New Method... or Current Method I haven't heard of?

[NoobCube]

I've just finished learning VHF2L and am about to start learning WV. Suddenly though, it occurred to me, most VHF2L algs (or at least the ones on Dan Harris' page) involve reducing it to R, U', R' type insertions. It would then, surely, be possible to use a WV alg and get a guaranteed OLL skip every time. Does this method have a name already, and does anyone know anything further about it? (e.g. is there any point to it, other than less algs than OLL/PLL)

 

[jiggy]

Is there really a point in getting an 'OLL skip' if you have to do both a VH F2L alg and/or a WV alg? seems to me like you may as well just insert the pair and execute the OLL.

 

[NoobCube]

Is there really a point in getting an 'OLL skip' if you have to do both a VH F2L alg and/or a WV alg? seems to me like you may as well just insert the pair and execute the OLL.

Well most of the VH algs are pretty intuitive which leaves you with 27 algs and then some easy ones.. I don't know really, there probably is no point ;P

 

[Joker]

There are algs already that skip OLL if you have all edges oriented.

 

[StachuK1992]

That's nasty. I vote nay.

 

[qqwref]

My first instinct is that it sounds like a lot of algs for a questionable benefit. But give it a shot, and if it turns out fast for you then other people will try it.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

You could also use the M/R/U EO algs after doing the WV case, it might save you some time / move count. I do agree with jiggy though and you're pretty much doing the same thing you'd do in 2LOLL (but saving yourself some moves I suppose, at least for OCLL). I know that a lot of VHF2L can be intuitive, but if you're looking at wanting to do both VHF2L and WV in the same step, you're looking at having a minimum of 32 (VHF2L algs) + 27 (WV) which already is (2) more algorithms than just learning full OLL (which most of them are really fast).

 

[PhillipEspinoza]

If you're gonna do this at all, just learn ZZ-WV and forget VHF2L. But, it's kinda pointless anyway since the WV step is a step in itself. You might as well do (C)OLL.

 

[Kirjava]

joey and I groaned when we saw the title of this thread.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Phillip is right, especially since after COLL you'll be left with an EPLL. I'd say you should time yourself on all the VHF2L cases and see how long they take you on average, and compare them to how long F/f SM F'/f' takes you. If you save more time by doing the EO alg then do that, rather than VHF2L. Then COLL and EPLL. I debated for awhile learning COLL instead of OLL because it was fewer algorithms and inevitably I get a really fast PLL. It doesn't matter much though once OLL/PLL recognition/execution are good (sub2 for execution and ~1 for recognition).

 

[oll+phase+sync]

I think classical VHF2L and Winter variation don't fit together: algs wich end with F or B moves are using the slot-in process to flip two edges - that are round about 50% - all of these You would have to replace. (at least it could be done intuitiv )

It would be easier to first orient your edges (few cases , few moves) and may prepare the final CE pair to be an easy match or even solve it during EO.

If you accidentally solve F2L before "Start of Winter" there are at least only 8 OLL cases

 

[cubacca1972]

If your goal is to get an OLL skip every time, learn the Petrus Method to solve F2L. Then, learn WV. Then there is no OLL step, as this is blended in with the insertion of the right front CE pair. In a sense, you are skipping OLL the same way that you are "skipping" solving the middle layer step in an F2L solve--the step is removed by virtue of the design of the solving method.

If the Petrus Method feels radioactive to you, just make an incomplete cross (don't bother with the RD edge), solve the LF and LB CE pairs, and do the orientation step as described on Lars' site.

Or, build your first block Roux style, then solve DF and DB, then do the orientation step.

 

[a small kitten]

If the Petrus Method feels radioactive to you, just make an incomplete cross (don't bother with the RD edge), solve the LF and LB CE pairs

This is not such a good idea.

 

[bluedasher]

Am I a noob? I thought that VHF2L and WV are the same thing. Are they not? They must be very similar right?

 

[Andrew Ricci]

Am I a noob? I thought that VHF2L and WV are the same thing. Are they not? They must be very similar right?

They are similar indeed. WV is corners, VH is edges.

Edit: And no, you are not a noob. Just a newb.

 

[bluedasher]

They are similar indeed. WV is corners, VH is edges.

Edit: And no, you are not a noob. Just a newb.

HaHa. I remember when we were averaging the same. But then you happened and I didn't I guess I'm a bit of a newb, but a fast newb at that.

 

[Edward]

It's like doing 2 look PLL, cept for F2L :s

 

[Kirjava]

Yeah, this whole thread reeks of overengineering.

 

[cubacca1972]

This is not such a good idea.

No, probably not a good idea. I find that people tend to learn one method (F2L for example), get stuck thinking and seeing in that method, to the point where they simply can't adapt to a new system.

I think that Fridrich cubers tend to spaz out a bit when they try the block building stuff in Petrus, and give up on it right away.

I just posted a few alternatives to Petrus-style block building for the sake of getting faster initial results.

Personally, I think that either original Petrus or Roux first block, then DF and DB would work best.

Yeah, this whole thread reeks of overengineering.

Yes. On the other hand, its fun (for me anyway) to see others try to find novel approaches to solving.

I am puzzled to see lots of WV discussion in the context of non-Petrus solves, as I designed it specifically for the Petrus method.