# VHF2l. . . excuse for learning full OLL



## PlutoCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

I recently learned full VHF2l. If you use it right, you are left with the cross of oll. In that case you have to learn less than 10 olls. In doing this I lowered my Avg. by 4 seconds. Will learning full oll lower it by more than 4 seconds or is 4 seconds just as good as learning full oll.


----------



## soccerking813 (Jul 16, 2009)

It depends, what was your time before and after learning VH?


----------



## PlutoCuber (Jul 16, 2009)

26 to 22 seconds.


----------



## soccerking813 (Jul 16, 2009)

Average, right?


----------



## royzabeast (Jul 16, 2009)

Holy crapples. This is the method where you get your cross edges permutated during F2L, right? I thought that was ZBF2L.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Jul 16, 2009)

royzabeast said:


> Holy crapples. This is the method where you get your cross edges permutated during F2L, right? I thought that was ZBF2L.



As far as I know ZBF2L only orients the last layer edges... not permutes them...VHF2L is a subset of ZBF2L...

ZBF2L has a total of 306 cases in which there is an algorithm for pieces that are not touching or not paired up... VHF2L is simply the subset that had the same result as ZBF2L but the edges have to be paired up. 

Look at this: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbf2l.htm

The first 4 cases are the VH system.


----------



## dbax0999 (Jul 17, 2009)

I believe VH f2l is a simplifed verson of ZBF2L where you pair up, do a trick, then insert. It takes longer than ZBF2L but has the the same effect and has much less algorithms to learn.


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 17, 2009)

I use VHf2l. 

Its great. Go for it. Make sure to learn COLL later, 1 out of 12 solves is a skip.


----------



## Radu (Oct 25, 2009)

Where can I find a good site for learning them? Cubestation does not have'em.


----------



## Edmund (Oct 25, 2009)

I believe Jason Baum has CLLs on his site.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Oct 25, 2009)

I think you should just learn OLL, some of the algorithms are unefficient. I'd think sometimes a normal insert then making the cross would be faster.

"A quick note on VHF2L: I have seen a lot of beginner-intermediate cubers learn these algs in an attempt to cut down their times. In my opinion, VHF2L is not a very effective speedsolving method, as you are usually adding way too many moves to the F2L. I only recommend learning the VH cases if you are planning on learning the rest of ZBF2L. VHF2L by itself isn't particularly helpful in my opinion. These algorithms are really only effective if they come up as ZB cases (when you do not have to convert the pair into one of these cases, the case is already set up as such). Even then, I usually still do not use these algorithms, unless it is one of the R' F R F' cases. In the majority these cases, it isn't worth it to spend the extra moves orienting edges; just do the three move pair/insert algs. However, if you are planning on learning the rest of ZBF2L, then I do strongly recommend you learn these algorithms and use VHF2L in your practice solving. This will get you used to having to look for LL edges during your F2L, and it will also serve as the foundation of the rest of your ZBF2L algorithms." - Jason Baum


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 25, 2009)

Yeah, Jason's site is what I used to VHF2L. I use one of my own algs for one of the cases he lists though.

Cubezone.be has excellent COLL.
However, the Pi set on cubezone is recognized a little differently than on other sites, I've noticed.


EDIT: In reply to Cyrus: VHF2L is actually great for beginners as a stepping stone to full OLL. Since its faster than orienting edges after the slot. Otherwise, everything is true.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Oct 26, 2009)

As far as algorithms are concerned:
VHF2L- go to Dan Harris' cosinesystems site (little harder to find than the cubestation one) and go to F2L->advanced tips and tricks (or something like that)->influencing the last layer->VHF2L. Then open a new tab and go to Jason Baum's site and check out the first 4 ZBF2L cases, each in its own tab. Now go to Lars Vandenbergh's cubezone site (in a new tab) and his ZBF2L section, then find the appropriate cases. Now get out a pencil and paper or create some images and get it on your computer like I did. Go through every case and pick your favorite algorithm. I generally go for Jason Baum's but often Harris has an easier way to memorize the case. I used Vandenbergh's site for backup.

For COLL, your going to do the same thing, except you should also go to the speedsolving wiki and look through the CxLL algorithms pages. It's a pain, but well worth it. Baum is the authority on this stuff, but several algs just don't fit my style (aka >6 seconds of execution).

I couldn't deal with the standard recognition system for Sune and Anti-Sune, so I positioned them to be better suited for my eyes and, in my not so humble opinion, better for ZBLL recognition (Harris/Baum style).

So that's my take on actually getting algs together. Is it a pain? Yes. I spent 3 months getting decent algorithms for just 7 COLLs, all of which I had to create myself (or magically discover that it can be done as the inverse of another).

Now to the original questions:

Full OLL is a must to any Fridrich subset. Sorry, but you're going to have to learn it if you want to get really fast. There are some ZBF2L and VHF2L cases that take too long to be practical in solving, and you should realize this and take advantage of the incredibly fast OLLs out there. Besides, OLL is a subset of ZBF2L, where a pair inserts itself when you're not prepared.

I know full VHF2L and COLL (and 1 case of ZBLL), so I'll give you my opinion, but keep in mind I'm only at about 25 seconds or so.

I love COLL. I've spent so much time on getting the algs just right for my style that I couldn't not use it. But it is also a really great system. I love EPLL (slice moves ftw!), and COLL algs are very fast, and very easy to recognize. COLL = win

I claim that if you know VHF2L, you can say you know ZBF2L. VHF2L is to ZBF2L as intuitive F2L is to algorithmic F2L - lots more things to remember in the second set yet the same job gets done. I also claim that you do not know full VHF2L if you do not know the following cases (totaling 56 algorithms):
---Pair already made (the U R U' R' cases), and the mirror
---Pair one turn away from being made (the R U R' cases), and the mirror
---F2L pair in slot but reversed (because so many moves are wasted if you don't know what you're doing)
---Corner already inserted with edge in top layer, and its mirror (because it is a pain in the rear to pair and insert like normal VHF2L would have you do)

It's a long post, but I hope you guys considering VHF2L, ZBF2L, COLL, ZBLL, or just trying to figure out a LL system keep in mind my opinion.

For the record, VHF2L + COLL +EPLL made almost no difference in time over last slot + OLL + PLL, though COLL + EPLL was clearly faster than OLL + PLL. I would like to hear some ZB enthusiasts (*coughCubes=Lifecough*) opinion on what I just said and on the VH / ZB systems in general.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Oct 26, 2009)

eastamazonantidote said:


> I also claim that you do not know full VHF2L if you do not know the following cases (totaling 56 algorithms):
> ...
> ---F2L pair in slot but reversed (because so many moves are wasted if you don't know what you're doing)
> ---Corner already inserted with edge in top layer, and its mirror (because it is a pain in the rear to pair and insert like normal VHF2L would have you do)


You can claim that, but those cases are really not VHF2L. And why is it a pain in the rear to pair an already solved corner with an edge? It's possible with 3 moves.


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 26, 2009)

Haha, yesss, Dan Harris' old site, that's where I found one and 1/2 of the L set for ZBLL.

I dont use the Harris/Baum recognition system, but I'm considering switching to it eventually. It's much faster than edge recognition and I lose so much time on the AUF. >.<

Everything you said is spot on!


----------



## rubiknewbie (Oct 27, 2009)

Can I say that VHF2L is like ZBF2L but has longer algorithms, though less to learn?


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 27, 2009)

rubiknewbie said:


> Can I say that VHF2L is like ZBF2L but has longer algorithms, though less to learn?



Basically yeah.


----------

