Puzzles solved without help?

[Gparker]

some of yall solved a 3x3 all by yourself? and minigoings you made up a true method on your own and having no knowledge of the 3x3 whats so ever? well yall must have been bored

but for me, the siamese and computer 6x6 and 7x7, and a virtual pyraminx, and oh yea 2x2

 

[byu]

some of yall solved a 3x3 all by yourself? and minigoings you made up a true method on your own and having no knowledge of the 3x3 whats so ever? well yall must have been bored

but for me, the siamese and computer 6x6 and 7x7, and a virtual pyraminx, and oh yea 2x2

Solving a 3x3 on your own isn't hard at all. You just need to have a good sense of math.

And just for the fun of it, I created a method on my own, I call it M (because it heavily involves the M slice). On my first attempt on the solve (which I made up on the spot, during the solve) I got a 1:42.47

 

[Gparker]

some of yall solved a 3x3 all by yourself? and minigoings you made up a true method on your own and having no knowledge of the 3x3 whats so ever? well yall must have been bored

but for me, the siamese and computer 6x6 and 7x7, and a virtual pyraminx, and oh yea 2x2

Solving a 3x3 on your own isn't hard at all. You just need to have a good sense of math.

And just for the fun of it, I created a method on my own, I call it M (because it heavily involves the M slice). On my first attempt on the solve (which I made up on the spot, during the solve) I got a 1:42.47

do you know how unrealistic that is? there are still people on this sight trying to get those times after a couple weeks of practice. and solving it on your own without ever seing anything about notation,how it works, or anything is extremely hard. its almost like you say you found the 800th digit of pi with only a pencil and a peice of paper

EDIT: changed pie to pi lol. sarah your funny

 

[Yes We Can!]

some of yall solved a 3x3 all by yourself? and minigoings you made up a true method on your own and having no knowledge of the 3x3 whats so ever? well yall must have been bored

but for me, the siamese and computer 6x6 and 7x7, and a virtual pyraminx, and oh yea 2x2

Solving a 3x3 on your own isn't hard at all. You just need to have a good sense of math.

And just for the fun of it, I created a method on my own, I call it M (because it heavily involves the M slice). On my first attempt on the solve (which I made up on the spot, during the solve) I got a 1:42.47

do you know how unrealistic that is? there are still people on this sight trying to get those times after a couple weeks of practice. and solving it on your own without ever seing anything about notation,how it works, or anything is extremely hard. its almost like you say you found the 800th digit of pie with only a pencil and a peice of paper

I think, he means, that he created a method, after he was able to solve a 3x3.

 

[Sa967St]

its almost like you say you found the 800th digit of pie with only a pencil and a peice of paper

lol, 'pie'. the delicious number

 

[Dene]

some of yall solved a 3x3 all by yourself? and minigoings you made up a true method on your own and having no knowledge of the 3x3 whats so ever? well yall must have been bored

but for me, the siamese and computer 6x6 and 7x7, and a virtual pyraminx, and oh yea 2x2

Solving a 3x3 on your own isn't hard at all. You just need to have a good sense of math.

What are you on about? I was always good at maths, but I never solved the cube on my own (although then again I first learnt to solve the cube when I was very young and that math theory was way too advanced).
Stop being such a moron, this is a silly view to hold. Solving the cube itself has almost nothing to do with maths. There are plenty of people that can solve the cube that have no sense of maths whatsoever, and plenty that cannot solve the cube that are math geniuses.

 

[Kyle™]

Byu, I'm assuming you figured out the 3x3x3 on your own then since it isn't very hard.

 

[shelley]

Like most people, I needed to look up help on the 3x3 and a parity alg for 4x4. From there, (and with some understanding of commutators) you can figure out pretty much all the other puzzles on that list. Square-1 took quite a bit of trial and error, and Pyraminx Crystal took me forever (I solved corners like a megaminx and then used a single commutator for all the edges). I have yet to get my hands on a Skewb though.

 

[Dene]

From that list I chose 2, 5, 6, and 7. However there is no way that anyone with the slightest bit of non-moron in them could not figure out all four of those puzzles if they already knew how to 3x3 and 4x4, therefore I don't think any of them count. Otherwise, I did not entirely figure out a single puzzle myself.

 

[Gparker]

From that list I chose 2, 5, 6, and 7. However there is no way that anyone with the slightest bit of non-moron in them could not figure out all four of those puzzles if they already knew how to 3x3 and 4x4, therefore I don't think any of them count. Otherwise, I did not entirely figure out a single puzzle myself.

that is a really good point. a pyraminx might be really the only one someone could solve without knowledge of other puzzles

 

[nitrocan]

2x2 is obvious if you tried it after a 3x3.
I took help for the 4x4 too, I mean how can someone figure out the parity cases intuitively? You could be using another method too but good luck with that.

After the 4x4, its not so hard.

So its 2,5,6,7, mega and pyra for me.

 

[ThePizzaGuy92]

all except pyraminx crystal.
and if you count the steps of 3x3x3 that i knew beforehand [some f2l], then remove that from the list too.

 

[KubeKid73]

I put 2x2 and 5x5, although for the 2x2, I wasn't thinking, and I used a video for it. But I could have done it without the video. And I didn't really need it that much. And the 5x5, the only thing I needed a video for was the parity.

 

[Bryan]

Yep all, there is only one puzzle I did not solve in my collection , it is called great gears

Do you own an Astrolabacus?

I think one thing that should be clarified is the difference between solving a puzzle, and figuring out a solution. If your solution involves scrambling again hoping to skip parity, that's not really correct. I see many people who claim to have solved a puzzle on their own, but it's usually trial and error, and they're not able to repeat it.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Yep all, there is only one puzzle I did not solve in my collection , it is called great gears

Do you own an Astrolabacus?

I think one thing that should be clarified is the difference between solving a puzzle, and figuring out a solution. If your solution involves scrambling again hoping to skip parity, that's not really correct. I see many people who claim to have solved a puzzle on their own, but it's usually trial and error, and they're not able to repeat it.

I claimed to have figured out a solution for square-1 on my own. I even figured out parity, but my parity fix was an 80 move algorithm. It took me about an extra week to find that parity fix after I had figured out the rest; I actually got pretty good at everything else in the process of figuring out the parity fix. Anyway, I used that parity fix for about 3 solves and then quickly learned a "real" one, and that cut about a minute off my solves.

It's been a while, but I did something similar for 4x4x4 back when I figured it out. It was a terrible algorithm (I have no idea what it was anymore - it didn't even make a lot of sense), but I knew it would guarantee that I would swap the parity for when I resolved it. So I wouldn't have to solve over and over again until I got lucky - just twice. I still consider that a valid solution.

Most anyone can figure out the tough parity fixes if they really try - it just takes a lot of trial and error to figure out a (probably very bad) one. But I still think it's appropriate for me to say I figured out how to solve a square-1 on my own, even if it was VERY inefficient.

 

[Bryan]

Yep all, there is only one puzzle I did not solve in my collection , it is called great gears

Do you own an Astrolabacus?

I think one thing that should be clarified is the difference between solving a puzzle, and figuring out a solution. If your solution involves scrambling again hoping to skip parity, that's not really correct. I see many people who claim to have solved a puzzle on their own, but it's usually trial and error, and they're not able to repeat it.

I claimed to have figured out a solution for square-1 on my own. I even figured out parity, but my parity fix was an 80 move algorithm. It took me about an extra week to find that parity fix after I had figured out the rest; I actually got pretty good at everything else in the process of figuring out the parity fix. Anyway, I used that parity fix for about 3 solves and then quickly learned a "real" one, and that cut about a minute off my solves.

It's been a while, but I did something similar for 4x4x4 back when I figured it out. It was a terrible algorithm (I have no idea what it was anymore - it didn't even make a lot of sense), but I knew it would guarantee that I would swap the parity for when I resolved it. So I wouldn't have to solve over and over again until I got lucky - just twice. I still consider that a valid solution.

Most anyone can figure out the tough parity fixes if they really try - it just takes a lot of trial and error to figure out a (probably very bad) one. But I still think it's appropriate for me to say I figured out how to solve a square-1 on my own, even if it was VERY inefficient.

I'd still consider that to be valid too, so you're not relying on luck, but you know you'll be able to get the solution.

 

[SimonWestlund]

From the list,

2x2
5x5
6x6
7x7
pyraminx


I probably could've worked out how to solve the crystal but Tommy Gustavsson helped me right away

And I might have figured out the megaminx if i'd try. But I looked up a tutorial before I got mine (after I ordered it, so during shipping) and learnt how to solve the last layer before trying to figure it out.

It is fun to try to figure out how to solve new cubes, though if it's too hard and you've been trying to solve a puzzle for a very long time.. not so fun anymore

 

[rjohnson_8ball]

Memories... The first time I tried to solve a 4x4, I tried layer by layer but got stuck. A couple days later, it hit me I could do centers, then edges, then solve like 3x3. Then I got the PLL parity (2 edges needed to be swapped). I was like "Whoa!" But it was not difficult to stumble upon the solution to that. On a later solve I was amazed to see an OLL parity (one edge flipped) -- just as people are amazed seeing it on the Void Cube [EDIT: Shelly correctly points out that Void Cube has PLL parity not OLL parity]. Anyway, I concluded that maybe if I shifted an inner slice by 90 degrees and resolved the centers and edges, then maybe it would fix the problem. I mean, it was the only strange operation I could think of that was not typical of 3x3. It worked, and I was proud of myself.

I still never learned an efficient way to fix parity on Square-1. But what I do is get 6 corners on one side, and on the other side, an "eye" shape: corner, 4 edges, corner, 4 edges. (Close to the way it looks when it is packaged and sold.) What I have been doing for the past decade or more is to rotate the "eye" 60 degrees so the cutting line goes along the right side of a corner rather than the left side of it.

 

[Cride5]

2x2, 4x4, 5x5 and megaminx without help. Never knew anything about parity before the 4x4, took me over 2 hours of endless confusion before I finally solved it

Hugely regretted cheating on my first Rubiks solve. Congrats to those 13% or so who managed their first rubiks cube without help ... deffo something to be proud of

 

[mcciff2112]

2x2 and 5x5. I'm ashamed.

Me too.