# F2L with 0 rotation



## Harris Chan (Apr 15, 2007)

Do you think that doing the 4 F2L pairs with no rotation is an advantage?
You might gain time because of no rotation, but can you still see the pairs as easily?

Perhaps there is a way?

For example, if you want to solve the BR slot with this algorithm:

R' U2 R d' R U R'

Instead, with no rotation, you can do:

R' U' F R' F' R U' R

The question is, which algo can you actually do faster with?


----------



## joey (Apr 15, 2007)

I do think no rotation at all, wouldn't be as fast as some roation. There are easy cases which are just as fast every angle(ie R U R').

One thing I try do is, if I want to rotate the cube, I do it while in the middle of solving the current pair.

I might start trying to use d and d', instead of y. I find double layer-D quite difficult to do though.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 16, 2007)

Yes, this is possible, but I wouldn't like do B U B' for example. Gilles van den Peereboom told me that he does this for one-handed. I guess that is a good choice because cube-rotations are slow for one-handed.


----------



## dChan (Apr 16, 2007)

No matter what I do, I instinctively rotate the cube to see a case, only when I hit PLL do I do a move in order to see the case. So I don't know if F2L with 0 rotations would be fast enough for me.


----------



## pjk (Apr 17, 2007)

I find it funny that I am trying to answer a question to Harris, one of the quickest speedsolvers in the world, but anyway, I think if you could solve with 0 rotation and still get a look ahead, you could be just as quick, if not quicker. However, I have seen 0 rotation and lots of rotation produce similar, amazing, times.


----------



## dChan (Apr 17, 2007)

Yeah. I never start with one front color, at the end I have one of four front colors facing, so I have a lot of rotations. I have seen many people with the same thing and they have fast times, so I think you may get only a little bit more speed out of a no rotation F2L.


----------



## Erik (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm trying to keep the amount of rotations as less as possible but instead of inserting with B moves I have no doubt of doing a healthy cube rotation first


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2007)

I have maybe only 2 algs in my repertoire that require a B turn and I always tilt/rotate my cube to turn them. So if an F2L has B moves, then I'd still be rotating the cube.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 19, 2007)

Maybe we should just take the B-face of the cube. That would improve times considerably AND allow for F2L with 0 rotation 

Seriously, I never use algs that have rotations in them on the 3x3x3 (that means no Dan Knights Z for example) but I do use a lot of intuitive rotations because I use Keyhole. I think that cube rotations are the most important reason keyhole is slower than intuitive F2L. (the other reason is you need more "looks")


----------



## dChan (Apr 19, 2007)

> _Originally posted by AvGalen_@Apr 19 2007, 02:38 AM
> * Maybe we should just take the B-face of the cube. That would improve times considerably AND allow for F2L with 0 rotation
> 
> Seriously, I never use algs that have rotations in them on the 3x3x3 (that means no Dan Knights Z for example) but I do use a lot of intuitive rotations because I use Keyhole. I think that cube rotations are the most important reason keyhole is slower than intuitive F2L. (the other reason is you need more "looks") *


 Well you can rotate the cube using keyhole if you want but personally I just do Uw to insert edges which eliminates most rotations.


----------



## pjk (Apr 20, 2007)

Definitely quicker for me to rotate and do an R rather than do a B from the front. However, what if you practiced enough to be able to do a B just as quick without moving the cube?


----------



## dChan (Apr 20, 2007)

How would you do that without rotation the cube even just a bit? You would need to stretch your finger far back whic his a bit hard. Either that or regrip by oputting your thumb on top.


----------



## pjk (Apr 20, 2007)

You could use your pinky, or index on your left hand, depending on how you hold it normally.


----------



## gillesvdp (Apr 20, 2007)

> _Originally posted by AvGalen_@Apr 16 2007, 07:41 AM
> * Yes, this is possible, but I wouldn't like do B U B' for example. Gilles van den Peereboom told me that he does this for one-handed. I guess that is a good choice because cube-rotations are slow for one-handed. *


 Indeed I am trying to avoid cube rotations, especially when I solve with only one-hand.

It does seem pretty clear that avoiding cube rotations could be an advantage for solving F2L. However, it may force you so use longer algorithms and/or use slower faces like L.
Therefore, speedsolving F2L might be better done through consistancy like solving F2L using only R and U moves (done by Jean Pons at the WC 2005).


THerefore I do not think that avoiding cube rotations is the best solution for speedsolving even though it might help. On the contrary, it is quite useful do avoid these when you solve OH.

Gilles


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 20, 2007)

This is the second time this happens. Both Michael and Gilles haven't posted here in a long time. Their names get mentioned in a topic and all of a sudden they start posting again.

Are you just lurking/viewing all the time, or do you have a "name-scanner"-bot running in the background 

Gilles, I think there is something wrong with your registration for http://www.speedcubing.com/events/gcd2007/. I can't imagine you not participating in 3x3x3, 4x4x4, 5x5x5 and 3x3x3 blindfolded. Or are you only coming on the first day? See you there.


----------



## Erik (Apr 20, 2007)

Yes he has exams I think


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 20, 2007)

Gilles always seems to have exams during weekends (especially when there is a competition). Maybe he just can't solve a cube 2-handed


----------



## gillesvdp (Apr 20, 2007)

Haha, no...no exams this time.
I just have a stupid compulsory course on Saturday.
For the story, it is the same course that forced me to leave the Belgian Open for a few hours earlier this year.

But as you mention, I just can't solve cubes. I prefer to focus on the Magic.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 20, 2007)

I recent bought a lot of stuff from http://www.9spuzzles.com/, including many Magic variations. I will bring them with me to Germany.


----------



## Hubdra (Apr 20, 2007)

Recently, I've been practicing F2L with no rotation. Though it seems like it has inherent problems like awkward hand movements, I believe that this could be solved with just a little more expanded finger exercises when cubing. I'm sure, like algorithms, the movements will become more natural. Just like those F2L algs that are not intuitive (breaking up the cross), these could just be learned. 

More Importantly, what I've found was, when I was rotating to do the simple R U R', I temporarily lost where I was for my F2L. This is probably one of my own faults, but sometimes, you just lose where you are (not to mention the actual movement of the rotation). I found that I could look for the next few f2l cases MUCH easier, considering that for the most part, they stayed in the same spot. Also, when I timed myself, I found that I was only a few seconds off my regular times. I'm sure after some practice, this could really shave off those crucial extra seconds. 


Of course, this is just my experience, and a relatively short one too. I'm not sure how much it helps, or how effective it is. Just my two cents.


----------



## pjk (Apr 20, 2007)

> *This is the second time this happens. Both Michael and Gilles haven't posted here in a long time. Their names get mentioned in a topic and all of a sudden they start posting again.
> Are you just lurking/viewing all the time, or do you have a "name-scanner"-bot running in the background smile.gif*


I noticed that too. I think a lot more people read the forums, but only some post.


----------



## Tomarse (Apr 21, 2007)

Personally no rotation is alot faster, but im left handed and can't do L turns as fast as R which is really weird, so personally i think no rotation is easier, because you are not spending time looking around the cube you are just spinning the top layer and so on ;]


----------



## dChan (Apr 21, 2007)

It is not that you are looking around the cube, it is just that you are rotating the cuube so you can do an alg.


----------



## Harris Chan (Apr 21, 2007)

lol ok i think it's time for me to give a reply now too  

While considering only the 41 "basic" case, and from 4 slots, that means a total of 41*4=164 algos. So all you need to do is run the Cube Explorer and see what algos it shoots out--or you can just figure them out intuitively. 

The algos are probably not too bad, but I'd experiment with whether doing the no-rotation-algo is faster than with-rotation-algo. 

Here's a bad thing about 0 rotation: You won't be able to see the other pairs as easily, as they may be stuck in the BL or BR slot. That's the side effect of rotating: you get to see the other slots/pairs while you're solving the current one. And that is crucial to a smooth and non-stop F2L. Not just a quick execution, but also a quick recognition. I'd say 2 rotations for F2L would be good (1 after the cross, and do 2 pairs no rotation, perhaps FR and BR slot, and rotate again to solve the other 2). 

That brings me to another question: Is your next F2L pair usually adjacent to the current pair, or diagonal? Do you rotate only in one direction (such as y')?

It's kinda like a poll B) 

-Harris

Mine's random, but a lot of times I do 1.5 pairs before rotating.


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 21, 2007)

No need for cube explorer. It has been done years ago: http://www.speedcubing.com/peter/AllesFastTwoLayer.html

For the poll: The first pair is random. second pair adjacent to first, third pair adjacent to second, fourth pair adjacent to third PREFERABLY. This means that sometime I use y 3 times, other times I use y' 3 times. Same with centers on bigcubes!

P.S. when I said pairs, I mean corners. I do the same for edges afterwards (keyhole)


----------



## Erik (Apr 21, 2007)

lol, I love the 'alles' part in that link 

And my pairing order is very...random..


----------



## pjk (Apr 21, 2007)

My pairing is very random as well....


----------



## gillesvdp (Apr 22, 2007)

Here is an example of a 0 cube rotation F2L...
I wish all cubes were like that.

As for me, I do not solve them "in a cycle". I just solve the one I see or the easiest I see among the ones I see.
==> Random distribution on that matter.


----------



## Harris Chan (Jun 24, 2007)

Mitchell Stern has generated some nice algos for F2L, Optimal, RrU, RFU at http://opticubes.com/f2l.php If you mirror the algos around, you can have the algos for all the cases with no rotation, using only RrLlU (I think if u is there then it can be a bit easier too). However, some algo is quite lengthy, which might be slower than if you just waste sometime to rotate and do the traditional algo. 

Scramble: U R2 B2 D' U' F D R2 L' F2 U' L2 F2 D F' R' D2 L2 F U L2 R' U' L2 B
Cross colour = D
(Remember that lowercase means double layer turns)
No Rotation method:

Cross: x L' U L U2 x' D' R D2

F2L 1: u R' U R

F2L 2: R U2 R' u' U R' U' R

F2L 3: R U' l L2 U L U' l' L R'

F2L 4: U' R' r U R' U' r' R

Normal Method:

Cross: x L' U L U2 x' D' R D2

F2L 1: D R' U' R

F2L 2: D2 y' L' U2 L

F2L 3: R U2 R' u R U R'

F2L 4: U L' U L U d R U R' 

I need a different example...this one isn't a nice one...

-Harris


----------



## Jason Baum (Jun 25, 2007)

Hey Harris,

It's an interesting idea, but I don't see it being faster at all, at least for me. It seems like that would be really hard to recognize, plus the move count is way up.

By the way, check this out for the final two pairs of that solution (no rotation either):

F2L 3 and 4: R F U F' U2 R


----------



## pjk (Jun 30, 2007)

I'd have to agree with you Jason.


----------



## blade740 (Jul 1, 2007)

Mike Bennett does something like this. He solves edge orientation during the cross, so that the entire F2L is in RUL. This also means that there are no cube rotations during the whole solve. It seems like it could be insanely fast if he finished learning it.


----------



## Harris Chan (Jul 1, 2007)

Another idea is to just orient the F2L edges...ignoring the LL edges. May be this will speed things up? :S


----------



## Jack (Jul 2, 2007)

Does it just use algs or is it intuitive?


----------



## Harris Chan (Jul 2, 2007)

They use intuitive algos


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jun 19, 2008)

Sorry to revive a ridicuously old thread that has been dead for MANY months, but..
For the scramble; R U' R' d R' U2 R(inverse of what you would solve)
why not do this;
(M') R' U2 R U2 R' U R U' (M)
I know its long, but since thats the last pair, you have to solve the M slice...
If it were the first or second, or third, you could mess up the 2 M cross pieces all u want, than insert them WHILE inserting the 4th pair. BTW, using M moves in the F2l will allow 0 rotations..


----------



## badmephisto (Jun 19, 2008)

I think this was already discussed and the consensus was that Roux method is superior to Fridrich because it ignores the middle slices that always get in your way with Fridrich. That allows for solving almost entire F2L with 0 rotations and quite quickly. If I only were not too lazy I would have been a Roux user by now


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jun 19, 2008)

@Badmephisto, Roux takes more practice to master though, its more intuitive, and that slows a cuber down.


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 19, 2008)

blade740 said:


> Mike Bennett does something like this. He solves edge orientation during the cross, so that the entire F2L is in RUL. This also means that there are no cube rotations during the whole solve. It seems like it could be insanely fast if he finished learning it.



I personnaly work on a 222 bloc then extended cross with edge orientation. I think It have a great potential.


----------



## Joël (Jun 19, 2008)

I actually use quite a few algs with F moves in them... But it's not really the ultimate 'goal' to ban out rotations. I am with Jean Pons on this one: You can rotate a lot, and profit by that by seeing more.

However, some algs without cube rotations are just very nice... Like R'FRF' RU'R', or it's inverse. Or how about RU'R' FR'F'R?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 19, 2008)

I actually do something else... as it only adds 3moves and no rotations. 
Scramble: R U' R' d R' U2 R d'

R' U2 R2 U R2' U R 

This way there's still no rotation, and it's still really fast.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jun 19, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> I actually do something else... as it only adds 3moves and no rotations.
> Scramble: R U' R' d R' U2 R d'
> 
> R' U2 R2 U R2' U R
> ...



What would you do for this scramble;
Scramble: R U' R' d R' U2 R


----------



## Lofty (Jun 19, 2008)

When I first tried this I didn't see the extra d' on the end. that changes everything.
R2 U2 R' U' R U' R' U' R, there may be a shorter way I'm going to go check.
Edit: R' U2 R2 U R2 U R


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 19, 2008)

I realized that for some reason, I tend to rotate more on Ryanheise sim. I also could find ways to not rotate at all if I'm instructing someone else a bit slower rather than to solve myself. I don't think 1-3 rotations in F2L could hurt. If you rotate like crazy, then you need to improve your method.


----------



## RUBIX1337 (Jun 19, 2008)

hey, I've been cubing for 2 years now. iv'e go a 33 sec Average with 15sec inspection time.

i have been under 30. i solve the cube with rotations ONLY when i cant immediately see the F2L pair using any combination of RUR. but, for some reason i found that i ONLY ever rotate to the left. i believe that solving the cube with no rotations has to be faster theres no question about it.


----------



## badmephisto (Jun 19, 2008)

I try to always solve using exactly 1 rotations. First construct 2 adjacent pairs and then rotate once and construct the other two. It doesnt always work  but more than 2 or 3 rotations cant be good


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 19, 2008)

A standars solve have 1 to 3 regrips (or rotation, or d moves).

You can reduce this score using F and r moves, but it's strongly recommanded for some cases.

In addition, rotation allow you to know what is in the LB slot (that you can't see easily otherwise).

But, begining with a 222bloc (as in petrus method) then extend it to a extended cross have some advantages.
1/ It's easier than doing EO during the cross (I try, it's realy difficult).
2/ The LB slot is solved when you start 2L, so you neddn't rotate the cube anymore to see different solts.
3/ You can end the F2L in RU style in majority of cases : RU for the two slots on the right, then switch cross left and continue RU.
4/ multislotting is easier because the numer of cases is greatly reduced.
5a/ You can use winter variation (28 cases) to get a OLL skip in 100% of the cases.
5b/ If you prefere, you can use COLL => ELL
5c/ Or ZBLL

EO isn't only a F2L boost, it's a preparation of LL and can speed up this step too.

I don't use this method in competition yet but work hard on it and believe it's a good solution.


----------



## deathbypapercutz (Jun 20, 2008)

I tend to rotate pretty much between every pair (unless I'm doing FR, then BR, but that doesn't happen much). It sucks, I think it really cripples me during F2L. So really, if I had the ability to do F2L with zero rotation (while avoiding B turns), I would.


----------



## malcolm (Jun 20, 2008)

Instead of B U' B you can just use f R' f, for less rotations.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 20, 2008)

Since people are reusing this thread:


Lucas Garron said:


> Yu Nakajima did a y-rotation during every step in his second 8.72 (except cross).
> (Dunno about the first. Someone should post a video!)
> 
> Anyhow, if you don't like rotations, try pre-orient.


----------



## brunson (Jun 20, 2008)

Lucas, can you elaborate on "pre-orient"?


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jun 20, 2008)

Pre orient= you orient the edges in such a way, that they(all 4 F2l's) can be solved ONLY using R U L moves.


----------



## brunson (Jun 23, 2008)

So, you're pre-orienting during the cross or do you pre-orient your first pair during the cross, then each successive pair while solving the current pair? Not that I'm physically capable of doing either at this point  but it's nice to understand.


----------



## mizzle (Jun 24, 2008)

Preorient thread? You rang?

And the answer is that you mix a little of both. If you work at it, you begin to be able to do the cross as you orient, and it's only a couple of extra turns (under 10 total). Some cases, though, are just really hard to set up, or there's an amazing nonoriented cross.

For those, you use some VH style intuition to orient an edge or two during each pair, so that you're already done by the time you finish your third pair, leaving your fourth free to do Heise, corner control, or what have you.


----------

