# Short summary of some (un)used bld methods



## clement (May 13, 2009)

Corners :

A/ One piece at a time

A1/ Side effect on corners only - long setups
M2 U' M2 U2 M2 U' M2 U2 (H Perm + U2)
(R' F R F')3

A2/ Side effect on edges only - long algorithm
R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R (almost Y Perm)

A3/ Side effect on corners and edges - some bad setups, some bad cases
R2

A4/ Side effect on centers only - very bad algorithm
D L B L' U' F' L B D B' U' B L2 F' R' D r2 u D

B/ Two pieces at a time

B1/ Commutators - long computation

B2/ Turbo - many algorithms

B3/ A Perm - very long setups

C/ Four pieces at a time - impossible setups
(R2 U R2 U')3

Edges :

A/ One piece at a time

A1/ Side effect on edges only - quite long setups
M2 U' M2 U2 M2 U' M2 (H Perm)
M2 U2 M2 U2

A2/ Side effect on corners only - long algorithm
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' (T Perm)

A3/ Side effect on edges and centers - some bad cases
M2

A4/ Side effect on centers only - very bad algorithm
U L' R D F U r' B' U R U' R' U' r' d' R

B/ Two pieces at a time

B1/ Commutators - long computation

B2/ Turbo - many algorithms

B3/ U Perm - long setups

C/ Four pieces at a time - impossible setups
(R2 U')6

Did everyone tried some non conventional methods, just for fun ? I once solved all edges with 5-cycles (and will never do that again).


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 13, 2009)

clement said:


> I once solved all edges with 5-cycles (and will never do that again).



At least that probably didn't take very many algorithms. 

It seems like most of the really good BLD solvers do a lot of experimentation with different methods. I don't do enough of that, I think.


----------



## Zava (May 13, 2009)

I use A1 for corners (with A perms in UBR UFL cases) I think it can be really fast.
I don't understand why you say Turbo has a lot algos. I'm not sure about corners, but edges only have 8, and I bet every fridrich user knows at least 4 of them.

edit: I forgot this part:


> A1/ Side effect on corners only - *long setups*


if you preorient (like me) then setups can be done in 0-1 moves (if you do M2 style) or 0-2 moves (if you do UBR/ULF 3cycle style) 
also breaking into a new cycle is very easy, even after odd number of solved corners.


----------



## dbeyer (May 14, 2009)

That is a ridiculously vague description of methods.

M2/R2 - Using an algorithm list, preset, directly solving each piece. Solving one piece at a time. The focus of this method is to solve a piece on the M slice, using a quick finger tricks and the move M2. Likewise, for Corners, directly solving one piece at a time. 

The algorithms are shortened by not preserving, but rather controlling the M and R layers during permutation.
It is a 2 step method, solving one piece at a time.

3O3P - You orient all of the pieces to the U/D layer. E slice Edges are oriented on the B/F face of those four stickers or on the L/R face of those stickers. Either way, you choose your orientation scheme. 
You are limiting the number of cases. You normally setup into A-permutations and other PLL cases to handle parities. 2-gen PLLs are used to permute edges. Many setups are used.
It is a 4 step method. Orient both the Edges and Corners, then permute both. You are indirectly solving the pieces (orienting first).

2-cycle method -- Pochmann This uses 2-cycle PLLs to permute one piece at a time. The algorithms are long. The setups are repetitive. Parity is rather easy to fix. There are two steps, solving edges and corners. All one at a time.

Freestyle -- Using commutators, 2-gen, PLL, M-slice cycles, and other algorithms to solve the pieces directly without orienting first. You are still using many setups, and are missing optimal approaches, because you would rather use long setups and fast algorithms, rather than averaging out with low move count and the occasional awkward moves.

BH -- Takes the concept, and the science of commutators to an extreme. You can determine the optimal move count, by recognition of positional relationships. Just like you would in F2L, you look at the Corner, the Edge, and the slot in which they belong. Now you are looking at the buffer, and the other two pieces. The application towards the 3x3 is rather small. It's almost seen as trivial. There numerous solutions to each case. There is an optimal HTM algorithm, an Optimal QTM algorithm. There are even efficient executions that may increase HTM, but create a really fast algorithm full of finger tricks. The algorithms are all center safe for big cubes blind. This is the most applicable method of all. The concepts on the 3x3 transfer over to the big cubes rather nicely. 

I cannot begin to explain the power of this last described method. 
2204 finite cases to apply to the 5x5 blindfolded. Each of which can be memorized as an image. 
378 corner cases
440 edge cases
440 x-center cases
440 t-center cases
506 wing cases

It's really not that big of a deal. It's a rather easy method to comprehend. The power of the method is having more tricks at your finger tips to employ to optimally and quickly solve the cube with minimal delay. To be able to skip over a part that you forget, and come back to it later. To be able to transfer everything into muscle memory. If something is to go into muscle memory, such as an exercise of some sorts, bad technique must be removed, other wise you will be doing the exercise poorly, and not get the best of benefits. 

Likewise, if come to a case while solving the 4x4 blindfolded, and you use setups, and an A-perm. You later find out through the use of this method, that you can do the same algorithm in 9 moves. You should correct the improper technique. The methodology of BH allows you to find those 9 move cases, and you could also see a 10 move solution that you can actually execute faster than the 9 move case. Both of which are better than the algorithm that you used 13 moves on to solve before because you set everything up to the U layer first.


----------



## dbeyer (May 14, 2009)

Every other method has created just enough to get by. Every other method has limited the case count to a small finite case count. Orienting limits the permutation cases. Solving one piece at a time limits the permutation cases as well. By directly solving every cycle optimally two pieces at a time with BH, you have created a 818 alg method. When it is actually only a few concepts, that are being applied to the cube. Similarities are uncanny, and the move count is low enough that you can actually do it on the fly, and recognize the cases quickly. Everybody feared big numbers in the past, when the big numbers, actually added up to lower numbers. Faster solves, more optimal execution techniques. You are able to become versatile and pick the optimal commutator for execution, move count, speed, certain fingertricks so on and so forth. 

The seconds save do not add up on something small scale like the 3x3. A Rubik's cube can now be solved in sub 50 seconds. 20 seconds memo, and 30 seconds execution. You are executing maybe 10-12 algorithms at best with this 3x3 method. Your delays are cut, but some of the cases are awkward. The extra steps of 3O3P can combat with the method, so can Freestyling.

However, once you start going bigger, and taking into consideration the long term memorization techniques of big cubes blind, and the all the extra algorithms, and steps, this is where the time is shaved. This is where the power of the method is used. However, you need to solve the edges on the 5x5 with the edge commutators, and you need to solve the corners on the 4x4, and 5x5 with the corner commutators. All of these algorithms are applicable to the 3x3, because the 5x5 is a 3x3 with center and wings.

Later,
DB


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 14, 2009)

dbeyer said:


> Freestyle -- Using commutators, 2-gen, PLL, M-slice cycles, and other algorithms to solve the pieces directly without orienting first. You are still using many setups, and are missing optimal approaches, because you would rather use long setups and fast algorithms, rather than averaging out with low move count and the occasional awkward moves.



Hi, Daniel. I agree with most of what you wrote, but in objection to this, I'd ask - have you seen some of the solves Ville has posted? They're often just as low move counts as Chris's solves. And when they're not, it's usually because of a 2-gen algorithm that really is faster. The thing is, the people who are REALLY good at freestyle just don't do many sub-optimal setups. But I have to admit that most people aren't like that.

The honest truth is that I think that pure freestyle and BH converge as they get optimal. An optimal BH expert will gradually incorporate some of the faster tricks from the freestyle experts, and an optimal freestyle expert will get where all of their cases are memorized, and each one has been optimized. I suspect you can learn either way, and if you get really really good, you'll wind up with very nearly the same method.

I said in another thread somewhere that I think BH is the easy way to do freestyle. I think that's the best description. BH is really quite easy to learn, once you've learned to see commutators, so you can get pretty good at freestyle with a minimum amount of work. And of course once every case is memorized, it's really not freestyle anymore, is it?

I'm doing very well with BH corners now. I'm very fast with it; my biggest problem in 3x3x3 solves is that I'm not used to memorizing stickers, and my memorization is failing me a lot. When I hit a good solve (where memory recall is not a problem), I'm getting very close to 1:30 now. I never did that before BH corners.


----------



## dbeyer (May 14, 2009)

This is why I don't want to provide an algorithm list. It's really a method. 
Just like in jiu jitsu, the kimura isn't a submission, it's a lock on the arm, which when properly torquing the arm of your opponent they will tap.

The time consuming part of this method is giving an algorithm list. I mean it's really a long and tedious process, just to have people adjust them to their own likings anyway. I feel that this method, not the algorithm list is very powerful. 

I can and I will provide algorithms that work, and that are effective, but there are better means to an end. 

You don't memorize the algorithms, they go into muscle memory. I think it's two different things. Nobody should sit down with an algorithm sheet and learn these. It's so simple that with the recognition techniques, and execution approach described any experienced cuber can apply this method to solving a cube.


----------

