How You Can Use EO To Improve F2L Lookahead

[Smiles]

it takes some work, but i think this is worth learning (if you have not already)

 

[GenTheSnail]

... or you could just use ZZ and already have all your edges pre-oriented so you don't have to deal with this.
Nice video regardless.

 

[FJT97]

... or you could just use ZZ and already have all your edges pre-oriented so you don't have to deal with this.
Nice video regardless.

Meh. I was about to write that
ZZ is just superior

 

[Smiles]

Yeah ZZ users don't deal with this, luckily.

In ZZ you fix EO using a few moves and inspection time,
in CFOP you fix EO by allowing F turns or y rotations.
It's debatable which one is better, which is why the method you use is up to you, and neither is necessarily better. Also, ZZ lookahead is nice because of EO, but CFOP lookahead is also nice due no edges in the D layer.

Personally I like the CFOP perks better, which is why I haven't switched. As for which method is better, I think you could be just as good with either.

 

[SpeedCuber71]

i didn't see the entire video but i find this to be really ...like.. of no use really to get fast. Its a bit too much effort to practice to deal with something that is already so simple. Thinking hard, changing how you look ahead just to avoid rotations when rotating and solving a case which is already fast which can also influence your next pair or last layer EO seems not useful at all. How does this "improve" look ahead?

 

[Smiles]

Thinking hard

the whole point is that you have to think less. of course it's hard if it's not the way you do it, but once you're used to it you think less, since you need to track less info, which i discussed in more detail in the video.

changing how you look ahead just to avoid rotations when rotating and solving a case which is already fast which can also influence your next pair or last layer EO seems not useful at all.

if you know multislotting and edge control basics, then you can definitely pick when to avoid rotations and when not to. your method of recognition should not hinder other fundamentals. it's not a different F2L method, it's just a different recognition method. no matter what method of recognition you use, you accomplish the same thing (recognize cases). the only difference is that i believe this way is faster than matching corner/edge stickers.

How does this "improve" look ahead?

you track less info and never have to match stickers between the corner and the edge, and you don't have to track an extra sticker on the corner; therefore recognition and tracking are both faster. if you think its a tiny difference that isnt worth it, then that's fine and you can do what works best for you. i did provide a good argument in my video for why i think this way is better, but it is only my opinion at the end of the day.

 

[GenTheSnail]

but CFOP lookahead is also nice due no edges in the D layer.

I don't want this to become a ZZ/CFOP debate, but I would like to point out that this is just something you get used to. After a while, the D layer is just a normal place for edges to be, no different that any other place like RU, LF or RB.

 

[Smiles]

I don't want this to become a ZZ/CFOP debate, but I would like to point out that this is just something you get used to. After a while, the D layer is just a normal place for edges to be, no different that any other place like RU, LF or RB.

Good point. It is preference, after all.