Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

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.

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:

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'

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.

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.

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')

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?

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.

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.

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.

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