«Как мне быстро научиться слепому десятипальцевому методу?»
«Как научиться быстро, печатать?»
«Как много времени занимает обучение слепому методу печати?»
«Каких скоростей можно добиться слепым десятипальцевым методом и зрячим?»
И так далее.

Для стандартных зон «Русской» раскладки: Прыжки через ряд
- Эти 24 сочетания нельзя в полной мере назвать «без возврата», так как они происходят через основную позицию (за исключением правого мизинца), отличие происходит только в том, что желательно выполнять их без задержки в точке основной позиции.

-Указательные пальцы в центральной зоне имеют, самые часто используемые сочетания, движения которые лучше делать без возврата в основную позицию.
Таких сочетаний 16: НЬ, ЬН, ГТ, ТГ, ЕМ, МЕ, КИ, ИК, КЕ, ЕК, МИ, ИМ, ТЬ, ЬТ, ГН, НГ
Указательные без возвращений

Ну и ещё 6 сочетаний можно потренировать на правый мизинец ЗХ, ХЗ, ЪЗ, ЗЪ, ХЪ, ЪХ хотя где последние четыре используются?
Все 46 сочетаний: яй йя цч чц ус су км мк еи ие нт тн ьг гь шб бш ющ щю з. .з .х х. .ъ ъ. НЬ, ЬН, ГТ, ТГ, ЕМ, МЕ, КИ, ИК, КЕ, ЕК, МИ, ИМ, ТЬ, ЬТ, ГН, НГ, ЗХ, ХЗ, ЪЗ, ЗЪ, ХЪ, ЪХ

Если появятся желающие учить 88 движений для 4 ряда, их можно написать минут за 5.

Относительно придуманных вами третичных-шестиричных движений я ему дам ссылку на Зенза http://klavogonki.ru/forum/academy/123/page11/#post227 и если у него останутся вопросы, отвечу на них.

7. Successive keystrokes from fingers on alternate hands are faster than successive keystrokes from fingers on the same hand. This is another very well-documented phenomenon, one that has been confirmed in numerous reports (e.g., Coover, 1923; Fox & Stansfield, 1964; Centner, 1981, 1982, 1983b; Grudin & Larochelle, 1982; Kinkead, 1975; Lahy, 1924: Larochelle, 1983, 1984; Ostry, 1983; Rumelhart & Norman, 1982; Salthouse, 1984a; Shaffer, 1978; Terzuolo & Viviani, 1980). Typists of average ability are generally between 30 and 60 ms faster when the preceding keystroke was on the opposite hand than when the preceding keystroke was on the same hand.
Many observers (e.g., Dvorak, Merrick, Dealey, & Ford, 1936; Gentner, 1981, 1983b; Larochelle. 1984; Olsen & Murray, 1976; Rumelhart & Norman, 1982; Terzuolo & Viviani, 1980) have interpreted this alternate-hand advantage by suggesting that with successive keystrokes on the same hand, there is little opportunity for advance preparation of following keystrokes, whereas when the opposite hand is involved in the preceding keystoke, the relevant finger can begin its motion toward the next key at the same time that the preceding key is being struck. Direct support for this view has been provided by Larochelle (1984) who found from analyses of videotape records that the initiation of a keystroke occurred 32 ms before the termination of the preceding keystroke for alternate-hand sequences but 39 ms after the prior keystroke for same-hand sequences.

For several reasons we decided to study the sequences of rapid finger movements in typewriting using essentially the same paradigm as in the speech experiments.
First, typing readily permits measurement of the individual time intervals between successive response elements, in addition to overall response duration.
Second, although potential artifacts due to measurement error may never be entirely eliminated, they are at least likely to be different in typing than in speech. In speech for example, measurement delays might be influenced by loudness, sequence length might influence the volume of air in the lungs, and it is difficult to apply an objective criterion of response accuracy. These problems are obviously not critical in typing, but others might be, such as variations in the starting position of the hands or in the movements used to press a particular key.
Third, we wished to see to what extent our findings generalized to a very different performance with a different training history. It can be argued that the production of a spoken word is much more complex than the pressing of a key, because it requires the exquisitely precise timing and coordination of a large number of diverse muscle systems that control respiratory, laryngeal, and multiple articulatory mechanisms (see, e.g., Kent & Moll, 1975; MacNeilage & Ladefoged, 1976). Furthermore, while normal speech rates are far slower than those obtained
in our experiment, typists are trained to achieve high rates outside the laboratory.
A. Procedure
The procedure was similar to that used in the speech experiments. On each trial a row of from one to five different letters was first displayed for 1.0 sec. The display was followed by a fixed delay of 2.4 sec. On 80% of the trials a brief tone burst occurred at the end of the delay, signaling the subject to start typing the letter list. This reaction signal was preceded at 0.7-sec intervals by two brief noise bursts, which served as "countdown" signals. Keypress responses on the remaining 20% of the trials, on which the reaction signal was• omitted, were regarded as errors. Again, the procedure was designed to encourage subjects to complete their responses as soon as possible after the signal while maintaining a low error rate. (The mean percentage of trials on which errors occurred was 2.3%; these few errors will not be considered further.) The time recorded for the depression of a key was determined by when it was detected by an electronic keyboard.*
Each letter list was presented on three successive trials; because repetitions had little effect on either latency or duration, the data were averaged over repetitions.
Lengths and compositions of the lists were varied from one group of three trials to the next by means of a different balanced randomization for each subject. Since Lahy's (1924) pioneering "Motion Study in Typewriting" and similar work reported by Coover (1923), it has been known that letter bigrams that are typed by fingers on alternate hands can be produced at faster rates than bigrams typed by fingers of the same hand. To explore responses containing elements whose durations differed, as we did in speech by manipulating the number of syllables per word, we used pure one-hand sequences in some blocks of trials and pure alternating-hand sequences in others; in both conditions, left and right hands were used equally often. All sequences were drawn from the same 16 letters, and average bigram frequencies in English were equated in the two conditions; we used only bigrams that actually occur in English.
The subjects were four female professional typists employed at Bell Laboratories, with test rates in prose typing of about 90 words per minute (or about 7.5 strokes per second). The data to be presented were obtained on 2 days of testing, after 1 day of practice with the same types of material. During the 2 days, each subject provided about 50 observations for each of the five list lengths per condition.
B. Latencies of Typing Responses
Figure 5A and Table I show that response latency again increased with sequence length, but in a different manner in the two conditions. The nonlinearity (latency for n = 1 falls below a fitted line) that is present in both sets of data is significant for the one-hand condition only. We have chosen to fit linear functions to the data for 2 ≤ n≤ 5 in both cases, however, to achieve comparability and because the standard error of the slope for the alternating-hand data, based on between-subject differences, is reduced by a factor of 2 when L1, is omitted." To emphasize the omission** of L1 in Table I we represent the fitted lines as functions of n — 2 instead of n — 1; the constant terms then represent intercepts at n = 2. Despite the irregularity of the function for the one-hand condition, estimated slopes are very similar across subjects: The mean and standard error are 4.1 ± 1.3 msec/letter for this condition (significantly greater than zero) and 14.9 ± 1.7 msec/letter for the other, with a difference of 10.8 ± 1.8 msec/letter that is highly significant.
Why should either of our latency functions show a discontinuity between a single keystroke and multiple keystrokes? And why should such an effect occur more strongly in typing than in speech? One possibility is that as sequence length is changed from n = 1 to n 2, the response elements tail to satisfy the element-invariance requirement (see Section I,A). In particular, a single keystroke may not be equivalent to either a beginning or terminating keystroke, especially in the one-hand condition. One possible reason for the contrast with our speech data is that while the production of even a single monosyllabic word typically involves multiple articulatory gestures and therefore requires precise control over timing and coordination; this may be true only of sequences of two or more keystrokes, because of the relative simplicity of a single keystroke. There is no reason to believe that the letter strings in the two conditions place systematically different loads on ordinary short-term memory; the difference between the latency functions therefore provides further evidence against the time-sharing and capacity-sharing hypotheses discussed in Section III.

* Our keyboard had "N-key rollover," which permits it to detect a keypress with a neglible delay after it occurs, regardless of whether other keys remain depressed (see Kallage, 1972).
**In a replication of this experiment with different subjects we obtained very similar results.