# OLS (VLS + HLS) Algorithms: by Mats Valk and Rowe Hessler



## rowehessler (Oct 30, 2013)

Over the next few weeks, Mats Valk and I will be uploading all of our OLS(OLL + Last Slot) algorithms onto our new youtube channel. Mats came up with this idea in 2009 and has been using OLS cases for years, but never published them. I eventually came up with the same idea, and published my algorithms on rowe.cubing.net. When Mats saw this, he contacted me, and we have been working together ever since. 
Our OLS method is broken down into two parts:

1. VLS(Valk Last SLot): these are 216 algorithms, created by Mats Valk in 2009, that will force OLL skip with the last pair connected(solvable with R U' R'). There are 8 subsets of VLS, each containing 27 algorithms and based on edge orientation: Winter Variation(developed by Lucas Winter in 2005), UF, UL, UB, UFUL ULUB, UFUB, and all edges unoriented.

2. HLS(Hessler Last Slot): these are 216 algorithms, created by myself in 2013, that will force OLL skip with the last pair broken(solvable with R U R'). There are 8 subsets of HLS, each containing 27 algorithms and based on edge orientation: Summer Variation, UF, UL, UR, UFUR, UFUL, ULUR, and all edges unoriented. These algorithms will be released on our channel once we have finished uploading VLS. 

Here is our introduction video: 








Mats and I will be alternating with the uploading. So far I have uploaded Winter Variation and VLS(UF), and he will upload VLS(UL) and VLS(UB) within the next few weeks. I hope you enjoy the channel!


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 30, 2013)

Sweet. Good videos :tu

I know some random skips, so I might add in some more when I feel like getting faster at 3x3. Practising is boring 

First subscriber, I'll be keeping track of these videos.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Oct 30, 2013)

<3 Hopefully should be the first one to finish after the series is out 
gj RoVa!


----------



## Andreaillest (Oct 30, 2013)

Awesome! I'm going to keep a diligent eye on the videos for sure.
gj Mats and Rowe.


----------



## stoic (Oct 30, 2013)

Woah...is this where CFOP is headed now?
OLL...PLL...then just another 432 algs to learn!
How many of these do you guys know now? have you learned all of your own sets? Each others?
Great job anyway


----------



## rowehessler (Oct 30, 2013)

ellwd said:


> Woah...is this where CFOP is headed now?
> OLL...PLL...then just another 432 algs to learn!
> How many of these do you guys know now? have you learned all of your own sets? Each others?
> Great job anyway



i know most of VLS, mats may know all of it, I'm not even sure. we only know a few easy cases for HLS.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 30, 2013)

So this saves the RUR' or RU'R' and AUF - any other advantages? How is recognition? How does move count compare to OLL? It would be great to see some more analysis, and maybe a derivation of the 10/20/50 most worthwhile cases based on move count difference.


----------



## rowehessler (Oct 30, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> So this saves the RUR' or RU'R' and AUF - any other advantages? How is recognition? How does move count compare to OLL? It would be great to see some more analysis, and maybe a derivation of the 10/20/50 most worthwhile cases based on move count difference.



not sure what you mean by saving the R U R' and R U' R' and AUF. Advantages: you skip OLL a lot. These algs are for the UFR slot, so if your last f2l pair goes into UFR, with a few set up moves, you get either a VLS or HLS and you force an OLL skip every time. Nothing can be said about HLS right now, because I'm in the process of making it. VLS however, is incredibly fast. If you watch mats' solves closely, he using them quite a bit and gets fast singles, around 1 in 3 solves id say. The recognition is tough at first, but after doing it for a year now, its just as fast as seeing an OLL. one disadvantage is that there is no way to influence your pll, like COLL or OLLCP. another disadvantage is that its a crap ton of algs, and it'll probably be just as tough to get fast with OLS as it is to get fast with ZB. 

The purpose of this is just to show the world what we've generated. I have no idea how fast this can be, but I've enjoyed generating them and they're fun to learn.


----------



## scottishcuber (Oct 30, 2013)

Have you notice any improvements in your times?

I assume because you don't use it every solve you probably just get a few faster singles here and there, rather than whole averages.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Oct 30, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> not sure what you mean by saving the R U R' and R U' R' and AUF. Advantages: you skip OLL a lot. These algs are for the UFR slot, so if your last f2l pair goes into UFR, with a few set up moves, you get either a VLS or HLS and you force an OLL skip every time. Nothing can be said about HLS right now, because I'm in the process of making it. VLS however, is incredibly fast. If you watch mats' solves closely, he using them quite a bit and gets fast singles, around 1 in 3 solves id say. The recognition is tough at first, but after doing it for a year now, its just as fast as seeing an OLL. one disadvantage is that there is no way to influence your pll, like COLL or OLLCP. another disadvantage is that its a crap ton of algs, and it'll probably be just as tough to get fast with OLS as it is to get fast with ZB.
> 
> The purpose of this is just to show the world what we've generated. I have no idea how fast this can be, but I've enjoyed generating them and they're fun to learn.



One more disadvantage
>Learns few cases
> Hopes to get it in an average
> Gets the mirror case of what was learnt.
> Rage quit.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 30, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> not sure what you mean by saving the R U R' and R U' R' and AUF.


I mean you execute _n_ moves for the OLS alg, as opposed to 3-4 moves for the insert plus _m_ moves for the OLL. So _n_ has to be no more than 1-2 greater than _m_, to give a meaningful saving in terms of move count, allowing for the fact that with 432 algs it will be harder to reach the same tps as with 57 well-practiced OLLs. It would be really interesting to analyse OLS case-by-case and identify those cases with the smallest _n-m_, assuming the OLL reached by the simplest insert. Those would be the ones to learn first 

For example, the reconstruction of Mats' 3x3 in his 2-4 relay, posted today. There he does a 10-move OLS including the AUF. The alternatives would be AUF + sledgehammer (+ AUF) + 9-move OCLL = 14-15 moves or RU'R' + 9-move lightning bolt = 12-13 moves. I'd guess that the OLS is probably only marginally better than the latter - although at Mats' level, marginal makes all the difference 



rowehessler said:


> Advantages: you skip OLL a lot.


It's probably just semantics, but it's not really an OLL skip if you still have to work for it. A simple 5-move alg instead of a 3-move insert could be called forcing an OLL skip, I guess, given that the extra couple of moves is more trivial than any OLL. But a 9-10 move alg? That would be more accurately described as combining OLL and LS, IMHO.

That's why I'm curious whether there are other advantages (other than move count which is easy to measure) for example in better lookahead or prediction of cases, or overall flow of the solve. Since it's developed by two of the fastest cubers in history it's got to be good, right? .



rowehessler said:


> The purpose of this is just to show the world what we've generated. I have no idea how fast this can be, but I've enjoyed generating them and they're fun to learn.


Thanks for generating and posting these and for the discussion. LS shortcuts are great fun 

Have you thought of generating a similar set but for hard LS cases, to save maybe 7-8 moves building the pair? For example where both LS pieces are in the slot but one or both is misoriented? Moves could also be saved by deliberately inserting an earlier pair wrong and fixing during OLS (like EJLS but extended to OLL rather than just corners) and that would also increase the probability of the algs being used. There would be fewer cases given that neither LS piece would be in the top layer (5*58, I think, roughly).


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Oct 30, 2013)

Hmmmm...
Maybe I won't bother finishing OLL.


----------



## KongShou (Oct 30, 2013)

CFP?


----------



## Iggy (Oct 30, 2013)

Thanks for making this. I'm gonna start learning WV.


----------



## TDM (Oct 30, 2013)

I already know the entire first video.


----------



## fastcubesolver (Oct 30, 2013)

Awesome!


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 30, 2013)

Here are my algs for RUR' + OCLL:

000
U2 R' D' r U2 r' D R

001
R U R D R' U R D' R' U' R'
002
R U' L' U2 L U L' U L R' or SA
010
R U' R' F' R U2 R' U2 R' F R or SA
020
SA
100
SA
200
U2 R L U' R' U L'

012
R U' R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'
021
R U' R' U R' D' R U2 R' D R2 U' R'
022
R U2 R' U R U2 R' or L' R U R' U' L
101
R U' R' r' F R F' M' U' R U' R'
102
R U2 R' U' L' U R U' R' L
110
R U R D' R U' R' D R U R
120
R U' R D R' U2 R D' R2'
201
R U' R' U' R U' R'
202
L' U2 L U L' U L R U2 R'
210
U2 R U' R2 D' R U' R' D R or SA
220
U L' R U R' U R U' R' U2 L 

111
R U' R' U2 L' U R U' R' L or SA
112
U' R U R D R' U R D' R2' 
121
R U2 R D R' U' R D' R2'
122
SA
211
SA
212
R U' R' U' R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R
221
R U2 R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'
222
U2 R L' U R' U' L U2 R U R'

(SA means standard approach, so just do the pair normally, then OLL). The first number refers to the orientation of the UBL corner, 2nd number: UBR, 3rd number: UFL.

I'm not really sure if it's worth learning HLS because I don't think you save that many moves. The reason why VLS is so useful in my opinion is because most decent OLL algs require you to take out a pair or two and play around with them, then return them to their rightful slots. You rarely use OLL algs which start like R U' R'. In fact, many of the algorithms I've listed require you to join the pair up first. Only roughly a third of my algs start with something else other than R.


----------



## Mvcuber12 (Oct 30, 2013)

ellwd said:


> Woah...is this where CFOP is headed now?
> OLL...PLL...then just another 432 algs to learn!
> How many of these do you guys know now? have you learned all of your own sets? Each others?
> Great job anyway



I don't exactly know how many I know, but quite a lot, I think approximately 150 of the VLS set. I didn't learn them in any specific order but just when I thought an algorithm was useful to know or when I found on accident while I was playing with the cube. 



mark49152 said:


> So this saves the RUR' or RU'R' and AUF - any other advantages? How is recognition? How does move count compare to OLL? It would be great to see some more analysis, and maybe a derivation of the 10/20/50 most worthwhile cases based on move count difference.


The maximum number of moves you can save with this is in fact 7. RU'R' instert + RUR' + U + OLS = OLL, twice a 3 moves instertion plus an U turn makes 7 moves. However, I'm to lazy to calculate the actual average amount of moves that is saved, but I guess it's around 3~4. It doesn't look like much, but when you're turning on a speed of, let's say, 8 TPS, that's still around 0.4~0.5 seconds. Which is in my opinion definitely worth it if you want to be a good speedcuber. 

About the recognizion, at first it feels really weird, but after some practice it's just like recognizing an OLL. I've been over the point for quite some time now where I can predict the OLS case while making my last pair, sometimes even while making my third pair. 



scottishcuber said:


> Have you notice any improvements in your times?
> I assume because you don't use it every solve you probably just get a few faster singles here and there, rather than whole averages.



I haven't seen an significant improvement on my average time. However, I've had so many times where I was able to turn a bad solve into a normal solve or a normal solve into a good solve just because I was able to skip the OLL with OLS. This makes me quite sure it really helped me improving my average time. 



Bhargav777 said:


> One more disadvantage
> > Learns few cases
> > Hopes to get it in an average
> > Gets the mirror case of what was learnt.
> > Rage quit.



Lol, a few things. 
- Most of the times you can do cases intuit ve, so it's not really learning a new algorithm but just knowing how to do it. 
- Even tough you won't get it every solve, it'll definitely help on the solves you can do it. 
- A good cuber is able to mirror an algorithm without many problems. 


To everyone, I might make a video soon with all the easy cases and therefore the ones I'd recommend to start learning with. 

If you've found an algorithm that you think is faster or at least equal in speed than one we've used in a video or that is on the website, feel free to post and discuss about them here so we can have the best algorithms possible at one place.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 30, 2013)

is this some kind of new beginner method


----------



## Bhargav777 (Oct 30, 2013)

Mvcuber12 said:


> Lol, a few things.
> - Most of the times you can do cases intuit ve, so it's not really learning a new algorithm but just knowing how to do it.
> - Even tough you won't get it every solve, it'll definitely help on the solves you can do it.
> - A good cuber is able to mirror an algorithm without many problems.
> ...



You're right. But that was OH  I learnt a UF case that was already hard as it had F'  since I got the left case, I had to rage quit. VLS seems epic!


----------



## rowehessler (Oct 30, 2013)

Robert-Y said:


> Here are my algs for RUR' + OCLL:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



thanks for the algs, ill compare them to yours. Yeah a lot of the cases are R U' R' and VLS lol. but some are pretty fast



mark49152 said:


> It's probably just semantics, but it's not really an OLL skip if you still have to work for it. A simple 5-move alg instead of a 3-move insert could be called forcing an OLL skip, I guess, given that the extra couple of moves is more trivial than any OLL. But a 9-10 move alg? That would be more accurately described as combining OLL and LS, IMHO.


pretty sure its obvious i meant forcing oll skips...


----------



## JustinJ (Oct 30, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> thanks for the algs, ill compare them to yours. Yeah a lot of the cases are R U' R' and VLS lol. but some are pretty fast



If it helps


----------



## pipkiksass (Oct 30, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> pretty sure its obvious i meant forcing oll skips...



I think Mark's point is that a lot of OLS is essentially insert + OLL with calculations, rather than 'skipping' OLL per se. Not wishing to state the obvious, but an OLL skip is when the natural insert results in OLL being solved. Any method which requires more moves than the 'natural' insert, such as WV, SV, VHLS, etc., isn't truly skipping OLL, it's combining slotting the last F2L pair with at least a partial OLL. 

That said, it's an amazing piece of work, kudos to both of you.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 30, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> I think Mark's point is that a lot of OLS is essentially insert + OLL with calculations, rather than 'skipping' OLL per se. Not wishing to state the obvious, but an OLL skip is when the natural insert results in OLL being solved. Any method which requires more moves than the 'natural' insert, such as WV, SV, VHLS, etc., isn't truly skipping OLL, it's combining slotting the last F2L pair with at least a partial OLL.


Thanks Pipkiksass. I asked about the advantages of OLS, and Rowe said that it forces OLL skips; my point was that it doesn't really force skips, it (as you said) just replaces OLL with something else, with a similar move count and the same number of looks. Therefore that's not an advantage in itself, whether we call it "forcing skips" or not. There might be other advantages like fewer moves or better algs or transition from F2L or whatever, but just replacing one step with another isn't an advantage in itself.

When I get some time I'm going to write some code to identify which of these are the most beneficial cases, and perhaps get out Cube Explorer and try generating some OLS-type algs for when the LS pieces are stuck wrong in the slot. There's good potential for move count savings there.



Mvcuber12 said:


> The maximum number of moves you can save with this is in fact 7. RU'R' instert + RUR' + U + OLS = OLL, twice a 3 moves instertion plus an U turn makes 7 moves. However, I'm to lazy to calculate the actual average amount of moves that is saved, but I guess it's around 3~4. It doesn't look like much, but when you're turning on a speed of, let's say, 8 TPS, that's still around 0.4~0.5 seconds. Which is in my opinion definitely worth it if you want to be a good speedcuber.


OK thanks Mats, that makes sense. Do you change the way you build your last pair, to try to make sure you end up with a VLS pair rather than HLS or a special case? Does that ever cost you time or moves, or do you just go with the fastest solution for that pair then do regular OLL?


----------



## Anthony (Oct 30, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> my point was that it doesn't really force skips, it (as you said) just replaces OLL with something else, with a similar move count and the *same number of looks*.



# of looks:
LS (1) + OLL (1) + PLL (1) 
vs
OLS (1) + PLL (1)


----------



## scottishcuber (Oct 30, 2013)

Anthony said:


> # of looks:
> LS (1) + OLL (1) + PLL (1)
> vs
> OLS (1) + PLL (1)



setup(1)?


----------



## TDM (Oct 30, 2013)

scottishcuber said:


> setup(1)?





Mvcuber12 said:


> About the recognizion [...] I've been over the point for quite some time now where I can predict the OLS case while making my last pair, sometimes even while making my third pair.


Although to begin with, you're right about it being the same number of looks.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 31, 2013)

Anthony said:


> # of looks:
> LS (1) + OLL (1) + PLL (1)
> vs
> OLS (1) + PLL (1)


You need a look to do an RU'R' insert at the end of your F2L case...?


----------



## Anthony (Oct 31, 2013)

scottishcuber said:


> setup(1)?





mark49152 said:


> You need a look to do an RU'R' insert at the end of your F2L case...?



Two things: 1. I'm only referring to situations where you happen to get one of these cases-- not setting up to one every solve. 2. Eventually, it gets to the point where the "look" at the last pair yields immediate recognition of the specific case, not just the joint pair.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 31, 2013)

Anthony said:


> Eventually, it gets to the point where the "look" at the last pair yields immediate recognition of the specific case, not just the joint pair.


I don't know what you mean. You posted earlier that OLL/PLL requires an extra look on the last slot that is saved by using OLS/PLL. Assuming decent lookahead, the LS pair or setup shouldn't need a "look", and why is the transition from F2L into OLS recognition any different from the transition into OLL recognition? The way Mats described it, it sounds similar. Do you use this method?


----------



## scottishcuber (Oct 31, 2013)

Anthony said:


> Two things: 1. I'm only referring to situations where you happen to get one of these cases-- not setting up to one every solve. 2. Eventually, it gets to the point where the "look" at the last pair yields immediate recognition of the specific case, not just the joint pair.



Yup. I still think that we should all agree that most of the time you will need a set-up. However, the fact OLS pretty much eliminates the need to auf and by it's nature is cancelling moves for particular OLL algorithms is very beneficial. On top of that, you can obviously predict the EO during the setup and with practice the CO will become very easy to recognise quickly.

So I think the 3-looks needed (which can be less than 3 more often than LS-OP can be) for setup-OLS-P are superior than the 3 looks needed for LS-O-P. Although I don't have enough evidence to suggest that OLS is categorically better than the common alternative.


----------



## applemobile (Oct 31, 2013)

Have you learnt Skyler-Variation yet?


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 1, 2013)

applemobile said:


> Have you learnt Skyler-Variation yet?


wtf is that


----------



## stoic (Nov 1, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> wtf is that


All the cool kids are doing it


----------



## rowehessler (Nov 1, 2013)

ellwd said:


> All the cool kids are doing it


count me out then


----------



## TDM (Nov 1, 2013)

rowehessler said:


> wtf is that


It's like OLS, except both the corner and the edge are in their slot but not oriented correctly.


----------



## Mvcuber12 (Dec 29, 2013)

Two new subsets ( VLS(UL) & VLS(UB) ) have been uploaded and can be found here!
Enjoy.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jan 9, 2014)

Mvcuber12 said:


> Two new subsets ( VLS(UL) & VLS(UB) ) have been uploaded and can be found here!
> Enjoy.


 I am going to learn all these atleast for the efforts that Rowe and You take  UF cases and UB with all corners oriented seem so sweet btw!


----------



## muFFube (Jan 9, 2014)

thank you for the work  i am going to learn them as soon as possible 

do you know all vls an ols ?


----------



## Lagom (Jan 15, 2014)

So in order to skip the oll alg... You do an alg?  

In average how many turns do you save on this? 

Did Mats do this in the world record solve or was that just a lucky oll skip?


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 15, 2014)

Lagom said:


> So in order to skip the oll alg... You do an alg?
> 
> In average how many turns do you save on this?
> 
> Did Mats do this in the world record solve or was that just a lucky oll skip?


Read the thread, this has all been discussed.


----------



## TDM (Jan 15, 2014)

Lagom said:


> 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.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 14, 2014)

Lagom said:


> 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?


----------



## rowehessler (Aug 14, 2014)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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?


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Aug 14, 2014)

rowehessler said:


> 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.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Mar 17, 2015)

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 (Mar 17, 2015)

Lazy Einstein said:


> 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 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.


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 17, 2015)

Lazy Einstein said:


> 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 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 (Mar 17, 2015)

PhillipEspinoza said:


> 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.



Lazy Einstein said:


> 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.


----------



## irontwig (Mar 17, 2015)

Lazy Einstein said:


> 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.



Doesn't it sound too much like velcro though? Especially if you pronounce Valk like most anglophones do.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jun 13, 2015)

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 (Feb 17, 2016)

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!


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 17, 2016)

Kudz said:


> 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 (Feb 17, 2016)

Kudz said:


> 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


----------



## CriticalCubing (Feb 17, 2016)

Berkmann18 said:


> 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



Which subset should you learn to skip dot cases? i.e. no edges on top??


----------



## Berkmann18 (Feb 17, 2016)

CriticalCubing said:


> Which subset should you learn to skip dot cases? i.e. no edges on top??



OLS, or simply ZB (as I currently know only two OLS NoEdge cases).


----------



## Kudz (Feb 17, 2016)

Berkmann18 said:


> 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.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Feb 17, 2016)

Kudz said:


> 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.



HLS is interesting and some cases are nice but I prefer by far the R U' R' way (same for VH).


----------

