# Last Slot method question?



## foxfan352 (May 28, 2010)

I have been doing some research on the f2l last slot and all the the methods there is WV, Vh, Exc. This got me thinking if it would be better to learn one of these instead of full oll. So I came up with this.

1. Solve 3 f2l slot
2. Pair up the last f2l 
3. Intuitively orient the last layer edges
4. Insert using partial edge control

This will give you an easy oll case(so only 2-look oll is necessary).This also increases your chances of an oll skip to(I don't really know what the probability is but I got 1/9, 1/12, or 1/48 these could be completely wrong though, they probably are, but hopefully they aren't).

So I got a few questions
Is this the same as step 3 or 4 in the petrus method.
Is this practical to use in fridrich method or it is only useful in the petrus method?


----------



## dannyz0r (May 28, 2010)

Why would you use partial edge control if you already oriented the edges?


----------



## Edward (May 28, 2010)

What? So, you're doing partial edge control right? If you're going to orient edges, try using MGLS.


----------



## blakedacuber (May 28, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> I have been doing some research on the f2l last slot and all the the methods there is WV, Vh, Exc. This got me thinking if it would be better to learn one of these instead of full oll. So I came up with this.
> 
> 1. Solve 3 f2l slot
> 2. Pair up the last f2l
> ...



It makes sense and probably could work, the only proble i can think of at the oment is that your last pair might brake up in the process but then again you should be able to solve it 2 gen


----------



## foxfan352 (May 28, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> Why would you use partial edge control if you already oriented the edges?





blakedacuber said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > I have been doing some research on the f2l last slot and all the the methods there is WV, Vh, Exc. This got me thinking if it would be better to learn one of these instead of full oll. So I came up with this.
> ...


You use partial edge control so you don't unorient any edges.

I figured out a way of doing it so you don't brake up the pair.


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 28, 2010)

Edward said:


> What? So, you're doing partial edge control right? If you're going to orient edges, try using MGLS.



Yea. If you want to skip part of OLL, why not just *skip* it all? MGLS is a 2 look method for LS + OLL.


----------



## dannyz0r (May 28, 2010)

If you already made your last pair and oriented the edges then the insertion just becomes 2-gen and that doesn't undo what you did.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 28, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > What? So, you're doing partial edge control right? If you're going to orient edges, try using MGLS.
> ...





dannyz0r said:


> If you already made your last pair and oriented the edges then the insertion just becomes 2-gen and that doesn't undo what you did.



I read here that there are more cases than oll

I believe that is what partial edge control is only using 2 gen moves to insert a f2l pair.


----------



## cincyaviation (May 28, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...


its pretty much the exact opposite of that


----------



## Edward (May 28, 2010)

Learn somethin son.

And this seatbelt, so you can be safe.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 28, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...





Edward said:


> Learn somethin son.
> 
> And this seatbelt, so you can be safe.



What I mean is that when you use more than to sides to insert an f2l pair when all the edges are oriented it it will unorient 2 of the edges you had


----------



## Rpotts (May 28, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> What I mean is that when you use more than to sides to insert an f2l pair when all the edges are oriented it it will unorient 2 of the edges you had



right so the edge control you described is only for all edges oriented cases, so you're not controlling the edges at all. You just described using normal inserts and just happening to have all edges oriented.


----------



## brunson (May 28, 2010)

You need OLL for any of those methods, because there is always a chance that you accidentally make your last corner pair while solving the others. LS skip means OLL.


----------



## Sir E Brum (May 28, 2010)

The probability of an OLL skip with all edges oriented is 1/27.
4 corners that can be twisted
CCW (counterclockwise)= 1
CW (clockwise)= -1
O (oriented)= 0
(Permutation is irrelevant at this point)

The total of the numbers for corner twists must be 0, 3, or -3 for the cube to be solvable.
The first, second and third corners can be any of the 3.
This leaves you with a possible total from -3 to 3 inclusive.
For -1 and 2, the final corner must be CCW.
For -2 and 1, the final corner must be CW.
For -3, 0, and 3, the final corner must be O.

For an OLL skip we have all the corners oriented.
(0, 0, 0, 0)
For this to occur the first 3 must be O and this causes the last one to be O.
Each of the first 3 corners has a 1/3 chance of being oriented.
1/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 * 1/1 = 1/27


----------



## foxfan352 (May 29, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > What I mean is that when you use more than to sides to insert an f2l pair when all the edges are oriented it it will unorient 2 of the edges you had
> ...


Yes the edge control is only for all edges oriented cases

If by normal inserts you mean having the pair in front face with the corner in the left face and doing R U' R'. But if it was on the corner was on the right than you could do F R' F' R than it would unorient the edges since you used another face beside the R U and L faces and if you were to rotate the cube to insert it "normally" I think it would still be doing partial edge control even though you didn't do it intentionally

So even though some of the moves or "normal" to some degree it is partial edge control.




brunson said:


> You need OLL for any of those methods, because there is always a chance that you accidentally make your last corner pair while solving the others. LS skip means OLL.


I am pretty sure you can force not to get an LS skip if you have good look ahead in f2l.


Sir E Brum said:


> The probability of an OLL skip with all edges oriented is 1/27.
> 4 corners that can be twisted
> CCW (counterclockwise)= 1
> CW (clockwise)= -1
> ...



Thanks for clearing the that up for me I don't really know how to calculate the probability of the cube.

So using this brings the probability of an oll skip from 1/216 to 1/27

Also brunson's signature was right what were the chances of that happening


----------



## Ranzha (May 29, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> I am pretty sure you can force not to get an LS skip if you have good look ahead in f2l.



Why would somebody speedsolving try to UNsolve something? For srs, CLL/ELL.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 29, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > I am pretty sure you can force not to get an LS skip if you have good look ahead in f2l.
> ...



I wouldn't be unsolving necessarily you could also simply do 2 look oll

and would you rather get and LS skip or an oll skip


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 29, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> and would you rather get and LS skip or an oll skip



You wouldn't be getting an OLL skip, you just wouldn't have to use OLL.

Just learn OLL first.


----------



## foxfan352 (May 29, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > and would you rather get and LS skip or an oll skip
> ...



but there would be an easy oll and a 1/27 you get a oll skip

what are the chances of getting an LS skip?


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 29, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> what are the chances of getting an LS skip?



CP: 1/5
CO: 1/3
EP: 1/5
EO: 1/2

LS: 1/150


----------



## foxfan352 (May 29, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > what are the chances of getting an LS skip?
> ...



1/27>1/150


----------



## Ranzha (May 30, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> 
> 
> > foxfan352 said:
> ...



What I meant by this was this:
Why would you force to have something NOT solved, when it is easy enough to have it solved? In other words, why would you destroy a noticed x-cross to just get cross? The movecount for cross should be 8 moves or less, HTM, every time. Then, another 4-6 for the first pair, optimally. This, at worst, forms a 14 move x-cross. I usually average 12 moves for cross + 1st pair. With a noticed x-cross, it solved the F2L pair WHILST solving the cross. Why ruin that?



foxfan352 said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > foxfan352 said:
> ...



Consider the movecounts, and not the probabilities.
Any F2L slot should be...6 moves on average, IIRC.

I suspect OLL would have considerably more, on average. Optimally, that is. Although I don't know the actual figures, and do not know otherwise how to find this figure, if someone would be so kind as to post it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The thing is, an OLL skip would be more valuable to the solver who does not know full OLL. A LS skip would be nice, but forcing an OLL skip in while forming the pair, implying you don't have an LS skip, would significantly influence the overall solve time.

From my personal experience, a usual LS takes about 1 through 1.5 seconds on average. OLL is usually about 3 - 4 seconds. Thus, the solve time would be faster with an OLL skip rather than a LS skip. Also, an LS skip wouldn’t really be noticeable as easily as an OLL skip would.


----------



## rubiknewbie (May 31, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> 1. Solve 3 f2l slot
> 2. Pair up the last f2l
> 3. Intuitively orient the last layer edges
> 4. Insert using partial edge control



Aren't you just describing VHF2L, except VHF2L combines 3 + 4? What's new here? The result is still edge-orientation going into OLL, what am I missing?


----------



## Ranzha (May 31, 2010)

rubiknewbie said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Solve 3 f2l slot
> ...



Exactly! It is VHF2L! However, Intuitively orienting last layer edges IS edge control. Thus, 4 is redundant. Alternatively, 3 is redundant.
It depends on your stance on the subject.


----------



## Edward (May 31, 2010)

So we were in skype, and Lil Cruton had an idea



> [1:25:13 PM] Lil' Cruton IV: with out the eo and bock though
> [1:25:23 PM] Lil' Cruton IV: acctually
> [1:25:28 PM] Lil' Cruton IV: it was nothign like that
> [1:25:31 PM] Lil' Cruton IV: it was
> ...



Probably wouldn't be too good, but sounds nice in theory.


----------



## Ranzha (May 31, 2010)

Lol, I just thought this had to be in here.

I just got a 15.9-second 3x3 solve (great for me, atm) with a LS skip (which, in reality, is just not noticing you're solving an F2L pair while doing your third, which becomes the fourth) and an OLL skip. Then, Z-perm. Win, amirite?


----------



## oprah62 (May 31, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Lol, I just thought this had to be in here.
> 
> I just got a 15.9-second 3x3 solve (great for me, atm) with a LS skip (which, in reality, is just not noticing you're solving an F2L pair while doing your third, which becomes the fourth) and an OLL skip. Then, Z-perm. Win, amirite?



luckiest slow solve ever


----------



## foxfan352 (Jun 1, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> foxfan352 said:
> 
> 
> > Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> ...


This is in part what I have been trying to say.

It would be better for cuber who doesn't know full OLL to use at most 7 moves then to solve LS and then do 2 look oll


Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> rubiknewbie said:
> 
> 
> > foxfan352 said:
> ...



Yes this is what I mean only the difference is your doing it intuitively.

So let me get something clear vhf2l and edge control is the same concept as algorithm f2l and intuitive f2l?


----------



## foxfan352 (Jun 1, 2010)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Lol, I just thought this had to be in here.
> 
> I just got a 15.9-second 3x3 solve (great for me, atm) with a LS skip (which, in reality, is just not noticing you're solving an F2L pair while doing your third, which becomes the fourth) and an OLL skip. Then, Z-perm. Win, amirite?



Here do you mean as you were solving the second to the last f2l pair you got an LS skip and an OLL skip?

Or do you mean the f2l pair was already paired together and ready to be inserted?


----------



## rubiknewbie (Jun 1, 2010)

Most of VHF2L is quite intuitive to me. I convert the moves to basic case just like what I did with intuitive F2L.


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 6, 2010)

foxfan352 said:


> Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> 
> 
> > Consider the movecounts, and not the probabilities.
> ...



No, it wouldn't.
It seems to me that you're getting further away from the original prompt with each post.
(25.	Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post)

You're trying to say that...
a person who does not know full OLL *should* use edge control the orient all edges.
Then the cuber would insert the slot, only to be left with an OCLL and PLL (or ZBLL, if one was so inclined).

Your original prompt was to use edge control to skip the last slot. Then, you'd have an OCLL.
Calling edge control which puts in the last slot an "LS skip" is unethical.
Are you trying to say that you'd use only PARTIAL edge control to insert the slot, with or without all edges being oriented?

It'd be quite easier to just insert the slot with VHF2L, ZBF2L, or even normally than to risk losing an OLL skip with edge control, even if you see the OLL skip in advance.



foxfan352 said:


> Ranzha V. Emodrach said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, I just thought this had to be in here.
> ...



I was solving. I got to third pair (FR and DFR), and during my "algorithm" to insert it, I unknowingly inserted the last pair behind it (BR and DBR). Then, I found myself at an OLL skip and a Z-perm.
Basically, I got from cross + 2 pairs to PLL in 8 moves-ish. I liek it!


----------

