I know there are more efficient/faster F2L methods than either of the Keyhole Methods. However, when comparing one to the other (Corners First vs. Edges First) is one better (more efficient, have better finger tricks, "faster") than the other. In my opinion one of the methods is superior to the other. However, I've been discussing it with someone who feels that the 2 are equally efficient. I'd be interested to hear other people's perspective on the topic.
Corners First vs. Edges First Keyhole F2L Methods
- Thread starter Solomon76
- Start date
I used keyhole for a long time, many decades ago. Solving edges last would be my choice for 'best technique'. The fact that there are three orientations for corner-pieces means it's best to sort them out when there are less constraints, so solve them first. With only two edge-piece orientations, they still seem easy to solve when done last.
Solving the corners first essentially means solving the first layer (minus one corner) first. This allows an alternative solution method, which I used:
To solve the first layer, first solve one edge-piece. Then solve the corner next to it ( I went clockwise) , then the next edge-piece, then the corner etc until 7 pieces are solved. Then keyhole in 3 middle-layer edges. Then solve the final first-layer corner, and middle-layer edge.
I posted a few tricks for solving middle-layer edges in this 'keyhole' thread:
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/keyhole-method.63735/
Solving the corners first essentially means solving the first layer (minus one corner) first. This allows an alternative solution method, which I used:
To solve the first layer, first solve one edge-piece. Then solve the corner next to it ( I went clockwise) , then the next edge-piece, then the corner etc until 7 pieces are solved. Then keyhole in 3 middle-layer edges. Then solve the final first-layer corner, and middle-layer edge.
I posted a few tricks for solving middle-layer edges in this 'keyhole' thread:
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/keyhole-method.63735/
I'm slightly confused by your response. You started by saying solving edges last but then went on to say to solve and edge-piece first. I would probably need to see a demonstration to grasp what you mean. I took a look at what you posted in the other keyhole thread and I didn't quite understand those explanations either.
To solve the first layer, first solve one edge-piece OF THE FIRST LAYER. That is to say : like solving the first cross piece. Then solve one of the two first-layer corner-pieces that are adjacent to the solved edge-piece. I'm right-handed, so my choice is the corner-piece clockwise relative to the solved edge. Then solve the next first-layer edge-piece, continuing clockwise. Then the next corner, then the edge etc etc until 7 first-layer pieces are solved.
Then keyhole in three of the middle-layer edge-pieces.
Then solve the final first-layer corner-piece.
Then solve the final middle-layer edge-piece.
I'm not saying it's a revolutionary breakthrough in solving technology. It's just an alternative way, that's intuitive.
Then keyhole in three of the middle-layer edge-pieces.
Then solve the final first-layer corner-piece.
Then solve the final middle-layer edge-piece.
I'm not saying it's a revolutionary breakthrough in solving technology. It's just an alternative way, that's intuitive.
I'm interested in what you're describing and am trying to visualize it. Would it be possible for you to do an example F2L solve on https://alg.cubing.net/ and post the link here so that I could look at it step by step?
Surely you can answer a yes or no question. I guess neither one of us can do what the other believes to be something that is very simple to do. It isn't that I don't understand your explanation of the process. I'm more so trying to figure out how the process you explained is more advantageous than the edges first method, which was the genesis of the thread in the first place. Take care.
Last edited:
I didn't say it was more advantageous than edges-first. I said it was an alternative way of doing corners-first.
You really need to get many different opinions from other forum users if you want answers to your question. Not just one guy who took the time to reply. But unfortunately, it is an unpopular topic, previous threads have all fallen flat. People use keyhole for a while, then progress to the CFOP 'F2L' , few actively stay using it. I've not solved that way for 15 years.
Edit:
Though you didn't say, I get the feeling you solve middle-layer edges first. These little algs may be useful when you're solving the first-layer corners:
L' U' R U L R' or L' U' R U R' L or L'U' R U M' x'
and mirrors
R U L' U' R' L or R U L' U' L R' or R U L' U' M' x'
and the reverses of all the above.
Note: these are all useful to CFxx solvers.
You really need to get many different opinions from other forum users if you want answers to your question. Not just one guy who took the time to reply. But unfortunately, it is an unpopular topic, previous threads have all fallen flat. People use keyhole for a while, then progress to the CFOP 'F2L' , few actively stay using it. I've not solved that way for 15 years.
Edit:
Though you didn't say, I get the feeling you solve middle-layer edges first. These little algs may be useful when you're solving the first-layer corners:
L' U' R U L R' or L' U' R U R' L or L'U' R U M' x'
and mirrors
R U L' U' R' L or R U L' U' L R' or R U L' U' M' x'
and the reverses of all the above.
Note: these are all useful to CFxx solvers.
Last edited:
I appreciate your notation. It won't help me with my solutions however. If you really wanted to be helpful, you'd put the same notation into https://alg.cubing.net/ so that others could see what you're trying to describe. However, I'm just trying to get an idea if there is a definitive advantage between the 2 methods I asked about.
Last edited:
