# Thread: Is it worth learning F2L algorithms?

1. ## Is it worth learning F2L algorithms?

Hey guys,
I'm now averaging 17s on my F2L. I currently solve F2L intuitively and I would like to ask your opinion if you think that the F2L algorithms are worth learning. Thanks in advance.
P.S. this is my first post

2. Originally Posted by gpyl
Hey guys,
I'm now averaging 17s on my F2L. I currently solve F2L intuitively and I would like to ask your opinion if you think that the F2L algorithms are worth learning. Thanks in advance.
P.S. this is my first post
I assume that you define something worth learning as something that makes you faster. The answer then is yes. You should learn algorithms for the tricky cases, since a speed optimal prelearned sequence of moves is always better than something non-optimal and thought up on the spot.

3. It is not necessary but it doesn't hurt either. When people say do intuitive, it is likely that there will be a few cases that you are doing inefficiently. Unless you are aware of which cases these are, this could make progressing harder for you. So if you feel that something you are doing could be much better then take a look at the algs at least. What I found when going through each F2L case trying out different algs is that I saw things I liked in the algs and they became intuitive for me.

4. There are certain weird cases that would be in your best interest to learn algorithmically, imo.

For instance:

Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

Spoiler:
fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'

Try it out and see if you are comfortable with F2L algs. Or better yet, try typing out the moves that you would normally do for each case, and compare it to the move count of the fingertricky F2L algs. If there's a large discrepancy in move count, then you may just want to, at least, study the how the pieces are paired to learn efficiency.

5. For the cases you should look into loads of different ways of doing it.

6. Originally Posted by pdilla
Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

Spoiler:
fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'
Or you can try R U F R U R' U' F' R'

Or you can do your optimal alg as y F2 U R U' R' y' R' U R'

I wouldn't do it like that from that angle, but if I got it from a y off it's not bad at all.

7. I did F2L intuitively and now they're indistinguishable from algorithms. The advantage is, by figuring out the algorithms on your own/intuitively is they're easier to perform from multiple angles. You'll know F2L better giving you the opportunity to be creative.

8. Originally Posted by Me
I did F2L intuitively and now they're indistinguishable from algorithms. The advantage is, by figuring out the algorithms on your own/intuitively is they're easier to perform from multiple angles. You'll know F2L better giving you the opportunity to be creative.
I agree with this with a grain of salt.
If you find you're taking a long time to solve a pair, someone probably has a better solution to solving that case online. In these instances, learning a legitimate algorithm is better than using one that was constructed on the spot initially.

9. Originally Posted by pdilla
There are certain weird cases that would be in your best interest to learn algorithmically, imo.

For instance:

Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

Spoiler:
fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'

Try it out and see if you are comfortable with F2L algs. Or better yet, try typing out the moves that you would normally do for each case, and compare it to the move count of the fingertricky F2L algs. If there's a large discrepancy in move count, then you may just want to, at least, study the how the pieces are paired to learn efficiency.
For that case, Rowe's alg (R U R' [F R U R' U' F'] U R U' R') is really nice as well

10. As others have pointed out, learn algs for some of the wierd cases. I've learned several of those where pieces are stuck together.

Originally Posted by theZcuber
For that case, Rowe's alg (R U R' [F R U R' U' F'] U R U' R') is really nice as well
I'll switch to that one myself. I used to use (R' F R F') (R U R' U') U' (R U R' U') R U R' and now when I type it out, I see how long it is...

#### Posting Permissions

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