Help on F2L

[scotfrog14]

I learned intuitive F2L but i still suck at it, with the beginners method F2L took me maybe 25 seconds but now it more like 45 seconds. Should i learn algorithims for F2L or is there something im not understanding with the concept of F2L?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[DGCubes]

Intuitive F2L takes a long time to get good at. Everyone who starts learning it gets slower at first, but eventually you'll figure out more tricks and more efficient solutions to certain cases. Don't learn algorithmic F2L though; intuitive is much better. Try doing super-slow solves without timing yourself and watching walkthrough solves to figure out how to make more efficient pairs.

 

[Chree]

Algorithms are fine (despite the popular opinion that they're not). But very important: if you look up algs, take the time to understand what they're actually doing. Do them slow and watch where the pieces go, rinse, repeat. The dirty secret about algorithmic F2L is that most of the time they're just intuitive solutions that someone wrote down. Luckily, that means they're pretty easy to understand. Some of them can be a little crazy, but some are also much, much better than doing an intuitive solution.

The dirty secret about intuitive F2L is that they're just algorithms you figure out on the fly. If you just keep doing them, and really take the time to understand them, eventually you'll develop the same sort of muscle memory for specific cases that you do for things like OLL or PLL... except you never had to memorize an alg. So my honest advice for a beginner is to stick with intuitive F2L until you feel more comfortable with it. It's tough, but DG is right... everyone starts slow and you just gotta keep practicing. And when you feel like it, you can start exploring algorithms and see if they're any different or better than what you're already doing. www.algdb.net www.kungfumanchu.com

 

[shadowslice e]

Somewhat useful page