# 3x3 for Beginners, A Complete Guide for Intuitive Solving, no "algorithms", with Animation



## cubo (Apr 16, 2019)

3x3 Intuitive Solution for Beginners

*Note*: Requires Chrome or Safari

I hope someone finds this useful. If I could mention the strong points of my guide: 

PROs
> A step-by-step guide
> Suitable for a complete beginner
> Every step has simple instructions plus an animation
> No "algorithms" or "codes" to remember, although it does teach RUR', F'U'F and RUR'U' just by showing
> Provides a more intuitive understanding of the solution than LBL
> Once learned, it is very very easy to remember
> It is a "mobile-friendly" page, as long as you use safari or chrome

CONs
> Not so fast -- under 1 minute would be a challenge with this technique
> Because I call the "Front" side the "Left", may confuse people moving between techniques
> Page doesn't work on Firefox

Feedback most welcome! 

I already have a list of improvements for an update, including:

> Better navigation - ability to jump to top of section, top of page etc
> Tweaking of instructions to make even clearer (this is where feedback would also be really helpful)
> Tweaking of animation - my goal is not to overwhelm the solver with too much detail, which is why i often leave most of the cube grey, but on the other hand, I want the directions to be crystal-clear, so i will continue trying to improve these (again, feedback where the animations are not clear would be appreciated!) 

Many thanks!


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Apr 16, 2019)

I could view your page in the latest version of Firefox just fine. I couldn't view it in I.E., probably because of the https.

Maybe you need to change the title to "A Complete Guide for *Beginner* Solving, no *(written)* algorithms, with *Partial* Animation*s*.

I get it that you want to market your solution so that people will be attracted to read it, but I think a better way to advertise it would be to come up with a catch phrase which states the fact that your solution is more "*interactive*" than many beginner solutions I have seen which are, to use another one word phrase to describe, one-sided "*instructions*".

(In short, you don't want to make the promise that your method is without algorithms and it is intuitive, because this is not true. But it doesn't hurt to add tags to google with those phrases.)

As far as the completeness of your solution itself,

The beginning part of your solution fails to address cases like *this* and *this* (just to mention a couple). Being consistent with your wording, you might want to include an additional line which states "sometimes it takes 4 moves" and show a partial case image with a flipped edge as to give a hint that the student needs to figure out what the fourth move is.

I know you are trying to "factor out" white edge placement cases, and it's hard to say that a guide will be crystal clear for someone will be even partially clear for another.

As a complete opposite to your guide, you are more than welcome to use *my beginner's guide* in anyway you wish to help improve yours (if applicable). I provide *33* white edge placement cases (this includes mirror cases and symmetric cases), or two PAGES of cases with algorithms for those edges. This is clearly against the objective of your solution, but perhaps you can see steps 6-10 to see how I used repetition to help (anyone) solve the PLL stage with practically no effort. (I guess all of the steps of my guide aside from the placement of white edges in the first layer adheres to that standard.)

The only way a solution could be crystal clear (in my opinion) is to somehow cleverly show the minimum number of case images (so that they don't become exhausted or overwhelmed) to help the student grasp the cube (to better their chances that they will not mess up) and to use the art of repeated sequences to solve one piece at a time (to minimize anxiety and to get them comfortable).


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Apr 17, 2019)

Because I wrote the above post, I thought I would experiment a little with the first layer edges. Although my guide above teaches "cube common sense" in the first four edges step, because the end of the solution for PLL uses repetition, I decided to use repetition to solve the first four edges in *this new version of my guide*.

It's more moves, but now all steps of the solution are "mechanical".

(You may or may not notice at first glance, but I used (L' R' D) in all of the repeated move sequences for the first four edges. Specifically, I was able to create a 12-cycle, 11-cycle, 10-cycle, and 9-cycle with those three moves as the base with very few (if any) additional turns.)


----------



## cubo (Apr 17, 2019)

Hello Christopher,

Thank you so much for taking the time to look at my guide.

I appreciate your thoughts and will definitely use them to make some improvements. In particular I agree the title needs work. I think perhaps something like “How to Solve Rubik’s Cube: An Animated Guide for Beginners” might be the nicest. As you say, this highlights more my strongest/key elements, which is the animation, and that it is for beginners. 

Your approach is definitely different to mine, but i see you are refining it to make it simpler and simpler, but also “powerful”.

Can i ask, have you used your guide to teach anyone in real life? I ask because that is one of my aims...


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Apr 17, 2019)

cubo said:


> Can i ask, have you used your guide to teach anyone in real life? I ask because that is one of my aims...


The one from 2016 I did. I had a Rubik's cube club at the high school I taught math at. The other teacher who co-hosted the club with me is probably still there and still using it or his own version of it to teach them.

But I actually had that in mind today. That the first four edges stage was what threw them off. Perhaps this less elegant substitution will be better for them.

The part I remember that wasn't obvious to them but which was easy for us to get is that one must hold the cube so that the face of focus to solve is in the TOP layer. They for some reason thought it was the front face. FYI.


----------

