I've been cubing for a few days, and have gotten my beginner's method solves to sub-1:30 with relative ease. In the effort to further improve my times, I researched speedcubing methods and decided to pursue Fridrich for the time being.

When doing the beginner method and solving the bottom-layer corners, I noticed the base F2L pair cases (such as the R U R' or F' U' F) appearing and started tracking pieces across algorithms. After very minor research, I began trying some F2L methods intuitively--I was warned that my times would, at first, increase (which they did), but the sheer number of moves seems to make the entire procedure useless to me at this point. Given how popular this method is, I'm obviously just a victim of the fact that I've attempted this on maybe 10 solves; i.e., a victim of a lack of experience, which is to be expected.

My question is this: I've seen that there seems to be a general stigma against learning F2L via algorithms in favor of solving it intuitively. While I understand the desire to engage the mind somewhat to add some intellect to what can quickly become mindless recital of algorithms, I truly think that learning the 40-odd algorithms will end up giving me a very intuitive sense of what is going on anyway.

I haven't gotten to the point where I've memorized even 2-look LL algorithms, so despite claims that this question might be premature, I'd appreciate a detailed answer as to why people prefer intuitive F2L over algorithmic-based solving.

I guess I can start this off by throwing a bone towards algorithmic F2L: (1) it

As a sidebar, I have to express how awesome this community is. As a programmer, I've been a part of a few small forum/communities such as this one, and they've all been worthwhile time-sucks--I imagine this is going to be much the same!

Thanks.

When doing the beginner method and solving the bottom-layer corners, I noticed the base F2L pair cases (such as the R U R' or F' U' F) appearing and started tracking pieces across algorithms. After very minor research, I began trying some F2L methods intuitively--I was warned that my times would, at first, increase (which they did), but the sheer number of moves seems to make the entire procedure useless to me at this point. Given how popular this method is, I'm obviously just a victim of the fact that I've attempted this on maybe 10 solves; i.e., a victim of a lack of experience, which is to be expected.

My question is this: I've seen that there seems to be a general stigma against learning F2L via algorithms in favor of solving it intuitively. While I understand the desire to engage the mind somewhat to add some intellect to what can quickly become mindless recital of algorithms, I truly think that learning the 40-odd algorithms will end up giving me a very intuitive sense of what is going on anyway.

I haven't gotten to the point where I've memorized even 2-look LL algorithms, so despite claims that this question might be premature, I'd appreciate a detailed answer as to why people prefer intuitive F2L over algorithmic-based solving.

I guess I can start this off by throwing a bone towards algorithmic F2L: (1) it

*has*to be far fewer moves overall, (2) given that you're not thinking about tracking pairs all over the cube, looking ahead would then presumably be easier, (3) I imagine I'd see an increase in speed much earlier, and (4) I would argue that you land up "understanding" the cube to the same degree as you would by intuitively figuring F2L out.As a sidebar, I have to express how awesome this community is. As a programmer, I've been a part of a few small forum/communities such as this one, and they've all been worthwhile time-sucks--I imagine this is going to be much the same!

Thanks.

**Edit**: I should add--if it wasn't obvious--that the memorization isn't really a big issue for me, and yes, I'll be doing*at least*2-look LL before attempting this.
Last edited: Feb 6, 2009