# A unique phase method for a Rubik's Cube



## sm (Oct 6, 2013)

Hello everybody!

==============================
*An addition from 21.11.2018*
I ask not to give much attention to the phrase "*The 100% intuitive method*" in my manual. I want to update my manual but it's difficult to change it now. My English there isn't good enough and I think need to rewrite everything.
I just want to give you one more good idea of solving the Rubik's cube.
I'm sorry if I offended anybody earlier.
Good luck!
Best regards,
Sergey
==============================

Link to the manual - http://vk.com/doc185254069_224249949
or use the direct mirror - http://buhgalter-online.kz/files/instr_morozov.pdf

Another variant of flipping edges - http://vk.com/doc185254069_229324082



*My video for beginners (with subtitles in English):*

How to solve corners - 




How to solve columns - 




How to solve last 8 edges - 






*The sequence of solving:*

Solving 8 corners (the cube 2x2x2);
Solving 12 edges (or ribs for big cubes);
Permutation of centers.

*Examples of solving:*

The cube 3x3x3 - 




The cube 7x7x7 - 






Good luck!


*Valery Morozov about his method of solving the Rubik’s Cube 3x3x3*

The Rubik’s Cube is a puzzle of swivel type. The swivel role in the cube is played centers. These are swivel of horizontal type. This swivel type has 1 level of freedom (possibility of rotation on an axis of a cube crosspiece). On the cube 6 central elements, therefore the maximum quantity of levels of freedom which can have elements of the cube can't be more than 6.

The cube has 9 planes (layers) of rotation, and these planes of two types: 6 sides and 3 central. It is very important to distinguish because in case of rotation of 3 central planes, corner elements remain on a place, and rotate only center and edge elements. When you rotate the side plane, all elements (corners, edges) participate in movement. If to designate axes of the cube as X, Y, Z, then it is possible to consider movement of the planes of the cube, in relation to its axes. Rotation of 6 side planes is a rotation around one of three axes (X, Y, Z). Rotation of central planes is a rotation of two axes around the third, X and Y around Z, X and Z around Y, Z and Y around X.

From this follows a very important conclusion - that corners elements has 3 levels of freedom, and edges and central elements has 6 levels of freedom.

Now, from a position of levels of freedom, we will consider a layer-by-layer method of solving. We see the following - after cross is solved, 12 edge elements loses 3 levels of freedom, central elements loses all 5 levels of freedom, and after that without a algorithms becomes impossible to solve the cube, i.e. restricting possibility of use of all 9 planes of rotation, solving the cube repeatedly becomes complicated.

If you solved at first step 8 corners elements then after edge and central elements save its 6 levels of freedom. That allows solving the cube most simply and without algorithms. *If there are more freedom levels at edge and central elements at each stage, then simple and variable there will be a solving.*



*Valery Morozov about the Megaminx and the Rubik’s Cube*

Central elements of the Megaminx has 1 level of freedom, and Corners and Edges has 6 levels of freedom, therefore the Megaminx can't is solved in a different way, except as layer-by-layer (around centers), because if to try to solve separately corners and edges, then you can't put into place centers, without break all solved elements.
But you can easily solve corners and edges in the Rubik’s Cube 3x3x3, and then to put centers into places. And all thanks to that centers have 6 levels of freedom.
In the cube 4x4x4, corners and edges has only one setup variant - everyone to their places. And centers are 96 setup variants. 4 central elements on one side are 16 variants. 6 sides are giving - 16*6 = 96.
And now question:
What is simpler - to decide corners and edges, and then to decide centers where we use one of 96 possible variants, or to decide centers and then to decide edges and angles around centers where we use one possible option for saving centers from breaking?
If, all these puzzles are called mechanical then a way to their decision will be from a position of laws of mechanics. The mathematical group theory is good only for some special cases, for example, when we solve the Megaminx.

If you don't understand my reasoning about levels of freedom, then I will say more simply, we will take the cube 3x3x3, and we will consider its solving.

Corners are only one variant of location, and we need put each corner on its place to solve them. After corners are solved, we easily defined where located colors of sides.
Edges are only one variant of location, and we need put each edge on its place to solve them.
Centers are 24 variants of location. When corners and edges are solved and they can turn under different angles (4 variants).


*Old manual from Valery Morozov in Russian - *http://vk.com/doc185254069_225976533

*Old variant of solving by the principle which Valery Morozov showed - * http://vk.com/doc185254069_230764683

I've found several videos about Morozov's method in English. Hope it'll be helpfull.
How to solve 2x2x2 - 



3x3x3 (part 1) - 



3x3x3 (part 2) - 



How to solve big cudes -


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 6, 2013)

This is a very nice guide, but I don't understand how it's completely intuitive, or what's special about the method. There are parts where you say things like:

"Rotate the first side on 180: Rotate the second side on 180: Rotate the first side on 180: Turn the top side to its place"

That's just an algorithm broken down into turns. You don't explain why it works. I understand why it works, but not everyone will.


Honestly though, it's a very nice-looking guide and it seems like you put a lot of work in it. I just think it's going too far to call in completely intuitive


----------



## brian724080 (Oct 6, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> "Rotate the first side on 180: Rotate the second side on 180: Rotate the first side on 180: Turn the top side to its place"
> 
> That's just an algorithm broken down into turns. You don't explain why it works. I understand why it works, but not everyone will.



You're right, but to be honest, I think this manual would be a great start for beginners.


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 6, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> You're right, but to be honest, I think this manual would be a great start for beginners.



I totally agree with that. I just think that the whole 100% intuitive part is a little bit misguided


----------



## sellingseals (Oct 6, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I totally agree with that. I just think that the whole 100% intuitive part is a little bit misguided



I absolutely agree with this statement. If it's 100% intuitive, there would be absolutely no need for a manual to teach a person how to solve the cube, which is what it is doing.


----------



## sm (Oct 6, 2013)

sellingseals said:


> I absolutely agree with this statement. If it's 100% intuitive, there would be absolutely no need for a manual to teach a person how to solve the cube, which is what it is doing.



*Thank you for your comment!*

We want to explain the principle.
If you learned to solve with this method and understood the principle, you already will be able to solve corners and edges with your method.
I show only my variant to solve corners and edges.
*I use schemes because without schemes people don't understand it!*
I adhering only the principle about which Valery Morozov told:

rotate 8 corners with basic color on the Top and the Bottom sides;
put corners to its place;
put 4 edges without basic colors;
rotate 8 edges with basic color on the Top and the Bottom sides;
put edges to its place;
Permutation of centers.

The heaviest in this method steps 1 and 4. The rest steps are simple.

Generally, it is necessary to make a few efforts to learn to see all this.
I solved the cube using this principle in two days!

Before I couldn't collect a cube itself the whole five years! Only after five years I could think up the way of assembly of the last corners (All layer-by-layer methods are very difficult!):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN8vGBeK3TUpSfjYX5hQVIHBbmIawyrBV

I don't know other simple method which would be easier than Morozov method, and I think it is worthy to be called intuitive.
It is necessary to understand only the principle and after that you can use your method to solve corners and edges.

In this method it is necessary to think! *Intuitively, does not mean easy and not thinking!*

*Thank you for your interest in the method!*


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 6, 2013)

sm said:


> *Intuitively, does not mean easy and not thinking!*



That's true. 

Intuitive means: "using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive."

Parts of your method are like that. There are also parts where you merely say "make these moves and it works." Those are the parts that are not intuitive. Those are the parts where the use of the method does not understand what they are doing. They are simply following your instructions.

HOWEVER: I am not saying that that is a bad thing at all. Almost every method has intuitive steps AND non-intuitive steps. I'm just saying that your method is not 100% intuitive by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a fairly good guide though.


----------



## brian724080 (Oct 6, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> HOWEVER: I am not saying that that is a bad thing at all. Almost every method has intuitive steps AND non-intuitive steps. I'm just saying that your method is not 100% intuitive by any stretch of the imagination.



Is there a method that really is completely intuitive? If so, is it practical to use one?


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 6, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> Is there a method that really is completely intuitive? If so, is it practical to use one?



Short answer: Heise

Long answer: There is often a grey area between intuitive and algorithmic steps. Often someone can understand an algorithm intuitively, but often intuitive steps have algorithms within them that people use. Good speedsolving methods have a lot of room for interpretation and improvisation. It's really hard to say when something is intuitive and when it is not.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Oct 6, 2013)

inb4 Kirjava!

sm, I am an expert on parity algorithm structures and theory, and I have to say that the parity algorithm you chose doesn't seem to be the easiest approach. The parity algorithm you use is long and unproductive.

 *l D2 l D2 l' r' B2 r B2 r' B2 r B2* l U2 l' U2 l U2 l' U2 F2 l F2 l'

I would have finished what you started like this (where the bold moves above and below are identical).
* l D2 l D2 l' r' B2 r B2 r' B2 r B2*
U2 l U2 l'
D2 U B L' B' r D2 r' 
D2 B L B' U' D2

Based on your chosen approach, if we didn't care about length but we didn't want to be to inefficient, a better option would have been:
(r2 F2 l F2 r2) D2 l' D2 l (U2 B2 D2 D B' L B ) l U2 l' U2 (B' L' B D' D2 B2 U2)

Where I basically used the algorithm r2 F2 l F2 r2 instead of l D2 l D2 l' r' B2 r B2 r' B2 r B2, because it is also a checkboard 4-cycle which discolors 4 1x2 center blocks.

Both of you seem to have a lot of patience to create documents in detail as I do, and I respect that. It looks very neat!


----------



## sm (Oct 6, 2013)

Ok, thank you!

*In this method we go from difficult to the simple. And I think that it is right* - this method demonstrate that the most difficult is solved corners i.e. the 2x2x2 cube all the rest is much easier - it's base for solving cubes of any sizes.

*About the how to solve ribs and parity on big cubes:*
I don't use formulas to solve parity to show as to solve it using only knowledge about the cube 2x2x2. It isn't necessary to learn formulas, it is necessary to understand it.

Thank you for understanding!


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Oct 6, 2013)

I think my 3x3x3 guide is much easier for beginners to follow for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3. I didn't use much English either so that it can be used by people globally.

I also made a 3x3x3 Reduction guide to solve the 4x4x4 and larger cubes in 2009 (when I first learned how to solve the nxnxn cube), but I never released it to the public because most of it is common knowledge. But for the sake of it, here it is:
3x3x3 Reduction.

What I liked about my guide the most is that I used the same algorithm (on page 11) to complete all composite edges on the nxnxn. I explain on pages 12, 13, and 18 how to do this. (You can skip the "even further" section on pages 13-17).



sm said:


> ...And *it is real to solve a Rubik's Cube without knowledge of formulas!*


Well, the correct term to use here is "algorithm", not "formula", but you are indeed correct. One merely needs to know how to swap numbers to solve a permutation and is aware of the "cube laws".

One can represent any Rubik's cube scramble as a set of lists of numbers and solve the number sets without even thinking about the cube at all. To handle orientations of corners and middle edges, one must simply be aware of the cube laws and one can be sure that these number solutions could be theoretically translated to an nxnxn cube in move form, where we mark the edge pieces which are unoriented as + and corners twisted incorrectly either + or - in addition to the piece number they represent.

However, as others have said, you have provided algorithms ("formulas"), so you did give them prerequisite knowledge of "formulas".

I'm all in favor of using a single idea to solve any size cube.


Spoiler



A more "intuitive" guide I made develops a few basic commutator moves, extrapolates them, and combines them at different angles to solve more complicated cases. 3x3x3 solution (commutator). I made this guide in 2009 for myself (and in fact, this is roughly how I solve the 3x3x3 cube to this day), but I never released it to the public until now. Nothing new, probably.


In fact, that is why I am in the process of proving that the nxnxn cube can be solved with a single commutator (*a formula*, not an algorithm). (See my avatar image).


----------



## porkynator (Oct 6, 2013)

Thanks for sharing, this is a nice method!
I haven't read the whole guide, but this method is very similar to the one Attila uses for FMC: he solves corners first, often with orientation followed by permutation, as in your method, and then edges, without a fixed way of solving them as far as I know.


----------



## antoineccantin (Oct 6, 2013)

So, like an example of an 100% intuuitive method would be the one used for Rubik's Clock, right?


----------



## qqwref (Oct 6, 2013)

sm said:


> 1982, when all spoke that it is necessary to solving a cube layer-by-layer.


I don't think this is true - several people were developing or using non-LBL methods around that time. Some examples are Minh Thai (1982 World Champion) and Marc Waterman (achieved 16.xx average of 12 in very early 1980s).

This does look like an interesting method for beginners though!


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Oct 6, 2013)

sm said:


> *Valery Morozov tried to explain his principle to people, but anybody didn't understand him.* On his youtube-channel there is a lot of video where it tells about degrees of freedom and why it solving a cube in such sequence. *He invented this method in 1982*, when all spoke that it is necessary to solving a cube layer-by-layer.
> He wanted to explain to people the principle, but nobody tried to understand it, therefore I wrote this instruction in which I use many schemes that it was clear to people.


That was a very nice gesture for you to do. Your and his work will not go unnoticed. I appreciate that you have given us the opportunity to see this method explained in English.

Lastly, just to be clear of what I mean (solving a cube with a single commutator), here is an example solve (if you want me to solve a specific random position --even permutation--with a single commutator, let me know):

*Scramble*
L2 F' L2 B U L R' U2 R2 B' L F' D2 U2 L' R' F U B U D2 B D' B' R'
*Solution*
[B2 R U2 L2 B2 R2 B' L D' R U' B' L2 D B D' R2 B', B2 L' U2 R2 U L2 B' R B2 L D' B2 F' D2 R' B' F']


----------



## sellingseals (Oct 6, 2013)

sm said:


> *Thank you for your comment!*
> 
> We want to explain the principle.
> If you learned to solve with this method and understood the principle, you already will be able to solve corners and edges with your method.
> ...



This method is absolutely not 100% intuitive. Saying it is, and then explaining how it's done makes it less than 100% intuitive. If you have to teach people, it's NOT intuitive 100%. I'm not sure how else to word this. You're saying it's 100% intuitive, and then go on to say you have to understand the principle of how it's done, and because of that it is intuitive. 100% intuitive does not include being taught the principle of the method. The problem I have with this, if you can't get it yet, is that you say it's 100% intuitive, and it's absolutely not. If somebody picks up a cube, knows nothing about it, solves it on their own without any outside influence, then to that person it was 100 % intuition that got them to solve it. As soon as that person starts explaining how they did it to somebody, as in the method, that next person absolutely did NOT solve it 100% intuitive. Get it?


----------



## elrog (Oct 6, 2013)

sellingseals said:


> This method is absolutely not 100% intuitive. Saying it is, and then explaining how it's done makes it less than 100% intuitive. If you have to teach people, it's NOT intuitive 100%. I'm not sure how else to word this. You're saying it's 100% intuitive, and then go on to say you have to understand the principle of how it's done, and because of that it is intuitive. 100% intuitive does not include being taught the principle of the method. The problem I have with this, if you can't get it yet, is that you say it's 100% intuitive, and it's absolutely not. If somebody picks up a cube, knows nothing about it, solves it on their own without any outside influence, then to that person it was 100 % intuition that got them to solve it. As soon as that person starts explaining how they did it to somebody, as in the method, that next person absolutely did NOT solve it 100% intuitive. Get it?



I disagree. Your saying that doing something intuitively means you do it without learning it. Your basically saying intuitively is instinctively. That's just fine, but you cant solve a Rubik's cube on instinct. No one ever has and no one ever will. Just because someone learned to solve it on their own doesn't make it instinctive, it just means they learned how the cube works on their own usually through trial and error rather than having someone else tell them how it works.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 7, 2013)

You call it _"*The* 100% intuitive method"_ instead of _"*A* 100% intuitive method"_. Do you really think there is no other?


----------



## sellingseals (Oct 7, 2013)

elrog said:


> I disagree. Your saying that doing something intuitively means you do it without learning it. Your basically saying intuitively is instinctively. That's just fine, but you cant solve a Rubik's cube on instinct. No one ever has and no one ever will. Just because someone learned to solve it on their own doesn't make it instinctive, it just means they learned how the cube works on their own usually through trial and error rather than having someone else tell them how it works.



haha, this guy wrote out how he solves the puzzle intuitively. That is taking direction on HOW to solve the puzzle. It's a method. What the guy wrote out, is a METHOD. An intuitive method? Now that you know his "method", and if you solve it like that, how is solving it like THAT intuitive to YOU? It's not, because you are following the direction of somebody else. I'm not saying that doing something intuitively means you do it without learning anything. Of course you have to use your own logic to figure something out by yourself, using things you've learned in the past etc etc. Nobody can process anything without using what they have already learned in their lifetime. However, this man cannot sit there and say you can solve the puzzle intuitively while using his method. Now that you know the method, and it was taught by somebody else, you have just learned part of how it's solved, which is then not intuitive. That's like a musician playing some music, making it up on the spot intuitively compared to reading somebody else's music score. The method in question was intuitive for the writer, but not for anybody else who uses this method afterwards. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this. I challenge you to learn to learn to pick locks WITHOUT any outside help whatsoever. If you could, you did it intuitively, if you have to look anything up at all, then it's not 100% intuitive.


----------



## sellingseals (Oct 7, 2013)

sm said:


> You very well said! I agree with you!



re-thinking this, I think it can be argued both ways. I mean somebody can explain the method of fridrich or roux and not explain how to exactly perform the method and somebody can intuitively figure out the method by the guidelines laid out. So I can see that point. I just don't think it's right to say that it's 100% intuitive to solve a cube using your method, as 100% intuition would also be coming up with the method for themselves. It's the 100% part that I have a problem with. The people that invented the solving strategies that we all know these days are the people that solved it 100% intuitively in my opinion, like the person that invented Fridrich, Roux, etc etc. Again, I think when looking at it this way, it can be argued from both sides that it could be named 100% and could not. Both have valid points, and if you can't agree with this at least, then lets agree to disagree.


----------



## Gaétan Guimond (Oct 7, 2013)

It's good Intuition i'ts my story of cube my sequence of solving too is 

Solving 8 corners (the cube 2x2x2);
Solving 12 edges 

I haven't been inspired by anyone a book or the web. With you I'd go even further but I decided otherwise. I'm happy without recognition of my impact on the new life of this cube. Anyway I'm true


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 7, 2013)

"Intuitive" doesn't seem like the right word to describe solving without algorithms. There's arguably more reasoning and rational thought going on when solving this way than there is with recognition and algorithm recall. It's a misnomer. 

With a truly 100% intuitive method, you would pick up the cube and... just know how to solve it.


----------



## pijok (Oct 7, 2013)

I think this method is more intuitive and has less algorithms. But of course it uses commutators.


----------



## pijok (Oct 7, 2013)

For speedcubing we use following definition of intuitive:


http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Intuitive_solving said:


> Intuitive solving consists in solving the Rubik's cube without using any algorithm that you do not understand. In most methods, for example for the last layer, most algorithm are used in such way that there is an input cube in some state, then you apply the appropriate algorithm that you learnt by heart, and quite magically, the cube is in the desired state.





sm said:


> A person can use (X Y X' Y') but not necessarily to understand essences.


How would you use a commutator without understanding it?? learning it by heart? Than it's just an algorithm.



sm said:


> *This commutator in first time found by means of the computer as I know.*


 *It seems you don't know it: Commutators refer to mathematical terms of group theory. *

If you click at the link I posted, you can see that all parts of solving the cube are explained. So you are solving the Rubik's cube without using any algorithm that you do not understand. => its intuitive

In your method there are algs which aren't explained => It is not 100% intuitive. *This doesn't mean it is not easy to understand!*


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 7, 2013)

Intuition is a learning tool. "Intuitive solving method" is a silly concept. Better to say 'without use of pre-memorised sequences'.



pijok said:


> For speedcubing we use following definition of intuitive



That is just terrible. 

_"An intuitive approach to solving a case is arrived at by logic and
reasoning that has been generated by experimentation. I think the
ability to use intuition to generate solutions for something is
important - it demonstrates awareness of the effect caused by applying
moves which is an important trait in understanding the cube and
shortcuts available. In comparison to algorithmic approaches, a
solution for each case is discovered by the user using logic or trial
and error. Cases may be improved over time as the solver's ability to
intuit more efficient solutions improves."_ -Me


----------



## porkynator (Oct 7, 2013)

Can we stop arguing about what "intuitive" means and start talking about cubing? About this method (or related things) in particular, please.

I looked deeper into this method (for 3x3 only), and I still think it's nice.
I suggest any rouxer reading this thread try out the LSE approach (after EO). Do you find it easier/faster/more efficient/... than the usual place UR and UL + finish?


----------



## hkpnkp (Oct 7, 2013)

there is already one - heise method


----------



## pijok (Oct 7, 2013)

sm said:


> Ok, say to me - How much time and vigour it took for a people found these commutators?
> I think very much. Because many people tried to solve the cube layer-by-layer.
> *They were deceived by initial ease of a layer-by-layer method:*
> 
> ...


You misunderstand me:
- I don't think every layer by layer method is intuitive
- I don't think that You know nothing about other methods
- I like your concept of 1)solve corners 2)solve edges 3) solve centers because it can be applied on any sized cube.
- I don't think it is easy to learn how commutators work, but if you understand them, it is easy to solve a rubik's cube intuitively
- commutators are a logical concept. You don't have to memorize anything if You understand how they work.

What i wanted to say is:
- Your method is not 100%intuitive
- (but that doesn't make it bad)


----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 8, 2013)

Gaétan Guimond said:


> It's good Intuition i'ts my story of cube my sequence of solving too is
> 
> Solving 8 corners (the cube 2x2x2);
> Solving 12 edges
> ...



hello


----------



## sm (Oct 10, 2013)

*My new outputs from this method.*
When we make a correct pair of 2 edges elements we get a complex element. This complex element contains 3 colors. And this complex element have its complex place which consists of three flowers.
For example, if we connect the White-Red edge with the White-Orange edge, we get the correct pair is the White-Red-Orange complex element. And this element have the White-Red-Orange complex place. It is similar to corners. And to set this complex element not more difficult than to set a corner element in first side in the layer-by-layer method.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 10, 2013)

this thread is way too silly and 'zen-like' for me to take it seriously

THE HEART OF THE CUBE IS THE FOUR CORNERS BECAUSE IT'S NUMBER CANNOT CHANGE


----------



## sellingseals (Oct 11, 2013)

sm said:


> Hello all!
> Ok. Maybe it is my mistake (not Valery) that I thus called this topic.
> But only this unique method on 100% opened for me Rubik’s cubes, and for me this method will be 100% intuitive.
> *I hope we won't argue any more on this subject "intuitively or not intuitively". Each for himself must decide that.*
> ...



I don't think anybody was arguing actually, and more giving their opinions. There have been a lot of people with the shared opinions on what you were calling it, as well as in the Twisty Puzzles Forum I've seen. I don't think it was arguing when so many people think the same thing? anyway, you are right, we will all see it differently.


----------



## rj (Oct 11, 2013)

sellingseals said:


> I don't think anybody was arguing actually, and more giving their opinions. There have been a lot of people with the shared opinions on what you were calling it, as well as in the Twisty Puzzles Forum I've seen. I don't think it was arguing when so many people think the same thing? anyway, you are right, we will all see it differently.



I think this should have been on twistypuzzles.


----------



## sm (Oct 11, 2013)

Look please at this method for beginners - http://rubikscube.info/beginner.php
and compare it to this method.
*There to be spoken:*
_Introduction
This method uses very few sequences that you need to memorize in order to solve the cube. Although there are quite a few sequences provided in this solution, most of them are intuitive steps, which once you understand you will never forget. But just like in any other game, you will need to study different methods in order to find your own solving strategy. Even though you might find our corners-first solution pretty straightforward, it will take a lot of practice before you fully master the method._

*Look as difficult there solve edges, because there is a binding to centers.*


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 11, 2013)

sm said:


> *This method is received not by a mathematical way. Do you know any other such methods?*



Yes, of course I do. 



sm said:


> Nobody wishes to see principle which allows solving the cube very easily.
> If you didn't understand something, it isn't necessary to speak that it is silly.
> We are ready to change the topic name but from it the method doesn't change. I asked the administrator about it.
> After all we weren't rude to you.
> ...





sm said:


> The fact that the Rubik's cube is unreal to solve without commutators and formulas it is a stereotype and the myth which was created for many years and all support it. Nobody likes the truth because many minds fought for this puzzle, they have spent a time and power for its decision.
> Now on the Internet were many methods which are stamped from of same commutators and formulas.
> And everyone declares "it is my new method", though it doesn't bear anything new and unique.
> Therefore I want to help to Valery to show this unique and original method.



You act so victimised and rambly, this is gaetan level insanity.


----------



## brian724080 (Oct 11, 2013)

sm said:


> You have nothing more to say?
> These are all your arguments?



Basically Kirjava is saying that you're overrating to a slight bit of criticism.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Oct 11, 2013)

brian724080 said:


> Basically Kirjava is saying that you're *overreacting* to a slight bit of criticism.



The 'of course I do' requires knowing the depths of Kir's knowledge about cubing.
Maybe check out his sub 20 with 20 different methods video.


----------



## irontwig (Oct 11, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> this is gaetan level insanity.



That's some praise!


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Oct 11, 2013)

sm said:


> *I don't see any adequate argument.*
> His successes in speedcubing to me doesn't speak about anything.
> We now speak not about it.
> And we personally didn't offend anybody.



You do realise that basically no method is actually based on the mathematics of the cube. Except maybe Kociemba/Thisthlethwaite.


----------



## pijok (Oct 11, 2013)

cube-o-holic said:


> Maybe check out his sub 20 with 20 different methods video.


*but none of these methods* is as easy, cool, *intuitive*, interesting, nice, beginner friendly, efficient, not-algorithmic, not using commutators, blessed, not received from mathemagical logic and *unique* *as the method invented by Valery*!

To show this i added subtitles to a random video and here is a *new message from Valery Morozov*:
you can easily solve corners and edges in the Rubik’s Cube 3x3x3, 
and then put centers into places. If your intuition say to you - begin with centers, then your 
name is Singmaster David ("Noteson Rubik's"Magic Cube".1979 and by Enslow and Penguin 1980).

*Original text:*
_[...]Так с каких элементов надо начинать сборку? Если Ваша интуиции подсказывает - с центров, значит вас зовут: Singmaster 
David."Noteson Rubik's"Magic Cube".1979 and by Enslow and Penguin 1980._

I can't see any arguments!! In my opinion this method is the most intuitive method ever!!

*The principle of solve which was opened by Valery much more logically than all that existed before in the Rubik's Cube World!!*


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 11, 2013)

I could reply to loads of your stuff, but a lot of it is rambling and repetition (seriously, lots of the text in your posts is literally copy pasted from other posts). You seem to go on and on and on vying for some weird recognition for some mundane system that anyone could've shat out.

You apply colour to certain sentences seemingly under the impression that they should be mind blowing statements. Your terminology is all wrong - just because you call an algorithm a scheme doesn't mean that it is not an algorithm. What is a 'phase method' ? Are phases just steps? If so why is that notable?

Let me take a look at some of your claims.



sm said:


> This method doesn't use formulas



There are 'formulas' all over the booklet, so I don't know why you keep repeating this. Just beacuse you explain every move in an algorithm, doesn't mean that it is not an algorithm. Just because you understand an algorithm doesn't mean that it is not an algorithm. You don't even explain them all, some are literally just sequences of moves to remember.



sm said:


> and is intuitive on 100% for us



You list algorithms that you do not explain. That is not intuitive. I won't even discuss intuition further because it makes you a little unhinged.



sm said:


> This method is received not by a mathematical way. Do you know any other such methods?



Most methods have this property. Do you want a list?



sm said:


> Now on the Internet were many methods which are stamped from of same commutators and formulas.
> And everyone declares "it is my new method", though it doesn't bear anything new and unique.



This is an outright lie.

There any many systems that we see over and over again (yours is one of them). However, many people have done great work bringing in entirely new concepts to solving. These systems may use algorithms, but they also bring completely new abstract concepts that are absolutely unique.



sm said:


> The fact that the Rubik's cube is unreal to solve without commutators and formulas it is a stereotype and the myth which was created for many years and all support it.



Saying this looks like you think we're conspiring against you to not let knowledge that it's possible to solve the cube without algorithms reach the public, adding some serious weight to your crazy factor.



sm said:


> Nobody likes the truth because many minds fought for this puzzle, they have spent a time and power for its decision.



It's a shame that your method is just like all the others because if it was actually like what you describe it'd help remove some of the misinformation about the cube and become useful as a teaching tool. As it stands 8355 pwns you. We are in no way attempting to suppress your information, merely criticising its misrepresentation.



sm said:


> Valery Morozov about his method of solving the Rubik’s Cube 3x3x3



You list a story about how he realised that after you solve corners, it's easy to move edges around with slice moves without disturbing the corners.

Is this meant to be something new and unique?



sm said:


> This method is unique and it is worthy to be known!



This method has existed for years as "Columns" and I'd probably teach beginners something else.



cmowla said:


> inb4 Kirjava!



<3


----------



## Attila (Oct 11, 2013)

This method (or something similar) in the 80s, many people used it.
As I and other cubers, have discovered the solution ourselves,
without knowing others.
So,in my opinion, not only Morozov found it the corners first method, 
but many people, in the same age, but independently.
Apparently there is a lot of work in this guide,
but I think it does not really new knowledge.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 11, 2013)

The only 100% intuitive method I have ever come across is the CSPS method. Use a screwdriver to scramble, then solve in the following order: core, screws, pieces, stickers.


----------



## rj (Oct 11, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> The only 100% intuitive method I have ever come across is the CSPS method. Use a screwdriver to scramble, then solve in the following order: core, screws, pieces, stickers.



Heise.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 11, 2013)

rj said:


> Heise.


...for which you need to learn commutators.


----------



## rj (Oct 11, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> ...for which you need to learn commutators.



Which are intuitive.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 11, 2013)

rj said:


> Which are intuitive.


They still need to be learned. Intuition is subjective. As has been observed 1000 times before with F2L, solving comprises a mix of intuitive and algorithmic technique, and fluctuates between the two - cases that you figure out yourself become algorithmic as they are committed to muscle memory, and algorithms that are learned become intuitive as the way they work becomes better understood.

It doesn't really make sense to refer to any method as "100% intuitive". Every method relies on learning, and learning doesn't equate to understanding. Some methods require better understanding to use them effectively, which is why not many people are good at Heise, but that doesn't mean that everyone who solves with Heise does so 100% intuitively.

/pedantry


----------



## sm (Oct 12, 2013)

*Hello everybody!*

I deleted many excess messages that there were no any disputes more.
Let's agree to differ.

*I am really sorry!*

I hope this method will find followers.

*Best regards, Sergey.*


----------



## sm (Oct 13, 2013)

Another variant of flipping edges - http://vk.com/doc185254069_229324082


----------



## sm (Oct 18, 2013)

Old variant of solving by the principle which Valery Morozov showed - http://vk.com/doc185254069_230764683


----------



## sm (Oct 23, 2013)

A mixed method (the method of lines and the method of Morozov) for solving of 4x4x4-NxNxN cubes:

Solving 2 opposite centers (the Blue and Green centers);
Solving 8 edges which contain Blue or Green colors with the method of lines;
Solving corners with the method of Morozov;
Put 8 edges and 2 centers to their place - 2 opposite sides (the Blue and Green sides) are solved;
Solving 4 edges with method of Morozov;
Solving 4 centers.
Video for the 4x4x4 cube - http://youtu.be/71x68Okd1T0
Video for the 5x5x5-NxNxN cube - http://youtu.be/9eT-FzMGDvU

How to permute central elements by 3x3x3 principle:

http://youtu.be/lVUR-igVTL4
http://youtu.be/Re_rs5BXXkY

Another mixed method for odd cubes (5x5x5, 7x7x7,…):

Solving all 6 centers;
Solving all edges with the method of lines;
If it is necessary then remove parity - rotate an internal layer on 90⁰ and resolve 4 edges;
Solving 4 centers from lines;
Solve a cube as the 3х3х3.
Video - http://youtu.be/PusIG2hmctw


----------



## Renslay (Oct 23, 2013)

sm said:


> A mixed method (the method of lines and the method of Morozov) for solving of 4x4x4-NxNxN cubes:
> 
> Solving 2 opposite centers (the Blue and Green centers);
> Solving 8 edges which contain Blue or Green colors with the method of lines;
> ...



This is *exactly* the Cage Method variant I used years ago.



sm said:


> If it is necessary then remove parity - rotate an internal layer on 90⁰ and resolve 4 edges and 4 centers;



What kind of parity can you have on an odd big cube, after you solved the centers and the edges?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 23, 2013)

sandwich and reduction lol


----------



## PeelingStickers (Oct 23, 2013)

sm said:


> Another mixed method for odd cubes (5x5x5, 7x7x7,…):
> 
> *Solving all 8 centers;*
> Solving all edges with the method of lines;
> ...



am I missing something here?


----------



## sm (Oct 23, 2013)

Renslay said:


> What kind of parity can you have on an odd big cube, after you solved the centers and the edges?


I mean, if after solving of edges (step 2) we get one incorrect edge.

Here I don't show anything new.
I want to show how to solve big cubes more optimally using the method of Morozov - one method does not interfere with the other, something more convenient solve in one method and something in other.



PeelingStickers said:


> am I missing something here?



Solving all 6 centers; 
Solving all edges with the method of lines;
If it is necessary then remove parity - rotate an internal layer on 90⁰ and resolve 4 edges;
*Solving 4 centers from lines;*
Solve a cube as the 3х3х3.
I think it will be more correct.



Kirjava said:


> sandwich and reduction lol


Yes, it is very similar to a sandwich. )

*I like to solve the corners with Morozov method. The 2x2x2 is main in this method.*


----------



## sm (Nov 19, 2018)

*F2G+Morozov*

0) I chose White and Yellow as basic colors.
1) Collect all Yellow corners to the up side and all White corners to the down side.
2) Analyzing how much pairs of corners are correct and incorrect:
- case *[0+4-]* (0 correct, 4 incorrect) - make *F2 R2 F2* and get the case *[4+0-]* (4 correct, 0 incorrect).
- case *[1+3-]* (1 correct, 3 incorrect) - lock any incorrect pair and orient 1 correct pair. After it we need to lock this correct pair and solve all other corners used only U and R movements.
- case *[2+2-]* (2 correct, 2 incorrect) - lock any incorrect pair and solve second incorrect pair. After it we need to lock this correct pair and solve all other corners used only U and R movements.
- case *[3+1-]* (3 correct, 1 incorrect) - make *F2 R2 F2* and get case *[1+3-]* (1 correct, 3 incorrect).
- case *[4+0-]* (4 correct, 0 incorrect) - lock any correct pair and orient any another correct pair. After it we need to lock this correct pair and solve all other corners used only U and R movements.

*Demonstration of cases*
Case *[0+4-]* - 



Case *[1+3-]* - 



Case *[2+2-]* - 



Case *[3+1-]* - 



Case *[4+0-]* - 




As a result we get only three main cases - *[1+3-]*, *[2+2-]* and *[4+0-]*.
The cases *[0+4-]* and *[3+1-]* transform to the cases *[4+0-]* and *[1+3-]* using *F2 R2 F2*.

*Thanks to Eugene Benek (aka LLLennnonnn) for this idea!*

*PS 21.11.2018*
Other variants for the cases *[0+4-]* and *[3+1-]*.

Case *[0+4-]* - need to solve (join and orient) any pair of corners but need to orient basic colors not to the up or down side. Then need to lock this correct pair and solve other 6 corners using Morozov method.

Case *[3+1-]* - need to solve (join and orient) one correct pair of corners but need to orient basic colors not to the up or down side. Then need to lock this correct pair and solve other 6 corners using Morozov method.

Using this variant we don't need to use *F2 R2 F2*.

Case *[2+2-]* - we also can solve using this variant.Need to lock one correct pair and solve (join and orient) the second correct pair of corners but need to orient basic colors not to the up or down side. Then need to lock this correct pair and solve other 6 corners using Morozov method.

Using this variant we change up/down side to other sides (R/L or F/B). When we solving one correct pair on another side we change configuration of other corners (normalize them), too.

In the following demo I only show principle when all the corners aren't flipped.
You can try to do it when all the corners are flipped randomly.
Case *[0+4-]* - 



Case *[3+1-]* - 




And another variant for case *[2+2-]* - 




*Thanks to Eugene Benek (aka LLLennnonnn) for this idea!*

The video from Eugene - 



He shows it from 5:00.
==========================================================
*F2G+(normalization of all edges using HTA or ZZ rule)+Morozov*

0) I chose White and Yellow as basic colors.
1) Collect all Yellow corners to the up side and all White corners to the down side.
2) Making the one correct pair of corners (see the previous post about 2*2*2).
3) Add one edge to the correct pair - make unbreakable 1*1*3 block.
4) Normalization of all edges using HTA or ZZ rule.
4.1) We can make unbreakable block 1*2*3 from the block 1*1*3
5) Lock the block 1*1*3 and solving all other corners using only U and R movements (see the previous post about 2*2*2).
6) Solving all edges using only U/M and R movements.

Demonstration of *F2G+(HTA or ZZ)+Morozov* - 




We can exchange steps 1 and 2.

Demonstration of *(HTA or ZZ)+F2G+Morozov* - 



==========================================================
*F2G + 1x1x3 + (ZZ or HTA) + 1x2x3 + 2x2x3 + Morozov + 7 Edges*

0) I chose White and Yellow as basic colors.
1) Collect all Yellow corners to the up side and all White corners to the down side.
2) Making the one correct pair of corners (see the previous post about 2*2*2).
3) Add one edge to the correct pair - make unbreakable 1*1*3 block.
4) Normalization of all edges using HTA or ZZ rule.
3) Make unbreakable block 1*2*3 from 1*1*3.
4) Make unbreakable block 2*2*3 from 1*2*3.
5) Lock the unbreakable block 2*2*3 and solving all other corners using only U and R movements (see the previous post about 2*2*2).
6) Solving 7 edges using *R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2* and setup movies R и U.

Demo - 




I named it "*A sequential bandaging method*".


----------



## sm (Nov 20, 2018)

*F2G + Roux (2 blocks 1x2x3) + Sune (0, 1 or 2 time) + Roux (6 last edges)*

0) I chose White and Yellow as basic colors.
1) Collect all Yellow corners to the up side and all White corners to the down side.
2) Making the one correct pair of corners (see the previous post about 2*2*2).
3) Add one edge to the correct pair - make unbreakable 1*1*3 block.
4) Make the first Roux block 1*2*3 from 1*1*3.
6) Make the second Roux block 1*2*3.
7) Because all the corners stand in their places enough to use only Sune algorithm 0, 1 or 2 times to flipping 4 corners.
8) Solving last 6 edges using Roux or Morozov method.

Demo - 




*Thanks to Eugene Benek (aka LLLennnonnn) for this idea!*


----------



## sm (Nov 21, 2018)

A variant of mixed method from Eugene Benek (aka LLLennnonnn)

*F2G + Morozov + Roux*





He used another way:
1) Normalization of corners and solving a right pair of 2 corners.
2) The first 1*2*3 block.
3) Solving all the corners. We can use Morozov principle here because all the corners were normalized yet.
4) The second 1*2*3 block. I think it looks like Waterman method.
5) Solving last 6 edges using Roux.


----------



## sm (Nov 21, 2018)

I've updated my reply - https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...d-for-a-rubiks-cube.44264/page-3#post-1306077

See *PS 21.11.2018* - Other variants for the cases *[0+4-]* and *[3+1-]*.
============================
*All the variants when a pair of two corners is correct*



An addition for https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...d-for-a-rubiks-cube.44264/page-3#post-1306077


----------



## sm (Nov 23, 2018)

I've found several videos about Morozov's method in English. Hope it'll be helpfull.

How to solve 2x2x2





3x3x3 (part 1)





3x3x3 (part 2)





How to solve big cudes


----------



## sm (Nov 28, 2018)

I've done my analysis for F2G method.
The manual - https://vk.com/doc185254069_483360440

We can do analysis and normalize all the corners using this principle.
We also can use this when the block 1*1*3 is solved and all other 6 corners flipped randomly.

Demo normalization of corners using this principle


----------



## sm (Nov 28, 2018)

I've made several demonstrations of solving using F2G principle of normalization and Morozov's method.
Hope it'll be useful.

White and Yellow are basic colors in all the reconstructions.
=================================
Scr 1: B R' F U2 F2 D F' D' F R' F D2
Sol:
U R2 // Yellow-Blue pair

// All the White corners in the Green side. All the Yellow corners in the Blue side

// Analyzing:
// Yellow-Green pair is correct
// White-Green pair is correct
// White-Blue pairis incorrect
// the case [3+1-]

F' // setup move
L D' L' // normalization of corners
(D2 F' D)(F' D2 F D2)(D F2 D F2)D // flipping of corners using Morozov's method
D2 F' D2 F D2 F' D2 F2 // solving of corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=B_R-_...-_D2_F_D2)(D_F2_D_F2)D
D2_F-_D2_F_D2_F-_D2_F2
=================================
Scr 2: U' R' B' D2 R' B D2 B L F' R' D2
Sol:
U2 R2 // White-Blue pair
B U B2 // All the White corners in the Yellow side. All the Yellow corners in the White side

// Analyzing:
// White-Green pair is correct
// Yellow-Green pair is correct
// Yellow-Blue pair is incorrect
// the case [3+1-]

// not need setup move

R B' R' // normalization of corners
(B U2 B')(B2 U' B2)U(B2 U' B2)(B' U2 B' U2)B // flipping of corners using Morozov's method
B2 U B2 U// solving of corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U-_R-...(B2_U-_B2)U(B2_U-_B2)(B-_U2_B-_U2)B
B2_U_B2_U
=================================
Scr 3: L2 D' L D' F' R' F2 D L' U2 L R
Sol:
// Yellow-Blue pair is solved
F U2 // All the White corners in the Green side. All the Yellow corners in the Blue side

// Analyzing:
// Yellow-Green pair is incorrect
// White-Blue pair is correct and White-Green pair is correct. Or White-Red pair is correct and White-Orange pair is correct
// the case [3+1-]

U2 // setup move
R U' R' // normalization of corners
U'(U F2 U) F2 U // flipping of corners using Morozov's method
F2 U2 F U2 // solving of corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2_D-...lg=F_U2
U2
R_U-_R-
U-(U_F2_U)_F2_U
F2_U2_F_U2
=================================
Scr 4: R' F' U' R2 D' F B' R2 U R D' R2
Sol:
// White-Red pair is solved
R2 F // All the White corners in the Orange side. All the Yellow corners in the Red side

// Analyzing:
// White-Blue pair is incorrect
// Yellow-Green is correct
// Yellow-Blue is correct
// the case [2+2-]

R' // setup move
U F' U' // normalization of corners
(R F2 R F)(R2 F' R F)R(F' R2 F' R2 F') // flipping of corners using Morozov's method
R F2 R F2 // solving of corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R-_F-...F2_R_F)(R2_F-_R_F)R(F-_R2_F-_R2_F-)
R_F2_R_F2
=================================
Scr 5: R D2 L2 F L D' R2 B' L' F' R' L
Sol:
F' // Yellow-Blue pair
L U // All the White corners in the Orange side. All the Yellow corners in the Red side

// Analyzing:
// Yellow-Green is correct
// White-Red is correct
// White-Orange is incorrect
// the case [3+1-]

L // setup move
F U' F' // normalization of corners
U'(L' U' L U)L(U' L2 U' L2 U') // flipping of corners using Morozov's method
L U2 L U2 L' U2 // solving of corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_D2_...-(L-_U-_L_U)L(U-_L2_U-_L2_U-)
L_U2_L_U2_L-_U2
=================================
Scr 6: U2 F B2 R' U' F R F L' D' B' D
Sol:
// Yellow-Orange pair is solved
L2 U' // All the White corners in the Orange side. All the Yellow corners in the Red side

// Analyzing:
// Yellow-Red is incorrect
// White-Blue pair is correct and White-Green pair is correct. Or White-Red pair is correct and White-Orange pair is correct
// the case [3+1-]

U2 // setup move
F U' F' // normalization of corners
(U L2 U')(U2 L' U2)(U' L2 U' L2 U) // flipping of corners using Morozov's method
L U2 L U2 // solving of corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_F_...
(U_L2_U-)(U2_L-_U2)(U-_L2_U-_L2_U)
L_U2_L_U2


----------



## sm (Nov 29, 2018)

How to solve corners using original Morozov's method.
White and Yellow are basic colors in all the reconstructions.
=================================
Scr 1: B R' F U2 F2 D F' D' F R' F D2
Sol:
D2 R D D' R2 D' R2 D' // flipping of corners. All the basic colors in the Orange and Red sides
L B2 L B2 // sorting of Yellow and White
// Analyzing:
// W-G pair is solved
// W-B is not solved
// Y-G is solved
// Y-B is solved
// the case [3+1-]
D2 B2 D2 // to the case [1+3-]
(U2 R' U2 R U2)R'(U2 R U2) // solving of corners

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=B_R-_...L_B2_L_B2
D2_B2_D2
(U2_R-_U2_R_U2)R-(U2_R_U2)
=================================
Scr 2: U' R' B' D2 R' B D2 B L F' R' D2
Sol:
(D R2)(R' D' R)D'(R' D2 R' D2 R) // flipping of corners. All the basic colors in the White and Yellow sides
U' R2 // sorting of Yellow and White
// Analyzing:
// all the pairs are not solved
// the case [0+4-]
B2 R2 B2 // to case [4+0-]. The corners are solved

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U-_R-..._R2)(R-_D-_R)D-(R-_D2_R-_D2_R)
U-_R2
B2_R2_B2
=================================
Scr 3: L2 D' L D' F' R' F2 D L' U2 L R
Sol:
D'(B' L' B)(U2 L2 U) // flipping of corners. All the basic colors in the Orange and Red sides
R2 U2 R' U2 // sorting of Yellow and White
// Analyzing:
// Y-G pair is solved
// Y-B is not solved
// W-O is solved
// W-R is not solved
// the case [2+2-]
(L F2)(L' F2)(L F2) // lock Y-B pair and solving W-R pair
(U2 R')(U2 R U2)R2 // lock W-R pair and solving Y-B pair

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2_D-..._R-_U2
(L_F2)(L-_F2)(L_F2)
(U2_R-)(U2_R_U2)R2
=================================
Scr 4: R' F' U' R2 D' F B' R2 U R D' R2
Sol:
(R' F')(D2 R' D2)(D' R2 D' R2 D) // flipping of corners. All the basic colors in the Orange and Red sides
R' B2 R' B2 // sorting of Yellow and White
// Analyzing:
// Y-B is solved
// Y-G is not solved
// W-O is solved
// W-R is not solved
// the case [2+2-]
(L' F2 L')(F2 L F2) // lock Y-G pair and solving W-R pair
(U2 R' U2)(R U2) // lock W-R pair and solving Y-G pair

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R-_F-...B2_R-_B2
(L-_F2_L-)(F2_L_F2)
(U2_R-_U2)(R_U2)
=================================
Scr 5: R D2 L2 F L D' R2 B' L' F' R' L
Sol:
B(R' D2 R' D2 R) // flipping of corners. All the basic colors in the White and Yellow sides
D2 B2 // sorting of Yellow and White
// Analyzing:
// Y-G is solved
// Y-B is not solved
// W-G is solved
// W-B is not solved
// the case [2+2-]
(B2 U B2)(U' B2) // lock Y-B pair and solving W-B pair
(R2 D R2)(D' R2)D' // lock W-B pair and solving Y-B pair

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_D2_..._R)
D2_B2
(B2_U_B2)(U-_B2)
(R2_D_R2)(D-_R2)D-
=================================
Scr 6: U2 F B2 R' U' F R F L' D' B' D
Sol:
B'(B2 L B2)(B L2 B)(L2 B) // flipping of corners. All the basic colors in the Orange and Red sides
(R U2)(R' U2) // sorting of Yellow and White
// Analyzing:
// Y-G, Y-B, W-B are solved. Or Y-O, Y-R, W-B are solved.
// W-G is not solved
// the case [3+1-]
B2 D2 B2 // to the case [1+3-]
(F2 R' F2)(R F2)(R' F2 R F2)R // lock W-G and solving all the corners

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_F_...R-_U2)
B2_D2_B2
(F2_R-_F2)(R_F2)(R-_F2_R_F2)R


----------



## sm (Nov 29, 2018)

How to solve corners using original Morozov's method when corners normalization is first step.
White and Yellow are basic colors in all the reconstructions.
=================================
Scr 1: B R' F U2 F2 D F' D' F R' F D2
Sol:
R' D2 // All the White corners into the Blue side. All the Yellow corners into the Green side
// Analyzing:
// Y-B pair is correct
// Y-G is incorrect
// W-B and W-G are correct. Or W-R and W-O are correct
// the case [3+1-]. We can get [1+3-] but we try to use another principle here
(R' F2 R)F(R F2) // lock W-O pair and solve Y-G on the R side. The R side is top now
L' D2 L D2 L2 D' // lock Y-G pair and flipping all the corners using Morozov's method
L D2 L D2 L' D2 // lock Y-G pair and solving all the corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=B_R-_...F2_R)F(R_F2)
L-_D2_L_D2_L2_D-
L_D2_L_D2_L-_D2
=================================
Scr 2: U' R' B' D2 R' B D2 B L F' R' D2
Sol:
B U B2 // All the White corners into the Yellow side. All the Yellow corners into the White side
// Analyzing:
// Y-G and Y-B are correct. Or Y-O and Y-R are correct
// W-R is correct
// W-O is incorrect
// the case [3+1-]
F2 R2 F2 // exchange to the case [1+3-]. W-O is fully solved. It's good because not need to solve it
(U' L2)(U L2)(U' L2)(U L2 U' L2)(L' U2 L')(U2 L U' L2) // lock W-O and flipping all the corners using Morozov's method
U L2 U' L2 U2 // lock W-O and solving all the corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U-_R-...L2_U-_L2)(L-_U2_L-)(U2_L_U-_L2)
U_L2_U-_L2_U2
=================================
Scr 3: L2 D' L D' F' R' F2 D L' U2 L R
Sol:
D L' D' // All the White corners into the Red side. All the Yellow corners into the Orange side
// Analyzing:
// W-O is correct
// W-R is incorrect
// Y-O is correct
// Y-R is incorrect
// the case [2+2-]. Try to use another principle here
R2(F' R2 F R')(F R2) // lock Y-O and solving W-O on the Green side using only R and F moves. The Green side is the top side now
U2(U2 B' U2)(B U2 B' U2)(U' B2 U' B2 U') // lock W-O and flipping all the corners using Morozov's method
B U2 B' U2 B U2 B' U2 // lock W-O and solving all the corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2_D-..._B-_U2)(U-_B2_U-_B2_U-)
B_U2_B-_U2_B_U2_B-_U2
=================================
Scr 4: R' F' U' R2 D' F B' R2 U R D' R2
Sol:
U' // All the White corners into the Orange side. All the Yellow corners into the Red side
// Analyzing:
// W-B is correct
// W-G is incorrect
// Y-G and Y-B are incorrect
// the case [1+3-]
(D L' D L D') L D2 // solving W-B using D and L moves. Y-O is locked
(R' F' R F2)(F2 R2 F) // lock W-B and flipping all the corners using Morozov's method
F2 R' F2 R F2 R' F2 R' F2 R2 // lock W-B and solving all the corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R-_F-...-_R_F2)(F2_R2_F)
F2_R-_F2_R_F2_R-_F2_R-_F2_R2
=================================
Scr 5: R D2 L2 F L D' R2 B' L' F' R' L
Sol:
L // All the White corners into the Green side. All the Yellow corners into the Blue side
// Analyzing:
// W-R and W-O are incorrect
// Y-G is correct
// Y-B is incorrect
// the case [1+3-]. Need to solve one correct pair (it's Y-G) using only B and R moves
(R B)(R2 B) // solving Y-G
L2(L2 U2 L) // lock Y-G and flipping all the corners using Morozov's method
U L2 U // lock Y-G and solving all the corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_D2_L2_F_L_D-_R2_B-_L-_F-_R-_L&alg=L
(R_B)(R2_B)
L2(L2_U2_L)
U_L2_U
=================================
Scr 6: U2 F B2 R' U' F R F L' D' B' D
Sol:
B // All the White corners into the Orange side. All the Yellow corners into the Red side
// Analyzing:
// Y-G is correct
// Y-B is incorrect
// W-G is correct
// W-B is incorrect
// the case [2+2-]. Solve it using Morozov's way
L F' L F' L' F' L' F2 // lock the Y-B and solving W-B
(D R' D2)(D2 R2 D) // lock Y-B and flipping all the corners using Morozov's method
R D2 R2 // lock Y-B and solving all the corners using Morozov's method

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_F_...-_L_F-_L-_F-_L-_F2
(D_R-_D2)(D2_R2_D)
R_D2_R2


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 3, 2018)

Nice idea yo


----------

