A Collection of OLL Algorithms!

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FU

Guest
#7
F R' F' R U2 R U2 R'

#8
R U2 R' U2 R' F R F'

Last edited by a moderator:
F

FU

Guest
#41
y' R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U' R' F R F'

Kenneth

Not Alot
Maybe it's here before, but it is a optimal and pretty fast alg for U corners and no edges:

OLL 18

y' r U l U2 R' U2 R U2 l' U' r'

Or in X Y -X format:

X = r U l U2 R'
Y = U2

Due to the symetry of the case the mirror also works:

y' l' U' r' U2 L U2 L' U2 r U l

X = l' U' r' U2 L
Y = U2

Another one, same case, same turns but diffrent order:

R U2 l' U' r' U2 r U l U2 R'

X = R U2 l' U' r'
Y = U2

Another case:

OLL 1

R d' R2 D R' U2 R D' R2 d R'

X = R d' R2 D R'
Y = U2

Last edited:

Lt-UnReaL

Member
y' l' U' r' U2 L U2 L' U2 r U l
This one is a lot better than my current alg!(F R U R' d R' U2 R' F R F')

Dcuber

Member
i'M HAPPY TO SAY that those are basically the olls I do!
I prob. would have changed my oll
but i'm glad I don't have to!

N

newbiecubie

Guest
none of OLL 1 work!!!

shelley

chang
none of OLL 1 work!!!
Well, of course they don't work if you're not doing them properly.

N

newbiecubie

Guest
lol I just relised I was doing it from a solved cube and I was expecting the pattern to be the exact opposite, but then I tried it in that posistion and it worked! lol my bad.

Dene

For OLL #23: The first one is an A perm if the last R is changed to an R2, as in it doesn't work. The second one doesn't work either, it leaves my cube in a mess. Anyone have a better headlights algorithm?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found a brilliant one on Mr. Garron's site (thanks Lucas!!!)
May as well add it here:

y2 R' F2 R U2 R U2 R' F2 R U2 R'

Last edited:

Jai

Member
Wow, I'm surprised at how many algos I have that are unique.

1: y r U R' U R U' R' U R U2 r2 U' R U' R' U R U' R' U2 r
9: S U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' S'
10: S' U2 L' U2 L U L' U L S
11: y2 M' U2 R U R' U R U2 R' U' M
12: y M U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U M'
13: y' F R U' R' F R U R' U' F' R U R' F'
14: y F' L' U L F' L' U' L U F L' U' L F
29: y r U R' U' L' M U R U' M'
30: y' R' F' L F L R2 U' L' U M'
34: y2 F R U R' U' R' F' r U R U' r'
36: y2 l' U' L U' L' U L U l F' L' F
38: y2 r U R' U R U' R' U' r' F R F'
40: y2 R L' U R' U' L2 R' F R F' L'
41: y' S F' L' U' L U F U' S'
42: y S' F R U R' U' F' U S
46: L' U2 L U F R U R' F'
y S' U' F U R U' R' F' S
49: y2 S R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U S'
y x U' L U2 R' U' M U' L' U2 R U' R' L
y L' R U R' U2 L U M' U R U2 L' U
50: y2 S' L' U2 L2 U L2 U L2 U2 L' U' S
y' x U' L U2 R' U' M U' L' U2 R U' R' L
y' R L' U' L U2 R' U' M' U' L' U2 R U'
52: y2 M F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' U' M'
55: F R U' R' F U R U' R' U R U' R' F' R U R' F'

Last edited:
F

FU

Guest
Wow, I'm surprised at how many algos I have that are unique.

1: r U R' U R U' R' U R U2 r2 U' R U' R' U R U' R' U2 r
9: S U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' S'
10: S' U2 L' U2 L U L' U L S
11: y2 M' U2 R U R' U R U2 R' U' M
12: y M U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U M'
13: y' F R U' R' F R U R' U' F' R U R' F'
14: y F' L' U L F' L' U' L U F L' U' L F
29: y r U R' U' L' M U R U' M'
30: y' R' F' L F L R2 U' L' U M'
34: y2 F R U R' U' R' F' r U R U' r'
36: y2 l' U' L U' L' U L U l F' L' F
38: y2 r U R' U R U' R' U' r' F R F'
40: y2 R L' U R' U' L2 R' F R F' L'
41: y' S F' L' U' L U F U' S'
42: y S' F R U R' U' F' U S
46: L' U2 L U F R U R' F'
y S' U' F U R U' R' F' S
49: y2 S R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U S'
y x U' L U2 R' U' M U' L' U2 R U' R' L
y L' R U R' U2 L U M' U R U2 L' U
50: y2 S' L' U2 L2 U L2 U L2 U2 L' U' S
y' x U' L U2 R' U' M U' L' U2 R U' R' L
y' R L' U' L U2 R' U' M' U' L' U2 R U'
52: y2 M F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' U' M'
55: F R U' R' F U R U' R' U R U' R' F' R U R' F'

I found these all myself, without a cube solving program.

Um, sorry to be mean but I think most of your algorithms are slower than a 2-look OLL

Jai

Member
I think most of your algorithms are slower than a 2-look OLL
Not necessarily, a lot of my algos depend on being comfortable with slice moves, and i.e. , performing them as slice moves, not as , for example, r R' (= M').

EDIT: After trying my algos with slice moves performed as 2 moves ( double layer turn then single layer turn , see example above), I can see how horrible and slow they can be. That's why performing slice moves as they are is very important, it makes a huge difference. Case #1, though, is just plain horrible. But , nonetheless, it's an algo that hasn't been posted.

Last edited:
F

FU

Guest
I think most of your algorithms are slower than a 2-look OLL
Not necessarily, a lot of my algos depend on being comfortable with slice moves, and i.e. , performing them as slice moves, not as , for example, r R' (= M')
Um okay, can you state the time taken for executing each algorithm? Or just some of them.

Jai

Member
Any certain ones that you want me to prove, or do you want me to just pretty much do all of them?
How fast do you sorta expect them to be? How fast are your algos for those cases?

Last edited:
F

FU

Guest
Any certain ones that you want me to prove, or do you want me to just pretty much do all of them?
How fast do you sorta expect them to be? How fast are your algos for those cases?
Well I hope you could do all, but just the faster ones will do. I expect each case to not exceed 3.5s, which is what I estimate a 2-look OLL would take for an average turner.

My algos - cases 1, 29, 30, 34, 36, 41, 49, 50 in around 2.5, and cases 5 & 42 in around 3. The rest are sub-2.

Jai

Member
Ok, here ya go. I only timed each algo once or twice .
1- 2.67
9- 1.72
10- 2.37
11- 1.73
12- 1.97
13- 1.84
14- 1.74
29- 1.34
30- 1.42
34- 1.73
36- 1.85
38- 1.56
40- 1.50
41- 2.51
42- 1.93
46- 1.78
49- 2.29
50- 2.44
52- 1.85
55- 2.24
Is that enough proof? I'll do an OLL time attack soon, but I have to go right now, so I have no time.

F

FU

Guest
Ok, here ya go. I only timed each algo once or twice .
1- 2.67
9- 1.72
10- 2.37
11- 1.73
12- 1.97
13- 1.84
14- 1.74
29- 1.34
30- 1.42
34- 1.73
36- 1.85
38- 1.56
40- 1.50
41- 2.51
42- 1.93
46- 1.78
49- 2.29
50- 2.44
52- 1.85
55- 2.24
Is that enough proof? I'll do an OLL time attack soon, but I have to go right now, so I have no time.
Decent times, I guess I'm gonna relearn some of my OLL algorithms from your list

Kenneth

Not Alot
The standard alg for the pi/Bruno case is : R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R (14 QTM)

It's easy to remember and pretty fast but because of the many half turns it does lock up pretty often (at least for me). I'm using that alg for COLL and in COLL there are diffrent algs for some other pi cases and one of them I do faster than that standard alg... So I thought it also might be good for OLL =)

It is based on Niklas and Sune but saving some turns in between, first Niklas, then Sune:

R' U L U' R U' L' U' L U' L' (11 QTM)

Too many L's? Well try the mirror then: L U' R' U L' U R U R' U R

y2 version: L' U R U' L U' R' U' R U' R'
y2 mirror: R U' L' U R' U L U L' U L

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.