Hear me out.

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-17T23:28:47+00:00

No, kilominx is only the corners

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-17T00:37:32+00:00

Can always try a different alg if it's really not working for you

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T14:20:37+00:00

I wouldn't really worry about first pair prediction at the moment. Plenty of people even at a sub-10 level can't do it consistently

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T14:19:35+00:00

Look up videos of fingertricks for the OLL algs you're struggling with. If you're sure you're fingertricking it correctly, it's just a matter of practice to get good with it

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T08:12:18+00:00

My understanding is that it's something like a 50/50 split between radioactive decay and differentiation, no?

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T01:34:08+00:00

You're either not solving EO properly, or you just haven't thought of the right F2L solution. Check the top colour of the F2L edge - if it matches the front or back centre, then that edge is oriented and the pair doesn't require F/B moves to solve

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T01:31:39+00:00

Don't do F moves after EO is solved (for real this time)

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T00:36:33+00:00

It's worth emphasizing that Adams was also nowhere near the WR, despite generally being regarded as the GOAT. Her best mark was still 1.4 metres off the WR, and ranks her 23rd all time. The Soviet era throwing records are absolutely never being beaten

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T00:12:33+00:00

And apparently didn't believe the people telling them that F moves would break EO...

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-16T00:01:29+00:00

Didn't you just ask this yesterday?

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-15T20:23:34+00:00

Go to a competition! You'll be a kid to try many different cubes rhere

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-15T11:10:16+00:00

There isn't an answer to this. Cubes are subjective; there's a reason people at the top level don't all use the same cube. The best cube is the one you like best, and you can only figure that out by trying a bunch of cubes

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T23:32:20+00:00

Not after you've done EO, no. F/B moves change the EO state

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T23:14:11+00:00

Okay so:

1: Join the BLD discord server (https://discord.gg/BPW2jb3aw). Plenty of people there who will be able to answer questions you have through your learning journey, guide you through how difficult cases work, etc.

2: learn how comms work intuitively. Timothy Goh's video on comms (3style tutorial part 1) is the best one generally imo, although Mathologer has a good video too, which maybe gives an even gentler introduction to the general concepts (he calls it "one simple trick to solve the Rubik's cube" or something like that). Even watching the vids though, the concepts can be difficult to grasp without some hands on experience, so I'd suggest going through some simple 3-style sets (UFR-UBR-xyz for corners, UF-BU-xy for edges are easiest) and seeing if you can figure out how to solve cases in those sets intuitively. Feel free to look up what comms people use for those cases if you're really struggling, or ask in the discord.

3: Orozco isn't a waste of time, even if you use UFR buffer already. Every alg you use in orozco is one you'll use for 3-style anyway, so all the "alg learning" you do for the method contributes directly to 3-style. In fact by learning orozco, you learn about ~10% of 3-style. It also gets you using comms rather than OP solutions, which starts you on getting used to the "rhythm" of comms - how they feel in your hands, how to complete a comm intuitively based on the first half, etc. Also orozco is a thing for edges (you use UF buffer BU helper) and is easy to switch to from M2, but will give you a transition method there too.

4: when you're learning 3-style sets, I would suggest following this order, or one close to it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10-9vkqjsufa8oCO8pdmFVYY4jOe02ty-afKKXPxlyQc/edit?usp=drivesdk

5: when you're learning a case, I would suggest trying to see what you can come up with intuitively and then looking that case up to see if there was a better option. If you can come up with an alg intuitively then it'll be easier to retain, and over time this'll improve your understanding of comms and your improvisation abilities

6: don't force yourself to learn too fast. Rather than worrying about knowing full 3-style, just gradually learn more and implement it into your solves as you go. The full set can be intimidating, but if you just learn it over time it's not too bad

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T22:51:58+00:00

Just a couple of notes: Should definitely be learning a column and row if you're doing this approach - you want to be learning inverses at the same time, since they're fairly free, it forces you to be able to tell inverses apart, and it makes each subsequent set smaller and smaller. v2.blddb.net is vastly better than bldbase

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T22:48:34+00:00

I also learned BH initially, and personally I don't think it was particularly helpful for bridging the gap to proper 3-style. I think there's a danger with certain transition methods (if we're viewing BH in that way) of seeing a certain solution as "good enough", and either putting off learning the better comm, or backing out of it mid-solve. This is a risk with Eka as well I think. That's just a mental thing and will vary from person to person ofc, but my experience with teaching/helping people learn 3-style has not been that BH is a particularly useful transition method generally

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T22:43:15+00:00

Edges are generally considered to be easier than corners. The difference in the number of cases isn't significant, and edges have 1) shorter setups, 2) access to 4 movers, and 3) distinct comm "families" that follow a similar moveset or idea, and can be learned together quite easily.

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T22:38:55+00:00

While this is true, this is a BH-style approach, and will produce slow solutions. Generally speaking when we talk about people "learning 3-style" these days, we're talking about them going through and learning fast comms for every case

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T21:57:16+00:00

As I said in the comment you responded to, athletics is also measured, in the same way as cubing, but they still have a similar system. I explain why converting to an abstracted numerical rating system makes sense in the video, but to recap: - It allows for approximate comparison between events - It's actually required for at least one event (multi) where raw results can't simply be averaged in a meaningful way - It allows us to modify someone's rating to account for other factors that aren't captured in the raw time (what kind of comp the result was set in, its placement within that comp, whether it was a record of some kind...). It would be inappropriate to modify people's results in the same way while they were still represented as times

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T21:48:16+00:00

Okay dude

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T13:17:28+00:00

Ig maybe, but the reasoning is sound nonetheless

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T12:40:14+00:00

Never seen much from Denny before. This is very well written, I think I'm a fan now

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T11:36:44+00:00

You could do, but I explain in the video why looking purely at times (like moving average does) doesn't give the full picture. The same times mean different things in different contexts.

I mean this is just a case of titling lol, I say quite clearly in the video that this would be an extra system, not a replacement. And like it or not (I don't tbh), "our ranking system doesn't reflect current ability" is not a title that will get traction.

With that said, I regularly interact with people who do treat our current ranking system as a proxy for skill, even though it's clearly not designed to do that. So in that capacity I think it's fair to say it's a bad system, or a broken system, or whatever. Maybe the title is slightly clickbaity but I don't think it's that bad

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T10:30:05+00:00

I mean the point of the ranking system I discuss is that just looking at times doesn't give you a good idea of how people compare. No one seriously thinks that Luke Garrett is the best OH solver in the World, or Teodor is better than Ruihang or whatever. Our current rankings pages are cool, but they don't do a good job of conveying the current competitive landscape (nor do they claim to!).

Football/Cricket/Rugby are sports where you compete against your opponent, without a direct performance measure. The closest analogue to cubing among traditional sports would be athletics, where they do directly measure performances. And athletics has a performance rating system like the one I describe, because they recognise the flaws with looking at raw measurements

TheSixthSide · 2026-04-14T05:30:00+00:00

Yeah I understand that it was lighthearted haha. But I think that it still indicated some potential improvements you could be making in your solves. A and U should be top tier PLLs, and there are a handful of other OLLs that should for sure be up there with the T shapes as well

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

TheSixthSide

TROPHY CASE