MGLS vs WV

[DaveyCow]

Didn't know the place to post this so I post here!

What are your thoughts on pros/cons of MGLS vs WV?

 

[slinky773]

An obvious con for MGLS and pro for WV is that there's more algorithms for MGLS ELS and CLS (125 algs) than for WV (27 algs). However, MGLS for me is more useful than WV, since it orients the entire LL. WV is only really useful if your OLL algs for all cases with corners oriented are good. For me, they're not.

 

[DaveyCow]

An obvious con for MGLS and pro for WV is that there's more algorithms for MGLS ELS and CLS (125 algs) than for WV (27 algs). However, MGLS for me is more useful than WV, since it orients the entire LL. WV is only really useful if your OLL algs for all cases with corners oriented are good. For me, they're not.

True dat! So if yur edges are not oriented in a WV case, then you do the WV alg and get an OLL- (I think 3 possibilities, all pretty nice. Do you think doing in this case the WV alg then
nice" OLL is better or worse than doing normal insert/OLL ?

 

[Sa967St]

When combined with CFOP, WV is just an add-on/submethod that can't easily be used efficiently every single solve. You don't begin a solve with the intent of using WV -- you use it when you get a WV case during the LS. MGLS-F is a full method, just like CFOP.

I think you're asking about WV vs. CLS, though. Here are some comparisons:

- The chance of the LS being a WV case is 1/150, whereas the chance of the LS being a CLS case is 1/80
- WV has 54 algs and CLS has 97 (not including OCLL)
- CLS is more explored (Lucas's page has a lot of algs to choose from), whereas most WV cases only have one or two algs to choose from
- WV is arguably easier to recognize, although both require similar information from other pieces (the CO of at least 3 other corners)
- WV algs are shorter on average than CLS algs
- All WV and CLS cases can be solved with <R,U> or <L,U>, although there are more WV cases than CLS cases (percentage-wise) that are better solved with <R,U,L> or <R,U,D>

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I like both.

 

[Bindedsa]

- The chance of the LS being a WV case is 1/150, whereas the chance of the LS being a CLS case is 1/80

Are you saying WV is only possible 1/150 solves or is LS something different than I think?

 

[TDM]

Are you saying WV is only possible 1/150 solves or is LS something different than I think?

That's immediately after you've solved the 3rd F2L pair. If you pair the edge and corner for the last slot, the chance is much higher than 1/150 (1/12?)

 

[Bindedsa]

That's immediately after you've solved the 3rd F2L pair. If you pair the edge and corner for the last slot, the chance is much higher than 1/150 (1/12?)

So, unless I am using a f2l trick or doing separated inserts, it's pretty common?

 

[elrog]

MGLS with PLL is a 3-Look LS+LL. Just doing standard F2L/OLL/PLL is also 3-Look along with having less algorithms, easier recognition, and it has more resources for learning. This being said, MGLS is kind of useless.

WV can be useful for saving a few moves on some certain cases. I think WV can be useful, but I'd only suggest learning it if you use a method which orients edges before the last slot (such as ZZ or Petrus) because they will give you a much higher chance of being able to use WV.

 

[Sa967St]

Are you saying WV is only possible 1/150 solves or is LS something different than I think?

LS is "last slot". You can always manipulate whatever case you get to turn it into a WV case, but most of the time it's not efficient.

1/150 is slightly misleading, it's the probability that you already have a WV case after you finish the third pair when you don't purposely influence EO or the last pair. The probability if the last pair being paired (as in, it can be inserted with AUF + R U' R' or AUF + L' U L) is 8/150, and the probability that all the LL edges are oriented is 1/8. If you were to include LS cases where you can easily turn it into a WV case, the probability of being able to use WV efficiently during the LS would be much higher than 1/150.

MGLS with PLL is a 3-Look LS+LL. Just doing standard F2L/OLL/PLL is also 3-Look along with having less algorithms, easier recognition, and it has more resources for learning. This being said, MGLS is kind of useless.

This is debatable.

 

[MatejMuzatko]

RLS ftw