Is 4x4 or 5x5 very hard?

N

nube

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2015
Messages
4
I was thinking about getting a 4x4 and maybe a 5x5. I'm still pretty new but was wondering how much harder these are to solve. (Not concerned about speed just yet.)

Right now I can solve the 3x3 using the method from ruwix.com, except I do the middle layer without turning the cube over. I also found I can solve the 2x2 using a couple of the same algorithms.

If I understand correctly, the larger cubes require solving the inside areas first, then the outer part is the same as a 3x3? Is the middle part very hard to do? Thank you.
 
4x4 is very easy. The centres can be solved pretty intuitively, or if not, require like one alg. Same for the edges.
I can solve a 5x5 most of the time even though I only learnt 3x3 and 4x4.
 
The centres are not really that hard. I've only got a 4x4, no 5x5, but the 4x4 is not that hard. The basic method works on you building the centres, then pairing the edge pieces and solving it like a 3x3 (parity). It's not that hard. The centres are fairly simple. Honestly the hardest part for me was parity but even then, it's not that hard to solve.
 
sqAree said:
4x4 is very easy. The centres can be solved pretty intuitively, or if not, require like one alg. Same for the edges.
I can solve a 5x5 most of the time even though I only learnt 3x3 and 4x4.
Click to expand...

Just curious, why are your 4x4 PBs (in your signature) in seconds?


Also like everyone else is saying, 4x4 and 5x5 are not hard.
 
While I agree that the 4x4 and 5x5 are not hard, I will just point out that there is a learning curve for everything. It will probably seem hard (or even impossible) at first. Don't give up!
 
4x4 is easy to learn. just watch a tutorial on youtube, its pretty straightforward. I learned how to solve it before I got one. 5x5 is the same solution as 4x4 except last 2 edges can get a little bit sketchy.
 
"*Is 4x4 or 5x5 very hard?"

It depends on your solving approach. I strongly disagree with others that 4x4x4 is easy to solve (intuitively), although I agree that it could be easy to blindly follow some algorithmic tutorial.

Actually, I find the 4x4x4 as the king of the cubes, because there is really not harder classical Rubik's cube than that. 4x4x4+ cubes are just more time consuming.

I would say you will find a 4x4x4 very difficult to solve if you decide to solve it on your own (considering you can solve only 3x3x3 and 2x2x2 right now).
 
"If I understand correctly, the larger cubes require solving the inside areas first"

Not at all. In case of 4x4x4, you can solve the 2x2x2 block first, followed by second, third and finally fourth 2x2x2 blocks. You can also solve inside areas ( called centers ) at the very end of your solution. There are plenty of solving approaches, however, speedcubers mostly use the one you mentioned (solving of inside areas first, outside areas later).

"then the outer part is the same as a 3x3?"

Again, it depends on your solving approach. Typically if you decide to solve centers first, then pair-up edges, you might think all you need to know from now is just a 3x3x3 method / technique / approach. Suprisingly, that assumption is wrong ( speedcubers call it OLL and PLL parity ).

"Is the middle part very hard to do?"

Assuming you will go by centers first, then pairing-up edges ( which I think is the middle part you mentioned ) without paying any attention, I would say the middle part is not difficult ( at least not as difficult as PLL and especially OLL parity ).
 
bcube said:
"*Is 4x4 or 5x5 very hard?"

It depends on your solving approach. I strongly disagree with others that 4x4x4 is easy to solve (intuitively), although I agree that it could be easy to blindly follow some algorithmic tutorial.

Actually, I find the 4x4x4 as the king of the cubes, because there is really not harder classical Rubik's cube than that. 4x4x4+ cubes are just more time consuming.

I would say you will find a 4x4x4 very difficult to solve if you decide to solve it on your own (considering you can solve only 3x3x3 and 2x2x2 right now).
Click to expand...
I read what the reduction method was, and learned the parity algs. To this day, I still solve 4x4 using my own variation of the reduction method (figured it out in like 30 minutes lol). It's not too hard at all in my opinion.
 
I bought my first 4x4 yesterday and started learning to solve it today. I've done it about five times, starting to get used to the basics... Note that I'm just talking about the beginner's way to solve it through reduction which I assume is where you'd be starting too.

Solving centers isn't hard, you can watch a video that shows the basic concept of pairing center pieces and exchanging them with another side, which is about all you're doing here. Make sure you know your color scheme though, so you put the right center on the right side.

Once you've got that, learning to pair up "dedges" is fairly easy too, at least until you get to the last 2-3 of them which requires you to learn an algorithm for that.

After that, you solve it like a 3x3. You should already know how to do that, so that's easy.

And then finally, fixing parity at the end. It doesn't always happen, but when it does it's a pain and the algorithms to fix them are a little longer than what you're used to on 3x3s. I haven't learned these at all yet.

But basically, that's where you start out. You can learn better methods to try to avoid the parity issues before you get to the end, that's something I would like to investigate soon when I get a chance. Parity seems to be the hardest part of the whole process, and the algorithms are long because you're trying to preserve *everything* else. My expectation is that if you can catch it earlier while you've still got some freedom left there will be significantly shorter ways to fix the parity.
 
Oh, I forgot to mention something.

bcube said:
In case of 4x4x4, you can solve the 2x2x2 block first, followed by second, third and finally fourth 2x2x2 blocks.
Click to expand...

Prior to solving the last 4 2x2x2 blocks, you must somehow solve the first 4 2x2x2 blocks. Instead of being reduced to 3x3x3 (as suggested by others), the puzzle will be reduced to 2x2x2. For more information see this video.

bcube said:
You can also solve inside areas (called centers) at the very end of your solution.
Click to expand...

For a general idea, see the applets below the video or search the Cage method. By the way, a Cage method seems to be more efficient when solving larger cubes. Adrian Acosta solved 121x121x121 cube in cca. 89 hours of solving time, using reduction to 3x3x3; Michael Gottlieb solved 128x128x128 cube in cca. 26 hours of solving time using "optimized" Cage method.

As I was saying, there are plenty of other methods, these two are just the ones I ussually use (as myself being a non-speedcuber).
 
I was going to start a thread similar to this so, I'll post here as I'm sure it will add to the discussion :)

I was bored of just 3x3 so I recently started to get interested in 2x2 - 5x5. I would need a bit of advice regarding both 4x4 and 5x5. Here I go:

4x4: I can already solve it pretty decently but I'm not trying to speedsolve it yet. I use pure reduction (centers, edges, 3x3). Centers are pretty intuitive. I try to pair edges at least two at time whenever I can. When needed I apply a short and intuitive L2E alg (Uw' R F' U...) and then solve like a 3x3. For OLL parity I only know just one alg, which also twists the two adjacent corners (the one that starts with Rw U2 x Rw U2...). At my current speed I don't think I need to learn other variants that can help you get an OLL skip when applying parity. But yeah, it currently takes me like 3 to 4 minutes to solve it most of the time, perhaps a bit less in a good solve without parity, and I already see that, soon I will want to get better at it. So, what would you recommend in order to improve? I know there are other methods like doing two opp centers and 3 edges, then the other centers ... not sure if it is Yau or some other. Also I perhaps would have to learn how to pair 3 degdes at a time... Any advice is welcome in order for me to enter into the sub-2-minutes / sub-1:30 realm.

5x5: Here I'm just an absolute beginner. I just figured out on my own how to do the 3x3 centers and tredges using similar techniques to 4x4. I hoped 5x5 would not need any parity algs but then I realized those last 2 tredges would give me a bad time to figure them out. I checked the algs in some page but I discovered there are like 12 cases with and without parity and, to be honest, I don't want to learn all those yet (they are lenghty also, not easy to learn quickly). So, here the question is, what's the minimal set of algs I would need to solve 5x5 without having to check the algs? Today I tried applying some adaptations of the 4x4 L2E alg to the 5x5 and ended up with just the basic parity case (all tredges solved except for one that has the center piece flipped (well, in fact it's the two wing pieces which seem to be flipped, but you get my point). This makes me come to the conclusion (maybe wrong, can you confirm?) that I could solve all no-parity cases and reduce all the parity cases to this basic one, which, for now, would allow me to solve a 5x5 on my own by just learning this one alg. Of course, I assume that if I want to get any faster I will have to learn all those 12 cases (4 no-parity & 8 parity cases) and also some advanced slicing techniques to pair tredges more efficiently, as now I'm readjusting the centers after each and every tredge I pair.

Thanks in advance for your help! Sorry if the post is a bit too long :(
 
mafergut said:
So, what would you recommend in order to improve? I know there are other methods like doing two opp centers and 3 edges, then the other centers ... not sure if it is Yau or some other. Also I perhaps would have to learn how to pair 3 degdes at a time... Any advice is welcome in order for me to enter into the sub-2-minutes / sub-1:30 realm.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is Yau. You solve the centres for your cross colour and your opposite cross colour, then solve three cross edges. Then you finish centres, then solve the last cross edge, and continue with solving normally. I would suggest switching to this if you want to improve since it makes lookahead easier. Pairing three edges at a time is easier with this method too: if I remember correctly, it was invented to make pairing edges easier.

Aside from switching to Yau, just doing more solves will help your lookahead, and you'll start to be able to find pieces more easily.

I checked the algs in some page but I discovered there are like 12 cases with and without parity and, to be honest, I don't want to learn all those yet (they are lenghty also, not easy to learn quickly). So, here the question is, what's the minimal set of algs I would need to solve 5x5 without having to check the algs? Today I tried applying some adaptations of the 4x4 L2E alg to the 5x5 and ended up with just the basic parity case (all tredges solved except for one that has the center piece flipped (well, in fact it's the two wing pieces which seem to be flipped, but you get my point). This makes me come to the conclusion (maybe wrong, can you confirm?) that I could solve all no-parity cases and reduce all the parity cases to this basic one, which, for now, would allow me to solve a 5x5 on my own by just learning this one alg.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it is always possible to give yourself that case when you have parity. The algorithm to solve it is very similar to OLL parity:
4x4 parity:
Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw'
5x5 parity:
Rw U2 x Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Lw U2 3Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw'

Hold the edge in UF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

someone.
Anyone who wish they could never accidentally dissassemble your 7x7, 6x6 5x5 4x4 (not 3x3 thats easy to assemble and 2x2?
Replies
1
Views
206
Martyt7777
Martyt7777
Idkcuber
Idkcuber's Big Cube Progression Thread
Replies
4
Views
379
Idkcuber
Idkcuber
Jared Burkhart
  • Poll Poll
Big Cube Brainiacs Starting August 1
Replies
4
Views
893
Jared Burkhart
Jared Burkhart
ARndmPrsn
Selling 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, megaminx, on ebay
Replies
0
Views
361
ARndmPrsn
ARndmPrsn
Michael Wimberly
[Review] Reviewing some new cubes! QiYi Warrior M 5x5, QiYi M Pro 4x4 v2, and DaYan Guhong Pro+ (54mm Maglev)
Replies
17
Views
3,966
Michael Wimberly
Michael Wimberly
Back
Top