# new F2L algorithm?



## schwartstack (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm just wondering if anyone's ever come across this before. I found a faster way to solve the case where the first layer corner is in place and the corresponding edge is in the top layer. the common algorithm would have you line up the color and do (if you wanted to insert it to the right) U R U' R' U' F' U F. it's on of the first algs i learned when learning how to solve the cube.

so, say the correct corner was the red-green-white corner (white on bottom, yellow on top). if the red-green edge is in the top layer with red on top, you can put red on the front, move the edge to the back and do R' F R F' R U R' U'

it's the same number of moves as the first alg, but it's two really common LL triggers and is super quick. there's also an inverse (reflection? inverse? whatever). so if green was on top of the red-green edge, you'd put green in front, move the edge to the back and do L F' L' F L' U' L U

anyway, just thought i'd share this little discovery and see if anyone else has discovered or heard about this.

EDIT: actually you don't need the last U' at the end of the alg, it is just kind of a reflex.


----------



## Sa967St (Jul 17, 2009)

schwartstack said:


> *R F R' *F' R U R' U'


it should be *R' F R * F' R U R' U'
sledgehammer + sexy move 



schwartstack said:


> there's also an inverse (reflection? inverse? whatever). so if green was on top of the red-green edge, you'd put green in front, move the edge to the back and do L F' L' F L' U' L U


 that's the reflection, the inverse would be U R U' R' F R' F' R


----------



## schwartstack (Jul 17, 2009)

oops that's what i meant. will edit.


----------



## imaghost (Jul 17, 2009)

I just do a D or D' depending on which corner is an empty slot and put the edge to where it would line up to the opposite color, (red-front blue-top, put it on the blue side) then do R U R' and undo the D move, maybe a D2. I would do the original algorithm if there was no empty slots left. 

I also changed around the original one that still worked, but helps understand it easier. Everything you do is the same, but once you do U R U' R' U' do F' R' F' R. I am sure you can easily see how this will work if you tried it.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 17, 2009)

As soon as I read the title, I thought "No?", and what a surprise, I was right!


----------



## AlanAlanine (Jul 17, 2009)

the U' at the end is superfluous (but you caught that). I have seen this alg before -- a friend of mine said he figured it out, and it's also on Erik Akkersdijk's website.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 17, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> As soon as I read the title, I thought "No?", and what a surprise, I was right!


As soon as I read the title, I thought "No!", and what a surprise, I was right!



AlanAlanine said:


> a friend of mine said he figured it out, and it's also on Erik Akkersdijk's website.


Too bad he doesn't really use it.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 17, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as I read the title, I thought "No?", and what a surprise, I was right!
> ...


Well it was a rather annoyed rhetoric "Um, NO?". Though yeah, it was uncertain because I couldn't possibly be sure before reading the post. On the other hand, you're right, it was incredibly unlikely it was something new. People who know what they're talking about wouldn't post it in a thread like this but rather add it to one of the alg collections. Or post it as a new thread if there's something special about it, like a truly interesting way they found the alg. But then the title would mention that.


----------



## schwartstack (Jul 17, 2009)

my apologies. it was exciting enough to me when i realized this alg works, i thought someone out there might go "ooh neat." maybe i should have called the thread "alternative fl2 algorithm"


----------



## Stefan (Jul 17, 2009)

schwartstack said:


> maybe i should have called the thread "alternative fl2 algorithm"



It's not "alternative", it's well-known and I'm sure I'm not the only one who prefers it to that other one. And the main point is that a whole thread about it is overkill. Check out the alg collections thread:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=708

There: http://cutex.info/3/
It's the *only* alg for that case on the world champion's page. That's how "new" or "alternative" you are.


----------



## brunson (Jul 17, 2009)

Or, barring Stefan's idea:

http://www.google.com/search?q=U+R+U'+R'+U'+F'+U+F


----------



## dougbenham (Jul 17, 2009)

brunson said:


> Or, barring Stefan's idea:
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=U+R+U'+R'+U'+F'+U+F



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=U+R+U'+R'+U'+F'+U+F


----------



## Stefan (Jul 17, 2009)

dougbenham said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > Or, barring Stefan's idea:
> ...


Can one of you two please explain why you google the algorithm the thread starter called the common one rather than the one he called new/alternative?


----------



## dougbenham (Jul 17, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> dougbenham said:
> 
> 
> > brunson said:
> ...



I simply copied and pasted from brunson's post. I didn't even read the first post in the thread


----------



## brunson (Jul 18, 2009)

Because he didn't actually have the correct algorithms in his post, see Sarah's post which is #2 in this thread. I was merely pointing out that you *can* google algs. 

Googling the correct algorithm will turn up Jason Baum's page as the first link. I'm surprised you haven't commented about checking your algs before posting and included a link to Lucas' simulator yet.


----------



## schwartstack (Jul 18, 2009)

actually i did google my "alternative" alg and nothing came up. also, am i missing something or is the alg on the cutex.info/3 link the same one as the common one


----------



## Stefan (Jul 18, 2009)

schwartstack said:


> actually i did google my "alternative" alg and nothing came up.


http://www.google.com/search?q=F2L+"R'+F+R+F'+R+U+R'"



schwartstack said:


> also, am i missing something or is the alg on the cutex.info/3 link the same one as the common one


You're "missing something".


----------

