- Nov 9, 2014
Could anybody please list some good sources for algs and/or intuitive f2l stuff
This is not true. If you learn how to F/B and L/R mirror your algs, a single algorithm will help you with many cases.The reason I don't like learning algs, is because you have to always solve it that specific way for a specific case. You can't just solve it if it's facing a side that you don't know the alg to. So, you have to turn the cube to face the direction that you know how to do the alg. To solve this, you would have to learn 4 algs for 1 single case (1 for each side, so you don't have to rotate the cube), but then you're literally quadrupaling how many algs you'll have to memorize.
What are you talking about? I learned that exact solution intuitively.This is not true. If you learn how to F/B and L/R mirror your algs, a single algorithm will help you with many cases.
Take R U2 R' U' R U R' for example. Way better than an intuitive solution, and I'm sure you can easily (and dare I say, intuitively) figure out how to execute that algorithm from all angles. In this sense, you only had to learn 1 algorithm and that helped you solve 4 cases. 8 if you add a y/y'.
All of the 2Gen F2L solutions are easily mirrorable like this. And it's my view that being able to mirror your algs is a skill of a more well-rounded cuber.
This is exactly it.That solution was 100% intuitive to me, although perhaps not to you. Intuitive or algorithmic doesn't describe the solution, it describes how you learned it.
Very well. Still... when I learned an algorithm it was usually pretty easy to figure out the mirrors. So his assessment that it costs so much time and effort is still overblown. That's a misunderstanding of what the algorithmic approach offers, is all I was trying to get at.That solution was 100% intuitive to me, although perhaps not to you. Intuitive or algorithmic doesn't describe the solution, it describes how you learned it.
I thought the intuitive solution was U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U R U' R'. So maybe that was a bad example. Felix also highlighted this case in a video, contrasting alg v intuition with these two algs... so I thought that's most people approached it intuitively.What are you talking about? I learned that exact solution intuitively.
So no, learning algs would not have helped me for that.
Intuitive versus algorithmic is portrayed too much as black and white, in my opinion.Very well. Still... when I learned an algorithm it was usually pretty easy to figure out the mirrors. So his assessment that it costs so much time and effort is still overblown. That's a misunderstanding of what the algorithmic approach offers, is all I was trying to get at.
That's probably the best way I've ever seen the comparison stated.Intuitive versus algorithmic is portrayed too much as black and white, in my opinion.
Yes it's useful to learn algs for some cases, but it's certainly beneficial to do so as part of a primarily intuitive approach where you study the solution and understand how it works. Taking your example, ultimately it doesn't matter whether you learned it as an alg or figured it out. As long as you understand how it works, it's easy to mirror, and easy to adapt it in other ways such as using FR to set up then inserting to BL, or inserting a d/d' mid way when then edge is bad, or adding a sledgehammer then inserting to BR, etc.
When people say it's bad to learn F2L as algs, I think what they really mean is that it's bad to deny yourself the flexibility that comes from understanding how the solutions work, not that it's bad to discover new solutions via algs.
This. People who learn F2l by algorithms wayyy overused their left brain.Intuitive is definetly better. That's how I learned it, and I got faster so quickly. Practicing you figure out how to do them in short moves. And you get a better sense of self. Its not just memorized. It's what you can actually figure out from knowing your cube.
I have been around 90secs my full life at solving the cube, doing my own crazy noob method for solving, just 6 months ago I started to learn how others and "speed cubers" solve it.Here are my two cents.
I don't buy into this idea that you must learn intuitive F2L first, and then later on learn algorithms for the more complex cases. If the goal of F2L is to be able to execute a situation mindlessly enough as to allow lookahead, then you need for every case you use to be deeply rooted in muscle memory. So if you learn an intuitive alg that is a "bad" alg (high move count, does not utilize the optimal empty slot shortcut, is not 2-gen when a fast one exists, etc.) then you will deeply root this "bad" alg into your muscle memory. Later on, once you discover what will become your best speedcubing alg, you must unlearn your old case and begin the process of committing the new alg to muscle memory. It is very difficult to change your brain's perception of a case from your old alg to a new alg, trust me on this.
Obviously, you'll be slower when starting intuitive F2L. Nobody said you become faster instantly when switching to intuitive.I have been around 90secs my full life at solving the cube, doing my own crazy noob method for solving, just 6 months ago I started to learn how others and "speed cubers" solve it.
EVERYONE told me to learn F2L without algs. And boy do i 100% hate that idea.
At first my cross+F2L was around 2 mins, but i learned "tricks" that i figured out myself, which brought me down to around 35-45secs for cross+F2L.
Sadly, most of my "tricks" that i figured out for myself, are terrible. Using an alg, it would take 9 turns, with my method, i end up doing a single trigger 3 times with a setup move, when instead. I could do a simple set of turns with a trigger. and take off half my time.
Then you're not doing it right. Intuitive F2L doesn't mean doing terrible moves, and then using them forever.Now my poor brain can't quit doing my old terrible habbits...
No.but generally, the algs are the best way to go for speed.
Yeah, don't worry, you are doing it right. Learning 'algs' for the odd awkward-ass case is absolutely fine, and I'd recommend doing that for sure!I realise this is an old thread, but I've just read it and my 2p is this:
I am learning intuitively, but some cases I am way sub-optimal on. For these cases I look at algs. I don't mindlessly learn them, I dissect them and see what goes on in there. Then I try to apply the concepts (not the alg exactly) when I come across that situation the next time.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|F2L - Intuitive or alg based?||Cubing Help & Questions||12|
|Y||Learn F2L intuitively or Memorizing Full Algorithms?||Cubing Help & Questions||24|
|E||Fridrich (CFOP) Method example solves (intuitive F2L+3 algorithms)||Puzzle Video Gallery||0|
|Intuitive F2L or Algorithm based F2L??||Cubing Help & Questions||7|
|The Difference Between Algorithmic and Intuitive F2L||Cubing Help & Questions||19|