# TuRBo Edges versus M2 Edges



## CT_Warrior (Jun 5, 2009)

I'm going to start learning BLD now, and I have some questions about the two edge methods.

Which has an easier memo?
Which uses the least moves (on average)?
Which is faster (on the long run / overall)?

I'd also like to ask the same questions for 3OP and R2 corners.


----------



## byu (Jun 5, 2009)

*Which has easier memo?*
TuRBo, just because M2 requires slice memorization

*Which uses the least moves (on average)?*
Probably M2.

*Which is faster?*
In the long run, TuRBo.

If you're looking for edges, look at these tutorials:

TuRBo Edges (Part 1):





M2/R2 (Part 1):





I don't recommend TuRBo to start off with though. It's difficult.

As for corners:

*Which has an easier memo?*
R2

*Which uses the least moves (on average)?*
R2

*Which is faster?*
Depends.

3OP Corners





R2 Corners


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 5, 2009)

byu said:


> *Which has easier memo?*
> TuRBo, just because M2 requires slice memorization
> 
> *Which uses the least moves (on average)?*
> ...



Wrong, wrong, and wrong. 
I thought you are a BLD master?

M2 memo is the same; the slice really does not matter.

M2 uses more moves usually. 

M2 is faster, even in the long run. Especially if you modify it into deadalnix's version.


----------



## Faz (Jun 5, 2009)

Guys, it's just opinion
My opinion is that M2 is faster to execute.


----------



## Escher (Jun 5, 2009)

I <3 turbo. Its a 3 cycling method, which is nice as you only have to really execute 5 or 6 algorithms (just going on Eriks example solve) to solve the edges. Using UF as a buffer is also pretty good, and only 0-3 set up moves is cool. In STM, the avg move count of the algorithms is 8.5, so I'm *guessing* it takes around 50-70 moves to solve the edges, which isn't half bad. Particularly if you compare it to classic pochmann  
Keep in mind I am a turbo noob though.

M2 is also a great method. Like others said, it has some good benefits, particularly the 'swapping alg' as M2, as its 14x shorter than the classic pochmann swapping alg. I dunno about setup moves though, or the average move count. Example solve 1 is 63 moves in stefans site and solve 2
is 55 (obviously STM), though both seem to be easier than normal scrambles, just looking at the algs. 

In the end its probably personal preference. I'd suggest learning both though, so you can make up your mind properly. It looks like you used to use Old Pochmann, so perhaps the transition to M2 might be easier? Not really sure.


----------



## Erik (Jun 5, 2009)

Actually you could do with only 2 setup moves too for TuRBo if you learn to solve with FL and FR and UB and UR and UB and UL etc etc as your shooting points, its quit easy to get used to I think. It's not even learning more algs, it's like solving F2L pairs from the back and left etc too.


----------



## CT_Warrior (Jun 5, 2009)

Thanks guys. I think I'll learn M2, and use R2 for corners since I already started to learn M2 and the moves are friendlier for OH if I ever urge for OH BLD.

What am I supposed to do when UB is in DF, and DF is in UB and all other pieces are solved?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2009)

CT_Warrior said:


> What am I supposed to do when UB is in DF, and DF is in UB and all other pieces are solved?


Smack the person that made your cube invalid.


----------



## CT_Warrior (Jun 5, 2009)

Oh, I didn't mean the corners, I meant just edges being solved.
I'm not really attempting any blindsolves until I can solve using M2 sighted, but sometimes the DF piece is already at UB, and I have the UB piece in the buffer. I still have a lot of kinks to work out. x_x


----------



## Stefan (Jun 5, 2009)

If only two edges are left to swap (like your DF vs UB), swap them along with swapping two corners. When/how you do that depends on how you solve the corners. If you do use R2, you can just use the parity fix alg for the M2/R2 method, for example the one I have on my page about it.


----------



## byu (Jun 6, 2009)

Stefan- is it easier/faster to solve M2/R2 parity with:

r2 F2 U (N-Permutation) U' F2


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2009)

byu said:


> Stefan- is it easier/faster to solve M2/R2 parity with:
> 
> r2 F2 U (N-Permutation) U' F2



Brian - is that a question.


----------



## byu (Jun 6, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > Stefan- is it easier/faster to solve M2/R2 parity with:
> ...



Yes, that is a question, sorry for not including a question mark.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 6, 2009)

Well, I can't tell whether it's easier/faster because different people prefer different algs (though I think I like mine better).


----------



## dbeyer (Jun 7, 2009)

Why do you look at the algorithms move count, and ignore the setups?
I feel as though the a dedicated devotion to a large scale method, that really does have a low move count average. Where you can solve every case optimally. 

Rather than working on making fast algorithms, why not practice triggers? Which have a broader application to solving. You are inhibiting yourself by limiting the algorithms, rather than expanding your understanding of concepts.

Later,
DB


----------



## CT_Warrior (Jun 14, 2009)

After one or two attempts a day, I'm now able to solve the edges blindfolded.
Thanks guys. 

I still haven't fully decided on whether to use 3OP and R2 yet though.

How does R2 corners with the worst cases compare to 3OP in number of moves and fluent execution time?


----------



## byu (Jun 15, 2009)

Well, the worst R2 cases are just algorithms, you need 3 algs and their inverses, and they're pretty fast to execute.


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 31, 2010)

This thread has made me think twice about TuRBo edges. I just don't know, I think with practice TuRBo would become quite fast, but after hearing all the M2 fans .

I'm going to learn TuRBo Edges and see how it goes, after I've mastered TuRBo Edges I will learn M2 and *maby* master that. I'll see which one is faster for me.

I hope learning TuRBo isn't ganna be a waste of time, if I change to M2.


----------



## rubikmaster (Aug 20, 2015)

5 year old bump ftw. I know I'm probably the 500th person to ask this but I've been having trouble at finding an accurate anwser to this question even though I have pretty good knowledge of both of these methods and I've looked at a few a threads like these. I was not able to find any newer threads on TuRBo vs M2, so hopefully, there should be more people who are advanced enough in M2 and/or TuRBo now and have the proper knowledge to determine which one is faster and has a bigger potential for getting faster. 

I realise that TuRBo makes it much easier to gradually transition into BH (3-style) but I'm not planning on doing that any time soon. I'm just looking for a good method I could stick to. I was planning on posting this in the One Answer Question forum but I now realise that this is a topic that really needs to be discussed in depth.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 20, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> 5 year old bump ftw. I know I'm probably the 500th person to ask this but I've been having trouble at finding an accurate anwser to this question even though I have pretty good knowledge of both of these methods and I've looked at a few a threads like these. I was not able to find any newer threads on TuRBo vs M2, so hopefully, there should be more people who are advanced enough in M2 and/or TuRBo now and have the proper knowledge to determine which one is faster and has a bigger potential for getting faster.
> 
> I realise that TuRBo makes it much easier to gradually transition into BH (3-style) but I'm not planning on doing that any time soon. I'm just looking for a good method I could stick to. I was planning on posting this in the One Answer Question forum but I now realise that this is a topic that really needs to be discussed in depth.



I know tons of people who are super fast with just M2 and OP, but I think TuRBo is easier to understand, faster, and yeah easier transition into full 3 style.


----------



## rubikmaster (Aug 20, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I know tons of people who are super fast with just M2 and OP, but I think TuRBo is easier to understand, faster, and yeah easier transition into full 3 style.



I really appreciate your anwser. Which corner method would you recommend for more advanced BLD solvers who aren't ready to make the switch to BH yet? (sorry for going off-topic)


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 20, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> I really appreciate your anwser. Which corner method would you recommend for more advanced BLD solvers who aren't ready to make the switch to BH yet? (sorry for going off-topic)



There is R2, but most people say its an 
unnecessary step. Other than that, there arent really any intermediate corner methods. OP TuRBo or OP M2 can get low 1 minute times.


----------



## rubikmaster (Aug 20, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> There is R2, but most people say its an
> unnecessary step. Other than that, there arent really any intermediate corner methods. OP TuRBo or OP M2 can get low 1 minute times.



Yeah, I've been thinking about how weird it is that people usually just switch from OP to 3-style, from the most basic to the most advanced method. R2 seems pretty cool, even though people seem to have mixed opinions about it. I still need to look into it. I've looked into 3OP but it looks uncomfortable and I feel like R2 would be superior in terms of speed. But I think I'm just gonna stick with TuRBo/OP for now.


----------



## Sessinator (Aug 20, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> Yeah, I've been thinking about how weird it is that people usually just switch from OP to 3-style, from the most basic to the most advanced method. R2 seems pretty cool, even though people seem to have mixed opinions about it. I still need to look into it. I've looked into 3OP but it looks uncomfortable and I feel like R2 would be superior in terms of speed. But I think I'm just gonna stick with TuRBo/OP for now.



On the topic of R2 corners...

I learned R2 (in late 2008) mostly because...
1. At the time there weren't as many great resources for comms/3style/BH out there. 
2. OP corners got boring - R2 seemed more fun!

Now that there are more accessible resources for learning the most advanced method, R2 isn't really worth your time to switch to. If you actually want to start to get more serious with bld and learn a faster execution method for corners, it's probably best to use your time making the switch to 3style/comms/BH. 

Also I think it's safe to say that a switch from OP to 3OP corners would be going a step backwards. Having to memorize both the orientation and permutation of pieces, and then having to orient and permute them separately is more work than is necessary.

As daunting as it may seem at first, comms start to make sense with practice. Try to find a comfortable learning pace to get through the cycles. You don't have to learn them all at once. You can work at it gradually! Start with a few cases and try to incorporate them into your solves alongside your old corner method. It might be useful to have a list that another blder has made at hand. You could use that list to cross-check solutions for cycles that you come up with, and in doing so perhaps learn more efficient or finger-trick friendly ways to construct them. It might also be useful for checking out solutions to tricky cases. Also, make sure to force yourself to use the comms that you've learned in your solves. It may slow you down initially, but it should pay off in the long run.


----------



## rubikmaster (Aug 20, 2015)

Sessinator said:


> On the topic of R2 corners...
> 
> I learned R2 (in late 2008) mostly because...
> 1. At the time there weren't as many great resources for comms/3style/BH out there.
> ...



Well, the main reason I was thinking of switching to R2 later on was because I thought it could speed up the process of achieveing sub-2 and most people say you shouldn't even consider BH until you're at 1:30, so I thought it could be a beneficial step up. Or at least, an okay-ish method for someone who doesn't plan to get super fast at BLD. 

But I think I'm going to take your advice and start gradually incorporating BH for corners in my solves once my times begin to stagnate, even if they may be way slower than 1:30 at that point, since it will benefit me in the long run. The thing that was sort of off-putting about BH was the sheer amount of time I'd have to put into it to fully learn it. But slowly learning new cases as I go along makes a lot more sense than trying to master R2.

Thanks for the insightful response.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 20, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> I really appreciate your anwser. Which corner method would you recommend for more advanced BLD solvers who aren't ready to make the switch to BH yet? (sorry for going off-topic)



I'm using the Boomerang Method.


----------



## TDM (Aug 20, 2015)

If you're thinking of learning R2: all the setups use <L, U>. I think L2 could be faster than R2.


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 20, 2015)

It's not actually that hard to switch from M2/OP to 3-style directly. The only reason I would recommend learning another method in between is if you want to use different buffers. Or if you don't plan on ever learning 3-style.

Boomerang has a preorientation step just like 3OP, so I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 20, 2015)

M2 is actually a very good method to move to 3-style from. 

Because you can do it gradually by adding easy 3-style cases first and then add more and more as you progress. You dont have to do all that in one big chunk but you can continue to improve gradually 

I learned 3-style almost accidentally for edges. I just started learning advanced M2 and then just kept adding more tricks to my solves as I "invented" them. And the one day I just noticed that I was practically solving 3-style already...


----------



## Sessinator (Aug 20, 2015)

rubikmaster said:


> But I think I'm going to take your advice and start gradually incorporating BH for corners in my solves once my times begin to stagnate, even if they may be way slower than 1:30 at that point, since it will benefit me in the long run. The thing that was sort of off-putting about BH was the sheer amount of time I'd have to put into it to fully learn it. But slowly learning new cases as I go along makes a lot more sense than trying to master R2.
> 
> Thanks for the insightful response.



No problem! Though I don't think it would take long at all to learn R2, there are some drawbacks such as having to keep track of where you are on the R slice which is similar to how you must keep track of the M slice with M. Though it's not much of a problem with practice. 

In retrospect I'm happy with my decision at the time to switch from OP to R2. It isn't really necessary to do so, but I think R2 provided a nice transition for me into comms in a way that's similar to how M2 and advanced M2 provides a nice transition to edge comms. I like the way the R2 method works a lot more than how the OP corner method works. I put some brief thoughts on R2 a while back in another post *here*.



Tao Yu said:


> It's not actually that hard to switch from M2/OP to 3-style directly. The only reason I would recommend learning another method in between is if you want to use different buffers. Or if you don't plan on ever learning 3-style..



Another good point to bring up! I switched from having DF/ULB as buffers to DF/DFR as buffers when I switched to R2. I've heard having adjacent buffers can make it more convenient to set up to do some more advanced parity fixes, though I haven't looked into much.


----------

