best 4x4x4 method?

[rubiksboy]

what's the best 4x4x4 guide/method you've come across.
by "best", i mean best for someone who is new to the 4x4x4, and just wants to be able to solve it, and wants to learn how to solve it with minimum effort/learning time.

What's the best method (under above defintion of "best") for someone who can sovle the 3x3x3 already?
is a different method the best for someone who can't solve the 3x3x3, and just wants to learn how to solve their 4x4x4?

 

[waffle=ijm]

nope.
No "best method"
just use which YOU think is the best that suits YOUR cubing style.

 

[Daniel Wu]

Reduction is what I would say. Good tutorials

 

[dbax0999]

First of all, I'm pretty sure you could find your answers using the search function. People on the forum seem to get angry if you don't do some research before you make a new thread.

To answer your question, the best method for someone who can solve a 3x3 is probably reduction. I learned this method from http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=4x4x4/4x4x4

If you can't solve a 3x3, I recommend learning to solve one before you tackle the 4x4, but I guess the cage method would be the easiest to learn if you can't solve a 3x3. Searching for '4x4 cage method' could provide you the information you need.

- David

 

[pappas]

Watch Dan Brown's 4x4 tutorial on youtube. It's easy to learn and understand. Most 4x4 methods are done the same way. Centres, Edges, 3x3.
The centres part of the tutorial is pretty basic but not very good though. Dont watch it though if you want to get fast.

 

[PEZenfuego]

First of all, I'm pretty sure you could find your answers using the search function. People on the forum seem to get angry if you don't do some research before you make a new thread.

To answer your question, the best method for someone who can solve a 3x3 is probably reduction. I learned this method from http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=4x4x4/4x4x4

If you can't solve a 3x3, I recommend learning to solve one before you tackle the 4x4, but I guess the cage method would be the easiest to learn if you can't solve a 3x3. Searching for '4x4 cage method' could provide you the information you need.

- David

Forum: A public meeting place for open discussion.

A forum is not a place for people to come and do a search...that my friend is what google is for.

In any case, I'll throw my 2 cents and suggest reduction method. IMO it is easier to learn than k4

 

[PatrickJameson]

A forum is not a place for people to come and do a search...that my friend is what google is for.

We use google to power the site's main search.

 

[qqwref]

Minimum effort to learn? I would actually say some version of sandwich.
- Build the left and right centers. This is intuitive.
- Solve all corners (this is easy, do it like 3x3 corners) and then match those up with the centers.
- Insert the pieces of 7 of the 8 left/right edges (this is 14 pieces) using moves like U r U'. Do three edges of left and then all edges of R.
- Insert the last two L edges (this is essentially one alg, done twice).
- Now we finish off the edges. Try to use only r l U moves; first solve the bottom two edges on the l slice and then pair up and insert (U2 r2 U2) the other two, so that the l slice of edges is solved (the left and right layers should still be solved). Now for the right layer you can solve everything by using an alg that will move three edges around. Here there is no parity because you are free to use r turns if you get something that looks like it can't be solved with just the three-cycle algorithm.
- Finally Solve the last four centers. You only need one alg for this.
So a total of three new algs, no parity algs at all, and all you need to know is how to do the 2x2. Pretty easy to learn, I'd say.

Reduction is good too but it may take some effort to learn to match up edges properly, and you do have to learn two parity algs. The advantage of using reduction is that it is one of the fastest known methods, so you won't need to learn anything else to get fast, just to practice a lot.

 

[Truncator]

Minimum effort to learn? I would actually say some version of sandwich.
- Build the left and right centers. This is intuitive.
- Solve all corners (this is easy, do it like 3x3 corners) and then match those up with the centers.
- Insert the pieces of 7 of the 8 left/right edges (this is 14 pieces) using moves like U r U'. Do three edges of left and then all edges of R.
- Insert the last two L edges (this is essentially one alg, done twice).
- Now we finish off the edges. Try to use only r l U moves; first solve the bottom two edges on the l slice and then pair up and insert (U2 r2 U2) the other two, so that the l slice of edges is solved (the left and right layers should still be solved). Now for the right layer you can solve everything by using an alg that will move three edges around. Here there is no parity because you are free to use r turns if you get something that looks like it can't be solved with just the three-cycle algorithm.
- Finally Solve the last four centers. You only need one alg for this.
So a total of three new algs, no parity algs at all, and all you need to know is how to do the 2x2. Pretty easy to learn, I'd say.

Reduction is good too but it may take some effort to learn to match up edges properly, and you do have to learn two parity algs. The advantage of using reduction is that it is one of the fastest known methods, so you won't need to learn anything else to get fast, just to practice a lot.

I like this method so far, but I haven't been able to solve the the M-slice edges. I've finished the L and R faces with no problem.

If there's a list of algorithms for this step or a tutorial, I'd appreciate the help.

 

[Lucas]

And if you want it easier, learn what a commutator is (specially, understand how it works): after that, solve following this steps:

-Edges (you may find edges odd parity, fix it doing an inner layer move and then continue solving them).
-Centers/corners.
-Corners/centers.

No parity alg needed. Each commutator may need setup moves to be executed.

So, with commutators you will not need any algoritm, you will solve the cube "intuitively". And this works for nxnxn cubes, and most twisty puzzles (I even solved square-1 recently with them).

 

[(R)]

Use Robho629's tutorial it is great just search how to solve a 4x4 rubick's cube and go to the one by him. The tutorial is really easy to follow

 

[rachmaninovian]

Truncator:

to solve the middle edges, you only really need 2, but to make it a little faster, you need 3 algs..

locate a piece that should go to the FLd, preferably on FUr, and apply D2 r2 D2 to get the piece down to FLd. you should be able to do this for 3 of the pieces. sometimes it would be difficult to find the pieces, but doing D2 r2 D2 might help you find the pieces =p

so now we have one edge left for the left slice. position it such that the unsolved edge is on the FLd position (like the previous 3) and the piece of interest is in FUr (like the previous 3) and do the following: D' r' D F2 D' r D F2. now you have the left slice edges solved.

for the right slice, you only need one algorithm. to switch FUr and FDr, do this: x2 B2 D2 B' r' B D2 B' r B' r'. that is, after moving the r slice until you solve as many edge pieces as possible. sometimes you find that you have to switch UBr and FDr; for that case, do this alg once and reposition the r slice until you get as many edges solved as possible and do that alg once more.

 

[Truncator]

Thank you very much, rachman! I think this might be my new 4x4 method.

 

[rachmaninovian]

Thank you very much, rachman! I think this might be my new 4x4 method.

no prob :3 this was the first method I learnt for 4x4, and after much optimization it became sandwich today.

this method, together with some intuitive shortcuts like solving a dedge at a time for the first 8 (like the concept of f2l) is enough to get you to sub 2.