"Apart from the ease of learning for intuitive F2L .... "
It's fair to say that on a basic level, intuitive is 'easy to learn'. But to get good at it requires a lot of work and skill, and it's far from intuitive.
"The solution you have with algorithms can be lower in movecount"
That's rather debatable. A good intuitive solver will have lower movecount, and lower cube-rotation count, because they know so many ways of performing a particular slot solution, whereas an algorithmic solver knows a constrained selection. This is in part due to use of empty slots - many algorithms are unnecessarily constrained, and are really 'last slot' algs. Decision-making is simpler and faster for alg solving: if you only know two ways of solving a case, it's not so hard to pick one; if you know 6 ways, it can potentially delay your thought-process.
I guess the best technique is a combination of good intuitive and a extensive algorithmic repertiore.
It's fair to say that on a basic level, intuitive is 'easy to learn'. But to get good at it requires a lot of work and skill, and it's far from intuitive.
"The solution you have with algorithms can be lower in movecount"
That's rather debatable. A good intuitive solver will have lower movecount, and lower cube-rotation count, because they know so many ways of performing a particular slot solution, whereas an algorithmic solver knows a constrained selection. This is in part due to use of empty slots - many algorithms are unnecessarily constrained, and are really 'last slot' algs. Decision-making is simpler and faster for alg solving: if you only know two ways of solving a case, it's not so hard to pick one; if you know 6 ways, it can potentially delay your thought-process.
I guess the best technique is a combination of good intuitive and a extensive algorithmic repertiore.