# VHF2L+2 Levels=F2l+OLL Skip



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

So i was plaing with VHF2L(only the cases where the 2 f2l pieces are paired up) and i got a OLL skip and then this idea came to my head.Why doesn't some1 make a list of F2L algorithm where the f2l pair is paired(so much less cases) and does a OLL at the same time?I call it VHF2L+2 levels.Because VHF2L+1 level=ZBF2L.

I am going to show you whit a solve:
Scramble:R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R2 F' R U R U R' U2
Look how the F2L pair is paired.Now do EO+CO at the same time+solving F2L.
Solve:U2 R U' R' U' R' F R F'
You have a forced OLL skip.And then just the PLL (

The number of Algs will be 54(the number of WV)*8(the number of VHF2L)=432 algs.Only with 130 algs more then ZBF2L,but this new F2L strategy+PLL(453) is still less then Full ZB(800).

What do you think for this idea?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

Well, you still have to pair up the corner and edge.


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Well, you still have to pair up the corner and edge.



So?That is done in 1-2 sec MAX.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

BatafCube said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you still have to pair up the corner and edge.
> ...



Yea, but for only a couple of moves you could solve the entire F2L. That's like 0.5 seconds MAX.


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> BatafCube said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...



Yes,but now OLL skip


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

And how is recog going to be?


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> The beginning of the scramble is a T Perm with the last R' as an R2.



The important thing is to get the right idea


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> And how is recog going to be?



Well recognie first the VH/WV then WV/VH.Just like in ZBLL first COLL then the EP.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 29, 2009)

54 algs for WV?
I thought it was 27. d:

This idea seems familiar, as if someone has thought of it before.
My intuition is telling me that your numbers are off. Also, by a wide margin.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

Yea, I was joking about the grammer thing. You caught me.



BatafCube said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > And how is recog going to be?
> ...



This only works if you're using the front right slot. I don't know how good it will be.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 29, 2009)

Err, if you're proposing to do OLL like that, the number is algorithms is MUCH higher than what you stated.


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

4Chan said:


> 54 algs for WV?
> I thought it was 27. d:
> 
> This idea seems familiar, as if someone has thought of it before.
> My intuition is telling me that your numbers are off. Also, by a wide margin.



There are 27 for when the pair is in the R layer and 27 for when the pair is in the F layer.

NOTE:I am not from America or the UK so please don't yell when i make mistakes.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 29, 2009)

Ah , I realized it was a mirror, so I deleted the post.


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

4Chan said:


> Err, if you're proposing to do OLL like that, the number is algorithms is MUCH higher than what you stated.



Mathematically 8(the VH algs)*54(WV algs)=432


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 29, 2009)

Hm, okay.
Go for it.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

Isn't the exact chance of an OLL skip? Ex 1/x for an OLL skip (I forget) = x number of algs needed.


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 29, 2009)

4Chan said:


> Hm, okay.
> Go for it.



I don't know.....


----------



## Athefre (Dec 29, 2009)

It depends on the amount of moves. Since you are creating a pair both in normal Fridrich and this WV+VH idea and both involve recognizing a case (OLL and the WV+VH), the advantage your idea has here is:

Normal Fridrich (Cross, 4 pairs, OLL, PLL) minus the time it takes to *insert* the pair.

Again, it depends on the amount of moves, the above is considering that the average move count for the memorized cases would be around the same as OLL. WV averages 8 moves, if you can get a move count around that you would have an even greater advantage. Also, the recognition time has to be the same as OLL, which seems possible.


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 29, 2009)

I don't see the advantage of this.

With the normal way: Look for the last f2l pair, solve it, look for the OLL, solve it. 2 looks.

With this way, look for the f2l, then START to solve it, but once you are half way through it, look for the oll case, then finish solving the f2l + oll. Its STILL 2 looks, but now you have to memorize hundreds of algs instead of 57.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Isn't the exact chance of an OLL skip? Ex 1/x for an OLL skip (I forget) = x number of algs needed.



Not at all. By that logic you have a 1/21 chance of getting a PLL skip, which doesn't even remotely make sense.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't the exact chance of an OLL skip? Ex 1/x for an OLL skip (I forget) = x number of algs needed.
> ...



Nonononono, you're thinking the other way around. I mean that if the chance of getting an OLL skip is 1/500 (just a random number), you would need 500 algorithms to solve the last slot and OLL at the same time WV-ish.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 29, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...


What? Your first argument doesn't make sense/is false, and Google will easily tell you that 1/216 is the probability you wanted for your second "argument."


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 29, 2009)

BatafCube said:


> Mathematically 8(the VH algs)*54(WV algs)=432


Never underestimate the power of AUF.

(Sounds better if you imagine Darth Vader saying it.)


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 29, 2009)

Lucas. If I remember correctly, the chance of a OCLL skip is 1/27. WV uses 27 algorithms. Therefore, by my assumption, the same would be for this. Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## BatafCube (Dec 31, 2009)

Zarxrax said:


> I don't see the advantage of this.
> 
> With the normal way: Look for the last f2l pair, solve it, look for the OLL, solve it. 2 looks.
> 
> With this way, look for the f2l, then START to solve it, but once you are half way through it, look for the oll case, then finish solving the f2l + oll. Its STILL 2 looks, but now you have to memorize hundreds of algs instead of 57.



Then why people learn ZBLL when you recognize it still in 2 looks(COLL,then EP).


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Dec 31, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > DavidWoner said:
> ...


The chance is 1/216, you're right. miniGOINGS probably didn't know the chance of an OLL skip so he took a random number. If AUF is impossible because a pair is in the U-layer and symmetry is thus excluded, the number of cases for inserting the pair and simultaneously solving OLL is indeed the number of F2L cases * the chance of getting an OLL skip^-1.

As another example, let's consider 1LLL. This is doing OLL and PLL in one step, so it's the number of OLL cases (57) * the chance of a PLL skip^-1 (72). This is just a simple calculation because I didn't include a calculation for symmetries of H-OLLs, but it's a rough estimation.

The other way around you could also say it's the number of PLL cases (21) * the chance of an OLL skip^-1 (216). When you incalculate the symmetries of the E-perm, H-perm and Z-perm, you should get the same number.


----------



## Ness (Dec 31, 2009)

> I don't see the advantage of this.
> 
> With the normal way: Look for the last f2l pair, solve it, look for the OLL, solve it. 2 looks.
> 
> With this way, look for the f2l, then START to solve it, but once you are half way through it, look for the oll case, then finish solving the f2l + oll. Its STILL 2 looks, but now you have to memorize hundreds of algs instead of 57.



I don't see the advantage either.. With this new ending of fridrich you execute 2 algs (while normal fridrich has OLL+PLL). For both cases you need to learn PLL, but for the new one the number of the second algorithm set is so much higher. I can't imagine how recognition could be easiser than for OLL. So even if you save moves, I don't think you save any time at all.
I think it's NOT worth the effort.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 31, 2009)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> The chance is 1/216, you're right. miniGOINGS probably didn't know the chance of an OLL skip so he took a random number.



Yea, I should have looked that up.



trying-to-speedcube... said:


> If AUF is impossible because a pair is in the U-layer and symmetry is thus excluded, the number of cases for inserting the pair and simultaneously solving OLL is indeed the number of F2L cases * the chance of getting an OLL skip^-1.



So I was right?


----------



## Zarxrax (Dec 31, 2009)

BatafCube said:


> Zarxrax said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the advantage of this.
> ...



ZBLL solves PLL as well, this doesn't So this method would require 3 looks to get to a solved state.
I don't see how this does anything except makes OLL have more algs.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 31, 2009)

it solves the F2L and OLL at the same time,
i would say that it would reduce the LL to one look (PLL)

also it would only take one look to insert the F2L into the slot.

however its still a waste of time.

you can EO the edges with a pre-made pair, then use WV. so why learn several hundred algs when you can do the same with ~27


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 1, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> it solves the F2L and OLL at the same time,
> i would say that it would reduce the LL to one look (PLL)
> 
> also it would only take one look to insert the F2L into the slot.



Nope, it would be one look to make the pair, one to insert it and orient the last layer, and one to permute the last layer. Three looks.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jan 1, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > it solves the F2L and OLL at the same time,
> ...



ahhhh makes sense, 
when im using intuitive VH (just when the pairs together) it generally takes me one look to see how to solve the pair with edge EO.

still i think EO then WV would be much easier for recog.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 1, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> still i think EO then WV would be much easier for recog.



Even if you did EO + making the pair, and then inserting the pair + CO, then PLL, I still don't think it would be too effective.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 1, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > still i think EO then WV would be much easier for recog.
> ...



I have an idea! Why don't you do + inserting the edge, then CO + inserting the corner, then PLL?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 1, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> I have an idea! Why don't you do *EO* + inserting the edge, then CO + inserting the corner, then PLL?



Fixed.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 1, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



Genius! Why hasn't this been thought of before? Sarcasm.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jan 1, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > jms_gears1 said:
> ...



i think we could call it hmm,

LGAI
(Lucas Garron's Awsome Idea)


----------



## Yi Ren (Jan 4, 2010)

I don't really understand "VH-F2L+2 levels",is it F2LL?


----------



## rubiknewbie (Jan 4, 2010)

There are only 100 slots in my brain for remembering algorithms .


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Jan 4, 2010)

it's cool that you figured it out, but no offence, personally i think it'll be better to learn full ZB instead because recognition is easier for ZBLL than PLL, isn't it?


----------



## BatafCube (Jan 4, 2010)

xXzaKerXx said:


> it's cool that you figured it out, but no offence, personally i think it'll be better to learn full ZB instead because recognition is easier for ZBLL than PLL, isn't it?



No,because in ZBLL you must look OLL+PLL....Better only PLL.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 4, 2010)

BatafCube said:


> xXzaKerXx said:
> 
> 
> > it's cool that you figured it out, but no offence, personally i think it'll be better to learn full ZB instead because recognition is easier for ZBLL than PLL, isn't it?
> ...



Or you could just use Baum recog. (OCLL + Sticker?)


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jan 4, 2010)

It's still 2 looks and only saves like 3 moves...


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 4, 2010)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> It's still 2 looks and only saves like 3 moves...



EDIT: Oops, mixed you up with xXzaKerXx. Nevermind. I agree with you though.


----------



## 4Chan (Jan 4, 2010)

I think mister Unreal is referring to the OP.
He seems to have enough experience to be acquainted with ZBLL.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 4, 2010)

xXzaKerXx said:


> recognition is easier for ZBLL than PLL



>*Facepalm*<, For most people ZBLL recognition is much harder.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 4, 2010)

Yea, I would have to say for my personal recog, it's COLL>PLL>ZBLL. I edited my previous post because of my confusion.


----------



## BatafCube (Jan 4, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> BatafCube said:
> 
> 
> > xXzaKerXx said:
> ...



I think its Better COLL+EP.


----------



## 4Chan (Jan 4, 2010)

As the most qualified person, recognition depends on the case.

Some cases are easier than PLL:






In general, most PLL cases are easier to recognize.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jan 4, 2010)

BatafCube said:


> I think its Better COLL+EP.



Are you meaning recog the COLL and then look which edges have to be cycled, or use sticker recog for EPLL as well?


----------

