• 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.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

What should i be aiming for?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MohamadAA

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
32
I am barely sub 20, and I just got this question passing on my mind while solving. What should I be aiming for each day? Should I try to do like a 100 sloves, or go for like a sub 15 solve? Just wondering?
 

Humble Cuber

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2020
Messages
131
Location
Somewhere on Earth
WCA
2020KRUG01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Should I try to do like a 100 sloves, or go for like a sub 15 solve? Just wondering?
Honestly, I just think that instead of doing solves to improve your time, learn new algs, or you can record your solves and see what needs work, also practice your f2l because that is usually what brings people's times down. That helped me get sub 15! As to what you should be aiming for, i recommend just setting a goal that you can reach for that day, like get a sub 18 single or sub 19 ao5, just something that is hard but you can still accomplish!
 

MohamadAA

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
32
Honestly, I just think that instead of doing solves to improve your time, learn new algs, or you can record your solves and see what needs work, also practice your f2l because that is usually what brings people's times down. That helped me get sub 15! As to what you should be aiming for, i recommend just setting a goal that you can reach for that day, like get a sub 18 single or sub 19 ao5, just something that is hard but you can still accomplish!
My f2l is almost the only good part in my solve. I was learning oll but alot of vids say that oll isn't really necessary and that I should focus on lookahead. My avarage sometimes become low 18 on a good day, but normally low 19. I did like 50 solves today and got like 7 sub 18 solves, so that is easy. I feel like my cross is really bad. It's really efficient but I just can't do it fast. Should I post on the solve critique theard?
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
4,248
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
WCA
2020MAHO01
What do you avarage? Cus that's weird
Actually Intuitive F2L is wayyy better. It's alg-less, allows you to learn about the cube, and is faster because it can take advantage of special cases(such as open slots) that aren't considered by the F2L alg lists. Pretty much all the best cubers use Intuitive F2L
 

Cubing5life

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Messages
99
Location
Probably some tennis court
Actually Intuitive F2L is wayyy better. It's alg-less, allows you to learn about the cube, and is faster because it can take advantage of special cases(such as open slots) that aren't considered by the F2L alg lists. Pretty much all the best cubers use Intuitive F2L
If the top Cubers would use intuitive F2L algorithms, how would it be possible that they don‘t pause AT ALL? I am sure that they know how to solve almost EVERY F2L case (including corner wrong slot, etc,etc,etc) fast and efficient! Of course, you could argue about what‘s the difference between “algorithmic“ and “intuitive“ F2L (If you practice your “intuitive“ algs for long enough, you‘ll know them well and be able to execute them fast, but at a certain speed, I think that they‘re simply not efficient enough) , but in my opinion intuitive F2L is definitely NOT knowing how to solve every F2L case very efficient. And I think that you can learn algorithms for F2L and still know how they work. What is your opinion on that interesting topic? As always, this is just MY opinion... any reply’s welcome!
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2020
Messages
1,090
Location
a Pokedex or somewhere near you.
If the top Cubers would use intuitive F2L algorithms, how would it be possible that they don‘t pause AT ALL? I am sure that they know how to solve almost EVERY F2L case (including corner wrong slot, etc,etc,etc) fast and efficient! Of course, you could argue about what‘s the difference between “algorithmic“ and “intuitive“ F2L (If you practice your “intuitive“ algs for long enough, you‘ll know them well and be able to execute them fast, but at a certain speed, I think that they‘re simply not efficient enough) , but in my opinion intuitive F2L is definitely NOT knowing how to solve every F2L case very efficient. And I think that you can learn algorithms for F2L and still know how they work. What is your opinion on that interesting topic? As always, this is just MY opinion... any reply’s welcome!
Well, I think if you are experienced enough with Intuitive F2L, you will definitely know what's the fastest and most efficient algorithm for each F2L case and drill it to your muscle memory enough that they don't pause when they recognize it, and they're efficient enough no matter what speed you are on, yeah you're right, it's not about how to solve every F2L case very efficiently, but they do over time teach you how to solve every F2L case efficiently, while in algorithms, you just mindlessly memorize a sequence of maybe un-intuitive moves. and this is my opinion, sorry if this paragraph doesn't make sense otherwise just ignore this lol
 

Nmile7300

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
722
Location
Arizona
WCA
2019MILE04
YouTube
Visit Channel
Oh boy, some people have a really skewed perception of what algorithmic and intuitive F2L are. Let me try and clear it up for everyone. Alg F2L is where you literally learn an algorithm for all the F2L cases and treat it like an OLL or PLL. You see the case, and you execute the algorithm. Where most people tend to get confused is with intuitive F2L. Some people seem to think that intuitive F2L is the same thing as beginner F2L, where you do some inefficient thing that a beginner can understand. This is incorrect. Proper intuitive F2L is where you do the most efficient solution, the "Algorithm" per say, but you understand it INTUITIVELY. You understand why that solution works and what you are actually doing to the cube, instead of just mindlessly doing an algorithm. This is why most people recommend intuitive over algorithmic F2L, as there are no algs to learn and it gives a better understanding of how F2L actually works without harming efficiency.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,204
Location
Null Island
If the top Cubers would use intuitive F2L algorithms, how would it be possible that they don‘t pause AT ALL?
Lemme tell you about a little thing called look-ahead.
but in my opinion intuitive F2L is definitely NOT knowing how to solve every F2L case very efficient. And I think that you can learn algorithms
Actuality, intuitive is more efficient than algs, because of things like multislotting, psuedoslotting, and many others.
(If you practice your “intuitive“ algs for long enough, you‘ll know them well and be able to execute them fast, but at a certain speed, I think that they‘re simply not efficient enough)
Oh boy, another intuitive alg driller.


Anyway, record your solves, find inefficient parts of your solves, and find a J Perm Video on it.
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,383
Location
*Insert Comical Location or Coordinates"
If the top Cubers would use intuitive F2L algorithms, how would it be possible that they don‘t pause AT ALL? I am sure that they know how to solve almost EVERY F2L case (including corner wrong slot, etc,etc,etc) fast and efficient! Of course, you could argue about what‘s the difference between “algorithmic“ and “intuitive“ F2L (If you practice your “intuitive“ algs for long enough, you‘ll know them well and be able to execute them fast, but at a certain speed, I think that they‘re simply not efficient enough) , but in my opinion intuitive F2L is definitely NOT knowing how to solve every F2L case very efficient. And I think that you can learn algorithms for F2L and still know how they work. What is your opinion on that interesting topic? As always, this is just MY opinion... any reply’s welcome!
I know that a lot of people already touched on this but I find it very frustrating when people immediately say that algorithmic F2L is better. Now, lets look at the last 5 world records. 4.74 - Mats Valk, 4.73 - Feliks Zemdegs, 4.69 - Patrick Ponce, 4.22 - Feliks Zemdegs, 3.47 - Yusheng Du

I would like to point out that all of these cubers use for the most part intuitive F2L, and I know that Feliks and Patrick are encouraging people to learn Intuitive F2l. In fact, Patrick said on the Dlsone Podcast that he has never learned an F2L algorithm in his entire cubing career. Now I will respectfully pick apart your entire post and respectfully tell you in a respectful matter why you are wrong, respectfully.

If the top Cubers would use intuitive F2L algorithms, how would it be possible that they don‘t pause AT ALL?
Because they all have knowledge on how pieces around the cube move and work, so its easy for them to look ahead into a setup to an insert and do it quickly. Also, "would" is the wrong word, if you wanted to be correct you sould have said "do".

I am sure that they know how to solve almost EVERY F2L case (including corner wrong slot, etc,etc,etc) fast and efficient!
They do because they know how the pieces on the cube move. It's not that hard to figure out which moves will do what ahead of time, and doing things like "hiding the corner" is actually the fastest way to do the pair 9/10 times.

Of course, you could argue about what‘s the difference between “algorithmic“ and “intuitive“ F2L (If you practice your “intuitive“ algs for long enough, you‘ll know them well and be able to execute them fast)
The difference between algorithmic and intuitive F2L is actually quite striking, Algorithmic F2L means that you just looked at a spreadsheet at called it a day. Intuitive F2L means that you have spent time playing around with the cube to see which moves orient and permute certain pieces, as well as preserving other pieces during an insert. And you don't have to "know your intuitive algs" at all to do them fast, all you need to know is how to set up into an insert and then execute. You don't need to practice F2L "algs" if you already have fluid turning.

(but at a certain speed, I think that they‘re simply not efficient enough) in my opinion intuitive F2L is definitely NOT knowing how to solve every F2L case very efficient.
This is the part that frustrates me the most. Actually, you're applying your logic backward. F2L algorithms are the best for cubers that don't know how the puzzle works and don't care about lookahead, they just want to put the pair in. Now, the faster you get, the worse F2L algorithms are. Not only is lookahead much harder since you don't know what the rest of the cube is going to look like after your alg is done, but its also very hard to take advantage of empty slots and pre-made pairs. Keeping efficiency in mind, people like Patrick have such good knowledge of the cube, that his F2L pairs are actually, for the most part, more efficient than algs since he is able to take advantage of what the rest of the cube is like. The only time that algs are 100% just as or more efficient is during last slot, and even then you can't use fancy techniques like forcing EO so your solve could be even worse off than by just using intuitive inserts.

And I think that you can learn algorithms for F2L and still know how they work.
Sure, you can, but that takes away the easy part of learning Algs, so why even learn them in the first place? If you are going to learn how the algs work, then just apply them to intuitive cases so you can take advantage of easier cases like an open slot or inserting into the back.


What is your opinion on that interesting topic?
Algorithmic F2L is absolute garbage and only useful in a handful of situations that can be taken care of just as well, if not better, with intuitive solutions

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
 

I'm A Cuber

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
421
I know that a lot of people already touched on this but I find it very frustrating when people immediately say that algorithmic F2L is better. Now, lets look at the last 5 world records. 4.74 - Mats Valk, 4.73 - Feliks Zemdegs, 4.69 - Patrick Ponce, 4.22 - Feliks Zemdegs, 3.47 - Yusheng Du

I would like to point out that all of these cubers use for the most part intuitive F2L, and I know that Feliks and Patrick are encouraging people to learn Intuitive F2l. In fact, Patrick said on the Dlsone Podcast that he has never learned an F2L algorithm in his entire cubing career. Now I will respectfully pick apart your entire post and respectfully tell you in a respectful matter why you are wrong, respectfully.


Because they all have knowledge on how pieces around the cube move and work, so its easy for them to look ahead into a setup to an insert and do it quickly. Also, "would" is the wrong word, if you wanted to be correct you sould have said "do".



They do because they know how the pieces on the cube move. It's not that hard to figure out which moves will do what ahead of time, and doing things like "hiding the corner" is actually the fastest way to do the pair 9/10 times.


The difference between algorithmic and intuitive F2L is actually quite striking, Algorithmic F2L means that you just looked at a spreadsheet at called it a day. Intuitive F2L means that you have spent time playing around with the cube to see which moves orient and permute certain pieces, as well as preserving other pieces during an insert. And you don't have to "know your intuitive algs" at all to do them fast, all you need to know is how to set up into an insert and then execute. You don't need to practice F2L "algs" if you already have fluid turning.


This is the part that frustrates me the most. Actually, you're applying your logic backward. F2L algorithms are the best for cubers that don't know how the puzzle works and don't care about lookahead, they just want to put the pair in. Now, the faster you get, the worse F2L algorithms are. Not only is lookahead much harder since you don't know what the rest of the cube is going to look like after your alg is done, but its also very hard to take advantage of empty slots and pre-made pairs. Keeping efficiency in mind, people like Patrick have such good knowledge of the cube, that his F2L pairs are actually, for the most part, more efficient than algs since he is able to take advantage of what the rest of the cube is like. The only time that algs are 100% just as or more efficient is during last slot, and even then you can't use fancy techniques like forcing EO so your solve could be even worse off than by just using intuitive inserts.


Sure, you can, but that takes away the easy part of learning Algs, so why even learn them in the first place? If you are going to learn how the algs work, then just apply them to intuitive cases so you can take advantage of easier cases like an open slot or inserting into the back.



Algorithmic F2L is absolute garbage and only useful in a handful of situations that can be taken care of just as well, if not better, with intuitive solutions

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
You bad at gwamma
Its actuawy shud
at called it a day
take Owt thee at and make it a ant
Bonus correction:
you don't know what the rest of the cube is going to look like after your alg is done
Go look at your post in the event debate thread about why squan is good and then take a look at this sentence again
Tank yu for coming to my ted tawk
 

Sub1Hour

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
1,383
Location
*Insert Comical Location or Coordinates"
Go look at your post in the method debate thread about why squan is good and then take a look at this sentence again
Tank yu for coming to my ted tawk
Well, if you actually tried to read that post I said that you wouldn't do that for 3x3, in fact aside from BLD and Square-1 you wouldn't know what the algs do for pretty much any other event aside from some CP prediction, and even then, that's not F2L. Also, ill go ahead and post the paragraph after that one to give context, since you clearly didn't read it.
Sure, you can (learn what the algorithms do to the rest of the cube), but that takes away the easy part of learning Algs, so why even learn them in the first place? If you are going to learn how the algs work, then just apply them to intuitive cases so you can take advantage of easier cases like an open slot or inserting into the back.
Next time try and make a somewhat convincing argument instead of making fun of 2 grammatical errors, then making a post that disregarded the rest of my argument ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top