There are a lot of methods, optimized for different purposes. Some are easy to learn, but take a very large number of moves to solve the cube. Some are exactly the opposite: Difficult to learn, but enables you to solve the cube in just a few seconds. Others are optimized for solving the cube in the fewest possible number of moves, but requires so much thinking that they are not suitable for fast solutions. Others again are optimized for blindfolded solving.
My two favorite methods are Roux and 3-style.
Roux is the second most common method for speedsolving. Compared to the more popular CFOP method, Roux is more intuitive (in the sense that you mostly solve by thinking rather than by executing memorized algorithms), and requires fewer moves. Roux is much more fun than CFOP, if you ask me, and for adults and/or people who are attracted to the puzzle-solving nature of the cube rather than in learning algorithms and finger-tricks, I think it's easier to learn. Kian Mansour's tutorials on YouTube is a good place to start learning it.
3-style is a method designed for blindfolded solving, but it's a fun way to solve the cube even in sighted solves. It's a very elegant way to solve the cube, based on the concept of commutators. It takes a lot of moves compared to Roux, but the fun thing is that it can be done 100% intuitively, without any memorized algorithms (Roux requires a few, though not nearly as many as CFOP). It's satisfactory to be able to solve the cube in a way where you understand and can explain every single step of your solution. As an added bonus, if you know 3-style, you can easily learn blindfolded solving, which is tremendously fun, and not nearly as difficult as it sounds.
Edit: If you do decide you want to learn, make sure you get a good modern cube. The hardware has advanced enormously since the 1980s, modern cubes are so much easier and more fun to use. There are plenty of good choices. Stay away from original Rubik's cubes, get a recent cube from a brand like Moyu, X-man or Gan.
I used to be able to solve the 3x3 in high school using memorized algorithms and then I lost interest since there was no reasoning involved. Your comment makes me want to pick it back up and learn 3-style, so thank you for the clear explanation!
IMO, the firstmost source is your own observations. 3x cube is very tactile, so some moves are just natural.
It helps also to develop some sort of notation for yourself. This way you can track and repeat your moves.
Solving by layers is kinda logical. So solving one side (first layer) is not hard. Then some experimentation with rotation sequences which temporarily break the solved layer/face and then re-assemble it will lead to discovery of moves to swap the edges into the second layer.
The hardest then is to solve the third layer. Again, the notation and observations help charting your way through.
A curious discovery may be about some repeated pattern of moves which may be totally shuffling the cube yet, if continuing it, eventually returns the position to the beginning state. It's kind of a "period".
Solving by layers is logical, it's what most beginners learn, and it is kind of how CFOP (the most popular speedsolving method) works. Nevertheless, it's not what I would recommend. The problem with solving layer by layer is that you are sort of painting yourself into a corner from the beginning. After you have finished the first layer, you can't really do anything without breaking the first layer. Of course it is possible (and necessary) to proceed in a way where you keep breaking and repairing the first layer while progressing with the rest of the cube, but the limited freedom of movement still makes the solution process needlessly complicated, and increases the move count.
In my opinion, it's better to start by solving a part of the cube that still leaves you with a significant amount of freedom of movement without breaking what you have already done. There are several ways to do this. My favorite method (Roux) starts by not making a full layer, but just a 3x2 rectangle on one side. This rectangle is placed on the bottom left part of the cube. You still have a considerable degree of freedom, you can turn the top layer and the two rightmost layers without breaking your 3x2 rectangle.
The next step is to build a symmetrical 3x2 rectangle on the lower right side of the cube. This is quite easy to do by just using the top layer and the two rightmost layers, thus avoiding to mess up the left hand 3x2.
After finishing the two 3x2 rectangles (commonly known as the "first block" and the "second block"), the next step is to solve the corners on the top of the cube. This is the only algorithmic step of Roux, you use a number of memorized algorithms. However, the algorithms are shorter and simpler than those for the top layer of a layer-by-layer approach, because the algorithms are allowed to mess up everything along the middle slice (which hasn't been solved yet) and the edge pieces on the top of the cube.
After finishing the top corners, you are still free to move the middle slice and the top layer without messing up what you've already done. Fortunately, this is enough for solving (intuitively!) the remaining pieces. You can finish the solve by using only these non-destructive moves.
The Roux method, therefore, allows you to keep the maximum degree of freedom of movement (without destroying what's already been solved) all the way until the end. This is what allows it to have a very low move count, and what's makes it easy to learn. It also gives you a lot of creative opportunities compared to CFOP and other layer-by-layer methods. Because of the increased freedom, there are more ways of doing things, and bigger scope for clever shortcuts, especially when building the first and second blocks.
Don't start with algorithms. Figuring out how to solve them is half the fun. If you want to be a speedcuber you could always look up algorithms later but you can't unlearn the algorithms once you learn them.
Perhaps it worked that way with you, but I'm not smart enough to figure out a 3x3 on my own, and wouldn't have had the many many hours of enjoyment that I did have, if I wouldn't have learned any algorithms.
It's not like memorizing algorithms makes it trivial - there's still recognition/look-ahead and finger tricks to learn, if you want to get faster. And finding the optimal cross (in CFOP method) during the 15 second inspection takes some thinking. I'm bad at that.
That’s a big part of why I’ve never learned to solve a Rubik’s cube. I’d rather learn how to learn how to solve it than memorize an algorithm and I don’t really have the time/motivation/interest to learn how to learn how so I haven’t bothered.
My son, at age 9, loved learning these kinds of algorithms (he also learned how to solve square roots by hand from a YouTube video and would do random square root calculations to entertain himself, checking his answers against the calculator on my ex-wife’s kitchen Alexa).
I’m having a really hard time to understand even the “beginner’s method” on that wiki.
For example, it entirely glosses over how to solve the „first two layers“ (F2L) on the left and back faces. It only ever explains F2L for the front and right faces. However, I can’t possibly achieve a „yellow cross“ that way. I wonder why I can’t seem to find any source that actually explains it.
Oreb|1 year ago
My two favorite methods are Roux and 3-style.
Roux is the second most common method for speedsolving. Compared to the more popular CFOP method, Roux is more intuitive (in the sense that you mostly solve by thinking rather than by executing memorized algorithms), and requires fewer moves. Roux is much more fun than CFOP, if you ask me, and for adults and/or people who are attracted to the puzzle-solving nature of the cube rather than in learning algorithms and finger-tricks, I think it's easier to learn. Kian Mansour's tutorials on YouTube is a good place to start learning it.
3-style is a method designed for blindfolded solving, but it's a fun way to solve the cube even in sighted solves. It's a very elegant way to solve the cube, based on the concept of commutators. It takes a lot of moves compared to Roux, but the fun thing is that it can be done 100% intuitively, without any memorized algorithms (Roux requires a few, though not nearly as many as CFOP). It's satisfactory to be able to solve the cube in a way where you understand and can explain every single step of your solution. As an added bonus, if you know 3-style, you can easily learn blindfolded solving, which is tremendously fun, and not nearly as difficult as it sounds.
Edit: If you do decide you want to learn, make sure you get a good modern cube. The hardware has advanced enormously since the 1980s, modern cubes are so much easier and more fun to use. There are plenty of good choices. Stay away from original Rubik's cubes, get a recent cube from a brand like Moyu, X-man or Gan.
chrisshroba|1 year ago
spencerchubb|1 year ago
The unfortunate part is that beginner tutorials for Roux kind of suck.
z5h|1 year ago
zoomablemind|1 year ago
It helps also to develop some sort of notation for yourself. This way you can track and repeat your moves.
Solving by layers is kinda logical. So solving one side (first layer) is not hard. Then some experimentation with rotation sequences which temporarily break the solved layer/face and then re-assemble it will lead to discovery of moves to swap the edges into the second layer.
The hardest then is to solve the third layer. Again, the notation and observations help charting your way through.
A curious discovery may be about some repeated pattern of moves which may be totally shuffling the cube yet, if continuing it, eventually returns the position to the beginning state. It's kind of a "period".
Have fun.
Oreb|1 year ago
In my opinion, it's better to start by solving a part of the cube that still leaves you with a significant amount of freedom of movement without breaking what you have already done. There are several ways to do this. My favorite method (Roux) starts by not making a full layer, but just a 3x2 rectangle on one side. This rectangle is placed on the bottom left part of the cube. You still have a considerable degree of freedom, you can turn the top layer and the two rightmost layers without breaking your 3x2 rectangle.
The next step is to build a symmetrical 3x2 rectangle on the lower right side of the cube. This is quite easy to do by just using the top layer and the two rightmost layers, thus avoiding to mess up the left hand 3x2.
After finishing the two 3x2 rectangles (commonly known as the "first block" and the "second block"), the next step is to solve the corners on the top of the cube. This is the only algorithmic step of Roux, you use a number of memorized algorithms. However, the algorithms are shorter and simpler than those for the top layer of a layer-by-layer approach, because the algorithms are allowed to mess up everything along the middle slice (which hasn't been solved yet) and the edge pieces on the top of the cube.
After finishing the top corners, you are still free to move the middle slice and the top layer without messing up what you've already done. Fortunately, this is enough for solving (intuitively!) the remaining pieces. You can finish the solve by using only these non-destructive moves.
The Roux method, therefore, allows you to keep the maximum degree of freedom of movement (without destroying what's already been solved) all the way until the end. This is what allows it to have a very low move count, and what's makes it easy to learn. It also gives you a lot of creative opportunities compared to CFOP and other layer-by-layer methods. Because of the increased freedom, there are more ways of doing things, and bigger scope for clever shortcuts, especially when building the first and second blocks.
0x1ceb00da|1 year ago
BenjiWiebe|1 year ago
It's not like memorizing algorithms makes it trivial - there's still recognition/look-ahead and finger tricks to learn, if you want to get faster. And finding the optimal cross (in CFOP method) during the 15 second inspection takes some thinking. I'm bad at that.
dhosek|1 year ago
My son, at age 9, loved learning these kinds of algorithms (he also learned how to solve square roots by hand from a YouTube video and would do random square root calculations to entertain himself, checking his answers against the calculator on my ex-wife’s kitchen Alexa).
queuebert|1 year ago
bembo|1 year ago
Hackbraten|1 year ago
For example, it entirely glosses over how to solve the „first two layers“ (F2L) on the left and back faces. It only ever explains F2L for the front and right faces. However, I can’t possibly achieve a „yellow cross“ that way. I wonder why I can’t seem to find any source that actually explains it.
user2342|1 year ago
QuadmasterXLII|1 year ago
user2342|1 year ago