VHF2L+2 Levels=F2l+OLL Skip

BatafCube

Regular
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
29
So i was plaing with VHF2L(only the cases where the 2 f2l pieces are paired up) and i got a OLL skip and then this idea came to my head.Why doesn't some1 make a list of F2L algorithm where the f2l pair is paired(so much less cases) and does a OLL at the same time?I call it VHF2L+2 levels.Because VHF2L+1 level=ZBF2L.

I am going to show you whit a solve:
Scramble:R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R2 F' R U R U R' U2
Look how the F2L pair is paired.Now do EO+CO at the same time+solving F2L.
Solve:U2 R U' R' U' R' F R F'
You have a forced OLL skip.And then just the PLL (

The number of Algs will be 54(the number of WV)*8(the number of VHF2L)=432 algs.Only with 130 algs more then ZBF2L,but this new F2L strategy+PLL(453) is still less then Full ZB(800).

What do you think for this idea?
 
Last edited:
54 algs for WV?
I thought it was 27. d:

This idea seems familiar, as if someone has thought of it before.
My intuition is telling me that your numbers are off. Also, by a wide margin.
 
54 algs for WV?
I thought it was 27. d:

This idea seems familiar, as if someone has thought of it before.
My intuition is telling me that your numbers are off. Also, by a wide margin.

There are 27 for when the pair is in the R layer and 27 for when the pair is in the F layer.

NOTE:I am not from America or the UK so please don't yell when i make mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the exact chance of an OLL skip? Ex 1/x for an OLL skip (I forget) = x number of algs needed.
 
It depends on the amount of moves. Since you are creating a pair both in normal Fridrich and this WV+VH idea and both involve recognizing a case (OLL and the WV+VH), the advantage your idea has here is:

Normal Fridrich (Cross, 4 pairs, OLL, PLL) minus the time it takes to insert the pair.

Again, it depends on the amount of moves, the above is considering that the average move count for the memorized cases would be around the same as OLL. WV averages 8 moves, if you can get a move count around that you would have an even greater advantage. Also, the recognition time has to be the same as OLL, which seems possible.
 
I don't see the advantage of this.

With the normal way: Look for the last f2l pair, solve it, look for the OLL, solve it. 2 looks.

With this way, look for the f2l, then START to solve it, but once you are half way through it, look for the oll case, then finish solving the f2l + oll. Its STILL 2 looks, but now you have to memorize hundreds of algs instead of 57.
 
Back
Top