• 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!

Skyler Variation (SV)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,376
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
and then find that someone else had done it slightly faster than me and they took the credit.
This is what I had when I woke up this morning, after generating half the algs for the flipped edge equivalent of CLS I and Im last night.

Except I wasn't planning to put a dumb name on it. Nor try and make it a main method. Nor deny the negatives and concentrate only on the positives because it would be 'connected' to my name.

Oh well, at least I released OLS-FE before you. People better not call it Skyler variation.
 

jskyler91

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
676
Location
Berkeley CA
YouTube
Visit Channel
This is what I had when I woke up this morning, after generating half the algs for the flipped edge equivalent of CLS I and Im last night.

Except I wasn't planning to put a dumb name on it. Nor try and make it a main method. Nor deny the negatives and concentrate only on the positives because it would be 'connected' to my name.

Oh well, at least I released OLS-FE before you. People better not call it Skyler variation.
Hense why I put my name to it so quickly, the same thing happen to me with Rowe Variation. Also, jsut to clarify, I put the idea out there and named it on Monday morning so that was well before you even generated the algs. If not it would be yours. Sorry man. Also, please explain the negatives to me. Do you have any that I have not listed?

Ps.I hate to ask this because I am not trying to start a fight here, but why is Skyler Variation a dumb name? Its my name, its not like I called it the pink fluffy kitten variation. Is Rowe Variation a stupid name?
 
Last edited:

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,376
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hense why I put my name to it so quickly, the same thing happen to me with Rowe Variation. Also, jsut to clarify, I put the idea out there and named it on Monday morning so that was well before you even generated the algs. If not it would be yours. Sorry man. Also, please explain the negatives to me. Do you have any that I have not listed?
I honestly don't care about it being 'mine'. That's why when I released OLS-FE I named it just that; so that the community would have at least one subset with a logical name, such that people might decide to use that naming convention, rather than these endless 'variations'.

Could you show me the post where you put the idea out there?
The first public posts I've seen were from Bob using these cases in the OLS-FE thread on Wednesday. Aaron described 'all' of them in his thread on Monday(?).

Anyway, alg-sets don't really have any more negatives than 'the recognition is bad' or 'the algs suck'. In this case, some of the algs do indeed suck a bit, but most of them are 'fine'.

The point where negatives are created is ones approach to the alg-set - if you decide to adapt your existing approaches, or simply to regard it a 'skip' case. This set should definitely be in the latter camp.


Edit:
In fairness, 'Rowe variation' is a more dumb name than yours, because it only contains OLS-Pair. Your 'variation' also covers MGLS and OLS-FE, and the 'original content' is the flipped edges version of I and Im. I'm actually willing to concede this point, since I re-read the OP and realised this variation contains more 'method' than alg sets, especially since you didn't even generate the no-edges oriented cases.
 
Last edited:

Godmil

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,196
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
YouTube
Visit Channel
Could you show me the post where you put the idea out there?
He did post it on Monday (without algs) but there was a lot of arguing on the thread so he deleted all of his posts, then I guess the thread was deleted because it didn't make any sense anymore. That's also why Skyler started this thread with a long list of things not to do ;)

That's also the reason (I presume) that aronpm was inspired to make his summary post, because there were so many of these methods coming out.


Skyler, I'll try to post my solutions later, I tried to just do the first pair I saw with no more emphasis on optimisation that I would normally do, and did it in ETM cause I use lots of rotations.
 
Last edited:

joey

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
4,410
WCA
2007GOUL01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The reason why it's a dumb name is that it's so "obvious". Yes, silly names like "OLS-FE" are silly too. But they are logical and actually explain what the method is. SV is just "omg i wanna be cool and name something after me".
 

Anthony

Professional Speedcuber
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
2,243
Location
Texas
WCA
2008SEAR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I have to reason to lie about this.
Actually, sounds quite true for a good portion of this thread. Although, your reasoning is flawed./blatant honesty

Anyway, OLS-FE sounds useful when the case appears. Like Rowan and yourself (and I'm sure many, many other people) I've had the thought of generating the algs for that set for quite a while. I will gladly admit that "SV" has never even crossed my mind. It's just never going to trump LS+OLL. I dare you to practice and try to prove us all wrong.
 

Bob

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,473
Location
Kearny, NJ, USA
WCA
2003BURT01
This is what I had when I woke up this morning, after generating half the algs for the flipped edge equivalent of CLS I and Im last night.

Except I wasn't planning to put a dumb name on it. Nor try and make it a main method. Nor deny the negatives and concentrate only on the positives because it would be 'connected' to my name.

Oh well, at least I released OLS-FE before you. People better not call it Skyler variation.
I agree with Rowan. It seems like you're just trying to put your name out there to be cool.
 

Godmil

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,196
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
YouTube
Visit Channel
What does the FE stand for, cause I'm finding OLS-FE to be a really confusing name. I have no problem with methods having a name of the author while also being able to be described by initials of the stages e.g. Fridrich / CFOP
 

Bob

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
1,473
Location
Kearny, NJ, USA
WCA
2003BURT01
What does the FE stand for, cause I'm finding OLS-FE to be a really confusing name. I have no problem with methods having a name of the author while also being able to be described by initials of the stages e.g. Fridrich / CFOP
Flipped edge. Its the case with a solved pair but the edge flipped in place.
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
F2L-
You only save about 4 moves on the SKY slot compared to normal F2L. Most pairs are 2gen anyway, R' U2 R U' R' U R really isn't much worse than U R' U' R. You also have to fight all the F2L training you've done so far- the same case can now mean 2 completely different things depending on whether you need to solve it as a SKY pair or not. On top of this is what Dan mentioned earlier, if you have to rotate before doing the orientation alg then a lot of the advantages are lost.

Orientation-
The first problem is the number of cases. 181 is a LOT. Learning to quickly recognize and recall that many cases is an endeavor that would take 6+ months if not years.
The second problem is that OLL is fast. Really fast. Every case can be done sub-1. Nothing in SV comes close to the speed of sune or FRUR'U'F' and the like. Even looking at EO 4, which is the fastest and shortest subset, not many are easily sub1. Looking at the other subsets, I begin to question the sub-2 potential of many of them. Also it is not hard to predict PLL, or at least CPLL, during OLL recognition. You'd have to figure out a recognition system involving twisted corners, as well as how all 181 cases influence them in order to do the same with SV.

As far as I can see you're cutting a few fast moves from f2l and adding them back on later in a worse way.

Now when I say Versatile I am referring to the fact that Skyler variation is one of the few (only that I know of :)) last slot variations that allows for really easy setups which actually save you time and moves as opposed to wasting them. Seeing as how the average move count for Skyler variation is about 12.5 moves (just a rough estimate, could be slightly higher if you chose different algs than I did for each case) and the average move count for OLL is 9.7 moves, or to make it easy 10 moves, then the only way that you would be wasting moves/ time in setting up for Skyler variation would be if your f2l case were 2.5 moves or less which considering that f2l has an average move count of 7.8 moves (8 for simplicities sake) and the shortest f2l case is 3 moves (unless you start from an R or something) means that you will almost always be saving moves (about 5.5 in general). This makes Skyler variation about 5.5 moves shorter than regular CFOP.
Incorrect.

8 minus 3 is not 5.5

7.8 is not 8.
You will not always get a 3 move SKY pair case. 3.5 is a better estimate.
You completely ignore the 2.5 extra moves for SV vs OLL that you mention earlier.
So you save 7.8-3.5= 4.3 moves during f2l and lose 2.5 for orientation, so SV would save 1.8 moves over CFOP.
 

jskyler91

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
676
Location
Berkeley CA
YouTube
Visit Channel
I agree with Rowan. It seems like you're just trying to put your name out there to be cool.
Why would it not be SKyler Variation? People call Rowe Variaition Rowe Variation and Rowe Variation contains lots of mutliple subsets like Winter variation. You could call the subset OLS- FE, but I already posted it before him so I would be the one to name it not him and i just called it a part of Skyler Variation.
Also, it is the norm to name things you discovered and presented on first after yourself. Just as Gomil said, we normally call CFOP the Fridrich method and no one is really erked about that, at least that I know of.

Edit:
In fairness, 'Rowe variation' is a more dumb name than yours, because it only contains OLS-Pair. Your 'variation' also covers MGLS and OLS-FE, and the 'original content' is the flipped edges version of I and Im. I'm actually willing to concede this point, since I re-read the OP and realised this variation contains more 'method' than alg sets, especially since you didn't even generate the no-edges oriented cases.
Ya, I am not claiming to be the sole inventor of the alg sets, because as you prove, many people have thought of this before, but rather I am trying to create a method around these algs and a way to get quicker with them.

F2L-
You only save about 4 moves on the SKY slot compared to normal F2L. Most pairs are 2gen anyway, R' U2 R U' R' U R really isn't much worse than U R' U' R. You also have to fight all the F2L training you've done so far- the same case can now mean 2 completely different things depending on whether you need to solve it as a SKY pair or not. On top of this is what Dan mentioned earlier, if you have to rotate before doing the orientation alg then a lot of the advantages are lost.

Orientation-
The first problem is the number of cases. 181 is a LOT. Learning to quickly recognize and recall that many cases is an endeavor that would take 6+ months if not years.
The second problem is that OLL is fast. Really fast. Every case can be done sub-1. Nothing in SV comes close to the speed of sune or FRUR'U'F' and the like. Even looking at EO 4, which is the fastest and shortest subset, not many are easily sub1. Looking at the other subsets, I begin to question the sub-2 potential of many of them. Also it is not hard to predict PLL, or at least CPLL, during OLL recognition. You'd have to figure out a recognition system involving twisted corners, as well as how all 181 cases influence them in order to do the same with SV.

As far as I can see you're cutting a few fast moves from f2l and adding them back on later in a worse way.



Incorrect.

8 minus 3 is not 5.5

7.8 is not 8.
You will not always get a 3 move SKY pair case. 3.5 is a better estimate.
You completely ignore the 2.5 extra moves for SV vs OLL that you mention earlier.
So you save 7.8-3.5= 4.3 moves during f2l and lose 2.5 for orientation, so SV would save 1.8 moves over CFOP.
Again, I prefer to estimate as opposed to using exact numbers, because many people use different algs for OLL which are longer than 10 moves on average. But your math is right, I am just pointing out that unlike most last slot systems, mine actually save moves as opposed to wastes them. Also, if you did nothing to set it up you would save 5.5 moves, this is what I meant, thank you for correcting me :) .

I don't think that predicting PLL is worth it that much anymore. I realized that if you just use 2 side pLL recog you can have almost instant PLL recognition every time without using anything special during OLL. I used to be really into things like R-OLL, but then I realized just two side PLL recog was plenty fine and didn't require nearly as much work.

Also, I think most of these algs could be sub 1ed with practice,and even if you couldn't you would still be saving time. Lets say your regular OLL case would be .9 seconds long, but you had to do one of the 5 horrible f2l cases at first and then it or just one of the other horrible cases which you save time on by inserting it. This would be a 1.5 second f2l case and then a .9 second OLL. That makes for a 2.4 second LS+OLL, now if you just did SV then you would only have to do the horrible case for f2l which would be about 1.5 second. This still saves you .9 seconds. Seeing as how most of my OLL aren't always sub 1 then you will save over a second by using this method assuming your recog is good enough. Now Recog is a different story, only time will tell if I can actually make it up to speed, but I am confident that I can.

Just to clarify: total average move count for LS + OLL is about 18 moves, Total Average move count for SV is 12.5 moves , 18- 12.5 moves is 5.5 moves. If you do a 3 move insert then it is 15.5 moves which is still 2.5 moves less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jskyler91

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
676
Location
Berkeley CA
YouTube
Visit Channel
HEY BRO WHY YOU GOTTA HATE ON ME SO MUCH I WAS JUST TRYING TO POST IN YOUR THREAD YOU DONT HAVE TO REPLY TO EVERYTHING I SAY
I reply to what everyone says lol, I try and be a good thread leader and i am genuinely interested in people's opinions as to whether or not they like this method. I am pretty sure your joking here so I will give this a :)

Cool, Well done generating all the algs.
That must have been a lot of work.
Is there any chance for some example solves from random scrambles please.

I may be mistaken, but when you were compairing move counts, did you do it as SV vs. 1F2L+OLL?
Wouldn't it be more fair to include the ~3 move insert for SV, so the actual move difference would only be a couple of moves on average?
So while it's an interesting idea, the high alg count + extra recognition for limited moves saved would rule it out for me.
I totally missed this earlier lol: A good deal of the time you will get these cases in slot so you won't have to set them up, but yes I updated the OP :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top