replacement for f2l?

[ilikecubing]

My avg. with beginners is 50s,i learned full pll and memorized all f2l algs but m not able to get into the habit of f2l.

Is there any method other than beginners method and f2l which can be used to complete first 2 layers.....i won't mind if it takes 4-5 xtra seconds in my solve..

and 1 more thin,ppl recommend badmephisto f2l which hardly has any algorithms,but in cubin sites a lot of algorithms for f2l r given,so if dere is no replacemant...what shud i choose badmephisto f2l or algorithms f2l?

 

[hatep]

Learn intuitive F2L, it takes a while but once you learn how the pieces move you can do full F2L without any algorithms at all.

 

[avgdi]

Definitely learn intuitive F2L. You can always learn F2L algs for certain cases later.

And don't get discouraged if you don't pick up on it right away. You will get it.

 

[devulaxe]

use intuitive F2L, it train your logic to solve F2L faster. and if you have reached sub 35 you can use that F2L algo.

 

[avgdi]

I avg. 24 and I use intuitive F2l. And I could still get faster using it. My LL is worse than my F2L. The only know 1 alg for F2L.

 

[izovire]

I learned all of the F2L algs from "Speedsolving the cube" -written by Dan Harris... and after several months I learned some new f2l tricks of my own, and I'd say intuitive is a better route to take... Learning the algs can still be useful.. but it may be a waste of time indeed.

 

[Rpotts]

This is seriously the exact answer to your question -

[wiki]keyhole[/wiki]

 

[irontwig]

Block build.

 

[flan]

I learned algorithmic f2l and I average 24 ish. To get anywhere with it you have to see what the algs are doing because they are intuitive algs. But thats not going to give you particularly good understanding of the cube which is why I suck and I would reccomend intuitive f2l. But once youve learned them, algo f2l and intuitive f2l are essentially the same, they are just different ways of understanding how to put together the f2l intuetivly.

 

[joey]

Learn to write properly.

 

[o2gulo]

Intuitive F2L. It takes time y'know. it took me about a month to learn full intuitive F2L

 

[Andrew Ricci]

Intuitive F2L. It takes time y'know. it took me about a month to learn full intuitive F2L

Fail.

Intuitive F2L is intuitive, meaning there is only the concept of pairing corner-edge pairs and inserting them. There is no way intuitive can be "full".

 

[Chapuunka]

Alternatives for F2L: [wiki]ZZ[/wiki] [wiki]Roux[/wiki] [wiki]Petrus[/wiki] [wiki]Keyhole[/wiki] FreeFOP

And about a million other methods...

 

[Kynit]

Take a look at some other methods; if nothing else, you'll understand the cube better.

Keyhole isn't far from F2L, and Petrus is a very common method for building blocks. Start there.

 

[Rpotts]

Fail.

Intuitive F2L is intuitive, meaning there is only the concept of pairing corner-edge pairs and inserting them. There is no way intuitive can be "full".

wtf your describing f2l. Intuitive/algorithmic doesn't matter. Personally I think it's a silly distinction, I do f2l "intuitively" i.e. far less algorithmic than OLL/PLL but everything I do is an "algorithm" which could be found on the wiki or whatever. I think he was saying learn to do each case i.e. "full" but understand them/figure them out. Even if it's not the best "alg" it's better than simply finding both pieces, placing them individually in the U layer, then moving the edge into position for an R U R' or R U' R for a 3-4 look pair. Understand what I mean?

 

[Andrew Ricci]

wtf your describing f2l. Intuitive/algorithmic doesn't matter. Personally I think it's a silly distinction, I do f2l "intuitively" i.e. far less algorithmic than OLL/PLL but everything I do is an "algorithm" which could be found on the wiki or whatever. I think he was saying learn to do each case i.e. "full" but understand them/figure them out. Even if it's not the best "alg" it's better than simply finding both pieces, placing them individually in the U layer, then moving the edge into position for an R U R' or R U' R for a 3-4 look pair. Understand what I mean?

Yeah I get it. But If I say I know full OLL, you would assume I meant I know all the algorithms. NOT simply knowing how to orient the last layer. That's similar to me saying: "I know full OLL. I can orient the Last Layer every time." Do I know full OLL? Of course not.

 

[Cubezz]

Intuitive. You'll get slower at first, but you will be glad that you switched in the future.

 

[Rpotts]

Yeah I get it. But If I say I know full OLL, you would assume I meant I know all the algorithms. NOT simply knowing how to orient the last layer. That's similar to me saying: "I know full OLL. I can orient the Last Layer every time." Do I know full OLL? Of course not.

I think it comes down to the number of looks. If you can do each f2l case in 1 look, then you know "full" f2l. Same with OLL, if you know how to solve all 57 cases in 1 look(even if its F SM F' U' Sune or whatev) then you know full OLL, just many cases might suck, just like "full intuitive f2l"

 

[DemotioN]

You have learned FULL PLL before getting the hang of F2l?

 

[oll+phase+sync]

Salvia method is a nice exotic F2L replacement. It doesn't require alogrithems wich makes it "free" to try.

In addition to what is mentioned on the linked page it is possible to place the last 2 middel layer edges in 8-9 moves even if you place them one by one.

Also you get the option to orient (some) of your last layer edges without aditional moves ( or all with additional moves ), while finishing First Layer. (If you are confused and don't know- Salvia is solving middellayer edges before first layer edges)

Personaly I like it more than Keyhole wich is the only other non-blockbuilding F2L - Replacement I know off. I need 27 to 35 moves for salvia F2L.