[Help Thread] F2L Intuitive vs. Algorithm Solving

[Rocky0701]

First, just play around with intuitive F2L, then look at algorithms but don't really learn them as algorithms, do an algorithm and see the pieces move around and understand how the algorithm works, then you will be able to remember them much easier, and do the mirror of them too. Only do this for cases which you can't figure out how to do intuitively, or cases that it takes you many moves to do.

 

[LukiHootie]

Hey guys, Im pretty new to the forums, this is my first post :3

Anyway, today I learnt full pll and a I am wondering about f2l. I already know f2l but I only know the algorithms, so all 53 of them. I was wondering if it is better to know intuitive f2l or algorithm f2l as if I want to be able to get sub 20's I will need to keep one side facing me for the majority of the solve.

In case you lost me throughout that, is intuitive f2l better than algorithm-based f2l?

Is intuitive f2l faster than algorithmic f2l?

 

[TheOneOnTheLeft]

Is intuitive f2l faster than algorithmic f2l?

They should eventually be the same speed, but intuitive will improve your understanding of how pieces move. There's a whole thread about it if you search, but the consensus is that you should learn it intuitively.

 

[Imago]

intuitive is way better because as you go along you can do

corner - edge control
multislotting
multi pairing
and last last slot control more like setting up the oll while doing the last pair and last insert
it will take time to get used too and make fast

 

[GlowingSausage]

intuitive - you get to know the cube and the method waaaaayyyyyyyyyy better and it's a lot easier than it sounds. while your doing untimmed solves try inserting the same f2l pair in different ways to see which solution is the fastest/most finger-trick-friendly/most efficient.
and it's a lot more fun
hope this helps & have fun

 

[brian724080]

Just a quick question, please dont move this.

Is intuitive f2l faster than algorithmic f2l?

Theoretically, they're the same thing, but the algs that come with CFOP assume that all pieces are solved and there is only one pair left. As TheOneOnTheLeft said, they should eventually be the same speed, but I too, will recommend doing it intuitive to improve your understanding of the pieces.

 

[Christmas]

For me (and probably many others), if you pursue intuitive f2l you will start to create algorithms and intuitively execute them anyway. Intuitive just offers more flexibility in the sense you can discover what algorithms fit you and play around with it more.

 

[GuRoux]

do it intuitively because that help develop your understanding in block building. Then, your transition over to F2B will be easy.

 

[Jont828]

I did a bit of both due to lack of time and patience. I skimmed the algorithm sheets and looked at a one or two of each "class" from Badmephisto's Cubing Website to see the approach. After that, I just sorta figured out the rest of them and the actual algorithms/moves just fell into place after I figured out how to solve a certain pair. I ended up finishing F2L in about 2 days, so if you're pressed for time, you can learn F2L without having to painstakingly memorize 40ish algorithms and still gain the knowledge from learning it intuitively.

 

[pinser]

I learned F2L the algorithmic way, and I recommend intuitively.
Most of the algs are intuitive, so try looking at the algs to get an idea. The few tough cases might need algs.

Or, switch to Roux/ZZ F2L is easier.

 

[GuRoux]

I learned all of F2B intuitively. I think this way, it also trains your mind to understand how pieces are moving, track other pieces, and better yourself in lookahead.

 

[DavidCip86]

When I learned f2l, I learned it algorithmically cause I didn't know you could do it intuitively lol. I do it intuitively now though.

 

[mDiPalma]

I learned it algorithmically, and I'm proud.

Algorithms and intuition get you to the same place. It's just that algorithms get you there faster!

Algs are cheat codes. Use them! :tu

 

[kcl]

I learned it algorithmically, and I'm proud.

Algorithms and intuition get you to the same place. It's just that algorithms get you there faster!

Algs are cheat codes. Use them! :tu

I disagree with this. In my opinion, if I had learned algorithmic f2l from the start I believe I would have had a lot more trouble tracing pieces for cross and the pairs. I wouldn't say algs get you to the same place faster. Although I believe this varies from person to person, I have a firm belief that f2l recognition as a beginner just takes too long. It's so much better to learn it yourself (which gives essentially the same alg), and let it become an alg later. This is just my stance, but I see what you're trying to say.

 

[guysensei1]

Actually, why not just learn the alg by looking at how the pieces move? Most of the F2L algorithms provided are very intuitive.

 

[mark49152]

Actually, why not just learn the alg by looking at how the pieces move? Most of the F2L algorithms provided are very intuitive.

Yes exactly. People talk about algorithmic versus intuitive as if it's black and white, but it's not. You can apply a mixture of the approaches. In practice, you need to learn recognition and move sequences for each case, and the way the move sequences affect the F2L pieces is pretty obvious. Sometimes you'll figure them out for yourself, sometimes you'll get a neat trick from somewhere else. I would guess that most cubers' F2L repertoires are made up of a mixture like this.

 

[MadaraMangekyou]

I, when I started trying learning CFOP, tried to learn the Algs,I wasn't too good at that so I learned intuitive F2L, then i did better times, and even i could create some 'bad algs', but for me, that was the way to solve some awkward cases... the point is, that when i got better, i realize that the only thing that really ruined my times, was F2L(my cross + 4 F2L last most of the times, more than 20 seconds), I mean, algs with no triggers, mirror algs that didn't fit my style at cubing well (i have a great Right hand, at executing, and a great Left hand, holding the cube but not vice versa), so i'm now learning the algs, and most of them uses triggers and are fast, my final thought is that is good to start with intuitive F2L for 2 reasons: 1) you develop better your look ahead, and your understanding of the cube 2) allow you to progress faster and that means, to reach sooner the point where you can make a difference with the knowledge of an alg, because if you start with the algs, and you have a bad look ahead, ¿what is the point of to know a good alg which save time if you lost that time rotating the cube for to look for the other F2L case? and even more¿ will you practice more if you see for a long time no progress at all? , psychology plays a role in here...

 

[Tom606060]

Intuitive F2L is the way to go because it helps you get a good knowledge of the cube. If you just do random algorithms you wouldn't now why they work and what pieces are switched.etc. If you went intuitive, you could apply these concepts and find easier ways to solve cases. Also intuitive gives you better look ahead.

However, learning a few difficult case algorithms might help.

 

[jamestjv80]

'F2L', Do you memorize alg or understand principle?

Searching in youtube and forum, I found that most of people learn F2l with no algorithms. Also count whole CFOP algs as Oll + Pll.
However in Korea, we arrange the F2l about 45 cases (including mirror) and memorize them.
So we count CFOP algs total 117(not sure but may be).


How about you?[emoji54]

 

[cmhardw]

Searching in youtube and forum, I found that most of people learn F2l with no algorithms. Also count whole CFOP algs as Oll + Pll.
However in Korea, we arrange the F2l about 45 cases (including mirror) and memorize them.
So we count CFOP algs total 117(not sure but may be).


How about you?[emoji54]

I learned F2L algorithmically from Jessica Fridrich's website when I first learned. After a while you begin to understand how those algorithms work and you start discovering new ways to solve cases too. Not many people learn this way anymore, but I don't see anything wrong in it. I don't think it really matters how you learn F2L as you will eventually develop an understanding for how you are solving each case. After that you can invent/discover new ways to solve the cases too.