Which Advanced F2L Method?

[JTW2007]

What advanced F2L method do you recommend? I want to learn a better F2L (than Fridrich, which I'm currently using). Any thoughts?

 

[ConnorCuber]

MGLS, made by lucas garron:

http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/

 

[JohnnyA]

I personally think MGLS isn't great for an advanced F2L. I see no point in doing 3 algorithms for the LL instead of 2, when the last F2L slot is so fast and can lead into lookahead for the OLL. I personally don't use an advanced technique, I use intuitive multislot occasionally when I see the opportunity.

 

[blah]

I personally think MGLS isn't great for an advanced F2L. I see no point in doing 3 algorithms for the LL instead of 2, when the last F2L slot is so fast and can lead into lookahead for the OLL. I personally don't use an advanced technique, I use intuitive multislot occasionally when I see the opportunity.

You might wanna take that back :rolleyes:

 

[JohnnyA]

I personally think MGLS isn't great for an advanced F2L. I see no point in doing 3 algorithms for the LL instead of 2, when the last F2L slot is so fast and can lead into lookahead for the OLL. I personally don't use an advanced technique, I use intuitive multislot occasionally when I see the opportunity.

You might wanna take that back :rolleyes:

Why?

 

[Leviticus]

Because it's not three algs for the LL, you do ELS, CLS then PLL. ELS and CLS solve the last F2L slot whilst orienting the LL, then you finish with PLL.

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

Let's hope Lucas isn't angry, Johnny
You could use MGLS or ZB, I know it's hard, but a suggestion...you could memo a few of these algs, I memorizes some of the slot-already-made EO algs. I can't think of any other methods...ZZ could be good

 

[Escher]

i would suggest to either embark on learning VHF2L (which is what emerson was on about with the 'slot-already-made algs) and COLL (you arent fully utilising VHF2L if you dont learn COLL). i think that there are 32 VHF2L algs (16, if you like using LH mirrors), and 42 COLL algorithms (you can also use COLL on the 2x2 as a one look last layer... but if you really want that, you might as well just learn CLL).

OR, you could learn f2ll, or 'winter variation'. if you have all edges oriented, and the FR pair connected and placed so you can do RU'R' or its mirror, then you can do a simple alg and get an OLL skip (you orient all the corners). the algs are very intuitive, and it doesnt take long to see how they work.
obviously you can also use them if the edges arent oriented, and you'll go straight onto an easy EOLL.

if i were you, i'd learn winter variation first (im planning to learn the rest of it once ive finished the last couple of OLLs). its only 27 algs (+ mirrors), and they are all very fast, 3 gen (mostly RUL), and give you a nice OLL skip so you can just look forward to PLL from the last slot
they are really, really easy to learn. in fact, its harder to remember the cases they go with, not the algs!
once you've done those, i would go to VHf2L and COLL.

OR, you can skip learning VHF2l, and just learn to do ZZ, like emerson said.
ZZ-VH (zz f2l, and coll/epll last layer) has potential to be very fast - 'matthew' on these forums is the fastest ive heard of that uses it.

i plan to learn everything ive mentioned (i know bits and bobs of most of them), and theres nothing to stop you doing that too.

EDIT - woah, thats a lot of parenthesis!

 

[Erik]

I wouldn't call call MGLS and ZB 'F2L methods', more like LL methods.
Advanced would be ZZ or freestyle/petrus which are both doubtfull to be faster or at least as fast as F2L with cross and pairs..

 

[JohnnyA]

Precisely ... the two algs you use for the F2L are actually just LL algs. MGLS has no advantage over simple OLL-PLL!

 

[JTW2007]

It does, it's just an LL advantage and not an F2L advantage

 

[JohnnyA]

It does, it's just an LL advantage and not an F2L advantage

But what's the point, you just have to recognise and excecute three algorithms that involve many pieces instead of just two algs.

 

[Erik]

if recognition is your point then I don't see your point recognition is really easy for MGLS, not that I use it.

 

[JohnnyA]

Sure recognition for MGLS is fast, but theres 3 algs instead of just two, and I doubt you can get as good lookahead on a mgls alg as you can on an F2L pair.

 

[Erik]

you are saying you can predict your complete OLL case while solving your last F2L pair then?

 

[fanwuq]

Eh... Off topic?

In MGLS, for the last F2L pair, you don't have to make a pair, instead, you just do VHF2L to insert the edge. That's the exact same # of moves and recognition as regular F2L. The advantage comes from CLL, which faster than OLL being 2gen.
It is the exact same number of looks as Fridrich usually and many times 1 less because skipping the ELS is much more common than skipping one F2L pair.
There are 5 F2L cases that would be regular or even Bad in Fridrich F2L that are Skips in MGLS. Also, effecting EO before last slot is often times easier than multi-slotting.

JTW, to answer you question, go to cubeloop.com for Multi-slotting or cubefreak.net for empty slot tricks. Really you should just use Regular Fridrich F2L and train your look ahead unless you like another method like Petrus, ZZ, Roux, CF, ...

Perhaps the most helpful thing is to be like Chris Hardwick and be opposite color neutral and use extended cross.
http://speedcubing.com/chris/f2l.html

 

[JohnnyA]

you are saying you can predict your complete OLL case while solving your last F2L pair then?

No, but I can easily predict the orientation of edges and therefore know how I need to look at the cube to identify the case. If you use the MGLS algs, it's probably harder to identify your PLL quickly. Imagine doing MGLS like doing F2L using algorithms instead of intuitively - way slower. I think MGLS has potential for use with the ZZ method, since the ELL stage will be skipped and you could do either keyhole+CLL or F2LL, and it could also be useful when you have one piece already in place but except in those situations I doubt it would increase the time taken for the end of F2L+LL.

&if you are going to shoot down my posts without giving your point as to why they are wrong, its really not worth it.

 

[cpt.Justice]

JohnnyA, Please...
Just stop...

 

[Erik]

what?? I'm not even going to answer to that post it has too many wrong things in it...

 

[DavidWoner]

No, but I can easily predict the orientation of edges and therefore know how I need to look at the cube to identify the case. If you use the MGLS algs, it's probably harder to identify your PLL quickly.

How could that possibly be true? You don't look ahead during OLL to see your PLL case. Using CLS algs is no different than using OLL as far as PLL recognition goes. I think Lucas can vouch for that.

Imagine doing MGLS like doing F2L using algorithms instead of intuitively - way slower.

So you're saying that you figure out every F2L case every time you see it? face it, fridrich f2l is an intuitive method at first, but experienced cubers use known algorithms even if they were intuitively discovered. anyway, ELS is entirely intuitive, and a decent number of CLS cases can be found intuitively. I also fail to see how intuitive algs are faster than learned ones. Intuitive algs are definitely easier to learn, but I don't see how it makes a difference speed-wise.

I think MGLS has potential for use with the ZZ method, since the ELL stage will be skipped and you could do either keyhole+CLL or F2LL, and it could also be useful when you have one piece already in place but except in those situations I doubt it would increase the time taken for the end of F2L+LL.

Ummm then you don't understand ZZ either. ZZ is not a C/E pair method, it is meant to be a block building method. if you are going to use any sort of last slot method with ZZ then EJF2L would probably be the only efficient one. This is ignoring the fact that ZZ is best used with ZBLL.

&if you are going to shoot down my posts without giving your point as to why they are wrong, its really not worth it.

It is because your reasoning is so fundamentally flawed that its difficult to find a place to start.