• 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 (VLS + HLS) Algorithms: by Mats Valk and Rowe Hessler

rowehessler

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
877
Here are my algs for RUR' + OCLL:
000
U2 R' D' r U2 r' D R

001
R U R D R' U R D' R' U' R'
002
R U' L' U2 L U L' U L R' or SA
010
R U' R' F' R U2 R' U2 R' F R or SA
020
SA
100
SA
200
U2 R L U' R' U L'

012
R U' R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'
021
R U' R' U R' D' R U2 R' D R2 U' R'
022
R U2 R' U R U2 R' or L' R U R' U' L
101
R U' R' r' F R F' M' U' R U' R'
102
R U2 R' U' L' U R U' R' L
110
R U R D' R U' R' D R U R
120
R U' R D R' U2 R D' R2'
201
R U' R' U' R U' R'
202
L' U2 L U L' U L R U2 R'
210
U2 R U' R2 D' R U' R' D R or SA
220
U L' R U R' U R U' R' U2 L

111
R U' R' U2 L' U R U' R' L or SA
112
U' R U R D R' U R D' R2'
121
R U2 R D R' U' R D' R2'
122
SA
211
SA
212
R U' R' U' R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R
221
R U2 R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'
222
U2 R L' U R' U' L U2 R U R'
(SA means standard approach, so just do the pair normally, then OLL). The first number refers to the orientation of the UBL corner, 2nd number: UBR, 3rd number: UFL.

I'm not really sure if it's worth learning HLS because I don't think you save that many moves. The reason why VLS is so useful in my opinion is because most decent OLL algs require you to take out a pair or two and play around with them, then return them to their rightful slots. You rarely use OLL algs which start like R U' R'. In fact, many of the algorithms I've listed require you to join the pair up first. Only roughly a third of my algs start with something else other than R.
thanks for the algs, ill compare them to yours. Yeah a lot of the cases are R U' R' and VLS lol. but some are pretty fast

It's probably just semantics, but it's not really an OLL skip if you still have to work for it. A simple 5-move alg instead of a 3-move insert could be called forcing an OLL skip, I guess, given that the extra couple of moves is more trivial than any OLL. But a 9-10 move alg? That would be more accurately described as combining OLL and LS, IMHO.
pretty sure its obvious i meant forcing oll skips...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pipkiksass

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,081
YouTube
pipkiksass
pretty sure its obvious i meant forcing oll skips...
I think Mark's point is that a lot of OLS is essentially insert + OLL with calculations, rather than 'skipping' OLL per se. Not wishing to state the obvious, but an OLL skip is when the natural insert results in OLL being solved. Any method which requires more moves than the 'natural' insert, such as WV, SV, VHLS, etc., isn't truly skipping OLL, it's combining slotting the last F2L pair with at least a partial OLL.

That said, it's an amazing piece of work, kudos to both of you.
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,689
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
mark49152
I think Mark's point is that a lot of OLS is essentially insert + OLL with calculations, rather than 'skipping' OLL per se. Not wishing to state the obvious, but an OLL skip is when the natural insert results in OLL being solved. Any method which requires more moves than the 'natural' insert, such as WV, SV, VHLS, etc., isn't truly skipping OLL, it's combining slotting the last F2L pair with at least a partial OLL.
Thanks Pipkiksass. I asked about the advantages of OLS, and Rowe said that it forces OLL skips; my point was that it doesn't really force skips, it (as you said) just replaces OLL with something else, with a similar move count and the same number of looks. Therefore that's not an advantage in itself, whether we call it "forcing skips" or not. There might be other advantages like fewer moves or better algs or transition from F2L or whatever, but just replacing one step with another isn't an advantage in itself.

When I get some time I'm going to write some code to identify which of these are the most beneficial cases, and perhaps get out Cube Explorer and try generating some OLS-type algs for when the LS pieces are stuck wrong in the slot. There's good potential for move count savings there.

The maximum number of moves you can save with this is in fact 7. RU'R' instert + RUR' + U + OLS = OLL, twice a 3 moves instertion plus an U turn makes 7 moves. However, I'm to lazy to calculate the actual average amount of moves that is saved, but I guess it's around 3~4. It doesn't look like much, but when you're turning on a speed of, let's say, 8 TPS, that's still around 0.4~0.5 seconds. Which is in my opinion definitely worth it if you want to be a good speedcuber.
OK thanks Mats, that makes sense. Do you change the way you build your last pair, to try to make sure you end up with a VLS pair rather than HLS or a special case? Does that ever cost you time or moves, or do you just go with the fastest solution for that pair then do regular OLL?
 

Anthony

Professional Speedcuber
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
2,244
Location
Texas
WCA
2008SEAR01
YouTube
AnthonyBrooksCubing
setup(1)?
You need a look to do an RU'R' insert at the end of your F2L case...?
Two things: 1. I'm only referring to situations where you happen to get one of these cases-- not setting up to one every solve. 2. Eventually, it gets to the point where the "look" at the last pair yields immediate recognition of the specific case, not just the joint pair.
 

mark49152

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,689
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
mark49152
Eventually, it gets to the point where the "look" at the last pair yields immediate recognition of the specific case, not just the joint pair.
I don't know what you mean. You posted earlier that OLL/PLL requires an extra look on the last slot that is saved by using OLS/PLL. Assuming decent lookahead, the LS pair or setup shouldn't need a "look", and why is the transition from F2L into OLS recognition any different from the transition into OLL recognition? The way Mats described it, it sounds similar. Do you use this method?
 

scottishcuber

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
1,434
Location
London
WCA
2013MAHM02
YouTube
Sameer M
Two things: 1. I'm only referring to situations where you happen to get one of these cases-- not setting up to one every solve. 2. Eventually, it gets to the point where the "look" at the last pair yields immediate recognition of the specific case, not just the joint pair.
Yup. I still think that we should all agree that most of the time you will need a set-up. However, the fact OLS pretty much eliminates the need to auf and by it's nature is cancelling moves for particular OLL algorithms is very beneficial. On top of that, you can obviously predict the EO during the setup and with practice the CO will become very easy to recognise quickly.

So I think the 3-looks needed (which can be less than 3 more often than LS-OP can be) for setup-OLS-P are superior than the 3 looks needed for LS-O-P. Although I don't have enough evidence to suggest that OLS is categorically better than the common alternative.
 

Lagom

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
171
So in order to skip the oll alg... You do an alg? :D

In average how many turns do you save on this?

Did Mats do this in the world record solve or was that just a lucky oll skip?
 
Top