Message #1857

From: schuma <mananself@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Blindfolded hypersolving
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:52:07 -0000

Matt,

My 3x3x3 method is pretty basic. I first solve the orientation of edges and corners, and then permute corners and then edges. For permutations I only use J-perm. So it’s based on 2-cycles rather than 3-cycles. Somebody told me afterward that my method is basically the old Pochmann’s method. On memo I remember the permutation of edges using a sequence of numbers, and everything else (orientations of all pieces and the perm of corners) is memorized directly without any number/letter. I don’t use images or journey tricks.

When I move from 3x3x3 to 2^4, I can see some difficulties. There’s no 2-cycle on 2^4. I’m debating on whether I should use 3-cycles, or two 2-cycles. But I don’t think it’s a big deal. On 3x3x3 I also tried 3-cycles. I chose the 2-cycle because it’s even simpler. But I think I can switch to 3-cycles without much effort.

The orientations in 2^4 are much harder to remember than in 3x3x3. I haven’t thought carefully about how to memorize them.

Good luck on your next attempt of 2^4!

Nan

— In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew" <damienturtle@…> wrote:
>
> Nan,
>
> Thanks :). That result was my personal best though, I’m still fairly new to multiBLD and I was fairly convinced I would mess up.
>
> I see, I thought when I read you post that you were more experienced at BLD, but since you seem to have such a talent for puzzles I’m sure you will advance quickly. I agree that it’s more fun to figure it out yourself first, and considering BLD in 4D was certainly one of the more interesting experiences I have had with these puzzles. Can you tell me what systems you use for solving and memorising? Using a very basic system for either will hinder your attempts at 4D BLD, but neither do you need an advanced system. Personally on 3x3x3, I use 3-cycles to solve (mostly BH, which is fairly easy if you know how to use commutators), and letter pair images/journeys for memorising.
>
> I just finished another attempt at the 2^4, and I’ll give a couple of minor pointers (no spoilers for methods) which could be useful to avoid the two silly mistakes I just made to cause a DNF. Firstly, make sure the twist speed is slow enough that you can easily follow the twists you make, and verify that every twist is what you intended. Secondly, if you need to reorient one or two pieces in place and think of doing it as CW or CCW from a certain viewpoint, make sure that its the same viewpoint you use for deciding which algorithm to use for the reorientation. I had 2 pieces left after placing all the pieces which were in place but misorientated with one sticker solved in each. I tried to rotate them the wrong way (I memorised and recalled correctly, but memorised it from the wrong viewpoint and therefore CW and CCW were switched), and then made a mistake in the algorithm by doing one of my twists in the wrong direction and didn’t notice. I guess I was out of practice a little, but that’s no excuse. Next attempt should be a success at last, unless I make any more silly errors.
>
> Also, I encourage anyone else in this group who is interested in BLD to try this, it really is fun. And for those who aren’t interested in BLD: try it, it’s fun, interesting, and good for showing off to non-cubers ;-).
>
> Btw, would anyone like me to post my method here or upload a typed up tutorial? Should I wait until it has been discussed a little? Obviously if I posted it I would add a suitable spoiler warning for anyone wanting to try themselves first (which I recommend).
>
> Matt
>
> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "schuma" <mananself@> wrote:
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > Your multiBLD record is so impressive! Congratulations! I’m sure you’ve been able to solve 2^4 BLD long ago, and 3^4 is in reach for you.
> >
> > I’m just a beginner on BLD. I did my first 3x3x3 BLD only a week ago. I’m certainly not capable to memorize six 3^3’s or a 3^4. My target is 2^4 BLD perhaps with macros. That’s hard enough for me. Currently I’m not sure what method I should use for 2^4. Since looking for a method is part of the fun, I would rather wait until I find it before exchanging notes with you.
> >
> > Nan
>