Ok, so first of all, yes I changed the name, I didn't really like the old one and no I am not copying Rowe I thought of the name independently of him. Seeing as how last time I tried to post this it turned into a fiasco, this time lets set a few things straight:
What this thread is NOT:
1. This thread is NOT a place to bash one another or this "method".
2. This thread is NOT a formal setting or job interview, therefore I do not expect you to write perfectly or use 100% perfect grammar. As long as you can get across what you are saying then that is what matters to me. I will not and have no desire to write with absolute proper grammar so pointing out where people make typos or grammar mistakes is pointless and you will be ignored.
3. This thread is NOT a place to flame people or to start unrelated arguments. Anyone who does so will be reported to the mods immediately.
4. Despite how much I enjoy our countless arguments about it, this thread is NOT a place to argue about logic or to pick apart the logic of what other people are saying. I have made this mistake many times myself and I will be doing my best to not enter into those type of arguments anymore. As such, this thread is not the place to have them.
What this thread IS:
1. This thread IS a place to discuss the merits and pitfalls fo Skyler Variation. This does not mean you can just say "Stupid Idea" or "It will never work". If you wish to point out a flaw then please provide a valid argument as to why you feel the way you do. For instance I happen to think that one of this methods flaws is the large alg count. If I wanted to say this I would say: "I don't think this method is really worth it because of the large number of algs".
2. This thread IS a place to bring up other similar method and compare and contrast. For instance, it would be completely appropriate to bring up regular OLL, Rowe Variation, EJF2L, MGLS, CLS, COLL, OLLCP or any other last slot/ OLL method and compare it to Skyler Variation.
3. This thread IS a place to post suggestions, questions or new algs for certain situations. Do not be afraid to ask questions.
Please do not take these rules as an insult or as a way to stop you from criticizing this method, I am completely willing to admit that it is not perfect, I just want to make sure that no unnecessary arguments or detours occur within this thread. I want people to feel comfortable here and for them to not worry about being flamed. Basically, I want people to follow the Site Rules . With all of that done, lets move onto Skyler Variation:
So let me first thank Jeremy Fleishman for helping me come up with a way to generate all of the cases (I am retarded with math and coding) and Rowe for making me realize that last layer skip methods are the way to go.
Skyler Variation is basically a OLL skip method for when you have a corner and its corresponding edge in a slot and the other 3 F2l pairs solve. You could say that this is sort of a hybrid between CLS and Rowe Variation, except that it can be done with an unoriented edge and the pair you are working with is in its slot as opposed to on the top layer. This, in my opinion, makes Skyler Variation a bit more versatile and usable than any last slot method I know of. Before I explain what I mean by versatile and usable let me first give you a few images/concepts to munch on:
These are the cases which Skyler Variation works with directly:
These are the cases which setup into Skyler Variation with a simple RUR':
These are the cases which setup into Skyler Variation with a URU'R':
These are the cases for which I would use a R'U'R or LUL' setup for if I were a Y or Y' away (depends on case obviously) or just a simple F'U'F from the current position:
Now when I say Versatile I am referring to the fact that Skyler variation is one of the few (only that I know of ) last slot variations that allows for really easy setups which actually save you time and moves as opposed to wasting them. Seeing as how the average move count for Skyler variation is about 12.5 moves (just a rough estimate, could be slightly higher if you chose different algs than I did for each case, although I choose the best alg to measure this, not just the lowest move count, so optimally it is actually closer to 12 moves) and the average move count for OLL is 9.7 moves, or to make it easy 10 moves, then the only way that you would be wasting moves/ time in setting up for Skyler variation would be if your f2l case were 2.5 moves or less which considering that f2l has an average move count of 7.8 moves (8 for simplicities sake) and the shortest f2l case is 3 moves (unless you start from an R or something) means that you will almost always be saving moves (about 5.5 in general). This makes Skyler variation about 5.5 moves shorter than regular CFOP without inserting a pair and still 2.5 shorter if you do insert the pair with a 3 move insert.
When I say usable, I refer to the fact that assuming all F2L cases have the same chances of occurring you have a 50% chance of being able to use Skyler variation for each of the 4 slots this means that if you solve all 4 slots you have about a 94.25% chance (I got his by adding .50 (50 percent for the first slot) plus .25 [25 percent chance you will get it on your second slot if not on the first] plus .125 (12.5% chance if you don't get it on your first or 2nd it will happen on your 3rd) plus .0675 (chance is will occur on the last slot assuming you don't get it ont he first 4) which equals .9425 or a 94.25% chance of getting Skyler variation, please let me know if this math is wrong because I suck at math so it wouldn't surprise me) of getting these cases. This means 9/10 of your solves will be on average 5.5 moves or so shorter plus you will gain some of the other advantages I will discuss later as well. Now this does not include cases where slots are open because i wouldn't even know how to calculate those odds, but in general I think you will get to use these cases a farily large amount of the time. Somewhere around 80% of the time if I had to guess, especially for the way that i solve which doesn't involve that many specialized cases for empty slots. Considering that Skyler Variation is only 181 distinct cases (I missed a set earlier when I counted) and only 100 cases if you don't count inverses and mirrors, this is a really high usability for the alg count, especially compared to things like CLS and Rowe's variation which only come up half of the time at most (not sure about CLS, but since it only works when the edge is oriented I assume that half of the time is could work and the other not and for Rowe, less than half of the f2l cases end in a block formed so it would only work without setup in those cases and setting it up would cost more moves unlike Skyler Variation).
Consider this situation:
Lets say you are looking at a particular solve where if you did your regular OLL case it could be done in .9 seconds, but you had to do one of the 5 horrible f2l cases above at first and then the OLL or even just one of the other horrible cases which you save time on by inserting it and then the OLL. This would be a 1.5 second f2l case and then a .9 second OLL. That makes for a 2.4 second LS+OLL execution time, now if you just did SV in the same situation you would only have to do the horrible case for f2l. Now if I can sub 1.5 my N perms I can definitely get these 12 move algs to at least sub 1.5. Assuming this to be true this still saves you .9 seconds in you solve because you don't have ot do the bad pair and then OLL, you just do both at the same time.
Now even if you use a setup like an RU R', (which is like .3 seconds max, more like .2) then you would still save .7 or . 6 seconds almost every solve. Seeing as how most of my OLL aren't always sub 1 then you will often save over a second by using this method assuming your recog is good enough. .7 or .9 second is a HUGE difference if you are sub 10 seconds; approximately 10% faster. Now Recog is a different story, only time will tell if I can actually make it up to speed, but I am confident that I can.
This makes for a method which is, AFAIK superior in move count to that of CFOP or any other variations for last slot plus non permuting OLL.
Another advantage which this last slot method offers over other methods/ last slot variations is a lessening of looks required to solve the cube. In regular CFOP you do 7 looks i.e. Cross, 4 F2l, OLL, and PLL. In Skyler variation you only have to do 6 when the pair is already in the slot i.e Cross, 3 F2L, Skyler Variation, PLL. One could say the same thing is true of Rowe's variation, except that in his variation he has to partially solve the last f2l pair or have a formed pair which is highly unlikely for it to work. This results is an extra look. Also, while there are times when one would have an extra look in Skyler variation for setups, these looks are very short and akin to the look required to insert case 4 in the f2l wiki. Also, the look you do for setting up the cases is so minimal that is barely is one and looking ahead through it is very easy.Overall, you get one free and easy insert where you might hav had to do something difficult of cube rotate. This allows for better lookahead and therefore likely more TPS.
Yet another advantage I see to Skyler Variation is the fact that it is, with the algs I generated at least, almost all RUF gen. This makes for an execution of the algs that is on the par with, if not better than that of regular OLL. This means in the time you would do OLL you would also get OLL plus last slot.
The final advantage or rather not disadvantage, I see to Skyler Variation when compared to other last slot plus OLL methods is that all of the OLL pieces are on the top layer making recognition akin to that of OLL. In other methods like Rowe Variation or CLS, you have corner and/or edge pieces in your top layer making recognition of the cases harder from two sides. You could make up for this by looking at the OLL pieces in your slot, but this creates a bifurcated look at the case in which you look down and then up. In Skyler Variation all of the pieces you need to look at are on the top layer so no need to look around.
Now one thing i should point out is that as of right now Skyler Variation is only for the cases with adjacent, parallel orient or, in the cases where the edge is misoriented 3 edges flipped cases, it does not include the cases where no edges are oriented or where 1 edge is oriented for the edge flip cases. I did this for 3 reasons: 1. it saves you a bunch of algs to learn, 2. Its easy to avoid these situations with basic edge control 3. The algs for those cases aren't that great.
To sum up:
Here are the Pro's and Con's I see with this method:
- Lower move count
- Less looks in general
- Easier recognition compared to other LS methods
- RUF gen
- Great Versatility
- Large usage ratio in comparison to alg count
- Decently large alg set
- involves a major change in the way you solve/ look ahead. This is not a bad change, just a major one which some might dislike
- Requires some basic edge control
When looking at this method it seems to me to be an excellent way to save some moves and cut time. I plan on making this my method. Just to clarify: if I don't get an SV case I will just do regular OLL so this method is not meant to replace OLL completely, although it could if you really got good at it.
Here are the algs I generated:
F- Bottom color corner sticker facing Forward
R- Bottom color corner sticker facing Right
D- Bottom color corner sticker facing Down
AD- Adjacent Edges flipped
H- Horizontal edges oriented
4- All edges oriented
3- 3 Edges oriented
Example Solves: Green on front white on top, these will be non CN for those of you who aren't
Solves where I would use Skyler Variation:
U' R' D' B F' U' R U' L' U' F' U2 R F2 D F2 D U2 B2 F2 D' U' L2 R' U2
z2 y2 L2 F R' D' R' D2 // cross (6)
U R U' R' U2 y' R' F R F' // 1st pair (9/15)
y U2 R' U' R // SKY pair (4/19)
U' R U2 R2 F R F' // 3rd pair (7/26)
U2 L U L' U L U' L' // 4th pair (8/34)
y U R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R2 F R F' // SV (15/49)
View at alg.garron.us
D2 B' F' L R' F' U R' D R2 D U' L B2 F2 D U' L' D' U L' R F2 U2 B
z2 U2 D F' D R D2 F2 R2 // Xcross (8)
L U' L' // SKY pair (3/11)
r' U' R U' R' U2 r R' U' R // 3rd pair (10/21)
U' r U' r' F L' U L // 4th pair (8/29)
y2 R2 U R U' R2 U R F R F' R' // SV (11/40)
View at alg.garron.us
L B' F' U B2 D U2 L2 R' D' L2 B' L' R D F R2 D U' B F' D' U2 L F'
z2 R' U R' F D2 F' D // cross (7)
U' R U2 R' // SKY pair (4/11)
U' L2 F' L2 F // 2nd pair (5/16)
R' U2 R // 3rd pair (3/19)
L U L' U' L U L' // 4th pair (7/26)
F' R' U' R U' R' U2 R F U' R U' R' // (13/39)
View at alg.garron.us
A solve where I wouldn't:
Scramble: L2 R2 F2 L' D2 U F2 D' B F R B2 F2 R U F' L2 R' D' L R2 D' U' L F
X-Cross: R U R' U' R' F2 R Y' F L F'
2nd Pair: U' F' U' F
3rd Pair: U' R U R' U R U2 R' L U L'
4th Pair: U r'U'rU L' U L U' L' U L
OLL: R U R' U' R U' R' F' U' F R U R'
PLL: R- Perm:
I might post more, but these take a long time for me to type out and I keep messing up the scrambles which makes my whole solution wrong.
Some Highlights from this thread so far: