jskyler91
Member
First and last are the same.
Doesn't work.
Ah, you would be right, I must have miscrambled 3 times in a row lol. wow. Thanks, I will update it.
EDIT: Actually the first Y just needed to be a y2 and its works.
Last edited:
First and last are the same.
Doesn't work.
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.
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?
Could you show me the post where you put the idea out there?
Actually, sounds quite true for a good portion of this thread. Although, your reasoning is flawed./blatant honestyI have to reason to lie about this.
Doesn't work.
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.
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
So it stands for Orientation of the last layer during the Last Slot - while some of the last layer has Flipped Edges?
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.
I agree with Rowan. It seems like you're just trying to put your name out there to be cool.
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.
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.
I prefer to estimate as opposed to using exact numbers
This is where I lost it. XD
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
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.