# Knowing which pieces are solved in BLD



## Eugenis (Nov 12, 2016)

Whenever I'm solving BLD, I never know which pieces are unsolved when I break into a new cycle. Most of the time I hold my fingers next to the pieces I solved, but I only have 10 fingers and there are 12 edges. Any tips on knowing which pieces are solved easily?


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 12, 2016)

Try putting fingers on only the first 4-6 edges you solve, then rely on memory for the rest. 

It also helps if you have preferred pieces to break into a new cycle. So after you have used 6 fingers, make a mental note that say FL and BR still aren't solved, if you like to start cycles on those pieces. Then if you don't hit one of those before the end of your cycle it's easier to remember it's still unsolved.


----------



## newtonbase (Nov 12, 2016)

You can cover 2 pieces with one finger or cover the corner they intersect but before long you won't need to bother as you'll just know.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 12, 2016)

There are 12 edges, but one is your buffer and once you've memorised the 11th edge, there's no need to remember which edges are unsolved, so you actually don't need a finger for that edge.. That means 10 fingers is always enough, but the problem is maintaining a grip. To keep a better grip, I notice when all 4 pieces on a side have been solved, and then just remember that that face is solved which frees up a few fingers.

As you get faster, your memo time will reduce rapidly, which means you don't have to hold the information in your head for as long.

After I switched from Old Pochmann to M2, I started only using fingers for pieces on the right and left faces, and mentally taking note of M slice pieces as I come across them. This makes it really easy to keep a decent grip on the cube. 


@mark49152's suggestion of having preferred targets for new cycle breaks is a really good idea, because even if you find you don't use them to make tracking unsolved pieces easier, it still helps a lot not having to make decisions while trying to memorise everything.


----------



## Eugenis (Nov 12, 2016)

Thanks for the replies! If anyone has anymore advice feel free to respond more if you would like.
@AlphaSheep I plan to learn Turbo after OP because many sources say it is more efficient and easier set up moves than M2.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 12, 2016)

Eugenis said:


> I plan to learn Turbo after OP because many sources say it is more efficient and easier set up moves than M2.


I don't agree with those sources, unless someone can present a comparative analysis to prove them right.

First - for TuRBo you need to set up two pieces each time, which is usually less easy than setting up and undoing one piece. Even when it's more move efficient, you need to think about two pieces not one. Secondly, once set up, you perform an alg, which is less efficient than the two M2 moves required to solve those two pieces individually with M2. 

Usually when people recommend TuRBo it's because it uses UF as a buffer instead of DF, and some people say that's better for transitioning to 3-style later; but others are very fast with DF buffer so there's no right answer on that.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 12, 2016)

Eugenis said:


> Thanks for the replies! If anyone has anymore advice feel free to respond more if you would like.
> @AlphaSheep I plan to learn Turbo after OP because many sources say it is more efficient and easier set up moves than M2.


I read the same sources and made the same decision. I learnt TuRBo and used it for about a month before moving to M2.

What I really struggled with is accuracy, because setting up two pieces simultaneously meant that I had to remember the order of the setup moves. With TuRBo, you'll often do 4 or 5 move setups, a 10 move alg, then undo the setups to solve two targets for a total of 18-20 moves, or 9 or 10 moves per target. With M2, each target is typically 3 move setup, 1 move alg and then undo setup for a single target at a time, which is just 7 moves per target. 

Also, because you only need to set up one target at a time for M2, there are only a handful of setup moves (21 in total) which become ingrained in muscle memory very quickly. In TuRBo, you have to setup two pieces at a time, which gives 432 different combinations of targets, which take a lot longer to get into muscle memory. Even after a couple dozen solves with TuRBo, I found thinking of setups a considerable mental effort, whereas with M2, it was automatic and effortless after only 3 or 4 solves.

In other words, contrary to what those sources say, M2 is both more efficient and has easier set up moves.


----------



## newtonbase (Nov 12, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> I read the same sources and made the same decision. I learnt TuRBo and used it for about a month before moving to M2.





AlphaSheep said:


> What I really struggled with is accuracy, because setting up two pieces simultaneously meant that I had to remember the order of the setup moves. With TuRBo, you'll often do 4 or 5 move setups, a 10 move alg, then undo the setups to solve two targets for a total of 18-20 moves, or 9 or 10 moves per target. With M2, each target is typically 3 move setup, 1 move alg and then undo setup for a single target at a time, which is just 7 moves per target.
> 
> Also, because you only need to set up one target at a time for M2, there are only a handful of setup moves (21 in total) which become ingrained in muscle memory very quickly. In TuRBo, you have to setup two pieces at a time, which gives 432 different combinations of targets, which take a lot longer to get into muscle memory. Even after a couple dozen solves with TuRBo, I found thinking of setups a considerable mental effort, whereas with M2, it was automatic and effortless after only 3 or 4 solves.
> 
> In other words, contrary to what those sources say, M2 is both more efficient and has easier set up moves.


There's some nice advanced M2 cases that will allow for solving 2 at a time too that can be learned later on.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 12, 2016)

I use my fingers for keeping track of pieces for everything, including centers/wings for BBLD, and I even did it for edges on megaminx. Most people tell me it's not worth it, but I'm sticking with it, and it's definitely possible with some thought and practice. Can't remember if I made a tutorial for tracking wings a while back, I think I did. I can check if anyone wants (or you can search for it maybe).


----------



## Berd (Nov 12, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> I read the same sources and made the same decision. I learnt TuRBo and used it for about a month before moving to M2.
> 
> What I really struggled with is accuracy, because setting up two pieces simultaneously meant that I had to remember the order of the setup moves. With TuRBo, you'll often do 4 or 5 move setups, a 10 move alg, then undo the setups to solve two targets for a total of 18-20 moves, or 9 or 10 moves per target. With M2, each target is typically 3 move setup, 1 move alg and then undo setup for a single target at a time, which is just 7 moves per target.
> 
> ...


I don't think there are any cases that need more that 3(?) moves to set up in turbo.


----------

