ZZ F2L: Intuitive or Algs?

[Gucci Cubing]

I learned ZZ 3 days ago. I can solve the eo line in 4.26 seconds on average. However, my f2l takes 47 seconds. I solve eo line intuitively, but I was curious how I could either solve f2l quicker or if I should learn algorithms. If I should learn algorithms how should I learn them? What would be the best way of learning the f2l algorithms?

 

[Petro Leum]

since you should be able to build any possible block during F2L, learning algorithms is not a good option, there would be just way too many...

if you learned zz 3 days ago, dont be too worried. just play around with it, you will get faster quickly.

 

[brian724080]

There is no such thing as algorithmic ZZF2L. Learn to do so intuitively. After you are sub-20 or so, you might want to go through the cases to optimize your move count.

 

[mDiPalma]

as everyone said, you don't need algs. ZZF2L is not designed for alg-huggers.

but you shouldn't restrict yourself to intuitive [RUL]

because sometimes its better to use keyhole and [F2] moves than [RUL].

so look at the algs on http://cube.crider.co.uk , and try to come up with ur own "algs"

 

[4Chan]

There are a few cases for LS in which algs are good.

A few WV cases and that case with all corners oriented but one edge is missing from F2L is nice. Those are pretty useful because they raise probability that you'll skip the LL, and it's really satisfying to know that you forced it. (Even better when you see it coming!)

 

[AlphaSheep]

Your EOLine is fast compared to your F2L... My EOLine takes about 5-6 seconds, and my F2L takes about 12-15 seconds.

ZZ was my first speedsolving method, and I found intuitive F2L very easy. When I eventually learned CFOP, I struggled with F2L because of how how much simpler having edge orientation done makes everything.

Algs are a bad idea for ZZ F2L because you lose the flexibility that makes blockbuilding so efficient. You just need to try different things and watch the effect that they have on the cube.

The biggest thing you should pay attention to is which side of the edge a corner connects on. For example, if you solve with a blue front and yellow top, then the white-orange-green corner with white facing to the side will always connect to the orange-green edge on the right if the edge is at the back and on the left if the edge is in the front. Once you get ued to patterns like this, you can do F2L without even thinking.

 

[zyxantjcae654]

For me, they are more like algorithms. Because I am relying onto those that was defined, particularly for hard cases. The easy ones are just like, in CFOP, doing xcross; rather than doing L to bring down the final cross edge then doing L' U L, just do U L, which is defined but not necessarily included in the cases. In ZZ, the assumption of cross edge, which can be FL, BL or DL, is just being color neutral while doing Fridrich F2L that are no-orientation-change algos. Then biasing again with the base color. Being color neutral for a while, I think, is not intuitive. Intuition is more like choices among various alternatives, like in Petrus; there are so many ways to do a quick block in any color that no specific algo. is required. In ZBLL, you are to memorize more than a hundred cases yet considered as algos. In ZZF2L, if you enumerate cases excluding the sense of color neutrality, I guess, is less than that of ZBLL.

 

[Godmil]

It can be tricky doing 'intuitive' solves when you're new to a method, so try finding example solves and see what techniques other people use to build the blocks.