# Skyler Variation (SV)



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Ok, so first of all, yes I changed the name, I didn't really like the old one and no I am not copying Rowe I thought of the name independently of him. Seeing as how last time I tried to post this it turned into a fiasco, this time lets set a few things straight:

What this thread is NOT:

1. This thread is NOT a place to bash one another or this "method".

2. This thread is NOT a formal setting or job interview, therefore I do not expect you to write perfectly or use 100% perfect grammar. As long as you can get across what you are saying then that is what matters to me. I will not and have no desire to write with absolute proper grammar so pointing out where people make typos or grammar mistakes is pointless and you will be ignored.

3. This thread is NOT a place to flame people or to start unrelated arguments. Anyone who does so will be reported to the mods immediately. 

4. Despite how much I enjoy our countless arguments about it, this thread is NOT a place to argue about logic or to pick apart the logic of what other people are saying. I have made this mistake many times myself and I will be doing my best to not enter into those type of arguments anymore. As such, this thread is not the place to have them.

What this thread IS:

1. This thread IS a place to discuss the merits and pitfalls fo Skyler Variation. This does not mean you can just say "Stupid Idea" or "It will never work". If you wish to point out a flaw then please provide a valid argument as to why you feel the way you do. For instance I happen to think that one of this methods flaws is the large alg count. If I wanted to say this I would say: "I don't think this method is really worth it because of the large number of algs".

2. This thread IS a place to bring up other similar method and compare and contrast. For instance, it would be completely appropriate to bring up regular OLL, Rowe Variation, EJF2L, MGLS, CLS, COLL, OLLCP or any other last slot/ OLL method and compare it to Skyler Variation. 

3. This thread IS a place to post suggestions, questions or new algs for certain situations. Do not be afraid to ask questions. 

*Please do not take these rules as an insult or as a way to stop you from criticizing this method, I am completely willing to admit that it is not perfect, I just want to make sure that no unnecessary arguments or detours occur within this thread. I want people to feel comfortable here and for them to not worry about being flamed. Basically, I want people to follow the Site Rules . With all of that done, lets move onto Skyler Variation:*

So let me first thank Jeremy Fleishman for helping me come up with a way to generate all of the cases (I am retarded with math and coding) and Rowe for making me realize that last layer skip methods are the way to go. 

Skyler Variation is basically a OLL skip method for when you have a corner and its corresponding edge in a slot and the other 3 F2l pairs solve. You could say that this is sort of a hybrid between CLS and Rowe Variation, except that it can be done with an unoriented edge and the pair you are working with is in its slot as opposed to on the top layer. This, in my opinion, makes Skyler Variation a bit more versatile and usable than any last slot method I know of. Before I explain what I mean by versatile and usable let me first give you a few images/concepts to munch on:

These are the cases which Skyler Variation works with directly:


















These are the cases which setup into Skyler Variation with a simple RUR':


















These are the cases which setup into Skyler Variation with a URU'R':

















These are the cases for which I would use a R'U'R or LUL' setup for if I were a Y or Y' away (depends on case obviously) or just a simple F'U'F from the current position:


















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, although I choose the best alg to measure this, not just the lowest move count, so optimally it is actually closer to 12 moves) 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 without inserting a pair and still 2.5 shorter if you do insert the pair with a 3 move insert. 

When I say usable, I refer to the fact that *assuming all F2L cases have the same chances of occurring you have a 50% chance of being able to use Skyler variation for each of the 4 slots this means that if you solve all 4 slots you have about a 94.25% chance (I got his by adding .50 (50 percent for the first slot) plus .25 [25 percent chance you will get it on your second slot if not on the first] plus .125 (12.5% chance if you don't get it on your first or 2nd it will happen on your 3rd) plus .0675 (chance is will occur on the last slot assuming you don't get it ont he first 4) which equals .9425 or a 94.25% chance of getting Skyler variation, please let me know if this math is wrong because I suck at math so it wouldn't surprise me) of getting these cases.* This means 9/10 of your solves will be on average 5.5 moves or so shorter plus you will gain some of the other advantages I will discuss later as well. Now this does not include cases where slots are open because i wouldn't even know how to calculate those odds, but in general I think you will get to use these cases a farily large amount of the time. Somewhere around 80% of the time if I had to guess, especially for the way that i solve which doesn't involve that many specialized cases for empty slots. Considering that Skyler Variation is only *181 distinct cases (I missed a set earlier when I counted) and only 100 cases if you don't count inverses and mirrors*, this is a really high usability for the alg count, especially compared to things like CLS and Rowe's variation which only come up half of the time at most (not sure about CLS, but since it only works when the edge is oriented I assume that half of the time is could work and the other not and for Rowe, less than half of the f2l cases end in a block formed so it would only work without setup in those cases and setting it up would cost more moves unlike Skyler Variation).

Consider this situation:

Lets say you are looking at a particular solve where if you did your regular OLL case it could be done in .9 seconds, but you had to do one of the 5 horrible f2l cases above at first and then the OLL or even just one of the other horrible cases which you save time on by inserting it and then the OLL. This would be a 1.5 second f2l case and then a .9 second OLL. That makes for a 2.4 second LS+OLL execution time, now if you just did SV in the same situation you would only have to do the horrible case for f2l. Now if I can sub 1.5 my N perms I can definitely get these 12 move algs to at least sub 1.5. Assuming this to be true this still saves you .9 seconds in you solve because you don't have ot do the bad pair and then OLL, you just do both at the same time. 

Now even if you use a setup like an RU R', (which is like .3 seconds max, more like .2) then you would still save .7 or . 6 seconds almost every solve. Seeing as how most of my OLL aren't *always* sub 1 then you will often save over a second by using this method assuming your recog is good enough. .7 or .9 second is a HUGE difference if you are sub 10 seconds; approximately 10% faster. Now Recog is a different story, only time will tell if I can actually make it up to speed, but I am confident that I can.

This makes for a method which is, AFAIK superior in move count to that of CFOP or any other variations for last slot plus non permuting OLL. 

Another advantage which this last slot method offers over other methods/ last slot variations is *a lessening of looks required to solve the cube. * In regular CFOP you do 7 looks i.e. Cross, 4 F2l, OLL, and PLL. In Skyler variation you only have to do 6 when the pair is already in the slot i.e Cross, 3 F2L, Skyler Variation, PLL. One could say the same thing is true of Rowe's variation, except that in his variation he has to partially solve the last f2l pair or have a formed pair which is highly unlikely for it to work. This results is an extra look. Also, while there are times when one would have an extra look in Skyler variation for setups, these looks are very short and akin to the look required to insert case 4 in the f2l wiki. Also, the look you do for setting up the cases is so minimal that is barely is one and looking ahead through it is very easy.Overall, you get one free and easy insert where you might hav had to do something difficult of cube rotate. This allows for better lookahead and therefore likely more TPS. 

Yet another advantage I see to Skyler Variation is the fact that it is, with the algs I generated at least, almost all RUF gen. This makes for an execution of the algs that is on the par with, if not better than that of regular OLL. This means in the time you would do OLL you would also get OLL plus last slot. 

The final advantage or rather not disadvantage, I see to Skyler Variation when compared to other last slot plus OLL methods is that all of the OLL pieces are on the top layer making recognition akin to that of OLL. In other methods like Rowe Variation or CLS, you have corner and/or edge pieces in your top layer making recognition of the cases harder from two sides. You could make up for this by looking at the OLL pieces in your slot, but this creates a bifurcated look at the case in which you look down and then up. In Skyler Variation all of the pieces you need to look at are on the top layer so no need to look around. 

Now one thing i should point out is that as of right now Skyler Variation is only for the cases with adjacent, parallel orient or, in the cases where the edge is misoriented 3 edges flipped cases, it does not include the cases where no edges are oriented or where 1 edge is oriented for the edge flip cases. I did this for 3 reasons: 1. it saves you a bunch of algs to learn, 2. Its easy to avoid these situations with basic edge control 3. The algs for those cases aren't that great.

To sum up:
Here are the Pro's and Con's I see with this method:

Pro's:

- Lower move count
- Less looks in general
- Easier recognition compared to other LS methods
- RUF gen
- Great Versatility
- Large usage ratio in comparison to alg count

Con's:

- Decently large alg set
- involves a major change in the way you solve/ look ahead. This is not a bad change, just a major one which some might dislike
- Requires some basic edge control
- Others?

When looking at this method it seems to me to be an excellent way to save some moves and cut time. I plan on making this my method. Just to clarify: if I don't get an SV case I will just do regular OLL so this method is not meant to replace OLL completely, although it could if you really got good at it. 

Here are the algs I generated:

Lettering System:

E- Edge
U- Unoriented
O- Oriented
F- Bottom color corner sticker facing Forward
R- Bottom color corner sticker facing Right
D- Bottom color corner sticker facing Down
AD- Adjacent Edges flipped
H- Horizontal edges oriented
4- All edges oriented 
3- 3 Edges oriented

EUD 3
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68NE1xTTZEU25JLW8
EUF 3
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68S0ZwMi1uWTZRckE
EUR 3
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68UERQbHg1SlA0clE
EOR H
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68RWxqQXJmNjYyUUk
EOR AD
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68ZUJYVXFGOE16dnc
EOF H
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68UGZCSm5yS3AzVEk
EOF AD
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68dGZBeXU2N2MxTlE
EO 4
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8dK8hmQEQ68VGJBdFYySEhIX1E

Example Solves: Green on front white on top, these will be non CN for those of you who aren't

Solves where I would use Skyler Variation:

*Example 1*
U' R' D' B F' U' R U' L' U' F' U2 R F2 D F2 D U2 B2 F2 D' U' L2 R' U2

z2 y2 L2 F R' D' R' D2 // cross (6)
U R U' R' U2 y' R' F R F' // 1st pair (9/15)
y U2 R' U' R // SKY pair (4/19)
U' R U2 R2 F R F' // 3rd pair (7/26)
U2 L U L' U L U' L' // 4th pair (8/34)
y U R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R2 F R F' // SV (15/49)
// Rperm
View at alg.garron.us

*Example 2*
D2 B' F' L R' F' U R' D R2 D U' L B2 F2 D U' L' D' U L' R F2 U2 B

z2 U2 D F' D R D2 F2 R2 // Xcross (8)
L U' L' // SKY pair (3/11)
r' U' R U' R' U2 r R' U' R // 3rd pair (10/21)
U' r U' r' F L' U L // 4th pair (8/29)
y2 R2 U R U' R2 U R F R F' R' // SV (11/40)
// Uperm
View at alg.garron.us

*Example 3*
L B' F' U B2 D U2 L2 R' D' L2 B' L' R D F R2 D U' B F' D' U2 L F'

z2 R' U R' F D2 F' D // cross (7)
U' R U2 R' // SKY pair (4/11)
U' L2 F' L2 F // 2nd pair (5/16)
R' U2 R // 3rd pair (3/19)
L U L' U' L U L' // 4th pair (7/26)
F' R' U' R U' R' U2 R F U' R U' R' // (13/39)
// Zperm
View at alg.garron.us

A solve where I wouldn't:

Scramble: L2 R2 F2 L' D2 U F2 D' B F R B2 F2 R U F' L2 R' D' L R2 D' U' L F
Solution:
Setup:Z2 Y2
X-Cross: R U R' U' R' F2 R Y' F L F'
2nd Pair: U' F' U' F
3rd Pair: U' R U R' U R U2 R' L U L'
4th Pair: U r'U'rU L' U L U' L' U L
OLL: R U R' U' R U' R' F' U' F R U R'
PLL: R- Perm: 

I might post more, but these take a long time for me to type out and I keep messing up the scrambles which makes my whole solution wrong.

Some Highlights from this thread so far: 




jskyler91 said:


> if you can make a bad pair a good thing with little effort then why wouldn't you?


 


jskyler91 said:


> SV is specifically a method in which you utilize a series of move saving techniques and algs to permute the in place last slot pair and the OLL at the same time. This is most definitely A last slot method. It is not the only, but it is a method especially considering the other things besides the algs you use to set things up. This is just like MGLS, MGLS is basically just CLS, but what makes it a method is the fact that it is ELS plus CLS for a new last slot method. Similarly SV is basically the OLS cases, but what makes it a method is the improper solving or sky pairs one can use and the methods for edge control and preservation of formed sky pairs during Cross and such. It changes the way you look at and execute F2L just as MGLS does.



QUOTE=jskyler91;736558]If i did this, it would probably be all of the algs I needed to learn really save maybe a few more OLL skip cases which are easy to recog. Experience has taught me that TPS will come with time and practice. After I learn SV I will probably spend a great deal of time on x-crosses and other stuff like that that comes from simple practice. I want to get down my solving method and the algs I will use before I do this though so I can practice them a bunch until they are great. Things like x-cross just come wit practice and don't really require major algs sets or anything.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Godmil (Apr 20, 2012)

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.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Godmil said:


> 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.


 
Sure, I forgot about that 

Can you use the links fine?

Edit: working on some example solves now.


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 20, 2012)

Thank you for providing me with something to look into for the weekend 

Prolly will pick just a few cases; easy algs or algs that turn the occasional "nasty" slot into something good.


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 20, 2012)

Congratulations for generating all of the these algorithms and images. I think it's definitely worth learning algs for these LS+OLL cases. I'll probably try to generate some algorithms myself for each case, but I think most of them seem decent enough to learn.



jskyler91 said:


> Another advantage which this last slot method offers over other methods/ last slot variations is *a lessening of looks required to solve the cube. *



Well.. you still need to look at what your "OLL" is. You still generally look at the same number of pieces as standard CFOP.



jskyler91 said:


> Yet another advantage I see to Skyler Variation is the fact that it is, with the algs I generated at least, almost all RUF gen. This makes for an execution of the algs that is on the par with, if not better than that of regular OLL. This means in the time you would do OLL you would also get OLL plus last slot.



Just because almost all of the algs are almost RUF gen, doesn't make the algs decent themselves. I very much doubt that these algorithms are faster than OLL alone overall. When I generate algs I tend to try and find algorithms which are comfortable to perform, short in quarter turns, can be executed from start to finish with very few regrips. Don't restrict yourself to <RUF> too much. There sometimes shorter and more decent algorithms containing other turns.


----------



## The Borg (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Ok, so first of all, yes I changed the name, I didn't really like the old one and no I am not copying Rowe I thought of the name independently of him. Seeing as how last time I tried to post this it turned into a fiasco, this time lets set a few things straight:
> 
> What this thread is NOT:
> 
> ...


 
I don't think users can set rules for their own threads; this isn't Reddit. What goes for the Board, goes for all threads, and your "reporting to the mods" won't do much good if people aren't breaking their terms of service.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

My thoughts on LS+LL methods;

Learning OLS subsets is akin to learning COLL or the CO OLLCP subset for LL. Similar to learning random ZBLL algs.

While magical random cases will get you a good solve when they come up, the extra recognition and recall overhead from a full implementation of a system like this can cause problems. Saving moves means nothing when you're taking time working out how.

My advice is to treat systems like this how Cubenovice is intending to do so.


----------



## Thorsten (Apr 20, 2012)

This is an interesting approach I think, what held me from learning many of the other variations is that extra look...

The "Problem" of this approach ist the enourmous number of algorithms. But I've decided what to do (for me).

I will start by learning the cases for the flipped edge and the correct corner first:





Thats because of three reasons:
1. I hate this case, when it comes up I know I'll need more time to get finished.
2. It is extremely easy to spot. (if not the easiest case to spot)
3. If you learn the algs for this case first, you can also use them in another way (aka use them more often/more easier than the other cases):
Everytime the case pops up (and not only as last F2L pair but also in F2l in general) I'll get free OLL.
If it pops up as one of the first three F2l Pairs, I would just continue solving the others pairs in a correct way and then get back to the slot to do the algorithm.


I've not yet decided to learn the other algorithms, because they are a ton. But I thank you in advance for the 27algs to kill my most hatred case ;-)


----------



## Stefan (Apr 20, 2012)

In the URU'R' setup list, there's a case listed twice (you only have five cases, the sixth possibility for the pair is when it gets solved correctly).



Kirjava said:


> While magical random cases will get you a good solve when they come up


 
Well, at least he's not just waiting for them to happen but is making them come up (by intentionally "wrong-solving" the pair). And you can look ahead at OLL a little during the setup.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2012)

Just so you know, rotating before having to do "SV" is the worst idea for speed ever. "EJF2L" was a horrible idea was well, and the only use for this "method" would be for the last slot, dropping its actual use cases significantly. The time it would take to solve last f2l -> rotate -> recog SV -> do alg, is WAAAAAY more than just doing the f2l during your solve and OLL after you finish your last pair. Move count isn't everything to a method. People really need to understand that.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> Just so you know, rotating before having to do "SV" is the worst idea for speed ever. "EJF2L" was a horrible idea was well, and the only use for this "method" would be for the last slot, dropping its actual use cases significantly. The time it would take to solve last f2l -> rotate -> recog SV -> do alg, is WAAAAAY more than just doing the f2l during your solve and OLL after you finish your last pair. Move count isn't everything to a method. People really need to understand that.


 
Cool, I agree thats why I put multiple options in.


Robert-Y said:


> Congratulations for generating all of the these algorithms and images. I think it's definitely worth learning algs for these LS+OLL cases. I'll probably try to generate some algorithms myself for each case, but I think most of them seem decent enough to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I did that , although some cases just weren't that great. I might regenerate the EUD cases because those were my first and I was sort of lazy for them. If you decide to generate algs start there. Let me know if you find better ones for them 



Kirjava said:


> My thoughts on LS+LL methods;
> 
> Learning OLS subsets is akin to learning COLL or the CO OLLCP subset for LL. Similar to learning random ZBLL algs.
> 
> ...


 
I still think it is worth is especially since there are a lot of mirrors and inverses



Kirjava said:


> Just correcting a few mistakes in your post;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Interesting, how are they not evenly distributed, can you please cite this with some proof or a source? Also cases with open slots are not part of the general 42 which is what I was basing it on. The average setup is 3 moves which still makes this 2.5 moves quicker and lessens the amount of looks and it is still a far more usable system then any other thus far.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

Just correcting a few mistakes in your post;



jskyler91 said:


> 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 allow 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 form 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.



You forgot to include the setups to "Skyler Variation" which can be up to four moves, and the fact that average movecount for algs will be longer as people replace your <RUF> optimal ones that are likely bad for speedcubing with better ones, making the moves saved closer to 0 than 5.5 on average.



jskyler91 said:


> When I say usable, I refer to the fact that *assuming all F2L cases have the same chances of occurring you have a 50% chance of being able to use Skyler variation for each of the 4 slots this means that if you solve all 4 slots you have about a 94.25% chance (I got his by adding .50 (50 percent for the first slot) plus .25 [25 percent chance you will get it on your second slot if not on the first] plus .125 (12.5% chance if you don't get it on your first or 2nd it will happen on your 3rd) plus .0675 (chance is will occur on the last slot assuming you don't get it ont he first 4) which equals .9425 or a 94.25% chance of getting Skyler variation, please let me know if this math is wrong because I fail at math so it wouldn't surprise me) of getting these cases.*



This is very wrong. F2L cases do *not* have an equal chance of happening, and you've completely ignored cases where pieces are in open slots.



jskyler91 said:


> This means 9/10 of your solves will be on average 5.5 moves



So both of these numbers are wrong 


This negates most of the positives listed in your post.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Interesting, how are they not evenly distributed, can you please cite this with some proof or a source?



URUR' and RU'R' are counted as a single case, but are actually two different ones.



jskyler91 said:


> Also cases with open slots are not part of the general 42 which is what I was basing it on.



Pieces in open slots produce cases outside of 'the general 42' for non-LS cases, you *have* to include them to correctly determine the probability.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Interesting, how are they not evenly distributed, can you please cite this with some proof or a source? Also cases with open slots are not part of the general 42 which is what I was basing it on. The average setup is 3 moves which still makes this 2.5 moves quicker and lessens the amount of looks and it is still a far more usable system then any other thus far.


 
If you are using mathematics you need to use the actual number of cases, which is NOT 42 for the first slot. 

If you have a solved FR pair, that is a certain probability (determined by the number of permutations and orientations). The probability of having the edge solved and the corner in the U layer is 4 times larger (and these are the same F2L case), because there are 4 times more locations for the edge to be, and thus is 4 times more likely


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> URUR' and RU'R' are counted as a single case, but are actually two different ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Pieces in open slots produce cases outside of 'the general 42' for non-LS cases, you *have* to include them to correctly determine the probability.


 
I don't see how your first part affect that averages. Also, I am not very good with the math stuff, all I know if that I have a high chance of getting these cases. 



aronpm said:


> If you are using mathematics you need to use the actual number of cases, which is NOT 42 for the first slot.
> 
> If you have a solved FR pair, that is a certain probability (determined by the number of permutations and orientations). The probability of having the edge solved and the corner in the U layer is 4 times larger (and these are the same F2L case), because there are 4 times more locations for the edge to be, and thus is 4 times more likely


 
Again, I am really bad with math, if someone wants to generate the exact percentages I would greatly appreciate it.


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2012)

you really shouldn't be so worried about getting your name on some method no one is ever going to learn. it's not that important and you've already made yourself memorable to the community


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 20, 2012)

You've mentioned less looks in general as a pro, yet in the examples you've posted, you haven't demonstrated this. There are 6 looks for the 2nd example but that's because the first step is x-cross.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> you really shouldn't be so worried about getting your name on some method no one is ever going to learn. it's not that important and you've already made yourself memorable to the community


Oh, I am not doing this for recognition, I just honestly think it will be a very fast method. Assuming I can memo all of the algs, there is no reason that i see why it wouldn't be at minimum as fast as regular CFOP and i see quite a few reasons why it would be faster. The only reason I am posting this is to share an idea with the community which I think will make them all faster cubers. I said the whole get my name on it thing because I wanted to make sure i didn't spend a bunch of time generating algs and then find that someone else had done it slightly faster than me and they took the credit.



Robert-Y said:


> You've mentioned less looks in general as a pro, yet in the examples you've posted, you haven't demonstrated this. There are 6 looks for the 2nd example but that's because the first step is x-cross.


 
The actual execution of the solves will have less looks in that I will be able to plan out multiple parts while doing the simple RUR' insert. Also, when the pair is in place it is one less look which wil sill be more often then say in Rowe Variation because he will almost always have to recognize the first f2l case, solve it up until it is a pair and then recognize the RV case. This looks thing is a minor addition I just though I would bring up, its not like I think this will really save much time, although it will make looking ahead easier because simple inserts affect less of the cube so you could look ahead better. 

Another way of looking at this is that say in RV only 2 f2l cases actually have formed pairs, while in my variation there are 5 cases which come like that so 2.5 times as likely. Also my cases often set up with a simple RuR' whereas his often require 4-5 moves to set up into a pair. Again, I am not bashing RV here, just comparing.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I don't see how your first part affect that averages.



It's like how chance of getting a specific PLL isn't 1/22.



jskyler91 said:


> Also, I am not very good with the math stuff, all I know if that I have a high chance of getting these cases.



*How?!*


----------



## masterofthebass (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Oh, I am not doing this for recognition, I just honestly think it will be a very fast method. Assuming I can memo all of the algs, there is no reason that i see why it wouldn't be at minimum as fast as regular CFOP and i see quite a few reasons why it would be faster. The only reason I am posting this is to share an idea with the community which I think will make them all faster cubers. I said the whole get my name on it thing because I wanted to make sure i didn't spend a bunch of time generating algs and then find that someone else had done it slightly faster than me and they took the credit.


 
its ok. you don't need to lie.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

masterofthebass said:


> its ok. you don't need to lie.


 
Umm... ok, not sure if your joking here, but I mean what I say so its up to you to decide if you believe me. I have to reason to lie about this. The effort of writing these posts and generating these algs greatly outweighs any possible gain from the popularity of having your own method.



Kirjava said:


> It's like how chance of getting a specific PLL isn't 1/22.
> 
> 
> 
> *How?!*


 
It seems that at least half of the cases will allow me to setup into these cases in less moves than if I just solved them so I would at least have over a 50% chance of doing these cases. I did think the 94 percent was rather high though lol.

Also, I never understood why it wasn't the case that you didn't have a 1/21 chance of each pll. Could you explain that?


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> 20 is less than half of 42.


 
One of the 42 cases is solved so its really 41 and 20/41 is 48%, so basically 50. If I have 4 chances at getting an SV case then I definitely have more than a 50% chance of getting one.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> It seems that at least half of the cases will allow me to setup into these cases in less moves than if I just solved them so I would at least have over a 50% chance of doing these cases.


 
If you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying, please do not continue to post things that contradict it.

Mathematically, there are *not* 42 last slot cases.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> If you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying, please do not continue to post things that contradict it.
> 
> Mathematically, there are *not* 42 last slot cases.


 
I understand that, but since you have yet to provide me with the actual number of cases I am going with the only approximate I have which is 42 cases. If you exclude mirrors, AUFs and that type of stuff which are just basically the same thing, you only really have 42 cases, particularly for the last slot. Also, you said 20 was less than half of 42 and so I went with that.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I understand that, but since you have yet to provide me with the actual number of cases I am going with the only approximate I have which is 42 cases. If you exclude mirrors, AUFs and that type of stuff which are just basically the same thing, you only really have 42 cases. Also, you said 20 was less than half of 42 and so I went with that.


There are much more cases than 42; you have given no justification for an approximation of 42 for the total # of cases. Also, solved is a completely normal case and you do NOT exclude it while calculating.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I understand that, but since you have yet to provide me with the actual number of cases I am going with the only approximate I have which is 42 cases. Also, you said 20 was less than half of 42 and so I went with that.


 
42 is not an approximation. *You're putting random numbers into your calculations.*


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Thorsten said:


> This is an interesting approach I think, what held me from learning many of the other variations is that extra look...
> 
> The "Problem" of this approach ist the enourmous number of algorithms. But I've decided what to do (for me).
> 
> ...


 
I hope they help you, also if you find an alg that absolute sucks feel free to find another and post it here. Some of the cases aren't that great and I wasn't so amazing at finding algs at first so I might have missed a few good ones.



aronpm said:


> There are much more cases than 42; you have given no justification for an approximation of 42 for the total # of cases. Also, solved is a completely normal case and you do NOT exclude it while calculating.


 
I am not going to claim to know the answer to this question,nor am I going to try and figure it our. All I was saying is that if we are just talking about LS then 42 sounds about right. Sure there are like 4 positions for the AUF, but if you had the alg AUFed it would be 42 right? what other cases am I missing assuming all 3 slots are filled?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

How many times do we have to say that it is not 42 before you give up thinking that it is 42?


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> How many times do we have to say that it is not 42 before you give up thinking that it is 42?


 
Please either provide me the actual number, a way of finding the number or stop wasting space on my thread. The point i am trying to make is that you have a large chance of getting these cases. If I am wrong then please provide mathematical proof that I am. If not then you are willingly trying to antagonize me and wasting space, both of which are against the forum rules:

a. No Flaming or Trolling:
Respect other users and try to contribute to a nice ambiance on the forum. *No personal attacks, or provocation of other forum members. *If you are being attacked or provoked, do not feel compelled to defend your honor here; report the offender to a moderator. See examples of Flaming/Trolling in the appendix section below.

c. Worthless Replying
*Don't reply to a post unless you have something of value to add to it*. Replying with "+1" or "go search for it" is not allowed, as it does no good for the topic creator or the community. If you see this behavior and would like to respond to it, see: 1e. "Regarding Backseat Moderation".

Also I am posting this per request of the sites rules as listed here:

d. Regarding Backseat Moderation
*If you notice someone breaking the rules, kindly tell inform them of the rules, and do it tactfully.* If someone has already informed them, do not point it out again. Report the offending post if you must, but do not flame the poster; remember that notes about pointing out etiquette and rule violations are usually etiquette and rule violations themselves. Try to help other members, not hurt them.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> If I am wrong then please provide mathematical proof that I am.



5*5*3*2 = 150 cases
6 cases where both pieces are in the slot
-1 for solved = 5
14*4 = 56 cases with setups
5+56 / 150 = 40%


----------



## aronpm (Apr 20, 2012)

> If I am wrong then please provide mathematical proof that I am.


total cases for 1,2,3,4 open slots: 150, 216, 294, 384
n open slots has n+4 corners, n+4 edges, so (n+4)(n+4)*3*2=6(n+4)^2 cases

I've been told that the probability of getting 4 move insertion for SV in LS is 41%, 28% for 2 slots, 21% for 3 slots and 16% for 4 slots. Probability of not getting SV = (1-.41)*(1-.28)*(1-.21)*(1-.16)=.28, so probability of getting at least 1 SV is 72%


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

aronpm said:


> total cases for 1,2,3,4 open slots: 150, 216, 294, 384
> n open slots has n+4 corners, n+4 edges, so (n+4)(n+4)*3*2=6(n+4)^2 cases
> 
> I've been told that the probability of getting 4 move insertion for SV in LS is 41%, 28% for 2 slots, 21% for 3 slots and 16% for 4 slots. Probability of not getting SV = (1-.41)*(1-.28)*(1-.21)*(1-.16)=.28, so probability of getting at least 1 SV is 72%


 Cool thanks a lot man!!! so 72 % if you include every case possible and a 4 move insert, higher chances if you only du 3 move inserts right?


----------



## Stefan (Apr 20, 2012)

I just checked one example solve (scramble L2 R2 F2 L' D2 U F2 D' B F R B2 F2 R U F' L2 R' D' L R2 D' U' L F) and one alg on your alg sheets (first alg on first sheet, starting with R2 U2 R2) and both didn't work. Very disappointing. Please make sure your solutions/algs are correct. I recommend alg.garron.us, same that Brest uses for his reconstructions. And when you do that, you'll have to use standard notation (e.g. y, not Y).

You call it a last slot method, have you considered missolving an earlier slot (perhaps even for xcross) instead of the last one?

You still haven't removed that duplicate case that I mentioned earlier.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 20, 2012)

Thanks for the example solves, I went through from your cross till end of OLL and found my solutions had 3 less moves in the first one, 4 less moves in the second one, but 8 more moves in the 3rd one. Overall I guess it balances out. Your third solution was pretty awesome, but I'm not convinced overall, it seems to just make 1 F2L case a little shorter, and the OLL a little longer. Though it will be really interesting to see how you get on if you make it your main method.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Stefan said:


> I just checked one example solve (scramble L2 R2 F2 L' D2 U F2 D' B F R B2 F2 R U F' L2 R' D' L R2 D' U' L F) and one alg on your alg sheets (first alg on first sheet, starting with R2 U2 R2) and both didn't work. Very disappointing. Please make sure your solutions/algs are correct. I recommend alg.garron.us, same that Brest uses for his reconstructions. And when you do that, you'll have to use standard notation (e.g. y, not Y).
> 
> You call it a last slot method, have you considered missolving an earlier slot (perhaps even for xcross) instead of the last one?
> 
> You still haven't removed that duplicate case that I mentioned earlier.


 
I did my a few examples of it not being a last slot in the example solves. Also, I know it sounds rude, but make sure you scrambled right because I checked the solutions many times. Which duplicate was it? I thought I removed it.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I did my a few examples of it not being a last slot in the example solves. Also, I know it sounds rude, but make sure you scrambled right because I checked the solutions many times. Which duplicate was it? I thought I removed it.


 
z2 y' R U R' U R' F2 R y' F L F'U' F' U' FU' R U R' U R U2 R' L U L'U r'U'rU L' U L U' L' U LR U R' U' R U' R' F' U' F R U R'


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Thanks for the example solves, I went through from your cross till end of OLL and found my solutions had 3 less moves in the first one, 4 less moves in the second one, but 8 more moves in the 3rd one. Overall I guess it balances out.


 Interesting, can you post your solves for the first two? also I do things that take more moves but are quicker in execution so keep that in mind, I could have made my movecount much lower, but that was not how I would have solved so I was true to myself.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Which duplicate was it? I thought I removed it.





jskyler91 said:


> These are the cases which setup into Skyler Variation with a URU'R':



First and last are the same.



jskyler91 said:


> I know it sounds rude, but make sure you scrambled right because I checked the solutions many times.





jskyler91 said:


> Scramble: L2 R2 F2 L' D2 U F2 D' B F R B2 F2 R U F' L2 R' D' L R2 D' U' L F
> Solution:
> Setup:Z2 Y'
> X-Cross: R U R' U R' F2 R Y' F L F'



Doesn't work.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

aronpm said:


> z2 y' R U R' U R' F2 R y' F L F'U' F' U' FU' R U R' U R U2 R' L U L'U r'U'rU L' U L U' L' U LR U R' U' R U' R' F' U' F R U R'


 
What is this? Is this your solution?


----------



## aronpm (Apr 20, 2012)

No, it's yours


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Stefan said:


> First and last are the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Escher (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> 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.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Escher said:


> 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? 

Ps.I hate to ask this because I am not trying to start a fight here, but why is Skyler Variation a dumb name? Its my name, its not like I called it the pink fluffy kitten variation. Is Rowe Variation a stupid name?


----------



## Escher (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> 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?


 
I honestly don't care about it being 'mine'. That's why when I released OLS-FE I named it just that; so that the community would have at least one subset with a logical name, such that people might decide to use that naming convention, rather than these endless 'variations'. 

Could you show me the post where you put the idea out there?
The first public posts I've seen were from Bob using these cases in the OLS-FE thread on Wednesday. Aaron described 'all' of them in his thread on Monday(?). 

Anyway, alg-sets don't really have any more negatives than 'the recognition is bad' or 'the algs suck'. In this case, some of the algs do indeed suck a bit, but most of them are 'fine'.

The point where negatives are created is ones approach to the alg-set - if you decide to adapt your existing approaches, or simply to regard it a 'skip' case. This set should definitely be in the latter camp.


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.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 20, 2012)

Escher said:


> Could you show me the post where you put the idea out there?



He did post it on Monday (without algs) but there was a lot of arguing on the thread so he deleted all of his posts, then I guess the thread was deleted because it didn't make any sense anymore. That's also why Skyler started this thread with a long list of things not to do 

That's also the reason (I presume) that aronpm was inspired to make his summary post, because there were so many of these methods coming out.


Skyler, I'll try to post my solutions later, I tried to just do the first pair I saw with no more emphasis on optimisation that I would normally do, and did it in ETM cause I use lots of rotations.


----------



## joey (Apr 20, 2012)

The reason why it's a dumb name is that it's so "obvious". Yes, silly names like "OLS-FE" are silly too. But they are logical and actually explain what the method is. SV is just "omg i wanna be cool and name something after me".


----------



## Anthony (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I have to reason to lie about this.


Actually, sounds quite true for a good portion of this thread. Although, your reasoning is flawed./blatant honesty

Anyway, OLS-FE sounds useful when the case appears. Like Rowan and yourself (and I'm sure many, many other people) I've had the thought of generating the algs for that set for quite a while. I will gladly admit that "SV" has never even crossed my mind. It's just never going to trump LS+OLL. I dare you to practice and try to prove us all wrong.


----------



## mariano.aquino (Apr 20, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Doesn't work.


 
First moves should be RUR'U' to build the block =)


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

Escher said:


> 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.*


 
I agree with Rowan. It seems like you're just trying to put your name out there to be cool.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 20, 2012)

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


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

Godmil said:


> 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


 
Flipped edge. Its the case with a solved pair but the edge flipped in place.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 20, 2012)

So it stands for Orientation of the last layer during the Last Slot - while some of the last layer has Flipped Edges?


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 20, 2012)

Godmil said:


> So it stands for Orientation of the last layer during the Last Slot - while some of the last layer has Flipped Edges?



The F2L pair have the edge flipped.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 20, 2012)

Cool, thanks.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 20, 2012)

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.



jskyler91 said:


> 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.*



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.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bob said:


> I agree with Rowan. It seems like you're just trying to put your name out there to be cool.


 
Why would it not be SKyler Variation? People call Rowe Variaition Rowe Variation and Rowe Variation contains lots of mutliple subsets like Winter variation. You could call the subset OLS- FE, but I already posted it before him so I would be the one to name it not him and i just called it a part of Skyler Variation.
Also, it is the norm to name things you discovered and presented on first after yourself. Just as Gomil said, we normally call CFOP the Fridrich method and no one is really erked about that, at least that I know of.



Escher said:


> 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.


 
Ya, I am not claiming to be the sole inventor of the alg sets, because as you prove, many people have thought of this before, but rather I am trying to create a method around these algs and a way to get quicker with them.



DavidWoner said:


> 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-
> ...


 
Again, I prefer to estimate as opposed to using exact numbers, because many people use different algs for OLL which are longer than 10 moves on average. But your math is right, I am just pointing out that unlike most last slot systems, *mine actually save moves as opposed to wastes them*. Also, if you did nothing to set it up you would save 5.5 moves, this is what I meant, thank you for correcting me  .

I don't think that predicting PLL is worth it that much anymore. I realized that if you just use 2 side pLL recog you can have almost instant PLL recognition every time without using anything special during OLL. I used to be really into things like R-OLL, but then I realized just two side PLL recog was plenty fine and didn't require nearly as much work.

Also, I think most of these algs could be sub 1ed with practice,and even if you couldn't you would still be saving time. Lets say your regular OLL case would be .9 seconds long, but you had to do one of the 5 horrible f2l cases at first and then it or just one of the other horrible cases which you save time on by inserting it. This would be a 1.5 second f2l case and then a .9 second OLL. That makes for a 2.4 second LS+OLL, now if you just did SV then you would only have to do the horrible case for f2l which would be about 1.5 second. This still saves you .9 seconds. Seeing as how most of my OLL aren't always sub 1 then you will save over a second by using this method assuming your recog is good enough. Now Recog is a different story, only time will tell if I can actually make it up to speed, but I am confident that I can.

Just to clarify: total average move count for LS + OLL is about 18 moves, Total Average move count for SV is 12.5 moves , 18- 12.5 moves is 5.5 moves. If you do a 3 move insert then it is 15.5 moves which is still 2.5 moves less.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

> I prefer to estimate as opposed to using exact numbers



This is where I lost it. XD


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> This is where I lost it. XD


 
I see, bygones are bygones, I won't make a huge fuss out of this, but just please try and be a little cooler and stop ragging on me all of the time. I am only trying to help


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

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


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> 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


 
I reply to what everyone says lol, I try and be a good thread leader and i am genuinely interested in people's opinions as to whether or not they like this method. I am pretty sure your joking here so I will give this a 



Godmil said:


> 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 totally missed this earlier lol: A good deal of the time you will get these cases in slot so you won't have to set them up, but yes I updated the OP


----------



## CubicNL (Apr 20, 2012)

The idea of putting in a pair regardless of the orientation of the corner and edge was also used some time ago here : Seth , may be interesting for you.
I guess from what I read here that this isn't very useful to learn: it saves only a couple of moves, the SV algs are probably not that fast to execute, you will have to get used to a new system for just little (if any) improvement.

I guess this is only useful, like Cubenovice already pointed out earlier, for a couple of nice cases.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> can you stop posting off topic stuff please


 
So if no one has any real concerns here or reasons they see why I shouldn't do this that haven't already been discussed and clarified I think I will start the chore of learning these algs now. Well I might regenerate the EUD cases unless Robert or someone else has done this for me already ?


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Why would it not be SKyler Variation? People call Rowe Variaition Rowe Variation and Rowe Variation contains lots of mutliple subsets like Winter variation. You could call the subset OLS- FE, but I already posted it before him so I would be the one to name it not him and i just called it a part of Skyler Variation.
> Also, it is the norm to name things you discovered and presented on first after yourself. Just as Gomil said, we normally call CFOP the Fridrich method and no one is really erked about that, at least that I know of.


 
That's not true at all. A TON of people are *irked* about that.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

shh guys. get him to learn it. don't tell him that it sucks.

everyone play along...


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

CubicNL said:


> The idea of putting in a pair regardless of the orientation of the corner and edge was also used some time ago here : Seth , may be interesting for you.
> I guess from what I read here that this isn't very useful to learn: it saves only a couple of moves, the SV algs are probably not that fast to execute, you will have to get used to a new system for just little (if any) improvement.
> 
> I guess this is only useful, like Cubenovice already pointed out earlier, for a couple of nice cases.


 
I think you missed my post to David woner earlier, here is the important part which I will be putting in the OP:
"Also, I think most of these algs could be sub 1ed with practice,and even if you couldn't you would still be saving time. Lets say your regular OLL case would be .9 seconds long, but you had to do one of the 5 horrible f2l cases at first and then it or just one of the other horrible cases which you save time on by inserting it. This would be a 1.5 second f2l case and then a .9 second OLL. That makes for a 2.4 second LS+OLL, now if you just did SV then you would only have to do the horrible case for f2l which would be about 1.5 second. This still saves you .9 seconds. Seeing as how most of my OLL aren't always sub 1 then you will save over a second by using this method assuming your recog is good enough. Now Recog is a different story, only time will tell if I can actually make it up to speed, but I am confident that I can."

.9 seconds is huge when you are averaging sub 10


----------



## CubicNL (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I think you missed my post to David woner earlier, here is the important part which I will be putting in the OP:
> "Also, I think most of these algs could be sub 1ed with practice,and even if you couldn't you would still be saving time. Lets say your regular OLL case would be .9 seconds long, but you had to do one of the 5 horrible f2l cases at first and then it or just one of the other horrible cases which you save time on by inserting it. This would be a 1.5 second f2l case and then a .9 second OLL. That makes for a 2.4 second LS+OLL, now if you just did SV then you would only have to do the horrible case for f2l which would be about 1.5 second. This still saves you .9 seconds. Seeing as how most of my OLL aren't always sub 1 then you will save over a second by using this method assuming your recog is good enough. Now Recog is a different story, only time will tell if I can actually make it up to speed, but I am confident that I can."
> 
> .9 seconds is huge when you are averaging sub 10



But now you're basically saying that you should do SV because you might get one of the horrible cases.
That's not worth learning 180 cases, sorry.


----------



## Meep (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> .9 seconds is huge when you are averaging sub 10


 
Like many people have pointed out before, these are just numbers being pulled out that -you- think are reasonable. Estimates are good for feasibility checks to further pursue some idea, but not for convincing people that this is a superior idea on a technical level.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

CubicNL said:


> But now you're basically saying that you should do SV because you might get one of the horrible cases.
> That's not worth learning 180 cases, sorry.


 
You think a horrible OLL case is where you do it in .9 second?!!! You must rock at them then, because I do most of my OLL at around 1 second on average. I think of the .9 OLL as the better case. The horrible case I am referring to is the f2l case which happens fairly often. PLease reread my op with the underlined section because i gave a better explanation of it there, but even if you setup those case with an RUR' (which is like .3 seconds max, more like .2) you will still save .7 or .6 seconds, this is a huge deal if you are like sub 10. Also, if you are even .5 seconds faster on average simply due to method that is worth it to me.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 20, 2012)

Take a deep breath.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Meep said:


> Like many people have pointed out before, these are just numbers being pulled out that -you- think are reasonable. Estimates are good for feasibility checks to further pursue some idea, but not for convincing people that this is a superior idea on a technical level.


 
Agreed, but before I tell people they should go try it I want to make sure my reasoning is well reasonable. I wouldn't want to recommend this to people if it sucked.


----------



## A Leman (Apr 20, 2012)

I have not checked the whole thread comments, but have you heard or read of SV( summer variation:the RUR' version of WV). Also, you stongly opposed learning large sets of algs so you could optimize the tps of the algs you know. Have you changed your mind? I personally like the challenge of making my f2l better intuitively before learning f2l algs that require thinking during f2l. The rotation for the unoriented slot is also a big downside for me so i don't think i will learn these.

Also, your last example scramble had a nice 10 move double adjacent X cross in it, so finding things like that seem better than learning 180 algs for some odd f2l cases which you can usually avoid and i have no intention of forcing.

I just noticed this is a bit harsh but its simply my opinion which is human and imperfect,maybe this has more potential than I realize.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Athefre said:


> Take a deep breath.


 
Its all cool dude, this is totally what I wanted to discuss; we are comparing the specifics of each solving method and trying to determine which is better. I really appreciate everyones input here.


----------



## CubicNL (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> You think a horrible OLL case is where you do it in .9 second?!!! You must rock at them then, because I do most of my OLL at around 1 second on average. I think of the .9 OLL as the better case. The horrible case I am referring to is the f2l case which happens fairly often. PLease reread my op with the underlined section because i gave a better explanation of it there, but even if you setup those case with an RUR' (which is like .3 seconds max, more like .2) you will still save .7 or .6 seconds, this is a huge deal if you are like sub 10. Also, if you are even .5 seconds faster on average simply due to method that is worth it to me.



I know you were talking about a horrible f2l case. I forgot to mention that there are other ways to deal with a horrible case than just SV.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> we are comparing the specifics of each solving method


 
Calling this a method is like picking 10 random ZBLL cases and calling that a method.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

A Leman said:


> I have not checked the whole thread comments, but have you heard or read of SV( summer variation:the RUR' version of WV). Also, you stongly opposed learning large sets of algs so you could optimize the tps of the algs you know. Have you changed your mind? I personally like the challenge of making my f2l better intuitively before learning f2l algs that require thinking during f2l. The rotation for the unoriented slot is also a big downside for me so i don't think i will learn these.
> 
> Also, your last example scramble had a nice 10 move double adjacent X cross in it, so finding things like that seem better than learning 180 algs for some odd f2l cases which you can usually avoid and i have no intention of forcing.
> 
> I just noticed this is a bit harsh but its simply my opinion which is human and imperfect,maybe this has more potential than I realize.


 
Don't worry man, I understood what you meant. If you remember, you may not have seen it, I made a thread asking the forum what they thought i should do next. i did this because I wanted to make sure that I learned all that I needed to learn in terms of algs before I increased tps. If i did this, it would probably be all of the algs I needed to learn really save maybe a few more OLL skip cases which are easy to recog. Experience has taught me that TPS will come with time and practice. After I learn SV I will probably spend a great deal of time on x-crosses and other stuff like that that comes from simple practice. I want to get down my solving method and the algs I will use before I do this though so I can practice them a bunch until they are great. Things like x-cross just come wit practice and don't really require major algs sets or anything.



CubicNL said:


> I know you were talking about a horrible f2l case. I forgot to mention that there are other ways to deal with a horrible case than just SV.


 True, very true, but this seems like a really good way IMO


Kirjava said:


> Calling this a method is like picking 10 random ZBLL cases and calling that a method.


 
The method part here is not the algs or even the alg set, it is the way in which I plan on using them and the versatility it offers me. But you are right, this is NOT a full new way of solving, it is just a new last slot method.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> it is just a new last slot method.


 
not really, it's a list of random cases. there are LS cases that you cannot apply SV to.


----------



## CubicNL (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> True, very true, but this seems like a really good way IMO


That's exactly where our opinions differ, because I'd rather use other pair insertions and learn some other algs than learning this.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> not really, it's a list of random cases. there are LS cases that you cannot apply SV to.


 
Agreed, but SV is specifically a method in which you utilize a series of move saving techniques and algs to permute the in place last slot pair and the OLL at the same time. This is most definitely A last slot method. It is not the only, but it is a method especially considering the other things besides the algs you use to set things up. This is just like MGLS, MGLS is basically just CLS, but what makes it a method is the fact that it is ELS plus CLS for a new last slot method. Similarly SV is basically the OLS cases, but what makes it a method is the improper solving or sky pairs one can use and the methods for edge control and preservation of formed sky pairs during Cross and such. It changes the way you look at and execute F2L just as MGLS does.



CubicNL said:


> That's exactly where our opinions differ, because I'd rather use other pair insertions and learn some other algs than learning this.


 
What specifically are you talking about when you say other pairs and other algs?
Is this just pair choice? Because i agree this is important and i will work on this later, but if you can make a bad pair a good thing with little effort then why wouldn't you?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> This is just like MGLS


 
MGLS works every solve, this only works for 40% of last slot cases.


----------



## A Leman (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> After I learn SV I will probably spend a great deal of time on x-crosses and other stuff like that that comes from simple practice


 Please come up with another abbreviation in courtesy for the people that learned SV (summer variation). It did come first. You could try skyV or something.


----------



## CubicNL (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> What specifically are you talking about when you say other pairs and other algs?


 
For other pair insertions i mean things like sledgehammer or RU2R' instead of RU'R'.
And for the other algs I mean that instead of learning 180 SV cases, I'd rather invest my time in learning other (more) useful algs, such as coll, ollcp etc.
I may, however, use a couple of nice SV cases, but just not the full thing.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> MGLS works every solve, this only works for 40% of last slot cases.


NO, as Aronpm counted it works 72 percent of the time at a min if you utilized every open slot, which most people do not so it would be more like 80% of the time and this is without edge control. And the only difference here is that I am not going to waste moves doing ELS and i just accept that I will do LS + OLL sometimes.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> NO, as Aronpm counted it works 72 percent of the time at a min if you utilized every open slot, which most people do not so it would be more like 80% of the time and this is without edge control. And the only difference here is that I am not going to waste moves doing ELS and i just accept that I will do LS + OLL sometimes.


 
Where did you get 80% from ?! You're literally just making up numbers.

Here's the math for the last slot;

5*5*3*2 = 150 cases
6 cases where both pieces are in the slot
-1 for solved = 5
14*4 = 56 cases with setups
5+56 / 150 = 40% 

*It's a 40% chance.*


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

CubicNL said:


> For other pair insertions i mean things like sledgehammer or RU2R' instead of RU'R'.
> And for the other algs I mean that instead of learning 180 SV cases, I'd rather invest my time in learning other (more) useful algs, such as coll, ollcp etc.
> I may, however, use a couple of nice SV cases, but just not the full thing.


 
How is COLL or OLL CP more useful? BOth of them come up far less often then SV and neither of them actually skip a step, then just half permute things. I used to want to learn COLL/ OLLCP, but if you think about it it really isn't worth it as they often take more moves and only produce a slightly better case. SV actually aves moves, can be used almost all of the time and actually skips steps as opposed to just making the next step better. Also, my PLL ranges from 1.6 seconds to .75 seconds with the .75 being an a perm not a u perm My u perms are about 1 second. this means at most i save .6 seconds using COLL or OLLLCP whereas with SV I save .6 at the very least. and around 1 second at the higher end. Also, COLL algs are longer than regular OLL so you have to account for the time wasted doing them which is like .1 or.2 seconds so really COLL/ OLLCP only really saves like . 4 or .5 seconds and doesn't come up that often whereas SV saves about .8 seconds and comes up very often.


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Where did you get 80% from ?! You're literally just making up numbers.
> 
> Here's the math for the last slot;
> 
> ...


 
It's less than that. This method is for when you do not have all edges unoriented, right? That happens 1/8 of the time.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Where did you get 80% from ?! You're literally just making up numbers.
> 
> Here's the math for the last slot;
> 
> ...


 
I am going off of Aron's post:



aronpm said:


> total cases for 1,2,3,4 open slots: 150, 216, 294, 384
> n open slots has n+4 corners, n+4 edges, so (n+4)(n+4)*3*2=6(n+4)^2 cases
> 
> I've been told that the probability of getting 4 move insertion for SV in LS is 41%, 28% for 2 slots, 21% for 3 slots and 16% for 4 slots. Probability of not getting SV = (1-.41)*(1-.28)*(1-.21)*(1-.16)=.28, so probability of getting at least 1 SV is 72%


 
If you have issues bring it up with him.



Bob said:


> It's less than that. This method is for when you do not have all edges unoriented, right? That happens 1/8 of the time.


 
No all edges are not unoriented, only one and you can set up the cases as well. This gives you a much larger chance of creating an SV case and you have 4 slots in which to do this so 4 different tries to do this. Also seeing as how I do not use every open slot I actually have a larger proportion of cases where i can to where I can't.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> How is COLL or OLL CP more useful? BOth of them come up far less often then SV and neither of them actually skip a step, then just half permute things. I used to want to learn COLL/ OLLCP, but if you think about it it really isn't worth it as they often take more moves and only produce a slightly better case. SV actually aves moves, can be used almost all of the time and actually skips steps as opposed to just making the next step better. Also, my PLL ranges from 1.6 seconds to .75 seconds with the .75 being an a perm not a u perm My u perms are about 1 second. this means at most i save .6 seconds using COLL or OLLLCP whereas with SV I save .6 at the very least. and around 1 second at the higher end. Also, COLL algs are longer than regular OLL so you have to account for the time wasted doing them which is like .1 or.2 seconds so really COLL/ OLLCP only really saves like . 4 or .5 seconds and doesn't come up that often whereas SV saves about .8 seconds and comes up very often.


 
You can use COLL and OLLCP in every solve, and the recog is faster than LS recog.


----------



## jonlin (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I am not going to claim to know the answer to this question,nor am I going to try and figure it our. All I was saying is that if we are just talking about LS then 42 sounds about right. Sure there are like 4 positions for the AUF, but if you had the alg AUFed it would be 42 right? what other cases am I missing assuming all 3 slots are filled?


 
42: The answer to life.
Honestly, I think that's how he chose it.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I am going off of Aron's post:
> 
> If you have issues bring it up with him.



My figure was for the last slot, and his was for all slots. I said the figure was for the last slot, and you said it was wrong.

*YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MATHEMATICS INVOLVED IN THIS, PLEASE STOP MAKING UP NUMBERS AND USING THEM AS IF THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF MEANING*


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> You can use COLL and OLLCP in every solve, and the recog is faster than LS recog.


 
Please provide a citation for this because COLL only occurs when every edge is oriented which does not occur that often even if you do use basic edge control and OLLCP is a very broad term so saying it is or isn't usable every solve really depends on what type/ what cases you use for OLLCP. Also, Hyper orientation is not easier than simply edge/ corner orientation. Hyperoreintation require that you do edge/ corner orientation first lol, so it is by product more time consuming and arguably harder.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Please provide a citation for this because COLL only occurs when every edge is oriented which does not occur that often even if you do use basic edge control and OLLCP is a very broad term so saying it is or isn't usable every solve really depends on what type/ what cases you use for OLLCP. Also, Hyper orientation is not easier than simply edge/ corner orientation. Hyperoreintation require that you do edge/ corner orientation first lol, so it is by product more time consuming and arguably harder.


 
No, COLL is solving the corners of the Lase layer while Preserving edge orientation, you can the do ELL to finish Last layer.
OLLCP=CO+EO+CP so solve all LL leaving EPLL. If you learn all OLLCP algorithms you can use them in every solve.
Also, since when did I mention Hyperoritentations?


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> My figure was for the last slot, and his was for all slots. I said the figure was for the last slot, and you said it was wrong.
> 
> *YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MATHEMATICS INVOLVED IN THIS, PLEASE STOP MAKING UP NUMBERS AND USING THEM AS IF THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF MEANING*


 
PLEASE STOP TYRING TO BE A PEDANT AND MISREADING MY STATEMENTS. I specifically said the chances of getting an skyV IN A SOLVE, not just for LS, please reread the OP if you need proof of that.


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Please provide a citation for this because COLL only occurs when every edge is oriented which does not occur that often even if you do use basic edge control and OLLCP is a very broad term so saying it is or isn't usable every solve really depends on what type/ what cases you use for OLLCP. Also, Hyper orientation is not easier than simply edge/ corner orientation. Hyperoreintation require that you do edge/ corner orientation first lol, so it is by product more time consuming and arguably harder.


 
You could learn all the OLLCP cases...

you also don't have to use hyperorientation to recognize permutation of corners.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> PLEASE STOP TYRING TO BE A PEDANT AND MISREADING MY STATEMENTS. I specifically said the chances of getting an skyV IN A SOLVE, not just for LS, please reread the OP if you need proof of that.



I said LS is 40% and you said it was wrong.

By the way, calling me a pedant for being correct is an ad hominem attack.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> No, COLL is solving the corners of the Lase layer while Preserving edge orientation, you can the do ELL to finish Last layer.
> OLLCP=CO+EO+CP so solve all LL leaving EPLL. If you learn all OLLCP algorithms you can use them in every solve.
> Also, since when did I mention Hyperoritentations?


 
Full OLLCP is 330 algs which is far more difficult than 100 with mirrors and in order to recognize coll you do hyperorientation which requires you look at corner permutation at a minimum and edge permutation if you want to have an HZU after your alg.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I said LS is 40% and you said it was wrong.
> 
> By the way, calling me a pedant for being correct is an ad hominem attack.


 
True and true, I am wrong here  sorry, I we were saying different things and I thought you were trying to contradict me,but you were stating unrelated facts.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Full OLLCP is 330 algs which is far more difficult than 100 with mirrors and in order to recognize coll you do hyperorientation which requires you look at corner permutation at a minimum and edge permutation if you want to have an HZU after your alg.



Not necessarily. I would say that learning OLLCP would actually be easier, because if you can recognise CP, then you can add them into your normall OLL solves slowly over time, which is less effort.
Also, I don't use hyperorientations for COLL recog. And edge permutation is irrelevant in COLL, since you do EPLL afterwards anyway.
I can actually recog COLL cases faster than some PLL cases and about half OLL cases.


----------



## Bob (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Full OLLCP is 330 algs which is far more difficult than 100 with mirrors and in order to recognize coll you do hyperorientation which requires you look at corner permutation at a minimum and edge permutation if you want to have an HZU after your alg.


 
What? Why would you have to look at EP during OLLCP? You won't have to look at that until after OLLCP. They will leave you with H, Z, U, or solved no matter what.

Edit: MaeLSTRoM beat me to it.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> but you were stating unrelated facts.


 
I was explaining the differences between MGLS and SV, it was quite related.


----------



## CubicNL (Apr 20, 2012)

I leave this discussion; for me, it's not worth learning the 180 cases.


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

CubicNL said:


> I leave this discussion; for me, it's not worth learning the 180 cases.


 
I totally understand and that is I think this methods biggest downfall.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Not necessarily. I would say that learning OLLCP would actually be easier, because if you can recognise CP, then you can add them into your normall OLL solves slowly over time, which is less effort.
> Also, I don't use hyperorientations for COLL recog. And edge permutation is irrelevant in COLL, since you do EPLL afterwards anyway.
> I can actually recog COLL cases faster than some PLL cases and about half OLL cases.


 Cool, I was thinking about regular COLL where you had to recog 42 different corner permutations plus 57 Edge/ corner orientations which is a lot of time and more difficult than just recognizing edge orientations.


----------



## A Leman (Apr 20, 2012)

jonlin said:


> 42: The answer to life.
> Honestly, I think that's how he chose it.


 
It's even better; 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything!


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> 42 different corner permutations


 
*6


----------



## jskyler91 (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> *6


 
Right, darn I am really off today!! That s what I get for not sleeping last night.


----------

