How to Solve a Rubik's Cube Faster - Advanced F2L Techniques

[puzzlemaster]

I do agree for the most part with what people said. If I have "Advanced" F2L Techniques, then it may imply that these are not simple tricks/tips which can help beginners of F2L solve the corners and middle edges.

I have changed the title of the Video itself to "How to Solve a Rubik's Cube Faster - Introduction to F2L"

Being that F2L in general is advanced over regular corner, then edge method, LBL, etc. I thought it would sound nice. But yes, as Sarah said, it may be misleading for viewers who are new to F2L and think they may be watching a tutorial on Advanced Techniques for F2L.

Thanks for the comments.

-Rob

There's an edit button to edit your post so that you don't double post. Please do so from now on as many people will start to get aggravated.

EDIT:

>>Advanced F2l Techniques.

Thats not advanced at all.
Thats barely intermediate f2l.

Advanced is ZB.

Not really, advanced f2l is like...let's say, partial edge control, use of empty slots, multi-slotting, thing like that. The point is, it's worded wrong.

Use of empty slots is advanced for you? Partial edge control is advanced for you? isn't that simply common sense? I agree with cubes=life...ZB is advanced.

I know, right? These guys disagree with me.

Obviously you didn't understand what i said. Let me rephrase...I agree with cubes=life and disagree with you.

I just happen to have remembered this: http://badmephisto.dyndns.org/site/f2l.php

As you get faster...that becomes common sense...intuitive F2L uses empty slots. Yes multislotting is difficult but isn't too bad. However it is easier as you get faster. ZB isn't intuitive... it isn't easy as you get better... it requires a lot of commitment and patience. It requires a lot of work. It is for that reason that I agree with Chris and say that that is very very advanced. Multislotting can be considered advanced however it isn't too bad. Use of empty slots, stuck pieces, etc. I wouldn't really consider that advanced unless you use a beginners method.

 

[piemaster]

So you disagree with badmephisto?

 

[puzzlemaster]

So you disagree with badmephisto?

I'm free to disagree with whoever I want. You're making it sound as if badmephisto's the authority on everything. Some things that he says are advanced aren't very advanced in my opinion.

 

[4Chan]

Lets graph this out.

Lbl < beginners fridrich < Intermediate fridrich with Partial Edge Control, Empty Slots, and whatever. << Multislotting, and more LL control (winter variation, F2LL, MGLS) <<< ZBF2l.

You can learn whatever you said in a few months.
You cant do that with ZB.

People who average sub 20, can do what you said easily.
From their perspective its not that advanced in the least.

ZB is very advanced, because of the time and effort.
You simply cant learn it in a short amount of time, like those other things.


EDIT: From a noob's perspective, i guess that simple things people take for granted are "advanced"

 

[badmephisto]

So you disagree with badmephisto?

I'm free to disagree with whoever I want. You're making it sound as if badmephisto's the authority on everything. Some things that he says are advanced aren't very advanced in my opinion.

There is no definition anyone can give of what "advanced f2l" is. We agree roughly, but not precisely, and that is of course to be expected. I referred to "advanced f2l" as every f2l concept that I did not explore in my introductory f2l video. That is my specific definition of "advanced", and I think it roughly approximates the consensus.


As for the video, it is ok overall, and you chose an interesting structure to it, but I think you could do much better. For example, why are there abrupt cuts in so many places in the video, where you almost cut out your last few words in the sentence? Like in 6:35, 12:40, 15:35 to mention a few instances. Were you trying to conserve time? Some of it could probably have been taken from the long introduction, where you basically reteach a whole step of the beginners method, until somewhere around 4:25. I think cutting over it so quickly and continuing on along a completely different train of thought is distracting. There is no time for the viewer to process the cut a little as a whole, and reflect on exactly what it said, and how it fit into the big picture.

Also, I found the text included in the video very distracting. You are explaining something important, and I dont know if I should pay attention to that, or if I should quickly read the text, since it could disappear forever at any moment.

I liked the summary at the very end. it was a good idea, but it was waaay too fast. People just learned the concepts, and you are breezing through it at full speed. (at 15:45+) I doubt any person new to the method could follow any of that. (or at least I hope thats the case, because even I had to rewind once around that mark)

Lastly, you completely ignored all the mirror cases. Its not really well defined what mirror case is. Mirror where? How? You could have shown at least a single example. I dont think it was clear as to what you meant there.

The tutorial, in short, to me, felt pretty rushed in tone, as if you were trying to conserve time for some reason. And thats ok since people like shorter videos, but I question whether you chose to cut off/rush the appropriate parts.


I hope you can take this (what I hope you will judge as *constructive crticism*), and see it instead as a compliment, because I really do think that you can do much better.

 

[ChrisBird]

Jeez, everyone in here except Rob and BadMephisto are arguing over the wording of a title. Loosen your ties.

For beginners (as Rob said) this is very advanced, and to them it should be treated as such, as it is a HUGE step up from simple edge piece insertion.

Where you stand greatly affects your opinion on what words should be used.
For a beginner, his tutorial is advanced.
For Rowe Hessler, there isn't much that is advanced anymore. And everything in between. Just because his title does not work for where you stand does not mean it does not work.

His video, as explained clearly in his channel and video is directed at BEGINNERS using the basic LBL solution.

If it was aimed at people who averaged 20 seconds, I would agree, this isn't advanced, but to his audience, it is very advanced.

Loosen your ties people, it is just a word.

 

[Zaxef]

Is no one else curious what Rob's 3x3 times are like?

 

[skarian]

well, personally (no offence to rob in anyway) i think rob is an intermediate 3x3 cuber. his pb is 26.xx sec. where i avg that. But he seems alot better than me at every other cube. But imo rob isnt an advanced 3x3 cuber, but neither am I

 

[waffle=ijm]

Is no one else curious what Rob's 3x3 times are like?

I am too.

 

[brunson]

I'll bet Michael Phelps' coach can't swim as fast as Michael can.

 

[Robert-Y]

I'll bet Michael Phelps' coach can't swim as fast as Michael can.

But that situation is kinda different?...

Hmm could a... let's say sub-20er coach another cuber to become a sub-12er?

 

[RobH0629]

Hey meph,

Glad that you were able to watch my video and give it some of your critical eye and analysis. Shall I take this to be a free assessment of my new tutorial? J/k I think you make some very good points and I agree with you for the most part, and I am sure you can understand why some things were a tad "rushed" or not completely explained. I was moving to dental school and I had other things going on, but I did try to give it my all and be specific.

The "abrupt cuts" are due to my lack of experience with my new Macbook Pro and using the Mpeg streamclip to convert .mpg videos to .dv For some reason the very end of many clips were automatically removed by a few milliseconds or more.

I did want this to be a brief overview of the beginner method, but for some reason I found it necessary to explain the importance of some beginner techniques and placed 4 corners down. I guess I could have kept some areas shorter. But the overview was not meant to reteach viewers, and I probably should have just explained what happens when a corner brings down an edge (the end part).

As for the text, it is meant to be a backup for the moves and to just point out some key concepts. I figure people ask many questions anyway, so why not be able to refer to some important key point which I brought up in a subtitle. I guess I overdid it, not like in my beginner method tutorials =D I used a piece of paper for algorithms, etc.

The "summary" at the end was just that, a summary. It was not meant to really provide more information than what I had taught in the tutorial. I wanted to just show what the moves look like when performed at a solving speed. I know that I left out the mirror cases, but I did kind of say that all of my moves were involving the right side, and it may be opposite, as in the corner is then on the left. The viewer should then hopefully understand what sides the reflection has taken place on.

Just a little explanation about why I chose some of the things I did, but yes, I definitely understand what you mean in each point. You are good teacher yourself. Maybe I will give you some of my constructive criticism on your new Rubik's Tutorial, which I found very well made Thanks for the comments, I appreciate them.

 

[brunson]

I'll bet Michael Phelps' coach can't swim as fast as Michael can.

But that situation is kinda different?...

Hmm could a... let's say sub-20er coach another cuber to become a sub-12er?

That was my point, I guess you're the only one that gets subtlety.

I definitely think someone can coach a faster cuber to get better. If not, it means that there is no way for anyone to teach the world record holder anything. I'm pretty sure Usain Bolt has a coach who watches the way he starts and runs and can critique him to be better. I doubt his coach can run a 9.6s 100m dash.

 

[rubiknewbie]

It's true knowing and doing are different things and different skills.

Some people know the right techniques and can spot weaknesses quickly, but don't execute as well. Like Simon Cowell.

Some people can do it well by instinct but know nuts why they do it well. Therefore they cannot teach.