Skyler Variation (SV)

[jskyler91]

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:

Pro's:

- 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

Con's:

- 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
- Others?

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:

Lettering System:

E- Edge
U- Unoriented
O- Oriented
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

EUD 3
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68NE1xTTZEU25JLW8
EUF 3
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68S0ZwMi1uWTZRckE
EUR 3
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68UERQbHg1SlA0clE
EOR H
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68RWxqQXJmNjYyUUk
EOR AD
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68ZUJYVXFGOE16dnc
EOF H
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68UGZCSm5yS3AzVEk
EOF AD
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68dGZBeXU2N2MxTlE
EO 4
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68VGJBdFYySEhIX1E

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:

Example 1
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)
// Rperm
View at alg.garron.us

Example 2
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)
// Uperm
View at alg.garron.us

Example 3
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)
// Zperm
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
Solution:
Setup:Z2 Y2
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:

if you can make a bad pair a good thing with little effort then why wouldn't you?

SV is specifically a method in which you utilize a series of move saving techniques and algs to permute the in place last slot pair and the OLL at the same time. This is most definitely A last slot method. It is not the only, but it is a method especially considering the other things besides the algs you use to set things up. This is just like MGLS, MGLS is basically just CLS, but what makes it a method is the fact that it is ELS plus CLS for a new last slot method. Similarly SV is basically the OLS cases, but what makes it a method is the improper solving or sky pairs one can use and the methods for edge control and preservation of formed sky pairs during Cross and such. It changes the way you look at and execute F2L just as MGLS does.

QUOTE=jskyler91;736558]If i did this, it would probably be all of the algs I needed to learn really save maybe a few more OLL skip cases which are easy to recog. Experience has taught me that TPS will come with time and practice. After I learn SV I will probably spend a great deal of time on x-crosses and other stuff like that that comes from simple practice. I want to get down my solving method and the algs I will use before I do this though so I can practice them a bunch until they are great. Things like x-cross just come wit practice and don't really require major algs sets or anything.[/QUOTE]

 

[Godmil]

Cool, Well done generating all the algs.
That must have been a lot of work.
Is there any chance for some example solves from random scrambles please.

I may be mistaken, but when you were compairing move counts, did you do it as SV vs. 1F2L+OLL?
Wouldn't it be more fair to include the ~3 move insert for SV, so the actual move difference would only be a couple of moves on average?
So while it's an interesting idea, the high alg count + extra recognition for limited moves saved would rule it out for me.

 

[jskyler91]

Cool, Well done generating all the algs.
That must have been a lot of work.
Is there any chance for some example solves from random scrambles please.

Sure, I forgot about that

Can you use the links fine?

Edit: working on some example solves now.

 

[Cubenovice]

Thank you for providing me with something to look into for the weekend

Prolly will pick just a few cases; easy algs or algs that turn the occasional "nasty" slot into something good.

 

[Robert-Y]

Congratulations for generating all of the these algorithms and images. I think it's definitely worth learning algs for these LS+OLL cases. I'll probably try to generate some algorithms myself for each case, but I think most of them seem decent enough to learn.

Another advantage which this last slot method offers over other methods/ last slot variations is a lessening of looks required to solve the cube.

Well.. you still need to look at what your "OLL" is. You still generally look at the same number of pieces as standard CFOP.

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.

Just because almost all of the algs are almost RUF gen, doesn't make the algs decent themselves. I very much doubt that these algorithms are faster than OLL alone overall. When I generate algs I tend to try and find algorithms which are comfortable to perform, short in quarter turns, can be executed from start to finish with very few regrips. Don't restrict yourself to <RUF> too much. There sometimes shorter and more decent algorithms containing other turns.

 

[The Borg]

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.

I don't think users can set rules for their own threads; this isn't Reddit. What goes for the Board, goes for all threads, and your "reporting to the mods" won't do much good if people aren't breaking their terms of service.

 

[Kirjava]

My thoughts on LS+LL methods;

Learning OLS subsets is akin to learning COLL or the CO OLLCP subset for LL. Similar to learning random ZBLL algs.

While magical random cases will get you a good solve when they come up, the extra recognition and recall overhead from a full implementation of a system like this can cause problems. Saving moves means nothing when you're taking time working out how.

My advice is to treat systems like this how Cubenovice is intending to do so.

 

[Thorsten]

This is an interesting approach I think, what held me from learning many of the other variations is that extra look...

The "Problem" of this approach ist the enourmous number of algorithms. But I've decided what to do (for me).

I will start by learning the cases for the flipped edge and the correct corner first:

Thats because of three reasons:
1. I hate this case, when it comes up I know I'll need more time to get finished.
2. It is extremely easy to spot. (if not the easiest case to spot)
3. If you learn the algs for this case first, you can also use them in another way (aka use them more often/more easier than the other cases):
Everytime the case pops up (and not only as last F2L pair but also in F2l in general) I'll get free OLL.
If it pops up as one of the first three F2l Pairs, I would just continue solving the others pairs in a correct way and then get back to the slot to do the algorithm.


I've not yet decided to learn the other algorithms, because they are a ton. But I thank you in advance for the 27algs to kill my most hatred case ;-)

 

[Stefan]

In the URU'R' setup list, there's a case listed twice (you only have five cases, the sixth possibility for the pair is when it gets solved correctly).

While magical random cases will get you a good solve when they come up

Well, at least he's not just waiting for them to happen but is making them come up (by intentionally "wrong-solving" the pair). And you can look ahead at OLL a little during the setup.

 

[masterofthebass]

Just so you know, rotating before having to do "SV" is the worst idea for speed ever. "EJF2L" was a horrible idea was well, and the only use for this "method" would be for the last slot, dropping its actual use cases significantly. The time it would take to solve last f2l -> rotate -> recog SV -> do alg, is WAAAAAY more than just doing the f2l during your solve and OLL after you finish your last pair. Move count isn't everything to a method. People really need to understand that.

 

[jskyler91]

Just so you know, rotating before having to do "SV" is the worst idea for speed ever. "EJF2L" was a horrible idea was well, and the only use for this "method" would be for the last slot, dropping its actual use cases significantly. The time it would take to solve last f2l -> rotate -> recog SV -> do alg, is WAAAAAY more than just doing the f2l during your solve and OLL after you finish your last pair. Move count isn't everything to a method. People really need to understand that.

Cool, I agree thats why I put multiple options in.

Congratulations for generating all of the these algorithms and images. I think it's definitely worth learning algs for these LS+OLL cases. I'll probably try to generate some algorithms myself for each case, but I think most of them seem decent enough to learn.



Well.. you still need to look at what your "OLL" is. You still generally look at the same number of pieces as standard CFOP.



Just because almost all of the algs are almost RUF gen, doesn't make the algs decent themselves. I very much doubt that these algorithms are faster than OLL alone overall. When I generate algs I tend to try and find algorithms which are comfortable to perform, short in quarter turns, can be executed from start to finish with very few regrips. Don't restrict yourself to <RUF> too much. There sometimes shorter and more decent algorithms containing other turns.

I did that , although some cases just weren't that great. I might regenerate the EUD cases because those were my first and I was sort of lazy for them. If you decide to generate algs start there. Let me know if you find better ones for them

My thoughts on LS+LL methods;

Learning OLS subsets is akin to learning COLL or the CO OLLCP subset for LL. Similar to learning random ZBLL algs.

While magical random cases will get you a good solve when they come up, the extra recognition and recall overhead from a full implementation of a system like this can cause problems. Saving moves means nothing when you're taking time working out how.

My advice is to treat systems like this how Cubenovice is intending to do so.

I still think it is worth is especially since there are a lot of mirrors and inverses

Just correcting a few mistakes in your post;



You forgot to include the setups to "Skyler Variation" which can be up to four moves, and the fact that average movecount for algs will be longer as people replace your <RUF> optimal ones that are likely bad for speedcubing with better ones, making the moves saved closer to 0 than 5.5 on average.



This is very wrong. F2L cases do not have an equal chance of happening, and you've completely ignored cases where pieces are in open slots.



So both of these numbers are wrong


This negates most of the positives listed in your post.

Interesting, how are they not evenly distributed, can you please cite this with some proof or a source? Also cases with open slots are not part of the general 42 which is what I was basing it on. The average setup is 3 moves which still makes this 2.5 moves quicker and lessens the amount of looks and it is still a far more usable system then any other thus far.

 

[Kirjava]

Just correcting a few mistakes in your post;

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 allow 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) 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 form 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.

You forgot to include the setups to "Skyler Variation" which can be up to four moves, and the fact that average movecount for algs will be longer as people replace your <RUF> optimal ones that are likely bad for speedcubing with better ones, making the moves saved closer to 0 than 5.5 on average.

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 fail at math so it wouldn't surprise me) of getting these cases.

This is very wrong. F2L cases do not have an equal chance of happening, and you've completely ignored cases where pieces are in open slots.

This means 9/10 of your solves will be on average 5.5 moves

So both of these numbers are wrong


This negates most of the positives listed in your post.

 

[Kirjava]

Interesting, how are they not evenly distributed, can you please cite this with some proof or a source?

URUR' and RU'R' are counted as a single case, but are actually two different ones.

Also cases with open slots are not part of the general 42 which is what I was basing it on.

Pieces in open slots produce cases outside of 'the general 42' for non-LS cases, you have to include them to correctly determine the probability.

 

[aronpm]

Interesting, how are they not evenly distributed, can you please cite this with some proof or a source? Also cases with open slots are not part of the general 42 which is what I was basing it on. The average setup is 3 moves which still makes this 2.5 moves quicker and lessens the amount of looks and it is still a far more usable system then any other thus far.

If you are using mathematics you need to use the actual number of cases, which is NOT 42 for the first slot.

If you have a solved FR pair, that is a certain probability (determined by the number of permutations and orientations). The probability of having the edge solved and the corner in the U layer is 4 times larger (and these are the same F2L case), because there are 4 times more locations for the edge to be, and thus is 4 times more likely

 

[jskyler91]

URUR' and RU'R' are counted as a single case, but are actually two different ones.



Pieces in open slots produce cases outside of 'the general 42' for non-LS cases, you have to include them to correctly determine the probability.

I don't see how your first part affect that averages. Also, I am not very good with the math stuff, all I know if that I have a high chance of getting these cases.

If you are using mathematics you need to use the actual number of cases, which is NOT 42 for the first slot.

If you have a solved FR pair, that is a certain probability (determined by the number of permutations and orientations). The probability of having the edge solved and the corner in the U layer is 4 times larger (and these are the same F2L case), because there are 4 times more locations for the edge to be, and thus is 4 times more likely

Again, I am really bad with math, if someone wants to generate the exact percentages I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[masterofthebass]

you really shouldn't be so worried about getting your name on some method no one is ever going to learn. it's not that important and you've already made yourself memorable to the community

 

[Robert-Y]

You've mentioned less looks in general as a pro, yet in the examples you've posted, you haven't demonstrated this. There are 6 looks for the 2nd example but that's because the first step is x-cross.

 

[jskyler91]

you really shouldn't be so worried about getting your name on some method no one is ever going to learn. it's not that important and you've already made yourself memorable to the community

Oh, I am not doing this for recognition, I just honestly think it will be a very fast method. Assuming I can memo all of the algs, there is no reason that i see why it wouldn't be at minimum as fast as regular CFOP and i see quite a few reasons why it would be faster. The only reason I am posting this is to share an idea with the community which I think will make them all faster cubers. I said the whole get my name on it thing because I wanted to make sure i didn't spend a bunch of time generating algs and then find that someone else had done it slightly faster than me and they took the credit.

You've mentioned less looks in general as a pro, yet in the examples you've posted, you haven't demonstrated this. There are 6 looks for the 2nd example but that's because the first step is x-cross.

The actual execution of the solves will have less looks in that I will be able to plan out multiple parts while doing the simple RUR' insert. Also, when the pair is in place it is one less look which wil sill be more often then say in Rowe Variation because he will almost always have to recognize the first f2l case, solve it up until it is a pair and then recognize the RV case. This looks thing is a minor addition I just though I would bring up, its not like I think this will really save much time, although it will make looking ahead easier because simple inserts affect less of the cube so you could look ahead better.

Another way of looking at this is that say in RV only 2 f2l cases actually have formed pairs, while in my variation there are 5 cases which come like that so 2.5 times as likely. Also my cases often set up with a simple RuR' whereas his often require 4-5 moves to set up into a pair. Again, I am not bashing RV here, just comparing.

 

[Kirjava]

I don't see how your first part affect that averages.

It's like how chance of getting a specific PLL isn't 1/22.

Also, I am not very good with the math stuff, all I know if that I have a high chance of getting these cases.

How?!

 

[masterofthebass]

Oh, I am not doing this for recognition, I just honestly think it will be a very fast method. Assuming I can memo all of the algs, there is no reason that i see why it wouldn't be at minimum as fast as regular CFOP and i see quite a few reasons why it would be faster. The only reason I am posting this is to share an idea with the community which I think will make them all faster cubers. I said the whole get my name on it thing because I wanted to make sure i didn't spend a bunch of time generating algs and then find that someone else had done it slightly faster than me and they took the credit.

its ok. you don't need to lie.