A unique phase method for a Rubik's Cube

[sm]

Hello everybody!

==============================
An addition from 21.11.2018
I ask not to give much attention to the phrase "The 100% intuitive method" in my manual. I want to update my manual but it's difficult to change it now. My English there isn't good enough and I think need to rewrite everything.
I just want to give you one more good idea of solving the Rubik's cube.
I'm sorry if I offended anybody earlier.
Good luck!
Best regards,
Sergey
==============================

Link to the manual - http://vk.com/doc185254069_224249949
or use the direct mirror - http://buhgalter-online.kz/files/instr_morozov.pdf

Another variant of flipping edges - http://vk.com/doc185254069_229324082



My video for beginners (with subtitles in English):

• How to solve corners -
• How to solve columns -
• How to solve last 8 edges -

The sequence of solving:

1. Solving 8 corners (the cube 2x2x2);
2. Solving 12 edges (or ribs for big cubes);
3. Permutation of centers.

Examples of solving:

• The cube 3x3x3 -
• The cube 7x7x7 -

Good luck!


Valery Morozov about his method of solving the Rubik’s Cube 3x3x3

The Rubik’s Cube is a puzzle of swivel type. The swivel role in the cube is played centers. These are swivel of horizontal type. This swivel type has 1 level of freedom (possibility of rotation on an axis of a cube crosspiece). On the cube 6 central elements, therefore the maximum quantity of levels of freedom which can have elements of the cube can't be more than 6.

The cube has 9 planes (layers) of rotation, and these planes of two types: 6 sides and 3 central. It is very important to distinguish because in case of rotation of 3 central planes, corner elements remain on a place, and rotate only center and edge elements. When you rotate the side plane, all elements (corners, edges) participate in movement. If to designate axes of the cube as X, Y, Z, then it is possible to consider movement of the planes of the cube, in relation to its axes. Rotation of 6 side planes is a rotation around one of three axes (X, Y, Z). Rotation of central planes is a rotation of two axes around the third, X and Y around Z, X and Z around Y, Z and Y around X.

From this follows a very important conclusion - that corners elements has 3 levels of freedom, and edges and central elements has 6 levels of freedom.

Now, from a position of levels of freedom, we will consider a layer-by-layer method of solving. We see the following - after cross is solved, 12 edge elements loses 3 levels of freedom, central elements loses all 5 levels of freedom, and after that without a algorithms becomes impossible to solve the cube, i.e. restricting possibility of use of all 9 planes of rotation, solving the cube repeatedly becomes complicated.

If you solved at first step 8 corners elements then after edge and central elements save its 6 levels of freedom. That allows solving the cube most simply and without algorithms. If there are more freedom levels at edge and central elements at each stage, then simple and variable there will be a solving.



Valery Morozov about the Megaminx and the Rubik’s Cube

Central elements of the Megaminx has 1 level of freedom, and Corners and Edges has 6 levels of freedom, therefore the Megaminx can't is solved in a different way, except as layer-by-layer (around centers), because if to try to solve separately corners and edges, then you can't put into place centers, without break all solved elements.
But you can easily solve corners and edges in the Rubik’s Cube 3x3x3, and then to put centers into places. And all thanks to that centers have 6 levels of freedom.
In the cube 4x4x4, corners and edges has only one setup variant - everyone to their places. And centers are 96 setup variants. 4 central elements on one side are 16 variants. 6 sides are giving - 16*6 = 96.
And now question:
What is simpler - to decide corners and edges, and then to decide centers where we use one of 96 possible variants, or to decide centers and then to decide edges and angles around centers where we use one possible option for saving centers from breaking?
If, all these puzzles are called mechanical then a way to their decision will be from a position of laws of mechanics. The mathematical group theory is good only for some special cases, for example, when we solve the Megaminx.

If you don't understand my reasoning about levels of freedom, then I will say more simply, we will take the cube 3x3x3, and we will consider its solving.

1. Corners are only one variant of location, and we need put each corner on its place to solve them. After corners are solved, we easily defined where located colors of sides.
2. Edges are only one variant of location, and we need put each edge on its place to solve them.
3. Centers are 24 variants of location. When corners and edges are solved and they can turn under different angles (4 variants).

Old manual from Valery Morozov in Russian - http://vk.com/doc185254069_225976533

Old variant of solving by the principle which Valery Morozov showed - http://vk.com/doc185254069_230764683

I've found several videos about Morozov's method in English. Hope it'll be helpfull.
How to solve 2x2x2 -

3x3x3 (part 1) -

3x3x3 (part 2) -

How to solve big cudes -

 

[Noahaha]

This is a very nice guide, but I don't understand how it's completely intuitive, or what's special about the method. There are parts where you say things like:

"Rotate the first side on 180: Rotate the second side on 180: Rotate the first side on 180: Turn the top side to its place"

That's just an algorithm broken down into turns. You don't explain why it works. I understand why it works, but not everyone will.


Honestly though, it's a very nice-looking guide and it seems like you put a lot of work in it. I just think it's going too far to call in completely intuitive

 

[brian724080]

"Rotate the first side on 180: Rotate the second side on 180: Rotate the first side on 180: Turn the top side to its place"

That's just an algorithm broken down into turns. You don't explain why it works. I understand why it works, but not everyone will.

You're right, but to be honest, I think this manual would be a great start for beginners.

 

[Noahaha]

You're right, but to be honest, I think this manual would be a great start for beginners.

I totally agree with that. I just think that the whole 100% intuitive part is a little bit misguided

 

[sellingseals]

I totally agree with that. I just think that the whole 100% intuitive part is a little bit misguided

I absolutely agree with this statement. If it's 100% intuitive, there would be absolutely no need for a manual to teach a person how to solve the cube, which is what it is doing.

 

[sm]

I absolutely agree with this statement. If it's 100% intuitive, there would be absolutely no need for a manual to teach a person how to solve the cube, which is what it is doing.

Thank you for your comment!

We want to explain the principle.
If you learned to solve with this method and understood the principle, you already will be able to solve corners and edges with your method.
I show only my variant to solve corners and edges.
I use schemes because without schemes people don't understand it!
I adhering only the principle about which Valery Morozov told:

1. rotate 8 corners with basic color on the Top and the Bottom sides;
2. put corners to its place;
3. put 4 edges without basic colors;
4. rotate 8 edges with basic color on the Top and the Bottom sides;
5. put edges to its place;
6. Permutation of centers.

The heaviest in this method steps 1 and 4. The rest steps are simple.

Generally, it is necessary to make a few efforts to learn to see all this.
I solved the cube using this principle in two days!

Before I couldn't collect a cube itself the whole five years! Only after five years I could think up the way of assembly of the last corners (All layer-by-layer methods are very difficult!):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN8vGBeK3TUpSfjYX5hQVIHBbmIawyrBV

I don't know other simple method which would be easier than Morozov method, and I think it is worthy to be called intuitive.
It is necessary to understand only the principle and after that you can use your method to solve corners and edges.

In this method it is necessary to think! Intuitively, does not mean easy and not thinking!

Thank you for your interest in the method!

 

[Noahaha]

Intuitively, does not mean easy and not thinking!

That's true.

Intuitive means: "using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive."

Parts of your method are like that. There are also parts where you merely say "make these moves and it works." Those are the parts that are not intuitive. Those are the parts where the use of the method does not understand what they are doing. They are simply following your instructions.

HOWEVER: I am not saying that that is a bad thing at all. Almost every method has intuitive steps AND non-intuitive steps. I'm just saying that your method is not 100% intuitive by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a fairly good guide though.

 

[brian724080]

HOWEVER: I am not saying that that is a bad thing at all. Almost every method has intuitive steps AND non-intuitive steps. I'm just saying that your method is not 100% intuitive by any stretch of the imagination.

Is there a method that really is completely intuitive? If so, is it practical to use one?

 

[Noahaha]

Is there a method that really is completely intuitive? If so, is it practical to use one?

Short answer: Heise

Long answer: There is often a grey area between intuitive and algorithmic steps. Often someone can understand an algorithm intuitively, but often intuitive steps have algorithms within them that people use. Good speedsolving methods have a lot of room for interpretation and improvisation. It's really hard to say when something is intuitive and when it is not.

 

[Christopher Mowla]

inb4 Kirjava!

sm, I am an expert on parity algorithm structures and theory, and I have to say that the parity algorithm you chose doesn't seem to be the easiest approach. The parity algorithm you use is long and unproductive.

l D2 l D2 l' r' B2 r B2 r' B2 r B2 l U2 l' U2 l U2 l' U2 F2 l F2 l'

I would have finished what you started like this (where the bold moves above and below are identical).
l D2 l D2 l' r' B2 r B2 r' B2 r B2
U2 l U2 l'
D2 U B L' B' r D2 r'
D2 B L B' U' D2

Based on your chosen approach, if we didn't care about length but we didn't want to be to inefficient, a better option would have been:
(r2 F2 l F2 r2) D2 l' D2 l (U2 B2 D2 D B' L B ) l U2 l' U2 (B' L' B D' D2 B2 U2)

Where I basically used the algorithm r2 F2 l F2 r2 instead of l D2 l D2 l' r' B2 r B2 r' B2 r B2, because it is also a checkboard 4-cycle which discolors 4 1x2 center blocks.

Both of you seem to have a lot of patience to create documents in detail as I do, and I respect that. It looks very neat!

 

[sm]

Ok, thank you!

In this method we go from difficult to the simple. And I think that it is right - this method demonstrate that the most difficult is solved corners i.e. the 2x2x2 cube all the rest is much easier - it's base for solving cubes of any sizes.

About the how to solve ribs and parity on big cubes:
I don't use formulas to solve parity to show as to solve it using only knowledge about the cube 2x2x2. It isn't necessary to learn formulas, it is necessary to understand it.

Thank you for understanding!

 

[Christopher Mowla]

I think my 3x3x3 guide is much easier for beginners to follow for the 2x2x2 and 3x3x3. I didn't use much English either so that it can be used by people globally.

I also made a 3x3x3 Reduction guide to solve the 4x4x4 and larger cubes in 2009 (when I first learned how to solve the nxnxn cube), but I never released it to the public because most of it is common knowledge. But for the sake of it, here it is:
3x3x3 Reduction.

What I liked about my guide the most is that I used the same algorithm (on page 11) to complete all composite edges on the nxnxn. I explain on pages 12, 13, and 18 how to do this. (You can skip the "even further" section on pages 13-17).

...And it is real to solve a Rubik's Cube without knowledge of formulas!

Well, the correct term to use here is "algorithm", not "formula", but you are indeed correct. One merely needs to know how to swap numbers to solve a permutation and is aware of the "cube laws".

One can represent any Rubik's cube scramble as a set of lists of numbers and solve the number sets without even thinking about the cube at all. To handle orientations of corners and middle edges, one must simply be aware of the cube laws and one can be sure that these number solutions could be theoretically translated to an nxnxn cube in move form, where we mark the edge pieces which are unoriented as + and corners twisted incorrectly either + or - in addition to the piece number they represent.

However, as others have said, you have provided algorithms ("formulas"), so you did give them prerequisite knowledge of "formulas".

I'm all in favor of using a single idea to solve any size cube.

Spoiler

A more "intuitive" guide I made develops a few basic commutator moves, extrapolates them, and combines them at different angles to solve more complicated cases. 3x3x3 solution (commutator). I made this guide in 2009 for myself (and in fact, this is roughly how I solve the 3x3x3 cube to this day), but I never released it to the public until now. Nothing new, probably.

In fact, that is why I am in the process of proving that the nxnxn cube can be solved with a single commutator (a formula, not an algorithm). (See my avatar image).

 

[porkynator]

Thanks for sharing, this is a nice method!
I haven't read the whole guide, but this method is very similar to the one Attila uses for FMC: he solves corners first, often with orientation followed by permutation, as in your method, and then edges, without a fixed way of solving them as far as I know.

 

[antoineccantin]

So, like an example of an 100% intuuitive method would be the one used for Rubik's Clock, right?

 

[qqwref]

1982, when all spoke that it is necessary to solving a cube layer-by-layer.

I don't think this is true - several people were developing or using non-LBL methods around that time. Some examples are Minh Thai (1982 World Champion) and Marc Waterman (achieved 16.xx average of 12 in very early 1980s).

This does look like an interesting method for beginners though!

 

[Christopher Mowla]

Valery Morozov tried to explain his principle to people, but anybody didn't understand him. On his youtube-channel there is a lot of video where it tells about degrees of freedom and why it solving a cube in such sequence. He invented this method in 1982, when all spoke that it is necessary to solving a cube layer-by-layer.
He wanted to explain to people the principle, but nobody tried to understand it, therefore I wrote this instruction in which I use many schemes that it was clear to people.

That was a very nice gesture for you to do. Your and his work will not go unnoticed. I appreciate that you have given us the opportunity to see this method explained in English.

Lastly, just to be clear of what I mean (solving a cube with a single commutator), here is an example solve (if you want me to solve a specific random position --even permutation--with a single commutator, let me know):

Scramble
L2 F' L2 B U L R' U2 R2 B' L F' D2 U2 L' R' F U B U D2 B D' B' R'
Solution
[B2 R U2 L2 B2 R2 B' L D' R U' B' L2 D B D' R2 B', B2 L' U2 R2 U L2 B' R B2 L D' B2 F' D2 R' B' F']

 

[sellingseals]

Thank you for your comment!

We want to explain the principle.
If you learned to solve with this method and understood the principle, you already will be able to solve corners and edges with your method.
I show only my variant to solve corners and edges.
I use schemes because without schemes people don't understand it!
I adhering only the principle about which Valery Morozov told:

1. rotate 8 corners with basic color on the Top and the Bottom sides;
2. put corners to its place;
3. put 4 edges without basic colors;
4. rotate 8 edges with basic color on the Top and the Bottom sides;
5. put edges to its place;
6. Permutation of centers.

The heaviest in this method steps 1 and 4. The rest steps are simple.

Generally, it is necessary to make a few efforts to learn to see all this.
I solved the cube using this principle in two days!

Before I couldn't collect a cube itself the whole five years! Only after five years I could think up the way of assembly of the last corners (All layer-by-layer methods are very difficult!):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN8vGBeK3TUpSfjYX5hQVIHBbmIawyrBV

I don't know other simple method which would be easier than Morozov method, and I think it is worthy to be called intuitive.
It is necessary to understand only the principle and after that you can use your method to solve corners and edges.

In this method it is necessary to think! Intuitively, does not mean easy and not thinking!

Thank you for your interest in the method!

This method is absolutely not 100% intuitive. Saying it is, and then explaining how it's done makes it less than 100% intuitive. If you have to teach people, it's NOT intuitive 100%. I'm not sure how else to word this. You're saying it's 100% intuitive, and then go on to say you have to understand the principle of how it's done, and because of that it is intuitive. 100% intuitive does not include being taught the principle of the method. The problem I have with this, if you can't get it yet, is that you say it's 100% intuitive, and it's absolutely not. If somebody picks up a cube, knows nothing about it, solves it on their own without any outside influence, then to that person it was 100 % intuition that got them to solve it. As soon as that person starts explaining how they did it to somebody, as in the method, that next person absolutely did NOT solve it 100% intuitive. Get it?

 

[elrog]

This method is absolutely not 100% intuitive. Saying it is, and then explaining how it's done makes it less than 100% intuitive. If you have to teach people, it's NOT intuitive 100%. I'm not sure how else to word this. You're saying it's 100% intuitive, and then go on to say you have to understand the principle of how it's done, and because of that it is intuitive. 100% intuitive does not include being taught the principle of the method. The problem I have with this, if you can't get it yet, is that you say it's 100% intuitive, and it's absolutely not. If somebody picks up a cube, knows nothing about it, solves it on their own without any outside influence, then to that person it was 100 % intuition that got them to solve it. As soon as that person starts explaining how they did it to somebody, as in the method, that next person absolutely did NOT solve it 100% intuitive. Get it?

I disagree. Your saying that doing something intuitively means you do it without learning it. Your basically saying intuitively is instinctively. That's just fine, but you cant solve a Rubik's cube on instinct. No one ever has and no one ever will. Just because someone learned to solve it on their own doesn't make it instinctive, it just means they learned how the cube works on their own usually through trial and error rather than having someone else tell them how it works.

 

[Stefan]

You call it "The 100% intuitive method" instead of "A 100% intuitive method". Do you really think there is no other?

 

[sellingseals]

I disagree. Your saying that doing something intuitively means you do it without learning it. Your basically saying intuitively is instinctively. That's just fine, but you cant solve a Rubik's cube on instinct. No one ever has and no one ever will. Just because someone learned to solve it on their own doesn't make it instinctive, it just means they learned how the cube works on their own usually through trial and error rather than having someone else tell them how it works.

haha, this guy wrote out how he solves the puzzle intuitively. That is taking direction on HOW to solve the puzzle. It's a method. What the guy wrote out, is a METHOD. An intuitive method? Now that you know his "method", and if you solve it like that, how is solving it like THAT intuitive to YOU? It's not, because you are following the direction of somebody else. I'm not saying that doing something intuitively means you do it without learning anything. Of course you have to use your own logic to figure something out by yourself, using things you've learned in the past etc etc. Nobody can process anything without using what they have already learned in their lifetime. However, this man cannot sit there and say you can solve the puzzle intuitively while using his method. Now that you know the method, and it was taught by somebody else, you have just learned part of how it's solved, which is then not intuitive. That's like a musician playing some music, making it up on the spot intuitively compared to reading somebody else's music score. The method in question was intuitive for the writer, but not for anybody else who uses this method afterwards. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this. I challenge you to learn to learn to pick locks WITHOUT any outside help whatsoever. If you could, you did it intuitively, if you have to look anything up at all, then it's not 100% intuitive.