# Which Advanced F2L Method?



## JTW2007 (Jan 18, 2009)

What advanced F2L method do you recommend? I want to learn a better F2L (than Fridrich, which I'm currently using). Any thoughts?


----------



## ConnorCuber (Jan 18, 2009)

MGLS, made by lucas garron:

http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

I personally think MGLS isn't great for an advanced F2L. I see no point in doing 3 algorithms for the LL instead of 2, when the last F2L slot is so fast and can lead into lookahead for the OLL. I personally don't use an advanced technique, I use intuitive multislot occasionally when I see the opportunity.


----------



## blah (Jan 18, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> I personally think MGLS isn't great for an advanced F2L. *I see no point in doing 3 algorithms for the LL instead of 2, when the last F2L slot is so fast and can lead into lookahead for the OLL.* I personally don't use an advanced technique, I use intuitive multislot occasionally when I see the opportunity.



You _might_ wanna take that back


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

blah said:


> JohnnyA said:
> 
> 
> > I personally think MGLS isn't great for an advanced F2L. *I see no point in doing 3 algorithms for the LL instead of 2, when the last F2L slot is so fast and can lead into lookahead for the OLL.* I personally don't use an advanced technique, I use intuitive multislot occasionally when I see the opportunity.
> ...



Why?


----------



## Leviticus (Jan 18, 2009)

Because it's not three algs for the LL, you do ELS, CLS then PLL. ELS and CLS solve the last F2L slot whilst orienting the LL, then you finish with PLL.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 18, 2009)

Let's hope Lucas isn't angry, Johnny 
You could use MGLS or ZB, I know it's hard, but a suggestion...you could memo a few of these algs, I memorizes some of the slot-already-made EO algs. I can't think of any other methods...ZZ could be good


----------



## Escher (Jan 18, 2009)

i would suggest to either embark on learning VHF2L (which is what emerson was on about with the 'slot-already-made algs) and COLL (you arent fully utilising VHF2L if you dont learn COLL). i think that there are 32 VHF2L algs (16, if you like using LH mirrors), and 42 COLL algorithms (you can also use COLL on the 2x2 as a one look last layer... but if you really want that, you might as well just learn CLL).

OR, you could learn f2ll, or 'winter variation'. if you have all edges oriented, and the FR pair connected and placed so you can do RU'R' or its mirror, then you can do a simple alg and get an OLL skip (you orient all the corners). the algs are very intuitive, and it doesnt take long to see how they work.
obviously you can also use them if the edges arent oriented, and you'll go straight onto an easy EOLL.

if i were you, i'd learn winter variation first (im planning to learn the rest of it once ive finished the last couple of OLLs). its only 27 algs (+ mirrors), and they are all very fast, 3 gen (mostly RUL), and give you a nice OLL skip so you can just look forward to PLL from the last slot
they are really, really easy to learn. in fact, its harder to remember the cases they go with, not the algs!
once you've done those, i would go to VHf2L and COLL.

OR, you can skip learning VHF2l, and just learn to do ZZ, like emerson said.
ZZ-VH (zz f2l, and coll/epll last layer) has potential to be very fast - 'matthew' on these forums is the fastest ive heard of that uses it.

i plan to learn everything ive mentioned (i know bits and bobs of most of them), and theres nothing to stop you doing that too.

EDIT - woah, thats a lot of parenthesis!


----------



## Erik (Jan 18, 2009)

I wouldn't call call MGLS and ZB 'F2L methods', more like LL methods. 
Advanced would be ZZ or freestyle/petrus which are both doubtfull to be faster or at least as fast as F2L with cross and pairs..


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

Precisely ... the two algs you use for the F2L are actually just LL algs. MGLS has no advantage over simple OLL-PLL!


----------



## JTW2007 (Jan 18, 2009)

It does, it's just an LL advantage and not an F2L advantage


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> It does, it's just an LL advantage and not an F2L advantage



But what's the point, you just have to recognise and excecute three algorithms that involve many pieces instead of just two algs.


----------



## Erik (Jan 18, 2009)

if recognition is your point then I don't see your point  recognition is really easy for MGLS, not that I use it.


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

Sure recognition for MGLS is fast, but theres 3 algs instead of just two, and I doubt you can get as good lookahead on a mgls alg as you can on an F2L pair.


----------



## Erik (Jan 18, 2009)

you are saying you can predict your complete OLL case while solving your last F2L pair then?


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 18, 2009)

Eh... Off topic?

In MGLS, for the last F2L pair, you don't have to make a pair, instead, you just do VHF2L to insert the edge. That's the exact same # of moves and recognition as regular F2L. The advantage comes from CLL, which faster than OLL being 2gen.
It is the exact same number of looks as Fridrich usually and many times 1 less because skipping the ELS is much more common than skipping one F2L pair.
There are 5 F2L cases that would be regular or even Bad in Fridrich F2L that are Skips in MGLS. Also, effecting EO before last slot is often times easier than multi-slotting.

JTW, to answer you question, go to cubeloop.com for Multi-slotting or cubefreak.net for empty slot tricks. Really you should just use Regular Fridrich F2L and train your look ahead unless you like another method like Petrus, ZZ, Roux, CF, ...

Perhaps the most helpful thing is to be like Chris Hardwick and be opposite color neutral and use extended cross.
http://speedcubing.com/chris/f2l.html


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

Erik said:


> you are saying you can predict your complete OLL case while solving your last F2L pair then?



No, but I can easily predict the orientation of edges and therefore know how I need to look at the cube to identify the case. If you use the MGLS algs, it's probably harder to identify your PLL quickly. Imagine doing MGLS like doing F2L using algorithms instead of intuitively - way slower. I think MGLS has potential for use with the ZZ method, since the ELL stage will be skipped and you could do either keyhole+CLL or F2LL, and it could also be useful when you have one piece already in place but except in those situations I doubt it would increase the time taken for the end of F2L+LL.

&if you are going to shoot down my posts without giving your point as to why they are wrong, its really not worth it.


----------



## cpt.Justice (Jan 18, 2009)

JohnnyA, Please...
Just stop...


----------



## Erik (Jan 18, 2009)

what?? I'm not even going to answer to that post it has too many wrong things in it...


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 18, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> No, but I can easily predict the orientation of edges and therefore know how I need to look at the cube to identify the case. If you use the MGLS algs, it's probably harder to identify your PLL quickly.



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.



JohnnyA said:


> Imagine doing MGLS like doing F2L using algorithms instead of intuitively - way slower.



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.



JohnnyA said:


> I think MGLS has potential for use with the ZZ method, since the ELL stage will be skipped and you could do either keyhole+CLL or F2LL, and it could also be useful when you have one piece already in place but except in those situations I doubt it would increase the time taken for the end of F2L+LL.



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.



JohnnyA said:


> &if you are going to shoot down my posts without giving your point as to why they are wrong, its really not worth it.



It is because your reasoning is so fundamentally flawed that its difficult to find a place to start.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jan 18, 2009)

I already use empty slots and Fridrich F2L, so it looks like a tie between multislotting, MGLS, and better lookahead paired with Fridrich.


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> 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.



You can actually look ahead during OLL if you want to. You can look for correct blocks.



Vault312 said:


> 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.



Vault312 said:


> 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.



I know ZZ is blockbuilding. But MGLS could easily be useful, i.e. you blockbuild one side, then a 1x2x2 on the other side and insert the edge as you do that, then CLL the last corner.



Vault312 said:


> It is because your reasoning is so fundamentally flawed that its difficult to find a place to start.



Go on. I don't know everything about every method, in fact I know next to nothing about every method except Fridrich and maybe Heise. I don't understand why everyone is trying to insult me, I am just giving what advice I can to the thread starter.

Ignoring this pointless argument, I would say any advanced technique is just going to prevent your F2L from getting better. If you learn an advanced method now your lookahead won't improve and you won't be able to improve your F2L later on by learning a new method.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jan 18, 2009)

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?


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 18, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> 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?



4-5 second F2L would be very fast. I thought Harris chan got about 7-8 on average, wasn't his WR average for F2L 7 seconds? (www.speedcubing.com is down) Anyway, I get about 10-11 seconds easily with no advanced techniques apart from using empty slots and good lookahead. Multislot and x-cross would be what pushed people to like 7 seconds.


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 18, 2009)

Answer the man's question rather than arguing off topic!

I don't think anyone can consistently do 4-5 seconds of F2L.
I'd say for Harris Chan, it's probably more like 7 seconds most of the time. Pretty much everyone uses regular Fridrich F2L with empty slot tricks. MGLS is completely off-topic and multi-slotting is nice and something you can practice, but it's not something you can use successfully every solve. I think Sabastien Felix suggested people who are already sub-15 to work on that. For now, practicing Look ahead and turning speed during F2L will do. Try to setup a rhythm and solve without any pauses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsFZQrGhRHY


----------



## JTW2007 (Jan 19, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Answer the man's question rather than arguing off topic!



Wow. Thank you. I was pretty sure I heard something about Nakajima getting a 4 sec. F2L once...

Anyway, I think I'm going to try to get lookahead better and then try to mix in a few cases of MGLS.


----------



## AlanAlanine (Jan 20, 2009)

go slow + look ahead >>> learning an "advanced' f2l technique


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jan 20, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Still nobody told you? MGLS doesn't use 3 algs for the LL...

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.


----------



## Lofty (Jan 20, 2009)

If you want advanced do this method:
2x2x2
2x2x3
F2L minus one pair
ZBF2L
ZBLL
Do all the way up to the F2L minus one pair with just freestyle blockbuilding.


----------



## JohnnyA (Jan 20, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> JohnnyA said:
> 
> 
> > Vault312 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Lofty (Jan 20, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > JohnnyA said:
> ...



Thats not entirely true. Some people could use Alg based F2L and not intuitive. Also for a lot of us who have been cubing for awhile doing ELS is pretty intuitive.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jan 21, 2009)

JohnnyA said:


> 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.




http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=3x3x3/cfop/f2l/f2l


----------

