Solving the whole cube intuitively

[badmephisto]

I started to think a little about how the cube could be solved entirely intuitively, and what the best way to go about doing it is. By saying intuitively I mean that every single move is directed in itself for a specific goal... So commutators for example are not strictly intuitive under this definition.

I can get pretty far but run into trouble near the end naturally when you have less degrees of freedom

cross, f2l except for one slot,
then do petrus orient of all edges,
and then you can solve all 5 edges purely intuitively only using RU. (the 4 edges in LL and the edge in the F2L slot you didnt solve)

Then you are left with 5 unsolved corners... and I use commutators to finish that off, by solving 2 corners at a time. But thats the part that I am trying to see if its possible to eliminate... somehow..? I dont even know if it possible...

Did someone come by some other way? of maybe orienting the corners or positioning them, without using any black-box algorithms?
or did someone try some other strategy entirely?
How far is it possible to get before having to use black-box algs/commutators?

 

[brunson]

Did you see the posts on 8355? That's about the most intuitive method I've seen.

 

[Cride5]

If you're going for completely intuitive, I think completing the corners is probably the hardest bit. If you start with corners its inevitably going to make your life a bit easier but whether they can be done completely intuitively is really the question. I think the initial steps of Guimond (ie orienting two opposite layers) could be done intuitively by an experienced cuber, and I remember the final permutation of corners (PBL) can also be done intuitively if you really have a go at it. I remember doing this when trying to work out how to solve the Square-1.

If you leave the end game (the hardest bit) to edges only it'll probably be easier to brute force. Have a go at CF Roux intuitively and see how far you get. The advantage of Roux is that it handles orientation of the final 6 edges early enough that it can be done without too much trouble. The final edge permutation only has three cases, and is not to hard to work out

EDIT: Just had a go and managed to complete it using zero algs and zero commutators, but its possible that having experience in the methods makes them easier to do intuitively.

EDIT2: Just to provide extra motivation ... the very first solve by Erno Rubik himself had to be intuitive and was done corners-first

 

[joey]

I don't get why commutators don't fit under 'intuitive'

 

[Am1n-]

Heise method is intuitively for most of the time, only the tree last corners are commutator-based (and sometimes some pair-cycles)

mvg

 

[eragg0]

Maybe corners can be permuted by using RDR-commutator (and oriented also usong beginners way)
(R' D' R) U (R' D R) U (R' D' R) U2 (R' D R) << 3-cycle
And E-perm is made using same principle

 

[calekewbs]

Maybe corners can be permuted by using RDR-commutator (and oriented also usong beginners way)
(R' D' R) U (R' D R) U (R' D' R) U2 (R' D R) << 3-cycle
And E-perm is made using same principle

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. just do intuitive F2L for the last edge pair then rotate the edges with R' D' R D then permute edges by pulling one out ( M D' M' ) turn where you want it on the UF edge slot then put it in ( M D M' ) do this till all the edges are solved always switching between D and D'. Same idea for the corners. pull it out, put it in. (that's what whe said) lol

 

[rjohnson_8ball]

I like this topic. I have heard of a couple people who say they solved the cube intuitively -- I assume they meant without commutators. I've wondered.

 

[ErikJ]

I think I averaged like 23 seconds a while ago for solving without algorithms. I didn't even allow myself to use A, U and a few other permutations even though they are commutators. It's been a while.

 

[bwatkins]

I have a friend at my college who solves the cube completely intuitively, it seems crazy to me and my way of thinking but i still think its kinda cool. First he places in all 8 corners oriented correctly. This obtains an "X" on all 6 sides. Second he solves the remaining 12 edges in no particular order until they are all done. It is completely brute-force way of solving as nothing is done inefficiently, but its way cool. He completes the V-7's 3x3x3 reduction with no problem, then simply asks someone to solve it from there as the method is quite the mind boggler. Any way just thought id share.

 

[Pseudoprogrammer]

My calculus teacher is very intelligent (PhD) and was in high school during the original cube craze, and can intuitively solve it (she never learned a method, but she does have a 'system' as she calls it, but it's basically a set of goals you achieve for each step). But her system mostly amounts to corners first, solve top and bottom edges, solve center slice. She uses a weird alg for flipping the final edges if they are flipped in the middle layer she says she discovered by fiddling for a few hours (It's by far not the most efficient, about 20 moves long for that one 'alg'). Still pretty neat though.

 

[vgbjason]

I have a friend at my college who solves the cube completely intuitively, it seems crazy to me and my way of thinking but i still think its kinda cool. First he places in all 8 corners oriented correctly. This obtains an "X" on all 6 sides. Second he solves the remaining 12 edges in no particular order until they are all done..

That sounds like pochman method (BLD) to me

 

[DavidWoner]

By saying intuitively I mean that every single move is directed in itself for a specific goal... So commutators for example are not strictly intuitive under this definition.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. Do commutators not have a goal? Please clarify this.

That sounds like pochman method (BLD) to me

Then you should get your hearing checked.

 

[cmhardw]

I also have to ask you to clarify your definition of intuitive. For a corner commutator I can describe the logic and reasoning behind every single turn I do.

Are you saying that every turn must be toward the goal of solving the cube as a whole, whereas the 8 turns of a commutator are focused on first destroying, then restoring the cube (while also affecting a small number of other pieces)?

Perhaps you mean to say: "How can the cube be solved without using any strictly 'destroy and restore' concepts?" Or am I not correctly understanding your intention?

The reason I ask, is that if I wanted to solve a cube "completely intuitively" I would visually trace the cycles and determine if the cube has parity. If it does I would correct this by doing a quarter turn, if not then I would begin solving. For the solving I would use only commutators.

This method is very inefficient, but I would understand the logic and reasoning behind every turn I used. A much better approach would be your method exactly as described, and use commutators to solve the last 5 corners. Again, this could be done while completely understanding the purpose and reasoning behind every turn you execute.

Chris

 

[blah]

First he places in all 8 corners oriented correctly. This obtains an "X" on all 6 sides.

That was brief.

 

[bwatkins]

would you prefer a long drawn out explanation?...There is no exact routine, that's literally how its done, i tried it a few times. No specific algs, just "how do i place this piece there? its totally a long drawn out process of excessive symmetric moves.

 

[blah]

would you prefer a long drawn out explanation?...There is no exact routine, that's literally how its done, i tried it a few times. No specific algs, just "how do i place this piece there? its totally a long drawn out process of excessive symmetric moves.

How would you do something like twisting only two corners?

 

[deadalnix]

How would you do something like twisting only two corners?

It's a thing I have found by myself when I was a beginer. But I was using a commutator (without knowing it was a commutator, I discover it later).

Commutator are for most of them very intuitive. I don't see how to solve corner without commutators . . .

 

[spdcbr]

Okay, this is off topic, but what's...

A Premuim member?

and a Supermoderator?

 

[bwatkins]

would you prefer a long drawn out explanation?...There is no exact routine, that's literally how its done, i tried it a few times. No specific algs, just "how do i place this piece there? its totally a long drawn out process of excessive symmetric moves.

How would you do something like twisting only two corners?

I know exactly what you mean, i run into this when solving this way, and i guess you use a commutator, but if this is your main method and thats all you know, i guess it counts as intuitively, seeing as how many many mistakes occur along the way.