[Help Thread] Lookahead Discussion

[Jukuren]

Excellent! I'm glad your F2L is starting to come together! Have you decided what you're going to do about OLL an PLL yet? One look, two look?

Congrats on sub 30, I remember how satisfying that was!

i ended up with a full PLL and 2L OLL... everyone keeps talking like a full OLL doesnt do much for you till your sub 20. my main focus is F2L for sure tho... then maybe a little BLD

 

[FatBoyXPC]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL. I'd honestly suggest though learning which OLLs that you do the F R U R' U' F' and f R U R' U' f' take you to your hardest OCLL's, because that'll save you a bit of time. I used to advocate learning the 6 "dot case" OLLs until I learned how to force all edges oriented off the RUR' trigger.

 

[qqwref]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL.

You're kidding, right? Once you get down to the 20-25 average range, if you use Fridrich, there is no reason not to learn OLL. It definitely takes less time to just learn the algs than to try to improve that much by practice alone, unless you're the type who does eight hours a day of 3x3 solving.

 

[Jukuren]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL.

You're kidding, right? Once you get down to the 20-25 average range, if you use Fridrich, there is no reason not to learn OLL. It definitely takes less time to just learn the algs than to try to improve that much by practice alone, unless you're the type who does eight hours a day of 3x3 solving.

im not saying i wont ever learn it.... im just saying my two look is pretty decent... as freakin whole lot of algs to not only learn but be able to recognize quickly... that sounds like a whole lot of time and work to knock off what? 2 sec... 4 sec? just saying right now... Its my F2L that needs work and polishing... there is a whole lot more to gain from there for now... when im a freakin F2L savant then ill work some more on my LL

 

[dillonbladez]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL.

You're kidding, right? Once you get down to the 20-25 average range, if you use Fridrich, there is no reason not to learn OLL. It definitely takes less time to just learn the algs than to try to improve that much by practice alone, unless you're the type who does eight hours a day of 3x3 solving.

im not saying i wont ever learn it.... im just saying my two look is pretty decent... as freakin whole lot of algs to not only learn but be able to recognize quickly... that sounds like a whole lot of time and work to knock off what? 2 sec... 4 sec? just saying right now... Its my F2L that needs work and polishing... there is a whole lot more to gain from there for now... when im a freakin F2L savant then ill work some more on my LL

er yes, i agree. I avg like 20-ish, but i'm going to wait until 15 to learn full OLL. It just seems more... satisfying... knowing you got like 15 or sub-15 avg without full OLL.

 

[Edward]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL.

You're kidding, right? Once you get down to the 20-25 average range, if you use Fridrich, there is no reason not to learn OLL. It definitely takes less time to just learn the algs than to try to improve that much by practice alone, unless you're the type who does eight hours a day of 3x3 solving.

im not saying i wont ever learn it.... im just saying my two look is pretty decent... as freakin whole lot of algs to not only learn but be able to recognize quickly... that sounds like a whole lot of time and work to knock off what? 2 sec... 4 sec? just saying right now... Its my F2L that needs work and polishing... there is a whole lot more to gain from there for now... when im a freakin F2L savant then ill work some more on my LL

er yes, i agree. I avg like 20-ish, but i'm going to wait until 15 to learn full OLL. It just seems more... satisfying... knowing you got like 15 or sub-15 avg without full OLL.

I average 15 and I don't know full OLL yet.
LEARN FULL OLL EARLY.
You'll might regret not doing so (though, youre F2L will be better than most 15 avgers.).

 

[dillonbladez]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL.

You're kidding, right? Once you get down to the 20-25 average range, if you use Fridrich, there is no reason not to learn OLL. It definitely takes less time to just learn the algs than to try to improve that much by practice alone, unless you're the type who does eight hours a day of 3x3 solving.

im not saying i wont ever learn it.... im just saying my two look is pretty decent... as freakin whole lot of algs to not only learn but be able to recognize quickly... that sounds like a whole lot of time and work to knock off what? 2 sec... 4 sec? just saying right now... Its my F2L that needs work and polishing... there is a whole lot more to gain from there for now... when im a freakin F2L savant then ill work some more on my LL

er yes, i agree. I avg like 20-ish, but i'm going to wait until 15 to learn full OLL. It just seems more... satisfying... knowing you got like 15 or sub-15 avg without full OLL.

I average 15 and I don't know full OLL yet.
LEARN FULL OLL EARLY.
You'll might regret not doing so (though, youre F2L will be better than most 15 avgers.).

exactly my point. Learning algs is probably easier than gaining F2L speed. in the end, uber awesome F2L is gonna get you fast.

 

[Edward]

People aren't joking when they say full OLL saves 2 seconds on average, so you'd probably even be safe waiting til 15 or so before learning full OLL.

You're kidding, right? Once you get down to the 20-25 average range, if you use Fridrich, there is no reason not to learn OLL. It definitely takes less time to just learn the algs than to try to improve that much by practice alone, unless you're the type who does eight hours a day of 3x3 solving.

im not saying i wont ever learn it.... im just saying my two look is pretty decent... as freakin whole lot of algs to not only learn but be able to recognize quickly... that sounds like a whole lot of time and work to knock off what? 2 sec... 4 sec? just saying right now... Its my F2L that needs work and polishing... there is a whole lot more to gain from there for now... when im a freakin F2L savant then ill work some more on my LL

er yes, i agree. I avg like 20-ish, but i'm going to wait until 15 to learn full OLL. It just seems more... satisfying... knowing you got like 15 or sub-15 avg without full OLL.

I average 15 and I don't know full OLL yet.
LEARN FULL OLL EARLY.
You'll might regret not doing so (though, youre F2L will be better than most 15 avgers.).

exactly my point. Learning algs is probably easier than gaining F2L speed. in the end, uber awesome F2L is gonna get you fast.

Ok I guess. Just suggesting something my personal experience. Whatever works for you man.

 

[Samania]

looking ahead is a pain in the butt. but you just gotta do it.

 

[iChanZer0]

Excellent! I'm glad your F2L is starting to come together! Have you decided what you're going to do about OLL an PLL yet? One look, two look?

Congrats on sub 30, I remember how satisfying that was!

i ended up with a full PLL and 2L OLL... everyone keeps talking like a full OLL doesnt do much for you till your sub 20. my main focus is F2L for sure tho... then maybe a little BLD

If you try hard enough you could get sub 30 with intuitive F2l and 2 look Oll and 2 look PLL

 

[iggeman]

F2L and "looking ahead"

This is my first post here! It's great to get to discuss my favorite obsession with others =)

I'm currently averaging at about 33, I did however break the sub 30 barrier last night that I've struggled with for some time.

I admit, my F2L is far away from flawless. And I've understood that "looking ahead" is the recipe for success. But I'm having some problems with it. What exactly am I looking for? Because when I'm pairing up the corners/edges, the other corners and edges are all moving from the positions I've memorized them in. What's most important to look for, and are there any methods that could be useful?
I know, practice practice practice. But I figured it's always good to start a discussion, maybe I'm stuck with a bad habit.

/Iggeman

 

[Edward]

This is my first post on this forum! It's great to get to discuss my favorite obsession with others =)

I'm currently averaging at about 33, I did however break the sub 30 barrier last night that I've struggled with for some time.

I admit, my F2L is far away from flawless. And I've understood that "looking ahead" is the recipe for success. But I'm having some problems with it. What exactly am I looking for? Because when I'm pairing up the corners/edges, the other corners and edges are all moving from the positions I've memorized them in. What's most important to look for, and are there any methods that could be useful?
I know, practice practice practice. But I figured it's always good to start a discussion, maybe I'm stuck with a bad habit.

/Iggeman

Well there's your problem. After you see where they are, you have to watch where they're going too.

 

[ElectricDoodie]

It's called tracking those pieces.

Looking ahead isn't about memorizing where the pieces are, but to track them.

 

[Zarxrax]

Don't try to track too much. Just look for the pieces of the next pair.

 

[Hiero]

At your speed the best thing to do as far as look ahead is to at least find one corner(or edge) piece and track it. You then know at least which edge piece you are looking for after you insert the pair. With most(not all) insertions if there are other pieces in the top layer then they tend to stay there, so look in the top layer for a corner piece. Sometimes you will see its pair in the top layer and if you don't, then learn to eliminate hiding places for the edge while you are solving. It's not hard to see if the edge piece is in the front face, so if it's not in the top layer or the front then it's in one of the two back positions.

I average about 23-25 seconds and can spot the pair I'm going to solve next about 50% of the time and the other 50% I find a corner I'm going to use next and can quickly find the edge after I insert. Your mind and your fingers have to be doing two different things at once. As soon as you spot a pair to insert after the cross, then you have to force yourself not to look at what your fingers are doing anymore, you should just be scanning for your next pair.

The 30-second barrier was the toughest for me because it was so easy to get down to it, but then it's frustrating when you are stuck there for a month or two and don't know if you are ever going to get better or if you are doing something wrong. It's also a matter of your turn speed as I've noticed my turn speed has definitely improved from 35 seconds to 25 and that just takes time.

 

[cmhardw]

Try solving with corner bias and see if it helps.

 

[StachuK1992]

To reiterate Chris:
Try solving with corner bias.
I can't stress how much this helped me when I started actually using it.

 

[Kynit]

What exactly am I looking for?

You're looking for the next corner and edge. When you finish one pair, you should just be able to keep solving; no pauses at all. If you just find one pair, solve, THEN look, you're going to lose time trying to find the next pieces.

 

[teller]

Phillip Espinoza suggested something that really made a huge difference for me: During practice, actually try to plan out two F2L pairs at a time, and then do them both without looking. I found this extremely difficult, often impossible for bad cases, and would sometimes go ahead and keep my eyes open just to see if my "plan" was working out or not. But the effort is what triggers new recognition. You begin to pay attention to what affect your insertions are having on other pieces--in time many of them become much more predictable.

And regarding pair selection: Don't just run away with the first corner or edge you spot; it's often not the best choice. Slow down and go shop around for the best deal that your given F2L has to offer. Solving an easier pair can often improve the condition of a harder one.

Lastly, I started out with corner bias, but now pay more attention to edges. Could just be that I've neglected them for too long, but you can tell from the edge whether or not you will require a cube rotation, while the corner cannot tell you this. So I sometimes will select a better pair on this basis. See Rowan's Edge Orientation Guide for details on this.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Lastly, I started out with corner bias, but now pay more attention to edges. Could just be that I've neglected them for too long, but you can tell from the edge whether or not you will require a cube rotation, while the corner cannot tell you this.

I'm sure that teller knows this, but to make this more clear, this is because corners can be solved without cube rotations.


You guys have posted some good links though. I would like to get my cross + F2L down to sub10 (right now I'm hovering around 12 on average, but get my fair share 8-9s F2L dips), and some of these guys could really help on that. I'll soon start planning my first pair during inspection as well, that's something I plan on starting to practice soon (or at least influence the first pair with the cross, like in Rowan's F2L guide).