Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community! You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

You can do exactly that, but there's a point where improving in that results in such minimal time gain that you should learn a new technique.
Cross + 1 is mainly good for consistency imo, my biggest cause of inconsistency is pairs 1 & 2 after cross.
It doesn't gain much time, maybe a second at most, but it's more of a quality of life thing.

All right, I am back with another query on intuitive F2L vs algorithmic F2L. So here,

What ottozing was implying, as I could tell, was that learning algorithms for F2L can really benefit in F2L lookahead. However, this definitely puts down efficiency which is the strong point intuitive F2L, but is such a compromise worth it in the context of a speedsolve? I would like to seek some opinions on this.

All right, I am back with another query on intuitive F2L vs algorithmic F2L. So here,

What ottozing was implying, as I could tell, was that learning algorithms for F2L can really benefit in F2L lookahead. However, this definitely puts down efficiency which is the strong point intuitive F2L, but is such a compromise worth it in the context of a speedsolve? I would like to seek some opinions on this.

I don't understand.
F2L is intuitive, but it becomes an algorithmic when you can do it without thinking. I don't see the difference between those two, so could you provide me with an example of the same F2L case solved intuitively and algorithmically?
It really depends on what you mean by intuitive F2L, because to me everything about F2L is intuitive.

I don't understand.
F2L is intuitive, but it becomes an algorithmic when you can do it without thinking. I don't see the difference between those two, so could you provide me with an example of the same F2L case solved intuitively and algorithmically?
It really depends on what you mean by intuitive F2L, because to me everything about F2L is intuitive.

I would consider both intuitive and algorithmic, with the difference that the second one is slightly more advanced.
You can easily explain why both work and it wouldn't be hard to come up with them. However, if you're used to one of them in particular to solve that case (enough to make it become muscle memory) wouldn't you consider both of them as algorithms?

That's the problem with differentiating between algorithmic and intuitive (within the contest of useful F2L). When you learn how to solve a case, you always understand how it works, so that when you come across that case In a solve you can just remember the basic idea and solve it (maybe with some esitations at first). Executing that solution more and more times that will become muscle memory and you will treat it as an alg (and still understand it, obviously).

I'd just use the term "advanced" for the efficient solutions, but that doesn't mean that it isn't intuitive.

What exactly do you need help on? Memorization? Fingertricks? You can find algs for all of these on speedcubedb.com, as for memorization, just group the moves into "triggers", so for example, here's Na:
(R U R' U) (R U R' F') (R U R' U') R' F R2 U' R' (U2 R U' R')
The moves in quotations are sets of moves, like "sexy", which is R U R' U'. You can also group stuff like sledgehammer, R' F R F'.
Na could also be memorized as R U R' U [Jb perm] U' R U' R'

Learn full PLL first as it only has 21 algorithms. F2L should be mostly intuitive, so you can figure out how to do it yourself. Experiment and try things around to get to a three move insert (R U R', F' U F) or pairing the two pieces up. Try to figure out the shortest way to get to those three cases. For the cases that you're stuck on/can't figure out a short way to do, look for them here and here.

Tackle OLL last, it's mostly algorithmic, but you can also try some moves for yourself (take out an F2L pair, do something with it, then put it back). Again, you can go on speedcubedb to search the cases. Also some cases are mirrors of each other, so if you don't want to learn the alg you can just do leftie. For example R U R' U R U2 R' becomes L' U' L U' L' U2 L

Learn full PLL first as it only has 21 algorithms. F2L should be mostly intuitive, so you can figure out how to do it yourself. Experiment and try things around to get to a three move insert (R U R', F' U F) or pairing the two pieces up. Try to figure out the shortest way to get to those three cases. For the cases that you're stuck on/can't figure out a short way to do, look for them here and here.

Tackle OLL last, it's mostly algorithmic, but you can also try some moves for yourself (take out an F2L pair, do something with it, then put it back). Again, you can go on speedcubedb to search the cases. Also some cases are mirrors of each other, so if you don't want to learn the alg you can just do leftie. For example R U R' U R U2 R' becomes L' U' L U' L' U2 L

On a separate note: if you can, you should totally go to a competition no matter what you average! Competitions are awesome social events and they can also be a great way to motivate yourself to improve.

On a separate note: if you can, you should totally go to a competition no matter what you average! Competitions are awesome social events and they can also be a great way to motivate yourself to improve.

Hi everyone. I would really like to become sub 15 consistently. I'm sure I could get there on my own but if you wouldn't mind helping, it might help me get there faster. Can somebody please tell me how faster all of my steps should be sub 15 (cross in 2 seconds etc.) So I know what to work on. I average 15/16 at home ( I have got a sub 15 average in competition but at home I am not consistently sub 15.) I know full PLL and about half of OLL. Should I learn full OLL right now? I'm guessing yes which is what I'm doing right now. This is my first post on speedsolving.com, so I'm sorry if I messed something up .