Quest for OLL/PLL skips

[rubiknewbie]

Just messing with the idea of increasing chances of OLL/PLL skips with manageable algorithms (which rules out anything to do with ZB ), though I have not started learning any.

Some things to consider:

Applying Winter variation to edge-oriented cases = OLL skip?
Applying Winter variation to non edge-oriented cases = easy corner-oriented OLL cases?
Applying VHF2L to corner-oriented cases = OLL skip? Is this even true?
Applying VHF2L to non corner-oriented cases = easy edge-oriented OLL cases?
Applying COLL to edge-oriented cases gives possibly PLL skip? What % chance? If not, easy edge-oriented PLL cases.

Each of these 3 techniques give some benefits to some extent, be it easier path to last layer, or better knowledge of algorithms which may help in other areas.

Is it worth it to learn all 3? Relative to more advanced techniques, and relative to the effort required and the extra preparatory turns. Is it worth it to learn just 1? 2? A few algorithms here and there? Or just forget it and improve OLL/PLL?

What do you think?

 

[4Chan]

With VHF2L there's a 1/27 chance for OLL skip.
COLL is 1/12 PLL skip.
VHF2L gives 8 times LL skip.
Winter Variation isn't really a skip, some algs just take out the cancellation in the OLL.
It is worth a few turns though.

Okay, so I was editing as I was reading and thinking.
You should definitely learn all 3. More cube knowledge can't hurt~

EDIT: From experience, COLL and VHF2L take more practice in comparison to OLL/PLL because of the recognition factor.
It takes awhile before you start to see positive gains from it.

 

[hawkmp4]

Do you really gain anything from, say, VHF2L?
Sure, you get edges oriented. But chances are, you're doing a longer algorithm for the last F2L insertion (and recognition isn't as good), you're STILL doing OLL, you have to do COLL (which has worse recognition than PLL) and more often than not, you still have to do a PLL algorithm for edges.
So sure, you increase your chances of a "OLL skip" by ensuring edges are oriented, and increase the chances of a "PLL skip" by using COLL with edges oriented...in this case, an OLL/PLL skip doesn't help you as much because you have to do more work/use more time to get one.

 

[Tim Major]

Petrus! I find Petrus really fun, but I don't use it for speed, due to my suckage at block building.

 

[V-te]

Anyone up to find a method that will go like this:

Cross
F2L
OLL Skipped
PLL--> Solved.

and no pre-orienting edges or corners, just a straight pure OLL Skip!

 

[Tim Major]

Anyone up to find a method that will go like this:

Cross
F2L
OLL Skipped
PLL--> Solved.

and no pre-orienting edges or corners, just a straight pure OLL Skip!

um....wat?

I don't get you... That would be 1000's of algs...

 

[4Chan]

V-te, i think the algorithm count for that is ridiculously high. o_o.
Its like ZBF2L times 27. (Because of corner orientation)

Also, take hawkmp4's words with a grain of salt.
He averages 28, whilst, I can average 15 with CFOP and 22-23 with ZB.
You should explore new methods, because complacency will only get you so far.

COLL+EPLL is actually more move efficient than OLL+PLL.
Its a fact if youre using optimal algorithms. (Which most COLL is.)

COLL is 9.78 moves average, and EPLL is 8.75 average, yielding a move count of 18.53 (fewer than OLL/PLL).

Sure, you waste a few turns for VHF2L, but only 4-6 at most.
How do I know this? I USE IT.
Your average might be 25, but you can get singles like 15.

Try it just for fun.
And figure it out yourself.

 

[V-te]

V-te, i think the algorithm count for that is ridiculously high. o_o.
Its like ZBF2L times 27. (Because of corner orientation)

Hmm... Well I also thought of another idea to reduce the number of cases and I was working on this with minigoings.

It uses the 2 look OLL cases (the ones with the edges already oriented)
and, using one algorithm, solves the entire LL from there. So it would go like this.

Cross
F2L
2 Look OLL Case---> Solved.

What do you think?

 

[4Chan]

Ah, yesss, I remember that thread.

I'll stick with my previous statement that normal ZB is more efficient. D:

 

[V-te]

Ah, yesss, I remember that thread.

I'll stick with my previous statement that normal ZB is more efficient. D:

Lol. But honestly, do you think it could work?

 

[Tim Major]

2 Look OLL Case---> Solved.

What do you think?

That sounds horrible. With normal Fridrich f2l, you seem to be saying you would have to do F R U R' U' F' and its other forms first. This would be far slower than Fridrich, considering the ZBLL algs are longer than normal OLLs, ZBf2l or Petrus would work. Using F R U R' U' F' and f R U R' U' f' sometimes in combos without any edge control, would be a waste of learning ZBLL.

 

[4Chan]

Hmmm, only if someone were to invest thousands upon thousands of hours.
Comparable to ZB.

ALSO 1000 POST GET

 

[hawkmp4]

V-te, i think the algorithm count for that is ridiculously high. o_o.
Its like ZBF2L times 27. (Because of corner orientation)

Also, take hawkmp4's words with a grain of salt.
He averages 28, whilst, I can average 15 with CFOP and 22-23 with ZB.
You should explore new methods, because complacency will only get you so far.

COLL+EPLL is actually more move efficient than OLL+PLL.
Its a fact if youre using optimal algorithms. (Which most COLL is.)

COLL is 9.78 moves average, and EPLL is 8.75 average, yielding a move count of 18.53 (fewer than OLL/PLL).

Sure, you waste a few turns for VHF2L, but only 4-6 at most.
How do I know this? I USE IT.
Your average might be 25, but you can get singles like 15.

Try it just for fun.
And figure it out yourself.

Because being faster makes you more knowledgeable? Take Cubes=Life's words with a grain of salt. That's an appeal to authority if I've ever seen one. Please. That's a weak attack and it makes you look incredibly immature and like you're searching for attention. If you think I'm wrong, counter my arguments, don't spew BS about how knowing ZB somehow makes you qualified to dismiss my comments. Guess what? You're SLOWER with ZB. Imagine that...Anyway, back on topic.
I never said NOT to learn it. I said that there wasn't any benefit in times. If it helps your understanding of the cubes to...well...memorise algorithms, go for it.
Cubes=Life, you're leaving out an important point. Actually, re-reading your post, you don't. Which is amusing. COLL+EPLL is shorter in moves than OLL+PLL. Yeah, I'll give you that. However, if you use COLL+EPLL, you don't do cross, F2L, COLL, EPLL. You do cross, 3 F2L pairs, VHF2L, COLL, EPLL. Your saved moves from using COLL and EPLL are lost when you use VHF2L. And you said it yourself that you waste moves with VHF2L and save with COLL. Net gain- negligible if any.
And, you've ignored my comments about recognition. Recognition is worse for VHF2L than F2L, and COLL is worse than OLL. If recognition was as good with, for example, ZB, then you'd be averaging faster with ZB than CFOP, wouldn't you? It's less moves. Apparently move count isn't everything, yeah?

 

[4Chan]

Because i learned ZB in 4 months?
I'm still polishing it, you simply don't understand the magnitude of it.
Haha, lets see you do that mister.

I AM better than you.
Don't take it too hard. I see I got you mad.
You mad bro? xD

VHF2L recognition is easy, I have a sub 10 f2l most of the time, and sometimes its over that. Want proof, watch my video and stackmat it.
If COLL is so bad at recognition, why do people use it?
Why does Dan Cohen use it ?
Because it's efficient and it simplifies PLL.

Don't get mad bro.

 

[hawkmp4]

You're faster at solving 3x3. Yeah, that's great That doesn't make you any smarter than I am, nor does it make your arguments any more valid, especially when backed up by appeals to authority.
Like I said, that doesn't make you qualified to dismiss anyone's comments, whether they average 28 or 1:28.
And yet another appeal to authority- "Why does Dan Cohen use it?"
I'm not mad. I'm slightly irritated, but I'm not mad. It's silly to get mad over someone like you.
I'm not going to lie, I don't like you. I find you quite pretentious. So I'm going to avoid dealing with you and leave this discussion. Good day to you all. Well, night. I'm off to bed.

 

[4Chan]

Im backing my points with examples.

My knowledge of ZB allows me more experience with COLL.
Because I've spent hundreds of hours with COLL.

Have you lots of experience with COLL?

Yeah, I am pretentious, and my ego is motivation to do better.
I acknowledge people are also better than me, and I'm humble before them.

Yeah, I went ad hominem there.
Sorry, but in retrospect, i don't think I was wrong with the numbers there.
Feel free to check them.

 

[V-te]

Hey Cubes=Life,
I read that you know how to "make" algorithms. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

 

[4Chan]

Oh, sure.
I use Cube Explorer, although, I did make a few of my algs with ACube.
Jason Baum helped me out by linking me to the right places and he helped me get started on making ZBLL.

If you're making last layer algs, I can help you, but if it's your F2L idea, I'm not sure how much I can help.

Basically, for cube explorer, i paint the cube into the program, select optimal, and fiddle around with the algorithm until it's finger trick friendly. It's super easy!~ (Unless you have to do it 200 times. T_T)

Tryyyy ittt~

 

[hawkmp4]

I guess I lied. I'm back.
Alright. So what are your times with COLL + EPLL? If it's superior to OLL + PLL, where's the evidence? That is, of course, given that you spent equal time preparing COLL/EPLL and OLL/PLL.
You know what my issue with you is? I don't mind you disagreeing with me on cubing methods. Hell, if everyone agreed we'd never get improvements. You're just so quick to make it personal when it's really not needed nor helpful. There was no reason to yet you went there. Didn't help your argument, certainly. Makes you look bad, yeah.
Being pretentious and having a drive to do well are two different things.
You've memorised 270 algorithms for ZB (am I correct with that? You skipped reflections, yeah? If I'm not, my apologies. Then you learned four hundred ninety something if memory serves me correctly.) But you're not 3x3 WR holder. You're not top 3, not top 5, 10, 25, 100, not even top 500. You've memorised algorithms, that's it. An impressive feat of memory, I'll give you that. But it says nothing about your personal worth. Sorry. Knowing ZB means you have a very capable memory and a LOT of time.
Are you proud of that? Proud enough to be pretentious? If so...that's sad.
Back on topic, no, I haven't learned COLL. I've listened to what the community has said, and what people who have tried both have said, and taken that into account along with my experiences with cubing and my intuition. And everything points to OLL/PLL being faster. Not less moves. Faster. And that's what matters with speedsolving.
Sorry, wrong about what numbers?

 

[4Chan]

Haha, youre repeating yourself.
Looks like your feelings were hurt pretty bad mister.

I'm not a WR holder.
I have experience with COLL which qualifies my statements.
I used CFOP for 2 years, come back in 2011, kthnxbai.
I haven't had adequate time to practice. As evidenced in my earlier post.

Now, stop being a troll, and go to bed mister.
I'm actually contributing more to the topic with advice backed by experience.