[Help Thread] F2L Intuitive vs. Algorithm Solving

[RennuR]

If you use intuitive F2L you can still solve all the cases you already know with an alg.

Well I am using algorithmic F2l, and is it possible for me to switch to intuitive f2l? I hear its a lot better to try to find out how I can do a case without resorting to an algorithm so I can better understand the cube

 

[Rnewms]

Try solving each case in a different way. You know you won't be relying on algorithms. I learned how to control LL edge orientation from trying to solve each case differently.

 

[RennuR]

Mmmkay first off I think I am just going to give you guys a cuber profile right here, because I am getting confused. So My cube times are around 50-1:00 and here is the method I use. I just solve the cross like I regularly would, and then when I do f2l I look for specific algorithmic cases, and I used Sergsb method at first. I have a YJ Guanlong and I have been learning the f2l algorithms from that packet. Is this a bad thing? I feel like I shuold be learning all of this intuitively.... Anywy after I do my f2l, I just use the methods I learned from SergsB youtube video. Like the beginner bethod last layer I guess. I feel like this is bad for me seeing all of these learn it intuively posts and stuff. I havent learned a thing about OLL and PLL and like look ahead or any of that.

Solve cross like I usually do
Use f2l algorithms for the specific cases
Solve last layer using beginner method.

Is this weird? Any tips on what I shuld do. I just feel confused. Like should I try to jsut learn f2l intuitively right now, and try to forget the algorithms I have learned? Because I know nothing about OLL and PLL like I said, nothing about 2-look or anything. And should I just throw away the litle packet that came with my cube? I feel like that thing has messed me up now because I am trying to learn everything algorithmically.... I want to find my own ways, but like.... everything I do is algorothmic now. Should I just follow the begginers guide to CFOP? It seems weird however because its saying to learn 2-look OLL when your average is 1:10, but mine is about 50 seconds.... Someone please help

 

[Rnewms]

2-Look OLL and PLL are easy to learn and beneficial. I suggest you do that. Right now it doesn't really matter how you solve F2L if you're making and inserting pairs. Intuitive F2L would help you figure out some extra tricks, but those don't matter at your level. However, it will help you understand how those algorithms work, and it becomes easier to understand a case from different angles.

If I were in your situation, I would continue F2L the same way until I learned 4-look Last Layer.

 

[AlphaSheep]

It seems weird however because its saying to learn 2-look OLL when your average is 1:10, but mine is about 50 seconds.... Someone please help

For the most part it doesn't matter when you learn stuff. But, the less time you've invested in the old way of doing things, the easier it is to move onto something new. That's why I feel you should learn new things as soon as you're interested in them and feel you're ready. There's no point in delaying. But I also feel it's never to late to learn something. There's nothing that can't be fixed with a little focused practice.

There is no fixed formula for everyone. Always remember that anyone who suggests you should learn X when you reach Y seconds is either stating when they learned it, or feels they learned it at the wrong time and is just repeating what they heard someone else say. Learn at whatever pace you feel comfortable and you'll be fine.

Also keep the guide that came with your cube but look at a lot of other sources too. You'll see all of them say different things and none are wrong. Mix and match until you find something that feels comfortable for you.

Also, intuitive F2L is way easier.

 

[Umm Roux?]

Also keep the guide that came with your cube but look at a lot of other sources too. You'll see all of them say different things and none are wrong. Mix and match until you find something that feels comfortable for you.

Also, intuitive F2L is way easier.

I agree with the mix and match part. If you are struggling with certain cases, then learn the alg. Many cases are fun and easy to learn intuitively though.

 

[mark49152]

Well I am using algorithmic F2l, and is it possible for me to switch to intuitive f2l? I hear its a lot better to try to find out how I can do a case without resorting to an algorithm so I can better understand the cube

Don't worry about it. Just study the solutions you have learned so you know how they move the pieces around.

Supposing you get one of those cases on the front left slot, or one of the back slots, could you work out how to mirror your solution? That's a good test of whether you understand how the pieces are moved around to solve each case.

 

[Matt11111]

My F2L is mostly intuitive, but sometimes, my intuition isn't optimal. I may learn some algs.

 

[RennuR]

Thank you everyone, badmephisto's videos seem like a good idea, is this true?

 

[Chree]

My F2L is mostly intuitive, but sometimes, my intuition isn't optimal. I may learn some algs.

This.

Intuitive is easier to learn, easier to teach, and easier to implement, but it's also a sure-fire way to build at least a few bad habits... like rotating too often or just having inefficient solutions. Once you have intuitive F2L handled, I think it's important to at least LOOK at algorithms for all the cases. While trying them out, track the pieces and make sure you understand how they work. Chances are you'll learn something really nice. I like to say that the dirty little secret of Intuitive F2L is that you're really just building algorithms on the fly. And the dirty little secret of algorithmic F2L is that a lot of them are just really nice intuitive solutions that are written down.

Drew Brads just put out a video showing a few cases where intuitive F2L could use a little algorithmic love. It's definitely worth a look.

.

 

[CFOP beginner]

Which are the algs that is better that intuition in f2l
Where we can get them

 

[shadowslice e]

Which are the algs that is better that intuition in f2l
Where we can get them

In general, the the only algs you might need to learn are the ones where the pieces are in the slot already but misoriented. There are no real algs that you have to learn, you just learn the alternate way of doing stuff that you come across in reconstructions and stuff like that.

However, it is still often good to know the alternate algs because they can be useful in multislotting or partial edge control.

 

[Samyajit Saha]

It took me 5 hours to master f2l

 

[Malkom]

It took me 5 hours to master f2l

No you didn't

 

[mark49152]

It took me 5 hours to master f2l

"To master" means to acquire complete knowledge or skill. Some people have been cubing for many years and can solve F2L with move efficiency, near-perfect look ahead and no pauses, including expert techniques like edge control and multislotting, all in less than 5 seconds, and still won't claim to have "mastered" it because there is always more to learn. What you did in 5 hours is probably just learn the basics. Well done though, that is still good progress.

 

[JAcuber3.14]

I think doing F2L intuitively is better because you aren't just looking for set ups to apply algorithms. You get to fully see how the cube works. That will improve your look ahead in the long run because you aren't just seeing how the cube looks after algorithms since you end up with a lot of different classes. You can't improve look ahead without knowing where pieces will end up after you make different moves on the cube and when you use algorithms you don't track the pieces as much. It can also take longer to move the cube to do algorithms because most algorithms only work if the cube is facing one specific way. You learn more by doing it intuitively aswell because you figure out faster ways to make pairs that can be better than algorithms.

 

[Malkom]

I think doing F2L intuitively is better because you aren't just looking for set ups to apply algorithms. You get to fully see how the cube works. That will improve your look ahead in the long run because you aren't just seeing how the cube looks after algorithms since you end up with a lot of different classes. You can't improve look ahead without knowing where pieces will end up after you make different moves on the cube and when you use algorithms you don't track the pieces as much. It can also take longer to move the cube to do algorithms because most algorithms only work if the cube is facing one specific way. You learn more by doing it intuitively aswell because you figure out faster ways to make pairs that can be better than algorithms.

Intuitive F2L can help with understanding of the cube and help a little with pair prediction. But the intuitive solution is pretty often very inefficient and/or slow, there is absolutely no cases were an intuitive "alg" is better than a normal alg, at most they are equal. Because of that you should start with intuitive F2L and then learn algs for the slower cases.

 

[Hogr]

I think you should do intuitive F2L because Alg. F2L us not only restricted to those 42 alg.
There will be about a 90% that at least 1 of the pair(both) will be stuck in the bottom layers. As such, if you had realised the alg. You would automatically do a alg.
But if you did it intuitively, you would be able to understand how the pieces would move when I do this;
And thus can widen my range of F2L ways to make my next F2L pair easier.
But alg. F2L might be better than intuitive F2L IF you understand the alg.
The strength of intuitive F2L is the weakness of alg. F2L

 

[Malkom]

I think you should do intuitive F2L because Alg. F2L us not only restricted to those 42 alg.
There will be about a 90% that at least 1 of the pair(both) will be stuck in the bottom layers. As such, if you had realised the alg. You would automatically do a alg.
But if you did it intuitively, you would be able to understand how the pieces would move when I do this;
And thus can widen my range of F2L ways to make my next F2L pair easier.
But alg. F2L might be better than intuitive F2L IF you understand the alg.
The strength of intuitive F2L is the weakness of alg. F2L

Where the did you get the 90% from, pulled it of your bottom? I'm no mathematician but here are the odds according to my knowledge.

Spoiler: Math

little about group theory by as I see it there should be a 50% chance any given pair has a piece in the slots and one in the U layer , 25% both are in the slots and a 25% chance both are layer 8 positions for corners, 4 in slots and 4 in U same goes for edges. 1/2 that a piece is in either of those places mean 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 for both in pieces the U layer, the odds are same for both pieces being in the slots. The remaining two cases are corner in U, edge in slots and vice versa 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2 =/= 9/10

Wether or not you use an alg or solve the case intuitively does nothing to recognition, I can recall an intuitive "alg" and a "real" alg just as quick.
The part about intuive F2L being better for multislotting might be true to an extent. The fact that you by definition understand what you're doing might help when learning how your algs affect the cube, but multislotting isn't too intuitive for me and I think it's just as good just learning the affect of certain algs.

 

[dankmemes4dayz]

I wanted to know if using f2l algs for every case is fine. BTW I already know intuitive and felt this was too slow so I thought that using algs really does help with look ahead. I can execute them and still look for the next pair. And yes I do understand how the algs work.