• 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.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

OLS - Oriented Last Slot (Game Changer) and OCPLS

Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
462
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2007ESPI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hello Speedsolving Community,

This has been an idea I've been putting off sharing for over a year now. I've finally generated the algs that will allow me to feel comfortable making a post about this method (technique, really) I've been inspired by the creation of ZZ-CT to come up with.

OLS, Oriented Last Slot, is pairing the Last Slot edge with ANY corner as long as that corner is oriented correctly (U-face or D-Face facing up or down) and using it to block build or in creation of F2L. This type of orientation-based phasing allows for reduced alg counts and makes OCPLS (Orient-Corners-Permute-Last-Slot) possible in 156 algs. This, in turn, allows for a 8.33% chance of an LL skip with an average (ZZ) movecount of 44 STM.

Now: I don't want to contribute to the endless spinoffs of methods that people are creating these days. This is not to gain fame or to put my name on a method or anything like that. It is simply a method that I felt is worth sharing with the community. There are pro's and con's, like with any other method, but I really do feel like the pro's make this something worth taking note of and I have and will continue to dedicate my time towards learning this method of mine. I really don't care what it's called and I don't care to have my initials involved in it at all. I came up with a couple names (Pseudo Slot, Wild Pairs) but decided to just go with one that is the simplest and most descriptive of the idea: Oriented Last Slot.

In order to best understand this method, it helps to have a good understanding of ZZ-CT, as that is the method that mine spawned off of. It's not an addition, but rather I dissected the essence of the method and figured out what is really going on in the sub-steps of TSLE to create, or iterate, the technique that ZZ-CT relies heavily on and how it can be used in other ways. If this is confusing, think of it like this: ELS, VHF2L, ZBF2L, WV, VLS, are all methods involving insertion of the LS edge while affecting the LL pieces in various ways. They are all part of a larger, gargantuan, method involving a knowledge base of all the algs needed to force full orientation of LL during LS, which in turn is part of the even larger method of orienting all LL pieces while permuting LL corners, which is part of the largest method of orienting and permuting all LL pieces while inserting LS in one go. Needless to say, that method would be near impossible to learn, especially if you rely on regular CFOP solving. All this to say that ELS, VLS etc. are to orientation of the LL, as OLS is to ZZ-CT.

Order of Magnitude of Method Approaches based on # of Cases:
1) FULL LS+LL
(Orient and permute edges and corners of LL while LS) - ~15,500 cases? (est.)
2) LS + COLL (Orient LL pieces while permuting LL corners ignoring EP) - 11,625 cases? A bunch.
3) LS + OLL (This is what CLS, VLS, HLS, WV, ELS, ZBF2L is a part of) - 1,937 cases? Still a bunch

The following are ways in which methods or techniques have been produced to greatly decrease the amount of algs in each of the LS+LL approaches:

3A) OLS + OLL via TSLE: 2,000 cases down to 108? I forget. By pairing the LS edge piece with any corner and using a VLS, HLS, or WV alg to insert the Oriented Last Slot, it increases the opportunities you have to pair up an edge with a corner by 5 and therefore decreases the amount of algs you have to learn to orient the LL pieces while inserting the LS. It also helps that all 5 edge pieces are oriented via ZZ.

2A) LS + COLL via OCPLS/OLS: 11,000 cases down to 156. Works by inserting the OLS (oriented LS edge piece with 1 of any of 5 remaining correctly oriented corner pieces) during EO line or block building and therefore phasing down TSLE algs to 7 which allows you to then learn the corresponding LS+OLL algs (CLS algs) of which there is only 26 cases of which you can learn the 6 corresponding CPLS algs for each case creating a doable 156 algs for LS+COLL.

1A) FULL LS+LL via super-method. TTLL?? 15,000 cases down to under 300? Under 100? This method has yet to be created but ideally it would find another way to *efficiently* phase the OCPLS algs down to create a feasible way of learning 12 edge cycle cases per OCPLS. As it is, this would be 12 x 156 = 1,872 algs, which, although significantly less than 15k is still beyond what is humanly possible. TTLL in a way has already achieved this goal in a way by phasing the algs down to 1 CLS alg, of which there are 6 OCPLS algs where you can learn the corresponding 12 edge cycle cases per OCPLS alg, resulting in 72 cases. While this would be PERFECT for finding a way to consolidate the 15,000+ cases of Full 1-look LS+LL into a more achievable 72 algs, it requires a whole step before it (TSLE). I guess one way of going around this would be to force a TSLE skip each time by doing WV for the pair before. For ZZ that forces you to pair-build instead of block build, but one can consider that a negligible inconvenience for a sub-100 alg 1-look LS+LL method. Still, I have faith that there might be something else possible.



What if I told you though, that it would be reasonably possible to learn the 2nd to largest method that I mentioned in the previous paragraph? What if I told you that it would be possible to solve the Last Slot while permuting and orienting all the LL pieces? What if I told you it was only 156 algs, recog is achievable, and it averages 12 ergonomic STM per case? What if I told you, you can have an LL skip not 1 out of every 15,500 solves, not 1 out of every 1,995 solves, not 1 out of every 360 solves, but 1 out of every 12 solves?

Let's take it back a second. Again, this started with ZZ-CT. As we were going over the method and seeing ways in which it might be able to be improved or expanded upon, we were coming up with all kinds of ideas. Some were obvious flops, but we kept throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what would stick. With TSLE, the idea was to insert the LS edge while orienting ALL of the corners. Sometimes this would result in the LS corner being in the LL and sometimes, if we were lucky, it would result in the LS corner serendipitously being conjoined with it's corresponding edge in the F2L. For some of the easier cases, it became pretty easy to spot when this would happen, and we would be happy when it left us with 1 of the 21 easily recognizable and very familiar PLL cases we know and love. An idea came up of what it would look like to force that result every time for every TSLE case. Given there were 5 positions for that F2L corner to occupy, doing the math resulted in omg no way too many algz. Like 500+? Even if my math wasn't entirely on point, it didn't seem feasible at all, even if it would mean leaving us with a nice PLL for LL every time. But it was nice to think about. So it got me thinking if there was any way to narrow down those amount of algs. I realized by simply inserting the LS edge piece (in other words doing ELS), it would change the alg into a simple CLS alg of the MGLS method. Now, some people were really opposed to this blasphemous idea, but doing 1-3 moves to narrow down 500+ cases to around 100 CLS algs seemed pretty magical, even if I wasn't willing to learn CLS. Another advantage to this was that it narrowed down the TSLE cases from 108 to about 16. For lazy alg-phobic cubers like me, this was an incredible discovery. For others who didn't want to be bothered by 3 extra moves or seemingly uglier TSLE algs, they poo-pood the idea. You do you boo. But I was personally liking these thought patterns that kept leading to magical discoveries. So I toyed around with the method and noticed that I would have a greater chance of getting a TSLE skip with this new "ELS" step I introduced into my ZZ-CT solving. Cool, I thought. I then thought about why this makes sense and that's because in order to do TTLL the LS edge piece has to be inserted in the F2L, so if you go ahead and make it a step to insert the LS edge piece into the LS position then of course you will have a case where you accidentally did the simplest of TSLE cases without realizing it (R U' R'). I then thought, "Well, the other requirement for a TSLE skip into straight TTLL is the corner the edge piece is joined with can't be twisted clockwise or counter clockwise. You have to take note and make sure that the corner that the LS edge piece is paired with is oriented correctly, and by doing this you will greatly increase your chances of a TSLE skip 3-fold." So this was all about increasing the chances of getting a skip, which is what was at the heart of the ZZ-CT method. Through this thought process, I realized that TSLE is essentially pairing the LS edge piece with a correctly oriented corner piece and using a VLS/WV/HLS/VHS alg to force all the LL pieces to be oriented after pairing and insertion of the correctly Oriented Last Slot. This then got me thinking, do you have to wait until LS to join the oriented corner with the F2L edge piece, or can you do it earlier in the solve? How many times is there an F2L edge piece joined with a correctly oriented corner during block building that we simply break up or ignore when we could have used it to block build more efficiently? Can I just take advantage of what is essentially a free pair?

And that's it. That's the essence of it. With this concept, a world of possibilities opens up. It's kind of hard to go into all the different possibilities but let me continue with where my thought pattern went from here. F2L-1 with ZZ averages about 25 or less with this idea and it narrowed down the TSLE cases from 16 to the 7 cross cases for standard OLL. Although you can stick with that and just learn TTLL from there (79 alg method for 1LLL with an average movecount of 45 STM), narrowing down the TSLE cases have some extra benefits that are worth looking into. It's kinda like, we don't have to spend our time hunting for our food these days so we get to transfer that time and energy towards stuff like space exploration. Now that we have less TSLE algs to worry about, we can achieve more. Since there are only 7 TSLE cases now, we have the ability to go back to an idea that otherwise sounded ludicrous: forcing an OLL skip and jumping straight into a PLL alg. With each case there are 4 positions the F2L corner can occupy, with the exception of H-case which, because of symmetry, only has 2. This means (7x4) - 2 = 26 CLS algs, which is a great improvement from 100+, which was already an improvement on 500+ with full TSLE.

Now, if you stick with this 26 alg CLS method, you'd be even better than if you stuck with TSLE+TTLL, you know why? You now have a 1/72 chance of a LL skip after LS. That is DRAMATICALLY improved from TSLE's 1/360. You go from a 0.277% chance of a LL skip to a 1.39%! We're getting closer and closer to that LL Skip method.

This for me is really about chasing the skip. With ZZ-CT we moved from 1/1994 to 1/360. That's AWESOME! But to most people, there's very little difference between 0.05% and 0.277%. Even for most cubers, putting in the work of memorizing close to 200 algs for a method that still has a LL skip chance dramatically below 1% doesn't seem worth it no matter how you spin it. Well, if you learn to master this pseudo slot idea and combine it with just the 26 CLS algs, you can have a 35 move solution in every average of 100! How is that not crazy?

If you combine both TTLL and CLS, you will have a 5% chance of finishing the LL+LS in one algorithm, aka a LL "skip". That means 1 in 20 solves will be a LL skip with an average move count of 39 moves or less and 27% of THOSE sub-39 move solves will be 35 moves or under on average. That means if you do an average of 100, you're likely to have a solve around the 35 move range.

And so... this brings me to my final idea of the thread. Imagine if, for TSLE you could not only force a PLL for LL but if you could also permute the corners at the same time? Sounds crazy right? Well it's not that crazy. With our Oriented Last Slot and resulting 26-alg PLL-Forcing TSLE (CLS), we just have to learn 6 different Corner Permutation cases per CLS. This would take the 1.39% of a LL skip and raise it to a whopping 8.33%. 1 in 12 solves will result in an LL skip. The other 11 solves will result in a 7 STM LL. The average movecount for these OCPLS algorithms is 12 STM so LS+LL will be on average 19 STM. Combine this with a conservative 25-move F2L-1 and you have an average movecount of 44 STM.

1% of your speedsolves will be 35 moves or less.

156 algs for Full OCPLS but if you take out the Sune and Anti-Sune cases it becomes around 100. For Sune and Anti-Sune you can just do OLL and either TTLL or the very easy 1 of 6 OCPLS TTLL algs.

I will post a video on my Youtube explaining and showing what this all looks like. Here are some example solves:
-----------

F' D R D2 F D2 L2 R B' L2 U2 L2 F L R U B U' R2 U' R' F R' F L'

EO Line: z2 r' D x' L R' F' L' R2 U' (8/8)
2x2x3: z2 U R U2 L2 R U' R2 L' U L (10/18)
1x2x2: R' U R U2 R U R' (7/25)
LS: y U R U R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' (12/37)

37 STM

------------
A TSLE skip case:
R2 F U F2 D L' F' R' F L2 F U2 F2 B D F' U R' F D U2 L' F D' U

EO Line: z2 x' R2 F2 D x2 r R2 U' 6/6
1x2x3 w/ PS: z2 U' R' U L' U2 L' U2 L' 8/14
1x2x3: U R U' R U' R' U R U' R' 10/24
ORIENTATION SKIP
TTLL: y' (U') R' U2 R U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U' R' U2 R (16/40)

40 STM

-------------

U2 L2 U2 B2 R2 B' R2 F2 R2 D2 B2 D L U2 L2 D' B' D L R F'

EO Cross: z2 U' D' x' D' U' R' U' x' R' L' U' r' U2 x z2 (11/11)
F2L1: U' L' U L (4/15)
F2L2: U' R' U R2 (4/19)
OLS: U' R' (2/21)
F2L4: L U2 L' (3/24)
OCPLS: F' r U R U' r' F R' (8/32)
LL: U2 (1/33)

33 STM

------------------


OCPLS ALGS:
Notated "X-Y" where "X" is the direction (Clockwise or Counter-Clockwise) that the UFR corner needs to be oriented and where "Y" is the direction that the UFL corner needs to be oriented. All cases are done with F2L corner in UFR position. "O" indicates that the corner is oriented with U or D sticker facing up.
(U) R U2 L U' R' U L' U R U R' (11f) LEFT SWAP
y' R' U2 R U' R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U' R (13f*)LEFT SWAP 2-GEN
(U') L' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U' L (11f) RIGHT SWAP
(U') R U2 R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
(U2) R U2 L U' R' U R L' U2 R' (10f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U') R U2 R' U R L' U R' U' L (10f*) NO SWAP
(U2) R2 U' L' U R2 U' L (7f*) FRONT SWAP

Movecount Average: 10 STM
R L U' R' U' L' U' L U' R L' U' R' (13f*) //NO SWAP
R' U' R U' R' U2 R' U' L' U R2 U' L (13f*) //FRONT SWAP
y' F U' R' U' R U2 R' U' R F' (11f*) //FRONT SWAP
y' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R (11f*) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
R U R' U' R L U' R' U R U' R' U L' (14f*) //BACK SWAP 3 GEN
R U2 R' U R' U2 R U R' U R2 U R' U2 (14f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
(U') R U' R2 U L U' R U L' U' R U R' (13f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUL
(U') R2 U R' D' R U R' D R U2 R2 (11f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUD
y (U2) L2 U R U' L2 U R' (7f*) //RIGHT SWAP OPTIMAL
(U) R L U L' U R' U L U' R U2 R' L' (13f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP RUL
(U2) R' D' R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 D R (11f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.83 STM
(U' D) R2 U' R' U' F' U R' U' R F R U2 R2 (D') - (15) NO SWAP
(U2) R' D R' U2 R D' R U' R2 U' R2 - (11) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U) R U R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' - (11) BACK SWAP
(U2) R2 F R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' F' R2 - (12) FRONT SWAP
(U D) R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R (D') - (13) LEFT SWAP
(U) R' (U' D') R U R' D R U2 R' U2 R - (11) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.167 STM
(U) R2 U' R' D' R U' R' D R' U' R2 U' R2 - (13) NO SWAP
(U) R U' R' U R U' R' L' U R U' (R' L) - (12) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U') R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U R U' R' - (11) BACK SWAP
R' D R2 U2 R U R' U R2 D' R' U2 R2 - (13) FRONT SWAP
(D) R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R (D') - (11) LEFT SWAP
L' U2 R U' R' U2 L U' R U R' U2 R U2 R' - (15) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.5 STM
1) (U2) R U2 R' U2 R U R' U' R U R' (11f*) - BACK SWAP
2) F R' U L' U' R2 U L U' R' F' (11f) - RIGHT SWAP
R2 U D' R U' R' D R2 U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 (13f) - RIGHT SWAP (RUD)
(U') R U2 R U' L' U R2 U' L U R U2 R' (12f) - RIGHT SWAP (RUL)
3) (U) R U2 L' U L U2 R U' L' U R2 U L (13f*) - NO SWAP (RUL)
(U) R U R' L U L' U' R U2 L U2 R' L' (13f) - NO SWAP (RUL)
R' U R U2 R' D R' U' R U2 D' R' U' R2 (14f*) - NO SWAP (RUD)
4) (U) R2 L' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' L (10f*) - FRONT SWAP
(U) R U' L' U2 L U2 L' U R' L U L' U' L (14f) - FRONT SWAP
5) D R' L' U R U' L U' R' U R U2 D' (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
D' R U2 R' D R U' R' U D' R U2 R' U2 D (15f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
D R U2 R' D' R U' R' U D R U2 R' U2 D' (15f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
6) y' R' U' R U R' U R U' R' U R (11f*) LEFT SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.5 STM
1) L U' R U L' U2 R' U2 R U' R' (11f*) NO SWAP
2) R U R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
3) R U2 L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L U2 R U2 R2 (13f) FRONT SWAP
4) (U') R L U' R' U L' U R U' R' (10f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
5) y' (U) R' U' R U R' U R U R' U' R (11f*) LEFT SWAP
6) R U L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L U R U' R2 (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
R U R' U' F' U2 F U2 R' F R F' (12f*) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.33 STM
1) (U2) R D' R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' D R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
2) R' U2 R U2 F' U' R' U R U F (11f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
3) (U) R U R' U2 (R U' R' U)x2 R U R' (15f) BACK SWAP
4) R D R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R2 U' D' R U' R2 (14f*) NO SWAP
(U) R U' L' U' L U R' U R U L' U2 R' L (14f*) NO SWAP - RUL
5) (U) R U' R' U2 L' U R2 U' L U R' U2 R' (13f*) FRONT SWAP
6) y' R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R (11f*) LEFT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.833 STM
1) (U) F U' R2 U R2 U F' R2 U2 R2 (10f*) RIGHT SWAP
2) R L U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R L' (13f*) LEFT SWAP 3gen
R U' R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R' (13f*) LEFT SWAP 2gen
3) R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' (11f*) BACK SWAP 2gen
4) (U) R' U L U' R2 U L' U2 R' U2 R U' R' (13f*) FRONT SWAP
5) L U2 L' U R U2 L U' L' U2 R' (11f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
6) (U') R' U' R2 U' R D' R U2 R' D R' U' R' (13f*) NO SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.833 STM
1)R2 U2 R2 U' R2 B' U' R2 U R2 B R2 (12f*) NO SWAP
2)(U) F2 L F U2 B L B' U2 L' F (10f*) FRONT SWAP
(U) R L U L' U2 R' U' L U2 L' U' R U' R' (14f*) FRONT SWAP
3)(U) R U L' U R' U' R L2 U' R' U L' (12f) LEFT SWAP
(U) R' U' R U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' (13f) LEFT SWAP 2-gen
4)R' U R' U2 R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U2 R2 (13f) BACK SWAP 2-gen
5)L' U2 R U' R' L U L' U R L U' R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)(U) R U2 L U' R2 U L' U' R U2 R U R' (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP


Movecount Average: 12.1667
1)(U) R U R' U2 R L' U R' U' L (10f*) NO SWAP
2)(U) R' U R U' L U' R2 U L' U' R U R (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
3)y' (U2) R' U R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U R (11f*) LEFT SWAP
4)(U) R U R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
5)(U) R U' R D R' U2 R D' R2 U2 R U R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)(U2) R2 U' L' U R2 U L U L' U L (11f*) FRONT SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.5 STM
1) (U') R U' R' L U' R' U L' U' R U' R U' R' (14f*) NO SWAP
2) (U') R U' R' U L' U R2 U' L U R' U' R' (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
3) y' (U') R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R (11f) LEFT SWAP
4) (U2) R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
5) (U') R U' R' U2 R U R' L' U R U' L U2 R' (14f) FRONT SWAP
6) (U') R U' R2 D' R U2 R' D R U R U2 R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.667
1) (U') R U' R' L' U2 R U R' U' R U' R' L (13f*) DIAGNOAL SWAP
2) (U') R U' R' L2 D2 R L U R' U' L' D2 L2 (13f) NO SWAP
(U2) R U' R2 F R' U F' R' F U' R2 F' (12f*) NO SWAP
3) (U) R L U' R' U L' U2 R U R' U2 R U' R' (14f*) FRONT SWAP
4) R U R' U' R' U2 D' R U R' U D R2 U2 R' (15f) RIGHT SWAP
5) (U) R' U2 R' U R' U' R U2 R2 U' R' (11f) BACK SWAP
6) y' R U' R U2 R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U2 R2 (13f) LEFT SWAP

Movecount Average: 13 STM
1) R U' R U2 R' U2 L' U R U' R2 L (12f*) //NO SWAP
2) (U') R U' R' U L' U R U' R' L (10f*) //LEFT SWAP
3) (U) R U' R2 U' R' U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U' R (13f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
4) F' L F R F' L' F R' (8f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP
R L' U' L U R U' L' U R2 L (11f) // DIAGONAL SWAP RUL
5) R U R' U' R U' R' L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L (14f*) //RIGHT SWAP
6) (U) L U' R U L' U R' U' R U' R' (11f*) //FRONT SWAP


11.33 avg opt move
1) L U' R U L' U R' U R U R' (11f*) //NO SWAP
2) L U L' U' R U2 L U2 L' U2 R' (11f*) //FRONT SWAP
(U) R U L' U R' U' L U2 R U R' (11f) //FRONT SWAP #2
3) (U2) L' U2 R2 L U' L' U R2 U2 L (10f*) //LEFT SWAP 3 GEN
y' (U) R2 U R' U R2 U R' U' R' U2 R' U R' (13f*) //LEFT SWAP 2GEN OPT
y' (U) R' U R U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U R (15f) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
4) (U) R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' (11f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
(U) R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' (11f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U2 R (13f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
5) (U) R U L U' R2 U L' U' R (9f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP
6) R' U R' D R2 D' R2 U' R D R' D' R (13f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUD
(U2) R U' R' U' R U' L U' R' U L' (11f*) //RIGHT SWAP OPT


10.5 average move count opt
1) (U) R U R' U2 L' U R U' L U' R' U R U' R' (15f*) //NO SWAP
R U' R' L' U R2 U' L U R' U' R' U R U' R' (16f*) //NO SWAP #2
2) (U2) R' U2 R U2 R' D' R U' R' U D R (12f*) //FRONT SWAP
3) (U) R' U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U' R (13f*) //BACK SWAP
4) (U) R2 U2 R D R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 D' R (13f) //RIGHT SWAP 3gen RUD
5) L' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 L (10f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP GOOD CLS
(U2) R2 U2 R2 U2 L' U R2 U' R2 L (10f) //DIAGONAL SWAP #2
6) y' (U') R U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U R' U R' (13f*) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
(U') R' L U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U R U2 R' L' (13f*) //LEFT SWAP 3 GEN
(U') R L U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' U L' (14f) //LEFT SWAP 3GEN


12.667 average move count opt
1) R U R' U' R U R U' L' U R2 U' R L U R' (16f*) //NO SWAP
R U R' U' R U L' U R' U' L U2 R U' R' (15f*) //NO SWAP RUL
(U2) D' L' U L D R2 D2 L' U' L U D2 R2 (13f*) //NO SWAP OPT
2) (U) L U' R U L' U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U R' (15f) //FRONT SWAP RUL
(U) R2 U2 R D R U' R2 U' R2 U R' D' R (13f*) //FRONT SWAP RUD
R' U R' U R2 U R2 U2 D' R U' R' D R2 (14f*) //FRONT SWAP RUD
3) R U R' U' R L' U R' U' R L U R' (13f) //LEFT SWAP
y' (U') R' U' R U R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R (11f*) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
4) (U) R U R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' (11f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
5) D R' U' R2 D' R2 U R' D R2 D' R2 U' R2 (14f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUD
(U2) R U2 R U' L' U R2 U' L U2 R U R' (13f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUL
(U2) R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U' L U' R U L' U R' (15f) //RIGHT SWAP RUL
6) L' U R U' L U2 R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' (15f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP
(U') R U R' U' R U R' L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L (15f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP TRIGGER


12.667 average move opt
1)(U') F' L U2 L' U2 F U L U' L' (10f*) NO SWAP
(D U2) R' F U2 F' U2 R U F U' F' (D') (13f*) NO SWAP
(U) R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R L U' R' U L' (14f) NO SWAP - RUL
2)(U2) R U2 D' R U' R' U' R U2 R' D R' (12f*) FRONT SWAP
3)y' R' U' R U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' (13f) LEFT SWAP
4)R U' R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R2 U' R' (13f*) BACK SWAP
5)R U R' U' R U' R' L' U R U' R' L (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)(U') R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 L' U R U' L U R'(15f) DIAGONAL SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.667
1)(U) R U' L' U2 L U' R' U2 L' U L (11f*) NO SWAP
2)(U') R U R' U2 R U R U' L' U R2 U' L (13f*) FRONT SWAP
3)(U') R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 L U' R U R L' (13f*) LEFT SWAP
4)R U R U' R2 U' R' U2 R2 U' R' U' R (13f*) BACK SWAP
5)y' (U2) R' U2 D R' U R U R' U2 R D' R (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
(U) R L' U2 L U L' U2 R' U L U L' U L (14f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)U2 R' U' D' R U' R' U D R U' R' U2 R (14f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U) R U R' U' R L' U R' U' L U' R U2 R' (16f) DIAGONAL SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.833
To Be Generated
To Be Generated
 
Last edited:

obelisk477

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
1,144
Location
Raleigh, NC
WCA
2009BATT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hello Speedsolving Community,

This has been an idea I've been putting off sharing for over a year now. I've finally generated the algs that will allow me to feel comfortable making a post about this method (technique, really) I've been inspired by the creation of ZZ-CT to come up with.

OLS, Oriented Last Slot, is pairing the Last Slot edge with ANY corner as long as that corner is oriented correctly (U-face or D-Face facing up or down) and using it to block build or in creation of F2L. This type of orientation-based phasing allows for reduced alg counts and makes OCPLS (Orient-Corners-Permute-Last-Slot) possible in 156 algs. This, in turn, allows for a 8.33% chance of an LL skip with an average (ZZ) movecount of 44 STM.

Now: I don't want to contribute to the endless spinoffs of methods that people are creating these days. This is not to gain fame or to put my name on a method or anything like that. It is simply a method that I felt is worth sharing with the community. There are pro's and con's, like with any other method, but I really do feel like the pro's make this something worth taking note of and I have and will continue to dedicate my time towards learning this method of mine. I really don't care what it's called and I don't care to have my initials involved in it at all. I came up with a couple names (Pseudo Slot, Wild Pairs) but decided to just go with one that is the simplest and most descriptive of the idea: Oriented Last Slot.

In order to best understand this method, it helps to have a good understanding of ZZ-CT, as that is the method that mine spawned off of. It's not an addition, but rather I dissected the essence of the method and figured out what is really going on in the sub-steps of TSLE to create, or iterate, the technique that ZZ-CT relies heavily on and how it can be used in other ways. If this is confusing, think of it like this: ELS, VHF2L, ZBF2L, WV, VLS, are all methods involving insertion of the LS edge while affecting the LL pieces in various ways. They are all part of a larger, gargantuan, method involving a knowledge base of all the algs needed to force full orientation of LL during LS, which in turn is part of the even larger method of orienting all LL pieces while permuting LL corners, which is part of the largest method of orienting and permuting all LL pieces while inserting LS in one go. Needless to say, that method would be near impossible to learn, especially if you rely on regular CFOP solving. All this to say that ELS, VLS etc. are to orientation of the LL, as OLS is to ZZ-CT.

Order of Magnitude of Method Approaches based on # of Cases:
1) FULL LS+LL
(Orient and permute edges and corners of LL while LS) - ~15,500 cases? (est.)
2) LS + COLL (Orient LL pieces while permuting LL corners ignoring EP) - 11,625 cases? A bunch.
3) LS + OLL (This is what CLS, VLS, HLS, WV, ELS, ZBF2L is a part of) - 1,937 cases? Still a bunch

The following are ways in which methods or techniques have been produced to greatly decrease the amount of algs in each of the LS+LL approaches:

3A) OLS + OLL via TSLE: 2,000 cases down to 108? I forget. By pairing the LS edge piece with any corner and using a VLS, HLS, or WV alg to insert the Oriented Last Slot, it increases the opportunities you have to pair up an edge with a corner by 5 and therefore decreases the amount of algs you have to learn to orient the LL pieces while inserting the LS. It also helps that all 5 edge pieces are oriented via ZZ.

2A) LS + COLL via OCPLS/OLS: 11,000 cases down to 156. Works by inserting the OLS (oriented LS edge piece with 1 of any of 5 remaining correctly oriented corner pieces) during EO line or block building and therefore phasing down TSLE algs to 7 which allows you to then learn the corresponding LS+OLL algs (CLS algs) of which there is only 26 cases of which you can learn the 6 corresponding CPLS algs for each case creating a doable 156 algs for LS+COLL.

1A) FULL LS+LL via super-method. TTLL?? 15,000 cases down to under 300? Under 100? This method has yet to be created but ideally it would find another way to *efficiently* phase the OCPLS algs down to create a feasible way of learning 12 edge cycle cases per OCPLS. As it is, this would be 12 x 156 = 1,872 algs, which, although significantly less than 15k is still beyond what is humanly possible. TTLL in a way has already achieved this goal in a way by phasing the algs down to 1 CLS alg, of which there are 6 OCPLS algs where you can learn the corresponding 12 edge cycle cases per OCPLS alg, resulting in 72 cases. While this would be PERFECT for finding a way to consolidate the 15,000+ cases of Full 1-look LS+LL into a more achievable 72 algs, it requires a whole step before it (TSLE). I guess one way of going around this would be to force a TSLE skip each time by doing WV for the pair before. For ZZ that forces you to pair-build instead of block build, but one can consider that a negligible inconvenience for a sub-100 alg 1-look LS+LL method. Still, I have faith that there might be something else possible.



What if I told you though, that it would be reasonably possible to learn the 2nd to largest method that I mentioned in the previous paragraph? What if I told you that it would be possible to solve the Last Slot while permuting and orienting all the LL pieces? What if I told you it was only 156 algs, recog is achievable, and it averages 12 ergonomic STM per case? What if I told you, you can have an LL skip not 1 out of every 15,500 solves, not 1 out of every 1,995 solves, not 1 out of every 360 solves, but 1 out of every 12 solves?

Let's take it back a second. Again, this started with ZZ-CT. As we were going over the method and seeing ways in which it might be able to be improved or expanded upon, we were coming up with all kinds of ideas. Some were obvious flops, but we kept throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what would stick. With TSLE, the idea was to insert the LS edge while orienting ALL of the corners. Sometimes this would result in the LS corner being in the LL and sometimes, if we were lucky, it would result in the LS corner serendipitously being conjoined with it's corresponding edge in the F2L. For some of the easier cases, it became pretty easy to spot when this would happen, and we would be happy when it left us with 1 of the 21 easily recognizable and very familiar PLL cases we know and love. An idea came up of what it would look like to force that result every time for every TSLE case. Given there were 5 positions for that F2L corner to occupy, doing the math resulted in omg no way too many algz. Like 500+? Even if my math wasn't entirely on point, it didn't seem feasible at all, even if it would mean leaving us with a nice PLL for LL every time. But it was nice to think about. So it got me thinking if there was any way to narrow down those amount of algs. I realized by simply inserting the LS edge piece (in other words doing ELS), it would change the alg into a simple CLS alg of the MGLS method. Now, some people were really opposed to this blasphemous idea, but doing 1-3 moves to narrow down 500+ cases to around 100 CLS algs seemed pretty magical, even if I wasn't willing to learn CLS. Another advantage to this was that it narrowed down the TSLE cases from 108 to about 16. For lazy alg-phobic cubers like me, this was an incredible discovery. For others who didn't want to be bothered by 3 extra moves or seemingly uglier TSLE algs, they poo-pood the idea. You do you boo. But I was personally liking these thought patterns that kept leading to magical discoveries. So I toyed around with the method and noticed that I would have a greater chance of getting a TSLE skip with this new "ELS" step I introduced into my ZZ-CT solving. Cool, I thought. I then thought about why this makes sense and that's because in order to do TTLL the LS edge piece has to be inserted in the F2L, so if you go ahead and make it a step to insert the LS edge piece into the LS position then of course you will have a case where you accidentally did the simplest of TSLE cases without realizing it (R U' R'). I then thought, "Well, the other requirement for a TSLE skip into straight TTLL is the corner the edge piece is joined with can't be twisted clockwise or counter clockwise. You have to take note and make sure that the corner that the LS edge piece is paired with is oriented correctly, and by doing this you will greatly increase your chances of a TSLE skip 3-fold." So this was all about increasing the chances of getting a skip, which is what was at the heart of the ZZ-CT method. Through this thought process, I realized that TSLE is essentially pairing the LS edge piece with a correctly oriented corner piece and using a VLS/WV/HLS/VHS alg to force all the LL pieces to be oriented after pairing and insertion of the correctly Oriented Last Slot. This then got me thinking, do you have to wait until LS to join the oriented corner with the F2L edge piece, or can you do it earlier in the solve? How many times is there an F2L edge piece joined with a correctly oriented corner during block building that we simply break up or ignore when we could have used it to block build more efficiently? Can I just take advantage of what is essentially a free pair?

And that's it. That's the essence of it. With this concept, a world of possibilities opens up. It's kind of hard to go into all the different possibilities but let me continue with where my thought pattern went from here. F2L-1 with ZZ averages about 25 or less with this idea and it narrowed down the TSLE cases from 16 to the 7 cross cases for standard OLL. Although you can stick with that and just learn TTLL from there (79 alg method for 1LLL with an average movecount of 45 STM), narrowing down the TSLE cases have some extra benefits that are worth looking into. It's kinda like, we don't have to spend our time hunting for our food these days so we get to transfer that time and energy towards stuff like space exploration. Now that we have less TSLE algs to worry about, we can achieve more. Since there are only 7 TSLE cases now, we have the ability to go back to an idea that otherwise sounded ludicrous: forcing an OLL skip and jumping straight into a PLL alg. With each case there are 4 positions the F2L corner can occupy, with the exception of H-case which, because of symmetry, only has 2. This means (7x4) - 2 = 26 CLS algs, which is a great improvement from 100+, which was already an improvement on 500+ with full TSLE.

Now, if you stick with this 26 alg CLS method, you'd be even better than if you stuck with TSLE+TTLL, you know why? You now have a 1/72 chance of a LL skip after LS. That is DRAMATICALLY improved from TSLE's 1/360. You go from a 0.277% chance of a LL skip to a 1.39%! We're getting closer and closer to that LL Skip method.

This for me is really about chasing the skip. With ZZ-CT we moved from 1/1994 to 1/360. That's AWESOME! But to most people, there's very little difference between 0.05% and 0.277%. Even for most cubers, putting in the work of memorizing close to 200 algs for a method that still has a LL skip chance dramatically below 1% doesn't seem worth it no matter how you spin it. Well, if you learn to master this pseudo slot idea and combine it with just the 26 CLS algs, you can have a 35 move solution in every average of 100! How is that not crazy?

If you combine both TTLL and CLS, you will have a 5% chance of finishing the LL+LS in one algorithm, aka a LL "skip". That means 1 in 20 solves will be a LL skip with an average move count of 39 moves or less and 27% of THOSE sub-39 move solves will be 35 moves or under on average. That means if you do an average of 100, you're likely to have a solve around the 35 move range.

And so... this brings me to my final idea of the thread. Imagine if, for TSLE you could not only force a PLL for LL but if you could also permute the corners at the same time? Sounds crazy right? Well it's not that crazy. With our Oriented Last Slot and resulting 26-alg PLL-Forcing TSLE (CLS), we just have to learn 6 different Corner Permutation cases per CLS. This would take the 1.39% of a LL skip and raise it to a whopping 8.33%. 1 in 12 solves will result in an LL skip. The other 11 solves will result in a 7 STM LL. The average movecount for these OCPLS algorithms is 12 STM so LS+LL will be on average 19 STM. Combine this with a conservative 25-move F2L-1 and you have an average movecount of 44. 1% of your speedsolves will be 35 moves or less.

156 algs for Full OCPLS but if you take out the Sune and Anti-Sune cases it becomes around 100. For Sune and Anti-Sune you can just do OLL and either TTLL or the very easy 1 of 6 OCPLS TTLL algs.

I will post a video on my Youtube explaining and showing what this all looks like. Here are some example solves:
-----------

F' D R D2 F D2 L2 R B' L2 U2 L2 F L R U B U' R2 U' R' F R' F L'

EO Line: z2 r' D x' L R' F' L' R2 U' (8/8)
2x2x3: z2 U R U2 L2 R U' R2 L' U L (10/18)
1x2x2: R' U R U2 R U R' (7/25)
LS: y U R U R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' (12/37)

37 STM

------------
A TSLE skip case:
R2 F U F2 D L' F' R' F L2 F U2 F2 B D F' U R' F D U2 L' F D' U

EO Line: z2 x' R2 F2 D x2 r R2 U' 6/6
1x2x3 w/ PS: z2 U R' U L' U2 L' U2 L' 8/14
1x2x3: U R U' R U' R' U R U' R' 10/24
ORIENTATION SKIP
TTLL: y' (U') R' U2 R U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U' R' U2 R (16/40)

40 STM

-------------

U2 L2 U2 B2 R2 B' R2 F2 R2 D2 B2 D L U2 L2 D' B' D L R F'

EO Cross: z2 U' D' x' D' U' R' U' x' R' L' U' r' U2 x z2 (11/11)
F2L1: U' L' U L (4/15)
F2L2: U' R' U R2 (4/19)
OLS: U' R' (2/21)
F2L4: L U2 U' (3/24)
OCPLS: F' r U R U' r' F R' (8/32)
LL: U2 (1/33)

33 STM

------------------


OCPLS ALGS:
Notated "X-Y" where "X" is the direction (Clockwise or Counter-Clockwise) that the UFR corner needs to be oriented and where "Y" is the direction that the UFL corner needs to be oriented. All cases are done with F2L corner in UFR position. "O" indicates that the corner is oriented with U or D sticker facing up.
(U) R U2 L U' R' U L' U R U R' (11f) LEFT SWAP
y' R' U2 R U' R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U' R (13f*)LEFT SWAP 2-GEN
(U') L' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U' L (11f) RIGHT SWAP
(U') R U2 R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
(U2) R U2 L U' R' U R L' U2 R' (10f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U') R U2 R' U R L' U R' U' L (10f*) NO SWAP
(U2) R2 U' L' U R2 U' L (7f*) FRONT SWAP

Movecount Average: 10 STM
R L U' R' U' L' U' L U' R L' U' R' (13f*) //NO SWAP
R' U' R U' R' U2 R' U' L' U R2 U' L (13f*) //FRONT SWAP
y' F U' R' U' R U2 R' U' R F' (11f*) //FRONT SWAP
y' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R (11f*) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
R U R' U' R L U' R' U R U' R' U L' (14f*) //BACK SWAP 3 GEN
R U2 R' U R' U2 R U R' U R2 U R' U2 (14f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
(U') R U' R2 U L U' R U L' U' R U R' (13f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUL
(U') R2 U R' D' R U R' D R U2 R2 (11f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUD
y (U2) L2 U R U' L2 U R' (7f*) //RIGHT SWAP OPTIMAL
(U) R L U L' U R' U L U' R U2 R' L' (13f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP RUL
(U2) R' D' R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 D R (11f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.83 STM
(U' D) R2 U' R' U' F' U R' U' R F R U2 R2 (D') - (15) NO SWAP
(U2) R' D R' U2 R D' R U' R2 U' R2 - (11) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U) R U R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' - (11) BACK SWAP
(U2) R2 F R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' F' R2 - (12) FRONT SWAP
(U D) R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R (D') - (13) LEFT SWAP
(U) R' (U' D') R U R' D R U2 R' U2 R - (11) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.167 STM
(U) R2 U' R' D' R U' R' D R' U' R2 U' R2 - (13) NO SWAP
(U) R U' R' U R U' R' L' U R U' (R' L) - (12) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U') R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U R U' R' - (11) BACK SWAP
R' D R2 U2 R U R' U R2 D' R' U2 R2 - (13) FRONT SWAP
(D) R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R (D') - (11) LEFT SWAP
L' U2 R U' R' U2 L U' R U R' U2 R U2 R' - (15) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.5 STM
1) (U2) R U2 R' U2 R U R' U' R U R' (11f*) - BACK SWAP
2) F R' U L' U' R2 U L U' R' F' (11f) - RIGHT SWAP
R2 U D' R U' R' D R2 U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 (13f) - RIGHT SWAP (RUD)
(U') R U2 R U' L' U R2 U' L U R U2 R' (12f) - RIGHT SWAP (RUL)
3) (U) R U2 L' U L U2 R U' L' U R2 U L (13f*) - NO SWAP (RUL)
(U) R U R' L U L' U' R U2 L U2 R' L' (13f) - NO SWAP (RUL)
R' U R U2 R' D R' U' R U2 D' R' U' R2 (14f*) - NO SWAP (RUD)
4) (U) R2 L' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' L (10f*) - FRONT SWAP
(U) R U' L' U2 L U2 L' U R' L U L' U' L (14f) - FRONT SWAP
5) D R' L' U R U' L U' R' U R U2 D' (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
D' R U2 R' D R U' R' U D' R U2 R' U2 D (15f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
D R U2 R' D' R U' R' U D R U2 R' U2 D' (15f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
6) y' R' U' R U R' U R U' R' U R (11f*) LEFT SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.5 STM
1) L U' R U L' U2 R' U2 R U' R' (11f*) NO SWAP
2) R U R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
3) R U2 L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L U2 R U2 R2 (13f) FRONT SWAP
4) (U') R L U' R' U L' U R U' R' (10f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
5) y' (U) R' U' R U R' U R U R' U' R (11f*) LEFT SWAP
6) R U L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L U R U' R2 (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
R U R' U' F' U2 F U2 R' F R F' (12f*) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.33 STM
1) (U2) R D' R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' D R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
2) R' U2 R U2 F' U' R' U R U F (11f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
3) (U) R U R' U2 (R U' R' U)x2 R U R' (15f) BACK SWAP
4) R D R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R2 U' D' R U' R2 (14f*) NO SWAP
(U) R U' L' U' L U R' U R U L' U2 R' L (14f*) NO SWAP - RUL
5) (U) R U' R' U2 L' U R2 U' L U R' U2 R' (13f*) FRONT SWAP
6) y' R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R (11f*) LEFT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.833 STM
1) (U) F U' R2 U R2 U F' R2 U2 R2 (10f*) FRONT SWAP
2) R L U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R L' (13f*) LEFT SWAP 3gen
R U' R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R' (13f*) LEFT SWAP 2gen
3) R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' (11f*) BACK SWAP 2gen
4) (U) R' U L U' R2 U L' U2 R' U2 R U' R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
5) L U2 L' U R U2 L U' L' U2 R' (11f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
6) (U') R' U' R2 U' R D' R U2 R' D R' U' R' (13f*) NO SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.833 STM
1)R2 U2 R2 U' R2 B' U' R2 U R2 B R2 (12f*) NO SWAP
2)(U) F2 L F U2 B L B' U2 L' F (10f*) FRONT SWAP
(U) R L U L' U2 R' U' L U2 L' U' R U' R' (14f*) FRONT SWAP
3)(U) R U L' U R' U' R L2 U' R' U L' (12f) LEFT SWAP
(U) R' U' R U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' (13f) LEFT SWAP 2-gen
4)R' U R' U2 R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U2 R2 (13f) BACK SWAP 2-gen
5)L' U2 R U' R' L U L' U R L U' R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)(U) R U2 L U' R2 U L' U' R U2 R U R' (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP


Movecount Average: 12.1667
1)(U) R U R' U2 R L' U R' U' L (10f*) NO SWAP
2)(U) R' U R U' L U' R2 U L' U' R U R (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
3)y' (U2) R' U R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U R (11f*) LEFT SWAP
4)(U) R U R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
5)(U) R U' R D R' U2 R D' R2 U2 R U R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)(U2) R2 U' L' U R2 U L U L' U L (11f*) FRONT SWAP

Movecount Average: 11.5 STM
1) (U') R U' R' L U' R' U L' U' R U' R U' R' (14f*) NO SWAP
2) (U') R U' R' U L' U R2 U' L U R' U' R' (13f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
3) y' (U') R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R (11f) LEFT SWAP
4) (U2) R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R' (11f*) BACK SWAP
5) (U') R U' R' U2 R U R' L' U R U' L U2 R' (14f) FRONT SWAP
6) (U') R U' R2 D' R U2 R' D R U R U2 R' (13f*) RIGHT SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.667
1) (U') R U' R' L' U2 R U R' U' R U' R' L (13f*) DIAGNOAL SWAP
2) (U') R U' R' L2 D2 R L U R' U' L' D2 L2 (13f) NO SWAP
(U2) R U' R2 F R' U F' R' F U' R2 F' (12f*) NO SWAP
3) (U) R L U' R' U L' U2 R U R' U2 R U' R' (14f*) FRONT SWAP
4) R U R' U' R' U2 D' R U R' U D R2 U2 R' (15f) RIGHT SWAP
5) (U) R' U2 R' U R' U' R U2 R2 U' R' (11f) BACK SWAP
6) y' R U' R U2 R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U2 R2 (13f) LEFT SWAP

Movecount Average: 13 STM
1) R U' R U2 R' U2 L' U R U' R2 L (12f*) //NO SWAP
2) (U') R U' R' U L' U R U' R' L (10f*) //LEFT SWAP
3) (U) R U' R2 U' R' U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U' R (13f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
4) F' L F R F' L' F R' (8f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP
R L' U' L U R U' L' U R2 L (11f) // DIAGONAL SWAP RUL
5) R U R' U' R U' R' L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L (14f*) //RIGHT SWAP
6) (U) L U' R U L' U R' U' R U' R' (11f*) //FRONT SWAP


11.33 avg opt move
1) L U' R U L' U R' U R U R' (11f*) //NO SWAP
2) L U L' U' R U2 L U2 L' U2 R' (11f*) //FRONT SWAP
(U) R U L' U R' U' L U2 R U R' (11f) //FRONT SWAP #2
3) (U2) L' U2 R2 L U' L' U R2 U2 L (10f*) //LEFT SWAP 3 GEN
y' (U) R2 U R' U R2 U R' U' R' U2 R' U R' (13f*) //LEFT SWAP 2GEN OPT
y' (U) R' U R U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U R (15f) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
4) (U) R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' (11f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
(U) R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' (11f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U2 R (13f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
5) (U) R U L U' R2 U L' U' R (9f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP
6) R' U R' D R2 D' R2 U' R D R' D' R (13f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUD
(U2) R U' R' U' R U' L U' R' U L' (11f*) //RIGHT SWAP OPT


10.5 average move count opt
1) (U) R U R' U2 L' U R U' L U' R' U R U' R' (15f*) //NO SWAP
R U' R' L' U R2 U' L U R' U' R' U R U' R' (16f*) //NO SWAP #2
2) (U2) R' U2 R U2 R' D' R U' R' U D R (12f*) //FRONT SWAP
3) (U) R' U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U' R (13f*) //BACK SWAP
4) (U) R2 U2 R D R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 D' R (13f) //RIGHT SWAP 3gen RUD
5) L' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 L (10f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP GOOD CLS
(U2) R2 U2 R2 U2 L' U R2 U' R2 L (10f) //DIAGONAL SWAP #2
6) y' (U') R U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U R' U R' (13f*) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
(U') R' L U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U R U2 R' L' (13f*) //LEFT SWAP 3 GEN
(U') R L U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' U L' (14f) //LEFT SWAP 3GEN


12.667 average move count opt
1) R U R' U' R U R U' L' U R2 U' R L U R' (16f*) //NO SWAP
R U R' U' R U L' U R' U' L U2 R U' R' (15f*) //NO SWAP RUL
(U2) D' L' U L D R2 D2 L' U' L U D2 R2 (13f*) //NO SWAP OPT
2) (U) L U' R U L' U R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U R' (15f) //FRONT SWAP RUL
(U) R2 U2 R D R U' R2 U' R2 U R' D' R (13f*) //FRONT SWAP RUD
R' U R' U R2 U R2 U2 D' R U' R' D R2 (14f*) //FRONT SWAP RUD
3) R U R' U' R L' U R' U' R L U R' (13f) //LEFT SWAP
y' (U') R' U' R U R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R (11f*) //LEFT SWAP 2 GEN
4) (U) R U R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' (11f*) //BACK SWAP 2 GEN
5) D R' U' R2 D' R2 U R' D R2 D' R2 U' R2 (14f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUD
(U2) R U2 R U' L' U R2 U' L U2 R U R' (13f*) //RIGHT SWAP RUL
(U2) R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U' L U' R U L' U R' (15f) //RIGHT SWAP RUL
6) L' U R U' L U2 R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' (15f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP
(U') R U R' U' R U R' L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L (15f*) //DIAGONAL SWAP TRIGGER


12.667 average move opt
1)(U') F' L U2 L' U2 F U L U' L' (10f*) NO SWAP
(D U2) R' F U2 F' U2 R U F U' F' (D') (13f*) NO SWAP
(U) R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R L U' R' U L' (14f) NO SWAP - RUL
2)(U2) R U2 D' R U' R' U' R U2 R' D R' (12f*) FRONT SWAP
3)y' R' U' R U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' (13f) LEFT SWAP
4)R U' R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R2 U' R' (13f*) BACK SWAP
5)R U R' U' R U' R' L' U R U' R' L (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)(U') R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 L' U R U' L U R'(15f) DIAGONAL SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.667
1)(U) R U' L' U2 L U' R' U2 L' U L (11f*) NO SWAP
2)(U') R U R' U2 R U R U' L' U R2 U' L (13f*) FRONT SWAP
3)(U') R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 L U' R U R L' (13f*) LEFT SWAP
4)R U R U' R2 U' R' U2 R2 U' R' U' R (13f*) BACK SWAP
5)y' (U2) R' U2 D R' U R U R' U2 R D' R (13f*) RIGHT SWAP
(U) R L' U2 L U L' U2 R' U L U L' U L (14f*) RIGHT SWAP
6)U2 R' U' D' R U' R' U D R U' R' U2 R (14f*) DIAGONAL SWAP
(U) R U R' U' R L' U R' U' L U' R U2 R' (16f) DIAGONAL SWAP

Movecount Average: 12.833
To Be Generated
To Be Generated
Okay so can you like do a 1) 2) 3) step thing for an even shorter TL;DR? just to see a consolidated version
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,007
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
There's already an algorithm set known as Oriented Last Slot; Jabari has a link to it here. I believe OLS is also usually used for OLL+LS in CFOP. So you might need to think of another name!

Okay so can you like do a 1) 2) 3) step thing for an even shorter TL;DR? just to see a consolidated version
According to someone on Discord, it's:
solve EOF2L-1
insert LE + orient DFR
COLL+insert LC
EPLL

If this is it then it looks similar(ish) to ZZ-CT, though it's a 3-look LSLL. So I don't think it's any better than CT unless the first step is skipped (which happens 1/15 of the time).
 

obelisk477

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
1,144
Location
Raleigh, NC
WCA
2009BATT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
There's already an algorithm set known as Oriented Last Slot; Jabari has a link to it here. I believe OLS is also usually used for OLL+LS in CFOP. So you might need to think of another name!



According to someone on Discord, it's:
solve EOF2L-1
insert LE + orient DFR
COLL+insert LC
EPLL

If this is it then it looks similar(ish) to ZZ-CT, though it's a 3-look LSLL. So I don't think it's any better than CT unless the first step is skipped (which happens 1/15 of the time).
So it's rearranging MGLS basically, but for ZZ. You shift CP from the last step (which was PLL in MGLS), to the second to last step (where you would only orient the corners instead of permute them as well). And since you don't have to orient edges when you insert LE, you can take the opportunity to orient one corner to make the alg set for COLL+insert LC more manageable.

Maybe that was mentioned in OP, but I found it difficult to sift through.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
462
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2007ESPI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
There's already an algorithm set known as Oriented Last Slot; Jabari has a link to it here. I believe OLS is also usually used for OLL+LS in CFOP. So you might need to think of another name!



According to someone on Discord, it's:
solve EOF2L-1
insert LE + orient DFR
COLL+insert LC
EPLL

If this is it then it looks similar(ish) to ZZ-CT, though it's a 3-look LSLL. So I don't think it's any better than CT unless the first step is skipped (which happens 1/15 of the time).
Ah, yeah, I will have to change the name most likely. I forgot it describes LS+OLL methods like VLS and HLS.

It's not what you described, the point is to build the pseudo last slot while block building, on the fly. Sometimes you'll notice it happens on accident any way. The point would be to treat it like a free pair or free block.
 

Cale S

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Messages
2,409
Location
Iowa, USA
WCA
2014SCHO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
I was experimenting with LSLL methods starting with edge + orient DFR a few days ago, the last thing I found was edge + orient DFR + phase, orient edges + force opposite swap (or solve EP), then one of 12 TTLL cases. This had a 1 in 19 chance of skipping a step (2-look LSLL) and each step is pretty easy, and only like 30 algs total

This looks like it would be better but with more algs
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
462
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2007ESPI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So it's rearranging MGLS basically, but for ZZ. You shift CP from the last step (which was PLL in MGLS), to the second to last step (where you would only orient the corners instead of permute them as well). And since you don't have to orient edges when you insert LE, you can take the opportunity to orient one corner to make the alg set for COLL+insert LC more manageable.

Maybe that was mentioned in OP, but I found it difficult to sift through.
There are many different ways to understand it, but if you're trying to understand it from an MGLS perspective, it's like doing CLS with permutation of the corners, hence (O)C(P)LS. And yes this CLS was the bridge into this as explained in the OP. In fact, you can use CLS with this Oriented Last Slot technique and have it be a really awesome way to skip OLL while only having to learn 26 CLS algs. TSLE is in itself relatable to MGLS as you can think of it like ELS that orients all corner pieces.

Another way to understand OCPLS is through COLL, which is also how you learn it's recognition. With a non oriented DFR recognition is really hard for CPLS but with an oriented DFR recognition becomes similar to recog for COLL.

PLL is to TTLL, as COLL is to OCPLS. TTLL is a conjugated form of PLL with slightly different recog and OCPLS is a conjugated form of COLL with slightly different recog. The TSLE equivalent for OCPLS is incorporated into block building via the oriented last slot.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
462
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2007ESPI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I created this method maybe 4 years ago now and I just didn't want people to just sleep on it because it's really frickin awesome in terms of ZZ add ons and even useful to know for regular CFOP as kind of a VLS type add on.

I have a more well explained (perhaps too explained) version of this post here.

For simplicity's sake I'm going to just tell you that its EOF2L-1 and you combine corner orientation into the construction of that EOF2L-1 "on the fly" so to speak. This can be done by learning your eye to recognize a corner-oriented F2L-1 pair and inserting it or simply not removing it's already correctly placed position. So you will end F2L-1 with all edges oriented (ZZ so duh) and the DFR of the LS will be oriented correctly as well. Well, you know how orienting the edges narrows down the LL cases dramatically? Well, orienting the corners has a similar effect. From here I have created 156 total algs that permutes LL corners while inserting LS resulting in a LAST LAYER SKIP 1 OUT OF 12 SOLVES.

Reocg is as easy as COLL and average move count is 40-45 moves.

DO NOT SLEEP ON THIS METHOD!
 
Top