# F2L without rotations of the cube?



## badmephisto (Aug 29, 2007)

This has been driving me crazy... When I watch videos of really good speedcubers, I notice that they do not turn the cube while doing the F2L... at all. Now... I can reduce the amount of rotations that I do to about 4 or 5 y rotations, but I must be missing something, because I don't understand how you can do all the cases without a single rotation. 

For example, say you have a connected pair of edge and corner (corner in UBL and edge in UB). Say you want to insert them to BL. To do that you would need to do something like U' B' U B, which is incredibly cumbersome... not even mentioning that I have never seen a speedcuber do a single B or B' move.

can anyone help me out on this? The people on vids are so fast that I cant make out what's going on


----------



## joey (Aug 29, 2007)

Some people will do a d' R' U R.


----------



## Jack (Aug 29, 2007)

Try reading this thread;

http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?t=795


----------



## badmephisto (Aug 30, 2007)

interesting read. It seems like Harris opposes solving without rotations, but on his most recent videos It seems like he uses 0-rot algo's after all. 

Some of the algorithms are totally non-intuitive though, which kinda scares me. I just finished memorizing OLL/PLL and I thought that I was done


----------



## Harris Chan (Aug 30, 2007)

I did rotate during F2L, but I was probably doing d/d' moves, so you didn't see the change (since you were looking at the U layer).


----------



## Dennis (Aug 30, 2007)

In the case you mention above, I allow myself to rotate either y or y' but not y2. But some cases are better with do d or d' and some cases you can do without rotating the cube at all ('true' mirroring...). And no, I also never use the B-side to minimze the rotations

Look here to see how I combine y's with d's and not rotations at all
http://www.cubeloop.com/php/cube/advanced.php?chapter=f2l_sym


----------



## crosman boy (Jun 9, 2009)

wow this is old...


----------



## Escher (Jun 9, 2009)

crosman boy said:


> wow this is old...



and for that you can have a medal.


----------



## badmephisto (Jun 9, 2009)

haha this had to be like one of my first posts here, back in the day when i was clueless. Thanks a lot for bringing this back... /sarcasm


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 9, 2009)

I was wondering why no-one mentioned ZZ, but then I looked at the date


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jun 9, 2009)

Lol... uanoob. At least back then... now you rock.

I was going to give an example in the hopes of teaching the teacher... when I saw the date.


----------



## crosman boy (Jun 9, 2009)

look i brought the thread back to life/sarcasm


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jun 10, 2009)

badmephisto said:


> haha this had to be like one of my first posts here, back in the day when i was clueless. Thanks a lot for bringing this back... /sarcasm



Did you eventually solve this problem?

Cube rotations are actually a problem for me ATM. I feel like my F2L suffers significantly from the 4 or 5 rotations I do during F2L, and I want to eliminate that.

Any chance you can throw a video together for us about this?


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jun 10, 2009)

Assuming you're okay with doing F/B moves for the cross, the entire F2L only needs 2 rotations at most (or one d/d' move). However, there's always that <R,r,U,u> way of solving it for 0 rotations.


----------



## blah (Jun 10, 2009)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> Assuming you're okay with doing F/B moves for the cross, the entire F2L only needs 2 rotations at most (or one d/d' move).



Why/how so?

I think I have a proof that shows you need at most 1 rotation and 0 Dw/Dw' moves.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Jun 11, 2009)

LOL, I was wondering why Badmephisto was whining like that, I was thinking, why, you're beyond that point and you even have your own videos!
Note to self: when confused, check the date...

And I use ZZ rules for pairing up without rotations.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jun 11, 2009)

Thieflordz5 said:


> And I use ZZ rules for pairing up without rotations.



What rules would those be?


----------



## Cride5 (Jun 11, 2009)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Thieflordz5 said:
> 
> 
> > And I use ZZ rules for pairing up without rotations.
> ...



Well, we could be young and hip saying: "ZZ rulezz!", but I think you'll understand if I say: "Its jolly good, old boy!"


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 11, 2009)

Most people probably know this but to say it:
If you insert a pair with an even number of rotations, you can insert it with 0.
The there is (I think) only one exception where you would need an empty slot.
If you insert a pair with an odd number of rotations, you can do it with one. (I haven't noticed and exceptions to this.)


----------

