# "How to Solve a Rubik's cube for MIT graduates"



## badmephisto (Feb 16, 2011)

Hello all,

I'm thinking of putting together a "How to Solve a Rubik's cube for MIT graduates" video. Basically, it will be a fast paced video that will go over a completely algorithm-free method of solving the cube. Since people sometimes complain to me about how lame it is that you have to learn algorithms, and that there is no intelligence to solving it. Well, I can show them how to solve it completely intuitively, and make them feel dumb in the process, even as I try to make perfect sense.

I'm thinking about what this method should be. For now, I'm leaning toward this way of solving it, which I sometimes play around with. It's a Fridrich+Commutators hybrid as follows:

1. cross
2. f2l + orient edges (petrus style)
3. commutators to twist corners, and permute corners and edges.

I'm not super happy it. Can anyone think of ways to complete the last layer completely algorithm free? Or maybe position the edges as well as orienting then while finishing F2L? Or a whole different method altogether that could be suitable for this?

Suggestions welcome! Thanks!!!
-meph


----------



## theace (Feb 16, 2011)

You could try to look into the sexy move solution. It has a rather intuitive way of orienting and permuting the last 5 edges. You could try a BLD method hybrid maybe.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 16, 2011)

Freestyle F2L, comms for CLL and ELL.


----------



## LarsN (Feb 16, 2011)

How about block building petrus style the first 3x2x2. That's very intuitive once you get pushed in the right direction. Then orient edges and finish f2l minus on pair. Permute last edges. Permute corners using a keyhole like commutator with the RDF corner. Like: (L' D2 L, U2) I don't remember correct com notation, but you get the idea.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Feb 16, 2011)

I love your idea, badmephisto, but honestly everytime I encounter somebody who says they want to learn it "intuitively" and not learn algorithms, I just respond with "If you want to figure it out on your own, why are you asking for someone to teach you how to do it?"

The Sexy Move solution though is probably one of the best. You only learn one "algorithm" and it's just a commutator anyway. Unfortunately you don't build the standard first two layers and do the last layer separately. If I remember right, do all the edges, then corners, then orient the corners.


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 16, 2011)

May I suggest an edges first approach:
Cross
3 middle layer edges via keyhole
EO and Edge permutation a la Heise
Commutators to solve corners

In this method the playing with edges and EO is very intuitive. 
You can try a lot of things when working on your last layer without too much risk of messing up the already solved F2L edges.

Commutators will be a little more work but hey, we're talking MIT MIR?

An easy introduction to commutators could be to place one corner at a time:
(Set up)
A place corner
B replace by random unsolved corner (reccomend half turn)
A'
B'
(Set up)'

Reason for only solving 1 at a time is to reduce the number of set up moves: less chance of messing up
Same reason for the D2 move (got this D2 from a commutator based beginner method described by Chris Hardwick)

After this you can show that by choosing the 2nd corner carefully you can actually solve 2 (when lucky 3...) at the same time.
For the last three corners you MUST choose carefully to ensure you solve all three at once (instead of ending up with twisted corners)
Since even the MIT guys will eventually run into twisted corners you could show how to solve twisted corners by two commutators.

1st comm
A Place 1st twisted corner in location of 2nd twisted corner
B replace by random solved corner (reccomend half turn)
A'
B'

2nd comm:
Solve the resulting 3 cycle

If you really want to challenge them you could offcourse use corner twisting commutators.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 16, 2011)

Corners first is nice and intuitive (although not fast). A basic intuitive solution would look like this:
- first layer of corners (intuitive inserts)
- second layer, CP and CO separately with commutators (for instance: R'DR U ... and R'D2RFD2F' U ...)
- insert 3 edges in left and 3 corresponding edges in right (intuitive inserts)
- roux style L6E (no algorithms, completely intuitive, pretty efficient)


----------



## Godmil (Feb 16, 2011)

Firstly, YAY for new videos. Secondly, how about a Heise finish. Do the F2L minus one CE pair (could do this with keyhole to make it easier), then use that open slot to orient and permute the LL edges, then use Commutators for the last 5 corners.


----------



## Kynit (Feb 16, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Corners first is nice and intuitive (although not fast). A basic intuitive solution would look like this:
> - first layer of corners (intuitive inserts)
> - second layer, CP and CO separately with commutators (for instance: R'DR U ... and R'D2RFD2F' U ...)
> - insert 3 edges in left and 3 corresponding edges in right (intuitive inserts)
> - roux style L6E (no algorithms, completely intuitive, pretty efficient)


 
This looks the best to me so far. The only really tricky part is the CLL. It seems really hard to make a completely intuitive corners method; the only I've seen is the sexy move trick for LL.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 16, 2011)

You only need to come up with one three corner cycle to solve the corners.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 16, 2011)

Kynit said:


> This looks the best to me so far. The only really tricky part is the CLL. It seems really hard to make a completely intuitive corners method; the only I've seen is the sexy move trick for LL.



[R' D' R D]2 U/U'/U2 [D' R' D' R]2 U'/U/U2

R' D' R U/U'/U2 R' D R etc.


----------



## rishidoshi (Feb 16, 2011)

badmephisto said:


> Since people sometimes complain to me about how lame it is that you have to learn algorithms, and that there is no intelligence to solving it.


 
1st of all kudos for thinking this!!
2nd, i guess some people who do not know cubing at all (read smart a$$es) will never appreciate the way it is to be solved. Many non cubers think it is to be solved "face by face" using some alien intelligence. So algs do turn them off  The suggestions posted here by many people do involve some amount of algs (even if basic ones). So it wont really "answer" the critics. 
I do agree on your point about *"and make them feel dumb in the process"* :tu
But do we really need to do this just to answer some smart $$$.??
I guess (personal guess) the evolution of cubing is such that it might have started out by intuitive solving and later people wrote algs for what they 'intuited'. New age cubers learn from people who struggled and made it easy for the next generation (read badmephisto as one of them   ). 
anyway i think im being neuteral (or skeptical) idk 
Cheers!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 16, 2011)

Why not just teach them Heise?


----------



## TheManInBlack (Feb 16, 2011)

You can teach them without explaining the Algorithm, An example 

(For this case we will use R' D' blah blah blah) 

Instead show them the theory in which the pieces need to go. For example tell them that the red white and blue corner should match up with the blue and white edge piece by moving it a certain way. But show them how it should move but without stating the Algorithm. Show them how they should connect and meet up with each other 

(It's kind of like teaching the petrus method, But showing them fridrich.)

I have had much success with showing my friends how the colors connect with each other and how they should move. I "Show" them the Algorithm, i don't say it to them. It makes more sense to a beginner to see how they connect and their brain can process it better. If they want to speed cube i show them the Algorithm theory and the language of a cuber 

Good luck


----------



## badmephisto (Feb 16, 2011)

Thanks these are great answers and great ideas, I'll check them out. 

I should comment that I was only half joking in topic description. I just basically want a video on a method to solve the cube that requires no algorithms whatsoever. The argument then is that if you learn to solve it this way, you will never forget, because it's a deeper understanding of how the cube works. Also, some people may prefer it, or see it as a challenge to learn it that way. The video would be more of a hint video, would not explain everything in too much detail (there's probably no time), but I want to at least lay out a method, show what needs to be done when, how things should look like at all stages, etc, and maybe give an example or two that show it.


Thank you!


----------



## Attila (Feb 16, 2011)

I used a very intuitive corner first method, what i try perfecting now , and i used only for FMC.
first time i try a solution for all corners , usually with Ortega method, sometimes with Guimond or other algs,
then i changed this corner-algo, so that a few edges to be solved on two opposite sides, but not much more moves is needed,
then i solved more edges, to be Roux 6E4C position.
then i solved the last 6 edges.
For example: if the corner algo was FDU2R’BF’D2, but this not solve edges, some of the possible variant: Fdu2R’bF’D2 or fDU2R’bf'd2 and more endless variant…I make changes to it,which must be solved edges. This method the corners position still, but a few opposite edges effectívely solvable at one time with corners solve.
Two nice solution with this method: http://fmc.mustcube.net/ , round 328, 329, classic.


----------



## Erzz (Feb 16, 2011)

Roux has very little algorithms, the only non-intuitive ones being CMLL. You could use commutators for that stage.


----------



## EnterPseudonym (Feb 16, 2011)

Heise


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 16, 2011)

Corners first.


----------



## AndrewRocks (Feb 17, 2011)

Remember to constantly use intimidating words like, "Permutation" and "Algorithmic".


----------



## ZamHalen (Feb 17, 2011)

Intuitive ELL?


----------



## irontwig (Feb 17, 2011)

ZamHalen said:


> Intuitive ELL?


 
Yes? No? What!?


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 17, 2011)

badmephisto said:


> I'm thinking of putting together a "How to Solve a Rubik's cube for MIT graduates" video. Basically, it will be a fast paced video that will go over a completely algorithm-free method of solving the cube. Since people sometimes complain to me about how lame it is that you have to learn algorithms, and that there is no intelligence to solving it. Well, I can show them how to solve it completely intuitively, and make them feel dumb in the process, even as I try to make perfect sense.



If the goal is to make the video a wake-up call for those who view algorithmic methods as "lame", then I would name the video "A Beginner's Guide to Solving the Rubik's Cube intuitively" or something like that. Or perhaps "A simple, no-algorithm way to solve Rubik's Cube". That would work to drive home the point even more 

If the idea is to really just do a no-algorithm video that beginner's may actually use then I would go with Joël's commutator last layer method. It's absolutely amazing for both ease of teaching and ease of learning for the student. It's also the kind of method that they won't forget, since they understand how they're moving pieces around at the end, and aren't just using memorized algs.

Cool idea by the way!


----------



## Godmil (Feb 17, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> If the idea is to really just do a no-algorithm video that beginner's may actually use then I would go with Joël's commutator last layer method.



I'm forgetting, did you say you taught that method to tons of people (quite quickly) and they managed to remember it months afterwards? If so, then that seems to be proof by example that it would be a good method for this video.


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 17, 2011)

Godmil said:


> I'm forgetting, did you say you taught that method to tons of people (quite quickly) and they managed to remember it months afterwards? If so, then that seems to be proof by example that it would be a good method for this video.


 
Yes, this is the LL method I taught in the puzzle workshops I used to run at the track-out camps my old job held. It works very well for younger kids, so I imagine it would work well for all age groups as well.


----------



## Marcell (Feb 17, 2011)

The method I taught my father to solve the cube without learning algs was: Petrus-style 2x2x3 block, orient edges, finish F2L without a pair, permute last five edges, solve corners with commutators. No algs to forget, he's been happy with it ever since.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 18, 2011)

Actually, for corners, it might be easiest to teach a simplified version of Guimond. Steps 0/1 can be taught intuitively with a few tricks (like RU'R' and RUR'); separation is already intuitive; and permutation can be done with only J/N (with the algorithm being thought of not as an algorithm per se but as either (a) a way to swap two pieces on the bottom layer and not affect orientation/separation, or (b) a 4-move setup to a nice R2 move).


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 18, 2011)

Solving L4C after the rest is compleated is easy using two variations of Niklas (a com), first cycle to correct positions, then cycle a + b' to orient them two by two.

Example:
Scramble : R' U2 B L' B' L U2 R B U2 B2 U2 B

Place one : R U' L' U R' U' L U
Place the rest : (y') R' U L U' R U L' U'

Orient : (y x') L' U' R U L U' R' U ... (x) L U' R' U L' U' R U

If you look at this as algs there are 2, one having a mirror/inverse and the other both inverse and mirrors.

--------
First LL-corner method I found, back in 1981, it is hell when you get a 4-twist, 32 moves 

My first method was to solve the corners before the edges and then I did them in the same way, permute - orient (CP, CO, EP, EO is the worst way to solve LL). Later I found it was much easier to do edges first, the 6-mover for orientation and Sune for permutation. Worst possible LL was 2x EO, 2x EP, 2x CP and 4x CO, 10 algs in total, 74 moves (later I improved CO by using Sune, 28 moves at the most and eventually I found what I thought was a short alg for 4-twist, 24 moves =)


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 3, 2011)

Whats about teaching agls wich don't feel like algs:

(M'U )x4 L (M'U)x4 L' to orient Edges

R'D2R U R'D2R U R'D2R U2 R'D2R to cycle Corners

M'D2M U M'D2M U M'D2M U2 M'D2M to cycle Edges ... when demonstrated on a nearly solved Cube it is easily seen why to use U2 the third time

SExy move to orient Corners

Since most of them are Comutators even that aspect could be worked out.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 3, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> If the idea is to really just do a no-algorithm video that beginner's may actually use then I would go with Joël's commutator last layer method. It's absolutely amazing for both ease of teaching and ease of learning for the student. It's also the kind of method that they won't forget, since they understand how they're moving pieces around at the end, and aren't just using memorized algs.
> 
> Cool idea by the way!


Haven't read the rest of this thread thoroughly, but note that moste people, especially the target audience, has a different understanding of "algorithm." If you show them a sequence of steps, no matter intuitive or low-memorization, that's an algorithm in the traditional sense. Even "just keep applying commutators" or the Bob Burton method for pyraminx is an algorithm. I get the feeling that some academics would still object no matter what, though.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Mar 7, 2011)

Simple - just explain how to build a robot that can peel off the stickers and put them back on solved.


----------



## diep (Mar 25, 2011)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Simple - just explain how to build a robot that can peel off the stickers and put them back on solved.


 
When i saw this thread name i also had to laugh loud yeah - i bet solving it for MiT involves using a supercomputer


----------



## 300SpartanX (Apr 24, 2011)

id use cross-keyholeF2L-Orient edges-somehow permute edges intuitively-orient corners(R'D'RD)-permute corners(R'D'R) and (R'DR)


----------

