• 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

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,009
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
TDM028
Did Mats do this in the world record solve or was that just a lucky oll skip?
Nope, that was WV, one of the subsets of VLS. True, it's just the normal insert, but Mats knows that case, as well as full WV. When all the edges were oriented, which they were, he was going to skip the OLL. That was just an easier skip than normal.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
452
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2007ESPI01
YouTube
fingertapper88
In average how many turns do you save on this?
Can anyone do the math on this for all of OLS vs VHLS+OLL (or even just simple insertion + OLL)?

I'd be interested to find this out, though it of course isn't the most important aspect as it doesn't consider speed friendly algs with long move count, as well as the recog time for standard non-OLS step 1+ step 2.

I was interested in learning the sledgehammer cases thinking it'd be cool, maybe I could save some moves/time and force OLL skip, if anything it looks/sounds cool.

I did the move count difference between OLS for these cases, and compared it to sledgehammer (R' F R F') + OLL (Cross Cases).

VLS-UF = 11.27 turns on avg
VHLS + OLL = 4 + 8.43 = 12.43 turns on avg

Obviously this is one case so not really indicative of amount of turns you'd save, and this is nothing even to say of HLS, but it seems like at least for this case it's a little more than 1 turn save overall. The thing is, some of the VLS cases actually end up saving you 5 or more turns! Knowing those cases when they come up seems like it would be beneficial. So learning some of those cases, especially if you learn to recog CO as fast as you do EO, might prove to be beneficial as a supplement to what most CFOP'ers already know, but it seems dubious as to whether or not learning full OLS as a main LL method will prove to be much more than something cool and different...

*I* like it though. Might actually learn some cases. Then again I would consider learning ZBF2L for similar reasons.

You also gotta factor in recog time, like I said, in the standard 2 step approach, so there's also that. But imagine how much lower the move count would be if if you just did Sledgehammer + ZBLL? 15, 16 turns for LS+LL?
 
Last edited:

rowehessler

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
877
Can anyone do the math on this for all of OLS vs VHLS+OLL (or even just simple insertion + OLL)?

I'd be interested to find this out, though it of course isn't the most important aspect as it doesn't consider speed friendly algs with long move count, as well as the recog time for standard non-OLS step 1+ step 2.

I was interested in learning the sledgehammer cases thinking it'd be cool, maybe I could save some moves/time and foce OLL skip, if anything it looks/sounds cool.

I did the move count difference between OLS for these cases, and compared it to sledgehammer (R' F R F') + OLL (Cross Cases).

VLS-UF = 11.27 turns on avg
VHLS + OLL = 4 + 8.43 = 12.43 turns on avg

Obviously this is one case so not really indicative of amount of turns you'd save, and this is nothing even to say of HLS, but it seems like at least for this case it's a little more than 1 turn save overall. The thing is, some of the VLS cases actually end up saving you 5 or move turns! Knowing those cases when they come up seems like it would be beneficial. So learning some of those cases, especially if you learn to recog CO as fast as you do EO, might prove to be beneficial as a supplement to what most CFOP'ers already know, but it seems dubious as to whether or not learning full OLS as a main LL method will prove to be much more than something cool and different...

*I* like it though. Might actually learn some cases. Then again I would consider learning ZBF2L for similar reasons.

You also gotta factor in recog time, like I said, in the standard 2 step approach, so there's also that. But imagine how much lower the move count would be if if you just did Sledgehammer + ZBLL? 15, 16 turns for LS+LL?
yeah i don't have the time to do the math right now, but it doesn't save much move count. As for recognition, it will take years to get it to be good. Mats starts looking towards the VLS case as he's doing his setup moves, doing this and getting good at it is the only way that VLS will actually be beneficial, but its tough. But yeah awesome, learn some! won't it be odd though since your cross on left?
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
452
Location
San Diego, California
WCA
2007ESPI01
YouTube
fingertapper88
yeah i don't have the time to do the math right now, but it doesn't save much move count. As for recognition, it will take years to get it to be good. Mats starts looking towards the VLS case as he's doing his setup moves, doing this and getting good at it is the only way that VLS will actually be beneficial, but its tough. But yeah awesome, learn some! won't it be odd though since your cross on left?
Ah, good point, but at some point during the solve I eventually have to rotate for LL so I'd just do a 'z' rotation a little earlier than usual I guess. I mean, that's how I was gonna learn ZBF2L. I would also maybe use it for OH which I can do COB easier. #COLproblems

EDIT: OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, recog would be easier COL? Maybe I'll convert the algs to COL since they might prove to be COL friendly. Now THAT, would be cool-looking.
 
Last edited:

Lazy Einstein

Alg Ninja
Joined
Nov 27, 2013
Messages
1,198
Location
Earth, Solar system, Orion Spur, Milky Way
WCA
2014HOLB01
I didn't want to make my own thread but Rowe said that I may add RLS to algdb.net so that the cubing community could develop it further through alg submission. However, he told me to call it VLS. I don't like the idea of removing credit from Rowe.

Before I add it, I want to see what others think.

I have a proposal.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
 

obelisk477

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
1,146
Location
Raleigh, NC
WCA
2009BATT01
YouTube
channel/UC2hANLP6OCBu1B1PB_a7BJQ
I didn't want to make my own thread but Rowe said that I may add RLS to algdb.net so that the cubing community could develop it further through alg submission. However, he told me to call it VLS. I don't like the idea of removing credit from Rowe.

Before I add it, I want to see what others think.

I have a proposal.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
I would prefer If you would actually add OLS (the larger last slot set, not just for formed pair), because I have been working on generating split pair algs (HLS?) and others.

But even if you did that, I suppose this subset would have to have a name at algdb.net. And my only point against calling it RLS is that if HLS is added, Mats doesn't get credit anywhere.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
I didn't want to make my own thread but Rowe said that I may add RLS to algdb.net so that the cubing community could develop it further through alg submission. However, he told me to call it VLS. I don't like the idea of removing credit from Rowe.

Before I add it, I want to see what others think.

I have a proposal.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
I like number 3, if only because it sounds like Valkyrie... and because giving credit and all that other stuff. Actually, though, it's a great name that gives both cubers credit for great subsets they developed.
 

Musicalboy2

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
124
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
WCA
2012CHOW03
YouTube
tchowcubes
Ah, good point, but at some point during the solve I eventually have to rotate for LL so I'd just do a 'z' rotation a little earlier than usual I guess. I mean, that's how I was gonna learn ZBF2L. I would also maybe use it for OH which I can do COB easier. #COLproblems

EDIT: OR MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, recog would be easier COL? Maybe I'll convert the algs to COL since they might prove to be COL friendly. Now THAT, would be cool-looking.
If you ever convert any of these to COL and find nice cases, I'd really love to see them.

We should call it VRLS. Valk Rowe Last slot. For a few reasons:

1. Mats apparently started working on it first but Rowe developed it independently and took the time to make a great site to benefit all cubers not just himself.
2. We could call it OLS but I don't like that. Other versions are bad as well LSOLL or OSLS(OLLskipLS).
3. ValkRowe sounds friggin cool to say together and gives credit to both of these amazing cubers who put in their fair share of work on the LS method.
What's wrong with OLS? It's a nice, neutral name which describes what it does. (In that regard, it's a lot like CFOP.)

We do also have other OLS sets that don't fall under VLS/RLS, such as OLS-FE.
 

Berkmann18

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
244
Location
London, United Kingdom
WCA
2014BERK02
YouTube
Maximilian Berkmann
I do find OLS neutral but VRLS does give the credit to Mats and Rowe who actually took the time to generate those algs and also when it comes to F2L cases, VRLS only use two of them so if a method named OLS should exist it should have every F2L pairs so 4536 cases (yeah that's hell of alot).
 

Kudz

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
328
Location
Poland :(
In which order shall I learn VLS (after WV, UF and then UB, but what after)?
Is no edges oriented set worth learning?
Are Mats, Rowe and Jay only ppl, who know full VLS?
Are there some other OLL skip subsets other than OLS, BLE, and CLS (worth learning ofc)?
Thanks in advance!
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
In which order shall I learn VLS (after WV, UF and then UB, but what after)?
Is no edges oriented set worth learning?
Are Mats, Rowe and Jay only ppl, who know full VLS?
Are there some other OLL skip subsets other than OLS, BLE, and CLS (worth learning ofc)?
Thanks in advance!
I'm almost done with the 4 flip set, so far, most of these algs are actually pretty nice.

As far I know, they're the only ones who know it, but there are probably other who know large fractions of it, who simply haven't decided to finish it.
 

Berkmann18

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
244
Location
London, United Kingdom
WCA
2014BERK02
YouTube
Maximilian Berkmann
In which order shall I learn VLS (after WV, UF and then UB, but what after)?
Is no edges oriented set worth learning?
Are Mats, Rowe and Jay only ppl, who know full VLS?
Are there some other OLL skip subsets other than OLS, BLE, and CLS (worth learning ofc)?
Thanks in advance!
I would say, UL, UF-UL, UL-UB and then the no edges one.
CLS, CPLS and EPLS are worth learning.

By the way, VLS is a subset of OLS
 
Last edited:

Kudz

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
328
Location
Poland :(
I would say, UL, UF-UL, UL-UB and then the no edges one.
CLS, CPLS and EPLS are worth learning.

By the VLS is a subset of OLS
Thanks, also I know that VLS is part of OLS. What do you think about HLS tho? Or maybe only SV.
Or maybe this thing that colourful pocets came with? Idek.
 
Top