Difference between revisions of "VDW method"

From Speedsolving.com Wiki
(Merged article with Skis and LCE)
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Method Infobox
 
{{Method Infobox
 
|name=VDW  
 
|name=VDW  
|image=
+
|image=Skis_method.png
|proposers=[[Alex VanDerWyst]]
+
|proposers=[[Alex VanDerWyst]], [[WoowyBaby]]
 
|year=2015
 
|year=2015
|anames=
+
|anames=LCEELL, Skis method, LCE
|variants=LCEELL
+
|variants=[[TICT]]
|steps=5-6
+
|steps=4-5
|algs=Few to many
+
|algs=9-42
|moves=More than 20, that's for sure
+
|moves=<50
 
|purpose=<sup></sup>
 
|purpose=<sup></sup>
 
* [[Speedsolving]]  
 
* [[Speedsolving]]  
* fun (but not efficient) way of solving [[Roux]]
+
* [[Fewest Moves]]
 
}}
 
}}
 +
'''VDW''', short for '''V'''an'''D'''er'''W'''yst, is a [[Rubik's cube]] speedsolving method proposed by [[Alex VanDerWyst]] in 2015. It could be described as a mix of [[Corners First]] and [[Roux]] and allows for high [[TPS]] while maintaining a low movecount and keeping [[blockbuilding]] to a minimum. In spite of its potential, it currently doesn't have any active users.
  
= Steps =
+
== Steps ==
 +
# '''Lines (sometimes also "Skis" or "Twins"):''' Two 1x1x3 blocks are built in DL and DR, respectively. Centers can be ignored here.
 +
# '''CLL:''' The remaining four corners on the top are oriented and permuted in one of 42 algorithms while preserving the DL and DR edges. Most [[CLL]] algorithms for 2x2 apply here, although one might also use [[CMLL]] (or any other [[CxLL]] subset that doesn't destroy DL and DR).
 +
# '''LR:''' The four edges in the equator edges are solved in pairs so that [[F2B]] is finished after this step. (Similar to 4b of [[Roux]].)
 +
# '''LSE:''' The last six edges on the M-slice and the U-layer are solved <MU>-gen, usually in multiple steps. Roux LSE is most common, although different approaches (listed in [[LSE]]) can be used here as well.
  
=== Basic explanation ===
+
Alternatively, instead of both orienting and permuting, the corners can also only be oriented in the second step with [[OCLL]]. When this approach is used, [[CPLL]] needs to be applied after the LSE step to finish the cube. Although this requires less algorithms, it's objectively worse and should only be used as a beginner variant.
# Solve 2 1X1X3 lines opposite of each other on d layer
 
# Solve LL corners using CMLL (step1/2 can be together as solving all the corners plus two opposite edges in the D layer)
 
# Solve Equator edges that would make up the edges in the roux blocks in pairs of two using the B and F layers
 
# Align the roux block edges to their spots
 
# LSE
 
# If LL corners oriented only, after LSE perform a PLL.
 
  
=== Detailed explanation ===
+
== Pros ==
#Solve two 1x1x3 blocks on the D layer opposite from each other (also referred to as "lines")
+
* '''Inspection:''' Due to the lines step, most of the solve can be planned in inspection. Therefore, it is sometimes even possible to plan up to CLL. This prevents pauses mid-solve due to recognition (which is considered one of the biggest problems in Roux).
#Orient the last layer corners 
 
#*Alternatively, completely solve the last layer corners by using [[CMLL]] in order to skip step 6
 
#Since the lines are completed, now the solver doesn't have to use the D Layer. Now pair up two E Layer edges along with its corresponding center to create a line in the U Layer. Place this in the B layer, pointing up and down.
 
#*The line created is recommended to be the front sticker color of the two corners on the D layer facing the solver
 
#*continued: The E Layer Edges line (Which is in the B layer) is facing up and down. If an M2 move is performed, then the E Layer Edges line should be in the F Layer. Check the bottom edge of that line in the back and observe the color of it. Using that scenario, find one of the two corners facing the solver with that orange color on the right or left side and perform an F move to turn that corner to the U layer, so that that corner has orange facing up and its opposite corner has red facing down. Next, perform an M2, so that the edges line lines up with the corners (orange matches orange and so on). Then undo that F move to have placed the line in the E Layer and matched them with their corners (to make two pseudo F2L Pairs).  
 
#*Perform an E2 or fat U2 to put the solved edges line to the back, leaving the front of the E Layer open. While doing so, match the red and orange centers to the sides of the line. Then Perform step 3 (not continued) to make another line with the opposite color of the original placed line, which would now be a green line instead of a blue line. Don't worry about the blue center anymore and allow for the green line to go in the B layer like the original blue line did before entering the E Layer.
 
#*Instead of using the M2 move aligning the E Layer Edges line to the F Layer corners, this step will match the Edges line to the side colors of the pairs already placed that are in the B Layer. When turning the F layer to put in the green line, the undo of the F Layer turn will determine if the edges are lined up properly, so if the side color of the back left edge is red, and the bottom back color of the green line edge is orange then an F' move should be used to do the M2 move so that when the orange green edge of the line comes to the top, the Undo move which is an F will push the orange to the other side and the red edge will line up with the red edge of the blue line in the back.
 
#Perform an E move or a fat U move to finally line up all of the E Layer edges to their spots. After the alignment, the M Layer should still be free to turn.
 
#Solve the [[LSE]] (Last Six Edges) by using M and U moves.
 
#*If the solver chose to also permute the Last Layer corners along with the orientation in step 2, then after using LSE in step 6, the cube will be solved.
 
#If the solver chose not to permute the Last Layer corners, then after using LSE or a form of it, the solver will have to perform a PLL or a specific [[CPLL]], depending on the permutation of the last layer edges, and finally solve the cube.
 
  
== Algorithms ==
+
* '''High TPS:''' Except for LR, every other step is either planned in inspection or algorithmic, which allows for very high TPS.
{{work}}
+
 
There are algs currently being worked on by me (Alex) for steps 3 and 4 to fix the E-Layer Edges that are more convenient.
+
* '''Less blockbuilding than Roux:''' Compared to Roux, the VDW method needs comparable or even less blockbuilding at the beginning and none in the middle of the solve. Therefore, less blockbuilding skills and intuitivity are required. This also gives beginners an easier learning curve than [[Roux]] does.
 +
 
 +
* '''Algorithms:''' Only 42 algorithms need to be learned, which is the same as [[Roux]] and less than in other popular speedsolving methods like [[CFOP]]. Since only the DL and DR edges need to be preserved, most of the very well developed 2x2 [[CLL]] algorithms transfer here.
 +
 
 +
* '''Very ergonomic:''' The first step and CLL are mostly <RUF>-gen and LSE is completely <MU>-gen, so turn speed can be very high and there are no rotations.
 +
 
 +
== Cons ==
 +
* '''LR:''' LR can be harder to learn as it is very intuitive and edges can be almost everywhere. This causes worse lookahead and low TPS. It also doesn't have great ergonomics, so one needs to be able to switch between R, U, F, M and E moves.
 +
 
 +
* '''Slice moves:''' Because of LR and LSE, this method heavily relies on slice moves, especially M, which can be hard for beginners to get used to and also aren't very easy to execute on [[big cubes]]. Since LSE is performed at the end of the solve, there is a higher chance to get a [[DNF]] instead of a [[+2]].
 +
 
 +
* '''Undeveloped:''' Although this method has been proposed multiple times, it hasn't been developed as much as other big speedsolving methods like [[CFOP]], [[Roux]] and [[ZZ]] and thus has a lot less resources.
 +
 
 +
== Possible improvements ==
 +
* '''Semi-algorithmic LR:''' The inventor, [[Alex VanDerWyst]], planned to generate algorithms to make solving LR easier but still not fully algorithmic. However, none of them have actually been made yet.
 +
* '''E2L:''' To improve LR, [[Eric Fattah]] suggested the use of [[LMCF]]'s algorithmic E2L step to allow for better ergonomics and higher tps because of the pre-made algorithms, although this will highly increase the amount of algorithms that need to be learned. The difference from semi-algorithmic LR is that this is fully algorithmic.
 +
 
 +
== Similar methods ==
 +
Methods similar to this one have been proposed very often. Examples are [[TICT]] by [[Feliks Zemdegs]] which was proposed six years prior to VDW. The first two steps are the same, although [[TICT]] finishes with T perm instead of LR and LSE, so in this case, VDW can be considered as a different method.
 +
 
 +
In 2019, however, the Skis method was invented independently by [[WoowyBaby]], followed by Zimlit's LCE in 2020 (although the last two steps of the latter, E2L and LSE, were very likely inspired by the Skis method because they aren't contained in the proposal). In 2020, both of these methods were found to be the same as VDW, so all three articles were merged into this one.
 +
 
 +
Of the three people mentioned here who invented these similar methods, only [[WoowyBaby]] is listed as a (co-)proposer here because he was the first one to see VDW as a method that can be used to achieve fast times instead of a worse version of [[Roux]].
 +
 
 +
== See also ==
 +
* [[Alex VanDerWyst]]
 +
* [[WoowyBaby]]
 +
* [[Roux]]
 +
* [[CLL]]
 +
* [[CxLL]]
 +
* [[LSE]]
 +
* [[LMCF]]
 +
* [[TICT]]
 +
* [[Feliks Zemdegs]]
 +
* [[Zimlit]]
  
 
== External links ==
 
== External links ==
* Video Walk through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXBW0l45SQ
+
* YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXBW0l45SQ Video Walkthrough (Original VDW)]
 +
* YouTube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5fwjWhyzZ8 Video Walkthrough (Skis)]
 +
* [https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/page-254#post-1317365 Proposal with example solves (Skis)]
 +
* [https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/page-287#post-1352079 Proposal (LCE)]
 +
 
 +
[[Category:3x3x3 methods]]
 +
[[Category:3x3x3 speedsolving methods]]
 +
[[Category:3x3x3 corners first methods]]

Revision as of 12:39, 5 April 2020

VDW method
Skis method.png
Information about the method
Proposer(s): Alex VanDerWyst, WoowyBaby
Proposed: 2015
Alt Names: LCEELL, Skis method, LCE
Variants: TICT
No. Steps: 4-5
No. Algs: 9-42
Avg Moves: <50
Purpose(s):

VDW, short for VanDerWyst, is a Rubik's cube speedsolving method proposed by Alex VanDerWyst in 2015. It could be described as a mix of Corners First and Roux and allows for high TPS while maintaining a low movecount and keeping blockbuilding to a minimum. In spite of its potential, it currently doesn't have any active users.

Steps

  1. Lines (sometimes also "Skis" or "Twins"): Two 1x1x3 blocks are built in DL and DR, respectively. Centers can be ignored here.
  2. CLL: The remaining four corners on the top are oriented and permuted in one of 42 algorithms while preserving the DL and DR edges. Most CLL algorithms for 2x2 apply here, although one might also use CMLL (or any other CxLL subset that doesn't destroy DL and DR).
  3. LR: The four edges in the equator edges are solved in pairs so that F2B is finished after this step. (Similar to 4b of Roux.)
  4. LSE: The last six edges on the M-slice and the U-layer are solved <MU>-gen, usually in multiple steps. Roux LSE is most common, although different approaches (listed in LSE) can be used here as well.

Alternatively, instead of both orienting and permuting, the corners can also only be oriented in the second step with OCLL. When this approach is used, CPLL needs to be applied after the LSE step to finish the cube. Although this requires less algorithms, it's objectively worse and should only be used as a beginner variant.

Pros

  • Inspection: Due to the lines step, most of the solve can be planned in inspection. Therefore, it is sometimes even possible to plan up to CLL. This prevents pauses mid-solve due to recognition (which is considered one of the biggest problems in Roux).
  • High TPS: Except for LR, every other step is either planned in inspection or algorithmic, which allows for very high TPS.
  • Less blockbuilding than Roux: Compared to Roux, the VDW method needs comparable or even less blockbuilding at the beginning and none in the middle of the solve. Therefore, less blockbuilding skills and intuitivity are required. This also gives beginners an easier learning curve than Roux does.
  • Algorithms: Only 42 algorithms need to be learned, which is the same as Roux and less than in other popular speedsolving methods like CFOP. Since only the DL and DR edges need to be preserved, most of the very well developed 2x2 CLL algorithms transfer here.
  • Very ergonomic: The first step and CLL are mostly <RUF>-gen and LSE is completely <MU>-gen, so turn speed can be very high and there are no rotations.

Cons

  • LR: LR can be harder to learn as it is very intuitive and edges can be almost everywhere. This causes worse lookahead and low TPS. It also doesn't have great ergonomics, so one needs to be able to switch between R, U, F, M and E moves.
  • Slice moves: Because of LR and LSE, this method heavily relies on slice moves, especially M, which can be hard for beginners to get used to and also aren't very easy to execute on big cubes. Since LSE is performed at the end of the solve, there is a higher chance to get a DNF instead of a +2.
  • Undeveloped: Although this method has been proposed multiple times, it hasn't been developed as much as other big speedsolving methods like CFOP, Roux and ZZ and thus has a lot less resources.

Possible improvements

  • Semi-algorithmic LR: The inventor, Alex VanDerWyst, planned to generate algorithms to make solving LR easier but still not fully algorithmic. However, none of them have actually been made yet.
  • E2L: To improve LR, Eric Fattah suggested the use of LMCF's algorithmic E2L step to allow for better ergonomics and higher tps because of the pre-made algorithms, although this will highly increase the amount of algorithms that need to be learned. The difference from semi-algorithmic LR is that this is fully algorithmic.

Similar methods

Methods similar to this one have been proposed very often. Examples are TICT by Feliks Zemdegs which was proposed six years prior to VDW. The first two steps are the same, although TICT finishes with T perm instead of LR and LSE, so in this case, VDW can be considered as a different method.

In 2019, however, the Skis method was invented independently by WoowyBaby, followed by Zimlit's LCE in 2020 (although the last two steps of the latter, E2L and LSE, were very likely inspired by the Skis method because they aren't contained in the proposal). In 2020, both of these methods were found to be the same as VDW, so all three articles were merged into this one.

Of the three people mentioned here who invented these similar methods, only WoowyBaby is listed as a (co-)proposer here because he was the first one to see VDW as a method that can be used to achieve fast times instead of a worse version of Roux.

See also

External links