JTW2007
BattsMan
I already use empty slots and Fridrich F2L, so it looks like a tie between multislotting, MGLS, and better lookahead paired with Fridrich.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How could that possibly be true? You don't look ahead during OLL to see your PLL case. Using CLS algs is no different than using OLL as far as PLL recognition goes. I think Lucas can vouch for that.
So you're saying that you figure out every F2L case every time you see it? face it, fridrich f2l is an intuitive method at first, but experienced cubers use known algorithms even if they were intuitively discovered. anyway, ELS is entirely intuitive, and a decent number of CLS cases can be found intuitively. I also fail to see how intuitive algs are faster than learned ones. Intuitive algs are definitely easier to learn, but I don't see how it makes a difference speed-wise.
Ummm then you don't understand ZZ either. ZZ is not a C/E pair method, it is meant to be a block building method. if you are going to use any sort of last slot method with ZZ then EJF2L would probably be the only efficient one. This is ignoring the fact that ZZ is best used with ZBLL.
It is because your reasoning is so fundamentally flawed that its difficult to find a place to start.
So how do guys with 4-5 second F2L do it? Is it the method, or is it just lookahead on a level I can't comprehend?
Answer the man's question rather than arguing off topic!
Still nobody told you? MGLS doesn't use 3 algs for the LL...So you're saying that you figure out every F2L case every time you see it? face it, fridrich f2l is an intuitive method at first, but experienced cubers use known algorithms even if they were intuitively discovered. anyway, ELS is entirely intuitive, and a decent number of CLS cases can be found intuitively. I also fail to see how intuitive algs are faster than learned ones. Intuitive algs are definitely easier to learn, but I don't see how it makes a difference speed-wise.
It's intuitive because you can make use of empty slots, adjacent slots, etc ... you don't just find a pair, and use an alg. You can try and find However you have to do that with MGLS for the last slot, and I think it's not worth using three algs for LL instead of two. If it's not, please do find a way to show me how it isn't.
Still nobody told you? MGLS doesn't use 3 algs for the LL...So you're saying that you figure out every F2L case every time you see it? face it, fridrich f2l is an intuitive method at first, but experienced cubers use known algorithms even if they were intuitively discovered. anyway, ELS is entirely intuitive, and a decent number of CLS cases can be found intuitively. I also fail to see how intuitive algs are faster than learned ones. Intuitive algs are definitely easier to learn, but I don't see how it makes a difference speed-wise.
It's intuitive because you can make use of empty slots, adjacent slots, etc ... you don't just find a pair, and use an alg. You can try and find However you have to do that with MGLS for the last slot, and I think it's not worth using three algs for LL instead of two. If it's not, please do find a way to show me how it isn't.
Fridrich F2L:
4th slot
OLL
PLL
MGLS:
Edge of 4th slot + orient LL edges
Corner of 4th slot + orient LL corners
PLL
Same amount of steps.
Still nobody told you? MGLS doesn't use 3 algs for the LL...So you're saying that you figure out every F2L case every time you see it? face it, fridrich f2l is an intuitive method at first, but experienced cubers use known algorithms even if they were intuitively discovered. anyway, ELS is entirely intuitive, and a decent number of CLS cases can be found intuitively. I also fail to see how intuitive algs are faster than learned ones. Intuitive algs are definitely easier to learn, but I don't see how it makes a difference speed-wise.
It's intuitive because you can make use of empty slots, adjacent slots, etc ... you don't just find a pair, and use an alg. You can try and find However you have to do that with MGLS for the last slot, and I think it's not worth using three algs for LL instead of two. If it's not, please do find a way to show me how it isn't.
Fridrich F2L:
4th slot
OLL
PLL
MGLS:
Edge of 4th slot + orient LL edges
Corner of 4th slot + orient LL corners
PLL
Same amount of steps.
I wanted to ignore this argument but you are blatantly ignoring what I actually said. It's another algorithm you have to use per solve, for the F2L slot you would not use an alg but do it intuitively. Just stop this argument now, please.
I wanted to ignore this argument but you are blatantly ignoring what I actually said. It's another algorithm you have to use per solve, for the F2L slot you would not use an alg but do it intuitively. Just stop this argument now, please.