# Done with edges?



## bobso2 (May 30, 2010)

Hi,

I am learning blinsolving with old pochmann for the edges

The only problem so far is that after execution almost always 2 or 3 edges or so aren't in the correct spot...

This is because I skipped them in my memo accidentely

now my question: How do you know you memorized all your edges?

thanks in advance

,Boaz


----------



## cincyaviation (May 30, 2010)

count how many you have solved in the first place, then the number not solved should be the number of edges you memo i think


----------



## Feryll (May 30, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> count how many you have solved in the first place, then the number not solved should be the number of edges you memo i think



No. Try that with the T-perm. You only memo one edge (UL) but there are 2 unsolved.



It would take to long to calculate in your head how many you'll need to do, so instead, just search for pieces not in your cycles, and make sure all the pieces are either solved, or in your cycles. As you get faster, you will remember which pieces were already solved, and which pieces are in your cycles. You sort of connect emotions and memories to the pieces subconsciously, so you'll know when you didn't already memo it.

Just keep it slow and safe for now, and it'll come in the future


----------



## amostay2004 (May 30, 2010)

A normal 1 cycle of edges without any solved or flipped, is 11 pieces to memo. Then (if I'm not mistaken) :

-1 for every piece solved/flipped
+1 for every new cycle you break in to

Though I don't really count, I just use intuition.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (May 30, 2010)

I only did a few blindsolves, but I literaly just manualy keep count of what pieces are solved


----------



## riffz (May 30, 2010)

Yea, I definitely don't count or make any conscious effort to keep track of which edges I've already memoed. But for now just do a sweep over the pieces and if there's a cycle you haven't memorized you should be able to remember.


----------



## bobso2 (May 30, 2010)

owk thanks!

but if you don't count, how do you know you will get parity after the edges?

or are you doing the corners first?


----------



## riffz (May 30, 2010)

bobso2 said:


> owk thanks!
> 
> but if you don't count, how do you know you will get parity after the edges?
> 
> or are you doing the corners first?



I memorize using letter pairs so if it's the last edge then I know instantly because I just memo a letter instead of a word.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 31, 2010)

I have a real problem with this, so I do something that is perhaps a little over-the-top: Except for the buffer piece, I put fingers on each piece that I've memorized as I go. (I usually don't bother with the last few since I can just "see" them, which makes it a lot easier.) It leads to a very weird grip on the cube at the end, but at least that way I usually don't miss any pieces.

Lately I've actually gotten where I even do this with corners. It means less opportunity for confusion; it helps me.


----------



## blah (May 31, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I have a real problem with this, so I do something that is perhaps a little over-the-top: Except for the buffer piece, I put fingers on each piece that I've memorized as I go. (I usually don't bother with the last few since I can just "see" them, which makes it a lot easier.) It leads to a very weird grip on the cube at the end, but at least that way I usually don't miss any pieces.
> 
> Lately I've actually gotten where I even do this with corners. It means less opportunity for confusion; it helps me.


But it's about the singles!


----------



## Zane_C (May 31, 2010)

Hmm, if I'm confused I just look for pieces that need to be swapped with other pieces. This is sometimes an issue but it doesn't bother me.


----------



## aronpm (May 31, 2010)

http://stefan-pochmann.de/spocc/blindsolving/3x3/old.php#Memorization


Stefan Pochmann said:


> One last trick: To make sure you didn't forget some cubies (very important in more complex puzzles, like 5x5 or Megaminx), count! The rule is:
> 
> #items = (#wrong cubies) + (#cycles) - 2
> 
> In the example, the red/blue edge was correct, so we had 11 wrong edges. We had 2 edge cycles. So we should expect 11+2-2=11 items to memorize for the edges. That's indeed correct. No corners were correct, so we had 8 wrong corners. There were 3 cycles (one just for orienting the last two corners). So we should expect 8+3-2=9 items to memorize for corners. Again, that turned out to be correct.



Eventually you should be able to just tell if you've visited each unsolved target.


----------



## igzvaric (Jun 11, 2010)

I use visual method, but I cant understand, how to make my memory better?...


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 11, 2010)

igzvaric said:


> I use visual method, but I cant understand, how to make my memory better?...


 
go through until you don't forget. More successes that are slow will improve your memory rather than many fast DNFs.


----------



## igzvaric (Jun 11, 2010)

sorry, I cant understand you.... can you explain?


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 11, 2010)

igzvaric said:


> sorry, I cant understand you.... can you explain?


 
To improve your visual memory do BLD solves on your cube. However, spend as much time as you need memorizing to make sure you do not miss any pieces. Don't worry about your speed. If you try to go fast you will most likely miss pieces more. This will not help your memory very much. Speed will come after your memory is solid.


----------



## igzvaric (Jun 11, 2010)

So, this is a problem!  
For example:
cycle: u d u Cycle f r d l

I can know this, but than I can forget it


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 11, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I have a real problem with this, so I do something that is perhaps a little over-the-top: Except for the buffer piece, I put fingers on each piece that I've memorized as I go. (I usually don't bother with the last few since I can just "see" them, which makes it a lot easier.) It leads to a very weird grip on the cube at the end, but at least that way I usually don't miss any pieces.
> 
> Lately I've actually gotten where I even do this with corners. It means less opportunity for confusion; it helps me.



Lol yeah I do that for corners and edges  :fp


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 11, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > I have a real problem with this, so I do something that is perhaps a little over-the-top: Except for the buffer piece, I put fingers on each piece that I've memorized as I go. (I usually don't bother with the last few since I can just "see" them, which makes it a lot easier.) It leads to a very weird grip on the cube at the end, but at least that way I usually don't miss any pieces.
> ...



I'm always doing that now with corners as well as edges. I was averaging around 30 seconds memorization time today with it (it was a good day for me, apparently), so I'd say you can get quite reasonably fast with it.


----------



## Sakarie (Jun 11, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> igzvaric said:
> 
> 
> > sorry, I cant understand you.... can you explain?
> ...



I can't really sign up on that. What's the challenge on doing high jump on heights you always succeed on? A fail on 1:50 might be better than a succesful jump on 1:30.

Until like the last month I've had a success ratio of like 15-25%, but that haven't bothered me. I still develop myself, and I think I do it more than on slow successes.


----------



## Chapuunka (Jun 11, 2010)

If you do more slow successes, they'll get faster and faster, as opposed to the ready-fire-aim approach and hope you learn.


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 11, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> If you do more slow successes, they'll get faster and faster, as opposed to the ready-fire-aim approach and hope you learn.


 
exactly. this is true of most things. For example, running: perfect form first, then work on speed. Or, tennis, same thing. Strokes first, gameplay and power after. It doesn't matter how fast you are at first if you aren't as good because the best people will always be better than you if you don't master the "fundamentals".


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 11, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > If you do more slow successes, they'll get faster and faster, as opposed to the ready-fire-aim approach and hope you learn.
> ...



I've always gone for "reasonable accuracy", not trying to go too fast, but trying to go as fast as I can while having a reasonable likelihood of success. I hate DNFs, so I can't stand it if I start failing most of my solves. I've always averaged about 70% accuracy on 3x3x3 BLD, starting back when I averaged over 5 minutes per solve, and continuing until today.

Right now, my CCT for 3x3x3 BLD shows 308/417, with an average time of 1:51.25, which is almost 74% accuracy. So I guess that's my current accuracy when using CCT for solves (which is probably about half of my attempts these days).

Unfortunately, I don't do as well in official competitions - my accuracy there is 24/49, so less than 50%.  I guess I get nervous.


----------



## Sakarie (Jun 12, 2010)

But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?


----------



## Chapuunka (Jun 12, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?



I'm not Mike, but I know I'd rather take a little while longer (20 seconds in this case) and be 45% more likely to succeed, if for no other reason than I hate messing up when showing off.


----------



## Sakarie (Jun 12, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> Sakarie said:
> 
> 
> > But Mike, what would be best, you averaging 1:50 and 75% success or someone (making numbers up) average 1:30 and 30% success?
> ...



Yes, that's totally understandable, and I would probably do the same thing I if were doing it as a show. But were not talking showing off or competition, but training.


----------



## JeffDelucia (Jun 12, 2010)

To the original poster: I tap out my edges so i just count them as i tap.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 14, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > Sakarie said:
> ...



I don't know what would be best. I've been slow improving, so maybe my approach isn't the best one. But I have continued improving, so it has still worked. And I rarely DNF the whole set of solves in competition, so I guess it has served me fairly well there. But it's also true that I've never won a 3x3x3 BLD event; maybe that's because I care too much about accuracy. (But mainly I think it's because I'm almost always at competitions where someone else is really awesome at 3x3x3 BLD.)


----------

