What is the next hardest cube after a 3x3x3?

[jweaver]

I have mastered the 3x3 (although I can still get faster).. But I want to take the next step.. My assumption is that the 4x4 is the next cube to learn. But wondered if the 6x6 is actually easier, since (and again this is an assumption) if you align the layers in pairs, its actually a 3x3.

What cube should I go for?

Jon

 

[ottozing]

2x2

 

[Genesis]

2x2x2, It's not rational to line the cubies up into a 3x3x3 first, try a 4x4x4

 

[Renslay]

The eaisest (let's ignore the exact definition for "being easy") cube is the 2x2 or the Skewb. If you don't insist the cubic shape, the easiest cube is the 1x2x2.

How 6x6 is easier than 4x4? Whatever strategies you want to on a 6x6, you can also use it on a 4x4, and it contains less pieces. On the other side, 6x6 is not (much) harder than 4x4 (just contains more pieces...), so you can go with it.

I think the best advice: Learn whatever you like to learn. There are quite a few puzzles that have no fun or really hard to find even a begginer strategy to solve.

 

[tx789]

pyraminx, 2x2, 1x1, 0x0

 

[jweaver]

Sorry all.. My fault for a strange choice of words.. When I said "next easiest".. I really ment "next hardest".

I don't want easier.. I just want the next easier one AFTER the 3x3.

So I should have said "next hardest".. So after the 3x3, my assumption is that the 4x4 is the next logical choice.. But I wonder if the 6x6 is also a good one, since its similar to a 3x3.

Jon

 

[Genesis]

I don't see how a 6x6 is more similar to a 3x3 than a 4x4 is to a 3x3...

 

[NSKuber]

All big cubes are similar to each other and to 3x3. Try 2x2, it has a wonderful method with 120 algorithms and you'll have to think a lot during preinspection, unlike in 3x3.

 

[jweaver]

I don't see how a 6x6 is more similar to a 3x3 than a 4x4 is to a 3x3...

It was an assumption.. I figured that a 6x6, 9x9 or anything like that would be done like a 3x3. I based this after watching a computer simulation of a 100x100x100. My rational was that if you get the layers done in pairs, and then move them in blocks of 4, you are actually doing a 3x3...

So I assumed that you did a 6x6, by getting 9 blocks of colour on each face (in groups of 4) and then doing it like 3x3. But a 4x4 or 5x5 would be a completely different message.

Same with a 9x9.. Again, my assumption was that you get the layers done in 3s.. So again you end up with each face having 9 blocks of colour (each block made up of 9 squares).. Adn then you do it like a 3x3..

Is this not the case?

All big cubes are similar to each other and to 3x3. Try 2x2, it has a wonderful method with 120 algorithms and you'll have to think a lot during preinspection, unlike in 3x3.

I must admit, a 2x2 doesn't really appeal, as its looks too easy... But they are cheap.. And I really should give it a go..

 

[Renslay]

So I assumed that you did a 6x6, by getting 9 blocks of colour on each face (in groups of 4) and then doing it like 3x3. But a 4x4 or 5x5 would be a completely different message.

Same with a 9x9.. Again, my assumption was that you get the layers done in 3s.. So again you end up with each face having 9 blocks of colour (each block made up of 9 squares).. Adn then you do it like a 3x3..

Is this not the case?

That would be a really hard, long and over-complicated method. There is a method which reduces the cube to a 3x3x3, but it works a bit differently. Look up for "Reduction Method"
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Reduction_method
It works for any big cube, not just 6x6 and 9x9 and so on. And it is quite easy and fast.

 

[fhein]

It was an assumption.. I figured that a 6x6, 9x9 or anything like that would be done like a 3x3. I based this after watching a computer simulation of a 100x100x100. My rational was that if you get the layers done in pairs, and then move them in blocks of 4, you are actually doing a 3x3...

So I assumed that you did a 6x6, by getting 9 blocks of colour on each face (in groups of 4) and then doing it like 3x3. But a 4x4 or 5x5 would be a completely different message.

Same with a 9x9.. Again, my assumption was that you get the layers done in 3s.. So again you end up with each face having 9 blocks of colour (each block made up of 9 squares).. Adn then you do it like a 3x3..

Is this not the case?

A 4x4x4 can also be solved as a 3x3x3, if you combine the 2 inner layers.

If you're not dead-set on speedsolving, I'd recommend getting a 4x4x6 cuboid.

 

[jweaver]

A 4x4x4 can also be solved as a 3x3x3, if you combine the 2 inner layers.

If you're not dead-set on speedsolving, I'd recommend getting a 4x4x6 cuboid.

Many thanks for that... I want to stick with 'cubes'.. I have tried non-symetrical puzzles and they arn't as tactile... Going to give a 4x4x4 a try and have ordered a 'Shengshou'.. But will probably pick up a 5x5 and 6x6 in the coming months too.

Jon

 

[LNZ]

It is very well known that a 2x2x2 cube is simply a 3x3x3 cube without edge pieces and just corner pieces.

So if you can solve a 3x3x3 cube, by default you already can solve a 2x2x2 cube.

 

[guinepigs rock]

rex cube

 

[qqwref]

So I assumed that you did a 6x6, by getting 9 blocks of colour on each face (in groups of 4) and then doing it like 3x3. But a 4x4 or 5x5 would be a completely different message.

Same with a 9x9.. Again, my assumption was that you get the layers done in 3s.. So again you end up with each face having 9 blocks of colour (each block made up of 9 squares).. Adn then you do it like a 3x3..

Is this not the case?

No, it's not the case. Download a sim and play with a 6x6x6 for a bit. You will soon see that what you said doesn't make much sense at all. "Getting 9 blocks of color on each face" is not a natural method and is in fact more difficult than just solving the whole cube directly.

 

[cannon4747]

in reality, all symetrical cubes (excluding things like square-1) are the same. The same principles apply and are fairly straightforward. even on things like a helicopter cube. If you can figure out how commutators and conjugates work (its not too hard) then you can figure out any puzzle. The same concepts actually do also apply to non-symetrical turning puzzles like the square-1 but it's much more difficult (for me at least) to visualize than on a symetrical one. I can figure out a method for every new puzzle I've gotten in a day.

 

[Rubiksfreak]

Sorry all.. My fault for a strange choice of words.. When I said "next easiest".. I really ment "next hardest".

I don't want easier.. I just want the next easier one AFTER the 3x3.

So I should have said "next hardest".. So after the 3x3, my assumption is that the 4x4 is the next logical choice.. But I wonder if the 6x6 is also a good one, since its similar to a 3x3.

Jon

A 5x5 is more similar to a 3x3 than a 4x4 and 6x6. A 5x5 has a center peice just like the 3x3. Also when youve got the 5x5 in a 3x3 stage it is impossible to get a parity case just like the 3x3. The 4x4 and 6x6 don't have center peices and there is parity.

Sent from my LG-L38C using Tapatalk 2

 

[~Adam~]

Mastered?

I suggest 4x4.

 

[SenileGenXer]

5x5 is actually the next hardest. You can learn reduction plus some edge pairing then it's all 3x3 moves and making great patterns. 5x5 is a friendly little step up. The rubiks brand 5x5 was called the professor. The 4x4 was called revenge. The names are aptly chosen.

4x4 is harder in terms of knowledge required. There are many ways it can be solved. There are a proliferation of methods. There are parity errors and long algs for them. There is just more to understand. While it can be solved faster and there are fewer pieces I think the 4x4 is on many levels harder than a 5x5. It is what makes the 4x4 more compelling.

I think the difficulty for NxNxN puzzels is 2x2 < 3x3 < 5x5 < 4x4 < 7x7 < 6x6

I learned cubing on a 5x5. A had a rubik's professor before I had a rubik's cube. It wasn't hard to learn it was just hard to turn.

 

[chardison1980]

I would consider the next hardest cube to mess with would be a latch cube, 10/10 difficulty,