Does anyone claim to solve an entire 3x3x3 (or other) inuitively?

[Zubon]

I am sure that there is nobody who could solve the last layer of a 3x3x3 with my definition of 'intuitive'.

Who says you solve it lbl. You may have another method, that doesn't result in having to solve the last layer.

Sure, but what ever method you use, you will be left with the last few pieces that need orienting or permuting. Whether they are all in the last layer or not will not change that.

 

[Muesli]

What if you use Roux? Roux can technically be solved with just a T-Perm and a sune, neither of which are particulary hard.

 

[nathanajah]

I solved the cube myself, I calculated the effect of some moves to create effective set of moves; 3 cycle edges and corners. That was before I know of communicators -which I used intuitively for edges-

Is calculating intuitively?

Communicators? Did you mean commutators?

What if you use Roux? Roux can technically be solved with just a T-Perm and a sune, neither of which are particulary hard.

But can using T-Perm considered as intuitive?

 

[Muesli]

I solved the cube myself, I calculated the effect of some moves to create effective set of moves; 3 cycle edges and corners. That was before I know of communicators -which I used intuitively for edges-

Is calculating intuitively?

Communicators? Did you mean commutators?

What if you use Roux? Roux can technically be solved with just a T-Perm and a sune, neither of which are particulary hard.

But can using T-Perm considered as intuitive?

Look at the way it moves F2L slots about. You could probably work something like that out on your own.

 

[Cride5]

There was a similar discussion on the topic here. The possibilities discussed were:
* Use a CF method (orient then permute all corners)
* Use commutators
* Use something like Human Thistlewaite to reduce the cube to easier sub-groups

I can solve the 3x3 completely without algs using corners-first. Its done by orienting/separating opposite corners (like Guimond steps 1 and 2). Then permuting both layers of corners using R2/U moves (like sq-1 corners). Once corners are done, edges can be inserted intuitively.

For fewest moves I often use Heise (or similar) ending with a corner 3-cycle solved using a commutator. Whether commutators are 'algorithms' is debatable. I'd say they certainly are intuitive though.

 

[icmp4]

heh, well I just solved the first two layers intuitively for the first time :/

As for LLO then I would imagine I'd need to plan ahead while solving F2L to get a good LLO established, or else somehow use the keyhole (the last F2L corner-column to be filled in) a bit better.
Or not try to do it layer-by-layer!
I imagine that doing LLO&P intuitively is very much more difficult when you have to try to keep track of your solved F2L at the same time. Breaking up solved layers is ok so long as I can put them back within 2-4 moves, say. Anything that breaks them up more than that and I'll lose it. Unless using an algorithm, of course.

 

[irontwig]

What if you use Roux? Roux can technically be solved with just a T-Perm and a sune, neither of which are particulary hard.

You only need one 3 corner cycle (e.g. Niklas).

 

[RyanO]

Some people can look at the cube and intuitively see what most people call "algotithms." Just because YOU can't solve it intuitively doesn't mean it's impossible, lol. Corner and edge 3 cycles can be done intuitively very easily. Using these it is very simple to solve a 3x3 intuitively. For example, M U2 M' U2 cycles 3 edges and I find this sequence quite intuitive.

 

[gamemeister27]

I am sure that there is nobody who could solve the last layer of a 3x3x3 with my definition of 'intuitive'.

Who says you solve it lbl. You may have another method, that doesn't result in having to solve the last layer.

Sure, but what ever method you use, you will be left with the last few pieces that need orienting or permuting. Whether they are all in the last layer or not will not change that.

In corners first, you can pretty much just see how to permute the last 3 middle edges.

 

[Alex DiTuro]

I solved the pyraminx completely on my own. But that realy doesn't count. I did, however, solve the megaminx on my own all the way up to LL Corner Orientation. I probably could have gotten full OLL on it but I was getting impatient

 

[miniGOINGS]

For Roux, all you need is Niklas.

 

[Cyrus C.]

I figured out a CF method on my own before I knew how to solve the cube, but I used commutators.

 

[TheBB]

I have a friend who does this. He uses block building. When he comes to the last layer, he tries to build a 2x2x1 block there too. In the process of doing this, he uses some tricks and simple algs that he's figured out. Often the LL will change position (i.e. he completes the LL but messes up the F2L so that again only one layer is unsolved, except it will be the left one for example). Eventually he either solves the cube or arrives at a J perm, which he has worked out a simple but extremely long solution for.

 

[PeterNewton]

I used to solve each of the six faces one by one intuitively.

 

[rjohnson_8ball]

I solved the cube myself, I calculated the effect of some moves to create effective set of moves; 3 cycle edges and corners. That was before I know of commutators -which I used intuitively for edges-

Is calculating intuitively?

Same here. I did it on my own in 1980. I made a 2x2x3 block, then figured out how to turn it into 2x3x3 the first hour I played with the cube. Here I got stuck for nearly 2 days. I messed around until I found some useful ways of moving and twisting pieces, in particular Niklas and Sune (which I did not know the names of at the time) for corners and things like M' U M U2 M' U M for edges. I drew pictures to record what they did, which was sort of hard for me while the cube was still unsolved. At first I memorized my sequences, but later developed my own notation. Then I applied these tools (sequences) in the right order to finish the solve. Once I did my first solve, I could do it again within 2 hours. After a few more sessions I got my time down to 20 minutes. Eventually I found more tricks and improved my methods and got down to about 2 minutes. After that, I read books to see how other people were solving it.

But no, I was unable to just look at the last layer and intuitively figure out a sequence to solve it. I had to attack the final layer in stages, using the tricks I had figured out.

 

[rubiknewbie]

Allow me to clarify what I mean by "intuitively". Most of us here can solve one layer "intuitively", and what this means to me is that I solve it simply by following target pieces around the cube and being able to visualise a few moves ahead. I am not consciously using any algorithms (although of course any intuitive solve could be described with algorithms), and simply go by feel. This is contrasted with, say, the last layer, where while I understand the consequences of algorithms I use, applying them is still a bit of a black box, and I am not able to naturally understand how the cube is changing during the algorithm. In other words, I could not solve the last layer "intuitively".

It's a bit of a vague term, especially when you consider that well-learnt algorithms become somewhat intuitive with time - but hopefully you all know what I mean.

An intuitive 3x3x3 cuber may well come to establish their own algorithms of sorts, perhaps - but think of it what I means as like doing an intuitive first-layer solve, but for the whole cube.

My question - is there anyone out there who would describe themselves as solving whole cubes by this method?

EDIT: Just to clarify - I don't mean someone who solved it once, without help. I mean someone who can solve it over and over again, but who does not knowingly use any algorithms.

When you solve it blindfolded with a method say M2/R2, you are sort of solving the whole cube intuitively since each piece is just a setup/unsetup move and M2 or R2.

 

[YuTubeCuber]

My uncle can do it. It takes him like 10 min though.

 

[Zane_C]

I just solved the 3x3x3 intuitively, with intuitive edges and I used my limited knowledge of commutators to help with some corners. I think this is the first time I've solved the rubik's cube without algorithms. It feels good

 

[andyt1992]

My dad does. He worked out how to solve the entire cube with my great grandad. And now he can still solve it 20 odd years later after not solving it for years. It can take him up to five minutes with some sort of corners first method. If you think im lieing ask joey or kirjava.

 

[andyt1992]

I used to solve each of the six faces one by one intuitively.

LOL is that even possible???