# My thoughts on improving F2L quickly



## Zarxrax (May 5, 2009)

Most everyone seems to have the same ideas for how to improve (Fridrich) F2L. Learn how to do it intuitively, then start going slowly and look for ways to do it more efficiently. Most everyone says don't bother to learn the algorithms.

Well quite frankly, this sounds like a load of crock to me. You are basically going slow and hoping that you somehow unlock the secret shorter methods of inserting a pair. Maybe you will find better ways, maybe you wont. And this is the problem. You are essentially just playing around while *hoping* that you will be hit by inspiration and discover better ways of doing things. I did this for a while and you know what? Not much ever came of it. Sure I figured out a few ways to improve my F2L, but on a lot of cases I was still doing it dog-slow, using really stupid ways of pairing stuff up.

Then last night I decided to do something different. For every F2L case I came across, rather than trying to do it intuitively, I just looked at the algorithms. Now, I did not bother trying to *memorize* the algorithms, but rather I simply performed them and analyzed what they did. And you know what? This basically showed me all of the little "shortcuts" in a few hours time that I have been trying to find on my own for months now. 

From my observation, the F2L algorithms can all be broken down into 3 steps:
*1. Setup*
This part of the algorithm (which may not exist in every algorithm) simply sets things up so that you don't screw up any existing pairs when you do steps 2 or 3.
*2. Pair Up*
This is where you pair up the corner and edge piece.
*3. Insert*
And finally you insert your pair into their slot.

Now, by simply watching what happens while you perform an algorithm, you should be able to see which moves belong to each of the three steps. The pairing up step can become intuitive once you see how the different algorithms do it. And the setup phase can often be skipped if you have some empty slots available. 

All in all, this basically just boils down to making the algorithms intuitive. I cut the number of moves from some of my f2l situations in half from just spending a small amount of time doing this.


----------



## byu (May 5, 2009)

I've never looked at F2L algorithms before, I watched badmephisto's intuitive F2L videos. I don't know if I know all of the shortcuts, but I might look over some F2L algs to see if I'm doing them efficiently.


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 5, 2009)

Yeah, I just learned F2L intuitively. But then I ran into the same problem where I was doing like 20 moves just to finish one C/E pair. Anaylzing other people's F2L algs helped a lot, but in the end it came down to whether I knew what I was doing when I was turning and how fast I could turn.


----------



## Nevrino (May 5, 2009)

Ye looking at algorithms can be a nice way to shorter your f2l as long as you dont use them without knowing what you r doing. I did it the intuitive way thou and it worked out fine for me, I guess it's a personal preference.


----------



## Alexwildchild (May 6, 2009)

I learn the F2L algorithms through the intuitive way too, and almost all my algorithms are brought out by myself. Still, I really think that having a look at others' non-standard F2l helps a lot in improving my f2l effeciency.


----------



## James (May 6, 2009)

I use an intuitive F2L, but I first learned it in the way you described. I looked at the algorithm and learned the strategy or technique from that algorithm and I was then able to apply it to multiple cases intuitively.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (May 6, 2009)

What's a good algorithm sheet you found?
I'd like to go through and improve a few cases.


----------



## Zarxrax (May 6, 2009)

I used the ones at http://cutex.info/3/
but it's a bit confusing since it's the Japanese color scheme.
There are also some at http://www.opticubes.com/cubing/f2l/


----------



## thinkdifferent (Jun 1, 2009)

I'm sorry to bring this thread back...but Zarxrax, what do you currently average? I use intuitive F2L and my best average is 24.75 seconds. I'm just wondering if your system works. Thanks.


----------



## darthminimall (May 8, 2010)

I used to use beginner F2L, then I switched to keyhole and it shaved 10-15 seconds off my F2L and 15-20 seconds off of my entire solve. I did have to memorize 5 algs, but that was pretty easy.


----------



## cincyaviation (May 8, 2010)

darthminimall said:


> I used to use beginner F2L, then I switched to keyhole and it shaved 10-15 seconds off my F2L and 15-20 seconds off of my entire solve. I did have to memorize 5 algs, but that was pretty easy.


how is that relevant to this thread?


----------



## foxfan352 (May 8, 2010)

So basically what you are saying is that instead of trying to figure out the fastest and most efficient way of solving an f2l pair by your self you should just learn how the algorithm pairs it up and adapt that to your intuitive solve right?

I think this would help you learn f2l faster too. And obviously you would need to get good algorithms in order for this to work right.


----------



## yockee (May 8, 2010)

There are some very good algs at Dan Harris's www.cubestation.co.uk. These are the ones I learned when first learning Fridrich, before figuring out my own way.


----------



## martin8768 (May 8, 2010)

there are only a handful of cases with algorithms that you need too know, everything else should be intuitive. if you have never even started f2l, it may be easier to follow the algorithms but track the pieces and you will, in a very short time understand the concept and be able to perform it intuitively without a problem in a week or two


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (May 8, 2010)

I must disagree. Memorizing algorithms blindly won't allow you to understand how f2l solving works, and recognition would be slow because of that. Also, memorizing all of those algorithms would take a while, and you probably won't be able to memorize them all without forgetting some. And really, I just think it's funner using your brain instead of just meming  . Personally, I started learning systematic intuitive f2l, then i just discovered shortcuts used in the algorithms logicly. And I'm curious to your times? My f2l intuitivly takes 11-15 seconds.


----------



## Zarxrax (May 8, 2010)

Lol, wow a thread from a year ago.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (May 8, 2010)

haha, didn't bother looking at the date :fp


----------

