4x4x4 cube-how much could reasonably clever person solve by intuition?

[rubiksboy]

i've maaged to form the 2x2 centres and match up edges, then solve like 3x3x3 without looking at a guide for algorithms. but then i got to a parity and struggled...looking at the length of the algorithm for that parity, i can see why

i'm not sure if my matching of edges was lucky or if it was thought out at the time...i've only managed it once so far. is it the sort of thing that most people could work out easily?

what about parities?

if they were solving by the form a a 3x3x3 cube then solve 3x3x3, what's the minimum number of algorithms you think a reasonably clever person would need? suppose they could already solve the 3x3x3.

 

[Muesli]

I got as far as the last two edges on my cube. That was ages back though. I have more experience now.

Solved a Megaminx with no help, so I guess that is similar.

 

[cookingfat]

What if the person has no experience in cubing whatsoever?

I would bet that they would try to solve a face, then another face. Maybe if they were a bit smarter they might go for a layer instead of a face. I'm not sure if non cubers would even think to solve it using reduction.

I gave my ES 4x4 to a girl at work and she brought it back with the purple side solved (but not permuted). Only took her a couple of minutes too.

If if were someone who knows how to solve a 3x3x3, then I reckon they might get as far as working out the reduction method but getting stuck with parity cases.

Tony Fisher's cube solving videos are very interesting to watch. He uses his own unique, intuitive method that is fun to watch him do.

 

[rubiksboy]

so you reckon that if i gave my 4x4x4 to someone who knew how to solve a 3x3x3, and said to them "solve this using the following method: match up the 4 centre pieces for each side (and showed them the standard check for which 2x2 centres should be opposite which), then match up the edge pieces, to form a 3x3x3 cube. Then solve likea 3x3x3", they'd be able to get right up to the point where they had it solved apart from parities?

 

[Edmund]

If you tell them make the centers (in a certain order), and tell them they have to make edges they prob could. It would take them really long but they good. I (did have the knowledge of 3x3) was told get it like a 3x3, and I could solve everything except parity.

 

[cookingfat]

so you reckon that if i gave my 4x4x4 to someone who knew how to solve a 3x3x3, and said to them "solve this using the following method: match up the 4 centre pieces for each side (and showed them the standard check for which 2x2 centres should be opposite which), then match up the edge pieces, to form a 3x3x3 cube. Then solve likea 3x3x3", they'd be able to get right up to the point where they had it solved apart from parities?

Yes, I think they would. Just saying "Solve centres, then edge pairs and solve like a 3x3" should be enough for them. As long as they didn't give up too easily. It's possible they might get stuck if the last 2 edge pairs are opposite each other too. It would depend on the person as well.

 

[Cyrus C.]

Yea, when I got my first 4x4 I wanted to solve it on my own. I matched up the centers easily, the edges easily (took me a while to get the last 2 though), but I got stuck on the parity.

 

[iSpinz]

Yea, when I got my first 4x4 I wanted to solve it on my own. I matched up the centers easily, the edges easily (took me a while to get the last 2 though), but I got stuck on the parity.

Same as me. After I figured out how edge pairing worked, I made my method of double edge pairing for the last 3 pairs.

 

[Cyrus C.]

Yea, when I got my first 4x4 I wanted to solve it on my own. I matched up the centers easily, the edges easily (took me a while to get the last 2 though), but I got stuck on the parity.

Same as me. After I figured out how edge pairing worked, I made my method of double edge pairing for the last 3 pairs.

Ya I always h hated when I only had 2 edges left, I came up with a really long algorithm to get back into 3 pairs.... it took forever.

 

[Lucas Garron]

The entire 4x4x4. We've had this discussion before, and it was bad enough with someone who almost knew what he was talking about. :rolleyes:

Oh, and wrong forum.

 

[rubixfreak]

hm maybe u could solve a 4x4x4 intuitivly using the human thistlewaite algorythm?

 

[Ton]

i've maaged to form the 2x2 centres and match up edges, then solve like 3x3x3 without looking at a guide for algorithms. but then i got to a parity and struggled...looking at the length of the algorithm for that parity, i can see why

i'm not sure if my matching of edges was lucky or if it was thought out at the time...i've only managed it once so far. is it the sort of thing that most people could work out easily?

what about parities?

if they were solving by the form a a 3x3x3 cube then solve 3x3x3, what's the minimum number of algorithms you think a reasonably clever person would need? suppose they could already solve the 3x3x3.

if you use centers first you need 1 for the PLL which is intuitive

none new for the OLL are needed
I solved the OLL parity at first by turn a middle layer a quarter turn and solve the centers again. When you now solve the edges you have no OLL parity