw Dw' Lw' U2 R2 B Fw' D' Uw2 L D2 Uw L2 U R' B2 L Bw2 Dw2 R2 D Bw' Fw Lw2 Fw2 F2 Dw' R' Fw L B' Fw' D Uw Lw2 B F' Uw2 Lw2 B Lw' Rw' F' L U B' 

Full solve written out under spoiler tag, letters after // are my letter-pairs but I would replace these by actual targets.
And add some background info on the parity fixes.



Spoiler



z2 // orient
// x-centers commutators
R' l u l' U' l u' l' U R // DF
D2 r' u2 r' U2 r u2 r' U2 r r D2 // KV
B r U r' u2 r U' r' u2 B' // IE
b' u b U2 b' u' b U2 // GC
D r r U2 r' d2 r U2 r' d2 r' D' // SN
L2 r U2 r' d r U2 r' d' L2 // TB
f' d2 f U' f' d2 f U // QJ
D' r' r' U r d r' U' r d' r D // PU
L r' U r d' r' U' r d L' // RW
R' f' U2 f d f' U2 f d' R // HX
D2 r' d' r' U r d r' U' r r D2 // OM
r d2 r' U r d2 r' U' // XD
// + centers commutators
M' u' M'U M u M' U' M M // BV
S u' S' U' S u S' U // AK
Rw b U b' E b U' b' E' Rw' //HS
S' u' S U2 S' u S U2 // ED
E' b U b' E b U' b' // CF
L M d M' U' M d' M' U L' // LG
L' E r U2 r' E' r U2 r' L // WI
d' M' U' M d M' U M // QT
b' b' U b E b' U' b E' b //PR
E r' U2 r E2 r' U2 r E // UO
D2 r' r' U2 r E' r' U2 r E r D2 // MO
// Wings r2
L2 B L2 B' r2 B L2 B' L2 // U
B' R B r2 B' R' B // B
r2 // G
F d R U R' d' R U' R' F' r2 // P
U' L U r2 U' L' U // V
B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B // H
B L2 B' r2 B L2 B' // T
U R' U' r2 U R U' // W
l2 B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B l2 // L
U' L' U r2 U' L U // S
B' R2 B r2 B' R2 B // Q
R2 U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' R2 // A
r2 // G
U R U' r2 U R' U' // R break into new cycle
R2 B' R2 B r2 B' R2 B R2 // X
L2 U' L2 U r2 U' L2 U L2 // E
U' L2 U r2 U' L2 U // M
l B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B l' // O
l' B' R B U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' B' R' B l // C 
r2 F R U R' d R U' R' d'F' // D
B' R' B r2 B'R B // J
U R U' r2 U R' U' // R
B L' B' r2 B L B' // F break into new cycle
U R2 U' r2 U R2 U' // I
B L B' r2 B L' B' // N
B L' B' r2 B L B' // F
// Midges M2
U' L2 U M2 U' L2 U // M
U R U' M2 U R' U' // R
L2 B L2 B' M2 B L2 B' L2 // U
M2 // G
B' R B M2 B' R' B // B break into new cycle
U' L' U M2 U' L U // S
U R' U' M2 U R U' // W
B' R B M2 B' R' B // B
B L' B' M2 B L B' // F break into new cycle
D M' U R2 U' M U R2 U' D' M2 // P 
B L' B' M2 B L B' // F 
U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U // parity
M' M' U' M' U' M' U2 M U' M U' M U2 M // flip D
// Corners Old Pochmann
D' R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R D // R
D R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F D' // T
D F' R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F D' // M
R' F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' R // E
F R' R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R R F' // J
F' R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F // V
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' // G
// parity fix
y2 R U R' U' Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2 U R U' R'



View at alg.garron.us


----------



## Zane_C (Jul 30, 2012)

Interesting proposal, I think this will be very helpful.



Cubenovice said:


> What do you guys think? Could this be usefull or shouldn't we make it too easy


Haha, good point. 

If people come across this thread via the search function, that means they're looking for help with big cube BLD parity. I imagine if they can't find anything through the search function, they'll be quite eager to ask in the _one answer BLD question thread_ (or perhaps in an entirely new thread). If this proposed thread is created, the number of questions posted concerning big cube BLD parity will be reduced. This means that the cubers who would've answered these repeatedly asked questions can put that time into helping others.

So even though this thread might make it seem "too easy" for the novice cubers, it should also make it easier on the more experienced cubers.


----------



## CHJ (Aug 1, 2012)

Of all the times i've tried the 4BLD, i have only ever come across a near solve once, 2 corners were misaligned. Its not that i don't know how but recognising it, as for my good attempt it had both parities so i have an idea of whats going on. i have problems looking for edges, it take 20 minutes to memo and i hate it, execution is fine. Centers i have a mix of pains, the intuitive side of things usually make me swap two pieces at the end or something and end up counting 23 pieces in position, anything to help my edge recognition and centre placement?

Btw i do centres first, then edges finishing with corners, same as memo, corner audioloops don't work on me.


----------



## AbstractAlg (Aug 1, 2012)

As far as I figured out, you get used to edge placement. If every edge has it's letter, you'll just get used to which edge (left or right) is about when you recognize the first color of edge.
If you use r2 you can track setup moves to see which piece would go to buffer for that current edge in buffer.

For centers, get used to corner commutators, then centers will be quite easy yet you need strong visual representation of the current cycle (or just tap pieces to visualize where they are) and practice. My first center solving took 13mins, next attempt took 4mins, so it's about practice.

Hope this helps a bit.

Also, fast 4bld and 5bld guys, do you count pieces or just ahve big faith that you covered all the pieces/cycles?


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 1, 2012)

AbstractAlg said:


> Also, fast 4bld and 5bld guys, do you count pieces or just ahve big faith that you covered all the pieces/cycles?



I do count number of pieces and cycles, though sometimes I miscalculate. But sometimes it helps me to find out there is a 2-cycle somewhere, especially when the number of cycles is huge.


----------



## Zane_C (Aug 2, 2012)

AbstractAlg said:


> Also, fast 4bld and 5bld guys, do you count pieces or just ahve big faith that you covered all the pieces/cycles?


I don't count the pieces individually, but I do keep track of how many locations I've used. Because I know that for either +centers, xcenters or wings I should go through ~6 locations on average (24 targets). 

So if I finish 2 letters into my 6th location, then I know that's 22 pieces cycled. 
Likewise, if I finish 3 letters into my 5th location, then I've cycled 19 pieces - (If this happened, there would either be several pieces solved, or some unsolved pieces still in need of cycling).


----------



## AbstractAlg (Aug 10, 2012)

How do you solve + centers on 5x5, in which order?
Do you take the "top" +center and then go clockwise or how?

Also, wings parity is fixed exact same as on 4x4 when doing r2, but is there some nicer way to fix M2 parity for middle edges on 5x5?
I fix it last with D' L2 D M2 D' L2 D then solve corners and that two middle edges with some PLL but that leaves me with permuted wings so I do also 5x5 permutation parity fix. Is there some nicer alg or something?


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 10, 2012)

My noobish perspective:

I solve them Clockwise starting from my buffer piece Ul
I find that Ul buffer gives me nice comms with plenty of r and M moves

For lettering: same scheme as x centers (makes them easy to grasp since you solve them similar to the x centers)

Here’s an example solve including parity that I wrote on the previous  page 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...BLD-Discussion&p=766589&viewfull=1#post766589

solving order
x centers - comms
+ centers - comms
Wings – r2
Midges – M2
Corners – Old Pochmann

In case of parity in the M2 / OP part:
Solve M2 edges
Parity fix U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U fixes M slice but swaps UL and UB Midges
Solve Corners Old Pochmann: you are now left with a 2+2 wing swap on UL and UB
parity fix	y2 R U R' U' Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2 U R U' R'

y2 R U R' U' - sexy move places the 2+2 wing swap opposite of eachother
Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2 - opposite 2+2 wing swap 
U R U' R' – undo sexy


----------



## AbstractAlg (Aug 10, 2012)

Yes that is the order that I'm doing currently and I do exact same things, so it means no prettier way of dealing with M2 parity? Oh, well. :|


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 10, 2012)

Just yesterday I considered doing corners first on a 5BLD attempt (to save on memo time) but when I found 7 corner targets this seemed waaaaaay to complcated.

For 4BLD I have switched to corners first because there the parity and center rotations are still managable.
For 5BLD I will have to study a bit more to determine all the scenarios for corners first.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 10, 2012)

For UL UB wing switching on 5x5 I prefer: 4r2' U' r2' U2 F2 2R2 F2 U2 r2 U 4r2', but maybe I'm weird.


----------



## AbstractAlg (Aug 10, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Just yesterday I considered doing corners first on a 5BLD attempt (to save on memo time) but when I found 7 corner targets this seemed waaaaaay to complcated.
> 
> For 4BLD I have switched to corners first because there the parity and center rotations are still managable.
> For 5BLD I will have to study a bit more to determine all the scenarios for corners first.



Use comms. 



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> For UL UB wing switching on 5x5 I prefer: 4r2' U' r2' U2 F2 2R2 F2 U2 r2 U 4r2', but maybe I'm weird.



That is weird, yet helpful.


----------



## Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> For UL UB wing switching on 5x5 I prefer: 4r2' U' r2' U2 F2 2R2 F2 U2 r2 U 4r2', but maybe I'm weird.



What's 4r2? :/


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 11, 2012)

i dont have a cube but i assume turn the 4 rightmost layers 180°, L2 x2 on 5x5


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 11, 2012)

What 3cycles of corners aren't center safe? Are R2 U R2 U' R2, D style comms center safe? Sorry, but I don't have a supercube.... shame on me.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 11, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> i dont have a cube but i assume turn the 4 rightmost layers 180°, L2 x2 on 5x5



Yes, in SiGN notation assuming I used it correctly.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 11, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> What 3cycles of corners aren't center safe? Are R2 U R2 U' R2, D style comms center safe? Sorry, but I don't have a supercube.... shame on me.



You don't have to own a supercube. Just count the number of the turns in a side. That algorithm has the following moves, in a different order: R2R2R2R2R2R2, UU'UU', DD'. None of them rotate centers overall.

If I'm not wrong, a PQP'Q' commutator does not affect on centers, because of its structure: every "center-rotating movements" have their inverse. But you can check any algorithm with that method; not just 3-cycles. E.g., The A-perm "B L' B R2 B' L B R2 B2" has this moves: BBB'BB2 L'L R2R2 -> it is also center safe.

But this PLL:
(R U R' U') (R' F) (R2 U') (R' U' R U) (R' F')
has:
RR'R'R2R'RR': no center turning
UU'U'U'U -> It turns the U side center ccw
FF': no center turning

So, if you do this PLL twice, you get back the solved cube, however, you did a 180 degree turn on the U face (and only the U face).

Note that if your algorithm has M (or similar slice move), you have to be careful with the counting, which movement turns which center. I think you can figure it out yourself from here.


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 11, 2012)

Renslay said:


> You don't have to own a supercube. Just count the number of the turns in a side.
> FF': no center turning



Yes, but I spontaneously generate comms for big cubes. I suppose all opt to use pure BH and A-perm conjugates.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 11, 2012)

As I mentioned, I think a commutator (because of its PQP'Q' structure) does not rotate any centers overall.


----------



## Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Yes, but I spontaneously generate comms for big cubes. I suppose all opt to use pure BH and A-perm conjugates.



Commutators are centre safe, inc other pieces like wings, midges and centres. BH is mostly commutators and A9s which are based around comms (I think they include set-ups to a commutator and cancellations to make 9 moves) so you'll be safe with that.

Old Pochmann corners is NOT safe.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 12, 2012)

what about [M E M', U]?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 12, 2012)

Comms are not necessarily center-safe. [M,U2] is the most obvious example.


----------



## JasonK (Aug 12, 2012)

Am I wrong in saying that all corner comms are centre-safe? Because that's what was originally asked about.


----------



## AbstractAlg (Aug 12, 2012)

All corner commutators are center safe.


----------



## TMOY (Aug 12, 2012)

Renslay said:


> But you can check any algorithm with that method; not just 3-cycles. E.g., The A-perm "B L' B R2 B' L B R2 B2" m here.


SInce when has the A-perm ceased to be a 3-cycle ? 

And yes, every comm using only outer layer turns is center-safe. This includes the corner comms, but not [M,U2] or things like this. (But [M,U2]^2 happens to be center-safe. This is useful for midges: when a 3-cycle can be solved by a [M,U2]-like comm, just do it twice in the opposite direction.)


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 15, 2012)

Wings: DFr > RFd > FRu.
Could anyone share a nice alg for this case, please?


----------



## TMOY (Aug 15, 2012)

Uw' x' R2 U' r' U R2 U' r U x Uw


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 15, 2012)

Thank you.
And DFr > RDf > DRb? And also DFr > FDl > DRb?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 15, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> And DFr > RDf > DRb?


I use Bw R2 U r U' R2 U r' U' Bw'. I rather like this one.


DrKorbin said:


> And also DFr > FDl > DRb?


I use Lw' y' L2 U r2 U' L2 U r2 U' y Lw. I admit I don't like this one as much as the first one.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 15, 2012)

i would do Rw2 y l D l' U l D' l' U' y' Rw2


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 15, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> i would do Rw2 y l D l' U l D' l' U' y' Rw2



That's a really nice solution!


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 28, 2012)

Looking for a wing-swapping alg for 4x4x4 that does not mess up corners.

If there is a nice alg I would like to us it for when these two wings would make up the last cycle during the r2 part.
So instead of having to do perform r2 for three targets + parity I would just set up the two edges and perform the alg.

Yesterday I had everything solved but ULf and UBl so let’s take these two as targets.
The alg may affect centers as I typically do centers before wings.


----------



## vd (Aug 28, 2012)

D' L' F l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2 F' L D is a nice alg that swaps UBr and DFr. You can use its mirror to swap UBl and DFl. Setups are usually quite easy...


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 28, 2012)

That's my r2-parity alg minus the r2 at the start 
I didn't realise that I could indeed set up the edges to it....

THX


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 28, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Looking for a wing-swapping alg for 4x4x4 that does not mess up corners.
> 
> If there is a nice alg I would like to us it for when these two wings would make up the last cycle during the r2 part.
> So instead of having to do perform r2 for three targets + parity I would just set up the two edges and perform the alg.
> ...





vd said:


> D' L' F l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2 F' L D is a nice alg that swaps UBr and DFr. You can use its mirror to swap UBl and DFl. Setups are usually quite easy...



VD's alg has 3 setup moves already. Take off the D' L' F and F' L D from the beginning/end and you have the standard alg to swap UFr and UBr. If a 2 cycle is left at the end just do set up moves that bring the 2 wings to the same face and opposite each other (like UFr UBr) and then perform the alg. For your example (ULf and UBl) do L F U2 or L F y2 set up moves. I thinks it's 3 setup moves maximum.


----------



## vd (Aug 28, 2012)

Thank you Daniel, I used to do the alg with set-ups all the time, but probably I will swithch to just doing what you explained here...


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 28, 2012)

THX Daniel!

I feel so noob right now


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 28, 2012)

Just don't forget that that alg rotates centers, so don't do it before centers and don't use any wide setup moves. Can't tell you how many DNFs I've gotten because of that.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 28, 2012)

I was about to write "I have that in my original post" but it seems I didn't 

I did not post all that I had in my draft; in short: the alg may rotate centers cause I solve wings after centers.

THX for your feedback.

I learned about this alg rotating centers by forgetting the r2 move at the start of fixing wings parity...


----------



## Cubesandfame (Aug 30, 2012)

I figured I should post this here. I have been using roman rooms and it obviously make life easier. Does anybody else use this as there primary memorization method? How fast could I potentially get after practicing with this method? I find that recall is really easy.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 30, 2012)

I use roman rooms for big cubes. It seems as good as any other method to me. My times aren't the best, but I don't think it's my memorization method that's holding me back. I see no reason why you can't get world records with it.


----------



## Cubesandfame (Aug 30, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I use roman rooms for big cubes. It seems as good as any other method to me. My times aren't the best, but I don't think it's my memorization method that's holding me back. I see no reason why you can't get world records with it.



Your times ARE the best to me. Seriously though, it didn't seem like ive heard people saying they used roman rooms for bld, other than not very fast bld solvers. I will only use it for multi bld, 5bld, and 4bld. Another question is how do you use roman rooms? Example: 
EVKWPR
EV KW PR
An Elephant Vows in my closet. A Kangaroo and a Whale bond in my bathroom. I hear a PurR from the hallway.
If you had those letters, how would you use it?


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubesandfame said:


> EV KW PR
> If you had those letters, how would you use it?


Using my bedroom:
(I go clockwise around my bedroom through my way points)
-on my desk, Mitt Romney(EVil) eating a KiWi
-the president sitting on my bookshelf
note that I interact to letter pairs per location so if the next to letters were NI I would imagine the president drinking from the NIle next to my bookshelf.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubesandfame said:


> Your times ARE the best to me. Seriously though, it didn't seem like ive heard people saying they used roman rooms for bld, other than not very fast bld solvers. I will only use it for multi bld, 5bld, and 4bld. Another question is how do you use roman rooms? Example:
> EVKWPR
> EV KW PR
> An Elephant Vows in my closet. A Kangaroo and a Whale bond in my bathroom. I hear a PurR from the hallway.
> If you had those letters, how would you use it?



I usually do 8 letters per location, so if a locus had EV KW PR it would be EVie (my cousin) KnoWs PooR people. I use one room per set of pieces, so 4x4 centers would go in 4 locations in a room. For multi I do one room per cube. I think it's a matter of personal preference whether you like lots of letters per image or just a few. I think it's a smart decision to not use rooms for 3BLD, but that doesn't really pay off until your memo is like sub-30.


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 30, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> I think it's a smart decision to not use rooms for 3BLD, but that doesn't really pay off until your memo is like sub-30.


Not to mention fill up your rooms quickly if you do a lot of 3bld.


----------



## DrKorbin (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubesandfame said:


> I figured I should post this here. I have been using roman rooms and it obviously make life easier. Does anybody else use this as there primary memorization method? How fast could I potentially get after practicing with this method? I find that recall is really easy.



I used roman rooms until I reached 5-6 minutes for 4x4 and 11-12 for 5x5. Now I use stories. For me, it is faster then roman rooms for "little" amount of information (like 4x4 or 5x5, but not for multi), after some practice, of course.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2012)

I use:

- Sentences without specific structure for 3BLD
- Recently switched to journey for 4 and 5 BLD, though several journeys start from a location inside my house.

I typically use three Letter pairs per location
EV KW PR would be: In the hallway I use a bottle of EVian with Kiewen (Dutch for gills)) to smash a PeaR
Depending on the situation I may make a more detailled story or try to envision smaller details of it to make it more memorable.

And I agree, memo typically sticks very well.

To illustrate; still know my story from my 5 bld attempt at N8WB last Sunday:


Spoiler



Instead of translating all words or adding the correct letter pair in brackets I have just CapitaliseD myLetter pair images.
So due to translation Dutch-English some letters are different from my actual memo. 

x-centers
In the hallway ViDi uses a SocK during a BJ
Toilet: I notice a HoLe in my PC, gnawed in by FiKkie 
Doorstep: NeW QujO (the dog…) of Roque (X-men), she doesn’t like it and throws it into the wall (MU)

+-centers
Playhouse: BrA with FiVe images of KetelBinkie
Hedge: trough the hedge appears a TraiN pulling a Sit-on-Top with my DAd on it
Cabin: on the cabin an ULtralight plane covers in DeWdrops lands, pilot informs me he was actualy trying to fly to the MooN
Path: A bottle of nasty Oxo broth
Here I actually missed the last cycle during memo…

wings
Field: LioN from URuzgan holding a Sign with “IJ”
Driveway: there’s vacuum (VQ) packaged FeTa cheese in a BucKet
Garage: Chris Hardwick playing with a BadGer while listing to music from the PiXies
Garden: a PiG running around

Midges
Driveway: GoD using a bottle of EVian to squash a BeetLe
Parking space: something WaLHalla
This one I could not recall AT ALL during the attempt, still missing a bit…

Corners
Garden: Quark (DS9) spraying Deet N on IWein (indicates U /D sticker of flipped corners are on on I and W)


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 30, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> I use:
> 
> - Sentences without specific structure for 3BLD
> - Recently switched to journey for 4 and 5 BLD, though several journeys start from a location inside my house.
> ...


It's annoying how if you check to see if you've cleared your route, you just restrengthen your memo stored on it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 30, 2012)

Just like Cubenovice, I use 3 letter pairs per location. So I would put EV KW PR in a single location. If I do it right, I would tie it directly to the location. For me, EV is a microphone (ElectroVoice), KW is Dene Beardsley (a KiWi, get it? I knew revealing my letter pairs would get me in trouble), and PR is PRaying hands, unless it's more convenient for me to make someone else pray. So I would undoubtedly set up an EV microphone, and have Dene praying into it, which is quite a funny image if you know Dene. It's very rare to get a set of images that work this nicely in a competition solve - I wish I got them more often. 

In my room number one, my first location is a stack of keyboards, so if it were at that location, I'd put the mic hanging off the stand as a rock musician's setup; maybe Dene would be accompanying his prayer with gospel organ.  My second location is a toy horse, so I'd have the mic attached to the saddle somehow, with Dene riding the horse. The third location is a bookcase, so I'd probably have some sort of tabletop mic sitting on a shelf with Dene standing beside it. Etc.


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 30, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I knew revealing my letter pairs would get me in trouble



Santa Claus is my image for HO


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 30, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I see no reason why you can't get world records with it.


In fact, it's happened fairly recently 
I find that roman rooms and journey are extremely similar but I'd say
- Roman rooms tend to be more flexible in terms of using more/less locations in one room from solve to solve (I used 1 room for all edges and 1 room for all centres) hence why I used that for bigbld.
- Journey locations are more spaced out and therefore the chance of mix ups is reduced hence why I preferred that for multibld.


----------



## tim (Sep 11, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> In fact, it's happened fairly recently
> I find that roman rooms and journey are extremely similar but I'd say
> - Roman rooms tend to be more flexible in terms of using more/less locations in one room from solve to solve (I used 1 room for all edges and 1 room for all centres) hence why I used that for bigbld.
> - Journey locations are more spaced out and therefore the chance of mix ups is reduced hence why I preferred that for multibld.



For me, roman rooms have always been a strict subset of journeys. Nothing prevents you from pretending to be a mouse and traveling through your room.  And the spacing between locations is imho just a matter of taste/whatever works best.


----------



## Ickathu (Sep 11, 2012)

I've always viewed Journeys as just a bunch of Roman Rooms.
For example, my 4BLD memo:
Centers: I start in the hallway, right inside the front door of my house. I've got 7 loci in that hallway (paintings, closets, tables, etc). I usually use 2 letter pair images interacting per location, so that's 28 spots for centers.
Edges: I continue through the hallway into the living room. I have 8 loci in that room, so, with 2 letter pair images per locus, 32 edges in that room.
Corners: I walk up the stairs and into my bedroom. In my bedroom I've got 7 loci, but I rarely need more than 2.

So for me at least, my journeys are journeys between connected Roman Rooms. I know you can do journey differently, jumping from location to location. I did this to memorize the poem All That Is Gold Does Not Glitter by JRR Tolkien. I travelled up the east coast and then across to the west coast, using each major city as a single locus, and also a line. (Miami - Beach, DC - white house, Philly - liberty bell, NYC - times square, Boston - harbor, [going W now] Chicago - Sears tower, Denver - mountain, LA - Lombard Street).


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm not sure whether to use DFr or UFr as my buffer. I use UF on 3bld, but some cases are strange (E.g. l slice). With DFr, I can use m2 for awkward cases. Is there an explanation of BH wings anywhere? Maybe all have to develop a 2cycle method with UFr to solve those awkward cases.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2012)

Week ago I started to use UFl as by buffer, because I use UF for 3x3 edges, and most algs work almost without changes for 4x4. The only thing you need to think about is weither you need to do l or r' instead of M. Unfortunately I already have a bunch of DNFs because of this.
Why UFl and not UFr? Because you don't need to change stickers on each wing.
If you're interested, I'll try to share my algs in a couple of days.


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 17, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Week ago I started to use UFl as by buffer, because I use UF for 3x3 edges, and most algs work almost without changes for 4x4. The only thing you need to think about is weither you need to do l or r' instead of M. Unfortunately I already have a bunch of DNFs because of this.
> Why UFl and not UFr? Because you don't need to change stickers on each wing.
> If you're interested, I'll try to share my algs in a couple of days.



I thought about this, but don't you end up using a lot of l moves? All have to try


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> I thought about this, but don't you end up using a lot of l moves? All have to try



Well, I've just calculated, and I have algs with "l" moves two times more then algs with "r". I don't hate l-slice anyway


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 17, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Well, I've just calculated, and I have algs with "l" moves two times more then algs with "r". I don't hate l-slice anyway



I don't hate l, but I love r. All just switch my sticker scheme. But I'm curious of what you do to solve cases like UFl-UBr-DBl.


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> I don't hate l, but I love r. All just switch my sticker scheme. But I'm curious of what you do to solve cases like UFl-UBr-DBl.



The shortest alg for 3x3 edges and the longest for wings. You cannot avoid it with any buffer.
U R' U' [l2, U' R U] U R U'


----------



## drewsopchak (Sep 17, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> The shortest alg for 3x3 edges and the longest for wings. You cannot avoid it with any buffer.
> U R' U' [l2, U' R U] U R U'



That's the only thing I could come up with. I guess it's better than r2 anyway. What do you do for UFl-FLd-LFd ?


----------



## DrKorbin (Sep 17, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> That's the only thing I could come up with. I guess it's better than r2 anyway. What do you do for UFl-FLd-LFd ?



You mean LFu?

Uw2 x [D', r' U' r] x' Uw2


----------



## Ollie (Sep 29, 2012)

*5BLD* specifically, but the only thing holding me back from sub-10 at the moment is turning speed.

I use commutators for everything but execution is still ~6:00 even after eliminating most of my pauses while recalling. I realise that I'm slowest in *center execution* and that I probably have a lot of bad habits.

I quite like the styles of Zane Carney and Daniel Sheppard so I was hoping that they (or anyone with a decent eye) could explain their finger tricks. And of course anyone else to offer their own.

Comments like "practise." and "turn faster." will be ignored. (you know who you are.)

EDIT: my fastest solve to date. Please point out any bad habits if you have the patience.


----------



## Zane_C (Sep 29, 2012)

Ollie said:


> *5BLD* specifically, but the only thing holding me back from sub-10 at the moment is turning speed.
> 
> I use commutators for everything but execution is still ~6:00 even after eliminating most of my pauses while recalling. I realise that I'm slowest in *center execution* and that I probably have a lot of bad habits.
> 
> ...


I found it difficult to point out negatives in your video, it's quite a smooth solve. There aren't a lot of pauses, but unfortunately it only takes a small pauses here and there to add up to quite a bit of time, especially with 5x5 BLD. It's evident that you're already thinking ahead to your next images, so I can't really comment on that, just stick to it . 

Since you're already using commutators, I doubt efficiency is an issue with your solves, so maybe all you need to do is eliminate those pauses further and work on your turning speed. One thing I've done when I haven't been satisfied with my execution is practise execution-only solves, I don't know if it helped much, but I'm just throwing it out there. 

As for finger tricks, I don't think there's anything special with my 5x5 turning style. 
- I treat outer layers as if I'm solving a 3x3 (so I never use my thumb for turning U and D faces).
- I usually turn slices individually: (u=right middle finger, u'=left index, d=left index, d'=right ring, r=right ring, r'=right index, r2=ring followed by middle) 
- However, when solving the centers, I always make r turns with 2 separate turns - eg. r=Rw R'. And I never execute l slice turns with a single slice move.


----------



## Ollie (Sep 29, 2012)

Zane_C said:


> - I treat outer layers as if I'm solving a 3x3 (so I never use my thumb for turning U and D faces).
> - I usually turn slices individually: (u=right middle finger, u'=left index, d=left index, d'=right ring, r=right ring, r'=right index, r2=ring followed by middle)
> - However, when solving the centers, I always make r turns with 2 separate turns - eg. r=Rw R'. And I never execute l slice turns with a single slice move.



Thank you for your comments  I think I already use 2 separate turns in center solving like you do, and I may experiment with d=left index, d'=right ring, r=right ring, r'=right index, r2=ring followed by middle.


----------



## kinch2002 (Sep 29, 2012)

Ollie said:


> *5BLD* specifically, but the only thing holding me back from sub-10 at the moment is turning speed.
> 
> I use commutators for everything but execution is still ~6:00 even after eliminating most of my pauses while recalling. I realise that I'm slowest in *center execution* and that I probably have a lot of bad habits.
> 
> ...



My centre style is quite inefficient but it's designed so that all comms are as similar to each other as possible, ensuring that I can think ahead more and never get confused during a comm. I say 'designed', but really it just happened and those are the reasons it works well!

Basically I almost always rotate so that my interchange is on the u/d slice and the other 3 moves are l' or r then a U move then l or r'. If I would have to do y2 before starting the comm then I would usually just do it from the back e.g. I wouldn't rotate to solve Ubl Bur Rfu but rather just do <r' U2 r, u'>.

I never actually use slice moves - it's always executed as 2 moves. Double turn slice moves are done as a wrist turn e.g. u2 would not be done as (double trigger Uw2, double trigger U2) but rather grip the top 2 layers with right thumb on F and other fingers on B to do Uw2 and then wrist back to U2'. I don't think this is fast - it just seems less risky than to do double triggers and not be sure whether the U layer spun round a bit more than it was meant to during the Uw2.

Hope that helps!

p.s. that's the first time anybody said anything positive about my centre solving style


----------



## Ollie (Sep 29, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> Basically I almost always rotate....
> 
> ...double trigger Uw2, double trigger U2...
> 
> p.s. that's the first time anybody said anything positive about my centre solving style



Thanks! I need to practice using rotations to find better center comms so that's on the to-do list. I didn't know that u2 was even done that way - it seems a bit slow to me! I've always used the wrist action as well, so I'll have to try out Zane's ring/middle finger trick and the wrist action to see what works best.

And your execution style is probably my favourite to watch! You're welcome


----------



## DrKorbin (Oct 28, 2012)

Just want to share some research concerning centers.

Times ago somewhere in this forum (but I can't find now where it was) I heard of a trick of solving centers in 4x4.
The idea is that at the beginning of the solve you make a slice so more centers are solved. Therefore 1) you must memorize centers on this slice as if they are already moved; 2) you must memorize wings as if they are moved, or you do something like (U2 r)*5 U2 to restore wings to their original position (if you did r-slice before solving; btw, what alg must you apply if you did r2-slice? I.e. what alg swaps FUr<->BDr and UBr<->DFr?).

Recently I remembered this idea and it interested me. So I wrote a script that calculates how many centers in 4x4 are solved in the best orientation and how many centers will be solved after you do a best slice (and maybe reorient it). And here are the results:
1) 7.92 centers are solved in the best orientation (on the average)
2) 7.92 + 1.33 = 9.25 centers are solved if you do the best quarter slice (i.e. r, u, l', d'...) and choose the best orientation.
3) 7.92 + 1.53 = 9.45 centers are solved if you do the best slice (r, r2, r'...) and choose the best orientation.

Furthermore, if you continue to make slices, each quarter slice gives you ~1.3 solved centers and arbitrary slice gives you ~1.5 solved centers.
So in my opinion, this trick is not worth. 1.5 solved centers are not worthy of awkward memorization of centers and additional alg for wings.


----------



## Ollie (Oct 28, 2012)

What program do you use? I need to learn to code in something other than VBA. 

Top job!


----------



## DrKorbin (Oct 28, 2012)

Ollie said:


> What program do you use? I need to learn to code in something other than VBA.
> 
> Top job!



A python script


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 30, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> So in my opinion, this trick is not worth. 1.5 solved centers are not worthy of awkward memorization of centers and additional alg for wings.



I always had a gut feel this was true - it's very nice of you to do the math to confirm it. Now I'm sure I'll never try - I agree that 1.5 solved centers aren't worth the effort.

To mention a similar-but-different idea, how do you feel about François' approach (I think it's François who does this?) of solving centers to arbitrary locations (so two centers that are supposed to be adjacent are opposite, or vice-versa), then fixing the centers afterwards? He's slower than you are - more my speed - but apparently he considers it to be worthwhile.


----------



## DrKorbin (Oct 30, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> To mention a similar-but-different idea, how do you feel about François' approach (I think it's François who does this?) of solving centers to arbitrary locations (so two centers that are supposed to be adjacent are opposite, or vice-versa), then fixing the centers afterwards?



Sounds interesting - could you please give some details?
For example, my front side is green, my right side is red. But I see that there are many red centers on front and green centers on right side, so I solve all red centers on F, green on R, and after that I swap all green centers with all red centers, am I right?
I'll try it.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 30, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> To mention a similar-but-different idea, how do you feel about François' approach (I think it's François who does this?) of solving centers to arbitrary locations (so two centers that are supposed to be adjacent are opposite, or vice-versa), then fixing the centers afterwards? He's slower than you are - more my speed - but apparently he considers it to be worthwhile.



I can't think of a fast way to swap 2 adjacent centres, do you know a good alg? I might try this if the centre fixes aren't too horrible.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 30, 2012)

DrKorbin said:


> Sounds interesting - could you please give some details?
> For example, my front side is green, my right side is red. But I see that there are many red centers on front and green centers on right side, so I solve all red centers on F, green on R, and after that I swap all green centers with all red centers, am I right?
> I'll try it.



That's the idea as I understand it. I seem to recall it was him (TMOY) who was said to have done this, but I can't find a post that says it, and I don't know algorithms for it. He also memorizes where the center pieces are, rather than memorizing where they need to go. So he can memorize centers really fast, but it slows him down because he has to work out the cycles while solving. He talks about that part of it here.

I think he's one of the more innovative big BLD solvers out there, but he's not fast enough to get as much attention as perhaps he deserves.

Edit: I just realized that he goes ahead and describes the first part I talked about later in that same thread. So it really is him that did it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 30, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I can't think of a fast way to swap 2 adjacent centres, do you know a good alg? I might try this if the centre fixes aren't too horrible.



I just found one!
M' f M F2 M' f' b' M F2 M' b M

(M means r' l)

It's not too bad. I wonder if he has a better one, though.


----------



## TMOY (Oct 30, 2012)

The ones I'm using are l E' L2 E l' r' E' L2 E r for 4BLD, and l Ew' L2 Ew l' r' Ew' L2 Ew (M' r) U' l' r U M U' l r' U (Ew means all 3 inner slices, M means only the middle one) for 5BLD.
For bigger cubes, just use multiple slices instead of single ones.


----------



## DrKorbin (Nov 27, 2012)

Mike Hughey said:


> I always had a gut feel this was true - it's very nice of you to do the math to confirm it. Now I'm sure I'll never try - I agree that 1.5 solved centers aren't worth the effort.
> 
> To mention a similar-but-different idea, how do you feel about François' approach (I think it's François who does this?) of solving centers to arbitrary locations (so two centers that are supposed to be adjacent are opposite, or vice-versa), then fixing the centers afterwards? He's slower than you are - more my speed - but apparently he considers it to be worthwhile.



And finally my hands reached to do the math again.

1) 7.92 centers are solved in the best orientation (on the average)
2) 7.92 + 1.63 = 9.55 centers are solved using this approach.

I haven't tried this in practice, but I admit that sometimes you choose an orientation and still have a bunch of F centers on the R side, so maybe this can be worthy. I'll try it in the nearest future.


----------



## 211421 (Dec 26, 2012)

4*4*4 BLD is interesting .


----------



## Cubenovice (May 20, 2013)

6x6x6 obliques frustrate me so much!

I'm treating them as + centers on 5BLD and solve them the same way: commutators.
1st I solve the ones clockwise from the adjacent corner, then 2nd I handle their neigbours.

While I typically do not have any problems with + centers in 5BLD these obliques freak me out.
I'm having a very hard time "seeing it" and keep making mistakes in moving the correct "E" slice.

Apart from the obvious "practice" is there anything I can do to get better at these darn pieces?


----------



## DrKorbin (May 20, 2013)

When solving first centers, imagine this picture:

```
*
     *
      *
      *   ***
   *** ***
***   *
      *
       *
       *
```

In _any_ cube rotation you can put this picture on the front or upper face, and the lines will point you your current obliques. When solving second centers, imagine symmetric picture.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 22, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> In _any_ cube rotation you can put this picture on the front or upper face, and the lines will point you your current obliques. When solving second centers, imagine symmetric picture.



Thank you for your feedback 
I can actually find the pieces on their faces quite well but it is performing the commutators that I keep messing up...

As ik won't be breaking any speed records anyway I'm considering using "M2" on obliques.
I just did a couple this way and it seems pretty straight-forward.


----------



## cmhardw (May 22, 2013)

Cubenovice said:


> Thank you for your feedback
> I can actually find the pieces on their faces quite well but it is performing the commutators that I keep messing up...
> 
> As ik won't be breaking any speed records anyway I'm considering using "M2" on obliques.
> I just did a couple this way and it seems pretty straight-forward.



When executing the commutators I try to rememer when I am executing a "3" slice or a "2" slice on an axis.

Take the 4x4x4 center comm [r'u'r,U] which exanded is r' u' r U r' u r U'. On 6x6x6 you might have a cycle like:
[r3' u2' r3, U] and expanded that would be r3' u2' r3 U r3' u2 r3

Whenever you are turning on a slice parallel to the R and L planes you are always turning a "3" slice, or the 3rd layer from the outside. Whenever you are turning an inner layer slice parallel to the U and D layers you are always turning a "2" layer or a 2nd inner layer from the outside.

When executing this comm I would remember to myself something like "R3, U2" so that I know RL plane turns are "3" turns and UD plane turns are "2" turns.

Hope this helps, it helped me a ton when I started thinking this way!


----------



## DrKorbin (May 22, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Whenever you are turning on a slice parallel to the R and L planes you are always turning a "3" slice, or the 3rd layer from the outside. Whenever you are turning an inner layer slice parallel to the U and D layers you are always turning a "2" layer or a 2nd inner layer from the outside.



:confused:
I think this is not true. Consider an example: [3r, U 2r' U'], when you turn both 2nd and 3rd layers.
If you mean commutators with B part parallel to the U/D planes, this is also wrong. Consider [3l' U2 3l, 2d2] and [2l' U' 2l, 3u2].


----------



## cmhardw (May 23, 2013)

DrKorbin said:


> :confused:
> I think this is not true. Consider an example: [3r, U 2r' U'], when you turn both 2nd and 3rd layers.
> If you mean commutators with B part parallel to the U/D planes, this is also wrong. Consider [3l' U2 3l, 2d2] and [2l' U' 2l, 3u2].



Perhaps I don't understand the notation as well as I thought. Does 3r mean to turn three consecutive layers, or only the 3rd inner r layer counting from the outside?

I think it means to only turn the inner layer, and not 3 consecutive layers. If that's the case then I would say to myself that [3l' U2 3l, 2d2] is turning "3" turns when you turn the 3l'. I put the "3" in quotes because you're not turning three layers, you are turning the third inner layer. So in a sense "3" really means "third". "2" would really mean "second" by the same line of thinking.

Perhaps I wasn't clear with how I wrote my post, and I very likely am misunderstanding the bigger cube notation, but on bigger cubes BLD solves I try to say "3" or "2" turns whenever turning a "third" or "second" inner layer respectively.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 23, 2013)

Hi Chris,

Thank you very much for your feedback 
I understood your notation but I still think there is something not quite right (for my solving system) about:



cmhardw said:


> Whenever you are turning on a slice parallel to the R and L planes you are always turning a "3" slice, or the 3rd layer from the outside. Whenever you are turning an inner layer slice parallel to the U and D layers you are always turning a "2" layer or a 2nd inner layer from the outside.



This is true if your oblique buffers are on the two middle slices.
But here’s the catch: I considered my buffers on the 2l slice…

This means that I can bring up pieces with both 2r and 3r so the “slice parallel to the R and L planes you are always turning a "3" slice” no longer holds true.

I copied this buffer position from my 5BLD position where I Use both M and r moves to bring pieces up.
This works great on 5BLD because it very right-hand oriented.
But now in 6BLD I find that this might become too confusing: *too many* options.

I’ll have a go with placing my oblique buffers at the two middle slices instead of on the 2l slice.
Then I am indeed confined to using the 2l and 2r slice.


----------



## cmhardw (May 23, 2013)

Cubenovice said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Thank you very much for your feedback
> I understood your notation but I still think there is something not quite right (for my solving system) about:



Ah, ok I understand why everyone is confused about what I wrote, because I wrote it poorly.

Let's take the commutator: [3r U 3r', 2u']
When executing _this specific_ commutator, then anytime you are turning a RL layer turn you are turning a "3" turn (a "third" inner layer), and any time you are turning a UD layer turn you are turning a "2" turn (a "second" inner layer). The UD part only applies to the inner layer u turns, as I don't care about tracking the outer layer turns because they're comparatively easy to track.

Now let's take the commutator: [2r U 2r', 3u']
When executing _this specific_ commutator, then anytime you are turning a RL layer turn you are turning a "2" turn (a "second" inner layer), and any time you are turning a UD layer turn you are turning a "3" turn (a "third" inner layer). The UD part only applies to the inner layer u turns, as I don't care about tracking the outer layer turns because they're comparatively easy to track.

The "status" so to speak of whether the _inner layer only_ RL turns or UD turns or even FB turns are "2" or "3" turns changes from commutator to commutator. I should have made that more clear in my original post. For the part you quoted I was referring only to the commutator I had written up, namely [r3' u2' r3, U]. Not every commutator would have the specific properties I mentioned, but the commutator [r3' u2' r3, U] does have those properties. Again, you have to assume that for the UD layer I am ignoring tracking the outer layer U turns, because they are comparatively easy to track.

--edit--
Actually now that I think about it I don't really call the "3" turns "3" turns. I actually call them "inner" turns. The "2" turns I actually call "outer" turns.

"Inner" refers to "innermost inner layer", and "outer" refers to "outermost inner layer".


----------



## Cubenovice (May 23, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> The "status" so to speak of whether the _inner layer only_ RL turns or UD turns or even FB turns are "2" or "3" turns changes from commutator to commutator. I should have made that more clear in my original post. For the part you quoted I was referring only to the commutator I had written up, namely [r3' u2' r3, U]. Not every commutator would have the specific properties I mentioned, but the commutator [r3' u2' r3, U] does have those properties.



Yes that's what I thought. My assumption was indeed that you meant for every commutator..

Just tried some cycles with buffers on the middle two slices and quickly realised that I was wrong in concluding I would be restricted to just 2l and 2r...
I found that I would still be using 2 and 3 lices to bring pieces up 

But I may still keep the buffers there, somehow this feels better.

thx for your help,

Ralph


----------



## Cubenovice (May 28, 2013)

Update: as with most thing cubing, practice did the job.
I can now say that I 'see' the obliques 

I will stick to solving obliques (and some center-centers) from written memo for while to improve accurace. Only then I will invest the time in memoing for full solves.
With my 5BLD times in the 35 min range and the extra care needed for taking the correct slices in 6BLD I expect going over the hour...


----------



## etshy (May 28, 2013)

Cubenovice said:


> Update: as with most thing cubing, practice did the job.
> I can now say that I 'see' the obliques
> 
> I will stick to solving obliques (and some center-centers) from written memo for while to improve accurace. Only then I will invest the time in memoing for full solves.
> With my 5BLD times in the 35 min range and the extra care needed for taking the correct slices in 6BLD I expect going over the hour...



I tried obliques only ( Memo + solve ) it took around 25 mins , so obviously 6BLD will go over an hour , at first I tried U2 , but it was hard to turn the right layer , so I switched to r2 and it worked fine with me


----------



## Cubenovice (May 28, 2013)

etshy said:


> I tried obliques only ( Memo + solve ) it took around 25 mins , so obviously 6BLD will go over an hour , at first I tried U2 , but it was hard to turn the right layer , so I switched to r2 and it worked fine with me



As you can read a few posts up I considered switching to r2 but I stuck to commutators.

I find that using written memo (just jotting down the letterpairs) is good practice on a new size of big BLD; it allows you to concentrate on the solving part and you can get more practice in less time.

Good luck with your quest for 6BLD and mminxBLD!


----------



## etshy (May 28, 2013)

Cubenovice said:


> As you can read a few posts up I considered switching to r2 but I stuck to commutators.
> 
> I find that using written memo (just jotting down the letterpairs) is good practice on a new size of big BLD; it allows you to concentrate on the solving part and you can get more practice in less time.
> 
> Good luck with your quest for 6BLD and mminxBLD!



I will consider switching to commutators after I get a success  
thanks  Good luck to you 2


----------



## Jason Lee (Oct 29, 2014)

do i have to learn 4bld before learning 5bld or not, if it's the latter, is there any guide on how to solve the 5x5 cube bld?


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 29, 2014)

Jason Lee said:


> do i have to learn 4bld before learning 5bld or not, if it's the latter, is there any guide on how to solve the 5x5 cube bld?



I would recommend to learn 4x4 BLD first since it's a smaller amount of information to memorize. If you're feeling ambitious, then learn 5x5x5 BLD first in which case you will effectively be learning 4x4BLD at the same time.

There are threads on the forum about how to handle wing edges and centers. U2 is a good centers method, and r2 is a good wing edges method. You can also use commutators for either piece type (or both).

There are algs on Stefan Pochmann's website to handle parities.

Hope this helps.


----------



## the super cuber (Dec 2, 2014)

what is the average limit for 4bld using u2/r2/op before i have to use comms for centers and wings? my average is about 7 min and my pb is 4 min 54 sec 
thanks!


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 2, 2014)

the super cuber said:


> what is the average limit for 4bld using u2/r2/op before i have to use comms for centers and wings? my average is about 7 min and my pb is 4 min 54 sec
> thanks!



Well ollicubes has at least low 4 success (and maybe even sub-4 not sure about that tough) with u2/r2/op... And with faster memo I would say 3:30 is possible at least but my advice would be to change as soon as possible.


----------



## ollicubes (Dec 2, 2014)

the super cuber said:


> what is the average limit for 4bld using u2/r2/op before i have to use comms for centers and wings? my average is about 7 min and my pb is 4 min 54 sec
> thanks!




Well, I did one sub-4 with u2/r2/op. 
At your situation you can easily get down to 4-5 minutes if u can memo in ~2, 5 minutes and execute with no pauses. Of course if u learn comms you get faster in that way.


----------



## rybaby (Jan 12, 2015)

What are the techniques most people use here for memorization? I haven't gotten a success yet, but I've been using the Link method of memory (2 at a time linking of objects). Does anyone else use Linking? What other systems are in use (perhaps sentences, audio, journey/loci, visual)?


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 12, 2015)

rybaby said:


> What are the techniques most people use here for memorization? I haven't gotten a success yet, but I've been using the Link method of memory (2 at a time linking of objects). Does anyone else use Linking? What other systems are in use (perhaps sentences, audio, journey/loci, visual)?



I used to use a linking method. It's pros are that you can memorize quite quickly with practice. The downsides, for me, were that I had a difficult time doing multiple solves in a row with it, especially in competition. Linking methods suffer from memorization interference where you have a hard time forgetting the stuff from your previous solve while memorizing a new solve.

Sentences are popular, and may feel roughly similar to linking. Letter pair images are useful as well, using roman rooms or journeys to place images.

Look into sentences first. It has great potential and may feel similar to your current linking method.


----------



## rybaby (Jan 12, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> I used to use a linking method. It's pros are that you can memorize quite quickly with practice. The downsides, for me, were that I had a difficult time doing multiple solves in a row with it, especially in competition. Linking methods suffer from memorization interference where you have a hard time forgetting the stuff from your previous solve while memorizing a new solve.
> 
> Sentences are popular, and may feel roughly similar to linking. Letter pair images are useful as well, using roman rooms or journeys to place images.
> 
> Look into sentences first. It has great potential and may feel similar to your current linking method.



Ok, thanks for the tips. Do you recommend mixing memo methods among pieces (e.g. maybe loci/linking for wings, and sentences for centers and corners), or just using sentences for everything?


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 13, 2015)

rybaby said:


> Ok, thanks for the tips. Do you recommend mixing memo methods among pieces (e.g. maybe loci/linking for wings, and sentences for centers and corners), or just using sentences for everything?



I personally recommend using different memo for different pieces when possible. Perhaps use sentences for wings and centers, then use images for 3x3? I have no idea what the pros these days use. I use letter pair images for wings, centers and corners, audio for edges, and visual for centralmost centers (5x5).


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 13, 2015)

rybaby said:


> What are the techniques most people use here for memorization? I haven't gotten a success yet, but I've been using the Link method of memory (2 at a time linking of objects). Does anyone else use Linking? What other systems are in use (perhaps sentences, audio, journey/loci, visual)?



I use journey/loci for longer time memory (mbld and parts of 5bld), Sentences for little shorter time memory (4bld and parts of 5bld) and audio for short time memory (Something I memo last and execute first ex. 3&4&5 bld corners)


----------



## rybaby (Jan 24, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> I personally recommend using different memo for different pieces when possible. Perhaps use sentences for wings and centers, then use images for 3x3? I have no idea what the pros these days use. I use letter pair images for wings, centers and corners, audio for edges, and visual for centralmost centers (5x5).



I got my first 4bld success today 
Memorization was slow (19:30) but of course I'm not yet going for speed.
I used roman rooms for centers, linking for wings, and a sentence for corners. All these memos stuck well; next time I might experiment with sentences for wings or centers.

Everyone disregard this if you happen to see it: bojangles (silly word game I'm in)


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 24, 2015)

rybaby said:


> I got my first 4bld success today
> Memorization was slow (19:30) but of course I'm not yet going for speed.
> I used roman rooms for centers, linking for wings, and a sentence for corners. All these memos stuck well; next time I might experiment with sentences for wings or centers.
> 
> Everyone disregard this if you happen to see it: bojangles (silly word game I'm in)



Yay! Congrats on your successful solve! How did you like diversifying your memorization methods? It seems like it worked well for you, based on you saying the memos stuck well. I'm glad it worked out, and congratulations again!


----------



## rybaby (Jan 24, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Yay! Congrats on your successful solve! How did you like diversifying your memorization methods? It seems like it worked well for you, based on you saying the memos stuck well. I'm glad it worked out, and congratulations again!



Thanks 
Having different memo systems was good, and recall was made easy since I just thought, "wings, ok those pairs are in my room or "corners, that's my sentence." And they were all reasonably quick, it was mostly my own inexperience that kept the memo slow. I think I'll try again tonight with more sentences to see how that works.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 25, 2015)

rybaby said:


> Thanks
> Having different memo systems was good, and recall was made easy since I just thought, "wings, ok those pairs are in my room or "corners, that's my sentence." And they were all reasonably quick, it was mostly my own inexperience that kept the memo slow. I think I'll try again tonight with more sentences to see how that works.



Very cool! Good luck with your next solve! If you like the sentences memo, I'd be curious how you use it exactly. I've never tried sentence memo. I gather it's a very free form adaptation to letter pair memo? Just group together letters that make a word organically and see what words are formed? Is there any prep work done on possible letter combinations before hand or no?


----------



## rybaby (Jan 25, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Very cool! Good luck with your next solve! If you like the sentences memo, I'd be curious how you use it exactly. I've never tried sentence memo. I gather it's a very free form adaptation to letter pair memo? Just group together letters that make a word organically and see what words are formed? Is there any prep work done on possible letter combinations before hand or no?



I think some people have had prepared lists of words, but from Ollie's thread it looks like he is very free form about it -- he can make pairs into nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. depending on the context. It seems to me like a prepared set of letter pair images would be most useful for a journey/loci or a linking method, where you can just go from word to word through a journey or link. If you just "wing it" (no pun intended) then it must take some good thinking on your feet to memo fast. Another aspect is it seems like he can vary the sentences quite a bit (not like a strict PAO or anything), and sometimes he makes pretty detailed, long sentences.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 25, 2015)

rybaby said:


> I think some people have had prepared lists of words, but from Ollie's thread it looks like he is very free form about it -- he can make pairs into nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. depending on the context. It seems to me like a prepared set of letter pair images would be most useful for a journey/loci or a linking method, where you can just go from word to word through a journey or link. If you just "wing it" (no pun intended) then it must take some good thinking on your feet to memo fast. Another aspect is it seems like he can vary the sentences quite a bit (not like a strict PAO or anything), and sometimes he makes pretty detailed, long sentences.



Wow, that is much more free form than I expected. It seems the idea evolves eventually into having each letter pair have multiple choices, each of a different part of speech.

I think empirically that the sentences method is much faster than letter pair images or PAO, but I am baffled as to how sentences is faster than a letter pair PAO. To be clear, I am not questioning whether sentences is faster, I am questioning _how is it faster_? Do other memory experts use free form methods like this? I was under the impression that the memory sports people all use very rigid and structured systems by comparison.

I'm just curious. I am very motivated to learn a letter pair PAO system because of Ian Winokur, but I am trying to entertain the idea of sentences before I do so.


----------



## rybaby (Jan 25, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, that is much more free form than I expected. It seems the idea evolves eventually into having each letter pair have multiple choices, each of a different part of speech.
> 
> I think empirically that the sentences method is much faster than letter pair images or PAO, but I am baffled as to how sentences is faster than a letter pair PAO. To be clear, I am not questioning whether sentences is faster, I am questioning _how is it faster_? Do other memory experts use free form methods like this? I was under the impression that the memory sports people all use very rigid and structured systems by comparison.
> 
> I'm just curious. I am very motivated to learn a letter pair PAO system because of Ian Winokur, but I am trying to entertain the idea of sentences before I do so.



I have done a lot of reading on memory sports recently, and it seems most people don't have anything near as free form as sentence memo. For example, when memorizing numbers, most people have a two digit (occasionally 3, rarely 4) system where each set of two digits is a word. They then put these in set points along a journey (typically). And based on what I've read, most people use the same words every time. Others use PAO where each two digit combo has a person, an action, and an object associated with it (e.g. if 36 is MJ, 36 could have Michael Jordan [person] dunks [action] a basketball [object]). Then depending on when a two digit number appears in a sequence, it will be either a person, action or object. So it's like 1 image for every 6 numbers. But as for how sentences are faster, I really don't know enough. Perhaps they are popular because most people use sentences for at least one component of 3BLD, and when they learn bigBLD they are already comfortable with making sentences. So it could just be a users thing; I'm not educated enough in memory to make a clear determination of what is better.

And btw, I tried a 4BLD with sentences for Centers and Corners, Linking for wings. It was a DNF (by a lot) -- most likely an error in execution early on that threw lots of stuff off. But the sentences stuck well.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 25, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, that is much more free form than I expected. It seems the idea evolves eventually into having each letter pair have multiple choices, each of a different part of speech.
> 
> I think empirically that the sentences method is much faster than letter pair images or PAO, but I am baffled as to how sentences is faster than a letter pair PAO. To be clear, I am not questioning whether sentences is faster, I am questioning _how is it faster_? Do other memory experts use free form methods like this? I was under the impression that the memory sports people all use very rigid and structured systems by comparison.
> 
> I'm just curious. I am very motivated to learn a letter pair PAO system because of Ian Winokur, but I am trying to entertain the idea of sentences before I do so.



I use something quite similar to Ollies sentence memo for 4bld and 4x4 part of 5bld.

It is very free form but that's what makes it so good. I can store very many targets to one sentence AND I can choose my words so that the sentence is easy to remember also.

I think that the reason sentence memo is so fast is because unlike images I don't really visualize them nearly as vividly as I do while using images for MBLD which obviously saves time.

And the reason why I think memory experts don't use this method is that they usually memo much more information than 4bld or 5bld and this sentence memo is fast but not that suitable to memo big amounts of information. Kind of a middle ground between images/journey method and just pure audio memo... That's why I use more of image/journey type memo for MBLD and even for +centers and midges on 5bld.


----------



## moralsh (Jan 25, 2015)

didn't know where to post this, it's neither an accomplishment nor a failure

4BLD Multi 1/2 in 47 minutes, the DNF only off by 2 edges. I will definitely try this again.


----------



## ender9994 (Jan 25, 2015)

moralsh said:


> didn't know where to post this, it's neither an accomplishment nor a failure
> 
> 4BLD Multi 1/2 in 47 minutes, the DNF only off by 2 edges. I will definitely try this again.



Getting that close may not count as a complete success, but it is definitely an accomplishment in my book!


----------



## A Leman (Jan 25, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Wow, that is much more free form than I expected. It seems the idea evolves eventually into having each letter pair have multiple choices, each of a different part of speech.
> 
> I think empirically that the sentences method is much faster than letter pair images or PAO, but I am baffled as to how sentences is faster than a letter pair PAO. To be clear, I am not questioning whether sentences is faster, I am questioning _how is it faster_? Do other memory experts use free form methods like this? I was under the impression that the memory sports people all use very rigid and structured systems by comparison.
> 
> I'm just curious. I am very motivated to learn a letter pair PAO system because of Ian Winokur, but I am trying to entertain the idea of sentences before I do so.




I decided it would be better for myself to stick to one method and master it instead of learning many different methods. I have experimented/played with sentences,linking, and other no loci methods; but when I memo, I always use images at locations for everything except audio corners. I think it's better to get good at one method than mediocre at a bunch of methods. If I picked sentences instead, then they would have gotten all of the focus. 

For memory sport, recall timing is kinda lax and having a rigid system makes it easier to force back an image after you forget it. I usually go through my list when I forget something and that's all it takes to remember. I also think images are more suited for the length of the events in memory sport. It would hardly be worth learning sentences to just use it for speed cards. For names and faces and historic dates, linking is popular. I also know some people can do a deck of cards with just linking, but not as fast as using locations. In memory sport, the main changes are the size of the system and the images/loci which each have fast representatives ie Wang Feng=simple 2 digit 2/loci, Jonas von Essen=PAO, Johannas Mallow= 1000 image 2/loci, Ben Pridmore=Ben system 3/loci, Simon Reinhard=10k system. All of them are in the top 10 using different methods but they stick to what they use.

If you want to learn PAO for letter pairs, then just make a list of people and associate items and actions to them. This will make them easier to remember. It's easier for 2/loci as I use it. For example, Gandalf and his staff, Frodo and Sting(his sword), Ash and a pokeball, muhammad ali punching with gloves, goku and kamehameha. When that doesn't work, then I find another word like Oliver/ olives, obelisk(a monster)/obelisk(a stone pillar), Rose(person),rose(flower) where they are the same,or use associations I already knew like mad eye and Mud. I don't completely stick to PA though because some adjectives are very ingrained into my system.


----------



## Berd (Jan 25, 2015)

What's PAO?


----------



## moralsh (Jan 25, 2015)

Person Action Object? to remember CS TO RD you use "Chris Turns On RaDio" is very easy as you will picture Chris doing so

Edit: Ender9994 thanks! it felt like it


----------



## Berd (Jan 25, 2015)

moralsh said:


> Person Action Object? to remember CS TO RD you use "Chris Turns On RaDio" is very easy as you will picture Chris doing so
> 
> Edit: Ender9994 thanks! it felt like it


Awesome!


----------



## rybaby (Jan 26, 2015)

A Leman said:


> I decided it would be better for myself to stick to one method and master it instead of learning many different methods. I have experimented/played with sentences,linking, and other no loci methods; but when I memo, I always use images at locations for everything except audio corners. I think it's better to get good at one method than mediocre at a bunch of methods. If I picked sentences instead, then they would have gotten all of the focus.
> 
> For memory sport, recall timing is kinda lax and having a rigid system makes it easier to force back an image after you forget it. I usually go through my list when I forget something and that's all it takes to remember. I also think images are more suited for the length of the events in memory sport. It would hardly be worth learning sentences to just use it for speed cards. For names and faces and historic dates, linking is popular. I also know some people can do a deck of cards with just linking, but not as fast as using locations. In memory sport, the main changes are the size of the system and the images/loci which each have fast representatives ie Wang Feng=simple 2 digit 2/loci, Jonas von Essen=PAO, Johannas Mallow= 1000 image 2/loci, Ben Pridmore=Ben system 3/loci, Simon Reinhard=10k system. All of them are in the top 10 using different methods but they stick to what they use.
> 
> If you want to learn PAO for letter pairs, then just make a list of people and associate items and actions to them. This will make them easier to remember. It's easier for 2/loci as I use it. For example, Gandalf and his staff, Frodo and Sting(his sword), Ash and a pokeball, muhammad ali punching with gloves, goku and kamehameha. When that doesn't work, then I find another word like Oliver/ olives, obelisk(a monster)/obelisk(a stone pillar), Rose(person),rose(flower) where they are the same,or use associations I already knew like mad eye and Mud. I don't completely stick to PA though because some adjectives are very ingrained into my system.



Interesting how each loci can take several pairs at once. Whenever I tried to use loci, I just put one pair in each location (10 locations in my room worked for centers). Maybe it's because I'm used to linking, where you just go from one object to another. Plus I learned linking first (from Harry Lorayne's "The Memory Book" -- it doesn't teach loci), so it's a habit. I am also getting more into memory sports, and sentences don't seem too useful for things like speed cards or numbers. So probably the method I will practice most will be linking since that's what I use when I try out memory events (I'm only a beginner though). But I could always just separate 4bld from memory sports and use different techniques.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jan 31, 2015)

Can someone please give me an alg for solving the M-slice(M2'ing the centers and UF/DB) and swapping UBL-UBR for 5BLD?

Right now I do:
U' F2 U M2 U2 (Rw2 Uw2 F2 r2 F2 Uw2 Rw2) U F2 U and then
R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U' (L-perm)

So I would prefer something center-safe and shorter.


----------



## JemFish (Jan 31, 2015)

In Noah's 4BLD tutorial he says that it's best to execute centres first, but I want to use loci/visual memory for wings and centres, and then short-term audio for corners, executing corners first. Can someone here help me find algs for this, or suggest how I could get this to work?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jan 31, 2015)

JemFish said:


> In Noah's 4BLD tutorial he says that it's best to execute centres first, but I want to use loci/visual memory for wings and centres, and then short-term audio for corners, executing corners first. Can someone here help me find algs for this, or suggest how I could get this to work?


Each y-perm does a U' to the centers. So if you have corner targets divisible by 4 you're fine. Otherwise, turn U so that your centers are where you memorized them, then solve centers and undo the setup move afterwards.

Example: You've solved 7 corners, your centers need a U' to be where they were. Do a U', solve the centers, do a U, solve wings.

Also don't want this to get lost.


CyanSandwich said:


> Can someone please give me an alg for solving the M-slice(M2'ing the centers and UF/DB) and swapping UBL-UBR for 5BLD?
> 
> Right now I do:
> U' F2 U M2 U2 (Rw2 Uw2 F2 r2 F2 Uw2 Rw2) U F2 U and then
> ...


----------



## A Leman (Jan 31, 2015)

CyanSandwich said:


> Can someone please give me an alg for solving the M-slice(M2'ing the centers and UF/DB) and swapping UBL-UBR for 5BLD?
> 
> Right now I do:
> U' F2 U M2 U2 (Rw2 Uw2 F2 r2 F2 Uw2 Rw2) U F2 U and then
> ...



I don't know if the parity could be done completely center safe. If I used M2 and your buffers then I'd do M2U2MU2M' Rw2F2 U2r2U2 F2Rw2 T-perm, but since you use The UF buffer, I can give better advice. Every UF Commutator case that has UB in it is very very fast and easy to learn so instead of doing the last M2 target that misaligned the M-slice, you should do a 3 cycle that solves the last target and puts the buffer midge in UB to setup to the T-perm. 

I'll outline those commutator cases for UF-?-UB so you can learn them in a few minutes. 
1.Every good edge case(zz definition) can be solved by setting up to M'U2MU2 or MU2M'U2. This covers the UR,UL,FR,FL,DR,DL,BR,BL,DF,DB targets
2. Setup to the MUM'U2MUM' OLL or it's inverse. That covers the RU,LU,RF,LF,RB,LB cases
3. For RD and LD, I use [U2,MDM'] and [U2,MD'M']
4. For FD and BD, Setup using D to step 3.

So 22 cases is actually only 3 algs.

I'd do UR,UL,FD,BD differently on 3bld but the cases above are rotationless, don't lock up much, and fast. (UR and UL would be the standard <RU> U-perm that doesn't work for 5BLD and FD,BD are setups to M'U2MU2 with M moves ie. UMUMU2M'UM'U and U'M'UM'U2MUMU They lockup too much on big cubes) 



JemFish said:


> In Noah's 4BLD tutorial he says that it's best to execute centres first, but I want to use loci/visual memory for wings and centres, and then short-term audio for corners, executing corners first. Can someone here help me find algs for this, or suggest how I could get this to work?



I do it this way. I memo Centers->Wings->Corners and then execute Corners->Centers->Wings with 3 cycles. I do an audio loop for corners and then go through my images on a route. There are a couple reasons why Noah's method is also very good. 1. He can audio loop his centers. It takes practice but centers are usually ~8-10 syllables 2. There are things that are not center safe so solving them first usually solves that problem. Corner parity is one of those things.

If I get Corner parity, then put the swapped corners at UBR-ULB and cross my legs. After I do centers, I check if my legs are crossed and do the corner parity Rw2 F2 U2r2U2 F2 Rw2 y T-perm. Since parity is a fairly long and brain dead sequence of moves, I usually use that time to think ahead to my wing images.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jan 31, 2015)

I actually use the DF buffer. What I meant was just normal OP/M2 parity for 5BLD (swaps UF/DB because of the M2 off).

But if there's not really any shorter algs or center-safe ones, I'll stick to what I'm doing. Thank you though!


----------



## h2f (Jan 31, 2015)

CyanSandwich said:


> Each y-perm does a U' to the centers. So if you have corner targets divisible by 4 you're fine. Otherwise, turn U so that your centers are where you memorized them, then solve centers and undo the setup move afterwards.
> 
> Example: You've solved 7 corners, your centers need a U' to be where they were. Do a U', solve the centers, do a U, solve wings.



Wow. I wasn't aware of that, I didn't noticed that so far. And that's why sometimes I was mistaken in centeres. Thanks a lot, it helps me a lot.


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 1, 2015)

Can anyone help me with 4BLD centers? I can pretty much solve any case other than the D faces. I use Dan's tutorial for centers but I didn't quite understand the part where he solves the d face centers. Everything else (wings, corners) is just fine. I am trying to learn how to solve 4BLD so any other helpful tips would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## moralsh (Feb 1, 2015)

Which method are you using to solve centers? if you are using U2 is just an alg with D moves to set it up, if you are using conmmutators just set it up to an easy case not on U or D daces taking care of not disturbing your buffer, could you tell us what your buffer is and a case you have problems with?


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 1, 2015)

moralsh said:


> Which method are you using to solve centers? if you are using U2 is just an alg with D moves to set it up, if you are using conmmutators just set it up to an easy case not on U or D daces taking care of not disturbing your buffer, could you tell us what your buffer is and a case you have problems with?



I used Daniel Sheppard's tutorial for centers. I don't know what method it is called. I think that it is freestyle commmutators with Urb as the buffer. I can not figure out how to do a 3-cycle to the bottom face. Is there something that I'm not quite getting or what?


----------



## Ollie (Feb 1, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> I used Daniel Sheppard's tutorial for centers. I don't know what method it is called. I think that it is freestyle commmutators with Urb as the buffer. I can not figure out how to do a 3-cycle to the bottom face. Is there something that I'm not quite getting or what?



U r2 U' l' U r2 U' l

If you get a case with a D face center, try setting up to this alg instead.


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 1, 2015)

Ollie said:


> U r2 U' l' U r2 U' l
> 
> If you get a case with a D face center, try setting up to this alg instead.



Thanks, Oliver! What if the D face cycle is the last one and not the first one? Ex. Urb>Rbd>Dlb


----------



## Cale S (Feb 1, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> Thanks, Oliver! What if the D face cycle is the last one and not the first one? Ex. Urb>Rbd>Dlb



Just do the inverse (l' U r2 U' l U r2 U').


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 1, 2015)

Cale S said:


> Just do the inverse (l' U r2 U' l U r2 U').



I feel stupid. I apologize for my stupidity.


----------



## Ollie (Feb 1, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> Urb>Rbd>Dlb



Just for funsies: 3Uw (U l2 U' r U l2 U' r') 3Uw'


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 6, 2015)

I found decent r2 parity algorithm with ksolve and it's fairly easy to learn

r' U2 r U2 r' U2 x r U2 r U2 r U2 r2 U2 x' r' U2

I've switched to this now


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 16, 2015)

How much harder and more concentration does it take to go from 3BLD to 4BLD? I want to eventually do 5BLD, but can't even do 4BLD. How should I train my memory for this? Should I practice by doing 3MBLD which is a little more than 4BLD, or start with corners and maybe centers or something like that. I want a good foundation so I can do it right.


----------



## h2f (Feb 16, 2015)

I've started with doing whole solve - no practice of substeps. When I failled a solve I've redid scramble and did sighted solve. I did one or two solves per day. After more than 15 attemptes (maybe 20?) I was succesfull. It was 2 months ago. I used U2/r2/OP from Noah tutorial. M2 was my main 3bld method.


----------



## moralsh (Feb 16, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> How much harder and more concentration does it take to go from 3BLD to 4BLD? I want to eventually do 5BLD, but can't even do 4BLD. How should I train my memory for this? Should I practice by doing 3MBLD which is a little more than 4BLD, or start with corners and maybe centers or something like that. I want a good foundation so I can do it right.



Don't worry about memory, solve as much as you can sighted, once you don't have problems solving everything sighted you can start to actually do the whole stuff. If you start doing attempts before that you'll fail almost everytime on execution and you might get frustrated and stop practicing.


----------



## ollicubes (Feb 16, 2015)

I agree with @moralsh. When you don't have problems with sighted solves just try to do whole cube blindfolded. I did like this and got my first succes in my first attempt. First times just go with safe memo.


----------



## SoySauS (Feb 18, 2015)

How I learned how to do 4BLD (I did this for 3BLD, as well), is first I wrote down my memo and looked at it while solving it sighted. When I could do that with no mistakes, I then would do solves where I would memo centers, then execute centers. Then memo edges, then execute edges. Then memo corners, then execute corneres. Once I got consistent with that, I finally moved on to full solves.


----------



## JemFish (Feb 20, 2015)

I think this is my first post in the Big Cube BLD Discussion thread, and it's to say that I just had my first 4BLD attempt, a DNF, in 33:58.73 minutes, which you can read about here.


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 21, 2015)

Someone has probably already discussed this, but do you think that WCA will eventually allow from 2x2-7x7 BLD or maybe even up to 13x13 or will they keep it the same with just 3x3-5x5? I am curious as to see how many people are willing to do that big and how fast they can do it.


----------



## JemFish (Feb 21, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> Someone has probably already discussed this, but do you think that WCA will eventually allow from 2x2-7x7 BLD or maybe even up to 13x13 or will they keep it the same with just 3x3-5x5? I am curious as to see how many people are willing to do that big and how fast they can do it.



I think the WCA should allow attempts up to 7x7, but no further.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 21, 2015)

No. They shouldn't add anything bigger than 5x5.

Solve times would be extremely long and success rates extremely low. Besides only few people in the world can do them so getting more than 1 people to compete ateach comp might be hard... 

6bld and up doesnt really add anything new except just more memoing and annoying mire layers. More layers gets very annoying because in a long solve it's easy to turn the wrong layer by accident. And for memory monsters that like big memos we already have mbld


----------



## Ollie (Feb 21, 2015)

It's hard enough to justify keeping 5BLD as an official event, since it doesn't really add anything new to 4BLD. I'd rather see 4BLD Mo3 becoming official, or even seeing it replace 5BLD.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 21, 2015)

Ollie said:


> It's hard enough to justify keeping 5BLD as an official event, since it doesn't really add anything new to 4BLD. I'd rather see 4BLD Mo3 becoming official, or even seeing it replace 5BLD.



True.
But then again what justifies 5x5 6x6 and 7x7 all to be official events? IMO that is essentially the same thing. Not much new is added and solve is just little longer.

But I dont suggest removing any of the events (nor do I suggest adding any new ones). I think that things are quite fine how they are currently.


----------



## Goosly (Feb 21, 2015)

Ollie said:


> It's hard enough to justify keeping 5BLD as an official event, since it doesn't really add anything new to 4BLD.



Sure it does. In 4BLD, you can orient the cube to get an "easier" memo. In 5BLD, you cannot.
I really don't see any reason to remove any event, at this moment.


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 21, 2015)

Goosly said:


> Sure it does. In 4BLD, you can orient the cube to get an "easier" memo. *In 5BLD, you cannot.*
> I really don't see any reason to remove any event, at this moment.



The bolded part is incorrect.

I don't agree with Ollie about how 5BLD doesn't really add anything new, but this debate has been going on for a long time and my thoughts on the topic are already posted in various threads on the forum   Basically, my utility (enjoyment) for 5BLD is much higher than 4BLD so obviously I am biased toward keeping it as an event.


----------



## moralsh (Feb 22, 2015)

cmhardw, I know you can just swap centers at the end, but I'm curious to know if anybody does solve 5BLD that way (orienting the cube to get easier centers, solving it, and swapping the centers). Do you do it or know anybody who does it?


----------



## Ollie (Feb 22, 2015)

moralsh said:


> cmhardw, I know you can just swap centers at the end, but I'm curious to know if anybody does solve 5BLD that way (orienting the cube to get easier centers, solving it, and swapping the centers). Do you do it or know anybody who does it?



I think Chester Lian did it. It's not a terrible idea, as long as you don't orient into one of the bad orientations (where you can't fix your centers without doing some void parity nonsense).


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 22, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> No. They shouldn't add anything bigger than 5x5.
> 
> Solve times would be extremely long and success rates extremely low. Besides only few people in the world can do them *so getting more than 1 people to compete ateach comp might be hard... *



The bold part is at most competitions. There are only a handful of poeple that actually do 3BLD, much less 4 and 5BLD at local competitions, but what if they only did 7BLD at major competitions? Like USA Nationals or something? Or they could add the event at the competition upon request by a competitor. 



tseitsei said:


> 6bld and up doesnt really add anything new except just more memoing and annoying mire layers. More layers gets very annoying because in a long solve it's easy to turn the wrong layer by accident. And for memory monsters that like big memos we already have mbld



This could be argued that in MBLD it is also very annoying because in a long solve it's easy to mix up a cube for another or to pick up the wrong cube. But how do you get better at that? Or turn the right amount of layers? Practice. Just like any other event. I'm not saying that I would rather die than not have 7BLD in competitions, but it would be an intersting feat to accomplish and give hope to slower cubers like me to work towards to get their name in the record books. 


This is my 100th Post BTW!!!


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 22, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> The bold part is at most competitions. There are only a handful of poeple that actually do 3BLD, much less 4 and 5BLD at local competitions, but what if they only did 7BLD at major competitions? Like USA Nationals or something? Or they could add the event at the competition upon request by a competitor.



Nobody is stopping anyone from organizing 6 or 7bld as unofficial events if they are interested, but IMO there is no sense in adding an official event that gets held few times a year and has even fewer successes.




> This could be argued that in MBLD it is also very annoying because in a long solve it's easy to mix up a cube for another or to pick up the wrong cube. But how do you get better at that? Or turn the right amount of layers? Practice. Just like any other event.


MBLD is different because if you make one mistake the whole solve is not a DNF. You just get lower scores. Also picking up the wrong cube during MBLD is just stupid and VERY easily avoidable. Unlike accidental/wrong inner layer turns in 7BLD.



> I'm not saying that I would rather die than not have 7BLD in competitions, but it would be an interesting feat to accomplish and give hope to slower cubers like me to work towards to get their name in the record books.



It is an interesting feat to accomplish I agree completely BUT that is why we have a thread here in speedsolving that lists (or at least tries to list) all who have accomplished it  . It's just that because of its incredibly hard nature (VERY low percent of the solves would be successful) and long duration it doesn't fit to WCA competitions well at all...

P.S. Also on another topic that caught my eye in your post: Why should slow people even get their name in the record books? IMO only the fastest ones should get that honor. And there is always hope for the slow ones also since everyone who is fast now was once slow  Just keep practising and good luck with 7BLD, I'm starting to practise it next week also


----------



## josh42732 (Feb 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> P.S. Also on another topic that caught my eye in your post: Why should slow people even get their name in the record books? IMO only the fastest ones should get that honor. And there is always hope for the slow ones also since everyone who is fast now was once slow  Just keep practising and good luck with 7BLD, I'm starting to practise it next week also



Well, IF they added 7BLD into competitions, maybe they would put your name in the books just if you got a success. Time doesn't matter and it is jsut a matter of if you DNF or not. Whoever DNF's the least wins the comp. They have a recorder in a quiet room to film to make sure they don't cheat so a conjugate is not sitting there for so long. That way, the only thing keeping you back isn't time. (well maybe they would put like a 10 hour time limit on it or something like that lol)


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 23, 2015)

moralsh said:


> cmhardw, I know you can just swap centers at the end, but I'm curious to know if anybody does solve 5BLD that way (orienting the cube to get easier centers, solving it, and swapping the centers). Do you do it or know anybody who does it?



Yes, orienting a 5x5 to a good starting state is something I do regularly and have been doing since around 2011. I don't remember the exact date, but I posted it on the forum when I made the decision to switch, so there is a public record of it here somewhere.

I got the idea from Mike Hughey, who used to do this regularly. I don't know if he still does.



Ollie said:


> I think Chester Lian did it. It's not a terrible idea, as long as you don't orient into one of the bad orientations (where you can't fix your centers without doing some void parity nonsense).



I only pick from the 12 orientations where the corner and edge permutation parities match (centers have even permutation parity). There was some talk a few years ago where people were searching for a good void parity style alg that put the centers into an even parity state solvable with a 4 move commutator and also swapped two edges. I don't remember anyone finding a particularly fast alg, but I could be mistaken on that point.

Also, if I remember correctly, Mike Hughey eventually advocated against using this regularly on 5x5, but he definitely uses it in 7x7 BLD. I don't do 7BLD often, but I do rotate for the best starting position when I do. It saves a lot of memorization effort throughout the solve.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 23, 2015)

I wasn't sure about using it regularly on the 5x5x5, but eventually I wound up sticking with it. I still reorient regularly for 5BLD. And 7BLD. (Only using the 12 "easy" orientations, like Chris.)

I'm pretty sure Mats Bergsten still does too. Much to gain, pretty much nothing to lose. The only reason not to reorient is because you're potentially slightly more likely to make a mistake memorizing because you might notice the center piece and as a result assign the wrong letter to a piece. But my ingrained habit is strong enough that that practically never happens.

I'm pretty sure there are some people who reorient 5x5x5 BLD using all 24 possible orientations. It's a little harder, but there are people who got comfortable with it, and once you're comfortable with it, odds are it's useful too.

So anyway, yes, reorienting for 5BLD is a very reasonable thing to do.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 23, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> Well, IF they added 7BLD into competitions, maybe they would put your name in the books just if you got a success. Time doesn't matter and it is jsut a matter of if you DNF or not. Whoever DNF's the least wins the comp.


Yeah maybe wins the competition but after a while fast people will inevitably get successes and dominate WRs (and CRs) as it should be  So you wouldn't get a WR (well you might for a while if you happened to be the first one to succeed at official comp, but you would soon lose it to someone faster who actually deserves it)... Records belong only to the best of the best and fastest of the fast. That's just how it goes and should go.



> They have a recorder in a quiet room to film to make sure they don't cheat so a conjugate is not sitting there for so long. That way, the only thing keeping you back isn't time. (well maybe they would put like a 10 hour time limit on it or something like that lol)



No. Just no. You need a referee for BLD solve to hold the paper in front of you otherwise you can easily peek under the blindfold (Matyas Kuti!) without anyone being able to notice that. Also demanding organizers to have video cameras availible is bad idea. As is demanding competitors to provide their own cameras in order to be allowed to compete... And even so the only thing keeping you back is still time. You won't get WR (except for the first success for a short while and that's same with all the new events added) if you just go very very slowly to get a success. Someone fast BLDer (Ollie or Roman if he goes to comp or many others) will definitely do it faster.


----------



## Goosly (Feb 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> No. Just no. *You need a referee for BLD solve to hold the paper in front of you* otherwise you can easily peek under the blindfold (Matyas Kuti!) without anyone being able to notice that.



_B4c3) If the judge and competitor agree beforehand, the competitor may choose to place the puzzle behind a suitable object (e.g. a music stand, the surface of the table) by himself during the blindfolded phase._


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 23, 2015)

Goosly said:


> _B4c3) If the judge and competitor agree beforehand, the competitor may choose to place the puzzle behind a suitable object (e.g. a music stand, the surface of the table) by himself during the blindfolded phase._



You still need a personal judge for all your official attempts. That's also in the regulations somewhere but I'm too lazy to find the exact quote right now... Besides my other points towards that video camera idea still stand.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Feb 27, 2015)

I have a question for 4bld/5bld wings and centers: I have a hard time telling which wings/centers are unsolved after a cycle break. Is there an easy system or is it just instinct or do I have to count which wings/centers are solved and then this "24 wings-solved pieces+cycle breaks" to see if I missed wings/centers .And then, after I found out that there are still some pieces missing, how can I know which exactly aren't solved? For 3bld edges I also had a hard time telling which are missing but after some practising I just knew, which were missing. Is it the same for big bld?


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 27, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> I have a question for 4bld/5bld wings and centers: I have a hard time telling which wings/centers are unsolved after a cycle break. Is there an easy system or is it just instinct or do I have to count which wings/centers are solved and then this "24 wings-solved pieces+cycle breaks" to see if I missed wings/centers .And then, after I found out that there are still some pieces missing, how can I know which exactly aren't solved? For 3bld edges I also had a hard time telling which are missing but after some practising I just knew, which were missing. Is it the same for big bld?



Yeah. It's mostly instinctive. 

You can count the targets you need but it's very slow. Just do a lot of solves and it will become automatic like in 3BLD


----------



## JemFish (Feb 28, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> TheCoolMinxer said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question for 4bld/5bld wings and centers: I have a hard time telling which wings/centers are unsolved after a cycle break. Is there an easy system or is it just instinct or do I have to count which wings/centers are solved and then this "24 wings-solved pieces+cycle breaks" to see if I missed wings/centers .And then, after I found out that there are still some pieces missing, how can I know which exactly aren't solved? For 3bld edges I also had a hard time telling which are missing but after some practising I just knew, which were missing. Is it the same for big bld?
> ...



I was just going to ask about this. There are just so many wings on the 4x4, it's so difficult to know you've covered them all. I usually run through them making sure I haven't missed anything. (Well not usually - I've only attempted the wings 4 or 5 times.)


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 28, 2015)

if (#wings memorized) - (# cycle breaks) + (# solved pieces) = 24 then you're done memorizing.

Know where 24 wings memorized would end up in your (roman room/journey method) and see if it falls short of or goes beyond this point, and by how much. If you use sentences then get a feel for an "average length" sentence and see how your current memo compares to the average.


----------



## Cale S (Feb 28, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> if (#wings memorized) - (# cycle breaks) + (# solved pieces) = 24 then you're done memorizing.



Actually it should equal 23 
Without any cycle breaks or solved pieces, doing 23 targets automatically solves the buffer.



cmhardw said:


> Know where 24 wings memorized would end up in your (roman room/journey method) and see if it falls short of or goes beyond this point, and by how much. If you use sentences then get a feel for an "average length" sentence and see how your current memo compares to the average.



I agree with this and find it very helpful for my memo. For me I use 3 adjacent rooms in my house for wings, and my rooms have 8 letters each. I just take note of solved pieces I see and cycle breaks I run into to adjust for any changes in the number of targets I need.


----------



## moralsh (Feb 28, 2015)

Same here, I do groups of 8 targets so the 3rd usually finish the wings memo.

When I have a cycle break, I continue on the first unsolved letter, and I usually search top down.


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 28, 2015)

Cale S said:


> Actually it should equal 23
> Without any cycle breaks or solved pieces, doing 23 targets automatically solves the buffer.



23 targets does solve the buffer, but you've implicitly memorized 24 pieces


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Feb 28, 2015)

It's entirely possible to physically keep track of which wings you have solved already. I've got a system to make it easier, it mostly uses my hands but I also use my feet. I use DFr buffer.

Right hand:
Index - URf
Middle - UBr, Rub, BRu
Ring - RBd
Pinky - RDf, DRb (neither/DRf/DRb/DRB=both)
Thumb - FUr, RFu

Right foot (move part/all of foot to the side):
Heel - FRd
Toes - BDr

Left hand/foot mirror this, and I don't track FDl since that isn't necessary. I'll make a video if this isn't clear. It took me a little while to be able to do this automatically, but I think it was worth the effort.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 28, 2015)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> It's entirely possible to physically keep track of which wings you have solved already. I've got a system to make it easier, it mostly uses my hands but I also use my feet. I use DFr buffer.
> 
> Right hand:
> Index - URf
> ...



Sounds quite slow. But yes it might work for beginners


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Feb 28, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Sounds quite slow. But yes it might work for beginners



At first, it's slow, but after I used it for a while I didn't have to think about it any more so it didn't slow me down at all. I'm not a beginner  (but I'm not world class either ... yet).


----------



## JemFish (Mar 1, 2015)

I have some questions and requests regarding 5BLD:

Can I have the parity fixes for "centre wings" and "side wings?" Or is it the same as 3BLD (centre wings) and 4BLD (side wings)?

I assume that the evenness/oddness of the "centre wings" are the same as the corners. Am I correct?

Thanks


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 1, 2015)

JemFish said:


> I have some questions and requests regarding 5BLD:
> 
> Can I have the parity fixes for "centre wings" and "side wings?" Or is it the same as 3BLD (centre wings) and 4BLD (side wings)?
> 
> ...



For outer edges(wings) it's the same as in 4bld. 

For center edges (midges) parity is same as gor corners yes. You can fix it by putting unsolved midges to UF and UB and doing Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2. Now you can solve the rest just like in 3bld


----------



## JemFish (Mar 1, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> For outer edges(wings) it's the same as in 4bld.
> 
> For center edges (midges) parity is same as gor corners yes. You can fix it by putting unsolved midges to UF and UB and doing Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2. Now you can solve the rest just like in 3bld



Thanks! And now I know the difference between midges and wings.

Also, assuming I store 3 letter pairs in a location, how many locations would I usually need to store all my memo for 5BLD (excluding midges)? I'm too lazy to work it out, but if I did I might have missed something. Can you please break down the number of locations into separate corner centres/cross centres/wings/corners please? Thanks and sorry for the trouble; I haven't really used loci much except for speed cards, and even then it's not very efficient, and now I'm trying big BLD.

(I hope to get a 5BLD success before a 4BLD success, just for fun; I've found that I have more of an interest in 5BLD than 4BLD.)


----------



## Goosly (Mar 1, 2015)

JemFish said:


> Also, assuming I store 3 letter pairs in a location, how many locations would I usually need to store all my memo for 5BLD (excluding midges)? I'm too lazy to work it out, but if I did I might have missed something. Can you please break down the number of locations into separate corner centres/cross centres/wings/corners please?



corners: ~8 targets, 1 location
midges: ~12 targets, 2 locations
wings: ~24 targets, 4 locations
for centers it depends on the scramble, usually you have like 4-6 solved center pieces, so you'll need 3 or 4 locations for + centers and 3 or 4 for x centers


----------



## JemFish (Mar 1, 2015)

Goosly said:


> corners: ~8 targets, 1 location
> midges: ~12 targets, 2 locations
> wings: ~24 targets, 4 locations
> for centers it depends on the scramble, usually you have like 4-6 solved center pieces, so you'll need 3 or 4 locations for + centers and 3 or 4 for x centers



Thanks, this is really helpful. I thought it was going to be a lot harder - if I can memorise a deck of cards, memoing a 5x5 might actually be possible!


----------



## Goosly (Mar 1, 2015)

JemFish said:


> if I can memorise a deck of cards, memoing a 5x5 might actually be possible!



Nothing is impossible.


----------



## josh42732 (Mar 1, 2015)

Goosly said:


> Nothing is impossible.



Not even BLD solving every 5x5 in the world.


----------



## TDM (Mar 1, 2015)

How do you keep track of what pieces you have and haven't memoed for 4x4 centres/edges?


----------



## Cale S (Mar 1, 2015)

TDM said:


> How do you keep track of what pieces you have and haven't memoed for 4x4 centres/edges?



For centers I solve the targets on each face in alphabetical order, so the first center of each color I solve in the upper-left, the next in the upper-right, then lower left and lower-right. When I get to the first piece I've solved on one face, I keep one of my fingers on that piece, and when I get to that face again I know which ones I've solved, so I do the next target on that face and move my finger to that piece. Once I've done all 4 centers on a face, I take my finger off that side, so I know I'm done with centers when I'm not touching any sides of the cube.
For wings I just use # of targets - # of cycle breaks + # of solved pieces (that aren't the buffer) = 23


----------



## TDM (Mar 1, 2015)

Cale S said:


> For centers I solve the targets on each face in alphabetical order, so the first center of each color I solve in the upper-left, the next in the upper-right, then lower left and lower-right. When I get to the first piece I've solved on one face, I keep one of my fingers on that piece, and when I get to that face again I know which ones I've solved, so I do the next target on that face and move my finger to that piece. Once I've done all 4 centers on a face, I take my finger off that side, so I know I'm done with centers when I'm not touching any sides of the cube.
> For wings I just use # of targets + # of cycle breaks - # of solved Pieces = 23


Ah, the centres one seems so obvious now. Thanks! (I was going to solve centres in the same order too)

Is there a good way to do edges without counting? I'd be ok with doing it, but I'd just prefer to do everything as easily as possible for when I'm just starting 4BLD.
(also, are you sure that's correct? If you have all wings solved, you get 0+0-24 = -24, and a 3-cycle gives 2+0-21 = -19...)


----------



## Cale S (Mar 1, 2015)

TDM said:


> Ah, the centres one seems so obvious now. Thanks! (I was going to solve centres in the same order too)
> 
> Is there a good way to do edges without counting? I'd be ok with doing it, but I'd just prefer to do everything as easily as possible for when I'm just starting 4BLD


Instead of thinking of it as a formula I just think of it as solved pieces lowering the number of targets needed and cycle breaks increasing it (with 23 being the case without cycle breaks or solved pieces). I use 3 rooms with 8 letters in the first and second rooms, and the third one varies but still is close to 8 letters (7 + # cycle breaks - # solved pieces). This way the only time I have to count targets is at the last 8 (and it's in pairs so it's easy).


TDM said:


> (also, are you sure that's correct? If you have all wings solved, you get 0+0-24 = -24, and a 3-cycle gives 2+0-21 = -19...)


Oops it should be # of targets - # of cycle breaks + # of solved pieces (that aren't the buffer) = 23
I was just confused because I don't think of it as a formula when doing solves


----------



## TDM (Mar 2, 2015)

Cale S said:


> Instead of thinking of it as a formula I just think of it as solved pieces lowering the number of targets needed and cycle breaks increasing it (with 23 being the case without cycle breaks or solved pieces). I use 3 rooms with 8 letters in the first and second rooms, and the third one varies but still is close to 8 letters (7 + # cycle breaks - # solved pieces). This way the only time I have to count targets is at the last 8 (and it's in pairs so it's easy).
> 
> Oops it should be # of targets - # of cycle breaks + # of solved pieces (that aren't the buffer) = 23
> I was just confused because I don't think of it as a formula when doing solves


I kind of get it... I'll do practise memos and see if I have any problems. I don't have three rooms yet, but I'm sure I could if I tried  I'll try using three different locations and using your other formula then, since it'd save time only counting a third of the wings, and I'd be less likely to forget memo by the end, which I do quite often.


----------



## JemFish (Mar 2, 2015)

OK a couple more questions if you don't mind:

In what order should I execute the different piece types for 5BLD?

I know all the parity fixes and understand what they do, but where and how do I execute them between execution of different piece types?

I would work this out by myself, but I'm too lazy. Besides, it's nice to get advice from the pros.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 2, 2015)

JemFish said:


> Also, assuming I store 3 letter pairs in a location, how many locations would I usually need to store all my memo for 5BLD (excluding midges)? *I'm too lazy to work it out*, but if I did I might have missed something. Can you please break down the number of locations into separate corner centres/cross centres/wings/corners please? Thanks and sorry for the trouble...





JemFish said:


> In what order should I execute the different piece types for 5BLD?
> 
> I know all the parity fixes and understand what they do, but where and how do I execute them between execution of different piece types?
> 
> *I would work this out by myself, but I'm too lazy.* Besides, it's nice to get advice from the pros.



The bolded sentences are not helping you. If you're too lazy to think about BLD concepts on your own, then what is the incentive for someone who has thought about these concepts to want to have a conversation with you about them?


----------



## JemFish (Mar 3, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> The bolded sentences are not helping you. If you're too lazy to think about BLD concepts on your own, then what is the incentive for someone who has thought about these concepts to want to have a conversation with you about them?



No comment.


----------



## Ollie (Mar 3, 2015)

JemFish said:


> No comment.



I've seen you do this a few times - do you just not admit it when you're wrong?

Inb4 response is "No comment."


----------



## JemFish (Mar 3, 2015)

Ollie said:


> I've seen you do this a few times - do you just not admit it when you're wrong?
> 
> Inb4 response is "No comment."



OK OK, I'll work it out myself (actually I was).


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 3, 2015)

JemFish said:


> OK OK, I'll work it out myself (actually I was).



People enjoy discussing topics like solving order, but present to us your thoughts on what you think is the best order, and why. Or say that you have no idea which order you like, but some orders seem better to you than others, and here's why. People on this forum don't like spoon feeding, we like discussing.

Back on topic, there is no "best" solving order. However, some orders are more common than others based on criteria that each solver is trying to maximize.

Which orders are you thinking about so far, and why?


----------



## josh42732 (Mar 3, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> People enjoy discussing topics like solving order, but present to us your thoughts on what you think is the best order, and why. Or say that you have no idea which order you like, but some orders seem better to you than others, and here's why. People on this forum don't like spoon feeding, we like discussing.
> 
> Back on topic, there is no "best" solving order. However, some orders are more common than others based on criteria that each solver is trying to maximize.
> 
> Which orders are you thinking about so far, and why?



I don't do 5BLD, but for 4BLD, I excecute centers, edges, and then corners. If I were to do 5BLD and up, that's the order I would do. Just so my corners don't rotate the centers and I don't have to deal with turning the center, and then turning it back. It is just easier to do it that way, in my opinion.


----------



## JemFish (Mar 3, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> People enjoy discussing topics like solving order, but present to us your thoughts on what you think is the best order, and why. Or say that you have no idea which order you like, but some orders seem better to you than others, and here's why. People on this forum don't like spoon feeding, we like discussing.
> 
> Back on topic, there is no "best" solving order. However, some orders are more common than others based on criteria that each solver is trying to maximize.
> 
> Which orders are you thinking about so far, and why?



Yeah...you're right about the spoon feeding thing, and I should have worded my question differently...

Anyway, I think that it's best to execute pieces in the following order:

x-Centres, +-centres, wings, midges, corners.

Having x-centres first is just personal preference. I want to be able to memorise corners before midges so memo would be:

+-Centres, wings, corners, midges, x-centres.

Also, this is what I understand about parity so far:

*For Centres*: After executing +- or x-centres, just perform a [U2].

*For Wings*: After executing wings, set DF up to UF and perform [l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2] (I hope I didn't get anything wrong there).

*For Midges/Corners*: After executing midges, set DF up to UF and perform [Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2] and then [D' L2 D M2 D' L2 D] (M2 being for midges and wings). Execute corners and then perform [L2 R2] at the end.

Am I doing anything wrong, or, is there a better way?


----------



## Cale S (Mar 3, 2015)

JemFish said:


> Also, this is what I understand about parity so far:
> 
> *For Centres*: After executing +- or x-centres, just perform a [U2].
> 
> ...



For wings you have it mostly right, but DF is technically being brought to FU (on the same edge as UF but it makes a difference) with a D' L' F setup to that wing parity alg. You also do an extra r2 after the last wing target and before parity to fix the r slice.

I'm not sure I understand your way of doing midge-corner parity, but I do it like this:
1. solve midges, doing the last target with M2
2. U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U (or you could do D' L2 D M2 D' L2 D)
3. solve corners, doing the last target with OP
4. y2 (R U R' U') Rw2 Fw2 U2 r2 U2 Fw2 Rw2 (U R U' R')


----------



## JemFish (Mar 3, 2015)

Cale S said:


> For wings you have it mostly right, but DF is technically being brought to FU (on the same edge as UF but it makes a difference) with a D' L' F setup to that wing parity alg. You also do an extra r2 after the last wing target and before parity to fix the r slice.



Yep, I forgot to mention that; I learnt it from 4BLD so I know how to do wings...



Cale S said:


> I'm not sure I understand your way of doing midge-corner parity, but I do it like this:
> 1. solve midges, doing the last target with M2
> 2. U' F2 U M2 U' F2 U (or you could do D' L2 D M2 D' L2 D)
> 3. solve corners, doing the last target with OP
> 4. y2 (R U R' U') Rw2 Fw2 U2 r2 U2 Fw2 Rw2 (U R U' R')



OK I'll try that. It makes more sense than what I did.


----------



## APdRF (Mar 3, 2015)

It's not enough to fix the midges parity by doing M2 U2 M' U2 M and then do a T-perm or whatever with the two left corners (buffer+last target)? Also, I want to know if there's a method like U2 for the +centres, because I don't feel confident with conmutators.


----------



## h2f (Mar 3, 2015)

Cale S said:


> 4. y2 (R U R' U') Rw2 Fw2 U2 r2 U2 Fw2 Rw2 (U R U' R')



Shouldn't it be: y2 (R U R' U') Rw2 *F2* U2 r2 U2 *F2* Rw2 (U R U' R')?


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 3, 2015)

The whole solving order stuff is just pretty much personal preference...

I do for 5bld:
memo:
1. + centers
2. midges
3. x-centers
4. wings
5. corners
exec:
1. corners
2. wings
3. x-centers
4. + centers
5. midges
6. wing and/or midge/corner parity

Which is basically:
Memo everything that 4bld doesn't have.
Do (memo&execution) normal 4bld solve (except no parity fixes at the end)
Execute everything that is still left + fix parities...


----------



## Cale S (Mar 3, 2015)

APdRF said:


> Also, I want to know if there's a method like U2 for the +centres, because I don't feel confident with conmutators.



Corey Sakowski made a tutorial for U2 +centers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59BgT6piDU



h2f said:


> Shouldn't it be: y2 (R U R' U') Rw2 *F2* U2 r2 U2 *F2* Rw2 (U R U' R')?



They actually both work, I just learned it with Fw2 instead of F2 so that's what I've always used.


----------



## h2f (Mar 3, 2015)

Cale S said:


> They actually both work, I just learned it with Fw2 instead of F2 so that's what I've always used.



Ok, thanks. I learnt the alg from Grzegorz Jałocha and it was without wide move.


----------



## APdRF (Mar 3, 2015)

Thank you Cale! Also I feel stupid for my way to fix the midges parity, of course you have to do Rw2 F2... so you don't destroy the wings xD


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 4, 2015)

I have a lot of trouble finding good letter pairs. Would you recommend making a list for all letter pairs? So one verb and one noun for each pair?
Also I have a hard time forgetting my memo. I even know my complete 4BLD memo from yesterday. How can I fix that?


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 4, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> I have a lot of trouble finding good letter pairs. Would you recommend making a list for all letter pairs? So one verb and one noun for each pair?
> Also I have a hard time forgetting my memo. I even know my complete 4BLD memo from yesterday. How can I fix that?



Review less. You'll be faster and forget your memos sooner


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 4, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Review less. You'll be faster and forget your memos sooner


 Thanks! But for getting my first success, I should go really safe, shouldn't I? How often would you recommend reviewing each set(wings,centers,corners)? and would you recommend this letter pair list thing?


----------



## TDM (Mar 4, 2015)

TDM said:


> I kind of get it... I'll do practise memos and see if I have any problems. I don't have three rooms yet, but I'm sure I could if I tried  I'll try using three different locations and using your other formula then, since it'd save time only counting a third of the wings, and I'd be less likely to forget memo by the end, which I do quite often.


So I'm having difficulty if I have e.g. a 2-cycle, and I don't know which pieces I need to cycle. Is there any way to find the pieces more easily than going through your entire edge memo once for each letter to see if you've included it or not?


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 6, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> Thanks! But for getting my first success, I should go really safe, shouldn't I? How often would you recommend reviewing each set(wings,centers,corners)? and would you recommend this letter pair list thing?



Oh, you are just trying to get your first success. Then I would say review as much as you need to make absolutely sure you don't forget anything. You won't be able to do that many attempts because you will remember the earlier memos. But after you have your first (few) success(es) you can start going faster. 

As for how much to review that really depends on how good you are. At first you must review more to remember everything but with practise you can review less and less. 
I think Ollie for example doesn't really need to review anymore for 4BLD (Ollie feel free to correct me if I'm wrong  ). I memo centers review centers. Then memo wings and if needed just quickly say them in my mind again (I don't visualize/use images for wings. I just make sentences and words which is faster but more short term memory). Then quick audio loop memo for corners and I'm ready. Memoing centers is taking me almost as long as memoing all the rest (wings+corners) even tough it's much less pieces because I need to use proper images for centers or I'll forget them.

For letter pair list. Some people recommend it but I have never had one. I still come up with new words on the spot that happen to fit my memo. Of course I have some kind of list for harder letter pairs in my head (but not written down anywhere) that I can go to if I can't immediately come up with something better/intuitive. I think a strict list will make your memo less flexible but having a list as "backup" for (at least for those harder letter pairs) cases where you can't intuitively come up with anything quickly is a good thing...

Example of my letter pairs: for example for HI I don't really have anything pre-set but depending on what would fit my current memo best I could choose from many Finnish words because HI is quite commonly used in Finnish language. I could use Hiihtää(ski), Hihittää(laugh), Hiili(coal or carbon), Hiisi(kind of an orc), Hiiva(yeast)....

But for AB for example I would always use from preset list in my head the word Aboriginal since we have VERY few words in Finnish that have letter B in them...


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 6, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Oh, you are just trying to get your first success. Then I would say review as much as you need to make absolutely sure you don't forget anything. You won't be able to do that many attempts because you will remember the earlier memos. But after you have your first (few) success(es) you can start going faster.
> 
> As for how much to review that really depends on how good you are. At first you must review more to remember everything but with practise you can review less and less.
> I think Ollie for example doesn't really need to review anymore for 4BLD (Ollie feel free to correct me if I'm wrong  ). I memo centers review centers. Then memo wings and if needed just quickly say them in my mind again (I don't visualize/use images for wings. I just make sentences and words which is faster but more short term memory). Then quick audio loop memo for corners and I'm ready. Memoing centers is taking me almost as long as memoing all the rest (wings+corners) even tough it's much less pieces because I need to use proper images for centers or I'll forget them.
> ...


Thanks a lot for this long, very well written and well explained answer!


----------



## TDM (Mar 7, 2015)

First attempts at 4BLD centres, corners and edges were all successes  I don't think I'll be doing full solves for a while though.

Cale said he uses 3 different rooms for centres. Do you think it would be a good idea to use lots of separate rooms? I've only ever gone out of my first room twice, and neither of those were very successful  I know I could easily fit a 4BLD in one room, and I know I'd be comfortable doing that, but I wasn't sure whether other people used loads of different rooms, or if they did everything in one room.


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 8, 2015)

TDM said:


> First attempts at 4BLD centres, corners and edges were all successes  I don't think I'll be doing full solves for a while though.
> 
> Cale said he uses 3 different rooms for centres. Do you think it would be a good idea to use lots of separate rooms? I've only ever gone out of my first room twice, and neither of those were very successful  I know I could easily fit a 4BLD in one room, and I know I'd be comfortable doing that, but I wasn't sure whether other people used loads of different rooms, or if they did everything in one room.



I use 2 rooms for 4BLD centers. 8 targets (4 words) to first one and rest to the second one (6-10 targets).

I also use 2 rooms for each 3x3 cube in my MBLD attempts. One for corners and one for edges. So 6-8 targets to corners rooms and 10-14 targets to edge rooms usually. Works well for me


----------



## TDM (Mar 8, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I use 2 rooms for 4BLD centers. 8 targets (4 words) to first one and rest to the second one (6-10 targets).
> 
> I also use 2 rooms for each 3x3 cube in my MBLD attempts. One for corners and one for edges. So 6-8 targets to corners rooms and 10-14 targets to edge rooms usually. Works well for me


Wow, how many rooms do you have?


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 8, 2015)

TDM said:


> Wow, how many rooms do you have?



Well "room" is not excactly correct. Location is better.

I have 23 cubes and I use locations for 22 of them so 22*2 locations + I have locations that I don't usually use for two more cubes so all in all 22*2+4=48 locations.

Also I always have locations in sets of 8 inside a bigger location so I can memo 4 cubes and fill one of those bigger locations and move on.

For example my first set is my house:
1. Hallway right as I come in
2. Bathroom
3. Bedroom
4. Computer spot in the corner
5. Balcony
6. Living room/couch spot
7. Kitchen table.
8. Actual kitchen by the stove
And another quite different example is my car:
1. I'm walking to the car and something is happening below it. So below the car is the first one.
2. I open the drivers door and there is something in the drivers seat. So drivers seat.
3. The handymans seat is next.
4. backseat
5. The flat surface behind the back seat and in front of rear window or I might see something happening while looking out of the rear window.
6. trunk of the car
7. on the roof of the car.
8. In the engine room.

I have 6 of these bigger locations:
1. My old house
2. Our guild room at university
3. My current house.
4. My car
5. The bar I often go to 
6. My aunts mobile home

And I always use them in that same order.


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 8, 2015)

TDM said:


> Wow, how many rooms do you have?



Well "room" is not excactly correct. Location is better.

I have 23 cubes and I use locations for 22 of them so 22*2 locations + I have locations that I don't usually use for two more cubes so all in all 22*2+4=48 locations.

Also I always have locations in sets of 8 inside a bigger location so I can memo 4 cubes and fill one of those bigger locations and move on.

For example my first set is my house:
1. Hallway right as I come in
2. Bathroom
3. Bedroom
4. Computer spot in the corner
5. Balcony
6. Living room/couch spot
7. Kitchen table.
8. Actual kitchen by the stove
And another quite different example is my car:
1. I'm walking to the car and something is happening below it. So below the car is the first one.
2. I open the drivers door and there is something in the drivers seat. So drivers seat.
3. The handymans seat is next.
4. backseat
5. The flat surface behind the back seat and in front of rear window or I might see something happening while looking out of the rear window.
6. trunk of the car
7. on the roof of the car.
8. In the engine room.

I have 6 of these bigger locations:
1. My old house
2. Our guild room at university
3. My current house.
4. My car
5. The bar I often go to 
6. My aunts mobile home

And I always use them in that same order.


----------



## josh42732 (Mar 8, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Well "room" is not excactly correct. Location is better.
> 
> I have 23 cubes and I use locations for 22 of them so 22*2 locations + I have locations that I don't usually use for two more cubes so all in all 22*2+4=48 locations.
> 
> ...



Wow. I wish that I had that many places right now. If I did, I would attempt 2-7 BLD. Lol jk


----------



## josh42732 (Mar 8, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Well "room" is not excactly correct. Location is better.
> 
> I have 23 cubes and I use locations for 22 of them so 22*2 locations + I have locations that I don't usually use for two more cubes so all in all 22*2+4=48 locations.
> 
> ...



Wow. I wish that I had that many places right now. If I did, I would attempt 2-7 BLD. Lol jk

I really like the car idea though, I might use that.


----------



## tseitsei (Mar 9, 2015)

josh42732 said:


> Wow. I wish that I had that many places right now. If I did, I would attempt 2-7 BLD. Lol jk
> 
> I really like the car idea though, I might use that.



It's not that hard to add new places. Just take ANY building/place that you are familiar with and divide it to smaller parts that go in some kind of logical order (clockwise, front to back, left to right, up from down etc.) and start using them. 
It will probably be a little awkward the first (or first 2) time(s) but you get used to it surprisingly quickly. Well at least I did...


----------



## josh42732 (Mar 9, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> It's not that hard to add new places. Just take ANY building/place that you are familiar with and divide it to smaller parts that go in some kind of logical order (clockwise, front to back, left to right, up from down etc.) and start using them.
> It will probably be a little awkward the first (or first 2) time(s) but you get used to it surprisingly quickly. Well at least I did...



Ok! Will try that next 4BLD attempt!


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 21, 2015)

On 4/5BLD wings: for the letters K C and W, do I have to shot the opposite letter, when I have an odd number of targets? 
(Uh, hard to describe here haha)


----------



## Berd (Mar 21, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> On 4/5BLD wings: for the letters K C and W, do I have to shot the opposite letter, when I have an odd number of targets?
> (Uh, hard to describe here haha)


Do you use spefz?


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 21, 2015)

Berd said:


> Do you use spefz?


Yes, I don't know how I should say it haha, correct me if I am wrong but for the targets FL, UL and BL maybe then?

Edit: sorry if my english is awful sometimes


----------



## Cale S (Mar 21, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> On 4/5BLD wings: for the letters K C and W, do I have to shot the opposite letter, when I have an odd number of targets?
> (Uh, hard to describe here haha)



The only targets for r2 wings where you shoot to the opposite letter are FU and BD (I and T for me, for others probably something different). These are the only two targets on the r slice other than your buffer and your target position, which don't get swapped by an r2.


----------



## h2f (May 13, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> I found decent r2 parity algorithm with ksolve and it's fairly easy to learn
> 
> r' U2 r U2 r' U2 x r U2 r U2 r U2 r2 U2 x' r' U2
> 
> I've switched to this now



Shouldn't it be:
*r* U2 r U2 r' U2 x r U2 r U2 r U2 r2 U2 x' r' U2 ?

alg.cubing.net

Edit: 
Oops, it's ok. I've checked what it does. I think both versions may be applied for 4bld.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (May 27, 2015)

5bld parity: does it occur, when I have parity on midges/corners? And what is the best alg to do then? I would do y2, set up move to Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2 and set up move'. But I saw a parity alg from CHJ which looked quite nice(alg?) What would you do?


----------



## tseitsei (May 27, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> 5bld parity: does it occur, when I have parity on midges/corners? And what is the best alg to do then? I would do y2, set up move to Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2 and set up move'. But I saw a parity alg from CHJ which looked quite nice(alg?) What would you do?



I leave DF and UB swapped and then F2 (Rw2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 Rw2) y (T-perm) L2


----------



## josh42732 (Jul 1, 2015)

Why do I keep DNF'ing on the 4BLD practice solves? I write down the memo, check, and double check it, and when I excecute, I only get about 40% solved. Why is this? When I do sighted solves, I am perfect 100% of the time. I would like to fix this fast because this is getting very annoying.


----------



## moralsh (Jul 1, 2015)

I'm guessing center set ups. Solve everything but centers, then just memorize in small groups the centers, execute, and check every 2 centers.

Set ups are very hard to miss on sighted solves, but are definitely part of the problem when blindfolded.


----------



## josh42732 (Jul 1, 2015)

moralsh said:


> I'm guessing center set ups. Solve everything but centers, then just memorize in small groups the centers, execute, and check every 2 centers.
> 
> Set ups are very hard to miss on sighted solves, but are definitely part of the problem when blindfolded.



Thanks! I will try that!


----------



## h2f (Jul 11, 2015)

I do centers with 3-style. Yesterday doing +centers I forgot about one 3-cycle. Is there a way to fix centeres when you miss one 3-cycle but not by inverting solution to the point you missed. I was watching Noah tutorial about it but on 3x3 and I'm not sure if it works on centers in 4bld or 5bld.


----------



## Ollie (Jul 11, 2015)

It works for all cycles.

So if you have the cycle (ABCDEF) and you miss out CD, you will be left with the cycle (CDE) at the end. So the rule is, the left over cycle will always consist of the letter pair you missed plus the letter that proceeded it. So execute CDEC to fix it


----------



## h2f (Jul 11, 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## Iggy (Jul 18, 2015)

On 4BLD, I memorise corners last and solve them first, and if there's corner parity, I solve it at the end of the solve. What's the best way to remember if there's corner parity? What I've been doing all along is remembering if I have an odd or even corner targets, though I don't find this that great.


----------



## Berd (Jul 18, 2015)

Iggy said:


> On 4BLD, I memorise corners last and solve them first, and if there's corner parity, I solve it at the end of the solve. What's the best way to remember if there's corner parity? What I've been doing all along is remembering if I have an odd or even corner targets, though I don't find this that great.


I've seen people to cross their legs if they have parity.


----------



## moralsh (Jul 18, 2015)

Make parity part of the memo as an image or a word and stick it at the end of your memo. Or just do whatever you have to do to avoid it (way easier if you don't execute them first, I guess)


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 18, 2015)

I use my auditory memory and actually say "parity" out loud, quietly, when I have it. It "echoes" in your head for surprisingly long if you actually hear the word spoken.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 18, 2015)

Berd said:


> I've seen people to cross their legs if they have parity.



This is what I do. And for 3bld I do this if I have flipped edges


----------



## h2f (Jul 23, 2015)

I'm looking for an alg for double parity -. I mean I do corners first and if there's parity I switch UBL and UBR. Next I do centers and edges with r2. When there are two paritie I do r2 parity with Robert Yau's alg and next edge parity doing r2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2. But It's a lot of moves and I guess it might be something shorter. Is it?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 4, 2015)

For 4BLD centers, using the U2 method, if I break into a new cycle with a U layer target (whose alg isn't U2), and the cycle ends, could I just do U2 instead of doing that target's alg? I've been considering this and don't immediately see any problems.


----------



## Berd (Aug 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> For 4BLD centers, using the U2 method, if I break into a new cycle with a U layer target (whose alg isn't U2), and the cycle ends, could I just do U2 instead of doing that target's alg? I've been considering this and don't immediately see any problems.


Wouldn't that destroy the wings positions?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 4, 2015)

Berd said:


> Wouldn't that destroy the wings positions?



It was going to be a U2 away if I did the 'correct' target anyway.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> For 4BLD centers, using the U2 method, if I break into a new cycle with a U layer target (whose alg isn't U2), and the cycle ends, could I just do U2 instead of doing that target's alg? I've been considering this and don't immediately see any problems.


How could you break into a new cycle with a U layer target? You only break into a new cycle when all of the U targets are solved.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 4, 2015)

CyanSandwich said:


> How could you break into a new cycle with a U layer target? You only break into a new cycle when all of the U targets are solved.



If you solve to the point when your buffer is solved, but not necessarily all the U targets, do you not break into a new cycle?


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> If you solve to the point when your buffer is solved, but not necessarily all the U targets, do you not break into a new cycle?



Not really. You just decide that that particular U-layer center doesn't belong to the buffer position but instead some other U-layer position and then you solve it there with your U2 alg.

As opposed to cycle break where you have to put your buffer piece (temporarily) to the wrong location and come back to it at the end of the new cycle to actually solve it...


----------



## h2f (Aug 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> If you solve to the point when your buffer is solved, but not necessarily all the U targets, do you not break into a new cycle?



No. This sticker belongs to U layer but it is not your buffer. This is the same as you have a corner from U layer in 3x3x3. You need to put this piece in its position. There are algs for this cases in U2 method.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Aug 8, 2015)

Has one ever tried to do 5bld into a checkerboard or even superflip pattern? Shouldn't be that hard for 3bld tho


----------



## Renslay (Aug 8, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> Has one ever tried to do 5bld into a checkerboard or even superflip pattern? Shouldn't be that hard for 3bld tho



You mean solving it as a regular BLD then add the checkboard pattern before taking off the blindfold? Because that's the easiest way to do that.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Aug 8, 2015)

Renslay said:


> You mean solving it as a regular BLD then add the checkboard pattern before taking off the blindfold? Because that's the easiest way to do that.



That's too easy  No, memorize it in a checkerboard or whatever pattern, then solve it!


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 9, 2015)

I guess this is more math, but on 4BLD, given that you always choose the best possible orientation (most solved pieces), what's the least solved pieces you can get? What cube state accomplishes this?


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 9, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> I guess this is more math, but on 4BLD, given that you always choose the best possible orientation (most solved pieces), what's the least solved pieces you can get? What cube state accomplishes this?



I think it was calculated you can always have 5 solved centres or more.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 9, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> I think it was calculated you can always have 5 solved centres or more.



I'm sure 4 was worst case, but very rare. The idea is as follows (I'm just trying to describe what someone else said when this was discussed before, this isn't my idea)

-There are 24 orientations
-There are 24 centres
-Each centre will be solved in 4/24 orientations.

So on average, we have 4 solved centres across all orientations. Worst case is 4 solved in each orientation. Maybe that wasn't actually possible though?


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 9, 2015)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...mmon-best-of-4BLD-centers-solved-quot-problem


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 9, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...mmon-best-of-4BLD-centers-solved-quot-problem



That's the one, I tried searching for it and failed. So, 4 is the worst theoretically possible, but hasn't been demonstrated in practice. Anyone up for working it out?


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 9, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...mmon-best-of-4BLD-centers-solved-quot-problem



That thread didn't really prove if there exists 4 centers optimal cases or not. It just proved that 5 center optinal cases exist and IF 4 centers optimal do exists they are REALLY rare...

Or I don't understand anything and am stupid again 

Edit: ninja'd


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 9, 2015)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> That's the one, I tried searching for it and failed. So, 4 is the worst theoretically possible, but hasn't been demonstrated in practice. Anyone up for working it out?



What about wings and corners?


----------



## Berd (Aug 9, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What about wings and corners?



Who chooses their orientation on wings and centers?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 9, 2015)

Berd said:


> Who chooses their orientation on wings and centers?



The question was based on the assumption that one chooses the orientation with the most solved pieces, regardless of type.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 9, 2015)

Berd said:


> Who chooses their orientation on wings and centers?



In certain special cases you may have two edge groups created and in the correct locations with respect to each other. If the centers were not in a terrible position for this cube orientation, then I would be tempted to choose that orientation.

It is very probable that you will choose your orientation based on the number of solved centers, but there is a non-zero probability that your wings or even corners would convince you to choose the orientation based on those pieces instead.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 9, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> In certain special cases you may have two edge groups created and in the correct locations with respect to each other. If the centers were not in a terrible position for this cube orientation, then I would be tempted to choose that orientation.
> 
> It is very probable that you will choose your orientation based on the number of solved centers, but there is a non-zero probability that your wings or even corners would convince you to choose the orientation based on those pieces instead.



I probably wouldn't even notice any solved wing or corner clusters before starting to memo those piece types (so after already memoing centers) because I focus so solely on centers to first choose orientation and not waste too much time on that and then actually memoing the centers


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 9, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I probably wouldn't even notice any solved wing or corner clusters before starting to memo those piece types (so after already memoing centers) because I focus so solely on centers to first choose orientation and not waste too much time on that and then actually memoing the centers



Based on your WCA profile your times are significantly faster than mine, so I am probably using a slower technique. I think I also focus mostly on centers, but I have noticed solved wing groups before and have chosen the orientation that solves those wings. I do not think I have done this in competition.


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Aug 12, 2015)

So, I began my big cube BLD course few weeks ago. I find it so exciting how I can solve it with almost no algorithms! (I use comms for centers, r2 for edges and intuitive set-ups for letter pairs, where an alg would be needed)
I've gotten one success for 4BLD and 5BLD yet. 4BLD being 33 minutes and 54 minutes for 5BLD. I have a competition this weekend, where limits are half an hour for 4BLD and an hour for 5BLD. I'd like to make it, even if I don't do it regurarly at home.
Since I am newbie, I have a problem with forgetting. I'd like to know your opinion: Should I do some full-attempts before competition? I am scared, that I will not forget and will mess up officially... But also would like to practice some normal attempts. 
What I do is scramble a 5x5, + centers, solve + centers, memo midges, solve midges etc... That drills my 5BLD execution, but rather helps my 3BLD memo than 5BLD memo... 
If anyone interested (you can also criticize me on that, I am open to your suggestions) my order is: + centers, midges, x centers, corners, wings and I memorize in opposite order.
Sorry for long post and bad english. Thanks for all your replies and wish me luck for the competition  
PS: I also learned a lot by following this thread along, this is awesome!


----------



## conn9 (Aug 15, 2015)

Hey guys, I've got a couple questions on 4BLD memo. I've learned U2/r2/OP from Noah's tutorials and understand how it works. I can do sighted solves and am happy with letter schemes etc. I just need some advice on how to store my memo if that's ok. Apologies in advance for the barrage of questions, I couldn't really find 4BLD-specific answers from the videos I've watched.

So for the journey method, should I come up with a snaking pathway throughout my house (or other locations) that covers all of the rooms? How many locations should I have per room, and how many letter pairs / images should I put in each location? Noah suggested 4 locations for multiBLD (a cube per room), so how different is it for 4BLD? Do people usually use a room (or two) for wings, a room for centres and a room for corners? And should I use the same few rooms for each solve or move along my path for successive solves to stop myself getting confused with previous attempts?

I'm also a bit confused about which order to memo and solve in. Due to the parity algs I use, centres would have to be memoed last and solved first, but is there a suggested order of doing wings and corners?

I understand that of course a lot of this depends on personal preference, but I think it would be best for me if I learned a set way of doing it now and then tweaked it later. Thanks!


----------



## Berd (Aug 15, 2015)

conn9 said:


> Hey guys, I've got a couple questions on 4BLD memo. I've learned U2/r2/OP from Noah's tutorials and understand how it works. I can do sighted solves and am happy with letter schemes etc. I just need some advice on how to store my memo if that's ok. Apologies in advance for the barrage of questions, I couldn't really find 4BLD-specific answers from the videos I've watched.
> 
> So for the journey method, should I come up with a snaking pathway throughout my house (or other locations) that covers all of the rooms? How many locations should I have per room, and how many letter pairs / images should I put in each location? Noah suggested 4 locations for multiBLD (a cube per room), so how different is it for 4BLD? Do people usually use a room (or two) for wings, a room for centres and a room for corners? And should I use the same few rooms for each solve or move along my path for successive solves to stop myself getting confused with previous attempts?
> 
> ...


I memo corners and wings in 4 groups of 8 targets (4 letter pairs.) I than audio loop centers. I'm also curious what other people do...


----------



## josh42732 (Aug 15, 2015)

conn9 said:


> Hey guys, I've got a couple questions on 4BLD memo. I've learned U2/r2/OP from Noah's tutorials and understand how it works. I can do sighted solves and am happy with letter schemes etc. I just need some advice on how to store my memo if that's ok. Apologies in advance for the barrage of questions, I couldn't really find 4BLD-specific answers from the videos I've watched.
> 
> So for the journey method, should I come up with a snaking pathway throughout my house (or other locations) that covers all of the rooms? How many locations should I have per room, and how many letter pairs / images should I put in each location? Noah suggested 4 locations for multiBLD (a cube per room), so how different is it for 4BLD? Do people usually use a room (or two) for wings, a room for centres and a room for corners? And should I use the same few rooms for each solve or move along my path for successive solves to stop myself getting confused with previous attempts?
> 
> ...


I memo centers, wings, and corners then execute centers, corners, and wings. I do centers first so I dont have to worry about center-twisting stuff. Also, I have one room for centers, another room for wings with about 12-15 locations and for corners, I make a sentence and memo that because I dont really have to know it for long term. I alreAdy had the second room from doing MBLD and that one room fit a whole cube so I just had to make a few tweaks to my room to make it work for wings. I strongly recommend writing down room ideas, then for each room, have different locations, and then using that for coming up with new rooms. That's how I am making up new rooms.


----------



## h2f (Aug 15, 2015)

I memo: centers, wings, corners. Centers: 4 words in one image (every word - 2 letters) + 4 words (or less or more) in one room with two places. Wings: 4 words + 3-4 words + 3-4 words in second room with 3 places. Corners audio pairs. I execute corners first - as far as it is with 3style it doesnt affect centers. Earlier, when I mixed OP and 3 style I did 4 algs with OP because it doesnt affect centers. After corners I do centers and wings.


----------



## conn9 (Aug 16, 2015)

Thanks for the replies, I guess I've got a good idea on how to get started with this now


----------



## AustinReed (Aug 20, 2015)

This may have already been asked, but I'd figure I'd throw it out there. 

I need to REALLY get more consistent with 5BLD. I've had one success out of 20+ attempts. I'm pretty good at 4bld accuracy, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is. I'm usually missing centers though. 

So, I've decided to change my memo around a bit. I used to do either + or x centers as audio (short-term) and then do them first. I'm thinking of doing them long-term (journey/story) so I can be a bit more accurate and making the corners audio. However, I hate doing comms for corners right now because I feel inaccurate with them and I'm just always worried about being center-safe. 

What pieces do people usually use in short-term memory? I know most people do centers first, but I'm going to try to ease it down a bit until I can get a bit faster/better. I'm just curious about some insight here.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 20, 2015)

I memo centers and wings long term, and do midges and corners as a 3BLD at the end, with corner audio.

I'm not good at comms, but I just have a handful that I setup to. You're also center safe if you do a multiple of 4 Y-perms.
I twist corners with Y-perms, so if I have a single twisted corner I have to remember to do a U2 before and after centers.

My 5BLD accuracy is terrible though. Cale will probably have some good advice.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 20, 2015)

IMO quite obviously the best memo/execution order for 5bld is:

Memo +centers and midges in whatever order first.
Memo rest like you would do 4bld.
Execute 4bld.
Execute rest. 

Because that way every time you practise 4bld you will also be practising big part of your actual 5bld solve and also vice versa...


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Aug 20, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> IMO quite obviously the best memo/execution order for 5bld is:
> 
> Memo +centers and midges in whatever order first.
> Memo rest like you would do 4bld.
> ...


That's a good logic, and I will consider switching to that. For now I like executing 4BLD last, because of wing parity.
My order is:

Memo wings, memo corners, memo X centers, memo midges. (4 separate rooms)
Memo + centers with sentences, no rooms.
Execution: + centers, midges, x centers, corners, wings

I also like this because I am always switching between big and small sets, which is convenient for my memo and also execution.


----------



## h2f (Aug 20, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> IMO quite obviously the best memo/execution order for 5bld is:
> 
> Memo +centers and midges in whatever order first.
> Memo rest like you would do 4bld.
> ...



Thats good idea. But is it a center-safe if I solve edges edeges (in 5bld arent they tredges?) in 4 bld with r2? And what about parity?


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Aug 20, 2015)

h2f said:


> Thats good idea. But is it a center-safe if I solve edges edeges (in 5bld arent they tredges?) in 4 bld with r2? And what about parity?



Solving wings with r2 is center safe, but parity is not (when you have to switch 2 wings). Maybe there are some center safe 2 swap algs, but I think they have to be a lot harder then the standard one. I think that Noah Arthurs does centers last and leaves the 2 swapped wings for the end, if there is parity.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 20, 2015)

h2f said:


> Thats good idea. But is it a center-safe if I solve edges edeges (in 5bld arent they tredges?) in 4 bld with r2? And what about parity?



Edges/wings are easy to solve center safe. I leave parities at the end of the solve and remember it by crossing my legs. It is really foolproof way to deal with parity...

I just cross my legs: 
1) right over left if I have corner(-midge in 5bld) parity
2) left over right if I have wing parity
3) heels together if I have both parities
4) keep legs seperated if I have no parities


----------



## h2f (Aug 20, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Edges/wings are easy to solve center safe. I leave parities at the end of the solve and remember it by crossing my legs. It is really foolproof way to deal with parity...



Leaving parities to the end is quite easy to remeber. I tried to use almost same trick with legs as you. But what about FU and BD with r2? Are these algs from M2 center-safe?


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 21, 2015)

I dont know what algs you use but it should be easy enough to find some algs that are center safe...


----------



## h2f (Aug 21, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> I dont know what algs you use but it should be easy enough to find some algs that are center safe...



Ok. I can be done with easy setups from advanced M2.


----------



## ottozing (Feb 28, 2016)

So, I've been wanting to try getting into 4BLD recently to help my 3BLD/get closer to platinum member/just for fun, and since for 3BLD I memo edges audio, I want to do something similar with 4BLD and memo centers audio. However, I'm a bit confused as to how I should be doing it using a 3cycle execution method along with floating buffers, so if anyone knows a solid way to memo centers like this I'd be interested to check it out. Right now the ideas I have are only leaving me more and more confused


----------



## moralsh (Feb 28, 2016)

I do 3-cycles for centers and audio, but no floating buffers. I just memo groups of 4 so it's quite straight forward to execute them in pairs.

Maybe you can add a number in there every time you pick another buffer, how does it sound?


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 28, 2016)

I also do 4-letter audio words. Generally there are 4 words in a memo, sometimes an extra syllable. Maybe for floating buffers you could group words per buffer instead and use visual memo for the buffer? I assume you'd always have pairs and thus whole syllables.


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 2, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> I also do 4-letter audio words. Generally there are 4 words in a memo, sometimes an extra syllable.


Actually I have a question about this. At the moment, centre memo is my slowest stage. I went with audio because I thought it would be faster, but I am having trouble getting the memo to stick without repeated reviews, and recall mistakes on centres is perhaps my most common reason for DNFs.

My question is this: are centres (typically 16-18 targets) too much information for fast, short term audio memo? Should I just keep practising, or am I on the wrong path using audio for this?


----------



## Goosly (Mar 2, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> My question is this: are centres (typically 16-18 targets) too much information for fast, short term audio memo? Should I just keep practising, or am I on the wrong path using audio for this?



IMO, it's too much. But I'm a noob in BLD, so my opinion doesn't really matter


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 4, 2016)

Goosly said:


> IMO, it's too much. But I'm a noob in BLD, so my opinion doesn't really matter


Yeah I'm wondering if any BigBLD ninjas have tried it and what their experience is.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 5, 2016)

At Exeter Open 2016, I struggled so badly with the second 4BLD scramble that I threw the solve away. However, everyone else who had a success got it on that scramble! So I reconstructed to see why I found it so difficult.

B R2 U2 F U2 F L2 D2 F D B' D' F' D' R2 D L R' F' D2 Fw2 R' Uw2 D Rw2 Uw2 R' L2 D Fw2 B2 U L' Fw' L F' D U F' Uw' Fw L2 Uw Rw2 U' R2 z' y'

Using the orientation I chose in comp (three yellows on top, white at Ubr) I couldn't do it at home either. I had to write down the wing memo to find my mistake. It was 28 targets, 5 breaks. Awful. So I tried it with the white at Ufr. Wing memo was now easy - 24 with 1 break. (I guessed that's the orientation the others would most likely have chosen as it gave more solved centres overall; I had traded two side centres for not having to solve any U-face centres ).

That taught me something I didn't realize about 4BLD. Because centres are not fixed, wing and corner cycles depend on orientation, unlike 3BLD. (It should have been obvious to me because there are simple examples, like two wings swapped in place no longer being an isolated 2-cycle if you change the orientation.)

So now I am curious whether any experienced 4BLDers use this in choosing an orientation? I have always looked at centres only, but it seems just as valid to take into account solved wings or corners, corner twists, or even avoiding obvious 2-cycles on wings or corners.

And a related question - can orientation affect wing or corner parity? My thinking is no, because a quarter rotation would be equivalent to two quarter moves on opposite faces... but I might be wrong.


----------



## Goosly (Apr 5, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> So now I am curious whether any experienced 4BLDers use this in choosing an orientation? I have always looked at centres only, but it seems just as valid to take into account solved wings or corners, corner twists, or even avoiding obvious 2-cycles on wings or corners.



Only looking at centers is, on average, the best way to get an overall faster memo time because re-orienting to get an 'easy' memo is part of memo.
If you also look at wings/corners, you'll just loose more time than you gain, on average.


----------



## Jacck (Apr 5, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> And a related question - can orientation affect wing or corner parity? My thinking is no, because a quarter rotation would be equivalent to two quarter moves on opposite faces... but I might be wrong.



_Corner parity: yes! Take a scrambled 4x4 and count the corners to be solved, then make a "y" and try it again. You will see, that one is with parity and the other not. But checking the corners-parity first isn't faster than solving the parity. Except: if you have an annoying scramble and you have only found two not at all good ways to hold it in a too long time, you may check for the parity to feel better  _
Edit (after bobthegiraffemonkey's explanation): the previous text is nonsense, I don't know, how I got to this (and how I checked it on my 4x4). I think - like the wing parity - corner parity is only depending on the number of 90°-face-turns in the scramble.

Wing parity: in my opinion, no. I'm pretty sure, you have wing parity, when there is an odd number of 90°-innerslice-moves in the scramble.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 5, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> And a related question - can orientation affect wing or corner parity? My thinking is no, because a quarter rotation would be equivalent to two quarter moves on opposite faces... but I might be wrong.



Yup, you're right, you just need to count the number of 4-cycles in a rotation such as y. Corners: two 4-cycles, wings: six 4-cycles, both are even so neither have an effect on parity. By induction no rotation will have an effect on parity.


----------



## Hari (Apr 6, 2016)

I was going through Ollie's list for big BLD algs and found many X- centers algs like this: [r' U r U', l2]. This is for BU. And [2Lw: [r2, U' l' U]] for BV. Why not the simpler 8 movers for these cases? I could give more examples for BT,BJ,etc. Am I missing out on something? And same question for +centers. Isn't Ul-Ub-Bd easier as [x'; [M', U' l' U] ] rather than y rotation to an 8 mover?


----------



## tseitsei (Apr 6, 2016)

Hari said:


> I was going through Ollie's list for big BLD algs and found many X- centers algs like this: [r' U r U', l2]. This is for BU. And for BV. Why not the simpler 8 movers for these cases? I could give more examples for BT,BJ,etc. Am I missing out on something? And same question for +centers. Isn't Ul-Ub-Bd easier as [x'; [M', U' l' U] ] rather than y rotation to an 8 mover?



[r' U r U', l2]
This is what I do. Mostly because all the 8-movers I can find are simply slower to execute. If you have a good one please share 

[2Lw: [r2, U' l' U]]
Not sure about this... probably he finds it faster to execute because less inner layer turns but I would just do [r2, U' l U]

for + centers I have a different buffer so I dunno.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

Hey guys for even puzzles like the 4x4 and 6x6, edges(after pairing) can be solved without disturbing any other pieces, which means less algs than Old pochmann for 3x3. I think that for 4x4 that will be the method I use for BLD.


----------



## Cale S (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey guys for even puzzles like the 4x4 and 6x6, edges(after pairing) can be solved without disturbing any other pieces, which means less algs than Old pochmann for 3x3. I think that for 4x4 that will be the method I use for BLD.


I don't understand what you mean


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

for a 4x4 you can swap the edge pairs across one face like a T-permutation but without swapping the corners, am I right?


----------



## qaz (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> for a 4x4 you can swap the edge pairs across one face like a T-permutation but without swapping the corners, am I right?


Correct, but BLD solvers don't pair up edges before putting them in the correct place so this would have limited usefulness.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

huh.
so what would the old-pochmann style algorithms look like? a t-perm with only one of the two slices?


----------



## qaz (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> huh.
> so what would the old-pochmann style algorithms look like? a t-perm with only one of the two slices?


You could use something like l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2 to swap 2 wedges at a time I suppose


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

also, the r2 method's only online explanation is on eriks website, which has been down since I started cubing. so what is the Idea of ir?


----------



## qaz (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> also, the r2 method's only online explanation is on eriks website, which has been down since I started cubing. so what is the Idea of ir?


Do you know M2?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

yes. very. and Im also very dissatisfied with all BLd corners methods out there, none are easy to remember (even OP), so I use Boomerang method for corners.


----------



## qaz (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yes. very. and Im also very dissatisfied with all BLd corners methods out there, none are easy to remember (even OP), so I use Boomerang method for corners.


r2 is essentially M2 except only using one slice. It's a bit more difficult since each wedge has a unique letter instead of two letters, one for each orientation, as M2 has, but it's the same concept.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

and what about the centers? would I just use the same Idea as cage methods?


----------



## h2f (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> and what about the centers? would I just use the same Idea as cage methods?



The method called U2. Very easy. Only 3 algs needed to know for centers on D and U.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 8, 2016)

no duh. where is the documentation on it though? googling "U2 method" brings up every method that has an algorithm with U2 in it, so that isn't very useful.


----------



## qaz (Jul 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> no duh. where is the documentation on it though? googling "U2 method" brings up every method that has an algorithm with U2 in it, so that isn't very useful.


This is a good tutorial: 




It is the second result on google btw.


----------



## h2f (Jul 8, 2016)

Or this 



I thonk the second part is about U2

Wysłane z mojego GT-S7580 przy użyciu Tapatalka


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 9, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> for a 4x4 you can swap the edge pairs across one face like a T-permutation but without swapping the corners, am I right?


Yes but you can't swap corners without swapping dedges, so you still get parity situations. Parity is kind of independent for corners, edges and centres.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 11, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Actually I have a question about this. At the moment, centre memo is my slowest stage. I went with audio because I thought it would be faster, but I am having trouble getting the memo to stick without repeated reviews, and recall mistakes on centres is perhaps my most common reason for DNFs.
> 
> My question is this: are centres (typically 16-18 targets) too much information for fast, short term audio memo? Should I just keep practising, or am I on the wrong path using audio for this?



Quoting myself and bumping this question, because I only got one response, and I'm still struggling with this and interested to hear other blinders' thoughts.

I'm also considering switching to executing corners first with audio, but I'm still using OP (partly) and I know it's not centre safe. And parity certainly isn't. Does anyone have any tips for executing corners before centres?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 11, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Quoting myself and bumping this question, because I only got one response, and I'm still struggling with this and interested to hear other blinders' thoughts.
> 
> I'm also considering switching to executing corners first with audio, but I'm still using OP (partly) and I know it's not centre safe. And parity certainly isn't. Does anyone have any tips for executing corners before centres?


Audio for centers is great if you can handle it. I can barely do audio edges so I do corners first for bigBLD.

OP is center safe in multiples of 4. So if you have 4 or 8 targets, great. If you had 6 targets, you could force one comm and the rest OP. Otherwise just use whatever nasty setup moves you can think of and use full comms.

With parity, execute your last 3-cycle as Buffer>Target>UBR (assuming you do PLL parity + T-perm).
What I do is put my feet together, then at the end of everything, check if my feet are together and execute parity.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 11, 2016)

CyanSandwich said:


> Audio for centers is great if you can handle it. I can barely do audio edges so I do corners first for bigBLD.


This is exactly my situation too. I'd like to be able to do audio centers but I don't think that will ever happen.


----------



## Jacck (Aug 12, 2016)

CyanSandwich said:


> OP is center safe in multiples of 4. So if you have 4 or 8 targets, great. If you had 6 targets, you could force one comm and the rest OP. Otherwise just use whatever nasty setup moves you can think of and use full comms.


Seems that you use perms only, where the centers are rotated in one direction (otherwise 3 y-perms (3*ccw) and 1 j-perm (1*cw) would not be centersave). 
Why don't you use with 2 or 6 targets once the perm inverted?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 12, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Seems that you use perms only, where the centers are rotated in one direction (otherwise 3 y-perms (3*ccw) and 1 j-perm (1*cw) would not be centersave).
> Why don't you use with 2 or 6 targets once the perm inverted?


Oh, I didn't know j-perms were the other direction. So Mark, just keep in mind Y-perms do a U' and J-perms do a U.
I haven't used OP in a while, but when I did it was full Y-perms, except for UBR.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 12, 2016)

Thanks guys. I tried a few solves corners first but I think the OP complications and deferring parity until later will frequently trip me up. It's more to think about when I'm already struggling to get faster, and I really prefer solving centres first, I'm used to it and it now feels like the natural order.

I also experimented with splitting centres into two sequences, so memo the first part visual and the second part audio, then execute in reverse order. That might hold better promise for me and it also has the flexibility that I can do more or fewer targets as audio depending on how I feel or how easy the scramble or memo are. I'll continue with that for a while and see how it goes.


----------



## Jacck (Aug 12, 2016)

CyanSandwich said:


> Oh, I didn't know j-perms were the other direction. So Mark, just keep in mind Y-perms do a U' and J-perms do a U.
> I haven't used OP in a while, but when I did it was full Y-perms, except for UBR.


This was only an example! It depends really on which perm you use. I just know this j-perm:
R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L
just count the "U"s and you will get as sum an U', the center is rotated ccw. The inverse will have a sum of one U, the center will be rotated cw.

That means, you should check your perms, before using them with OP before the centers


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 27, 2017)

is it possible to do S moves on a 5x5?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jan 27, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> is it possible to do S moves on a 5x5?


I mean... yes 

Can you be more specific?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 27, 2017)

CyanSandwich said:


> I mean... yes
> 
> Can you be more specific?


is there a good fingertrick and is it worth it?
or should you learn longer MU algs

how would do you DF LU LD

edit: bad example because this one obviously 8 move M is better


----------



## Cale S (Jan 27, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> is there a good fingertrick and is it worth it?
> or should you learn longer MU algs
> 
> how would do you DF LU LD



[U' M' U, L2]


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jan 27, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> is there a good fingertrick and is it worth it?
> or should you learn longer MU algs
> 
> how would do you DF LU LD
> ...


I can't help you there because I don't even use S algs for 3bld. Give me some S algs that you think could be better than longer M ones on 5BLD.


----------



## Jugurtha (Feb 23, 2017)

Hi guys,
Just started very recently 5BLD, I am now wondering about the order of execution. Basically this is at the moment the structure I'm using:
- memo X and + centers, same room but different locations; usually 3 locations for each
- memo wings in another room, 3 locations as well; in case of parity I just add my UB target at the end of my memo
- memo midges in the 3rd (2 locations max) + corners as a very simple image or audio, depending on the situation (I'm using audio for edges on 3BLD FYI so that's why I keep the corners here mostly as an image)
- execute corners, only comms so no worries about my centers. In case I have parity I add UFR as my final target (UBL buffer), therefore I'm creating an additional corner comm (I solve it at the very end of the solve in this case).
- execute midges and manually swapping UL and UB at the end (setting up to a nice Y perm + parity for the end of the solve)
- execute wings
- execute centers, X and +
- solve wings parity (many many thanks to Robert Yau for his fantastic algs) and corners/midges parity

Two questions:
- Any comments on this? I know it overall works, IIRC Marcell used that strategy a few years ago, from what I remember on his WR videos. Probably true for other people as well.
- Wondering about memoing flipped midges right now; I just forgot one in my last attempt, that otherwise would have been successful (and my 1st ever success BTW). Should I add it in another location in my "centers room" in order not to forget it? Or just remember it visually as I'm doing for 3BLD? Or just solving as 2 targets during my midges execution? Any other solution?

BTW I'm still a very beginner, so right now I'm trying to find unoccupied rooms that I know really well, in order to be able firstly to go on 2 consecutive attempts of 5BLD, and eventually to do a 2/2 5BLD.


----------



## mickael (Mar 29, 2017)

@Jugurtha : looks like you achieve it ! How is your 2/2 5BLD ?


----------



## YouCubing (Mar 30, 2017)

Is it bad if I use full audio on 5BLD (and every BLD)? If yes, when and how should I switch to something else?


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 30, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> Is it bad if I use full audio on 5BLD (and every BLD)? If yes, when and how should I switch to something else?


Do you mean audio or sentence memo? I suspect many people who say audio mean sentence.

MV FR TE AG

Sentence: There's mauve fur in my tea, Agnes

Audio: muv-fer-tee-ag

Sentence works for big BLD but audio is too short term.


----------



## YouCubing (Mar 30, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> Do you mean audio or sentence memo? I suspect many people who say audio mean sentence.
> 
> MV FR TE AG
> 
> ...


no, I mean full audio


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 30, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> no, I mean full audio


Well most of the advice on here seems to be that audio is only good for small amounts of short term memo. Personally I memo edges last with audio then execute first in 3BLD, but in 5BLD I execute centres first and there are just too many targets to use audio, even for one centre piece type. 10-12 targets is OK but 18-20 is too much, for me. Your mileage may vary though.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Mar 30, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> Is it bad if I use full audio on 5BLD (and every BLD)? If yes, when and how should I switch to something else?


I believe Callum Hales-Jepp uses full audio for everything. He's capable of sub-7 5BLDs and 16 cube multis.

So it can be decent. But it's very hard to recommend, given everyone good at bigbld or multi uses sentences/images.
From what I've seen of memory sports too, people don't use much audio.

In my opinion, switch ASAP. Look up the journey method and check out Ollie's sentence tutorial.
Sentence memo

Also, since you're good at audio it'd probably be best to use audio centers, and full audio 3bld seems fine.


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 30, 2017)

CyanSandwich said:


> I believe Callum Hales-Jepp uses full audio for everything. He's capable of sub-7 5BLDs and 16 cube multis.


I asked Callum about it, and the way he described it to me, it sounded more like sentence memo. Not just sounds, but words, structured together according to their meaning. Maybe I misunderstood though. I don't speak for Callum.


----------



## Roman (Apr 10, 2017)

I'm not sure if this is a proper place to post this. Just found the fastest (probably) alg for flipping RU and RB on 5x5:
U M U2 M2 U R' U' M2 U2 M' U' R
Regripless execution: start with your hands in standard position and then U 3Rw' Rw U2' Lw2 3Lw2' U R' U' 3Rw2 2Rw2' U2' 3Rw 2Rw' U' R


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 11, 2017)

looking for a list of 4bld center comms. there's a few that im struggling to figure out on my own


----------



## Roman (Jun 11, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> looking for a list of 4bld center comms. there's a few that im struggling to figure out on my own


https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/a-collection-of-bld-algorithms-lists.65238/


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jun 11, 2017)

So I just decided I want to learn how to do 4bld and I watched Noah Arthur's tutorial. Just want to make sure everything sounds good.
1. Solve centers using U2
2. Solve edges using M2 (if odd number of swaps use parity alg
3. Solve corners if parity was executed and I get an odd number of swaps then I won't have parity but if I had parity and I have an even number of swaps then I execute parity.
Does that work? Thanks


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 11, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> So I just decided I want to learn how to do 4bld and I watched Noah Arthur's tutorial. Just want to make sure everything sounds good.
> 1. Solve centers using U2
> 2. Solve edges using M2 (if odd number of swaps use parity alg
> 3. Solve corners if parity was executed and I get an odd number of swaps then I won't have parity but if I had parity and I have an even number of swaps then I execute parity.
> Does that work? Thanks



All three parities are un-related to each other, and so in each of the three steps, if you have an odd number of targets, you should perform the parity algorithm for that step. There's no if-this-then-that thing like in 3BLD, it's just plainly the oddness or evenness of the targets.

Also, you're missing parity for centers. Maybe you know it and just didn't type it, but if you have an odd number of center targets, you should do a U2 at the end for parity.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jun 11, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> All three parities are un-related to each other, and so in each of the three steps, if you have an odd number of targets, you should perform the parity algorithm for that step. There's no if-this-then-that thing like in 3BLD, it's just plainly the oddness or evenness of the targets.
> 
> Also, you're missing parity for centers. Maybe you know it and just didn't type it, but if you have an odd number of center targets, you should do a U2 at the end for parity.


Thank you. I already knew about center parity which is why I didn't ask


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 29, 2018)

Full audio of centers is very much possible , and I have started doing it recently for 5bld , and 6bld.
For 4BLD , audio centers is already established.

It is the wing information which is hard, and requires loci and solid reinforcement.

Also , another technique is to assume the 5x5/6x6 cube to be a room itself , and the centers itself can be made loci. I know this concept sounds ridiculous and confusing , but it works. I will be illustrating it in detail soon , when I try to work it out.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Nov 17, 2019)

Bump
Can this thread be pinned?
Anyway I have a question, how do you do intuitive comms for 4BLD and is it only for center or for edges and corners as well?


----------



## LucJar56 (Nov 23, 2019)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> Bump
> Can this thread be pinned?
> Anyway I have a question, how do you do intuitive comms for 4BLD and is it only for center or for edges and corners as well?


Try looking at other cubers list of comms and try to understand them.
The comms for the 4x4 has the exact same structure with comms on the 3x3 but with different slices and layers.
I don’t completely understand the last bit of your question, but I learnt x-centre comms and wing comms by looking at Daniel Lin’s list and tried to understand how they work. Hopefully, that will work for you.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Nov 23, 2019)

Ok I’ll try that thanks


----------



## 2b2f117bdd (Feb 12, 2020)

You don't have to learn new algs for the Old Pochmann method if you already know T, Y and R perms. And the setup moves are very short and intuitive.










Snaptube Telegram Web Vidmate


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Feb 15, 2020)

2b2f117bdd said:


> You don't have to learn new algs for the Old Pochmann method if you already know T, Y and R perms. And the setup moves are very short and intuitive.
> 
> Snaptube Telegram Web Vidmate


what are you replying to


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 18, 2020)

hello! I just started doing 4BLD and currently use U2 for centers, a mixture of r2 and speed optimised 3-cycles for wings and 3-style for corners. I memo corners then wings then centers and then execute them in reverse order. I want to incorporate audio memo in my solves and I am trying to think if I can memo wings then centers and finally corners and then execute in reverse. So I don't know if solving corners 1st will be center safe all the times or is it even possible to solve the corners 1st as they rotate the centers?


----------



## Q-- (Jul 18, 2020)

Prabal Baishya said:


> hello! I just started doing 4BLD and currently use U2 for centers, a mixture of r2 and speed optimised 3-cycles for wings and 3-style for corners. I memo corners then wings then centers and then execute them in reverse order. I want to incorporate audio memo in my solves and I am trying to think if I can memo wings then centers and finally corners and then execute in reverse. So I don't know if solving corners 1st will be center safe all the times or is it even possible to solve the corners 1st as they rotate the centers?


If you use purely commutators/conjugates for corners, then the centers won't be affected because every move you make is reversed later. If you use any algs at all that aren't comms, you'll have to check whether those rotate centers or not. If you want to incorporate audio, I would try stretching it to fit all the center targets, and learn center comms. Center comms are the easiest out of all the piece types and you should be able to do it pretty easily.


----------



## Jacck (Jul 18, 2020)

Prabal Baishya said:


> So I don't know if solving corners 1st will be center safe all the times or is it even possible to solve the corners 1st as they rotate the centers?


3-style-corners is no problem, but a PLL-parity is: there you have to rotate one center (just count the U's of your parity-alg). You'll have to wait for solving a PLL-parity (and of course an OLL-parity) till the centers are solved (at best you would do this at the end of the solve - and cross your legs after memo to remember it inthe end!) because it swaps center-pieces on top. You can see it, if you do an "f" then the parity-alg and then "f'".

I memo/exe like you suggest it, but I'm no pro - pretty sure though that I saw a 6bld-solve of Cale Shoon where he exed corners first and PLL-parity last.


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 19, 2020)

Q-- said:


> If you use purely commutators/conjugates for corners, then the centers won't be affected because every move you make is reversed later. If you use any algs at all that aren't comms, you'll have to check whether those rotate centers or not. If you want to incorporate audio, I would try stretching it to fit all the center targets, and learn center comms. Center comms are the easiest out of all the piece types and you should be able to do it pretty easily.


Oh thanks! I purely use comms for corners so it's not a problem now. Also I just started 4BLD and today was my second success with a time of 8:46  So I will eventually try to learn center comms once I get comfortable with my center memo(as it is currently the hardest part for me). Also do top 4BLDers use audio centers? Center targets seems to be a lot for me.


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 19, 2020)

Jacck said:


> 3-style-corners is no problem, but a PLL-parity is: there you have to rotate one center (just count the U's of your parity-alg). You'll have to wait for solving a PLL-parity (and of course an OLL-parity) till the centers are solved (at best you would do this at the end of the solve - and cross your legs after memo to remember it inthe end!) because it swaps center-pieces on top. You can see it, if you do an "f" then the parity-alg and then "f'".
> 
> I memo/exe like you suggest it, but I'm no pro - pretty sure though that I saw a 6bld-solve of Cale Shoon where he exed corners first and PLL-parity last.


Oh yes parity! I actually figured it out how to deal it that. Solving the even number of corner letter pairs and then directly moving onto centers then wings. Then finally solve that odd corner target. 
But I tend to use corner twist algs, which rotates the centers. How can I handle that?


----------



## Jacck (Jul 19, 2020)

I think that the really fast use kinda two comms to solve that.
But yeah: I know an alg for three twisted corners that rotates a center.

First idea: like with parity wait till the centers are solved (but can you keep that in memo?)
Second idea (of one who's avarage is above your 2nd solve time ...): I still use the alg of 1981, first I setup the twisted corners on the top-face, then do (R F' R' F) *2 for cw and (F' R F R')*2 for ccw (is it a "opposite" slege-hammer?). This is centersafe and surely good for two twisted corners, for three it takes a bit long - but they are rare.
And I'm very used to it so I don't want to change. When I started blindcubing the orientation was my worst thing. So I pre-orientated corners and edges first and then it was easier for me. I memoed the corner-orientation with numbers: 18 meant corner 1 cw, corner 8 ccw // 874 meant corners 4,7,8 ccw. Normally I took 2 or 3 corners together.


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 19, 2020)

Jacck said:


> I think that the really fast use kinda two comms to solve that.
> But yeah: I know an alg for three twisted corners that rotates a center.
> 
> First idea: like with parity wait till the centers are solved (but can you keep that in memo?)
> ...


I actually like the first idea. Solve all the regular corner targets and then after finishing the wings and centers go back to fix the twists/parity. Also I mainly use sune+lefty sune and mirrored sune+mirrored lefty sune and they don't rotate the centers and for most cases when there's 1 flipped corner either at the top or bottom, I set them up to sune twists. But if there two flipped, then I am using basic y perm to fix them as by doing 4 y-perms the top layer just rotates by 360° (I use this only in 4BLD and I know it's super inefficient) Also I couldn't understand the (R F' R' F) *2 and it's inverse notation. Could you please elaborate? Also which is a suitable buffer for x-centers? I currently use the Ubr as buffer.


----------



## Jacck (Jul 19, 2020)

4 y-perms? Couldn't you do once the inverse one?

(R F' R' F)*2 means that you do the things in brackets twice. Try this: R F' R' F R F' R' F U F' R F R' F' R F R' U' to get the idea for twisting.
Or this: R F' R' F R F' R' F U R F' R' F R F' R' F U R F' R' F R F' R' F U2
After 8 moves in the top-layer only the corner right-front is twisted and the U's are to bring in the next top-corner.
An hint: the first move (R or F') brings the "white" sticker up.
OK, if your buffer is in the bottom layer try the same idea with the sexy-move (R U R' U' twice - and the inverse): in the bottom layer only the corner right in front is twisted.
Or try this for top-face: R' D' R D R' D' R U R' D R D' R' D R U' (the last D of the first part cancels withe the start of the second part: only 16 moves).

Center-buffer: when I started 4bld I took Ubr as you, but I tried to find the system mostly on my own and can't tell, whether it is good. Using U2, maybe Ubl should be better for a right-hander because the inner-slice-moves are more often an r than an l. But maybe only in my system and I don't know whether this is really an advantage. But I think there are some threads here about it.


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 19, 2020)

Jacck said:


> 4 y-perms? Couldn't you do once the inverse one?
> 
> (R F' R' F)*2 means that you do the things in brackets twice. Try this: R F' R' F R F' R' F U F' R F R' F' R F R' U' to get the idea for twisting.
> Or this: R F' R' F R F' R' F U R F' R' F R F' R' F U R F' R' F R F' R' F U2
> ...



Oh thanks! I guess I will switch to Ubl as the comms with this buffer is better for right handed solving.


----------



## Q-- (Jul 19, 2020)

Prabal Baishya said:


> Also do top 4BLDers use audio centers? Center targets seems to be a lot for me.


From what I understand, top BLD solvers use audio for the last set of centers, so the only set for 4BLD and + or X centers for 5BLD. 20ish targets is a lot, and you can get almost equally fast using visual/rooms or whatever you normally use. Maybe try memoing half the centers with audio and slowly work up to the full set.


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 19, 2020)

Q-- said:


> From what I understand, top BLD solvers use audio for the last set of centers, so the only set for 4BLD and + or X centers for 5BLD. 20ish targets is a lot, and you can get almost equally fast using visual/rooms or whatever you normally use. Maybe try memoing half the centers with audio and slowly work up to the full set.


That's what I am doing now. For the x centers, the first 4 letter pair goes to a room, and then for the remaining I do audio. Full audio is currently impossible to me, but will try pushing it.


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 20, 2020)

Does anybody have a site/excel sheet for x-center comms?


----------



## Keroma12 (Jul 21, 2020)

Prabal Baishya said:


> Does anybody have a site/excel sheet for x-center comms?



https://bestsiteever.ru/tables/ and click on the tag "x"


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Jul 21, 2020)

Keroma12 said:


> https://bestsiteever.ru/tables/ and click on the tag "x"


wow! thanks a lot


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jul 21, 2020)

Prabal Baishya said:


> Does anybody have a site/excel sheet for x-center comms?


Graham’s doc has everything


----------



## abunickabhi (Jan 27, 2021)

Sorry for the bump, but has anyone compiled a list of oblique comms. I have been following bestsiteever tables for 4 years now, and have not seen oblique comms being added up to the list.

Is anyone working on it?

I know it is pretty straightforward, after you learn U2 interchange method, with which you can do any center 3-cycle. Also the t-center algs can be extended out for obliques, just by doing different slice moves.

But it would be cool if there is a separate algsheet tab dedicated for obliques.
For example, it will help in pasting reconstructions (of oblique comms) of bigBLD attempt quite easily.


----------



## Q-- (Feb 22, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> Sorry for the bump, but has anyone compiled a list of oblique comms. I have been following bestsiteever tables for 4 years now, and have not seen oblique comms being added up to the list.
> 
> Is anyone working on it?
> 
> ...


Yes, I believe both Graham’s and DRL’s doc have oblique tabs. I think DRL’s is pretty easy to configure for lettering scheme too. Let me know if you can’t find it, I can go digging through the ones I copied because I know I have one.


----------



## abunickabhi (Feb 23, 2021)

Q-- said:


> Yes, I believe both Graham’s and DRL’s doc have oblique tabs. I think DRL’s is pretty easy to configure for lettering scheme too. Let me know if you can’t find it, I can go digging through the ones I copied because I know I have one.


I could not find the link for oblique targets. It would be helpful if you could link it up.


----------



## Q-- (Feb 28, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> I could not find the link for oblique targets. It would be helpful if you could link it up.


It seems I was mistaken about a full list, but this is the sheet I was thinking of: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yHyLJDvVbuEsoHONefUq7jAAFta9qM9wydwfSrJOZWQ/edit


----------



## abunickabhi (Mar 1, 2021)

Hello @bellarzios,

The paper pen technique has proved super useful to me while I started out with bigBLD in 2014.

I even made a video on how I practiced sighted execution and writing down the memo for a while, before I got my first 4BLD and 5BLD success.


----------

