Why aren't there beginner's method for less common twisty puzzles?

[turtwig]

I recently received the Megaminx and the Square-1 but couldn't find any good beginner's method. Every method contain a whole ton of algorithms. Why aren't there beginner's methods like for the 3x3 where you only have to remember a few algorithms?

 

[stoic]

I use this for Square-1, it's very easy to remember. Once you have cubeshape, it's based around one alg plus parity.

Megaminx you should be able to get to the LL, and then you just have a 4LLL similar to 3x3, it's not that hard. Try FRURUF for EO, Sune for EP, Niklas for CO (you'll probably need to learn another alg here), and then simple comms for CP. There's a great guide here. (It's more than four looks but it'll get you there.)

 

[TMOY]

FRURUF for EO, sune for EP, niklas for CP and sune-antisune for CO. Works just as well on the megaminx as on the 3^3.

 

[TDM]

You could also use R' D' R D for CO and CP on Megaminx, and combine them into one step.

 

[Eduard Khil]

Cos 3x3 is so easy.
Due to the difficult nature of these puzzles, its beginner solution shall contain lots of algs and steps

 

[stoic]

This post is interesting for mega too, quite intuitive

 

[StachuK1992]

For Sq-1, use Roux.
No, seriously, look up the 'Screw' method.

Left block, intuitive,
right block, intuitive
CP, one alg
3cycle mslice, one alg
3cycle uslice, one alg
edge parity, one alg

At least that's what I did and got away with 4 algs.

 

[Ollie]

I hate the cubing definition of 'intuitive'.

 

[StachuK1992]

Given a person of average IQ and a basic template of what 'Roux' looks like and what the given algorithms are intended for, I have faith that said person could solve a Sq-1. Cubeshape isn't that bad.

 

[tseitsei]

I hate the cubing definition of 'intuitive'.

I totally agree.

Intuitive depends completely of your understanding of how cube works...

F2L might be intuitive for us but to most non-cubers it definitely isn't.
Another good example is commutators. To me they are completely intuitive and easy but to someone just beginning to learn that stuff they seem hard to understand and definitely not intuitive...

I have taught many people how to solve cube and 'intuitive' varies greatly. For some people even cross is not really that intuitive but then for some all F2L is almost immediately easy to grasp and very intuitive.

 

[bcube]

I hate the cubing definition of 'intuitive'.

Interestingly enough, the definition of "intuitive solving" has not been established and differs from person to person.

 

[Christopher Mowla]

If a puzzle is very risky to take apart, and there are no (or very few) virtual simulators for it, that makes experimenting/learning much harder to do. This could be a factor to consider.

For example, one of the main factors which enabled me to find so many 4x4x4 parity algorithms in such a relatively short period of time is because of the availability virtual supercubes. There is no way I would have had the time to continually solve the cube back to try something new for all of the paths I tried.