# The Ayam Method and what intermediate corner BLD method to learn



## Ayyub7 (Aug 2, 2018)

Hey everyone! My name is Ayyub and I’ve been cubing on and off for a couple years now. I would categorize myself as a cubing hobbyist rather than someone fully dedicated and super interested in cubing (I average ~20 seconds for anyone curious). I am though completely in love with BLD. I first learnt it 4-5 years ago, but I didn’t practice much. However, my spark for cubing was reignited (and with it for BLD) recently, and so I’ve started pursuing it again. I took the main route for edges (OP, then M2/TuRBo) but I went a bit off course for corners. Of course, I started off learning Old Pochmann but I didn’t like it. I made my own 2-cycle-orientation-then-permutation style for corners that was very inefficient but worked for me (OP does both at the same time). When I recently got back into cubing, I started adopting the main concept of OP into my own buffer (UBR instead of UBL). I currently can execute corners in about 25-40 seconds. It depends on how bad the case is obviously, but average is around 30 seconds for me (I know, I know, it isn’t very fast). Still, 30 seconds is way too long of a time to execute corners in my opinion. The other fast method for corners is BH, which is a MASSIVE step forwards. This is where my interest developed. There are many good intermediate edge blindfold techniques, but not many good, or at least well known, intermediate corner blindfold techniques. This poses a problem to those cubers who want to get faster at corner solving, but aren’t willing/in the process of learning/coming up and practicing their algorithms for BH. I attempted to try and solve this problem with the Ayam method; but first, a little comparison between intermediate corner methods.

I will not be discussing the specific advantages and disadvantages of each intermediate corner BLD method, but rather the advantages and disadvantages compared to Ayam:

DISCLAIMER: I don’t know any of the methods mentioned here. I’m basing this solely on research and my understanding of the methods. If there is a mistake or some important point missing, please mention it.

*Orozco:
Advantages over Ayam:*
- Good introduction to commutators
- Easier to transition to BH (the algorithms you learn can be used in BH)
- Possibly faster
- No setup moves
*Disadvantages over Ayam:*
- Solves one piece at a time
- Requires learning of algorithms
- Cannot throw in a bit of freestyle
- Requires understanding of commutators
- More move count

*Boomerang:
Advantages over Ayam:*
- Very very fingertrick friendly
- Possibly faster (on website it says 17-19 seconds with shortcuts is average solve time)
- No/minimal setup moves
- Brain-dead execution as he calls it (LOL) [means you don’t have to think very much at all while executing the solving algorithms]
*Disadvantages over Ayam:*
- Solves one piece at a time
- Utilizes numbers for memorization
- Orientation then permutation
- Requires learning algorithms
- Cannot throw in freestyle
- Has a specific buffer
- More move count

*R2+:
Advantages over Ayam:*
- Relatively finger trick friendly
- Longer to learn
- Can be fast (website says his average is 11-14 seconds for corners)
*Disadvantages over Ayam:*
- Has specific buffer
- Many many algorithms
- Solves one piece at a time
- Cannot incorporate freestyle
- Not liked and recommended by many cubers (although its counterpart M2 is highly recommended!)
- More move count

*What is Ayam? Tell us already!*
Ayam is a 3-cycling intermediate method for corner blindfold solving. The only algorithm you need to know is A-algorithm (both ways). You do setup moves to bring both of the corners to a face (preferably U) then do an A-algorithm to solve both. Let’s have an example. Buffer is UBR.

UBR> UBL> LFU

F move setup to bring LFU to UFR. Determine which way the pieces need to move. Perform an anticlockwise A. Reverse setup (F’)

UBR> LFU> UBL

F move setup to bring LFU to UFR. Determine which way the pieces need to move. Perform a clockwise A. Reverse setup (F)

That’s literally it! You’ve solved 2 corners in 11 moves. All setup moves for 2 specific corners are the same, the only difference is which A-algorithm you’ll be performing.

Please note this is a 3-cycling method, not commutators or 3-style. This is how I interpret these terms:
3-cycling is simply moving 3 pieces around the cube. Examples are U-perm and A-perm. NOTE: it is possible to have 1 independent 3 cycle of pieces ie: 3 corner cycling or 3 edge cycling (or more such as G-perms which have 2 3-cycles [one for corners and one for edges]). It is not possible to have 2 swaps; swapping 2 pieces must happen simultaneously with another 2 swap ie: 2 2-corner swaps eg: E-perm, 2 2-edge swaps eg: H-perm, Z-perm, or 1 2-corner with 1 2-edge swap eg: literally all other permutations left 

Commutators are a form of 3-cycling that is focused on being highly efficient with move count eg: BH method. Thus, all commutators are 3-cycles, but not all 3-cycles are commutators.

3-style is basically speed optimal commutators. They are not as move count efficient, but man are they fast. They will usually incorporate extra moves at the beginning to make most (if not all) algorithms become 3 gen <R,U,D>

In essence, the Ayam method uses conjugates (fancy term for setup moves) to bring pieces into a certain position to execute a pre-known 3 cycling algorithm. When phrased like that, it sounds like pretty much like every other decent BLD method  eg: TuRBo for edge uses the same concept and so does 3-style. Here are the key main differences between Ayam, TuRBo for corners, and 3OP, which are all pretty similar corner 3-cycling methods.

3OP requires orientation of all the corners first, then permutation
TuRBo doesn’t take into account the orientation of the piece during the setup move, there are algorithms for each specific orientation (just like TuRBo edges) [basically, all setup moves are the same, the executing algorithm is different]
Ayam method takes into consideration the orientation during the setup move, allowing you to perform your preferred 3-cycle [basically, all setup moves are different, but the executing algorithm is the same]

*Advantages and disadvantages of Ayam:
Advantages:*
- Low move count (explanation given later)
- Solves 2 pieces at once
- No new algorithms need to be learnt
- Intuitive
- No specific buffer
- Very easy to incorporate your own ideas of freestyle
- Solves orientation and permutation at the same time
- Does not need to be fully incorporated as a method (can still use a bit of OP corners if you want to stick to that)
*Disadvantages:*
- A lot of thinking is required during the solve to track pieces
- 189 possible setup moves (most are between 1-4 moves, but maybe around 10/189 setup moves are 5 moves long) [included below]
- Lots of rotations (can become very minimal if you learn A-perm from different angles. I’m lazy though) [included below]
- No specific location to send buffer to when you want to break into a new cycle
- 80% of the cases are finger trick friendly. This sadly still means though that at least once per 2 solves you’ll have to deal with a nasty case
- Should not be focused on highly if you want to progress to faster methods such as BH or 3-style

*Move count demonstration:*
Ayam has a decently low move count for solving all the corners for a blindfold method. The only other method I can see having a lower count is BH (which is optimal). 3-style might have the same number of moves generally as Ayam, but is much faster. Orozco has more moves than Ayam according to my calculations (since you’re reversing the commutator every time [and let’s assume it’s a pure commutator, which it always isn’t; 8+8 moves = 16 moves to solve 2 pieces]). Here is a scramble with the memorization letters (Speffz scheme) and the entire solve with move cancelations written out. I’ve created an average solve (8 moves; 1 cycle break) with no twisty corners. I tried to focus on giving the original OP method the best move cancelations and my variation of OP one of the worst. The Ayam one is an average solve. I also timed me solving each one 3 times and taking the best time out of 3 for comparison.

Scramble in your BLD orientation: L’ B2 U2 B2 L2 U2 R F2 D2 L’ B’ R F’ U2 F’ R’ B’ R’

Algorithms used:
[R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] = Old Pochmann algorithm (15 moves)
[F R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R F’] = Y algorithm (17 moves)
[L U’ R’ U L’ U2 R U’ R’ U2 R] = J algorithm (11 moves)
[R U2 R’ U’ R U2 L’ U R’ U’ L] = J algorithm (11 moves)
[R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R] = A algorithm (9 moves)
[R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2] = A algorithm (9 moves)

Old Pochmann: KC HU FO NM
K: D (R) [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] (R’) D’ – 19-2 moves
C: F [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] F’ – 17 moves
H: D2 [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] D2 – 17 moves
U: F’ [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] (F) – 17-1 moves
F: (F2) [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] F2 – 17-1 moves
O: (R) [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] (R’) – 17-2 moves
N: (R2) [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] (R2) – 17-2 moves
M: (R’) [R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R] (R) – 17-2 moves
17+17+17+16+16+15+15+15= 128 moves > 29.61 seconds (pleasantly surprised with this since I don’t use this method. Pretty easy solve I’m assuming)
Times: 34.20; 30.88; 29.61

My style using UBR buffer and 3 PLL algorithms: JS LI WA KR
J: F’ L’ y [R U2 R’ U’ R U2 L’ U R’ U’ L] (y’) L F – 15 moves
S: L (y) [R U2 R’ U’ R U2 L’ U R’ U’ L] y’ L’ – 13 moves
L: D F’ [L U’ R’ U L’ U2 R U’ R’ U2 R] F D’ – 15 moves
I: L’ y [R U2 R’ U’ R U2 L’ U R’ U’ L] y’ L – 13 moves
W: D2 F2 [L U’ R’ U L’ U2 R U’ R’ U2 R] F2 D2 – 15 moves
A: y [R U2 R’ U’ R U2 L’ U R’ U’ L] (y’) – 11 moves
K: D2 L (y) [R U2 R’ U’ R U2 L’ U R’ U’ L] y’ L’ D2 – 15 moves
R: L y’ [F R U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R F’] y L’ – 19 moves
15+13+15+13+15+11+15+19= 116 moves > 30.07 seconds (what I usually average)
Times: 31.87; 30.07; 30.88

Ayam Method: JS LI WA KR
JS: F’ L’ F2 [R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R] F2 L F – 15 moves
LI: L’ y [R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2] y’ L – 11 moves
WA: D2 F2 [R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2] F2 (D2) – 13-1 moves
KR: (D2) L y [R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R] y’ L’ D2 – 13-1 moves
15+11+12+12= 50 moves – 15.25 seconds (heck yeah.)
Times: 17.66; 19.31[messed up an A-perm ]; 15.25

Please check out this extensive YouTube video I made on all the possible cases you run into while blindfold solving (edge parity, twisted corners and cycle breaks) and a bit of explanation into freestyle to those who don’t have any idea of how to possibly incorporate it (for those who already use a little freestyle, you can skip that part )




*
Okay Ayyub, I understand the method. But I’m still confused as to what method I should use L Which one is right for me?*
Let’s first list out all the possible methods for corner BLD solving:
- Old Pochmann
- TuRBo corners
- R2+
- Orozco
- Boomerang
- 3OP
- Ayam
- Beyer Hardwick
- 3-style
- Freestyle
We can eliminate OP, BH, 3-style and freestyle as those are either beginner, advanced, or not really a method  TuRBo corners can be eliminated. It’s not worth learning so much when Ayam and 3OP pretty much do it similarly but much easier. R2+ can be eliminated because again it’s not worth learning so many algorithms if you can use that time to just go into BH or 3-style. 3OP is good, but again, it’s a bit outdated and Ayam deals with its problem of orientation then permutation. If you still like the concept of orientation then permutation, then go for Boomerang, it’s a lot faster and easier than trying to speed up 3OP even if it’s more simplistic in theory.
We are left with Orozco, Ayam, and Boomerang.
If you are serious about your BLD, and want to progress to BH or 3-style in the somewhat near future, learn Orozco.
If you don’t mind learning a new method entirely, prefer <R,F,U> moves, or want to stick to 2-cycling, learn Boomerang.
If you like freestyle, are lazy and don’t want to learn more algorithms, want to be faster than OP corners but not necessarily lighting speed, or you move the cube slower when blindfolded, learn Ayam.
Ayam is good for those who really want to think and try to figure things out. I understand that this isn’t the best way to approach speed BLD, but it is a good intermediate method.

I believe it can be summarized well as this: If you want an intermediate method as a stepping stone to an advanced method, learn Orozco. If you want an intermediate method as a method, learn either Ayam or Boomerang depending on your preferences, needs, and goals for BLD.

I hope this helps 

List of different A algorithms and all possible setup moves with UBR buffer for Ayam method:


Spoiler



A = R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2 = x’ R’ D R’ U2 R D’ R’ U2 R2 x = R' B' R2 D R' U' R D' R' U R' B R
A’= R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R = x’ R2 U2 R D R’ U2 R D’ R x = R' B' R U' R D R' U R D' R2' B R
U A = y A = L2 B2 L’ F’ L B2 L’ F L’ = x’ L2 U2 L’ D’ L U2 L’ D L’
U A’ = y A’ = L F’ L B2 L’ F L B2 L2 = x’ L D’ L U2 L’ D L U2 L2 x
U A = y’ A = R2 F2 R’ B’ R F2 R’ B R’ = x’ R2 D2 R’ U’ R D2 R’ U R’ x = Lw R D2 R' U' R D2 R' U Lw'
U’ A’ = y’ A’ = R B’ R F2 R’ B R F2 R2 = x’ R U’ R D2 R’ U R D2 R2 x = Lw U' R D2 R' U R D2 R' Lw'

AC/CA= A’/A
AD/DA= U; A’/A
AF/FA= x’ D; A’/A
AG/GA= y L; A’/A
AH/HA= D2 x’ D’; A’/A
AI/IA= L’ U L; A/A’
AJ/JA= R U’ R’ U A/A’
AK/KA= y D’ L; A’/A
AL/LA= D x’ D’; A’/A
AM/MA= y Rw’; A’/A
AO/OA= y D2 L; A’/A
AP/PA= x’ D’; A’/A
AS/SA= y D L; A’/A
AT/TA= D’ x’ D’; A’/A
AU/UA= x’ D2; A’/A
AV/VA= D’ x’ D2; A’/A
AW/WA= D2 x’ D2; A’/A
AX/XA= D x’ D2; A’/A

CD/DC= U’; A/A’
CE/EC= L2 D’ L; A/A’
CF/FC= L D’ L; A/A’
CG/GC= D’ L; A/A’
CH/HC= D L’ y’; A/A’
CI/IC= L’; A/A’
CK/KC= D2 L; A/A’
CL/LC= L’ y’; A/A’
CO/OC= D L; A/A’
CP/PC= D’ L’ y’; A/A’
CR/RC= L y’; A/A’
CS/SC= L; A/A’
CT/TC= D2 L’ y’; A/A’
CU/UC= L2; A/A’
CV/VC= D’ L2; A/A’
CW/WC= D2 L2; A/A’
CX/XC= D L2; A/A’

DE/ED= R U R’; A’/A
DG/GD= y’ x’ D’ R D; A’/A
DH/HD= y’ R D2 R’; A’/A
DJ/JD= x’ D’ L’ D; A/A’
DK/KD= y’ R D R’; A’/A
DL/LD= y R D’ R’; A/A’
DM/MD= Lw U Lw’ U2; A/A’
DO/OD= L’ D’ L U; A/A’
DP/PD= y R D2 R’; A/A’
DR/RD= x’ U’ R’ U F2; A’/A
DS/SD= y R D R’; A/A’
DT/TD= y’ R D’ R’; A’/A
DU/UD= D2 R2 U R2 U; A’/A
DV/VD= D R2 U R2 U; A’/A
DW/WD= R2 U R2 U; A’/A
DX/XD= D’ R2 U R2 U; A’/A

EF/FE= x’ L D F’; A/A’
EG/GE= D’ x’ L D; A/A’
EH/HE= L2 F U’; A’/A
EI/IE= L’ D2 F’; A/A’
EJ/JE= F’ L’ D2 F’; A/A’
EK/KE= D2 x’ L D; A/A’
EL/LE= D’ L2 F U’; A’/A
EM/ME= x’ D’ L D L’; A/A’
EO/OE= D’ x’ L D; A/A’
EP/PE= D2 L2 F U’; A’/A
ES/SE= x’ L D; A/A’
ET/TE= D L2 F U’; A’/A
EU/UE= x’ L D L; A/A’
EV/VE= D’ x’ L D L; A/A’
EW/WE= D2 x’ L D L; A/A’
EX/XE= D x’ L D L; A/A’

FG/GF= y’ Lw; A/A’
FH/HF= D F Rw’; A/A’
FJ/JF= F D2 L; A/A’
FK/KF= D’ y’ Lw; A/A’
FL/LF= F Rw’; A/A’
FM/MF= F D’ L2; A/A’
FO/OF= D2 y’ Lw; A/A’
FP/PF= D’ F Rw’; A/A’
FR/RF= y’ Lw D; A/A’
FS/SF= y’ D Lw; A/A’
FT/TF= D2 F Rw’; A/A’
FU/UF= D’ y’ Lw D2; A/A’
FV/VF= D2 y’ Lw D2; A/A’
FW/WF= D y’ Lw D2; A/A’
FX/XF= y’ Lw D2; A/A’

GH/HG= y’ x’ D’ R; A/A’
GI/IG= x’ L’ D; A/A’
GJ/JG= y Rw’ U’ L2; A/A’
GK/KG= L’ Uw’ Lw; A/A’
GM/MG= y U’ L U L’; A’/A
GO/OG= x’ L’ D L2; A/A’
GP/PG= L’ D2 y’ Lw; A/A’
GR/RG= y’ x’ D’ R D2; A/A’
GS/SG= y x’ L2 U L’; A/A’
GT/TG= D’ x’ D’ L; A’/A
GV/VG= D’ x’ D2 L; A’/A
GW/WG= L’ F D2 L2; A/A’
GX/XG= x’ L’ D L’; A/A’

HI/IH= y x’ U’ L; A/A’
HJ/JH= D2 F’ Rw’; A/A’
HK/KH= y x’ L2 U’ L; A/A’
HL/LH= y x’ L U’ L; A/A’
HM/MH= y’ D2 R’; A’/A
HO/OH= L2 D2 y’ Lw; A/A’
HP/PH= y’ R’ D F’; A’/A
HR/RH= y’ D2 R’ F; A/A’
HT/TH= y’ D’ R’ D2 F’; A’/A
HU/UH= L2 F; A/A’
HV/VH= y’ Lw D’ R; A’/A
HW/WH= L2 F D2 L2; A/A’

IJ/JI= F’ L’ U; A/A’
IK/KI= D’ Rw’ D; A’/A
IL/LI= L U; A’/A
IM/MI= y x’ U’ L’; A’/A
IO/OI= D2 Rw’ D; A’/A
IP/PI= D’ L U; A’/A
IR/RI= L’ Dw F2; A’/A
IS/SI= D Rw’ D; A’/A
IT/TI= D2 L U; A’/A
IU/UI= D y x’ U’ L2; A’/A
IV/VI= y x’ U’ L2; A’/A
IW/WI= D’ y x’ U’ L2; A’/A
IX/XI= D2 y x’ U’ L2; A’/A

JK/KJ= F2 L’ U; A/A'
JL/LJ= D F’ Rw’; A’/A
JO/OJ= D’ F2 L U; A/A;
JP/PJ= F’ Rw’; A’/A
JR/RJ= L F’ L’ F; A’/A
JS/SJ= F’ L’ F2; A’/A
JT/TJ= D’ F’ Rw’; A’/A
JU/UJ=F’ L’ F’; A’/A
JV/VJ= D’ F’ L’ F’; A’/A
JW/WJ= D2 F’ L’ F’; A’/A
JX/XJ= D F’ L’ F’; A’/A

KL/LK= F L’ U; A/A’
KM/MK= y D2 x’ U L; A’/A
KO/OK= D L D2 y L; A/A’
KR/RK= D2 L U; A’/A
KS/SK= D2 L F’; A’/A
KT/TK= U’ R’ D2 x’ D2; A’/A
KU/UK= D’ L’ F L’; A/A’
KW/WK= D2 F2 L; A’/A
KX/XK=D2 L F2 U; A’/A

LM/ML= D y’ R’; A’/A
LO/OL= D L F’; A/A’
LP/PL= y’ x’ D2 R’ D; A’/A
LR/RL= D F’ L; A/A’
LS/SL= L D F2; A/A’
LT/TL= F D2 L’ U; A’/A
LV/VL= D’ L2 F; A/A’
LW/WL= y’ D R’ x’ D2; A/A’
LX/XL= D L2 F’; A/A’

MO/OM= D L F’ U; A/A’
MP/PM= y’ R’; A’/A
MR/RM= R U’ R y’ x’ R D; A’/A
MS/SM= y x’ U L’; A/A’
MT/MT= y’ D’ R’; A’/A
MU/UM= y x’ U2 L’; A/A’
MV/VM= D’ y x’ U2 L’; A/A’
MW/WM= D2 y x’ U2 L’; A/A’
MX/XM= D y x’ U2 L’; A/A’

OP/PO= y’ x’ U R2 U’ R; A/A’
OR/RO= y D x’ U; A’/A
OS/SO= D F2 L; A’/A
OU/UO= F2 D L; A’/A
OV/VO= D’ F2 L’; A’/A
OX/XO= D F2 L; A’/A

PR/RP= y’ x’ R’ D; A/A’
PS/SP= x’ D’ L; A/A’
PT/TP= y’ R’ D2 x’ D’; A/A’
PU/UP= x’ L2 D’; A/A’
PW/WP= F’ D2 L2; A/A’
PX/XP= y’ x’ R’ D2; A/A’

RS/SR= L U; A/A’
RT/TR= y’ D’ R’ x’ D; A’/A
RU/UR= y’ R2 x’ D; A’/A
RV/VR= D’ y’ R2 x’ D; A’/A
RW/WR= D2 y’ R2 x’ D; A’/A
RX/XR= D y’ R2 x’ D; A’/A

ST/TS= y’ D F’ R; A/A’
SU/US= x’ D2 L; A’/A
SV/VS= y x’ U L2; A’/A
SW/WS= L D2 x’ D2; A’/A

TU/UT= L2 D’ F’; A/A’
TV/VT= D’ L2 F’; A/A’
TX/XT= y’ D’ R’ D F2; A/A’

UV/VU= D’ L2 U; A/A’
UW/WU= L2 D2 F2; A’/A
UX/XU= L2 U; A’/A

VW/WV= D2 L2 U; A/A’
VX/XV= D’ L2 D2 F2; A’/A

WX/XW= D L2 U; A/A’

DISCLAIMER: This is by no means the best list or only list. Any buffer can be used and coming up with your own algorithms is the best way to remember them yourself. This was just made as a reference.



References:
TuRBo: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/TuRBo https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/turbo-corners-ubl-buffer.36148/
R2+: http://mozaik.byethost3.com/R2+.html?i=1
Orozco: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sPvzowlU1M6PV_CQhQnf6RthclGAMJEvf5wXNSZJQAg/edit
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/how-the-orozco-bld-method-works.60487/
Boomerang: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ediate-level-bld-technique-for-corners.37975/
3OP: http://cubefreak.net/bld/3op_guide.php#CP3
Cube Explorer: http://kociemba.org/download.htm
qqTimer (corner subset scrambles): https://www.qqtimer.net/


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 2, 2018)

Welcome to the forums! That's certainly one heck of a first post! Just out of interest, why call it Ayam? It's not anything to do with chickens is it?

Hope you have a great time here.


----------



## Ayyub7 (Aug 2, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> Welcome to the forums! That's certainly one heck of a first post! Just out of interest, why call it Ayam? It's not anything to do with chickens is it?
> 
> Hope you have a great time here.


haha! thanks for the invite. you know what they say right, go big or go home  (btw i still can't believe shadowslice commented. make a video on why this method sucks as well lol)

I originally wanted it to have a cool name like TuRBo or Boomerang or R2. either something with the method itself or smth to do with cubing in general, but all i could think of were things that were too cheesy or so stupid that no one would take this seriously. Ayam has nothing to do with chickens (although that would be epic), but rather its a combination of my name and my younger brothers name. its a nickname we use from time to time. 
it seemed like a good choice to me because Ayam is short, easy to pronounce and type, and has a bit of me attached to it without too much attraction to myself either. 
the name itself isn't something super unique either, which honestly i believe this method is the same. this isnt a genius creative new found technique that i discovered hidden in a cave for months with nothing but water and 3x3 cubes. i was actually surprised as to why no one had played with this more often and actually published this anywhere. i agree its not the best method, but no method really is the 'best'. Every method has some faults here or there. Ayam is still effective nonetheless and will have its place for some cubers. That's also why i think having a bit of a simple name really allows it to remain in its place; and important tool in theory and practice, but also not claiming to be the new revolutionary idea that will change cubing for generations.

i hope that answers your question as to why i chose "Ayam" as a name


----------



## lucarubik (Aug 2, 2018)

so this is
3 cycle
intuitive algs
orientation and permutation

its just like BH but worse... those set ups are as hard to find as a commutator. I guet that its a different thing and its fun and original but as you say the fact that this hasn't been talked about before is probably not because nobody thought of it.

If you want to go for something go for two corner stickers looking up in the U layer and one not looking down in the D layer, technicly you would have to learn algs but yes i guess if you are too technical this method can be appealing to someone, but I don't think that's fair.

It wouldn't shock me that smoeone liked this idea but... it almost would :3


----------



## Ayyub7 (Aug 2, 2018)

lucarubik said:


> so this is
> 3 cycle
> intuitive algs
> orientation and permutation
> ...


hey luca! just a few things I want to clear up. yes i agree with you that its worse than BH. i believe i made that clear when talking about it in the first post. if not, i truly do apologize because it wasn't my intention to make this seem like a method better than BH. however, it is not like BH though. BH is on commutators, and this is just on conjugates (setup moves). please look at the example solve i have provided in the original post. i'm going to copy it again onto here:

Scramble in your BLD orientation: L’ B2 U2 B2 L2 U2 R F2 D2 L’ B’ R F’ U2 F’ R’ B’ R’
Algorithms used:
[R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R] = A algorithm (9 moves)
[R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2] = A algorithm (9 moves)
(Buffer is UBR)
Ayam Method: JS LI WA KR
JS: F’ L’ F2 [R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R] F2 L F – 15 moves
LI: L’ y [R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2] y’ L – 11 moves
WA: D2 F2 [R’ F R’ B2 R F’ R’ B2 R2] F2 (D2) – 13-1 moves
KR: (D2) L y [R2 B2 R F R’ B2 R F’ R] y’ L’ D2 – 13-1 moves
15+11+12+12= 50 moves – 15.25 seconds (heck yeah.)
Times: 17.66; 19.31[messed up an A-perm ]; 15.25

That solve is an extract from the original post. it's in the move count section if you wish to see it compared to other methods. I highly recommend you go through the solve yourself and notice how intuitive it is to see the setup moves. 

I know you use 3-style/BH, i remember seeing a list of your commutators a while ago, so take a look at this example. I use UBR as my buffer, but this particular one has the UBL corner piece in the cycle too. Here is the cycle:
UBR> BLU> RDB
if looked at the UBL as a buffer:
UBL> BRD> BRU
One of the algorithms i made for this to make it relatively speed optimal is [D R' U; [U2; R D' R']]
Using the Ayam method and lets say UBL as a buffer, all you have to do is an R' move, and you are in position to execute an A algorithm to swap the 3 corners. If i was using UBR as a buffer, I would probably do a D' L moves setup to an A-perm. At least 150 of the 189 setup moves possible are 3 moves or less im guessing, and some of them have the potential to be even lower as just demonstrated. the same cycle, but one clearly has an easier setup move that also results in move cancellations. with practice and a bit of thinking outside the box, im sure people will easily be able to find setup moves that are much much better than a list i created. i personally dont even use it, i made it just for the sake of completion for the post.

going back to the UBL>BRD>BRU cycle, this same R' move setup can be applied to other corners too eg:
UBL>RFD>BRU - D R'
UBL>FLD>BRU - D2 R'
UBL>LBD>BRU - D' R'
I'm sure you're starting to see a pattern here
Let's take a nasty case such as UBL> LFD> BRU. this cannot be done with D moves, but with a face twist such as L, it can be in place for a D move
so an easy setup would be L D' L' R'. yes it's 4 moves and thus not very efficient, but its fingertrick friendly (at least to me) and I can picture it in my head and execute it fast. ofcourse i can go a completely different route as well and do F R', which will also set up the 3 corners onto the U face for execution of an A-perm. Theres so many different possible setup moves with a whole variety of number of moves.
Hopefully you can see now that its not similar to BH. its not commutators at all. theres no discerning of the interchange or insertions. its not optimal either. If i did not make that clear in the first post I hope this makes it clear now. At the end of the post I also mention what intermediate method to pursue depending on your needs and preferences. I try to remain as unbiased as possible, and hopefully you can tell that I dont give this method any extra attention that it deserves.
I really do believe though that it has its rightful place for the people who find a method like this understandable and something worth pursuing. Let me end with one more example:
UFL>LBD>UFR
if you solve this in OP, you first do D2, then the OP alg, then reverse. Then F, then OP alg, then F'. 
if you solve this in BH, you would find this is a pure commutator [U2, L' D' L]
In 3-style, maybe you would prefer to do D2 first to make it only <R,U,D> moves [D2; [R' D' R, U2]]
In Ayam, the setup move i would do is an insertion-like setup. R D' R'. this brings LBD to UBR, and in position for an A-algorithm. I can then reverse my setup with R D R'



Ayyub7 said:


> Please note this is a 3-cycling method, not commutators or 3-style. This is how I interpret these terms:
> 3-cycling is simply moving 3 pieces around the cube. Examples are U-perm and A-perm. NOTE: it is possible to have 1 independent 3 cycle of pieces ie: 3 corner cycling or 3 edge cycling (or more such as G-perms which have 2 3-cycles [one for corners and one for edges]). It is not possible to have 2 swaps; swapping 2 pieces must happen simultaneously with another 2 swap ie: 2 2-corner swaps eg: E-perm, 2 2-edge swaps eg: H-perm, Z-perm, or 1 2-corner with 1 2-edge swap eg: literally all other permutations left
> 
> Commutators are a form of 3-cycling that is focused on being highly efficient with move count eg: BH method. Thus, all commutators are 3-cycles, but not all 3-cycles are commutators.
> ...


Again, in the original post I explained it as this, but hopefully with the examples I've provided this will explain thoroughly which this is NOT a BH-like method. 
I really hope this clears up our misconception 
Please don't hesitate to ask any other questions if you have any


----------



## lucarubik (Aug 3, 2018)

I perfectly understand the method, i read the post, although i did skip the algorithms, but i honestly believe that it has a really unappealing combination of characteristics, I understand that A perms are "visually" recognizable, but why not niklass instead? maybe that would appeal to BLDers that want a BLD method exactly as yours but with harder (harder to see) but faster set ups and algs? why not A perms but all around the buffer piece and not just in the U layer? if the learner happens to know coll or whtaever its called why not add in the cyclic shift group? or one or both of the other A9 1 layer exclusive cases? why not just learn how commutators work? even if you only learn the most basic technique, and then play around it? make it your own.

Sure the method works, and so would work to make R3 everytime i need to R'. This method comes as a bad way to solve the 63x3x2 3-corner cases that the cube might pressent. but if you insist on solving them with those conditions (that i dont find atractive and i think most people wouldnt either) I'll admit A perm in the U layer is a good set of 6 algs, im curious to hear what would you think about adding U layer niklass aswell, niklass itself has a rather odd set up into A perm, both niklass and Aperms are simetrical cases, and unlike other among the 14 total*, most people already know them.

Its still an awkward middle ground that I personally find unappealing, if you were to say that this is not a middle ground, that its just 1 alg, i would argue that its 6, and it could without changing your conditions become 12, 18 or 36, 72 or even 144, just using 2 "algorithms" that most people know, in my Bld sheet the algs you use in this method are just 3 letters in 3 numbers among 63, in a group of 14, for a total of 398, why not use just 1 letter of each number, why not use all the 9 numbers of the group? why not use other numbers in other groups? why not use yours? hmmm that just doesn't do it for me.

I think its a bad selling point, and if someone asked me about it i would told him that i havn't tried it but in theory it doesn't sound good to me (fast, fun not even interesting as in idea), nonetheless thanks for sharing, im of course glad to read you. It's always fun to talk some BLD, Apologies if i came up as passive agressive or even insulting, English is hard and i struggle, but maybe you are in the right to feel insulted, after all im telling you i dont like your idea :3
*if you consider the alg of your method 1, then you can solve any 3 corners case with only 13 more, you would have to twist it (or rather them, the 6 of them) a lot, but you could, so BH and this are not that different, after all an Aperm is a commutator. Where do you draw the efficency line between 3 style and 3 cycle as you call them.

Cheers.

edit: yee definitely misscounted when i said 144 LOL


----------



## adimare (Aug 3, 2018)

Ayyub7 said:


> Hopefully you can see now that its not similar to BH. its not commutators at all.


The algs you use for A perms look like commutators to me:
R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R = [R2: [B2, R F R']]

R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2 = [R2: [R F R', B2]]

You're adding conjugates to algs that already have conjugates in them. For instance the alg you recommend for JS could be written as [F' L' F2: [R2: [B2, R F R']]]. I don't think using setups that complex to force the same 2 commutators every time makes sense (especially if you consider the fact that those comms aren't great in the first place), at that point it's easier to simply learn proper commutators. It'd probably take the average cuber less time to understand how [U' L U, R] works and how they could come up with it than it'd take them to be able to setup an A perm using F' L' F2 while blindfolded, and the results would be much better (8 moves vs 15 moves, 3-gen vs 4-gen, easier to not lose track of where you are while blindfolded).


----------



## Ayyub7 (Aug 3, 2018)

lucarubik said:


> I think its a bad selling point, and if someone asked me about it i would told him that i havn't tried it but in theory it doesn't sound good to me (fast, fun not even interesting as in idea), nonetheless thanks for sharing, im of course glad to read you. It's always fun to talk some BLD, Apologies if i came up as passive agressive or even insulting, English is hard and i struggle, but maybe you are in the right to feel insulted, after all im telling you i dont like your idea :3


haha now worries man! i actually appreciate the critique and honesty. no method is ever going to get better with all of us sitting there and just saying how awesome it is. I will go through your individual things one at a time.
firstly, im really sorry luca but i dont get what you mean when you say these things  really sorry. could you elaborate a bit more to me please?


lucarubik said:


> Sure the method works, and so would work to make R3 everytime i need to R'. This method comes as a bad way to solve the 63x3x2 3-corner cases that the cube might pressent.





lucarubik said:


> Its still an awkward middle ground that I personally find unappealing, if you were to say that this is not a middle ground, that its just 1 alg, i would argue that its 6, and it could without changing your conditions become 12, 18 or 36, 72 or even 144, just using 2 "algorithms" that most people know, in my Bld sheet the algs you use in this method are just 3 letters in 3 numbers among 63, in a group of 14, for a total of 398, why not use just 1 letter of each number, why not use all the 9 numbers of the group? why not use other numbers in other groups? why not use yours? hmmm that just doesn't do it for me.


im really sorry but i dont understand what youre saying here. maybe its cus im still not as awesome as you are in cubing so i dont get all the wisdom 



lucarubik said:


> maybe that would appeal to BLDers that want a BLD method exactly as yours but with harder (harder to see) but faster set ups and algs?


I get this! thats one of the reasons i included a 'possible' list of setup moves. some of them are difficult to see immediately, but can actually be done very fast in 3-4 finger trick friendly moves. 



lucarubik said:


> why not A perms but all around the buffer piece and not just in the U layer?


of course! this is allowed 


Ayyub7 said:


> You do setup moves to bring both of the corners to a face (preferably U) then do an A-algorithm to solve both


i said this just for the sake of simplicity, since this is being aimed more at those who dont understand commutators very well or those who don't want to learn commutators. i made sure to mention that at the end: please read this section again 


Ayyub7 said:


> If you are serious about your BLD, and want to progress to BH or 3-style in the somewhat near future, learn Orozco.
> If you don’t mind learning a new method entirely, prefer <R,F,U> moves, or want to stick to 2-cycling, learn Boomerang.
> If you like freestyle, are lazy and don’t want to learn more algorithms, want to be faster than OP corners but not necessarily lighting speed, or you move the cube slower when blindfolded, learn Ayam.
> Ayam is good for those who really want to think and try to figure things out. I understand that this isn’t the best way to approach speed BLD, but it is a good intermediate method.
> ...


I will show you an example of an A-perm from a different angle at the end of this post hopefully 



lucarubik said:


> or one or both of the other A9 1 layer exclusive cases?


i have included this in the spoiler of the original post. I personally use only one A-perm cus im lazy, ssssoooometimes one more. but its definitely possible to execute this with all the other A9's.



lucarubik said:


> why not just learn how commutators work? even if you only learn the most basic technique, and then play around it? make it your own.


again as i said, this is targeted towards different types of cubers with different needs. I really tried to make it clear in the first post that Ayam is not the way to go if you want to progress to BH or 3-style. its not a stepping stone but rather a method separate. and remember, this is an intermediate method, its not trying to live up to the hype or attractiveness of advanced/expert methods that use commutators. 



lucarubik said:


> BH and this are not that different, after all an Aperm is a commutator.


again luca, i highly respect you and you are one of my idols in BLD, but i am going to have to politely disagree. i dont need to know that A-perm is a commutator to use it. when i first learnt A-perm years ago, i didnt even know what commutators were! just cus im using a commutator doesnt mean i know what they are. im sure many cubers around the world use A-perm and don't know its an A9. to them its just an algorithm.



lucarubik said:


> Where do you draw the efficency line between 3 style and 3 cycle as you call them.


theres no specific line, its all imaginary, but 3-style is more focused on commutators isnt it? lets take the well known U-perm. we have a nice quick M2 U M U2 M' U M2 but we can also solve the same case with R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2. which one is better? they are both 3 cycles, but the first one is more commutator focused and fast, but if a 3-stylist is faster with the 2nd one, even though it may be more moves, i'm guessing they would still use it. i'm probably not the right person to discuss this with since im not an expert on this. your best people would be those who switched from a move efficient method (BH) to a speed efficient method (3-style). 
TuRBo is a 3-cyle edge method, so you can compare that to BH and 3-style to see the differences in efficiency yourself. sorry i cant help you more on this 



lucarubik said:


> im curious to hear what would you think about adding U layer niklass aswell, niklass itself has a rather odd set up into A perm, both niklass and Aperms are simetrical cases


yes of courrrssee! any 3 cycle you know can be implemented. you are not limited to just one. again for simplicity sake i was only using one in the original post since this is not aimed at smarter people like you. its an intermediate method, so no need to try and use it if you already know an advanced one 


Ayyub7 said:


> In essence, the Ayam method uses conjugates (fancy term for setup moves) to bring pieces into a certain position to execute a pre-known 3 cycling algorithm.


i was careful not to say A-perm here but rather a pre-known 3 cycling algorithm. im sure many people know many more different 3 cycle algorithms. 

one thing that i want to make clear again is that this doesnt have to be taken as a method in it's entirely. the bits and parts you like can be taken, and what you don't can be left behind. it's meant to be a step up from old pochmann, not a substitute for faster methods. Let me give you an example solve (as promised) to help further show my point. 

Even though i firmly believe that people who want to learn BH should learn Orozco, let's say you didnt and instead took the traditional route of first coming up with and learning the commutators for one sticker.
for your sake, lets use the UBL buffer since i know you like that. lets assume i learnt all the commutators for 
UFL>FRD>corner
UFL>corner>FRD
so anytime i get FRD in a solve i can use the commutator i learnt. the rest of the corners i should use OP. thats the way people here on forums say it should be done as you're slowly progressing to full BH corners.
i hope this is clear so far
now lets scramble:
D2 F D2 R2 B F' L2 R' U2 R' B' R' B L2 B' D2 R
Lets do this a letter pair at a time:
UBL>RFU>RUB
no FRD  so i cannot use my commutator, i have to use OP corners for this. but wait! if i use a 3-cycle algorithm that i know, i can solve this more efficient. using a UBL buffer, anytime both target are on the same R face i can use Niklas! (noticing patterns like these are key to Ayam. i dont have to sit down for hours coming up with new algs, but rather figuring out what my already known algs do)
so UBL>RFU>RUB becomes [R U' L' U R' U' L U ]
now UBL> FLU>BLD
again, no FRD  no commutator, i have to use old pochmann. but wait! anytime all 3 corners are interchangeable in the same layer, its A-perm! (all the corners can be interchanged on L layer, so this is an A-perm on L layer)
so now UBL>FLU>BLD becomes [z; R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2]
oh no  UBL is our buffer now, we have to break into a new cycle. lets use our commutator now!
UBL>FRD>LFD which is an easy pure commutator [R U2 R', D]
now only 3 corners left to solve
UBL>RBD>RFD
i ahve to use OP again  but wait! remember what i said about niklas can be used if both corners need to go to the R face?
if we do setup move R2 then we can do niklas! [R2; R U' L' U R' U' L U]
AND SOLVED!
for the last case, if i wanted to use A-perm i can also use that. instead of doing R2 i can do R' F' (easier done with Lw D') then do an A-perm. so many possibilities.

okay so the total solve looks like this now:
scramble: D2 F D2 R2 B F' L2 R' U2 R' B' R' B L2 B' D2 R
solve: 
[R U' L' U R' U' L U]
[z; R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2]
[R U2 R', D]
[R2; R U' L' U R' U' L U]
Execution time for me ~11 seconds (i know i know, im slow) Let's add another 3 seconds of thinking time and pauses as well: total would be 14 seconds. that's still a big step up for someone whos been doing OP. 

once they learn all the commutators for a whole corner (all 3 stickers) they can discard this method entirely and start doing that thing where they purposely set up a commutator for themselves, although i still think orozco is the way to step into the world of BH. still, thats one of the strong points of Ayam, is that it allows a lot of freestyle and the ability to go off track for a 3-cycling method.

again, i hope this clears up some of the questions you had. sorry i couldnt answer everything, there was that one paragraph i got lost at, so if you explain it a bit, maybe i can clear it up for you


----------



## Ayyub7 (Aug 3, 2018)

adimare said:


> The algs you use for A perms look like commutators to me:
> R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R = [R2: [B2, R F R']]
> 
> R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2 = [R2: [R F R', B2]]
> ...



i wouldnt say i recommend the setup move, its just the one i would probably use. and doing an x' changes it the whole setup move and alg to 
x' D' L' D2 R2 U2 R D R' U2 R D' R D2 L D x

It can also be done using a 2 look OLL algorithm: F' r U R' U' r' F R. simply do an L move to bring S to position then execute the algorithm. any 3 cycle can be done. not just A-perm

also, just because my A-algorithms are commutators, doesn't mean i have to know or understand what commutators are to use them. many algorithms people use are commutators but they don't even know. to them its just an algorithm.
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PLL
a lot of the algorithms listed on this page could be commutators. I learnt mine from here years ago when i first started cubing. 



Ayyub7 said:


> DISCLAIMER: This is by no means the best list or only list. Any buffer can be used and coming up with your own algorithms is the best way to remember them yourself. This was just made as a reference.


I wrote this in the list in the original post. i don't claim to have the best setup move algs. the list is very restricted by choosing one specific buffer and trying to being all the pieces to the U face. you can do anything you want, you don't have to limit yourself to what was exactly written.



Ayyub7 said:


> If you are serious about your BLD, and want to progress to BH or 3-style in the somewhat near future, learn Orozco.
> If you don’t mind learning a new method entirely, prefer <R,F,U> moves, or want to stick to 2-cycling, learn Boomerang.
> If you like freestyle, are lazy and don’t want to learn more algorithms, want to be faster than OP corners but not necessarily lighting speed, or you move the cube slower when blindfolded, learn Ayam.
> Ayam is good for those who really want to think and try to figure things out. I understand that this isn’t the best way to approach speed BLD, but it is a good intermediate method.
> ...


I clearly stated that if you wish to purse commutators in the near future, this is not the method to go and instead to pursue Orozco.


Ayyub7 said:


> - Should not be focused on highly if you want to progress to faster methods such as BH or 3-style


i put that in the disadvantage section of the method. i am aware of the problems of this and thus decided to make it clear. 

if a certain setup move is annoying or not coming intuitively, just use OP. if you know some commutators you can throw it in as well. the method is not restricting as to be entirely executed in one shape or another. use any 3 cycle technique you know, use as many as you want as many times as you want. its almost shifting towards freestyle which makes this stand out not as a unique stand alone method but rather as special add-ons to whatever method you may be using now. unless you already use BH or 3-style, in that case this isn't for you since this is for intermediates


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 3, 2018)

I tried to do this myself once, and gave up very quickly.

When people start out with 3-style, it's daunting to learn a full set of commutators and it's natural to want to address this by learning a smaller, more manageable set of commutators with setup moves to them. There is a spectrum of approaches. At one end of the spectrum, you can minimize the number of commutators at the price of using many complex setups. At the other end of the spectrum, you have speed (or move) optimal solutions for every case - full 3-style.

A perm is a conjugated commutator. What you're doing, effectively, is 3-style with a minimal set of commutators and many complex setups. Right at one extreme of that spectrum.

In my opinion, the sweet spot for 3-style beginners is further along the spectrum. It's better to initially learn a larger set of commutators, maybe 10-20, on the basis that it makes the setups way, way easier. There are several options for that, like learning sets of comms that include sticker(s) on the piece diagonally opposite your buffer, or learning one or two families of comms with common patterns. 

Then, as you continue to learn 3-style, you move along that spectrum by adding more commutators and reducing your reliance on figuring out setups.

(BTW, I would not include Orozco on that spectrum. It's an intro to 3-style in that you start by learning a set of comms, but then you use them to solve one piece at a time, which is wasteful and IMHO no easier than learning a similar size set of comms with setups to solve two pieces at a time.)


----------



## lucarubik (Aug 3, 2018)

I was just insisting trying to prove how arbitrary the decition of using only a perms is. In my bld sheet those cases are just a number among 63. It has nothing spetial going on for it.


----------



## adimare (Aug 4, 2018)

Ayyub7 said:


> It can also be done using a 2 look OLL algorithm: F' r U R' U' r' F R.


I understand your point but still feel the need to point out that that's also a commutator, could be written as [F' r U, R'].



Ayyub7 said:


> I don't claim to have the best setup move algs. the list is very restricted by choosing one specific buffer and trying to being all the pieces to the U face.


The point I'm trying to make is that you're claiming that this is an intermediate method for people who don't want to commit to something as advanced as BH, and yet I'm the 3rd (I think) BLD solver who uses BH telling you that your method is not only slower than BH, but also harder.

Before claiming you've found an easier way to solve 2 corners at a time, you should familiarize yourself with commutators, hopefully then you'll understand that you might have been overestimating how difficult BH really is. If you're able to solve corners blindfolded in 25-40 seconds by using 3-4 move setups into A perms and undoing them consistently, you'll have a breeze with BH, where any 3-cycle can be solved with at most one single setup move.


----------



## leeo (Aug 24, 2018)

I found that the subset of BH corner algorithms that target one of the three facelets on the solid-diagonally opposite cubie from the buffer give the ability to reach all the corner cases with setup moves. Allowing one intermediate position and a few setup principles then requires only 21 core algorithms instead of over 300.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Aug 28, 2018)

The only real viable intermediate corner methods in my opinion are orozco, eka or U2. This looks decent but there are better methods


----------



## NykoCuber1 (Aug 28, 2018)

What is eka ?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Aug 28, 2018)

NykoCuber1 said:


> What is eka ?


You learn all the comms involving UBL and the RDF, then you use OP setups to set a piece up to RDF and then solve it using a commutator. So you only need 21 algs to solve 2 pieces at once. You can also get fancier and learn the commutators involving for UBL and DFR/FDR so you only need to setup to the RDF piece instead of sticker


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 1, 2018)

Do eka but instead of doing UBL->RDF->other corner, do UFR->LDB->other corner. Gives an easier transition to 3-style with a good buffer. Also, if you combined it with orozco you’d get 2 places where you know the comm.


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 5, 2022)

Ayyub7 said:


> Hey everyone! My name is Ayyub and I’ve been cubing on and off for a couple years now. I would categorize myself as a cubing hobbyist rather than someone fully dedicated and super interested in cubing (I average ~20 seconds for anyone curious). I am though completely in love with BLD. I first learnt it 4-5 years ago, but I didn’t practice much. However, my spark for cubing was reignited (and with it for BLD) recently, and so I’ve started pursuing it again. I took the main route for edges (OP, then M2/TuRBo) but I went a bit off course for corners. Of course, I started off learning Old Pochmann but I didn’t like it. I made my own 2-cycle-orientation-then-permutation style for corners that was very inefficient but worked for me (OP does both at the same time). When I recently got back into cubing, I started adopting the main concept of OP into my own buffer (UBR instead of UBL). I currently can execute corners in about 25-40 seconds. It depends on how bad the case is obviously, but average is around 30 seconds for me (I know, I know, it isn’t very fast). Still, 30 seconds is way too long of a time to execute corners in my opinion. The other fast method for corners is BH, which is a MASSIVE step forwards. This is where my interest developed. There are many good intermediate edge blindfold techniques, but not many good, or at least well known, intermediate corner blindfold techniques. This poses a problem to those cubers who want to get faster at corner solving, but aren’t willing/in the process of learning/coming up and practicing their algorithms for BH. I attempted to try and solve this problem with the Ayam method; but first, a little comparison between intermediate corner methods.
> 
> I will not be discussing the specific advantages and disadvantages of each intermediate corner BLD method, but rather the advantages and disadvantages compared to Ayam:
> 
> ...


Interesting method!

I like the research you have done and the way you have presented the cases and setups.

I would like to discuss this idea of corner solving more with you.
Personally, have you ever used Orozco intermediate method?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 5, 2022)

Weird bump.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 6, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> Interesting method!
> 
> I like the research you have done and the way you have presented the cases and setups.
> 
> ...


This is an unfortunate bump abunickabhi.



Ayyub7 said:


> DISCLAIMER: *I don’t know any of the methods mentioned here.* I’m basing this solely on research and my understanding of the methods. If there is a mistake or some important point missing, please mention it.
> 
> *Orozco:
> Advantages over Ayam:*
> ...



He doesn't even know how to use the method, much less use it. Please read the content of a thread before you unnecessarily bump it.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 6, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> Please read the content of a thread before you unnecessarily bump it.


Agreeing because he kind of does it all the time.


----------

