Use algorithms for F2L or not?

[reghrhre]

i was wondering is it faster to solve F2L by using the algorithms or using empty slots to pair up a corner and a edge?

 

[PCwizCube]

i was wondering is it faster to solve F2L by using the algorithms or using empty slots to pair up a corner and a edge?

Technically, they're the same thing.

100% intuitive F2L is better than 100% algorithm F2L. Because for the algorithms, the case will not always be correct. But with intuitive F2L that doesn't matter.

I hope that makes sense...

 

[Brett]

Intuitive with around 5-6 algorithms for nasty cases.

Intuitive is more fun anyway...

 

[StachuK1992]

only learn any type of algorithms(other than the ugly ones) once you get sub-20 or so, even if that..

 

[nitrocan]

look at the algorithms, and you will see that most of them are just algorithmic ways to do the same thing you do intuitively. (except for the special cases)

 

[Neutrals01]

first try to figure all 41 cases by urself intuitively, if u reach a case that u don think u can do it intuitively, then look up the algo for that case and u will soon automatically know how to do that case intuitively. Thats how I learned all my 41 cases without a single algorithm, and I think it's much easier to learn + master than learning algos.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

What? I didn't learn a single algorithm for F2L.

Why can't people just figure it all out by (mostly) themselves nowadays? I remember when I doubted Clancy/rxdeath on the fact that Fridrich F2L was intuitive.

 

[Cuber2112]

What are some of the special cases that you guys use f2l algs with? I think this is one of my major problems because I finnish slots all around the cube without more than 2 rotations. Im averaging 20 secs for f2l and looking ahead is how I got there. I probably just need to practice a lot more.

 

[Hadley4000]

I learned a handful of algs for the really touch cases, the rest is intuitive.

 

[Escher]

my F2l is completely intuitive, and personally i think that the process of working out your own quick or short algorithms for cases improves you as a cuber. i would suggest not to learn the algorithms like you learn PLLs, but to just run through them as examples of ways of reducing or solving cases, and working out your own from there. besides, 78 LL algs is enough to learn, adding 41 more is a little silly

 

[not_kevin]

All but 5 of my F2L are intuitive (and I understand how those 5 work, too), and all of them are 8 moves or less. Knowing how to do them intuitively, as everyone else so far has said, is the best way to get good at F2L.

 

[brunson]

Dissecting algs and learning how they work improves your intuitive F2L.

Start with a solved F2L and do this:
R U R' U' F' U F U' F U F'

Now solve FRD. Now, in a real solve, I would probably solve FLD first, which would force the bad corner into U, but my point is that there are cases that are just not that intuitive. If you find and study the optimal solution, you have a much better arsenal for attacking F2L.

Spoiler

One possible solution: L F' L' U' R' F' R F

Additionally, learning algs for all 41 cases is not going to teach you how to use empty slots, which can seriously improve your F2L times.

Example, again with a solved F2L: L' U' L R U' R' U2 R U' R' U'

Notice that the FLD slot is empty, now solve FRD. Naively, I would solve it without using the empty slot, U' R U' R' U2 R U R', which is similar to most algorithms you'll find on most web pages.

Here's a better solution:

Spoiler

D' L' U L D

I guess my message is, algorithms can show you better ways to handle odd situations intuitively, but I think it's better to use them to better understand how the cube moves and keep improving your intuition. Learning to do it intuitively is better in the long run, but don't ignore algorithms, they can add important insight.

 

[Samlambert]

Yeah like some other people said, don't waste time learning all the F2L algs, intuitive is MUCH easier to learn and I also think it's better (intuitive = 0 recognition time, for me at least). But that's has alredy been pointed out Good luck with that

Note: It took me about 2 weeks to be able to do all the cases instantly without thinking, but thats with a lot of practice, just to give you an idea. If you want to improve pretty fast also try inserting pairs without looking once you feel at ease with intuitive F2L, this will help you for your look-ahead since instead of looking at the pair you are inserting you will be able to look for the next pair already.

 

[AvGalen]

Brunson: You made a mistake in your second example. It should be
L' U' L R U' R' U2 R U' R' U'

And for the first scramble (R U R' U' F' U F U' F U F') I would use L' (F' U' F) U' (R U R') followed by U2 L (F U' F') U' and a last layer skip

 

[brunson]

Brunson: You made a mistake in your second example. It should be
L' U' L R U' R' U2 R U' R' U'

You know, I checked that a lot. I make so many mistakes trying to transcribe algorithms, I must have run those algs 10 times trying to get them right.

And for the first scramble (R U R' U' F' U F U' F U F') I would use L' (F' U' F) U' (R U R') followed by U2 L (F U' F') U' and a last layer skip

Man. Is it painful to be that good? It seems like it might hurt. ;-)

However, you do a great job of underscoring my point. You wouldn't have found that if you were roboticly performing algorithms, do you agree?

I'm still not incredibly fast, there are a lot of people that are twice as fast as me with less sophisticated methods. But I've come to terms with that and now I'm mostly interested in becoming more in tune with my cube. Speed will come with time and practice, comprehension and understanding come with study and analysis.

I just hope I can get sub 30 at Boulder in September.

 

[AvGalen]

I completely agree that I wouldn't have found that if I was roboticly performing algorithms. Simply because I don't know algorithms for F2L. Actually, I don't even use F2L. (I use keyhole, So the D' L' U L D was also the way I would actually solve that)

 

[Laurentius]

I don't get it. I'm learning algorithms for F2L.. What you guys are saying is that someone who learned intuitive F2L will be better at looking ahead than someone who uses algorithms?

I mean, it can't be impossible to achieve good times using memorized algorithms..

 

[AvGalen]

Algorithms require learning them and practising them, but they require less thinking

Intuitive requires learning a few basic tricks and allows you to take advantage of empty slots more. That does require more thinking.

In the end it won't matter much. People that learned algs will add tricks for empty slots.
People that learned intuitive will have performed moves so often they have practically become algs.

And F2L algs are easy to learn because you can understand what is going on.

I do think that intuitive F2L (not simply Fridrich cross+pairs) is more fun and better for Fewest Moves. I think one of the reasons I am so good at FMC is because I just analyze the puzzle and do what seems logical (not necessarily fast)

 

[somerandomkidmike]

My F2L is only intuitive (i don't use fridrich anymore). Even the nastier cases can be figured out really easy for the F2L.

 

[PCwizCube]

I don't get it. I'm learning algorithms for F2L.. What you guys are saying is that someone who learned intuitive F2L will be better at looking ahead than someone who uses algorithms?

I mean, it can't be impossible to achieve good times using memorized algorithms..

Do you want to learn 41 F2L algorithms?
Or do you want to learn something that you can fully understand in an hour?

You choose

The F2L algorithms are for specific cases. Well in Fridrich F2L, most of the time, those cases don't come up.

Intuitive F2L requires you to use your brain a lot more in the solve. You will understand how things work, and you will do the "F2L algorithms" without even knowing it. No algorithms needed to memorized, because they are completely unnecessary.

In Fridrich F2L, you have to understand how the pieces move and where they go and how this and that works. Memorizing 41 algorithms will not teach you that (unless you look into the algorithms which is still not as good as intuitive F2L)