Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

It probably cannot get any easier than something like these:
Uw'
m F
U' 2R' U F2
U' 2R' U F2
U' 2R' U F2
U' 2R' U F2
U' 2R' U F2
F m'
Uw
[Link]

Uw L' R
L' U' 2R U L U2
L' U' 2R U L U2
L' U' 2R U L U2
L' U' 2R U L U2
L' U' 2R U L U2
U2
L R' Uw'
[Link]

Uw' L' R
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
U2
L R' Uw
[Link]

They are just (2R U2)4 2R with 1-2 setup moves around the 2R move.

Spoiler

(2R U2)4 2R
=
2R U2
2R U2
2R U2
2R U2
2R
=
2R U2
2R U2
2R U2
2R U2
2R U2
U2

So if you add, say, the setup moves R2 U' before every 2R and undo with U R2, you get:
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
U2

And then do a few conjugates to make a single dedge flip:
Uw' L' R
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
R2 U' 2R U R2 U2
U2
L R' Uw

Even if that's the case, what does that matter to him? He's the one who asked the question. He's the one who gets to decide what's best for him. If the well-known algorithms are easy for you to learn, good for you. That doesn't mean that the alternative algorithms I provided are not exactly what he's looking for. Not everyone's mind works the same, and you would be arrogant if you think for a second that everyone ought to "toughen up and think like you".

Algorithms that you already know are easy. Because you know them already. And you can't just say that because you (now) can memorize a 15 move algorithm with ease, the ease you now feel is in part due to your experience with memorizing algorithms. He has not had that experience. And if algorithms were easy for you to learn "from the very beginning", good for you. This is not the case for him. That's why he's asking for help.

We can sit here and teach him tricks to learn/view the well-known algorithms differently, but at the end of the day, that's not what he asked for.

P.S.

You keep mentioning Lucas Parity. That's the wide turn version. That does not just flip a single dedge, clearly. So you are yet again not answering his question. If you can get away with that, then can you honestly say that Lucas parity is easier to learn, than, say Rw' (F2 U' Lw' U)5 Rw?

And, again, may I ask where you saw the other alg is being called "drew"? (Out of curiosity?)

He was asking for an algorithm which just flips the dedge. These are not the same regarding that specific objective (which I believe is definitely relevant given that we replied to his question).

Okay, so maybe you can just use the slice moves to flip just the edge. I really didn't understand the question. I thought he wanted a standard parity alg, not an alg to swap the two edges.

Okay, so maybe you can just use the slice moves to flip just the edge. I really didn't understand the question. I thought he wanted a standard parity alg, not an alg to swap the two edges.

Can someone give me the easiest oll parity for when it’s just one edge is flipped? I’m old and apparently stupid so I don need the fastest, just the easiest.

EDIT:
But I guess you can interpret this in two different ways. (People who think of "just one edge flipped" when thinking of last layer yellow cross edges after F3L.) But I took the wording of his question literally.

EDIT:
But I guess you can interpret this in two different ways. (People who think of "just one edge flipped" when thinking of last layer yellow cross edges after F3L.) But I took the wording of his question literally.

Yeah. I thought he just wanted a parity alg. So I supplied a parity alg. From what I understand, you gave him a direct way to solve for 1 flipped/swapped pair of edge(s).

(Serious answer: Yau is easier to get fast at than plain reduction; the tutorial linked by One Wheel should teach you the steps, and from there it's just a matter of practice.)

Yau for the win.
I use reduction on big cubes, but Yau is the best method on 4x4. There are a lot of stuff you can do to make your yau reduction great, too.

Think about it. Same average move count, better ergonomics, the cross is solved when you start edges, you have have 4 options for first center instead of 2, and 3-2-3 is the same.

Think about it. Same average move count, better ergonomics, the cross is solved when you start edges, you have have 4 options for first center instead of 2, and 3-2-3 is the same.

I think for big cube (specifically Yau and Hoya) the method you use doesn't really matter and they're pretty equal but at least Yau has very good results and is more than proven to be extremely good whereas Hoya, which can probably get the same times, has not been proven as much.

You can't make the same arguments for large cubes as you can for 3x3 because it's mostly pure personal preference.

Think about it. Same average move count, better ergonomics, the cross is solved when you start edges, you have have 4 options for first center instead of 2, and 3-2-3 is the same.

I think for big cube (specifically Yau and Hoya) the method you use doesn't really matter and they're pretty equal but at least Yau has very good results and is more than proven to be extremely good whereas Hoya, which can probably get the same times, has not been proven as much.

You can't make the same arguments for large cubes as you can for 3x3 because it's mostly pure personal preference.

Not necessarily. Yau is just better known, therefore more people use it. It's kind of like the CFOP-Roux thing, where they are very simalir, but because cfop was more widespread and invented first.