• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Intuitively Solved 4x4 Rubik Cube Video

Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
11
Hi guys,

After 3 months of twisting and turning and breaking 3 cubes without knowing how to assemble them back together, I finally solved the 4x4 intuitively!

I solved the 3x3 intuitively in my teens so I thought I would challenge my patience again during quarantine and surprisingly I was able to figure out the 4x4 on my own. I didn't use known algorithms, methods or YouTube tutorials just because I have a tendency to make my life harder with difficulty and frustration.

anyway, I just wanted to share my solve here. It's kinda shameful in comparison to the one minute solves on this sub but I'm working on lowering my time!

Here's the link:

I really don't know any methods so I'm wondering if you guys can tell me if my solve is similar to the methods out there.
 

SenorJuan

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
483
Location
U.K
That's definitely different to most people's intuitive solves, including my own. Generally, armed with the skills to solve a 3x3x3, it's natural to try and solve the Revenge in a way that favours 3x3x3 methods. This would mean completing the 4 centre-pieces on each face, as you did, then making every 'pair of edge pieces' somehow, which would then simplify the puzzle significantly.
You make the central-4's like I did, randomly ... it turns out it's simpler to be more methodical, and create two opposite 'central-4' groups. Then all the remaining 4 colours lie on the one 'belt' , and completing them is easier.
Do you always complete the solve with your method, or do you get a situation where 50% ( or 75% ) of the time it's 'unsolvable' and you have to re-solve a stage differently to achieve a solution ?
 
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
11
I would say I can only solve it 75% of the time. It's odd because I don't have an exact way of doing it every time. I do the basics of the centers, the edges then the individual wing pieces but it could always end with a few pieces in parity or in random positions. How I solve it at the end stage is highly intuitive, it sounds odd but I solve it by "that looks right to me or feels right" it's almost instinctive when I twist and turn that I know if that's the right move or not. So there are certainly times when I get to unsolvable stages and I track backwards and try to fix it.
 

SenorJuan

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
483
Location
U.K
The inability to solve the puzzle 100% of the time is one of the worst features of the 4x4. (Back in the 80's when I was attempting to solve it, the worst thing was the terrible turning of the tight, unadjustable, 'Sebesteny' ball-cored mechanism, of course.)
I spent ages trying to get round my 1 in 4 success rate. I thought the identical centre-pieces held the secret, and I added extra stickers to them to identify each one, thinking that by solving them in 'correct sequence' I would benefit from it. I didn't. It was several years later when a college friend turned out to be a cuber, and he had a book containing the special algorithms that ended my solution problems. Until I eventually lost the bit of paper I wrote them on, of course. Thankfully someone subsequently invented the Internet, and I can now find hundreds of 'parity algorithms'....
 

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,055
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
Visit Channel
It was several years later when a college friend turned out to be a cuber, and he had a book containing the special algorithms that ended my solution problems. Until I eventually lost the bit of paper I wrote them on, of course.
That book didn't happen to have a page like this at the end of it, did it?

And how long were the parity solutions (in half turns) in the book about? 15 moves? 50 moves?
 

SenorJuan

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
483
Location
U.K
That's tricky to recall, the actual algs were relatively short, but they messed up a lot of the puzzle so to actually use them took lots of turns. I think the 'OLL' alg was 5 or 6 moves, but it messed up 3 ( ? ) centres, and I had notes on the 'best' way to re-solve the centres without messing too much else up. And I solved the last layer 'edges then corners' , so I only discovered whether I needed the 'PLL' parity alg when I was left with two unsolvable corners. After using the alg, I had to re-solve the edges, then the corners again. Pretty tedious, I rarely bothered, if I had 'double parity' I would 'solve' it so the flipped dedge and the swapped corners were all in a neatly oriented line, that's close enough, eh?
I still have my original Revenge, and it wasn't called a Revenge, it was a Master Cube. I eventually obtained two more, with the intention of using one of them for spare parts. I'd used my engineering skills to repair at least three broken centre-pieces, using tiny steel 'Spirol' pins I got from work. With 24 centres, it seemed inevitable more would break, hopefully not the 'magic' two-piece one.
 

SenorJuan

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
483
Location
U.K
My intuitive solve also left the unsolved parts on the last layer. Making the final edge pairs was usually done with:

b' F R U R' U' F' b
or
f F R U R' U' F' f'

which solve 3 pairs on the last layer. I always struggled when there was only two degdes needed solving, I never found a neat way of only solving two, I had to make it 3 or 4, then retry ...
 

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,055
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
Visit Channel
My intuitive solve also left the unsolved parts on the last layer. Making the final edge pairs was usually done with:

b' F R U R' U' F' b
or
f F R U R' U' F' f'

which solve 3 pairs on the last layer. I always struggled when there was only two degdes needed solving, I never found a neat way of only solving two, I had to make it 3 or 4, then retry ...
Oh, if you only knew back then that your sequence could easily be modified to be able to handle the two edge pairs!
 

SenorJuan

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
483
Location
U.K
I did try a few things out, I'm sure. I was pretty competent at 3x3 at the time ( low 30 sec solves... not bad for a 90 move solution, etc ), and knew that F R U R' U' F' could combine well with it's mirrors/inverses to solve a variety of 3x3 last layer cases, so I'm sure I tried the same principle out on those 4x4 algs, but clearly failed.
However ..... 35 years later, it's only taken me 5 minutes to come up with a solution, inelegantly described here:

b' F R U R' U' F' b ........ f' F' U' L' U L F f

which seems perfectly useable. Hmmm.
 

SenorJuan

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
483
Location
U.K
I don't know if Ms Cute is interested in other people's solutions strategies, but this is Chris Hardwick's way of making the six centres on a 4x4. He makes two opposite centres, leaving the 4 remaining ones on a central belt. Solving these last 4 can be done by holding the puzzle so the completed centres are on the L and R faces. This makes solving the remainder more ergonomic ( opinions vary etc )
http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/4-step1.html
http://www.speedcubing.com/chris/4-movelist1.html

I think it's OK to work around the belt in sequence, though this 'opposite pair , opposite pair' strategy is more algorithmic and potentially quicker.
 
Top