# Does anyone else just memorize the whole cube+colors for 3BLD? I do!



## Megaminxer (Apr 7, 2018)

.


----------



## asacuber (Apr 7, 2018)

isnt that speedbld?


----------



## newtonbase (Apr 7, 2018)

asacuber said:


> isnt that speedbld?


Yes. A poorly named event if there ever was one.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 7, 2018)

Actually, no. In speedBLD, you typically trace the positions of the pieces up front as you work out your solution. So you wind up with a very fast solve after memorizing - one that can theoretically be significantly faster than a normal speedsolve (if you don't have memory recall pauses). The way the OP here is describing, you memorize the starting positions of all the pieces, then trace their positions as you solve blindfolded, leading to a very slow solve after memorizing.


----------



## newtonbase (Apr 7, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Actually, no. In speedBLD, you typically trace the positions of the pieces up front as you work out your solution. So you wind up with a very fast solve after memorizing - one that can theoretically be significantly faster than a normal speedsolve (if you don't have memory recall pauses). The way the OP here is describing, you memorize the starting positions of all the pieces, then trace their positions as you solve blindfolded, leading to a very slow solve after memorizing.


Good point. I've always read the name as a fast way of doing blind but if you look at execution only then it is indeed speedy and blindy.


----------



## Hssandwich (Apr 7, 2018)

Why use beginners when you can use any other more efficient method to reduce the amount of tracing you have to do?

There are also a few suspicious points in your solve where you rotate or do U-moves for no reason, which make the solve look fake to be honest.


----------



## Ollie (Apr 8, 2018)

I'll stick my neck out and call claptrap.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 8, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> The way the OP here is describing, you memorize the starting positions of all the pieces, then trace their positions as you solve blindfolded, leading to a very slow solve after memorizing.


Not watched it but I'm taking this description as accurate. When I tried to do BLD before looking up tutorials this is pretty much what I did. I went through the pieces in a certain order and visually remembered where a certain sticker of it was (U/D mostly, F/B for the E slice), then kept track of where the pieces were as I was solving them in whatever order I felt like. It's extremely slow and awful so I don't recommend it!


----------



## Ollie (Apr 8, 2018)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Not watched it but I'm taking this description as accurate. When I tried to do BLD before looking up tutorials this is pretty much what I did. I went through the pieces in a certain order and visually remembered where a certain sticker of it was (U/D mostly, F/B for the E slice), then kept track of where the pieces were as I was solving them in whatever order I felt like. It's extremely slow and awful so I don't recommend it!


The video does look very suspect. Lots of unnecessary moves as though he is looking for pieces with his eyes. Strange rotations. It's just odd.


----------



## CLL Smooth (Apr 8, 2018)

Ollie said:


> The video does look very suspect. Lots of unnecessary moves as though he is looking for pieces with his eyes. Strange rotations. It's just odd.


He obviously is misinformed about where to put the blindfold.


----------



## adimare (Apr 9, 2018)

Ollie said:


> I'll stick my neck out and call claptrap.


Came here to say this. If you ever try speedbld for real you'll understand how ridiculous it is to claim that you can trace the pieces while solving a cube if you didn't plan the entire solution ahead of time.


----------



## adimare (Apr 10, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> You may remember that I memorize the colors on the cube and track each piece.


I remember not believing you the first time you claimed that.


----------



## CarterK (Apr 10, 2018)

It would be cool, and I think some people would be interested since it's different.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 10, 2018)

I first want a convincing video of you doing it


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 10, 2018)

Track ALL the pieces??!!
But still, show how you do it pls.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 10, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I didn't expect so much hate... jeez!



Do a video of opening your timer, scrambling, memo and solving and I'll believe you immediatly


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Apr 10, 2018)

Me


----------



## CarterK (Apr 10, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> I first want a convincing video of you doing it


If he made a video explaining it wouldn't that be enough proof?


----------



## Hazel (Apr 10, 2018)

The reason people don't believe you is that the video just looked suspicious, the way it seemed like you were looking around the cube for pieces and doing unnecessary turns like many people do during normal sighted solves.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Apr 10, 2018)

The video was super suspicious, if you did track the pieces I would suspect pauses far more often in far greater length than in your video. You did the whole thing relatively fast and the way you kept turning the cube reminded me of a sighted solve. I also noticed how when you put the cube down you started looking at all the sides, and then pulled off the blindfold, it almost looks like you peeked under a blindfold the whole time and when you finished you forgot that it was supposed to look like you couldn’t see lol. I would recommend making a solve video showing the scramble, memo and solution (even if it’s dnf) and posting that if you want to prove it’s not fake. I’m personally not interested in the tutorial idea because it’s just not a good method.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 10, 2018)

CarterK said:


> If he made a video explaining it wouldn't that be enough proof?



2 Answers

No, it wouldn't. His video contained a beginners method solve. He can make a convincing tutorial with all the information how to do it without actually doing it. If I do something, stage it and then explain how I did it in a logical manner without actually archieving it, it would be the same thing.

Have you seen his video? I see Underwaters explanation now and I think there is nothing more to add to it


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 10, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Here is the video you guys wanted. I moved the cube around so that the audience would know if it was a DNF before I did, and that in excitement in the past I often forget to show the cube.



I must be honest. I didn't think this was possible, but because of my lack of blind info, I made no comment. To me I do think that this video was a clear demonstration of the method. I think a tutorial would be pretty cool. I do believe you have to think that the video posted earlier was quite suspicious. I must honor the fact that you did go all out insane cuber "so you think my blind solves are think" on us and respected us with out being rude.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 10, 2018)

Awesome! I'm impressed. I've been wanting to try this for a while  How are you able to concentrate on tracing the pieces for that long without draining your brain?


----------



## teboecubes (Apr 10, 2018)

I'm skeptical, but more open-minded than to assume you're lying, and I'm actually curious about non-traditional blind methods since this discussion started.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 11, 2018)

I no longer believe you're doing what you originally seemed to be describing. I don't believe you're memorizing the colors; I believe you're using the colors to memorize a solve by tracing the pieces during memorization, then executing your memorized solution. That's just normal speedBLD; it's just that you're using beginner's method instead of CFOP.

I see that as the only reasonable explanation for why you would take 45 minutes to memorize, but only 90 seconds to solve. If you were memorizing the starting colors, then tracing as you solved, the memorization/execution split would be the opposite of this - almost all the time would be spent solving.

I will acknowledge there might be some amazing mathematical property I don't know about that makes tracking the pieces while solving really easy, so I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I really suspect this is just a normal speedBLD solve.


----------



## Ollie (Apr 11, 2018)

The scramble you showed us isn't the same one that you applied to the cube, when you compare this with what the cube looks like at 1:30 and 1:41. I think the scramble in the video actually looks like:

F L2 B' U2 B D2 B' U2 L2 F' R2 B2 D2 R D' U2 R B2 R2 B' D2 U'

Edit1: Mistakes happen, for sure.

After that I can't really follow what you are doing (can't/don't want to/need to sleep), maybe someone would like to reconstruct it. But it seems like you don't do anything for the first 10 seconds:

z2
D R y' R2 y' R2 y' R' D' y' R' y R R' D' R

It still looks shady. But not conclusive.

Edit2: You get the benefit of the doubt, although if you are doing it blindfolded then I'm guessing that you're either doing it in a speedBLD kind of way, or simply you have rehearsed the scramble beforehand.


----------



## adimare (Apr 11, 2018)

None of this makes any sense. If you have such an advanced "mental cube" that you can execute a solve as messy as the one you did in your head, why does it take you 45 min to memorize the initial state? Can't you just apply the scramble to your mental cube and start solving immediately?

You're either doing speedBLD and don't understand that that's what you're doing (meaning, in the 45 min you're not memorizing the cube, you're planning and memorizing a solution), or you're being disingenuous about the whole thing.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 11, 2018)

If you really want to convince me, I'd need an unedited video of the entire 45m-1hr of this attempt. Scramble sequences here are super shady, and it looks like you're doing absolutely nothing for a long time in this solve.

Started to reconstruct this, but it's late, and my head hurts from all the xyz compound rotations. I think the scramble Ollie provided might be off by twisted corners or something, because it stopped matching the scramble eventually. Have fun, whoever may want to pick this up.

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F_L2_B-_U2_B_D2_B-_U2_L2_F-_R2_B2_D2_R_D-_U2_R_B2_R2_B-_D2_U-&scheme=japanese&alg=x2_y2_ D_R_y-_R2_y-_R2_y-_R-_D-_y-_R-_y_R_R-_D-_R_y_z-_R3_x-_U2_R_x-_R_U-_y_x-_R_y_x_z-_L_F_x-_y_z-_R2_U2_R2_x_U


----------



## asacuber (Apr 11, 2018)

Ohhh I realise what you are doing now lol. I thought it was pure speedbld


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 11, 2018)

I would just like to point out the fact that is wasn't @Megaminxer that was "proved" wrong but rather your guy's assumptions that he was tracking pieces vs basically 1 looking the solve. He never claimed to track pieces. We(myself included) assumed he was tracking the pieces. But your now angry at him that your assumption wasn't correct. /rant


----------



## Ollie (Apr 11, 2018)

Feliks was caught cheating in his earliest 3x3x3 videos, you're fine here.

My reasons for being skeptical/cynical are:

You're describing a method where you're making things much, much harder for yourself than you need to. 

Your memo times should be much, much faster with a year of practice. Otherwise, you defy everything we know from experience. 

Your video conveniently cuts the whole of memorization and uses a different scramble to the one you said. 

Your original video isn't a good bid demo because we can't see your face.
Your solution looks far too inefficient to be legit. After a year of practice, you could be much better at cross, even with your method being much harder.
I'm almost certain you practiced a solution sighted off camera and you're recording only the execution blindfolded. I'm sorry to be harsh, I want you to succeed here. But we're a very skeptical group, that's what makes us great as a community. 

We want to teach and help each other. But this just looks suspicious and we've had a fair share of cheaters, on this forum and in competition.


----------



## Chree (Apr 11, 2018)

I'm still skeptical. In your demo video, at 2:58, you does U2 U2 y' and continue to solve the pair. And it's not the only time I thought I saw unnecessary U's and rotations (which only echoes other people's skepticism, I know).

Why would you memorize doing U2 twice before rotating and doing another alg that still starts with another U? Not only is it inefficient, but it is strikingly similar to what a person would do if they needed to see the color of a piece on the back during a sighted solve.


----------



## Chree (Apr 11, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I don't memorize Us, again I believe people don't understand my method. I only memorize the colors on the cube, imprint them onto a mental cube, and then solve that cube as normal. Unnecessary U moves will exist because I am inefficient just like in a normal solve.



So the U's exist so that you can mentally see a side of the piece that you've memorized?


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 11, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> *I am not looking to get any recognition for speed/BLD ability beyond the proof of that my method works*, and your accusations not only attack my dignity but my method. I am not a good speedsolver! I just wanted to get my idea out so people better than me could use it! There is NO REASON for me to fake this.



If you're going to the lengths of doing a BLD solve using a speedsolving method, then it's far more practical/useful to memorize the solution than colors for improving the speed of the solution itself, resulting in good speedBLD results. If you just want to do a BLD solve, it's far easier to learn methods designed for this. So this may come off harsh, but I'll ask anyway: what purpose does this method have? And how does your video or any future video you could make help others to use this method? I don't know what else you could say in a tutorial of this method but "practice visualizing things in your head" or "just visualize the cube at every turn," which I don't think is something easily learned, or may even be more of an innate than learned skill. 

It's this angle that really makes me question why you would post this video anything other than for personal recognition, not for the benefit of others.



Megaminxer said:


> Do you guys really want me to do this



Not really. We are just expressing our skepticism of such methods and what we would need to see to be convinced of such a method. I'm sure your method is _possible _given enough concentration/focus, but that doesn't mean we're highly skeptical of a video that jump cuts and has vast opportunities to cheat.


----------



## Chree (Apr 11, 2018)

Kit Clement said:


> Not really. We are just expressing our skepticism of such methods and what we would need to see to be convinced of such a method. I'm sure your method is _possible _given enough concentration/focus, but that doesn't mean we're highly skeptical of a video that jump cuts and has vast opportunities to cheat.



Even without jump cutting, that video still wouldn't convince me. Proper competition conditions might, though... BLD blockers, etc. Even if he spent 30 minutes sitting down staring at a cube, all he has to do is spend the next minute peaking at it underneath his blindfold (which is of a style notoriously capable of being peaked under).

I think the thing I find most unbelievable about this whole thing is that this thread wasn't posted on April 1st.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 11, 2018)

The reason for all this suspicion is because solving a "mental cube" like you're describing would be a spectacular feat - something on the level of a world record BLD solve in difficulty or more. In fact, I personally doubt it's humanly possible, much as I have doubts about the more extreme claims of photographic memory that have never been proven to be truly humanly possible.

I admit that is just doubt on my part and not certainty. If it is possible it would be wonderful and amazing to prove it. And then I would wonder if it requires some lucky genetic fluke to be able to do it, or if there is some kind of trick that makes it possible for ordinary people to learn to do it.

The attention you're getting here is why you might be motivated to make such a claim. If you could really do this, it would be something quite extraordinary. It's possible you just haven't realized yet how extraordinary your claim actually is.


----------



## bubbagrub (Apr 11, 2018)

I have a suggestion, which might help prove you can do what you're describing:

Record a video without a cube. Make sure we can see your hands. Bring up a new scramble on screen (on a timer that doesn't show the state of the scrambled cube). Work out, from the scramble, the state of the scrambled cube, and then describe it ("top face goes red, yellow, green...", etc.) I assume that wouldn't take 45 minutes, so you could record the entire thing without cuts or edits.

Would that work?


----------



## CLL Smooth (Apr 11, 2018)

I’m still waiting for that sub-10 Ao12 jskyler. Wait minute... what decade is this? Please don’t take anything I say seriously.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 11, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Bad attention is not fame, I would rather be an outlier in the community than a hated one, which is what I have become.


You haven't become hated, we are just very skeptical of this, all you need to do is prove that what you're saying is true.


----------



## Chree (Apr 11, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Gee, thanks. That makes all of my hard work seem worth it, I was only looking to add something to the community just as an idea. By that nature shouldn't we be questioning the legitimacy of people like TheGreyCuber and Mike Hughey (not to fire shots at those two super awesome guys whom I both consider mentors) if we are so willing to delegitimize non-competition environments? A full uncut video will be up shortly.



The only person I've seen launch anything close to legitimate hate was adimare, but that's just sort of how he rolls, so I wouldn't take it personally. Ollie might've used a 4-to-8-letter word at the outset, but that was also just an expression of skepticism. Kit, Mike, myself, and others just want to be convinced... like the saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made an extraordinary claim which, if true, is amazing. But so far, nothing you've shown and none of your explanations have satisfied the perfectly reasonable doubts we have. For instance, my question above hasn't been answered, because your explanation still lacks sense in the context of your method. I'm sorry if that's hurting your feelings. I know what it's like to be really proud of something only to have others shrug it off as nothing. But like Ollie said, we are an extremely skeptical community. If you had been around these forums a while longer, none of this would've been a surprise to you. This sort of thing happens at least once a year. You're just the lucky winner, is all.


----------



## Ollie (Apr 11, 2018)

Chree said:


> The only person I've seen launch anything close to legitimate hate was adimare, but that's just sort of how he rolls, so I wouldn't take it personally. Ollie might've used a 4-to-8-letter word at the outset, but that was also just an expression of skepticism. Kit, Mike, myself, and others just want to be convinced... like the saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have made an extraordinary claim which, if true, is amazing. But so far, nothing you've shown and none of your explanations have satisfied the perfectly reasonable doubts we have. For instance, my question above hasn't been answered, because your explanation still lacks sense in the context of your method. I'm sorry if that's hurting your feelings. I know what it's like to be really proud of something only to have others shrug it off as nothing. But like Ollie said, we are an extremely skeptical community. If you had been around these forums a while longer, none of this would've been a surprise to you. This sort of thing happens at least once a year. You're just the lucky winner, is all.



While using a naughty word, I continued with the best intentions. But this post below just stood out for me and I'm done being courteous, as this reeks of /r/iamverysmart:



Megaminxer said:


> Look: I find your feats of BLD to be incredible, take lots and lots of work, and I admire you greatly for them, but they are not impossible. In the 80s, do you think people thought that 7BLD was possible? No! A 7x7x7 cube couldn't even exist back then! You are completely basing your arguments off of sheer doubt. I will tell you* I am in MENSA* if that helps legitimize my potential "amazingness," whatever that means. The human mind is capable of incredible things. Bad attention is not fame, *I would rather be an outlier in the community than a hated one*, which is what I have become. To be honest, I didn't think anyone would really care or take notice, certainly not to the level it has happened. *I can play chess/go blindfolded* and so I wanted to apply that to cubing.



Even playing chess and go blindfolded isn't comparable here. You've likely played thousands of games of each, and you will have better than average pattern recognition, planning ability and ability to think strategically.

You'll be able to play blindfolded because the starts of games are fairly standard at higher levels, with common defences and amounts of variance that allow you play blindfolded. I know first hand from losing to my old boss, a South African champion and is a beast at blitz chess. He thrashed me while he was blindfolded and proceeded to tell me virtually every move I made, but still not perfectly. Here's where I stick my neck out again.

I think that you think that you can apply that same logic to cubing and pass off being able to solve a cube blindfolded. Doing thousands of layer-by-layer solves doesn't qualify you to be able to do it blindfolded in such a way that you can simply remember the colours and have a perfect mental representation when you proceed to solve. As Mike said, this is beyond the realms of normal people, and unless you are an actual savant, which would be a huge claim, then I don't believe you.

I don't want to re-hash the criticisms we have laid out here around the strange solutions and convenient camera issues because I feel like you haven't addressed any of them. But I think you practiced the solution beforehand, and the unnecessary moves and rotations in your solution are a mask.

Edit: Made response slightly less rude.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I've been working on it for a YEAR. I did my research, I used all sorts of different memorization techniques that work for more advanced memo and to shoot down something you haven't looked into without giving it a proper chance is wrong.


Might want to check out some real bld memo and execution methods before calling this advanced lol


----------



## A Nonconformist (Apr 12, 2018)

So what exactly is going on in your head during inspection? Are you creating a blank cube and slowly filling in the colored stickers to eventually create the scrambled cube in your head? Then from there you don't need to look at it anymore cause its just in your head?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Again, I used a technique that allows the user to memorize a 52 card deck in thirty eight seconds (current world record) and multiple universities have been investigating. BLD single, double or triple piece swaps (commutators) on a Rubik's cube can't compete.


45 minute memo with 1 year of practice for 1:30 execution vs 8 second memo and 14 second execution. I was wrong your method wins


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Speed doesn't inherently connote complexity. My method has barely been explored. I'm sure Roux was inefficient when it was first conceptualized, but again I told you that I'm not good at speedsolving or BLD memo! I was hoping people with better cubing skills would be interested and try it out!


I personally won't try it, because I don't want to put a year worth of practice into a very difficult memo method when there is one that I can already do a lot faster with a lot less practice. But I do think that this is interesting, but it's not a method for me.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> If that was "slightly less rude" than I don't know what to say. I've made an effort to calmly respond to every criticism I have received. I took an hour out of my valuable time (I run a company) to film a video. I have coherently explained my method, explained that I'm not good at any of the speed and BLD stuff (and admire people who are) and I was just proposing a new idea for the community. First of all, @Ollie, you don't know me, you don't know anything about what I have done or my experiences, so why are you judging my legitimacy off of a personal experience that you had with a completely different person? I just wanted to contribute to the community. There will be a full uncut video soon, but your mere "It can't be done" philosophy is quite exactly the philosophy that deters and prevents innovation. This methodology is new, I get that. I acknowledge that my first video was not convincing. I acknowledge that I made mistakes in the second, but to make that an excuse and justification to attack my dignity and me as a person is just illogical and kind of a mean thing to do. You haven't even given this method ten minutes of your attention. It was hard for me to visualize the cube at first, but I've been working on it for a YEAR. I did my research, I used all sorts of different memorization techniques that work for more advanced memo and you just walk up and shoot down something you haven't looked into without giving it a proper chance is wrong, just because you've been active on the forums longer.
> 
> People say things are impossible all of the time. Verdes made the "impossible" V Cubes, Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation didn't make sense, there are countless instances where the impossible became possible, and that innovation is what drives human society.
> 
> ...



Research communities are not echo chambers where people support every single thought regardless of whether it is well thought out or valid. You need to be able to take criticism and respond to it in a calm manner if you want to be taken seriously. I would not have called Ollie's post offensive at all, but it seems like you are taking offense for people criticizing your ideas rather than you. Yes, people have criticized you for being a "fake," and I'm definitely skeptical of these videos, but I have not and won't outwardly accuse you of faking, and many people that you claim are attacking you or giving you a "bad reputation" are simply skeptics. You are making very exceptional claims with very little evidence. There are many arguments that people have presented that you have really only brushed off on the basis that new ideas are always good for innovation. With the exception of analogies to other memory sports (that don't necessarily apply to cubing anyway), I haven't really been convinced that your specific new method is a good idea. 

Sure, we can't remain stale in old ways of thinking forever -- innovation is a good thing and should be welcomed. But not every new idea is gold, and even good ideas are met with healthy skepticism. The Yau method on 4x4 wasn't taken seriously until Dan Cohen tried it seriously and pushed others to try it once he got good results. But when people are doing 3-style 3x3 solves as quickly as 10-12 seconds, that leaves little room for the possible gains in execution to outweigh issues with this memo technique AND the tracing/visualizing that needs to be done mid-solve. I'm extremely skeptical that any method of this variety could outperform what current world class BLD solvers are doing.

I'm personally more interested in how you can visualize a mental model of the cube as you do turns rather than seeing you personally perform a BLD solve. Specifically, why would you need to rotate and do U turns to be able to see new parts of the cube? If you are visualizing the cube, why couldn't you see those colors/pieces before rotating/doing U moves? These are the lingering questions I have about the solves and visualizing you are doing, and I'm curious how your memory method makes it necessary/easier for you to solve in this manner.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 12, 2018)

This is not to take shots at anyone, I was just re-reading the thread and saw this:


Duncan Bannon said:


> He never claimed to track pieces.





Megaminxer said:


> You may remember that I memorize the colors on the cube and track each piece.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> We have different definitions of "track." I memorize the cube and know where each piece is. You could call this tracking but it's different for the tracking in SpeedBLD. I clarify this difference and acknowledge my error later on in the thread.


I wasn't referring to anything about speedbld, I was just merely showing something that I saw was false.


----------



## Chree (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> If that was "slightly less rude" than I don't know what to say. I've made an effort to calmly respond to every criticism I have received. I took an hour out of my valuable time (I run a company) to film a video. I have coherently explained my method, explained that I'm not good at any of the speed and BLD stuff (and admire people who are) and I was just proposing a new idea for the community. First of all, @Ollie, you don't know me, you don't know anything about what I have done or my experiences, so why are you judging my legitimacy off of a personal experience that you had with a completely different person? I just wanted to contribute to the community. There will be a full uncut video soon, but your mere "It can't be done" philosophy is quite exactly the philosophy that deters and prevents innovation. This methodology is new, I get that. I acknowledge that my first video was not convincing. I acknowledge that I made mistakes in the second, but to make that an excuse and justification to attack my dignity and me as a person is just illogical and kind of a mean thing to do. You haven't even given this method ten minutes of your attention. It was hard for me to visualize the cube at first, but I've been working on it for a YEAR. I did my research, I used all sorts of different memorization techniques that work for more advanced memo and you just walk up and shoot down something you haven't looked into without giving it a proper chance is wrong, just because you've been active on the forums longer.
> 
> People say things are impossible all of the time. Verdes made the "impossible" V Cubes, Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation didn't make sense, there are countless instances where the impossible became possible, and that innovation is what drives human society.
> 
> ...



Or you could just prove him wrong. But whatevs.

Edit (to avoid double posting) - Another thing you might've known if you'd been around longer... New methods get posted here all the time. Some worth it, some not. But all of them generally begin with a clear explanation of the method, how it works, and how someone can learn to do it. Not solicitation for requests from your audience for any of the above. That was a bit of a red flag for me, honestly. "Hey, do you want me to post a tutorial?" Yes. If you can, obviously: Yes. Pretty easy question, man. Maybe I should be in MENSA.


----------



## h2f (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> My method has barely been explored.



You said it's beginners method. Now it is - new method. Ok. Can you put algs you use and describe the method? If it's memo method - can you put a description of a technique you use?


----------



## Sajwo (Apr 12, 2018)

lol


----------



## adimare (Apr 12, 2018)

There's a number of ways you could prove you're really capable of tracing all 20 pieces in your "mental cube" that don't involve having to memorize an initial state. As I recommended earlier, you could just apply the scramble to your mental cube and start solving it immediately; or as someone else suggested, you could just generate a random scramble, and without using a physical cube tell us how the scrambled cube would look like.

If you just upload a video of you staring at a cube for 45 min then solving it using a speedsolving method with a blindfold on, that won't really prove that you're solving it using a mental cube, because most of us here could replicate that (in way less time) by devising a solution while only tracking a few pieces at a time during memo.


----------



## Ollie (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> If that was "slightly less rude" than I don't know what to say. I've made an effort to calmly respond to every criticism I have received. I took an hour out of my valuable time (I run a company) to film a video. I have coherently explained my method, explained that I'm not good at any of the speed and BLD stuff (and admire people who are) and I was just proposing a new idea for the community. First of all, @Ollie, you don't know me, you don't know anything about what I have done or my experiences, so why are you judging my legitimacy off of a personal experience that you had with a completely different person? I just wanted to contribute to the community. There will be a full uncut video soon, but your mere "It can't be done" philosophy is quite exactly the philosophy that deters and prevents innovation. This methodology is new, I get that. I acknowledge that my first video was not convincing. I acknowledge that I made mistakes in the second, but to make that an excuse and justification to attack my dignity and me as a person is just illogical and kind of a mean thing to do. You haven't even given this method ten minutes of your attention. It was hard for me to visualize the cube at first, but I've been working on it for a YEAR. I did my research, I used all sorts of different memorization techniques that work for more advanced memo and you just walk up and shoot down something you haven't looked into without giving it a proper chance is wrong, just because you've been active on the forums longer.
> 
> People say things are impossible all of the time. Verdes made the "impossible" V Cubes, Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation didn't make sense, there are countless instances where the impossible became possible, and that innovation is what drives human society.
> 
> ...



I'm not judging the legitimacy off of a single personal experience alone, I listed 4-5 valid reasons to think you're cheating. It was merely an example that even exceptional people don't have the kinds of mental representations you're describing, even with years of practice.

I'm saying those skills aren't as transferable as you're making out they are. I also happen to know a lot of chess players. My neuroscience dissertation was on executive functions and Rubik's cube solvers (and maybe I know a thing or two about BLD and memory, if we're waving our credentials around) so this definitely isn't me attacking you with no basis.

I read your explanation and took the time to analyse your video and I think have enough to think that you're being dishonest, in the exact way I'm not sure. I hope you prove me wrong and that you suddenly don't get another convenient camera malfunction.



Megaminxer said:


> Again, I used a technique that allows the user to memorize a 52 card deck in thirty eight seconds (current world record) and multiple universities have been investigating. BLD single, double or triple piece swaps (commutators) on a Rubik's cube can't compete.


The world record is 16 seconds and the guy doesn't use any particularly advanced methods that multiple universities are investigating. No-one in memory sports is. It uses pretty much the same mnemonic techniques that have been around for centuries.

The record was 21s in 2010 and used a two-card system which isn't complex to actually apply, so you're either spectacularly misinformed or you're lying through your teeth.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 12, 2018)

I would also like to see you prove your ability to track a mental cube in a way that cannot be faked. Maybe do what @bubbagrub suggested above. You should use an online scrambler that does not allow scrambles to be loaded, and make sure the video shows you generating the scramble, so nobody can accuse you of preparing your solution beforehand. Then if you can apply that scramble to a solved cube in your head on video (unedited) while talking us through what you are visualising and how the cube state is changing, without the use of a physical cube, that would convince me.

If you can do this you have a remarkable skill, and you have a chance to show it by doing what we suggest. Set aside the scepticism you have received so far and just go for it. I hope you can do it and am looking forward to seeing you succeed.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> If I wanted to fake something, why wouldn't I fake a BLD 17x17 solve or something that was more impressive/hadn't been done before, I mean there are BLD 9x9 solves on the internet.



The amount of disbelief you get from doing speedBLD vs. 17x17 BLD is a bit different



Megaminxer said:


> I was hoping that my method could be used by top BLD solvers as a subset, I just wanted to help out the community.



If your method is really just speedBLD, it's useless for real BLD



Megaminxer said:


> By that logic i'm sure if Giles Roux posted the first thread on his new "intuitive method" and block building hadn't been explored we would all think it was too inconvenient and hard



We did



Megaminxer said:


> Again, I used a technique that allows the user to memorize a 52 card deck in thirty eight seconds (current world record)



Ben Pridmore did 24.xx in 2009 and even that's outdated


----------



## Ollie (Apr 12, 2018)

Or just a demonstration on a 2x2x2 might work, or corners on a 3x3x3.


----------



## Ronxu (Apr 12, 2018)

Stop giving him attention lmao.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 12, 2018)

I understand the method you're describing, and I believe that it is possible, if very difficult and not very useful. What you have not convinced me of is that that you're *doing* and what you're *saying* are the same thing. In particular I note the position of the cube while solving relative to the blindfold. Most blindfolded solvers hang their heads while solving (though not universally). You hold your head up and the cube low, in a position where it would be possible to peek under the blindfold. If particular note is 3:10 in your second video, where you tilt your head up. This could be trying to recall something, or it could be trying to get a better view of the cube under the blindfold. Not saying you're cheating, but you understand how I can't rule it out. 

This would be really cool if it's true, so I want it to be real. Here's how I suggest you prove it is:

Best option: go to a competition and demonstrate it there. Be sure to record the demonstration, have someone hold a card between your face and the cube, and (ideally) borrow a blindfold from someone known in the cubing community but unknown to you, perhaps the delegate or organizer of the competition. 

Second best: make your tutorial video explaining how you do it, but also include full footage (could be a separate video) of another solve, this time with someone holding a demonstrably opaque sheet or card between your face and the puzzle, just so there is redundancy in case you accidentally peek under the blindfold. I would find it difficult to believe that you would be unable to do the first option, though. If you've got the resources to go to Morocco on spring break you've probably got the resources to get to a competition in the next couple of months. 

Good luck! I hope you can prove this is real, it'd be a fantastic skill.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I took an hour out of my valuable time (I run a company) to film a video.



Let's put the other things aside, what kind of company do you run at the age of 15?

Also, it's been said that things don't line up exactly, but let's recall.


You make a scetchy video which gives a lot of debate of wether or not it's real and the explanation isn't very clear.
You make a second video which ic better but as others stated still scetchy.
You talk about how it's archieved and things aren't completely adding up
You talk about a third video which incidentally cannot be seen
And the worst of all, you lied about a World Record

Be honest, that just sounds lied.

But on another note
I believe you with the mental cube, I can follow Square-1 scrambles in my head and know the shape/algorithms and know the result(wouldn't say that's special tho), but it's the way you describe it that is more unreal. Let's just explain every detail what's going on inside your head(and I'd love to see that following a scramble video, I guess, I'll try that too) it seems like your text explanations don't get your message across.


----------



## Chree (Apr 12, 2018)

OK, I'll start.

This video did not convince me. Then again, I already said this type of demonstration wouldn't.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 12, 2018)

I would still like to see the proof of doing it with a non-gimmicked blindfold. It looks more legit this time, but as somebody said earlier, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or something to that effect.


----------



## h2f (Apr 12, 2018)




----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 12, 2018)

h2f said:


>


I don't understand what this is supposed to mean, can someone help me out?


----------



## Ollie (Apr 12, 2018)

I'm still unsure. I'll concede that this was _probably_ a genuine blind solve, so congrats.

Although the scramble was wrong, and it looks like there's a possibility that you could be peeking underneath the blindfold (but it looks like a bit of a stretch.) But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

There's still no way to tell if this is just a speed BLD solve where you have planned the solution ahead of time, or whether you have a perfectly formed mental representation from simply memorizing the sticker positions.

I think it's just a standard speed BLD, judging from the fact that the memo/execution splits haven't improved at the same rate over the course of the year, and the confusion of all of this has come from you describing something which we know as speed BLD and you know as being something new.



Megaminxer said:


> Again, I used a technique that allows the user to memorize a 52 card deck in thirty eight seconds (current world record) and multiple universities have been investigating. BLD single, double or triple piece swaps (commutators) on a Rubik's cube can't compete.



I still want you to explain this comment.


----------



## Chree (Apr 12, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> I don't understand what this is supposed to mean, can someone help me out?



Matyas Kuti is the reason we use BLD blockers in competition. He peaked under his blindfold to get world records, but when blockers were used, couldn't reproduce results (like in this video). After that, WCA regulations were updated to require blockers for all BLD events.

It's also why most of us know that the type of blindfold OP is using is super easy to peak under. During execution, he's making some gestures that could be construed as peaking. Thus, I remain unconvinced.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 12, 2018)

Chree said:


> Matyas Kuti is the reason we use BLD blockers in competition. He peaked under his blindfold to get world records, but when blockers were used, couldn't reproduce results (like in this video).
> 
> It's also why most of us know that the type of blindfold OP is using is super easy to peak under. During execution, he's making some gestures that could be construed as peaking. Thus, I remain unconvinced.


Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!


----------



## h2f (Apr 12, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> I don't understand what this is supposed to mean, can someone help me out?



Thats how Matyas Kuti cheated his 3bld solve. And thats why there must be a cover between solver and a cube. That's my doubt about megaminxer's solve. This would be better:


----------



## Berd (Apr 12, 2018)

Well, at least that Bertie Longden guy thinks you're legit. Me tho? I'm convinced you are cheating.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 12, 2018)

If you bet your friend or someone that you couldn't get someone here to reconstruct a beginner method solve, well, you won your bet. But here it goes: 

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_R2..._CP
U_U_y_Rw2_R2_U-_Rw-_R_U2_Rw_R-_U-_Rw2_R2


Lots of unnecessary rotations here that seem to indicate physically looking around the puzzle. A whole z or x rotation might be exaggeration, but I wanted to indicate when this was obviously happening. Lots of mistakenly placed corners/edges too early on, only noticed when pieces came "into view" of the solver. Sorry, but I'm still rather suspicious of this.

But again, I'm personally less interested in you being able to do this and more interested in how your memory method would work. Specifically, what about your memory method makes it necessary to do move sequences like:

U U U y' U y' 

y' y' y y y' 

y y' y y' U' U y2 U U 

y' y' U2 U' U' y 
These sequences make it seem as if you are actually looking at the cube. If you're looking at a visualization of a cube in your mind, why all the U moves and rotations physically? Can you not do this mentally without physically manipulating a cube?


----------



## Megaminxer (Apr 12, 2018)

Kit Clement said:


> If you bet your friend or someone that you couldn't get someone here to reconstruct a beginner method solve, well, you won your bet. But here it goes:
> 
> https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_R2_F2_U2_B-_F2_U2_L2_D-_R-_D_B_L-_F-_L_R-_B-_R-_B&scheme=japanese&alg=L2_F_R-_F-_y_R_U_R-_U_L2_y2_L_//cross y-_R_U_R-_U-_U_y-_R_U_R-_//1st_corner y-_R_U_R-_U-_L-_U_L_//2nd_corner U2_//breathe R_U-_R-_U_U_U_y-_U_y-_L-_U_L_//almost_messed_up L-_U-_L_d-_L-_U_L_//3rd_corner y-_y-_y_y_y-_U_R_U-_R-_d-_L-_U_L_//re&#45;inserting_3rd_corner? d2_L-_U_L_//4th_corner d_R_U-_R-_d-_L-_U_L_//re&#45;inserting_4th_corner y-_U-_U_R_U-_R-_d-_L-_U_L_//1st_edge y_y-_y_y-_//gentle_looks_at_the_R_face U-_U_y2_U_U_R_U-_R-_d-_L-_U_L_//2nd_edge y_y_R_U-_R-_U-_y_L-_U_L_//3rd_edge y-_y-_U2_U-_U-_y_L-_U_L_y-_U_R_U-_R-_//4th_edge U_F_R_U_U-_R-_F-_F_R_U_R-_U-_F-_//_LL_EO U_R_U_R-_U_R_U2_R-_U_//sune_plus_pointing_at_corners U2_R_U2_R-_U-_R_U-_R-_//LL_CO x-_x_Lw-_U_R-_D2_R_U-_R-_D2_R2_x-_x-_x_z-_z//hand_on_left_face_(indicating_"headlight"_corners) y_Lw-_U_R-_D2_R_U-_R-_D2_R2_x-_//LL_CP U_U_y_Rw2_R2_U-_Rw-_R_U2_Rw_R-_U-_Rw2_R2
> 
> ...



I applied how I learned to play BLD chess to cubing. I only have to "deal" with a few pieces at a time. My simulated cube looks like an actual computer simulation, I can't see every side at once but am also aware of all sides. This is just like in chess BLD. It may be inefficient but it was an easier transition for me.

I had to take down the videos because my parents said I can't show my face on the internet.


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 12, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I applied how I learned to play BLD chess to cubing. I only have to "deal" with a few pieces at a time. My simulated cube looks like an actual computer simulation, I can't see every side at once but am also aware of all sides. This is just like in chess BLD. It may be inefficient but it was an easier transition for me.



I'll ask again: why all the U moves and rotations_ physically_? Can you not do this mentally without physically manipulating a cube? Even if you are only focusing on a part of the cube at the time, why do you need to make physical manipulations to re-focus a mental image?


----------



## Megaminxer (Apr 12, 2018)

Kit Clement said:


> I'll ask again: why all the U moves and rotations_ physically_? Can you not do this mentally without physically manipulating a cube?


I coincide all of the physical movements with the mental ones to prevent confusion and DNFs.


----------



## Ollie (Apr 13, 2018)

Why did you delete the comment about the current world record for memorizing cards being 38 seconds? What are the memorization techniques these universities are allegedly looking into?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Apr 13, 2018)

Ollie said:


> Feliks was caught cheating in his earliest 3x3x3 videos, you're fine here.


woah really? are they on youtube?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 13, 2018)

Daniel Lin said:


> woah really? are they on youtube?


I believe they're gone, and that's a good thing.

The norm of behavior for our community has been: if someone makes a mistake (such as lying) and eventually comes clean, admits their mistake, and truly apologizes (such as Feliks totally did), that person is welcomed back into the community and appreciated for their eventual honesty and integrity. It's only when the person refuses to admit what they've done that they are looked down upon by the community.

I for one am very glad this community works this way. People deserve a chance to be forgiven for their mistakes.


----------



## adimare (Apr 13, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I applied how I learned to play BLD chess to cubing. I only have to "deal" with a few pieces at a time. My simulated cube looks like an actual computer simulation, I can't see every side at once but am also aware of all sides. This is just like in chess BLD. It may be inefficient but it was an easier transition for me.



You have to understand that unlike your friends and family (who I'm sure believe you when you tell them about your amazing mental feats), you're speaking to like-minded people here. We all cube, most of us can solve the cube blindfolded, many of us play chess, and many of us can play chess blindfolded, so you can't get away with statements like "I apply how I learned to play BLD chess to cubing". That's like saying "I know how to ride a bike so I'm probably also an amazing surfer, it's all about the balance".

If you ever take the time to learn speedBLD and realize how difficult it is to track just a few pieces at a time, you'll hopefully understand how ridiculous your claim is.

I didn't get to see your video, but judging from Kit's reconstruction you probably just stared at a cube for 45 min and then solved it by peaking under your blindfold. I also said before that a video of you staring at a cube for a few min and then solving it proves nothing, because there's no way of telling if you were executing your method or just devising a speedBLD solution, and most of us here could replicate that video using speedBLD methods:


----------



## h2f (Apr 13, 2018)

For me it looks suspcious when I look at the end of the solve: you watch the cube, do Aperm, you've noticed thats not good, again A perm, noticed it's ok, Uperm, and the duck thing. It doesnt convinced me and I think you look under the blindfold.


----------



## Megaminxer (Apr 14, 2018)

Honestly I've given up with trying to convince people that it's possible because it's easting up too much time and no matter what I say some people will be skeptical. I would like to comment that while skepticism is okay, the personal attacks on my dignity were kind of uncalled for. I will let the idea stand, however. Everyone, feel free to attempt to learn/integrate or develop it farther. I want to remain an active and respected member of the community but it feels like I either have to renounce my method and say it's fake (which it isn't) or receive constant attacks. If people want to learn more about my method and be cordial about it, PM me. I am more of a collector than a Speed/BLD solver anyway and this was always kind of a side project for me, and I want to continue producing content on that subject, not spend that time filming a million solve videos of a method I know works.

Also, it was really, really cool to have one of my solves reconstructed by Kit Clement. Thanks for devoting the time to that, I find it incredible that people can do that with larger puzzles, where exact layers can be ambiguous at high speed, especially with solves like Kevin Hays' 7x7 wrs!


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> it feels like I either have to renounce my method and say it's fake (which it isn't) or receive constant attacks.



I've explained above two possible ways that you could prove (to me at least) that you are doing what you say. I believe that what you describe is possible, I remain unconvinced that you are doing what you say you are doing. I'm not asking you to say that it's fake, I want you to prove it's real. If it's fake, then yes, admit it's fake, but I'd rather you prove it's real.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Thanks for devoting the time to that, I find it incredible that people can do that with larger puzzles, where exact layers can be ambiguous at high speed, especially with solves like Kevin Hays' 7x7 wrs!


Kind of off topic, but big cube reconstructions are just tedious, not difficult. If a solve video is difficult to reconstruct, it's only because of poor lighting, angle or video quality, which are all factors that would affect any kind of solve video, not just big cubes. (Max Park's videos often hit all three of these factors, which is kind of annoying.)


----------



## Ollie (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Honestly I've given up with trying to convince people that it's possible because it's easting up too much time and no matter what I say some people will be skeptical. I would like to comment that while skepticism is okay, the personal attacks on my dignity were kind of uncalled for. I will let the idea stand, however. Everyone, feel free to attempt to learn/integrate or develop it farther. I want to remain an active and respected member of the community but it feels like I either have to renounce my method and say it's fake (which it isn't) or receive constant attacks. If people want to learn more about my method and be cordial about it, PM me. I am more of a collector than a Speed/BLD solver anyway and this was always kind of a side project for me, and I want to continue producing content on that subject, not spend that time filming a million solve videos of a method I know works.
> 
> Also, it was really, really cool to have one of my solves reconstructed by Kit Clement. Thanks for devoting the time to that, I find it incredible that people can do that with larger puzzles, where exact layers can be ambiguous at high speed, especially with solves like Kevin Hays' 7x7 wrs!



Why do you keep avoiding my question about your comment on memorizing playing cards? Why did you delete the comment?

What is this revolutionary memorisation method that you are using that multiple universities are looking into?


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (Apr 14, 2018)

Also isn't the WR for Speed Cards like 12 seconds? 

This guy ain't making any sense whatsoever. And his claims keep getting crazier, which is kinda sad.

Instead of getting defensive and all the "boohoo everybody hates me" attitude, why doesn't he simply prove us wrong? My guess is that we are collectively feeding a toll.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Honestly I've given up with trying to convince people that it's possible because it's easting up too much time and no matter what I say some people will be skeptical. I would like to comment that while skepticism is okay, the personal attacks on my dignity were kind of uncalled for. I will let the idea stand, however. Everyone, feel free to attempt to learn/integrate or develop it farther. I want to remain an active and respected member of the community but it feels like I either have to renounce my method and say it's fake (which it isn't) or receive constant attacks. If people want to learn more about my method and be cordial about it, PM me. I am more of a collector than a Speed/BLD solver anyway and this was always kind of a side project for me, and I want to continue producing content on that subject, not spend that time filming a million solve videos of a method I know works.




You clearly don't listen to us. We all know speedBLD is possible. It's just that what you do and what you say don't add up. I can't stand you playing the victim card and say that we attack you personally(you're actually lucky Stefan and Kirjava aren't in their prime anymore). I'm more than sure if you just said that this is speedBLD with your mental cube and special Memo, people would congratulate you but with all the posts about the Memo-University thing, you running a company at the age of 15, tracing the pieces during the solve, not answering all the questions(look at poor Ollie, he would like to know your Memo method) and other minor things you don't get on common grounds with us. Also, I have seen nobody in this thread attacking you personally, as stated above. The cubing community is the nicest community I have ever seen(even better than stereotypical canadians). Like, how should we develop your method if things contradict?


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 14, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> Honestly I've given up with trying to convince people that it's possible because it's easting up too much time and no matter what I say some people will be skeptical. I would like to comment that while skepticism is okay, the personal attacks on my dignity were kind of uncalled for. I will let the idea stand, however. Everyone, feel free to attempt to learn/integrate or develop it farther.



Since you last complained about personal attacks, not a single person in this thread has attacked your dignity. You're being highly dramatic about this, and are acting as if you _expect _praise for your ideas. It comes off like you've been highly praised for every minor accomplishment throughout your life. Don't expect praise from this forum (or anywhere, really) without bringing actual, solid evidence. You are not your ideas, there's no need to get personally defensive of them. Being able to accept other opinions and update your own beliefs is an incredibly important personality quality you will need to develop, especially if you want to become an academic.

You've mentioned that you could make a tutorial on your memory method and have been encouraged to do so by many people in this thread, or have been asked to demonstrate how you can visualize a cube in your head (rather than doing this solve) but you chose to prove to us that you personally can do this rather than argue for the validity of this as a method. You've deleted any evidence of your solves, and have deleted comments and arguments you have made (like the one Ollie has brought up) you have made in defense if your method, and are ignoring the fact that they have ever existed. How are you expecting anyone to develop this method further when you are deleting the evidence of your solves, and haven't done any work to teach others how you would memorize/execute in this way?

Again, I'm personally not interested in your ability to solve in this method, as I'm not convinced that this is a worthwhile method. However, you continue to assert that you can do this, and having reconstructed your solve, I personally believe that you could see the cube during that solve. The point that made this clearest to me were the partial rotations you made of the cube during PLL that would just barely bring the B-side visible to the line of sight. I realize that you rotate the cube physically to match the visual cube in your head, but if you couldn't see the cube, this shouldn't consistently line up with the exact physical line of sight as it did here and here. This exact angle happened a few other times before PLL, but it was most clear what you would be potentially looking at here. Not to mention that there were several instances of re-inserting the same corners/edges throughout the solve. It seemed as if you made a memory error in where a piece or which piece you were working with, and every time, you realized the error after fully inserting a piece. How did your visual cube mentally miss this initially, and how did you realize your error exactly when the algorithm for inserting the edge/corner concluded? It just seems like a lot of errors in memo were made and then corrected, which seems _incredibly _difficult to keep track of. In your visual cube, you must have believed the piece that was actually in that location to be in the other piece's spot (or somewhere else), and each time, you were able to re-position the pieces in your visual cube correctly. These two spots in the reconstruction are marked as "re-inserting 3rd corner" and "re-inserting 4th corner." If you truly realized that there was an error in what corner/edge you recognized, I could only imagine that you would have to undo these moves and correct the piece positions at that point, but you continued on and fixed the state after the fact, and did so rather quickly without having to track other pieces.

In short, your evidence for your method is shaky, your evidence of your own skill is shaky, and you continue to remove this evidence from this thread, and then hope that other people will further develop this method despite the fact that you remove your own videos, statements and arguments from this thread. I know you believe in your own abilities and your method, but you have to understand that your actions on this thread come off quite suspicious and contradictory to anyone reading this thread. It's not that we're _always _going to be skeptic of your arguments, regardless of what you do. It's that you've done very little to convince this forum.


----------



## joshsailscga (Apr 15, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I technically use the mental cube with SpeedBLD as a SUPPLEMENTARY memory technique, ie as a reinforcing backup. I only memorize the individual PIECES I need to actively move and the rest of the cube is blank.
> 
> ...anyone who thought that I was doing something more (like memorizing literally ALL of the colors, which I hope to do some day).



Wait now I'm really confused. Don't you move every piece multiple times during a normal solve? 
The all-the-colors part is the easy part. Any 3BLD solver does this for every solve.


----------



## adimare (Apr 15, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> First of all, that is what I said. It's literally SpeedBLD but you supplement it with a mental cube.


So now it's *literally* SpeedBLD? A few posts ago you weren't saying that:


Megaminxer said:


> I don't memorize Us, again I believe people don't understand my method. I only memorize the colors on the cube, imprint them onto a mental cube, and then solve that cube as normal.



Also:


Megaminxer said:


> That's why my solves look so inefficient because I don't know how to react if I mess up and undo the moves and work from there.


The thing is, when you mess up during the solving portion of SpeedBLD there's a very small chance of recovery. If you do something like insert the 3rd pair before the 2nd one, you can recover from that by undoing the insertion (executing the reverse of the alg you used to insert it) and then picking up from the 2nd pair. What no one can do, and you did multiple times during your solve, is move on to a different pair, or undo the insertion using an entirely different algorithm that would completely invalidate the memo for the rest of the solve and then continue like nothing happened.

For instance, when you reach this state, you try to insert the Red/Green edge in its place:






However, you mess up and insert the Red/White edge instead. Now, instead of undoing the insertion, you just adjust the U face and go back to inserting the Red/Green edge. You insert it from this position:






Notice how both states are completely different. So you either:

1) Memorized the entire sequence, including the bad insertion, correction, unnecessary cube rotations, and superfluous U face turns.

2) Realized you made a mistake mid solve, were able to track how all the pieces would be affected, and were able to adjust the rest of the solve, which included 3 more edge insertions, OLL, and PLL.

3) You peaked under the blindfold.

Hmmmm, I guess we'll never know...


----------



## Sajwo (Apr 15, 2018)

gg wp

now leave the forum and never come back


----------



## Ollie (Apr 15, 2018)

I'm reverting back to my original stance. The mental gymnastics by @Megaminxer in this thread is nauseating.

You're changing definitions all over the place and contradicting yourself all time, and random links to videos on completely unrelated subjects just to prove how smart you are the most nauseating part. 

Edit: Which, by the way, why would your parents not want people to see your face on a cubing video where you solve it blindfolded, but they're happy for you to post a talk you did at Yale? It doesn't add up.



Megaminxer said:


> And no, I don't see my ideas as me, I just got tipped off by people like @Ollie's blatant attacks on my honesty. It was all a misunderstanding and again I apologize to everyone *kneels and begs* who thought I was doing something crazy, which now that I look back it looks like people did.



You've avoided my question about memory methods at least three times now. I'd have thought a MENSA member would've done some basic research before boasting of using a memory method that doesn't exist.


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (Apr 15, 2018)

This kid is either completely out of touch with reality or a huge troll. Maybe both. 

Still I agree this thread is entertaining in a cringe way, lol.



FastCubeMaster said:


> (To people that possess the ability to be logical and comprehensible): At this point I think it’s time to give up, if you don’t you’re more or less wasting your time.
> 
> Nevertheless still quite entertaining to read


----------



## turtwig (Apr 15, 2018)

Megaminxer said:


> I will let the idea stand, however. Everyone, feel free to attempt to learn/integrate or develop it farther.



It would help if you didn't delete all of your posts talking about it


----------



## abunickabhi (May 29, 2018)

Why only memorise the colours, having a trace, or making a trace is very important, otherwise what would you do when you have the blindfold on?


----------



## Thom S. (May 29, 2018)

abunickabhi said:


> Why only memorise the colours, having a trace, or making a trace is very important, otherwise what would you do when you have the blindfold on?



Doesn't matter anymore because he kind of confirmed that he lied


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 4, 2018)

I just remembered this today, has he confessed anywhere yet? Also looks like he deleted most of his comments lol


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 4, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> I just remembered this today, has he confessed anywhere yet? Also looks like he deleted most of his comments lol


He went on the twistypuzzles.com forums and wrote a nice big post about how we’re generally not nice people.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 4, 2018)

One Wheel said:


> He went on the twistypuzzles.com forums and wrote a nice big post about how we’re generally not nice people.


I see this:


> I think that the real agitators of the speedsolving.com community are among its older members; people in theirs 20s and 30s, who prowl the forums looking for opportunities to start arguments with preteens. I can't tell you how many times I've seen older members ganging up on a kid whose head they thought was too big. Whatever kid they choose inevitably attempts to fight back when they feel attacked, and in doing so, they are being forced to punch impossibly above their own weight. This results in some really toxic threads, where you can see the older, self-alleged 'experts' of the community repeatedly harassing minors, demanding concessions, and generally just putting people down. It's disappointing to see, and I think it causes most of the drama we see over there.



I feel like I'm being called out here, lol.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 4, 2018)

I don’t think anyone here said anything negative about him other than he was faking it even that we didn’t believe him unless he gave more proof. Then he talks about harassment and toxicity lol. I doubt he will share his “method” with anyone anytime soon


----------



## adimare (Oct 4, 2018)

Also, the kid seemed pretty normal, he only seemed to be a pathological liar. He took down his video "proofs", but in one of them he said he was a professor of Theoretical Metaphysics at MIT and that he was sad about switching to Roux because he had just performed a 7 sec solve using CFOP on a random scramble. He then showed what the scramble was (the setup very suspiciously began with a T-Perm), and the solution was Cross: already solved (so lucky!), F2L: (R U R' y')x4, OLL: F R U R' U', PLL: T-Perm...

He says he was banned from this forum. Is that really the case? If I try to open profiles of members who've actually been banned I get an "Oops" page, but his profile loads just fine.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 4, 2018)

Not sure why this thread has got dug up again, and I find the speculation about OP's mental health somewhat distasteful. A young kid came on the forum and made some outlandish claims that he couldn't back up. Kids do silly things sometimes. He's not the first and he won't be the last. He got a little flak for it, and hopefully learned something from the experience. Now we should just let it lie.


----------



## lucarubik (Oct 4, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> Not sure why this thread has got dug up again, and I find the speculation about OP's mental health somewhat distasteful. A young kid came on the forum and made some outlandish claims that he couldn't back up. Kids do silly things sometimes. He's not the first and he won't be the last. He got a little flak for it, and hopefully learned something from the experience. Now we should just let it lie.


yup, comparing him to an adult in real life wouldve been better
and yet bad, I don't think my comment was neccesary, i dont care how you treat people here, normal kids or weird adults, its none of my bussiness anyway


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 4, 2018)

mark49152 said:


> Not sure why this thread has got dug up again



I think about this thread at least twice a month and I am not proud to admit it.


----------

