Winter Variation Resources

[jms_gears1]

Is there a system based on F2LL known, I mean an really efficient system for Fridrich!
I ask, because I like the F2LL

this just gives the algs and states its for the zz method but itd work well with petrus as well

http://web.mac.com/teisenmann/Tripod/winter.html

 

[Tiw]

You all have right, like CLS F2LL is more compatible for pertrus, zz or other.
For fridrich we only need a set of algs that orient the edges and build the pair for the last slot!
That mean there are (like ZBF2L) 306 cases, but, I'm not sure, the move count should be a little bit smaller than ZBF2L, because the pair can end anywhere on the U-layer.
F2LL also have a small move count, around 8,5 moves I quess.
So this is I think a very nice way for solving the cube

 

[dougbenham]

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11594

There's 4 unique and useful resources in that thread.

 

[Weston]

F2LL winter variation, is it worth learning?

its 27 algs + mirrors unless you use petrus.
do you think its worth learning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uIqju7ZJo

 

[Johannes91]

its 27 algs + mirrors unless you use petrus.

How does Petrus change that? o_O

do you think its worth learning?

The easiest cases are.

 

[Weston]

its 27 algs + mirrors unless you use petrus.

How does Petrus change that? o_O

In petrus, you orient all the edges after the 2x2x3 block so that cuts out half of the cases

 

[puzzlemaster]

its 27 algs + mirrors unless you use petrus.

How does Petrus change that? o_O

In petrus, you orient all the edges after the 2x2x3 block so that cuts out half of the cases

If you don't use edge orientation then you need 54 algorithms. 27 for the FR slot and 27 for the BR slot since 27 cases won't work with the FR slot. If you can mirror them in you're head then great but it's still 54 algs for fridrich and 27 algs for petrus.

 

[Johannes91]

If you can mirror them in you're head then great but it's still 54 algs for fridrich and 27 algs for petrus.

Huh?? It's obviously 27 for both. There's no difference.

 

[Weston]

nope its not 27 for both.
puzzlemaster is right.
look at the link to all the cases in the video description
those are the ones that will come up during petrus. (27)

in a fridrich solve, the edge may or may not be oriented so you have to sorry about the mirrors of the cases

 

[fanwuq]

its 27 algs + mirrors unless you use petrus.

How does Petrus change that? o_O

In petrus, you orient all the edges after the 2x2x3 block so that cuts out half of the cases

If you don't use edge orientation then you need 54 algorithms. 27 for the FR slot and 27 for the BR slot since 27 cases won't work with the FR slot. If you can mirror them in you're head then great but it's still 54 algs for fridrich and 27 algs for petrus.

By that logic, you can have 4*27 for Petrus or Fridrich depending on where is your last slot: LUF, LUB, RDF, RDB if you want all the cases to be solvable by RU. No connection with edge orientation at all.

Edit:
27 is just for cases solvable by RU'R', twice that if you also want to include cases solvable by RUR'. If you want to count mirrors separately, that's *2 again. 27*2*2=108. It should be the same number of cases as CLS, which is part of a more complete method.

Edit 2:
Waits for puzzlemaster or Weston to facepalm themselves. See bolded part. 1x2x2 can be built anywhere, not just DBR. True that it is possible to solve at DBR every time, but that's stupid; just solve the easiest block no matter where it is, especially if you can handle a pseudo-F2L.

 

[Johannes91]

look at the link to all the cases in the video description
those are the ones that will come up during petrus. (27)

Plus another 27 if the last slot is at BR.

 

[Weston]

there is a connection with edge orientation. because youre inserting a last f2l pair which is a corner and an EDGE.

here, to explain,
do R U R' you may have a case where the edge pair is facing that way (27 cases)

or L' U' L you may have a case with the pair like that (another 27)

unless you use petrus

 

[puzzlemaster]

its 27 algs + mirrors unless you use petrus.

How does Petrus change that? o_O

In petrus, you orient all the edges after the 2x2x3 block so that cuts out half of the cases

If you don't use edge orientation then you need 54 algorithms. 27 for the FR slot and 27 for the BR slot since 27 cases won't work with the FR slot. If you can mirror them in you're head then great but it's still 54 algs for fridrich and 27 algs for petrus.

By that logic, you can have 4*27 for Petrus or Fridrich depending on where is your last slot: LUF, LUB, RDF, RDB if you want all the cases to be solvable by RU. No connection with edge orientation at all.

Ok. I'm simply saying that if you use fridrich and have not oriented the edges, then the algorithms will not always be 2 gen. WV algorithms can always be 2 gen. The 27 WV cases are to insert the edge into FR if the edge is in the "UL" area. The pair will not always be in that area unless the edges are oriented. If the edges are not oriented there is a chance that the pair may not be inserted into FR 2 gen but may be inserted in to BR 2 gen. If you use fridrich, you will need 54 algorithms. 27 for when the edge can be inserted into FR 2 gen and 27 for when it cannot be and needs to be inserted into the BR slot. If you use petrus then the edge pair can always be inserted into FR and therefore you will only need 27 algorithms.

EDIT: Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[Escher]

Lolthread.

Which method you choose, be it Fridrich or Petrus, makes absolutely no difference as to how many Winter Variation cases there are.
Just as in Petrus you can choose whether to do the BR or FR 2x2x1 block first, you can in Fridrich choose which slot to do first.
As long as you are actually doing Winter Variation (all edges oriented already, connect pair, insert pair while orienting corners) then there will be 27 cases for the FR slot, and then there will be mirrors for each of the BR, BL & FL slots. This doesn't change.

If you use Fridrich or Petrus or ZZ, then you will only need 27 algorithms, which you can choose to mirror.

 

[Johannes91]

Lolthread.

+1

there will be 27 cases for the FR slot ... you will only need 27 algorithms, which you can choose to mirror.

That sounds wrong but maybe it's a terminology issue.

If you learn mirrors separately, you need 54 algs. If the slot is at FR, the sides used in 2-gen algs can be either UF or UR. Alternatively, if you always use UR, the last slot can be at either FR or BR.

 

[puzzlemaster]

Lolthread.

Which method you choose, be it Fridrich or Petrus, makes absolutely no difference as to how many Winter Variation cases there are.
Just as in Petrus you can choose whether to do the BR or FR 2x2x1 block first, you can in Fridrich choose which slot to do first.
As long as you are actually doing Winter Variation (all edges oriented already, connect pair, insert pair while orienting corners) then there will be 27 cases for the FR slot, and then there will be mirrors for each of the BR, BL & FL slots. This doesn't change.

If you use Fridrich or Petrus or ZZ, then you will only need 27 algorithms, which you can choose to mirror.

This is what i've been trying to explain. WV works with all the edges already oriented. That was the original idea behind the method. With petrus you need 27 algs. With fridrich yes you need 27 algs but you will need to mirror them to use WV unless you orient the edges. I just considered that 54 algorithms because you would need to mirror them.

 

[Weston]

ok so heres the deal

an F2L pair on the top layer can be oriented 2 different ways, depending on the orientation of the edge piece.
it could match up with the front center, or the side center.

either way, the edges of the rest of the unsolved cube could be considered oriented correctly,

sure you could just change the orientation of the edges when you have an edge case like after you do F' U' F

or you could just do a Y and then the edges can be considered oriented. so the FL slot can be solved using L and U.

sure you NEED the mirrors as you can just orient all the edges with respect to solving the cube with RU. but sometimes, you can just do a cube rotation to orient the edges

 

[eastamazonantidote]

Back to the original question: is it worth learning? Absolutely. The more you know about the cube the better. If you use ZZ, you can force an OLL skip every time. It's nice to be able to get that occasional OLL skip in Fridrich as well.

But yes, there are 27 cases you HAVE to learn no matter what if you want to learn this method. Winter variation does not mess around with the orientation of the edges, so no method would decrease the number of cases (except corner control F2L). Really you should just learn this to take advantage of the easy cases.

 

[Johannes91]

Back to the original question: is it worth learning? Absolutely. The more you know about the cube the better. If you use ZZ, you can force an OLL skip every time.

Memorizing algs doesn't really expand your knowledge/understanding. And I think "OLL skip every time" is a bit misleading, because for many cases the best alg is basically R U' R' + Sune or something similar. So you can predict which OLL case you'll get and execute it without pausing, but not skip it.

The cases where it actually makes a difference compared to R U' R' + OLL are very useful to know, though.

Edit: It's also not applicable every time because some last pair cases are best solved differently, not pair-up and insert.

 

[cubacca1972]

As the author of this variation, I say that this method is absolutely worth learning!

As has been mentioned in this thread, I created the variation specifically with the Petrus Method in mind.

The convention of always leaving the FR corner edge pair for last was to keep the total number of algorithms reasonable. You still need to be able to PLL, which is already 21 (I think) algorithms, including mirrors and such.

Of course, you could learn the mirrors for WV, but that sort of runs against my general philosophy of laziness when it comes to memorizing algorithms.

If you use Fridrich, and you know your OLL and PLL algorithms cold, then adding a few new tools to your toolbox can't hurt. There are plenty of special cases that pop up in any solve where knowing stuff outside of your conventional method would come in handy. On the other hand, if your grasp on the required algorithms for your method is weak (tendency to forget algorithms without daily practice), then trying to add extra stuff might not be the best move.

I would say if you have your PLL algorithms nailed, and have tried Petrus out in the past, then give it a try.