OLS (VLS + HLS) Algorithms: by Mats Valk and Rowe Hessler

Lagom said:
Did Mats do this in the world record solve or was that just a lucky oll skip?
Click to expand...
Nope, that was WV, one of the subsets of VLS. True, it's just the normal insert, but Mats knows that case, as well as full WV. When all the edges were oriented, which they were, he was going to skip the OLL. That was just an easier skip than normal.
 
Lagom said:
In average how many turns do you save on this?
Click to expand...

Can anyone do the math on this for all of OLS vs VHLS+OLL (or even just simple insertion + OLL)?

I'd be interested to find this out, though it of course isn't the most important aspect as it doesn't consider speed friendly algs with long move count, as well as the recog time for standard non-OLS step 1+ step 2.

I was interested in learning the sledgehammer cases thinking it'd be cool, maybe I could save some moves/time and force OLL skip, if anything it looks/sounds cool.

I did the move count difference between OLS for these cases, and compared it to sledgehammer (R' F R F') + OLL (Cross Cases).

VLS-UF = 11.27 turns on avg
VHLS + OLL = 4 + 8.43 = 12.43 turns on avg

Obviously this is one case so not really indicative of amount of turns you'd save, and this is nothing even to say of HLS, but it seems like at least for this case it's a little more than 1 turn save overall. The thing is, some of the VLS cases actually end up saving you 5 or more turns! Knowing those cases when they come up seems like it would be beneficial. So learning some of those cases, especially if you learn to recog CO as fast as you do EO, might prove to be beneficial as a supplement to what most CFOP'ers already know, but it seems dubious as to whether or not learning full OLS as a main LL method will prove to be much more than something cool and different...

*I* like it though. Might actually learn some cases. Then again I would consider learning ZBF2L for similar reasons.

You also gotta factor in recog time, like I said, in the standard 2 step approach, so there's also that. But imagine how much lower the move count would be if if you just did Sledgehammer + ZBLL? 15, 16 turns for LS+LL?
 
Last edited:
PhillipEspinoza said:
Can anyone do the math on this for all of OLS vs VHLS+OLL (or even just simple insertion + OLL)?

I'd be interested to find this out, though it of course isn't the most important aspect as it doesn't consider speed friendly algs with long move count, as well as the recog time for standard non-OLS step 1+ step 2.

I was interested in learning the sledgehammer cases thinking it'd be cool, maybe I could save some moves/time and foce OLL skip, if anything it looks/sounds cool.

I did the move count difference between OLS for these cases, and compared it to sledgehammer (R' F R F') + OLL (Cross Cases).

VLS-UF = 11.27 turns on avg
VHLS + OLL = 4 + 8.43 = 12.43 turns on avg

Obviously this is one case so not really indicative of amount of turns you'd save, and this is nothing even to say of HLS, but it seems like at least for this case it's a little more than 1 turn save overall. The thing is, some of the VLS cases actually end up saving you 5 or move turns! Knowing those cases when they come up seems like it would be beneficial. So learning some of those cases, especially if you learn to recog CO as fast as you do EO, might prove to be beneficial as a supplement to what most CFOP'ers already know, but it seems dubious as to whether or not learning full OLS as a main LL method will prove to be much more than something cool and different...

*I* like it though. Might actually learn some cases. Then again I would consider learning ZBF2L for similar reasons.

You also gotta factor in recog time, like I said, in the standard 2 step approach, so there's also that. But imagine how much lower the move count would be if if you just did Sledgehammer + ZBLL? 15, 16 turns for LS+LL?
Click to expand...

yeah i don't have the time to do the math right now, but it doesn't save much move count. As for recognition, it will take years to get it to be good. Mats starts looking towards the VLS case as he's doing his setup moves, doing this and getting good at it is the only way that VLS will actually be beneficial, but its tough. But yeah awesome, learn some! won't it be odd though since your cross on left?
 
rowehessler said:
yeah i don't have the time to do the math right now, but it doesn't save much move count. As for recognition, it will take years to get it to be good. Mats starts looking towards the VLS case as he's doing his setup moves, doing this and getting good at it is the only way that VLS will actually be beneficial, but its tough. But yeah awesome, learn some! won't it be odd though since your cross on left?
Click to expand...

Ah, good point, but at some point during the solve I eventually have to rotate for LL so I'd just do a 'z' rotation a little earlier than usual I guess. I mean, that's how I was gonna learn ZBF2L. I would also maybe use it for OH which I can do COB easier. #COLproblems

EDIT: OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, recog would be easier COL? Maybe I'll convert the algs to COL since they might prove to be COL friendly. Now THAT, would be cool-looking.
 
Last edited:
I didn't want to make my own thread but Rowe said that I may add RLS to algdb.net so that the cubing community could develop it further through alg submission. However, he told me to call it VLS. I don't like the idea of removing credit from Rowe.

Before I add it, I want to see what others think.

I have a proposal.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
 
Lazy Einstein said:
I didn't want to make my own thread but Rowe said that I may add RLS to algdb.net so that the cubing community could develop it further through alg submission. However, he told me to call it VLS. I don't like the idea of removing credit from Rowe.

Before I add it, I want to see what others think.

I have a proposal.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
Click to expand...

I would prefer If you would actually add OLS (the larger last slot set, not just for formed pair), because I have been working on generating split pair algs (HLS?) and others.

But even if you did that, I suppose this subset would have to have a name at algdb.net. And my only point against calling it RLS is that if HLS is added, Mats doesn't get credit anywhere.
 
Lazy Einstein said:
I didn't want to make my own thread but Rowe said that I may add RLS to algdb.net so that the cubing community could develop it further through alg submission. However, he told me to call it VLS. I don't like the idea of removing credit from Rowe.

Before I add it, I want to see what others think.

I have a proposal.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
Click to expand...

I like number 3, if only because it sounds like Valkyrie... and because giving credit and all that other stuff. Actually, though, it's a great name that gives both cubers credit for great subsets they developed.
 
PhillipEspinoza said:
Ah, good point, but at some point during the solve I eventually have to rotate for LL so I'd just do a 'z' rotation a little earlier than usual I guess. I mean, that's how I was gonna learn ZBF2L. I would also maybe use it for OH which I can do COB easier. #COLproblems

EDIT: OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, recog would be easier COL? Maybe I'll convert the algs to COL since they might prove to be COL friendly. Now THAT, would be cool-looking.
Click to expand...

If you ever convert any of these to COL and find nice cases, I'd really love to see them.

Lazy Einstein said:
We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with OLS? It's a nice, neutral name which describes what it does. (In that regard, it's a lot like CFOP.)

We do also have other OLS sets that don't fall under VLS/RLS, such as OLS-FE.
 
I do find OLS neutral but VRLS does give the credit to Mats and Rowe who actually took the time to generate those algs and also when it comes to F2L cases, VRLS only use two of them so if a method named OLS should exist it should have every F2L pairs so 4536 cases (yeah that's hell of alot).
 
In which order shall I learn VLS (after WV, UF and then UB, but what after)?
Is no edges oriented set worth learning?
Are Mats, Rowe and Jay only ppl, who know full VLS?
Are there some other OLL skip subsets other than OLS, BLE, and CLS (worth learning ofc)?
Thanks in advance!
 
Kudz said:
In which order shall I learn VLS (after WV, UF and then UB, but what after)?
Is no edges oriented set worth learning?
Are Mats, Rowe and Jay only ppl, who know full VLS?
Are there some other OLL skip subsets other than OLS, BLE, and CLS (worth learning ofc)?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I'm almost done with the 4 flip set, so far, most of these algs are actually pretty nice.

As far I know, they're the only ones who know it, but there are probably other who know large fractions of it, who simply haven't decided to finish it.
 
Kudz said:
In which order shall I learn VLS (after WV, UF and then UB, but what after)?
Is no edges oriented set worth learning?
Are Mats, Rowe and Jay only ppl, who know full VLS?
Are there some other OLL skip subsets other than OLS, BLE, and CLS (worth learning ofc)?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I would say, UL, UF-UL, UL-UB and then the no edges one.
CLS, CPLS and EPLS are worth learning.

By the way, VLS is a subset of OLS
 
Last edited:
Berkmann18 said:
I would say, UL, UF-UL, UL-UB and then the no edges one.
CLS, CPLS and EPLS are worth learning.

By the VLS is a subset of OLS
Click to expand...

Thanks, also I know that VLS is part of OLS. What do you think about HLS tho? Or maybe only SV.
Or maybe this thing that colourful pocets came with? Idek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
RLS vs ZBLL
Replies
12
Views
3,252
s_e_a_n666
s_e_a_n666
O
OLS input
Replies
15
Views
2,868
obelisk477
O
R
Rummel Last Slot, a continuation of Orientation of the Last Slot
Replies
7
Views
1,667
zzcuberman
Z
ottozing
F2L 15 OLS for ZZ (or CFOP) + proof of concept for a better way to deal with 3 corner OLS
Replies
2
Views
1,092
Deleted member 36445
D
ottozing
How OLS for CFOP could be developed intelligently
Replies
4
Views
2,418
trangium
trangium
Back
Top