Why don't we have A Collection of F2l algs?

[Inusagi]

I think the title explain it all, but I guess that this will be useful for many people (including me).

 

[Cerberus]

I don't think that's realy necessary, many sides got that stuff and they are not realy different... and if you act intuitively, you mostly figger out the best solutions for your style yourself.

 

[Inusagi]

I don't think that's realy necessary, many sides got that stuff and they are not realy different... and if you act intuitively, you mostly figger out the best solutions for your style yourself.

I thougth it cuold be very useful, because f2l is the key (The most important part of the solve). Which means that if you got many algorithms for one case (from another angles of course), you will probably get a better f2l. Think those collections is perfect to help us on that.

 

[Tomarse]

True, but if you were to learn intuitively, and figure out the cases on your own, you would be able to execute them so much faster than learning the alg and remembering which case and the alg, instead of, working it out yourself and just letting your fingers remember it, not your head

 

[Inusagi]

What does intuitively means?

 

[Inusagi]

True, but if you were to learn intuitively, and figure out the cases on your own, you would be able to execute them so much faster than learning the alg and remembering which case and the alg, instead of, working it out yourself and just letting your fingers remember it, not your head

OK, I found out what it means. But why don't you say this with the collections of oll and pll?

 

[Lofty]

well... because intuitive f2l is much easier to do then intuitive oll and pll... and intuitive f2l is often much more move efficient than algs because you can make use of empty slots.

 

[joey]

and intuitive f2l is often much more move efficient than algs because you can make use of empty slots.

Not really. I learnt most of my F2L algs, I thought everyone did when I started, and I still can use empty slots. Probably because these "F2L algs", I made sure to understand them.

 

[Dene]

Intuitive F2L is definitely the best way, I mean, checking for better algorithms later on is a good idea, to make sure you aren't wasting precious time, but learning the algorithms early won't help with your speed at all, compared to intuitive (or at least that's my opinion).

But why don't you say this with the collections of oll and pll?

I ask you, have you tried doing OLL or PLL intuitively? That is just insane, I'm fairly certain, apart from a few of the most primitive algorithms, computers were used to generate them. Working out every OLL for yourself is something that I would only expect someone who had been cubing for many years who knew a lot about them to work out...

 

[Lt-UnReaL]

I think this is what you want: http://www.cubingtechniques.com/cubing/algorithmsbank/f2l/

 

[brad711]

Memorized F2L algorithms aren't much faster, and except for a few of the awkward cases, the move will be the same as one on almost any website. Also, if you do F2L algorithms intuitively, you:
A. Understand the cube better
B. Are able to make use of open slots, which written algorithms don't
C. Are able to easily do moves when pieces are in the wrong slots
I have about 5 algorithms that aren't totally intuitive, and I can get sub-10 second F2Ls.
I also strongly support intuitive F2L.

 

[Harris Chan]

Seriously, I still don't really understand the difference between intutive F2L and "algorithmed" F2L. I know I know, you're saying that intuitive F2L is when you figure out the F2L yourself, not using a memorized algorithm. But really, using empty slots and tricks is considered algorithms for me. Algorithms aren't just that strict 41 cases, it can be other angle, miscellaneous cases as well. And after a while it's all stuck in your head and you don't need to figure it out, it's already there, you know how to treat that case.

But yah, no Collection of F2L algorithms

 

[ExoCorsair]

http://opticubes.com/f2l.php