[Help Thread] F2L Intuitive vs. Algorithm Solving

[Sub1Hour]

Also if you are nervous that one is easy to mess up

Also wide moves are trash in general

 

[NevEr_QeyX]

Also wide moves are trash in general

Unless it's for the last slot, is a wide R, and is wednesday and raining during a full moon

 

[Sub1Hour]

Unless it's for the last slot, is a wide R, and is wednesday and raining during a full moon

I only use wide in roux, and its actually very useful in the few roux solves I have done since the M layer does not matter it makes second block just a little faster

 

[Humble Cuber]

This a poll just to see on average how many cubers use intuitive F2L or use Alg based F2l. Personally I have done both at one point, and what I prefer to do is algs on some harder cases and intuitive on other cases that can be performed quickly, what do you guys use?

 

[Cody_Caston]

Intuitive because easier lookahead

 

[Humble Cuber]

Intuitive because easier lookahead

Agreed, some cases are just easier as algs though arent they.

 

[KingCanyon]

Agreed, some cases are just easier as algs though arent they.

Yes, some of the more complex ones are.

 

[Sub1Hour]

I prefer intuitive because case influencing and stuff is really cool.

 

[Micah Morrison]

I pretty much do intuitive, though most cases I solve are like an algorithm to me because they're in my muscle memory and I don't look at them while I'm solving them. Although I use algs for harder cases.

 

[U3cubing]

So I am mentoring my cousin and he is currently trying to learn f2l. He really thrives on algs but suffers on the intuitive side of things. Should I try to keep teaching him intuitive f2l or give him an alg sheet? (He learned some full Oll cases without me even knowing) thanks!

 

[LukasCubes]

hmmmmmmmm

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nzAXYUWZJ6H2wIOXaHdWXep3W57tArbR

this has algs

 

[U3cubing]

I have an alg sheet already. I’m just wondering which method would be better for him in the long run.

 

[LukasCubes]

I have an alg sheet already. I’m just wondering which method would be better for him in the long run.

just give him the alg sheet or tell him to learn a different method

 

[xyzzy]

I have an alg sheet already. I’m just wondering which method would be better for him in the long run.

"Intuitive" versus "algorithmic" is more a matter of how you learn the step, rather than how you do it. Once you've learnt F2L, the process by which it was learnt no longer matters.

That said, there's one major drawback to learning F2L algorithmically right from the start: it's a lot of cases if you include solutions for every slot. It simply doesn't make sense to learn all of it at once. If, say, your cousin starts off learning all the FR-slot solutions and deferring the other-slot solutions for later, he might end up always rotating to have the active F2L slot in FR, which is a super bad habit to form. Another (less serious) issue is that learning the cases individually obscures the relationship between F2L cases, and without an intuitive understanding of the triggers, it can also be harder to proceed to more advanced F2L techniques, e.g. F2L algs that don't preserve other slots.

 

[qwr]

My understanding of F2L is that it's 90% intuitive very similar patterns, but 10% is special cases that it's just worth remembering algs or special techniques (ex. sledge to flip tricky corner) for.

 

[TheJade]

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 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.

It's the same reason why some people wil learn Roux without intent to ever actually use it. Personally, i think intuive F2L helped me with general awareness, and its also good for people who have trouble memorizing all the algs