# Key idea of my methods



## Stefan (Jul 28, 2008)

I sometimes see someone writing about my method(s) and what its/their key idea is, and I just had an email conversation about it and figured I could describe my thoughts here as well. Partly because I've been wanting to write about this for a while anyway. So...

Some people say the key idea of my method(s) is that I combine orientation and permutation, and I strongly disagree. My key idea was and is:

"Solve one piece at a time"

With a heavy emphasis on "one piece at a time". Because I find setting up two (or even more) pieces hard, and when you just set up one piece it's much easier and there are so few cases that you can just *know* setups/algs for all of them. When I recall a memo element I can immediately execute without visualizing the cube and what I'm doing. It's a direct translation from memo to execution. Like when you read a book to someone you don't really have to think about what you're reading, you can just read the letters and you just know how to move your mouth to say what you read.

The "solve" part of the statement means, well, to solve a piece. Put it exactly where it belongs. And of course not in a wrong way. But I don't think I combine orientation and permutation. Instead I think I do not separate them. Subtle difference. I consider "solve" the natural thing and the separation artificial. I'd say thinking my key idea was combining orientation and permutation, that's only a historical misconception, as previously people did them separately. But that wasn't and isn't my key idea, which is working on just one piece at a time instead of several. Which made it so easy that as sort of a *side effect* it also allowed me to do orientation and permutation together.

So I'd say separating orientation and permutation but working on one piece at a time, that fits my key idea, but doing orientation and permutation together and working on two pieces at a time, that doesn't. That said, I don't have anything against solving two pieces at a time. It has its advantages, just like solving one piece at a time does. Likewise I have nothing against doing orientation and permutation separately. That also has its advantages, just like doing them together does. Gets rid of the lone just misoriented pieces right away and also makes at least M2 faster because you get all the nice cases. Everybody needs to figure out what works best for themselves.

It's not really that important, but it's been bugging me a bit and I just wanted to clear it up and also shed some light on the history and the thinking in the development process the method(s) went through.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jul 29, 2008)

I completely agree with the naturalness of "solving." I always found orientation / permutation wasteful and pointless. Anyway, well said, and I agree with this 100%


----------



## blah (Jul 29, 2008)

Well said. That's why I'm switching over to M2


----------



## Stefan (Jul 29, 2008)

I should've also said that I have nothing against doing orientation and permutation separately. That also has its advantages, just like doing them together does. Gets rid of the lone just misoriented pieces right away and also makes at least M2 faster because you get all the nice cases. (Edit: I just went back and inserted this)

The email conversation was actually with someone who orients first and then permutes in 3-cycles who wants to try M2 now, and I mentioned that he could first try it by orienting first because that might make the transition easier. Although I also told him I don't want to discourage him from doing it the "regular" way.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 29, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> I completely agree with the naturalness of "solving." I always found orientation / permutation wasteful and pointless. Anyway, well said, and I agree with this 100%


Wasteful? 

Way back when people had to think of BLD methods, they had to deal with exchanging the pieces. Most natural would be to memorize piece cycles, and solve with 3-cycle algs (because permutations work that way). It becomes very, very nice when you make all the pieces in an orbit exchangeable by with pre-orientation, which can be done relatively fast.
And doing BLD was not yet construed as some mindless, efficient activity yet. 

Then came Stefan...


----------



## F.P. (Jul 29, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> And doing BLD was not yet construed as some mindless, efficient activity yet.
> 
> Then came Stefan...



This could sound offending to some...


----------



## blah (Jul 29, 2008)

F.P. said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > And doing BLD was not yet construed as some mindless, efficient activity yet.
> ...



But it's true. Everything in cubing is inevitably gonna boil down to braindeadness in the end, because braindeadness is where speed comes from - mindless spamming.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jul 29, 2008)

blah said:


> Everything in cubing is inevitably gonna boil down to braindeadness in the end, because braindeadness is where speed comes from


There's more to cubing than just speedcubing.


----------



## blah (Jul 29, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> There's more to cubing than just speedcubing.



Enlighten me. (Okay yes of course I know about FMC, but other than that?)


----------



## ooveehoo (Jul 29, 2008)

Johannes is right. What about FMC(BLD)?


----------



## Stefan (Jul 29, 2008)

Can't speak for others but it didn't offend me and Lucas certainly knew it wouldn't. Making blindsolving easy and mindless was/is pretty much my goal.

Also, only the *usage* of the methods is mindless. Developing/learning/preparing/practicing methods still requires effort. Just like in speedsolving. People can solve in 15 seconds while talking with someone, but it took a lot to get there.

Or did you mean it could be offending to some that it sounded a bit like there was no serious blindcubing before me? I'd understand and agree with that.


----------



## blah (Jul 29, 2008)

ooveehoo said:


> Johannes is right. What about FMC(BLD)?



I don't think you got what I was trying to say.

Where's the argument for claiming that Johannes is right:confused: I _already explicitly_ mentioned FMC, but that's the _only_ event that's not timed in competitions (well, sorta, 1 hour is more like a "time limit" than a "time"). And BLD _is_ about speed, why else would we be timing it?

What I meant was in a few years time, all methods developed for all events except FMC would be pretty much braindead because braindeath is the key to speed. And I'm talking mainstream methods. I know Johannes is a Petrus user, but how many fast guys use Petrus?


----------



## dolphyfan (Jul 29, 2008)

blah: "braindeath is the key to speed....... but how many fast guys use petrus?"
if I read and understood this statement correctly you were saying that braindeath is the key to speed and then you made a reference to the petrus. In my understanding when you made the refernce to petrus you were implying that it is a method which doesnt have the characterictic of braindeath. But petrus although its starts intuitive and you solve the f2l intuitively, after you have used the method for some time what started out as intuition turns into "learned cases". I hope you understand that.


----------



## joey (Jul 29, 2008)

Same as F2L.


----------



## ooveehoo (Jul 29, 2008)

blah said:


> ooveehoo said:
> 
> 
> > Johannes is right. What about FMC(BLD)?
> ...



I just posted it almost simultaneously with you, so I hadn't seen it.


----------



## Tyson (Jul 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> I should've also said that I have nothing against doing orientation and permutation separately. That also has its advantages, just like doing them together does. Gets rid of the lone just misoriented pieces right away and also makes at least M2 faster because you get all the nice cases. (Edit: I just went back and inserted this)
> 
> The email conversation was actually with someone who orients first and then permutes in 3-cycles who wants to try M2 now, and I mentioned that he could first try it by orienting first because that might make the transition easier. Although I also told him I don't want to discourage him from doing it the "regular" way.



Maybe he wants to try M2 because he thinks you're cool? Maybe he thinks you're so spectacular, he would spend $40 USD on some trophies for an event in your honor?


----------



## blah (Jul 30, 2008)

dolphyfan said:


> blah: "braindeath is the key to speed....... but how many fast guys use petrus?"
> if I read and understood this statement correctly you were saying that braindeath is the key to speed and then you made a reference to the petrus. In my understanding when you made the refernce to petrus you were implying that it is a method which doesnt have the characterictic of braindeath. But petrus although its starts intuitive and you solve the f2l intuitively, after you have used the method for some time what started out as intuition turns into "learned cases". I hope you understand that.



Yeah, I know that actually, because I was a Petrus user myself for almost half a year before I switched to Fridrich.



Tyson said:


> Maybe he wants to try M2 because he thinks you're cool? Maybe he thinks you're so spectacular, he would spend $40 USD on some trophies for an event in your honor?



Maybe he's Tyson?


----------

