ShadenSmith
Veteran
So from what I see, it appears most people use the OLL parity algorithm when they have a wing parity. I did this at first, but found that I too commonly messed up the algorithm due to only being used to solving it sighted, with wide turns. So I set out on finding a new way to handle parity. I've looked around and read every thread on 4x4x4 BLD I could find and none of them seemed to have this, making me think this may be a new idea. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I use (l' U2) (l' U2 F2) (l' F2) (r U2) (r' U2) l2
This is NOT center-safe! It messes up the U center, so this will only work with centers-first solvers. This is the common algorithm used in fixing edges during sighted solves.
The reason I prefer this algorithm over the OLL parity, other than the algorithm itself, is the ease of setup moves. Since the swapped pieces are Ufr and Ubr, setup can almost always be achieved without slice turns. The only exception to this case would be a parity of two adjacent pieces, which in that case it would be most logical to just use the OLL parity algorithm.
The setup moves for this method (IMHO) most favor the r2 solver. I use Dfr as my buffer piece. For all cases of the paritied piece in which the piece does not lie in the middle layers, the setup moves can be performed as x (setup move for r2). Following the x, you must perform the setup for the piece's current location, after the rotation.
In cases where your paritied piece lies on the middle layers (l or r), It is a toss-up between which method (this or the OLL parity) would be easier. Using my buffer, having a parity with Ubl would just mean U2 x for setup. If I had Ubr, I would just do U2 l and use the OLL parity.
What do you all think of this idea? If it has already been written about I could not find it, so please show me where it is located. I would not favor this method as the only way to fix parity, but I think it is much easier in several (but not all!) cases.
I use (l' U2) (l' U2 F2) (l' F2) (r U2) (r' U2) l2
This is NOT center-safe! It messes up the U center, so this will only work with centers-first solvers. This is the common algorithm used in fixing edges during sighted solves.
The reason I prefer this algorithm over the OLL parity, other than the algorithm itself, is the ease of setup moves. Since the swapped pieces are Ufr and Ubr, setup can almost always be achieved without slice turns. The only exception to this case would be a parity of two adjacent pieces, which in that case it would be most logical to just use the OLL parity algorithm.
The setup moves for this method (IMHO) most favor the r2 solver. I use Dfr as my buffer piece. For all cases of the paritied piece in which the piece does not lie in the middle layers, the setup moves can be performed as x (setup move for r2). Following the x, you must perform the setup for the piece's current location, after the rotation.
In cases where your paritied piece lies on the middle layers (l or r), It is a toss-up between which method (this or the OLL parity) would be easier. Using my buffer, having a parity with Ubl would just mean U2 x for setup. If I had Ubr, I would just do U2 l and use the OLL parity.
What do you all think of this idea? If it has already been written about I could not find it, so please show me where it is located. I would not favor this method as the only way to fix parity, but I think it is much easier in several (but not all!) cases.
