"The cube is no longer a puzzle"

[Dane man]

So what do I mean by that? Bold declaration isn't it? But in a way, it's true. Not that it isn't an object that requires putting back together again (like a jigsaw), which it is, but that it no longer is as mysterious or mentally challenging as a real "puzzle" ought to be.

For me, solving the cube fast is fun. But the real joy I get from solving the cube comes when I find my own solution using my own intuition. It's in the challenge of having to discover a way to make it work. I love a good mental challenge, a logical hurtle, something that I can use to hone my ability to make a deduction and act on it.

Now, this isn't the cube's fault by any stretch of the imagination. I feel it's mostly because a good portion of us have never solved the cube without first looking at someone else's algorithms or solution techniques. Many of us, instead of trying to figure out how to do the cube on our own, simply start memorizing methods and algorithms in an attempt to be faster. In this sense, the cube has become more like a race track than a puzzle. Everyone is passing through it's twists and turns, teaching and repeating the same racing lines and cornering techniques, trying to beat each other's times.

Not that this is bad, or not fun (because it is), but that when going fast and memorizing takes priority over the fact that the puzzle was meant to be just that, a puzzle, we tend to lose and forget the magical property that the cube has. We forget the potential that the cube has to be mysterious and truly challenging.

For me, I feel bad because it feels like I cheated for a lot of my cubing experience. When we can solve a cube, to a lot of people, we look smarter than we really are, and it feels wrong to give that impression without having worked for it the honest way, at least once. Personally, I intuitively solved the F2L with no problem until a few things in the last layer. That's where I went to algorithms. That confidence threatening question, "Did you figure it out on your own? Or did you just memorize the patterns?" gets to me, because the method I use now was created with help from other sources, not my own intuition, and I have to respond (almost shamefully) "I memorized a few things that I found online."

So recently, I've been challenging myself. I created a competition with the sole purpose of encouraging intuitive solving of the cube, in an attempt to bring back that magical property that was existent when the cube first came out.

Jessica Fridrich said, "Back in 1981, the cube was mysterious. We did not have computers powerful enough to develop the shortest moves for us. We did not know if those algorithms we found by trial and error were the best or shortest. The unknown and unanswered questions were an important ingredient for many cubers. They were the engine that powered us forward. I do not intend to sound as an old lady complaining while recalling the old good days, but I am trying to convey what most of us, if not all, felt as we were trying to uncover the curtain of secrecy of the cube."

And again, I'm not trying to say that it's bad to memorize things. I'm not even saying that it's not fun or even addicting to solve the cube that way. I'm just saying that it isn't the same, and can't really be compared to the thrill of "uncovering the curtain of secrecy" for yourself, not knowing exactly what could be behind it.

And thanks to the many ways that the cube can be scrambled and solved, there is still the opportunity to figure it out for yourself should you so desire.

So what do you think?

 

[DeeDubb]

First of all, I feel like even with guides, there is still an individual satisfaction in figuring it out even from looking at a guide.

I was thinking today about why I speedsolve (and maybe why others do). I feel like I'm chasing that feeling of first solving the cube. Getting a new PB fills me with the same joy as when I solved the cube the first time. Also, every successful BLD solve gives me a smidge of that joy as well. It's part of the reason I haven't worked on getting good at BLD, because I still fail enough to make the successes feel really good.

As for whether or not it's a puzzle, I feel like you are right in a sense. Once you have a method developed that can complete the puzzle, it's no longer about merely solving it, and our goals shift.

However, there is a puzzle element that makes speed cubing different from speed stacking or any other speed sport. In those, you are trying to be as fast as you can at an event where the parameters are clearly defined. The fact that every time you solve the cube is different makes it interesting and exciting, and retains some of the puzzle elements that make the first solve feel good.

 

[pipkiksass]

I COMPLETELY agree with the OP. When I first solved a cube, about 11-12 years ago, I 'worked out', or at least mostly understood, everything I was doing using my weird self-taught method down to the last couple of edges. Cross and F2L were completely intuitive, then my many-look last layer 'algorithms' were patterns I figured out through trial, error, and variations on themes. Sometimes I could 'fluke' solves, and my last edges were finished; sometimes they weren't, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to flip them.

I eventually searched on the internet (there was no Google) for how to fix these cases. There were basically only two cubing sites I could find - Lars Petrus site and Jessica Fridrich's site. I found solutions, then could solve the cube every time (albeit very inefficiently) using a method I 90+% understood.

About 18 months ago I discovered speedcubing. My F2L is still intuitive, barring 2 cases, but I have next to no idea how my LL algs work. I don't understand what I'm doing, I just know what algs to perform to 'solve' different cases.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing!

 

[Dane man]

First of all, I feel like even with guides, there is still an individual satisfaction in figuring it out even from looking at a guide.

I was thinking today about why I speedsolve (and maybe why others do). I feel like I'm chasing that feeling of first solving the cube. Getting a new PB fills me with the same joy as when I solved the cube the first time. Also, every successful BLD solve gives me a smidge of that joy as well. It's part of the reason I haven't worked on getting good at BLD, because I still fail enough to make the successes feel really good.

As for whether or not it's a puzzle, I feel like you are right in a sense. Once you have a method developed that can complete the puzzle, it's no longer about merely solving it, and our goals shift.

However, there is a puzzle element that makes speed cubing different from speed stacking or any other speed sport. In those, you are trying to be as fast as you can at an event where the parameters are clearly defined. The fact that every time you solve the cube is different makes it interesting and exciting, and retains some of the puzzle elements that make the first solve feel good.

Very true. There is a great satisfaction in solving the cube, in achieving new PB's with speed, but as you said, our goals change. And the uniqueness of each solve is the reason that the cube continues to be fun despite the "loss" of mystery. There's always something new happening. That's why it's so addicting, to me at least.

 

[XTowncuber]

This is why pyraminx is so awesome; it's still a puzzle. I completely and fully understand every algorithm I use in every solve. It's like speed FMC.

 

[cmhardw]

The poll is confusing. I voted that I frequently solve the cube intuitively, but that requires an explanation.

Like you I learned a beginner method to learn to solve the cube, so I also "cheated" my way into the cubing world. I then learned Fridrich from Jessica's site, including learning all of F2L algorithmically. Essentially I cheated for every aspect of learning how to solve. Years later I learned about the concept of commutators from this site (clicky), but I did not understand them. My breakthrough moment came when I finally understood the structure of the "A-perm" as a commutator with a 1 turn setup move, where the setup move cancels on one end of the commutator. This moment was one of the most exciting moments in my cubing development.

I then started to study commutators more and more. I met Daniel Beyer, who was also interested in commutators, and we developed the BH method together to be able to solve the puzzle with a 100% intuitive blindfold method.

Because the BH method requires the use of a PLL parity algorithm to solve odd permutation parity, it still felt like that one aspect of my method was non-intuitive. Now, if I want to solve intuitively, I count cycles of corners on the scrambled cube to determine their permutation parity, then execute a single quarter turn if the parity is odd. From there I solve with BH, a 100% intuitive method based on commutators. This means that, if I want to, I can use a method to solve the cube 100% intuitively. I fully understand, and can explain, the logic behind every single turn I make. That is a cool feeling

--------------------------------------------

Another point:

Before working with Daniel on BH I also became interested in the structure of the cube, and in counting the number of possible states. Richard Carr already had a formula for this, and showed it on his website. I did not understand it at all, but after studying it I finally had the "aha!" moment where I saw what he was doing. I then came up with my own version of his formula. I got more into this topic and came up with a method (clicky) to use matrices to classify all possible permutation parity states for all pieces on the n x n x n cube, an accomplishment I am very proud of.

This method led to me being able to derive formulas for the number of combinations to the n x n x n supercube and n x n x n super-supercube. I have those formulas on my site here (clicky).

In short, stop feeling bad that you cheated to learn to solve. Study the theory of cubing more. I know some cube theory, but certainly not as detailed as others on here like Lucas Garron, Stefan Pochmann, Michael Gottlieb, Bruce Norskog, or Thom Barlow. I do feel like I understand the structure of the cube as it relates to piece orbits and their permutation parities. I also can solve any n x n x n cube completely intuitively using the method described above for 3x3x3 (it works for all size cubes).

Learning the beginner solution (i.e. cheating) gave me the interest to start cubing. Choosing to study the theory led me to being able to do it intuitively. You can do the same, just start thinking about the cube from an intuitive perspective (you already are doing this).

--------------------------------------------

Also, if you read my solutions to your weekly challenge this week you saw a bit into my approach to solving a new puzzle. I figured out how to solve the Curvy Copter on my own using exactly this approach. I execute small sequences of turns on the puzzle, then study what the cycle structure of that algorithm is. I figure out how using the order of those disjoint cycles can give me useful algorithms that only affect corners, or edges, or centers on the puzzle. I also construct simple commutators and see what their effects are.

The "Sexy Move" on 3x3x3 is R U R' U', but that move is a specific case of the more general "Sexy Commutator", which is:
(Turn one side clockwise) (Turn an adjacent side clockwise) (Turn the first side counterclockwise) (Turn the second side counterclockwise).

It's surprising how often that commutator is useful on any Rubik like puzzle

--------------------------------------------

This post is now very long so I'll stop.

Have fun!

 

[Rocky0701]

I agree with you completely, that is why I like big cubes, you have no algorithms except the flipping algorithm, which is intuitive or parity, until you get to a 3x3, and there are countless ways of solving each solution quickly. Am I good at big cubes? No, but I enjoy them. I do enjoy 3x3 just as much though because it is the root of all cubes, except Pyra haha. Everyone knows about the Rubik's cube, but only we can solve them fast.

 

[Dane man]

Learning the beginner solution (i.e. cheating) gave me the interest to start cubing. Choosing to study the theory led me to being able to do it intuitively. You can do the same, just start thinking about the cube from an intuitive perspective (you already are doing this).

That is actually what I have done since learning. I love solving the cube intuitively. Perhaps the most intuitive methods (for me at least) are corners first and Roux. I love understanding how every move works, and being able to create my own method (which I eventually did). This is the kind of thing I want to encourage with this thread, by first pointing out that it's a very cool direction to go in with the cube.

I execute small sequences of turns on the puzzle, then study what the cycle structure of that algorithm is. I figure out how using the order of those disjoint cycles can give me useful algorithms that only affect corners, or edges, or centers on the puzzle. I also construct simple commutators and see what their effects are.

That's what I'm learning to do thanks to that competition. lol

 

[Zeotor]

None of the poll's options apply to me. I came up with my own solution after becoming a speedcuber. I didn't use any speedcubing approaches or algorithms that I had learned in that solution.

- I enjoy speedcubing. What I enjoy more is figuring out solutions to puzzles.

- When the 1980's cubing/puzzling craze died down, it lived on online. It did so not with speedcubing as its flagship, but with the solving of puzzles at its head.
(Can someone confirm or deny that statement? I think that it is correct, but I'm not completely sure.)

- Ernő Rubik:
“You can learn it. You can learn it from other people, you can learn it from books, you can learn it from different notes, and explanations on the Internet, but the best is if you find your own solution”

 

[cmhardw]

That is actually what I have done since learning. I love solving the cube intuitively. Perhaps the most intuitive methods (for me at least) are corners first and Roux. I love understanding how every move works, and being able to create my own method (which I eventually did). This is the kind of thing I want to encourage with this thread, by first pointing out that it's a very cool direction to go in with the cube.

Wow, I read through your method thread, very cool! I was not aware of your history with developing methods and of studying the cube. How long have you been cubing? If you know Dan Knights and were watching his videos, then perhaps we started cubing around the same time? I started cubing in 1998.

Also, thanks for running the intuitive competition, it's very fun! I'm trying to come up with a new solution to the current challenge using sequences that are new for me. It's challenging, I like it!

That's what I'm learning to do thanks to that competition. lol

That approach works wonders on a new puzzle. It's a great way to develop algorithms on your own for "affect corners only" or "affect edges only". As a quick example if your sequence has an order 5 cycle on corners and an order 3 cycle on edges, then five repetitions of your sequence is an edges only algorithm while 3 repetitions of your algorithm is a corners only algorithm. Very useful when you get near the end of a puzzle and only want to affect a small number of pieces.

 

[rokicki]

There are plenty of opportunities to rediscover the joy of "solving" the cube on your own,
because there are plenty of other puzzles that are sufficiently different! The Curvy Copter
is one of my favorites. Even with the 3x3x3, solving without ever turning (for instance)
the white face is a whole new challenge. Or, scramble only with three adjacent faces
around a corner, and solve that with the same restriction. Or pick up one of the stranger
sizes (3x3x4 anyone?).

Admittedly some of what you learned from the cube still applies, but enough is novel that
it's still fascinating. I still don't have an effective way to solve the Rubik's UFO (the method
I use has too many equatorial twists, and those are simply hard to perform, at least on
the UFOs I have.)

 

[Hypocrism]

Try FMC. There's no rigidly defined method, just concepts and ideas with your own innate ability.

 

[supercavitation]

I agree with your point that the cube is no longer particularly challenging, though I would argue that that fact makes it more like, for example, a jigsaw puzzle. I used to play with jigsaw puzzles a lot, and I would point out that your point applies equally to jigsaw puzzles as well. After you solve them once or twice, and work out a good method for solving them (I usually went with the corners first method), and what to do with randomly occurring pairs, etc., puzzles (of the jigsaw variety) get much easier.

I assume that you're saying that it's no longer a puzzle because it's no longer puzzling, but I would argue that if any of us put as much time into solving jigsaw puzzles as we do into solving Rubik's Cubes, we wouldn't find those jigsaw puzzles challenging either.

 

[cuBerBruce]

When I first got a Rubik's cube, I became determined to figure out how to solve it on my own. This was back in the early 80's when the Rubik's Cube craze was developing. I basically came up with a corner's first method. I basically used trial-and-error methods to come up with the algorithms, and I believe it took at least a couple of weeks to figure out all the algorithms to have a workable method.

After figuring out a method that worked, I bought a booklet to learn a more efficient way of solving the cube. While being rather similar to my method, the booklet had generally more efficient algorithms than I had come up with on my own. So I rather quickly abandoned the method and algs I had come up with on my own, but it was very satisfying to have come up with a solution method essentially all on my own.

 

[Dane man]

Wow, I read through your method thread, very cool! I was not aware of your history with developing methods and of studying the cube. How long have you been cubing? If you know Dan Knights and were watching his videos, then perhaps we started cubing around the same time? I started cubing in 1998.

I started in late 1998, so yeah, about the same time.

Also, thanks for running the intuitive competition, it's very fun! I'm trying to come up with a new solution to the current challenge using sequences that are new for me. It's challenging, I like it!

You're welcome. I hoped that someone would find the fun in having to figure things out on their own.

As a quick example if your sequence has an order 5 cycle on corners and an order 3 cycle on edges, then five repetitions of your sequence is an edges only algorithm while 3 repetitions of your algorithm is a corners only algorithm.

There are so many awesome ways to find solutions. Thanks to the fact that any cycle repeated will eventually return to it's original state, there are so many ways that repetitive algorithms and their inverses (and even mirrors) can be applied. Take for example the one algorithm in my method that I use for both the edges and the corners. It alone cycles 3 edges, but combined with it's mirror, orients 2 corners. It's cool.

I agree with your point that the cube is no longer particularly challenging, though I would argue that that fact makes it more like, for example, a jigsaw puzzle. I used to play with jigsaw puzzles a lot, and I would point out that your point applies equally to jigsaw puzzles as well. After you solve them once or twice, and work out a good method for solving them (I usually went with the corners first method), and what to do with randomly occurring pairs, etc., puzzles (of the jigsaw variety) get much easier.

I actually meant that it becomes like a jigsaw puzzle in the sense that it still required a method and some thought, but essentially, you are simply searching for the pieces that aren't where they should be, and putting them there. The challenge of figuring out how to put them there is essentially gone unless we intentionally try to find another way without assistance.

 

[Kirjava]

I didn't work out how to solve the cube myself, but doing so would not be meaningful to me.

I find that the more we know about the cube, the harder it is to innovate and the more puzzling it is becoming in certain respects.

It depends on your approach. Some people explore the cube while others treat the cube as more of a dexterity and pattern recognition exercise, and that's ok.

 

[supercavitation]

I actually meant that it becomes like a jigsaw puzzle in the sense that it still required a method and some thought, but essentially, you are simply searching for the pieces that aren't where they should be, and putting them there. The challenge of figuring out how to put them there is essentially gone unless we intentionally try to find another way without assistance.

By that argument, Jigsaw puzzles, and honestly, most other types of puzzles that I can think of, aren't puzzles, either. I think the problem here is your definition of puzzle.

Coming at it from another angle, bear in mind that to the majority of the world, Rubik's Cubes are still puzzling, probably more so than any jigsaw puzzle I've ever put together.

 

[LucidCuber]

I know what you mean. That feeling of extreme satisfaction when working out that (Nicklas U2)*6 = M-Perm after 3 hours of getting nowhere.

I have sort of solved the cube by chance before. Now I know that is the sort of thing that non-cubers lie about all the time. But I could once solve the F2L on my own. So my methods was basically to solve the F2L, and hope for some skips. My approach to solving the Last Layer was "break up the F2L in some way, and put it back together" I only ever worked out nicklas on my own, and I eventually worked out some combinations such as (Nicklas U2) * 6 = M Perm. So my personal best was 8 minutes before I learnt Beginner layer by layer, and got that down to 2 minutes by the end of the day.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I've been having a lot of fun lately learning Heise. I'm still terrible at it; I almost always botch up two-pair solves unless I backtrack a few times. And I'm terribly slow. But it's a lot of fun, and it also means I can pretty consistently get sub-40 in fewest moves now. I got a 30 move Heise solve (well, Heise plus a premove plus insertions) in the weekly competition this week!

To clarify why I said this, I consider Heise to be solving the cube intuitively (at my level with it, at least), so I think I frequently solve it intuitively.

 

[elrog]

I agree with the OP. Solving new cubes partially brings that element back, but it still isn't quite the same now that I understand the concepts behind conjugates, commutators, and the like.

When I was first learning how to solve the cube, I was shown that you are "supposed" to do a cross first, then 4 corners, then 4 edges, and etc. I learned the whole first layer on my own, got an algorithm for the F2L edges, learned the LL edges on my own, and got algorithms for the LL corners. I feel like having resources so easily attainable kept me from getting an experience that was a one time chance. Looking back, I really wonder what I might have come up with if I was never shown to do it in certain steps (such as a cross) and resources were not so available.