Is it worth learning F2L algorithms?

gpyl

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
22
Location
Hong Kong China
Hey guys,
I'm now averaging 17s on my F2L. I currently solve F2L intuitively and I would like to ask your opinion if you think that the F2L algorithms are worth learning. Thanks in advance.
P.S. this is my first post
 
Hey guys,
I'm now averaging 17s on my F2L. I currently solve F2L intuitively and I would like to ask your opinion if you think that the F2L algorithms are worth learning. Thanks in advance.
P.S. this is my first post

I assume that you define something worth learning as something that makes you faster. The answer then is yes. You should learn algorithms for the tricky cases, since a speed optimal prelearned sequence of moves is always better than something non-optimal and thought up on the spot.
 
It is not necessary but it doesn't hurt either. When people say do intuitive, it is likely that there will be a few cases that you are doing inefficiently. Unless you are aware of which cases these are, this could make progressing harder for you. So if you feel that something you are doing could be much better then take a look at the algs at least. What I found when going through each F2L case trying out different algs is that I saw things I liked in the algs and they became intuitive for me.
 
There are certain weird cases that would be in your best interest to learn algorithmically, imo.

For instance:

Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

visualcube.php


fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'

Try it out and see if you are comfortable with F2L algs. Or better yet, try typing out the moves that you would normally do for each case, and compare it to the move count of the fingertricky F2L algs. If there's a large discrepancy in move count, then you may just want to, at least, study the how the pieces are paired to learn efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

visualcube.php


fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'

Or you can try R U F R U R' U' F' R'

Or you can do your optimal alg as y F2 U R U' R' y' R' U R'

I wouldn't do it like that from that angle, but if I got it from a y off it's not bad at all.
 
I did F2L intuitively and now they're indistinguishable from algorithms. The advantage is, by figuring out the algorithms on your own/intuitively is they're easier to perform from multiple angles. You'll know F2L better giving you the opportunity to be creative.
 
I did F2L intuitively and now they're indistinguishable from algorithms. The advantage is, by figuring out the algorithms on your own/intuitively is they're easier to perform from multiple angles. You'll know F2L better giving you the opportunity to be creative.

I agree with this with a grain of salt.
If you find you're taking a long time to solve a pair, someone probably has a better solution to solving that case online. In these instances, learning a legitimate algorithm is better than using one that was constructed on the spot initially.
 
There are certain weird cases that would be in your best interest to learn algorithmically, imo.

For instance:

Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

visualcube.php


fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'

Try it out and see if you are comfortable with F2L algs. Or better yet, try typing out the moves that you would normally do for each case, and compare it to the move count of the fingertricky F2L algs. If there's a large discrepancy in move count, then you may just want to, at least, study the how the pieces are paired to learn efficiency.

For that case, Rowe's alg (R U R' [F R U R' U' F'] U R U' R') is really nice as well
 
As others have pointed out, learn algs for some of the wierd cases. I've learned several of those where pieces are stuck together.

For that case, Rowe's alg (R U R' [F R U R' U' F'] U R U' R') is really nice as well

I'll switch to that one myself. I used to use (R' F R F') (R U R' U') U' (R U R' U') R U R' and now when I type it out, I see how long it is...
 
Those F2L algorithms you talk about are quite beneficial. I know of two benefits: reduced cube rotations and multiple slot insertions (multi-slotting). These two ideas focus on getting the cube solved as fast as possible by reducing the bulk of intuitive f2l.

Reduced cube rotation ,from what I know, is done by filling slots in the face opposite from you(B Face). These algorithms are categorized in two groups: "Pieces stuck" and "Empty Slots". The algorithms in the two groups don't require you turn you cube for three f2l slots. Feliks Zemdegs, in his f2l stage shown in this slow-mo video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waAFfGK_r_s, turns his cube only twice!

Multislotting is filling in two slots at once in the time in time would've fill one. Even though this reduces your time, multislotting is hard to learn simply because it's too difficult recognize cases where you can insert two edges at the same time.

Certainly, they worth effort if you want to solve faster. You might not find it such a pain, when you realized you just performed your first multi slot or rotated your cube only twice, and the suddenly slam down a sub-13 time.

On a somehow related note, some people cope with the agony of speedsolving practice simply by practicing to music. Here's Rowe Hessler,U.S. 3x3 average rank one,cubing while listening to music through headphones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wU9tJFx_Gc&feature=plcp.

All in all, learning the new algorithms will drop your times. If you want to be forever sub 17 ,then it's probably not worth learning. But, if you aspire to be up there with the elites like Hessler and Zemdegs, all I can say is "work hard and buckle up ."
 
Last edited:
I did F2L intuitively and now they're indistinguishable from algorithms. The advantage is, by figuring out the algorithms on your own/intuitively is they're easier to perform from multiple angles. You'll know F2L better giving you the opportunity to be creative.

I agree with this, learning F2L intuitively makes it so much easy to reduce cube rotations and it seems like now that I've done that I have to almost force myself to rotate to keep my finger trick speed going, if that makes any sense
 
Thanks guys, I've taken your opinion and learnt some special F2L algs and that cut my time by 2 seconds. 2 seconds just by reducing the number of cube rotations and some special F2L algs. I plan to complete my PLL now(missing G and N perms).

P.S. Sorry for the late reply
 
There are certain weird cases that would be in your best interest to learn algorithmically, imo.

For instance:

Setup - R B' F D' R2 D R' B D2 L B' L' D2 F'

visualcube.php


fingertricky: y' R' U R U R' U R d' R U R'
or
optimal: R2 B U B' U' R' U R'

I use (R U' R')(F' L' U2 L F). Fast if you don't mind switching hands.
 
Back
Top