# Teaching beginners without algorithms



## shelley (Jul 20, 2010)

Has anyone tried to teach a newbie how to solve the cube without going "Here, memorize this algorithm and apply it to this case" at some point? If so, what was your approach like?

A non-speedcuber wants to develop a solving method without algorithms - he wants to understand what he's doing and not memorize a bunch of moves. Since he already knows a bit about the cube, I was planning to teach him some basics on commutators and conjugates. I also looked at Cride's "sexy move" beginner method which can be explained in terms of commutators and would be an interesting method to teach him.

This person is also interested in solving the 4x4 with a similar approach. I'm guessing he won't be interested in learning the 2 wing swap a.k.a. OLL parity alg. Is his only recourse for that to do a single slice turn and start over, or is there a clever intuitive way to solve that?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 20, 2010)

I was wondering about a super simple 2x2x2 method recently. I couldn't think of any. Ortega is 'too complex' and the 1234/sexymethod is 'too confusing' on 2x2x2. You'd think there would be something retarded easy.

For 4x4x4 you could teach sandwich if he understands comms - then parity isn't really an issue.

If you wanna go with redux - you could always just commute the pieces you broke with the single slice turn.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Jul 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> Has anyone tried to teach a newbie how to solve the cube without going "Here, memorize this algorithm and apply it to this case" at some point? If so, what was your approach like?


When I was teaching the cross, I did my best to make it intuitive and dsay stuff like "corrosponding centers", "matching" and somehow, they would get it right.
When adding corners, I would say "Bring this down, bring that corner over here, now bring it up! Then You'd do that for every corner until it gets matched."
When doing the Middle edges, I knew it'd be difficult. So I'd make them match the colors/make a T and then say "Move the edge away from the slot, bring the corner up, bring the edge back, bring the corner down then intuitively put it in"

At the point of the LL, few decided to keep going and many give up. I hand them an algorithm sheet and let them do the rest.


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 20, 2010)

I would argue that Joël van Noort's commutator beginner method could be done intuitively. Teaching this way has a hangup at inserting the E layer F2L edges and also with orienting the U layer edges. These algorithms would have to be taught in some understandable way, but otherwise I think his method is a beautiful way to teach the LL without algorithms, if you can get over those two mentioned hangups somehow.

Chris


----------



## Forte (Jul 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> This person is also interested in solving the 4x4 with a similar approach. I'm guessing he won't be interested in learning the 2 wing swap a.k.a. OLL parity alg. Is his only recourse for that to do a single slice turn and start over, or is there a clever intuitive way to solve that?



Zane started a thread on how to do this intuitively once. I'm not sure if he got it answer but you can read here.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Jul 20, 2010)

shelley said:


> This person is also interested in solving the 4x4 with a similar approach. I'm guessing he won't be interested in learning the 2 wing swap a.k.a. OLL parity alg. Is his only recourse for that to do a single slice turn and start over, or is there a clever intuitive way to solve that?



Maybe you were asking me indirectly.

But yes, there is a clever way to fix that parity directly: knowing how pure edge flip algorithms are actually made, he would be satisfied with parity algorithms (it is MUCH easier than you think...well, symmetrical pure edge flip algorithms, that is). Maybe it's time for me to begin a thread on "Methods for Forming Odd Parity Algorithms for Big Cubes".


----------



## Andreaillest (Jul 21, 2010)

I remember trying to teach my friends how to solve one. They just got more confused when I introduced algorithims. I tried my best to explain each part in detail. They eventually got it. I think teaching without algorithims would be a lot harder for me. XD


----------



## Anonymous (Jul 21, 2010)

I taught a fairly algorithm-heavy beginner method to a friend, and he got it right away.

I think as long as you present algorithms the right way, and provide insights into memorization, they're not very large obstacles.
(He's sub-30 now btw- didn't lose interest)


----------



## Sharkretriver (Jul 21, 2010)

All my friends don't understand notation when I tried to teach them, except for one of them, and they average 3 minutes


Spoiler



I have another friend who couldn't understand R U R' U' but could understand 
U' L' U L and U2 L2 but not R2 U2
I have another friend who couldn't do U' (no disabilities) and did d instead


I tried to teach many people 2X2 (2 algorithm method ) but they got stuck on the notation :fp


----------



## AvidCuber (Jul 21, 2010)

I taught someone 2x2 with commutators and basic corner PLLs, he didn't want to learn algs so he just memorized what the moves looked like, felt like, etc.

So it wasn't a non-alg method, but he didn't learn notation for it.


----------



## Chapuunka (Jul 21, 2010)

I taught someone 2x2 on an airplane without notation, but used sexy move for corners, sune for OLL and an A-perm for PLL. He forgot it within about 10 minutes of doing it for the first time.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Jul 21, 2010)

*How to Solve the 3X3X3 Cube Without Algorithms*

I always wanted to explain to someone why commutators work on a cube besides explaining the commutator itself. So, I am going to derive it with reason.

*The First Layer*
I believe many can figure out how to solve the first layer without complicated algorithms.

*The Middle Layer*
Our goal should be to form an algorithm that inserts an edge from D into E, while preserving the U and E layers.
(Now, this algorithm being developed is to move the edge in FD to FR).

We start out with the four moves D F D' F'.
(Yes, the algorithm above is a commutator, but a very cube intuitive one...it's cube "common sense").
Although it moves the front-bottom edge to its correct location (the front-right edge slot), the top-front-right corner is messed up. So we need to find a way to preserve this top-front-right corner piece while still using our 4 moves D F D' F'.

If we add the preliminary moves L' U', this places the front-bottom-right corner (which is not solved anyway, and therefore, we can use it as our guinea pig) in the top-front-right corner slot (the location of the piece which we are aiming to preserve).
But why those two moves and not others? Answer: Those two moves do not move the front-bottom edge, which is the very edge we are depending on being in the FR slot single we are building off of the moves D F D' F'.

Now we have:
L' U' (preliminary to preserve the original top-right corner)
D F D' F' (original 4)

To finish off, we simply undo those two moves to have: U L.
L' U'
D F D' F'
U L

Notice that, when we are undoing the set-up moves L' U', if we add only U, there is a top corner in the front left bottom slot, and it should be in the back-bottom-left corner slot before the first preliminary move, L', is reversed.
L' U'
D F D' F'
U

So let's move that corner in the back-left corner slot by doing D'.

So we have:
L' U' (preliminary to preserve the original top-right corner)
D F D' F' (original 4)
U (this is the reverse of 2nd preliminary move)
D' (puts the top corner in the front-bottom-left in the back-bottom-left corner slot)
 
Now we can reverse the first preliminary move: we do move L, to get:

L' U' (preliminary to preserve the original top-right corner)
D F D' F' (original 4)
U (this is the reverse of 2nd preliminary move)
D' (puts the top corner in the front-bottom-left in the back-bottom-left corner slot)
L (this is the reverse of the 1st preliminary move).

Thus we have:
L' U'
D F D' F'
U D' L

Now, it is obvious that only one move is required to restore the cube significantly, D.
L' U'
D F D' F'
U D' L
D

This entire algorithm is obviously a commutator. An algorithm of the form X Y X-1 Y-1.
L' U' D F
D'
F' D' U L 
D

Now, the first two layers are intuitively solved because we have an "algorithm" to put an edge from FD to FR. If the mirror is taken, we can easily put an edge from FD to FL...

*The Last Layer*
For the last layer, it would help if we take this commutator and write its slice turn equivalent:
L' E' y' F 
D'
F' E y L
D

Then, rotating,
U' M' U L' U' M U L
Adding the set-up move U,
U
U' M' U L' U' M U L
U'
=M' U L' U' M U L U'
We have an algorithm that affects only 3 edges in the same face (e.g. the last layer).

We can use this commutator for the corners if we convert the M slice to the R slice (since the other slice already used is L).
R U L' U' R' U L U'

From here, many know how to use conjugates to do just about everything there is.


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 21, 2010)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22684


----------



## daniel0731ex (Jul 21, 2010)

how about 8355? not only it's intuative, but also EXTREMELY easy to understand.


----------



## Matt S (Jul 21, 2010)

I originally learned Phillip Marshall's Ultimate Solution, which is an extremely intuitive edge's first method. The only real alg it uses is Niklas (which is pretty intuitive itself), which is applied with only the help of conjugates to solve the corners.

Using Niklas and conjugates to solve corners from any orientation is hard at first for beginners, but a motivated learner will soon get the hang of it and come out with a much better understanding of how the cube works.

Obvious refinements are to solve the corners along with the three E-layer edges (either with key-hole or block-building) and to use other commutators in addition to Niklas to minimize the setup moves required with the corners.

PS: I taught this method to my brother. It took him a day to learn edges comfortably, and a couple days to get good at the corners (solving the last three being the tricky bit, of course). He can still solve it, even though he hasn't owned a cube in five years.


----------

