No More Parity in Blind Solves

I use M2 for edges and Old Pochmann for corners. I’ve been using a number system instead of Speffz for my blind solves in order to make better use of my PAO. The system of using letters just never worked well for me, especially when you have pairs like QK, CK, KC, KQ, etc. which need different words; or pairs like XH which are hard to find words for.

Using the PAO system was slightly inhibited because I needed to memorize in pairs to keep track of parity, so I had to use PO. However, I found this video which explains a way to avoid parity:

The idea is to look at corners and recognize if you have an even or odd number of corner swaps. If it’s odd, you take care of parity during the edge solving by solving UB and UL into their swapped positions, which always gives you an even number of edge swaps.

Thought this might be useful for anyone doing blind solves, your solve becomes more efficient and you aren’t restricted to memorizing in letter (or number) pairs. I’ll definitely be using full PAO for my solves from now on.

Couldn’t you do that anyways by simply counting number of loci? If you use PAO you get three per location, so every other loci you got an even number… 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18

So if you end on P or O in and odd location or A in an even location you have to do a parity fix.

Oh, just to clarify… when I say “if you end on” I mean after the first half, so edges in your case, not the very end of memorization.

I guess I could; I’ve just been using PO to keep track of parity more easily. This way is foolproof and I don’t have to keep track of pairs, so there’s complete freedom in how you chunk the information to be memorized (without worrying about going back to count the information later). And again, it’s more efficient than solving the edges and using a parity alg to swap them later.

I thought you’re doing M2 for your edges… what about targets on the M2 slice then? FU will be in BD every other time you do M2… don’t you still have to keep track of that to know which buffer to shoot to?

I switch the target during memorization so I don’t have to worry about it, but I guess if you’re used to memorizing and then switching during execution you would have to count.