Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Most optimal way to find and handle Fridrich F2L pairs (Intuitive)

  1. #1
    Member xXdaveXsuperstarXx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    WCA Profile
    2009MURR01
    Posts
    176

    Default Most optimal way to find and handle Fridrich F2L pairs (Intuitive)

    So, when I'm solving F2L, finding the Edge and Corner is very important. But what you must understand, is that once you have the cubies located, you have to pair them up. I have found that it is easiest to look for a corner on top and then find it's edge. This is not the best for look-ahead, but when the corner is on top you have a relatively easy case to execute and pair. Granted I always go for easy corner and edge pairs, but when there are no easy ones to spot I resort to this. Now for me it's also helped to do one pair and then do the slot next to it, instead of have to fill two slots diagonal from each other. You can see I plan out my F2L very carefully. I want to know what you think.

  2. #2
    Member EmersonHerrmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not in one place for long.
    WCA Profile
    2008HERR01
    Posts
    1,291

    Default

    Why can't you just look for the pieces and solve them as you go? Why waste time on planning?

    P.S. - I do not look for a corner then an edge or vice-versa, I just look for the pieces...
    I haven't been on here in forever :) I hope everyone is doing well.

  3. #3
    Member xXdaveXsuperstarXx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    WCA Profile
    2009MURR01
    Posts
    176

    Default

    This is mainly for execution, and people who are dexterous. As I said, I'm a "2-Gen F2L kind of guy" So to speak.

  4. #4
    Premium Member cmhardw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    WCA Profile
    2003HARD01
    Posts
    3,601

    Default

    Now that I think about it I'm pretty sure that if I haven't spotted any pieces yet that I usually look for the corner first, then try to spot the edge. I don't do this every single time, if I see an edge first then I'll try to find the corner that goes with it. However, I think I have a more "corner biased" style of trying to look ahead than I do "edge biased" - I'm not a 50-50 split I guess I am trying to say.

    Chris

  5. #5
    Member xXdaveXsuperstarXx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    WCA Profile
    2009MURR01
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Okay, I'll just agree wich cmhardw because he can say it more simply.

  6. #6
    Premium Member JLarsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire, USA
    WCA Profile
    2009LARS03
    YouTube
    Sn3kyPandaMan
    Posts
    1,879

    Default

    Just a counterpoint, you've stated your method, now how good does it actually work out for you? Or otherwise stated more bluntly, what's your average?
    Josh "SneakyPanda" Larsen -- Trying Freefop for a while -- Wrist problems...-- Current Best Freefop Avg 12: 15.47

  7. #7
    Member kjcellist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois, USA
    WCA Profile
    2010MATH01
    YouTube
    kjcellist
    Posts
    55

    Default

    I also agree with cmhardw. I almost always look for a corner first and then find the edge that goes along with it.
    The redhead.

  8. #8
    Premium Member cmhardw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    WCA Profile
    2003HARD01
    Posts
    3,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sn3kyPandaMan View Post
    Just a counterpoint, you've stated your method, now how good does it actually work out for you? Or otherwise stated more bluntly, what's your average?
    I average about 15.5 for 3x3. Here are some thoughts comparing Corner Bias to Edge Bias.

    Viewability:
    When looking for the corner first you can see at most 12 of the 24 corner stickers (assuming you view the cube slightly at a diagonal). This is 1/2 of the possible stickers a corner be in place of, or 50% sticker viewability. Assume here that we have solved the cross, and have not yet solved any F2L slot.

    For edges you can see at most 10 of the 16 possible stickers, viewing at a diagonal, where an unsolved edge could be. This is 62.5% sticker viewability.

    Before I classify the edge bias as better than corner bias now let's look at how many of those stickers determine which piece you have.

    Corners:
    Of the 12 visible stickers, 1 corner has all 3 stickers viewable, and 3 corners have 2 stickers viewable (allowing you to determine which corner you have). This means that you can correctly identify 4 of the 8 corners at a glance without a cube rotation.

    Edges:
    Of the 10 visible stickers, 3 edges have both stickers visible, and 4 edges have 1 sticker visible. Notice that I am ignoring the cross edges, if that was not clear already. This means that at any given time you can correctly identify 3 of the 8 unsolved edges.

    From a "piece" standpoint I would say that Corner Bias is better because you can identify 4/8 pieces or 50% of the pieces at any given moment. For Edge Bias you can identify 3/8 unsolved edges or 37.5% identifiable at any given moment. Of course I mean here identifiable without a cube rotation.

    ----

    Now consider when you have solved the first corner edge pair at FR. If you view the FR slot as being right in front of you, with the cube on a diagonal, then you now can identify 3 corners of the 7 unsolved, and 2 edges of the 7 unsolved. This places the corner visibility higher than the edges for identifying pieces. For sticker visibility for corners there are 10/21 visibility or 10 stickers visible of the total 21 unsolved stickers. This is 47.6% sticker visibility. For edges there are 8/14 visibility or 8 of the 14 unsolved stickers are visible or 57.1% sticker visibility.

    Sticker visibility seems to prefer Edge Bias, but visibility taking into account ability to identify pieces without a cube rotation prefers Corner Bias.

    I would say, in my opinion, that I would prefer to be able to identify pieces without rotating, thus Corner Bias, than to see more of the remaining unsolved stickers when using Edge Bias. So in short, I think the visibility argument shows that "Corner Bias" lookahead is better if you prefer ability to identify pieces without a cube rotation. Maybe some experts use Edge Bias, and can argue an advantage over seeing more stickers? The downside here is that you must rotate more to identify pieces.

    I will try to look into the number of stickers visible by not just looking at a side of the cube in the static sense, but looking at the cube through the flow of a 90 degree cube rotation of either y or y'. This would be something that all solvers do, and is very important to lookahead as well.

    This post is already very long, so I'll stop here though and post the rest later.

    Chris

  9. #9
    Member xXdaveXsuperstarXx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    WCA Profile
    2009MURR01
    Posts
    176

    Default

    I average about 25-27 sec.

  10. #10
    Member deco122392's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ogden utah, formaly from L.A. CAlifornia
    Posts
    241

    Default

    A general key for what I do (in cfop) solves to make f2l look ahead easier (rather identifying pieces) goes something like this:
    Cor corners
    -Look for sticker that matches cross colour.
    For edges
    -Any edge that doesn't have the colour opposite the cross.

    That about sums up my look ahead in a nut shell. '
    (of course I look at the adjacent stickers on the corners to know were to place them after i recognize that they belong in the first layer)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •