# [Help Thread]F2L Intuitive vs. Algorithm Solving

## How did you learn your F2L? Intuitively or with Algs?

• ### Algorithmic

• Total voters
420

#### michaelcmelton

##### Member
I would just like to point out, I learned intuitive F2L tonight, and although my lookahead needs vast improvement, my times initially skyrocketed, but within 20 -25 solves I was about 10 to 20 seconds off of my average solve time.

#### mabulrub

##### Member
For you, maybe that's the case. But for me, it did cost too much time and effort, and was not overblown.
That's probably the best way I've ever seen the comparison stated.
Nicely put. Good advice, Makes Logic.

#### jamessorsona

##### Member
Learning F2L intuitively is a lot, you'll get a better understanding of the cube

#### supercube

##### Member
I remember when I first started cubing with the beginner method it was hard for me to memorize the second layer edge alg URUR'U'F'U'F. now that I use intuitive F2L there are maybe 4 algs but they are all 3 or 4 moves each.

this case is sexy move either way. U'F'UF or FR'F'R

this is the ideal case always F'U'F

this is sexy move RUR'U' to make the pair followed by

this case is sexy move either way. U'F'UF or FR'F'R

some people call FR'F'R the sledge hammer but if you put them in a repeating sequence it will always contain sexy move FR'F'R-FR'F'R-FR'F'R = F-R'F'RF-R'F'RF-R'F'R

#### Attachments

• 580 bytes Views: 140
• 584 bytes Views: 140
• 580 bytes Views: 140

#### Dereck

##### Member
One answer, for faster f2l, algs or intuitive

I am learning f2l, and I have learned all the f2l algorithms. As I now watch f2l and cfop tutorials and help videos, all of them revolve around using f2l intuitivly. Is intuitive solving better than using algorithms (Better in the sense of faster solving)? Please help, thanks.

#### babucubes

##### Member
Intuitive is easier to me but algs can be faster

##### Member
I am learning f2l, and I have learned all the f2l algorithms. As I now watch f2l and cfop tutorials and help videos, all of them revolve around using f2l intuitivly. Is intuitive solving better than using algorithms (Better in the sense of faster solving)? Please help, thanks.
Personally, I think it is better to use intuitive F2L as it is hardly any (if at all) slower and it helps to improve your intuition and knowledge of the cube. However, it is worth creating algs for the cases that you really dislike or are slowest at so you might want to look into that but I would still advise not going too heavy on the alg front.

Also, you may now also want to look into Xcross as this may also help improve your solving and knowledge of the cube.

Lastly, (if you have- I'm assuming you are learning CFOP- learned full OLL and PLL) you may want to consider looking at other methods to see how some of the concepts they use could be transfered int your CFOP style (for example, Petrus and Roux could help you with the Xcross by block building and ZB or ZZ could help you with your set up to LL (such as through phasing or LS techniques) as well as giving you alternative LL methods.

Hope this helps!

#### joshsailscga

##### Member
I am learning f2l, and I have learned all the f2l algorithms. As I now watch f2l and cfop tutorials and help videos, all of them revolve around using f2l intuitivly. Is intuitive solving better than using algorithms (Better in the sense of faster solving)? Please help, thanks.
This reminds me of something I saw in a video, I think it was either Chris (Olson) or Collin. He said intuition will gradually become algorithmic, and algorithms will become intuition. Meaning, if you do use intuitive f2l, each individual case (as there are a finite number, hence the possibility for algs) will eventually become part of your muscle memory, and you will just know what case you have and do it, much like a last layer alg. Also, if you use algorithms, you begin to understand much better how each alg works and what pieces it moves, and will gradually begin to find better ways to perform those cases. I think intuitive is definitely necessary to get to anyone's definition of fast, as you need to be able to understand what is happening on the cube at that stage.

#### jackrosie03

##### Member
Algorithm F2L?

I have spent two months learning intuitive F2L, and I have been reducing my times dramatically. When I began learning OLL and PLL, I noticed that there was also algorithm F2L. I have heard mixed feelings about it, some saying "it slows down your solves" or "you can just solve cases instead of having to break them up using empty slots". I am deciding whether to learn the 41 cases, stick to intuitive, or learn the cases that come up most in my solves. Please tell me your opinion.

#### ender9994

##### Member
Here is a good link for all 41 cases

http://www.kungfoomanchu.com/guides/andy-klise-3x3x3-speedcubing-guide-v4.pdf

If you take a look at them, you will notice that a lot of cases are relatively simple, you already know a quick algorithm for, or that are not quite as fast as what you are currently using. I would just do a lot of solves, and make note of every case which seems to take longer than average, and learn those.

Doug

##### Member
I think that you might as well learn algs for the awkward, inefficient cases you might have but I think that in general you will naturally "learn" most of these cases anyway. In addition, I am a strong believer in increasing knowledge of the cube to help solving so I am naturally in favour of doing anything intuitively if you can with about the same efficiency as with alg based. On the other hand, I do use roux as my main method which is pretty much all intuitive (discounting CMLL) so a CFOP user who prefers to spam algs and tps may tell you something completely different.

TL;DR, learn algs for awkward cases if you want but IMO it's not essential.

#### NeilH

##### Member
I think that you might as well learn algs for the awkward, inefficient cases you might have but I think that in general you will naturally "learn" most of these cases anyway. In addition, I am a strong believer in increasing knowledge of the cube to help solving so I am naturally in favour of doing anything intuitively if you can with about the same efficiency as with alg based. On the other hand, I do use roux as my main method which is pretty much all intuitive (discounting CMLL) so a CFOP user who prefers to spam algs and tps may tell you something completely different.

TL;DR, learn algs for awkward cases if you want but IMO it's not essential.
i agree, learn cases that are hard/awkward/slow, and/or ones that take more than 8 moves.

(there are exceptions to the last rule like (RUR'U')(RUR'U')(RUR'U'))

Also, watch cyotheking's advanced f2l videos and watch collin burns' youtube channel, both have great f2l tips

#### Aaron Lau

##### Member
i agree, learn cases that are hard/awkward/slow, and/or ones that take more than 8 moves.

(there are exceptions to the last rule like (RUR'U')(RUR'U')(RUR'U'))

Also, watch cyotheking's advanced f2l videos and watch collin burns' youtube channel, both have great f2l tips
I agree, they have great vids on easy f2l cases that are annoying to insert intuitively.

#### Tanish

##### Member
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.
Even I had this problem when trying to learn F2L. I felt that algorithmic would be faster and much better but as most were suggesting to learn F2L intuitively, I went with that. And now I feel that intuitive is much better- you can solve cases really quickly, it would be easier to use advanced F2L techniques, you can execute the cases from any side easily, you can understand how the cube works (seems stupid at first but after learning F2L intuitively you'll understand).

After you do F2L intuitively, you can learn some important algorithms ( no need to learn all).

#### Kudz

##### Member
>Learn intuitive
>Learn algorthmic
>Master both
>Learn even more algs

#### Nithin steven

##### Member
My approach is "think institutively after learning the algs"

I said it for some reason:
1.It helps you at looking ahead
2.even though you are looking ahead , it improves your solving time for each case

Although, its impractical to learn all the algs for each and every f2l cases(not only 41) including the aspect like insertion from different angle

But l highly reccomend to learn the 41 algs , b'cause if you got a good condition , then you can do y or y' and execute every cases easier and faster ( but i still suggest to reduce y2 )

Here are some of my ideas to learn algs in a good manner

1.Learn all the algs by understanding the logic behind it.,
2.Practice it using fingertricks ,
3.practice untill you are able to do it blindfold

At this stage , work on looking ahead , it would't be harder ,
so here is my final thought:

" Learn algorithms institutively "

#### Sion

##### Member
In LBL, I learned f2l intuitively, and it has got me a 45 Second average.

CFOP though, me trying to solve cfop f2l is sort of like telling me to cut far past 45 on a dollar store cube. I can do f2l, but not with the cross, wich is another reason why I use columns methods.

#### RennuR

##### Member
Hello Everyone! This is my first post on these forums. So I have been getting into cubing a lot lately, and I am now SUPER worried! I have been using algorithimic F2l from the packet that came with my speedcube, and I have been reading that learning f2l intuitively is FAR BETTER for your understanding of the cube. I have learned almost all of the F2l algorithms, and have been doing them over and over again... is it possible for me to learn f2l intuitively now? I am super worried because now I feel like my cubing times will be slow . Learning intuitively seems to be better because you get a better sense of the cube, and can learn look ahead and all that stuff, can I still learn it that way after I know about 30 of the f2l algorithms????

#### turtwig

##### Member
If you use intuitive F2L you can still solve all the cases you already know with an alg.