So, now that I've been doing a lot of F2L work, I'm confused over the difference between algorithmic and intuitive. I just went through multiple pages of F2L algs, and it seems that I was able to easily derive one or more of the listed solutions intuitively without memorizing the algs. There were four cases I didn't get, and that I had to look up, but other than that, my solutions match those on most web pages. That lead me to question what the difference between intuitive and algorithmic was, and if algorithmic really does have any advantage over intuitive. It seems to me that the only difference is in recognition, not in actual performance, which in turn leads me to believe that algorithmic is more like intuitive without opportunities for multislotting, prioritization of slots, or LL edge control. If that is indeed the case, then what benefit does it offer?
My opinion: I don't get what the big fuss is about. I see no big difference between algorithmic and intuitive. Really, I don't see much difference.
I learned Fridrich F2L (henceforth abbreviated as F2L) from Macky's page, back in the day, he was THE man from whom to learn everything
On his F2L page, he listed all the "algorithms" in an
A-
B format.
B was [AUF] R U/U2/U' R', and
A was the setup.
B is very obviously intuitive even for a beginner. So I "memorized" the "algorithms" for
A for all 41 cases.
A was almost always 3 moves, and when an "algorithm" is just 3 moves, there's no way
anyone can't understand how it works after messing around with it long enough.
So tell me, am I using algorithmic or intuitive F2L? I don't know. I tell everyone I use algorithmic, because honestly, I didn't discover the
As for all 41 cases on my own. I looked up the answers on Macky's page and memorized it, and understood it later.
Some people learn by working out the problems on their own, and then looking up the answers at the back of the textbook later on. Others just cut the crap and read the answers right away and learn from them, and most importantly, they spend only half the time learning the same thing
I wasn't taught how to use empty slots for
A, I just did it right from the very beginning on my own, it was only logical and natural. I was shocked to find that it was actually considered an "advanced F2L technique" sometime later, and that some people who claim to do intuitive F2L actually didn't know about such a technique :confused:
Really. What's the big fuss about?
I have a question for you people who claim to use intuitive F2L and absolutely despise others who claim to use algorithmic F2L: Do you honestly think there are people stupid enough to memorize a 7-move "algorithm" like R U R' U' R U2 R', and not understand it at all, and only know how to apply it when they see the exact case in front of their eyes? Do you honestly think there are people stupid enough to do the same for
41 cases? Or do you just want to make yourselves feel better by telling yourself that you "understand the cube much more than those silly algorithmic-F2L-people"? I apologize if my tone was aggressive or anything, I wanted to put in a little sarcasm because I really can't stand how most people think that intuitive F2L is superior to algorithmic F2L, when there really isn't much difference between the two.
By the way, I'd really like to know what you guys think of the way I learned F2L, do you consider it intuitive F2L or algorithmic F2L? I believe I'm not the only one who learned F2L this way, and I'd like to know under which category do others and I fall.
I use: y L' U L U2 y' R U R'. If I can sub-2 it, I don't really care to change it.
