VH

N

NaeosPsy

Regular
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Latvia
WCA ID
2011DREI01
Well, the situation is like that,
I know COLL(exec almost the same as OLL and recog. a little bit longer) and i do VHF2L pretty good (i thought that was really cool 2 months ago, no need to learn full OLL :D) and i wanted to know, if it's effecient to do VH when 2 edges on the cube are not orientated to get a COLL case?

Also, for some cases, i get like a VH situtation where i have to orient 2 edges and then just do something U R U2' R' or R U' R' to get a OLL skip. Is it useful to remember these cases and do VH on them just to get OLL skip?

And are the ZBF2L R U R' cases worth learning?

BTW, i solve mostly one-handed, if that changes anything.
 
Kirjava said:
VH is a nasty method that will generally only increase your movecount.

But of course, learning "magic lucky cases" is always useful.
Click to expand...

^ trufax.

Yeah you may as well just go through a ZBf2l page or two and think how you'd deal with each case. Most of the time it's easy to force 2 edges without that many extra moves. However, I think you're better off intuitively learning how to get some edges oriented during the 3rd pair, and then preserving them for the 4th. That way you add barely any extra moves, you just solve the end of the f2l slightly differently.

That said, if you're mad, you could learn to solve f2l+OLL in one alg for the R U R' + no edges oriented subset.
 
Escher said:
That said, if you're mad, you could learn to solve f2l+OLL in one alg for the R U R' + no edges oriented subset.
Click to expand...

Surely simply doing RUR' and then OLL would be better? I would've though the cons outweigh the pros by a lot here.

However, full OLLLS could be good. ^_^
 
Kirjava said:
Surely simply doing RUR' and then OLL would be better? I would've though the cons outweigh the pros by a lot here.

However, full OLLLS could be good. ^_^
Click to expand...

Idk, I guess there are a few cons, I know that Mats Valk knows OLLLS for the 'WV' subset and it works for him. Perceived cons like 'extra cases' aren't really that bad, imo it would just depend on how good the algs are, especially in the context of OH (most algs for no edges OLLs are ****).

LOL full OLLLS = 57x4x42 cases?

Idk I'm bad at working out case numbers.
 
It's hard to tell if something like this will be worth it or not. Of course learning special cases will help when you are able to perform them well, but learning something like RUR'+OLL could be problematic. Also RUR' takes 0 seconds to execute, then you're at OLL that everyone knows and loves, not stuck in some weird OLLLS subset.
 
Kirjava said:
It's hard to tell if something like this will be worth it or not. Of course learning special cases will help when you are able to perform them well, but learning something like RUR'+OLL could be problematic. Also RUR' takes 0 seconds to execute, then you're at OLL that everyone knows and loves, not stuck in some weird OLLLS subset.
Click to expand...

You're still referring to the 0 edges oriented OLLLS cases in the context of OH or just R U R' + OLL in general? Of course it would only be worth it if the algorithms generated were capable of being executed a significant amount faster than your normal no edges OLLs (which are relatively horrible OH), I only suggest it because R U R' is one of the worst cases to force oriented edges with. Your points are right though, it really would just depend on what came out if somebody decided to work on it.

The rest of R U R' plus OLL I would definitely never bother learning, there are a couple of other bad f2l cases I'm tempted by though...

P.s. Thanks Irontwig, I know what I was doing wrong now.
 
Last edited:
I meant just RUR' + OLL in general.

I didn't think about RUR' being one of the worst to force orients with. Isn't doing RU' then stuff good enough?

I'm not really a fan of LS+someLL methods, looks like too much overhead to me. MGLS is some good **** though.

Are the no edges OLLs really that bad? y u no SuneOLL? :P
 
Kirjava said:
I meant just RUR' + OLL in general.

I didn't think about RUR' being one of the worst to force orients with. Isn't doing RU' then stuff good enough?

I'm not really a fan of LS+someLL methods, looks like too much overhead to me. MGLS is some good **** though.

Are the no edges OLLs really that bad? y u no SuneOLL? :P
Click to expand...

I already knew a few suneOLLs before you made that thread, I just haven't bothered to learn it for most of the rest I didn't know :P

Ya I guess it's *good enough* to do R U' then some **** like R2 F R F' R U2 R' but it's commonly perceived as *faster* to just do R U R' then OLL. I'm sure there are faster ways than the one I just posted but idk them.

LS + LL methods do really suck, they make me want to just get fast with something cool like Roux...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top