Caltech junior Leyan Lo set a new world record for solving the Rubik's Cube puzzle at the International Rubik's Cube Competition held this weekend at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
In Saturday's event, sponsored by the Caltech Rubik's Cube Club, 20-year-old Lo blasted all challengers by unscrambling the cube in a dazzling 11.13 seconds. The previous record, 11.75 seconds, was set at last year"s competition and was thought unbeatable.
Link
LO probebly used an iligal lubricant
QUOTE (Neutron+Jan 18 2006, 01:00 PM)
Caltech junior Leyan Lo set a new world record for solving the Rubik's Cube puzzle at the International Rubik's Cube Competition held this weekend at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
In Saturday's event, sponsored by the Caltech Rubik's Cube Club, 20-year-old Lo blasted all challengers by unscrambling the cube in a dazzling 11.13 seconds. The previous record, 11.75 seconds, was set at last year"s competition and was thought unbeatable.
Link
How do they scramble the cubes? I suppose it's some sort of pseudo random generator involved.
Do all competitors start with the "same" randomly scrambled cube? This seems a fair thing for a competition so that no one gets "lucky" with a cube that's not as hard as the rest. You just have to keep the competitors from watching the ones that come before.
The ones that do it behind their back... amazing!
Krreagan
In Saturday's event, sponsored by the Caltech Rubik's Cube Club, 20-year-old Lo blasted all challengers by unscrambling the cube in a dazzling 11.13 seconds. The previous record, 11.75 seconds, was set at last year"s competition and was thought unbeatable.
Link
How do they scramble the cubes? I suppose it's some sort of pseudo random generator involved.
Do all competitors start with the "same" randomly scrambled cube? This seems a fair thing for a competition so that no one gets "lucky" with a cube that's not as hard as the rest. You just have to keep the competitors from watching the ones that come before.
The ones that do it behind their back... amazing!
Krreagan
QUOTE
by unscrambling the cube in a dazzling 11.13 seconds. The previous record, 11.75 seconds
I have a friend who can do these things very quickly (less than a minute). Apparently after a time you get to recognize the patterns just as you would read a word. You can look at the cube and just read the state it is in. Theres not really much state if you think about it. There rest is firing off very quickly a sequence of moves practiced 1000's and 1000's of times. You can see how this would allow you to do it behind your back
My question (which I think is of most importance) is : How do the time this? How do they decide that a player has started and stopped? If is just a guy with a stopwatch, or do they have a hi-res time, overlayed a video sequence and inspect?
What is deemed as complete? a completely square cube, finished, a cube finished, but last turn not quite finished - a few degrees of rotation out.
Can this new guys time, be argued down to the "timers" who timed it?
Here is a video clip: Rubiks' Cube Solved in 16.49 Seconds
http://www.devilducky.com/media/39470/
Cooool!!!
http://www.devilducky.com/media/39470/
Cooool!!!
WOW! That person was FAST! I take around three minutes to slove one. 
Oh well. I guess we can't always be better than everyone else, huh? Otherwise there would only be one person who is better than everyone else. 
Probably, a software wouldn't have to interact with a real cube thus not being limited by physical constraints, also the solving speed would depend on who made the program(I'm pretty darned sure i could make a program that would take days to solve a cube that needed only 1 or 2 moves to be finished).
Probably, a software wouldn't have to interact with a real cube thus not being limited by physical constraints, also the solving speed would depend on who made the program(I'm pretty darned sure i could make a program that would take days to solve a cube that needed only 1 or 2 moves to be finished).
how does that contribue to his evolutionary fitness?
Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record)).
Agreed. I often find that "people" who have this "problem", cannot stand to see such an individual do something that they themselves, although apparently "superior" cannot do. So put down the achieivement. If it makes them feel better...
Agreed. I often find that "people" who have this "problem", cannot stand to see such an individual do something that they themselves, although apparently "superior" cannot do. So put down the achieivement. If it makes them feel better...
When I was 11 years old I set a record at my school for being the pupil who did the most 'helicopter' rotations around a high bar (somewhere around 120, the exact total isn't important).
Impressive!
I believe the computer to succeed faster. Though we operate in parallel, we do not actually operate very quickly.
This is especially true when it comes to telling our hands to move. (Reason we cannot dodge bullets).
Given the right setup, computer would cain.
Insyght -----) for the number of possible states, when I think about it, last time I checked it was 43 quintillion :
43,252,003,274,489,856,000
More states than there's electrons in a Coulomb. Optimaly, I can be solved in about 18 moves, sometimes 16.
The number of posssibilties are so great that they probably don't really need to scramble them in a particular way..... just give it forty turn and it's done
So I don't think the guy just reads the state.....
refs:
See 1
See 2
See 3
See 4
See 5
Na, don't think so. A system that can process 1 billion ops per second, only has to look at 54 faces and pattern match. When it rotates, it only needs to consider either 12 colour changes, or 21 colour changes. Thats just all boll.
antoine,
How do you solve it? whats the first think you look for? How do you decide to make the first move and do you already know what the next 1,2,3,4,5...Z moves are going to be?
You just have to simulate that initial calculation. 54 faces. Grid it out. Process colour groups... determine vectors to where to other colours are in relation... I don't know. How hard can it be?
Wish I knew the algo to solve a cube. I'd tackle the sw my self.
Oh well. I guess we can't always be better than everyone else, huh? Otherwise there would only be one person who is better than everyone else. QUOTE (Simon+)
LO probebly used an iligal lubricant
I don't know, mine doesn't turn very fast. In fact, when I turn the faces it acts like it wants to break apart.
I need to solve my cube.
I don't know, mine doesn't turn very fast. In fact, when I turn the faces it acts like it wants to break apart.
I need to solve my cube.
QUOTE (krreagan+Jan 18 2006, 08:30 PM)
The ones that do it behind their back... amazing!
Krreagan
You have GOT to be kidding! Has that really been done?
I was pretty good with my cube back in the day (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) and if I remember right solved it once in around 30 some odd seconds. How it is screwed up DEFINITELY changes your time (and moves). So if there are competitions on who can solve the fastest they would all have to be screwed up in the exact same way. I only did that time ONCE and was never able to do it again.
But I still am pretty darned impressed at this persons time! Wish I could see the video of the other person Neutron provided, but my computer doesn't support it I guess....... nada. Business pc......
Krreagan
You have GOT to be kidding! Has that really been done?
I was pretty good with my cube back in the day (when dinosaurs roamed the earth) and if I remember right solved it once in around 30 some odd seconds. How it is screwed up DEFINITELY changes your time (and moves). So if there are competitions on who can solve the fastest they would all have to be screwed up in the exact same way. I only did that time ONCE and was never able to do it again.
But I still am pretty darned impressed at this persons time! Wish I could see the video of the other person Neutron provided, but my computer doesn't support it I guess....... nada. Business pc......
Amazing, I cannot solve it in 11.13 days
Could a software programme solve a cube faster? Are humans still better in pattern recognition?
so he is fast with the Rubik, how does that contribue to his evolutionary fitness? how does that help other people? and what particular use is there in that. True there is none, but it fun to do.
QUOTE
Could a software programme solve a cube faster? Are humans still better in pattern recognition?
Probably, a software wouldn't have to interact with a real cube thus not being limited by physical constraints, also the solving speed would depend on who made the program(I'm pretty darned sure i could make a program that would take days to solve a cube that needed only 1 or 2 moves to be finished).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Could a software programme solve a cube faster? Are humans still better in pattern recognition? |
Probably, a software wouldn't have to interact with a real cube thus not being limited by physical constraints, also the solving speed would depend on who made the program(I'm pretty darned sure i could make a program that would take days to solve a cube that needed only 1 or 2 moves to be finished).
how does that contribue to his evolutionary fitness?
Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record)).
Enjoyable story, very!
Not that it's relevant, but when I was 13 I picked up a Pyraminx puzzle-- if you don't remember it, it was similar to the Rubik's Cube, but shaped like a four-sided pyramid. After playing with it for a few days, I discovered a pattern of moves that, if repeated long enough, would automatically solve the puzzle. I started counting how many repetitions it took to solve it, and found that it never took me even 100 cycles. I always wondered if it could be proved mathematically that it never would take 100 or more cycles, but I didn't then (and still don't) have the skills to provide the proof.
Around the same time, I bought a Missing Link puzzle, and found a similar pattern for it, but with an even shorter limit to the number of cycles-- I think it was under 30, but it's been over 20 years. I could be wrong.
Also, I find this comment:
"Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record))."
to be incredibly rascist. Face it, having records for longest toenails, mustaches, etc, or for having eyeballs that pop out further than anyone else-- these are just as stupid or worse than anything any Asian has done. When I was 11 years old I set a record at my school for being the pupil who did the most 'helicopter' rotations around a high bar (somewhere around 120, the exact total isn't important). This was never a 'useful' achievement of any sort.
Not that it's relevant, but when I was 13 I picked up a Pyraminx puzzle-- if you don't remember it, it was similar to the Rubik's Cube, but shaped like a four-sided pyramid. After playing with it for a few days, I discovered a pattern of moves that, if repeated long enough, would automatically solve the puzzle. I started counting how many repetitions it took to solve it, and found that it never took me even 100 cycles. I always wondered if it could be proved mathematically that it never would take 100 or more cycles, but I didn't then (and still don't) have the skills to provide the proof.
Around the same time, I bought a Missing Link puzzle, and found a similar pattern for it, but with an even shorter limit to the number of cycles-- I think it was under 30, but it's been over 20 years. I could be wrong.
Also, I find this comment:
"Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record))."
to be incredibly rascist. Face it, having records for longest toenails, mustaches, etc, or for having eyeballs that pop out further than anyone else-- these are just as stupid or worse than anything any Asian has done. When I was 11 years old I set a record at my school for being the pupil who did the most 'helicopter' rotations around a high bar (somewhere around 120, the exact total isn't important). This was never a 'useful' achievement of any sort.
QUOTE
Also, I find this comment:
"Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record))."
to be incredibly rascist.
"Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record))."
to be incredibly rascist.
Agreed. I often find that "people" who have this "problem", cannot stand to see such an individual do something that they themselves, although apparently "superior" cannot do. So put down the achieivement. If it makes them feel better...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, I find this comment: "Asians are excellent when it comes to being VERY good at completely useless tasks(like this cube or riding a monocycle while carrying a bunch of dishes on their heads(guiness record))." to be incredibly rascist. |
Agreed. I often find that "people" who have this "problem", cannot stand to see such an individual do something that they themselves, although apparently "superior" cannot do. So put down the achieivement. If it makes them feel better...
When I was 11 years old I set a record at my school for being the pupil who did the most 'helicopter' rotations around a high bar (somewhere around 120, the exact total isn't important).
Impressive!
QUOTE
Could a software programme solve a cube faster? Are humans still better in pattern recognition?
I believe the computer to succeed faster. Though we operate in parallel, we do not actually operate very quickly.
This is especially true when it comes to telling our hands to move. (Reason we cannot dodge bullets).
Given the right setup, computer would cain.
QUOTE
Theres not really much state if you think about it.
Insyght -----) for the number of possible states, when I think about it, last time I checked it was 43 quintillion :
43,252,003,274,489,856,000
More states than there's electrons in a Coulomb. Optimaly, I can be solved in about 18 moves, sometimes 16.
The number of posssibilties are so great that they probably don't really need to scramble them in a particular way..... just give it forty turn and it's done
So I don't think the guy just reads the state.....
refs:
See 1
See 2
See 3
See 4
See 5
And No, computer are not faster then humans when it comes the to Rubik's cube, even with good heuristics, a level depth of 18 took 1 month on a Sun Ultra-Sparc Model 1, in 1997. Today, a works station would take, what... 12 hours... The earth simulateur or ASCII white would probable beat the best human but at what price.... Of course, in a few years my new PDA will 
[FONT=Arial] A computer is definitely not faster then a human. Keep in mind that a human not only has to solve the cube he also has to control everything from breething to how many endorphins to release because of the excitment not to mention the billions of bits of information one has to unconsciously go through every second. If you try to make a computer cope with something like that it will take it years to solve a simple problem.
Face it, everyone's a racist... not everyone is willing to admit it though.
Face it, everyone's a racist... not everyone is willing to admit it though.
QUOTE
And No, computer are not faster then humans when it comes the to Rubik's cube, even with good heuristics, a level depth of 18 took 1 month on a Sun Ultra-Sparc Model 1, in 1997. Today, a works station would take, what... 12 hours... The earth simulateur or ASCII white would probable beat the best human but at what price.... Of course, in a few years my new PDA will
Na, don't think so. A system that can process 1 billion ops per second, only has to look at 54 faces and pattern match. When it rotates, it only needs to consider either 12 colour changes, or 21 colour changes. Thats just all boll.
antoine,
How do you solve it? whats the first think you look for? How do you decide to make the first move and do you already know what the next 1,2,3,4,5...Z moves are going to be?
You just have to simulate that initial calculation. 54 faces. Grid it out. Process colour groups... determine vectors to where to other colours are in relation... I don't know. How hard can it be?
Wish I knew the algo to solve a cube. I'd tackle the sw my self.
Agreed, it all depends on the programming: of course a computer couldn't solve the cube faster than humans if it randomly chose rotations and took them to depth 18 and checked to see if it got anywhere. However, humans use techniques and "moves" to decide how to rotate the cube to bring it to a more ordered state. If these were programmed properly into the machine, given that it will be doing no physical manipulation of the a cube, it would solve the cube in milliseconds.
Lol, that dude was so full of ***: I found this on mathworld:
Do these solutions take long to find? Hardly. The link under this paragraph says the advanced algorithm that finds near optimal solutions can solve about 10,000 random cubes per hour (or 2.8 per second) on a 3 Ghz PC. Solutions that are non-near optimal can be found much more quickly.
http://www.kociemba.homepage.t-online.de/cube.htm
This guy built a robot out of LEGO's that uses color recognition algorithms to recognize the faces of the cube and solves it autonomously:
http://jpbrown.i8.com/cubesolver.html
I have to admit, those were some damn specific hardware, numbers, and calculation times to be pulled from one's ***.
QUOTE
Algorithms exist for solving a cube from an arbitrary initial position, but they are not necessarily optimal (i.e., requiring a minimum number of turns). The minimum number of turns required for an arbitrary starting position is still not known, although it is bounded from above. Michael Reid (1995) produced the best proven bound of 29 turns (or 42 "quarter-turns"). The proof involves large tables of "subroutines" generated by computer.
However, Dik Winter has produced a program based on work by Kociemba which has solved each of millions of cubes in at most 21 turns. Recently, Richard Korf (1997) has produced a different algorithm which is practical for cubes up to 18 moves away from solved. Out of 10 randomly generated cubes, one was solved in 16 moves, three required 17 moves, and six required 18 moves.
However, Dik Winter has produced a program based on work by Kociemba which has solved each of millions of cubes in at most 21 turns. Recently, Richard Korf (1997) has produced a different algorithm which is practical for cubes up to 18 moves away from solved. Out of 10 randomly generated cubes, one was solved in 16 moves, three required 17 moves, and six required 18 moves.
Do these solutions take long to find? Hardly. The link under this paragraph says the advanced algorithm that finds near optimal solutions can solve about 10,000 random cubes per hour (or 2.8 per second) on a 3 Ghz PC. Solutions that are non-near optimal can be found much more quickly.
http://www.kociemba.homepage.t-online.de/cube.htm
This guy built a robot out of LEGO's that uses color recognition algorithms to recognize the faces of the cube and solves it autonomously:
http://jpbrown.i8.com/cubesolver.html
I have to admit, those were some damn specific hardware, numbers, and calculation times to be pulled from one's ***.
Wow, that LEGO one is completely amazing!
Some people have FAR FAR to much time on their hands. Awesome way to use it though... man... better than hanging around here, I'm sure
Some people have FAR FAR to much time on their hands. Awesome way to use it though... man... better than hanging around here, I'm sure
On the comment on the guy who solved the cube using a lubricant...it would only make the sides slide around--not very useful when you are trying to solve the thing in 11.13 seconds.
Obviously you casn't solve Rubik's cube at any speed (obviously I can't type). It's recodnizing patterns and making moves in split seconds. And everyone knows thinking within the realm of the second is valuable.
About the computer:
I think if it doesn't have to move at least a virtual cube's faces it's unfair.
Obviously you casn't solve Rubik's cube at any speed (obviously I can't type). It's recodnizing patterns and making moves in split seconds. And everyone knows thinking within the realm of the second is valuable.
About the computer:
I think if it doesn't have to move at least a virtual cube's faces it's unfair.
Wow, that LEGO one is completely amazing!
Yeah, it is, but someone just said to me "talk about the most useless invention ever created". I must say, I have to agree. I mean, how exactly does it move our society forward?
QUOTE
how does that contribue to his evolutionary fitness?
Obviously you casn't solve Rubik's cube at any speed (obviously I can't type). It's recodnizing patterns and making moves in split seconds. And everyone knows thinking within the realm of the second is valuable.
About the computer:
I think if it doesn't have to move at least a virtual cube's faces it's unfair.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how does that contribue to his evolutionary fitness? |
Obviously you casn't solve Rubik's cube at any speed (obviously I can't type). It's recodnizing patterns and making moves in split seconds. And everyone knows thinking within the realm of the second is valuable.
About the computer:
I think if it doesn't have to move at least a virtual cube's faces it's unfair.
Wow, that LEGO one is completely amazing!
Yeah, it is, but someone just said to me "talk about the most useless invention ever created". I must say, I have to agree. I mean, how exactly does it move our society forward?
Using emoticons is super cool 
*** do you mean "if the computer doesn't use a virtual cube its unfair?"
If it didn't have an internal representation of the cube how would it go about solving it/know it was solved? You comment has locked my brain in an infinite loop of ignorance.
You want it to waste time rendering an image of a cube while it solves it? Maybe some bump shading?
*** do you mean "if the computer doesn't use a virtual cube its unfair?"
If it didn't have an internal representation of the cube how would it go about solving it/know it was solved? You comment has locked my brain in an infinite loop of ignorance.
You want it to waste time rendering an image of a cube while it solves it? Maybe some bump shading?
QUOTE (Superchaunce+)
do you mean "if the computer doesn't use a virtual cube its unfair?"
You quote me but that's not what I said. I said "I think if it doesn't have to move at least a virtual cube's faces it's unfair."
Yeah, it's about as useless as spending billions of dollars on a probe to pluto. !0 years later, billions of dollars later, the answer is: dum dum dummmmmm (Sound effect).
Pluto is .... ROUND!
WOW! Fantasic! Woo Hoo!
The cube turner might be useless, but the skills the guy developed in it's creation can help him on a personal level, I'm sure.
Could argue that unless we actively work in the science arena right now, we are also not contributing to the moving forward of society. Just wasting time. Might as well go and make a cube solver.
Why not? Humans can solve it caster than they can turn. 18 moves in 11 seconds, = 0.6 seconds. That is probably how long it would take me to turn one side of the cube.
Do you think the speed restricting factor for humans is the thinking (fast) or the turning (slow).
?
WOW -- I found this Rubik's Cube Cake while searching for Rubik's Cube related sites.
Probably the time it takes for the thinking to get to the turning... Human reaction time is, what, 0.2 sec? Unless the guy had a precognition about which way to turn the sides!
You quote me but that's not what I said. I said "I think if it doesn't have to move at least a virtual cube's faces it's unfair."
QUOTE (same+)
If it didn't have an internal representation of the cube how would it go about solving it/know it was solved?
Huh?
What I mean is a computer can solve the cube faster than its faces can physically turn. Is that fair?I don't think so. Which is why Isaid what I said.
Huh?
What I mean is a computer can solve the cube faster than its faces can physically turn. Is that fair?I don't think so. Which is why Isaid what I said.
QUOTE
Yeah, it is, but someone just said to me "talk about the most useless invention ever created". I must say, I have to agree. I mean, how exactly does it move our society forward?
Yeah, it's about as useless as spending billions of dollars on a probe to pluto. !0 years later, billions of dollars later, the answer is: dum dum dummmmmm (Sound effect).
Pluto is .... ROUND!
WOW! Fantasic! Woo Hoo!
The cube turner might be useless, but the skills the guy developed in it's creation can help him on a personal level, I'm sure.
Could argue that unless we actively work in the science arena right now, we are also not contributing to the moving forward of society. Just wasting time. Might as well go and make a cube solver.
QUOTE
What I mean is a computer can solve the cube faster than its faces can physically turn. Is that fair?I don't think so
Why not? Humans can solve it caster than they can turn. 18 moves in 11 seconds, = 0.6 seconds. That is probably how long it would take me to turn one side of the cube.
Do you think the speed restricting factor for humans is the thinking (fast) or the turning (slow).
?
WOW -- I found this Rubik's Cube Cake while searching for Rubik's Cube related sites.
QUOTE
Do you think the speed restricting factor for humans is the thinking (fast) or the turning (slow).
Probably the time it takes for the thinking to get to the turning... Human reaction time is, what, 0.2 sec? Unless the guy had a precognition about which way to turn the sides!
P.S: Who has a Rubik's cube wedding cake?!?
QUOTE (Insyght+)
Yeah, it's about as useless as spending billions of dollars on a probe to pluto. !0 years later, billions of dollars later, the answer is: dum dum dummmmmm (Sound effect).
Or...in an odd twist of events, the horizon space craft could discover that Pluto is actually an extra-terrestrial construction.
Or...in an odd twist of events, the horizon space craft could discover that Pluto is actually an extra-terrestrial construction.
QUOTE (same+)
The cube turner might be useless, but the skills the guy developed in it's creation can help him on a personal level, I'm sure.
That's true.
That's true.
QUOTE (same+)
Why not? Humans can solve it caster than they can turn.
Yeah, but the 11.13 was what counted, not the 3 or four seconds it took him to realize what moves needed to be made.
Yeah, but the 11.13 was what counted, not the 3 or four seconds it took him to realize what moves needed to be made.
for any and all info you might need about how fast someone can solve the 3x3x3 cube (or whatever puzzle), go to http://www.speedcubing.com
http://strangepuzzle.com/videos/3x3x3%20LeyanLo%2011.13.wmv
there is the video! =) check it out! ill be standing there soon to)
(I do sub 40 sec average)
there is the video! =) check it out! ill be standing there soon to
) (I do sub 40 sec average)
I'm really into speed cubing. I'll try to tell you guys all I know.
First of all, if you're REALLY good (have memorized about 50 algorithms), you could solve the cube in about 60-65 moves. No human could possibly look at a cube for 15 seconds and find the shortest possible solve. Trust me, Lo couldn't even do that, being the genius that he is.
1 move in 0.6 seconds is nothing. With a lot of practice, you could fit 5 moves in that period of time no problem. The trick is in the fingers. Members of the speedcubing community like to call it using "Finger tricks." I have a friend that managed to get over 300 consecutive moves in one minute.
There is no such thing as an illegal lubricant. In fact, almost all speedcubers use lubricants. It's encouraged, actually, so as not to injure your fingers during high-speed cubing. (It also shaves off about 30 seconds at most) I use a heavy duty silicone lubricant. It seems to work the best.
The most popular method is layer-by-layer. There are 3 layers in a 3X3 cube. The thing that bugs me the most is when people say "well i can solve one side!" like they have actually accomplished something. They're not even close. Because one side could be entirely blue, but the sides of those actual pieced of the cube do not match up to their corresponding sides. So think of it this way: don't solve it by single colors. solve it by pieces, or cubies. so, the green and red edge cube goes between the green and red center pieces.
A person can get by with about a 50 second solve on average by knowing only about... say... 5 algorithms. An algorithm is basically a series of moves used to solve one specific part of the cube (for example only 2 "cubies"). An algorithm can contain anywhere from 3 to 20 moves in them. I know about 30 algorithms, and planning to memorize another 40 in about a month. The more algorithms you know, the more shortcuts you can use. The result being, a ridiculously fast time. (15 seconds.) The fastest I've ever done is 29, but I average only about 40 on a good day.
I'm going to the U.S. National Championship. It's being held in San Francisco August 4th, 5th, and 6th in the Exploritorium. If you're really interested, I suggest you go if it's nearby. All the pros will be there.
Basically a competition goes as follows. All competitors start with the same scramble. The judge gives each person 15 seconds to study the cube, but MAY NOT MANIPULATE IT. When the 15 seconds is up, the competitor puts the cube down, and puts his/her hands on a special touch-sensitive timer. When the judge gives the O.K., the competitor may lift their hands off the sensors, activating the timer. The person is then free to solve the cube. When it is solved, the competitor must place the cube down and stop the timer him/herself. The judge studies the cube to make sure it is solved, and then records the time. Pretty simple. Usually the competition follows Best of 3 solves, Average of 3 solves, Best of 5, Average of 5, etc. It also takes place in rounds, so that each competitor gets to show their full capabilities (eliminates mess-ups).
First of all, if you're REALLY good (have memorized about 50 algorithms), you could solve the cube in about 60-65 moves. No human could possibly look at a cube for 15 seconds and find the shortest possible solve. Trust me, Lo couldn't even do that, being the genius that he is.
1 move in 0.6 seconds is nothing. With a lot of practice, you could fit 5 moves in that period of time no problem. The trick is in the fingers. Members of the speedcubing community like to call it using "Finger tricks." I have a friend that managed to get over 300 consecutive moves in one minute.
There is no such thing as an illegal lubricant. In fact, almost all speedcubers use lubricants. It's encouraged, actually, so as not to injure your fingers during high-speed cubing. (It also shaves off about 30 seconds at most) I use a heavy duty silicone lubricant. It seems to work the best.
The most popular method is layer-by-layer. There are 3 layers in a 3X3 cube. The thing that bugs me the most is when people say "well i can solve one side!" like they have actually accomplished something. They're not even close. Because one side could be entirely blue, but the sides of those actual pieced of the cube do not match up to their corresponding sides. So think of it this way: don't solve it by single colors. solve it by pieces, or cubies. so, the green and red edge cube goes between the green and red center pieces.
A person can get by with about a 50 second solve on average by knowing only about... say... 5 algorithms. An algorithm is basically a series of moves used to solve one specific part of the cube (for example only 2 "cubies"). An algorithm can contain anywhere from 3 to 20 moves in them. I know about 30 algorithms, and planning to memorize another 40 in about a month. The more algorithms you know, the more shortcuts you can use. The result being, a ridiculously fast time. (15 seconds.) The fastest I've ever done is 29, but I average only about 40 on a good day
.I'm going to the U.S. National Championship. It's being held in San Francisco August 4th, 5th, and 6th in the Exploritorium. If you're really interested, I suggest you go if it's nearby. All the pros will be there.
Basically a competition goes as follows. All competitors start with the same scramble. The judge gives each person 15 seconds to study the cube, but MAY NOT MANIPULATE IT. When the 15 seconds is up, the competitor puts the cube down, and puts his/her hands on a special touch-sensitive timer. When the judge gives the O.K., the competitor may lift their hands off the sensors, activating the timer. The person is then free to solve the cube. When it is solved, the competitor must place the cube down and stop the timer him/herself. The judge studies the cube to make sure it is solved, and then records the time. Pretty simple. Usually the competition follows Best of 3 solves, Average of 3 solves, Best of 5, Average of 5, etc. It also takes place in rounds, so that each competitor gets to show their full capabilities (eliminates mess-ups).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.