Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rubik's Cube World Championships

samzenpus posted more than 8 years ago | from the the-thrill-of-athletic-competition dept.

Puzzle Games (Games) 202

cadaeibfed writes "Coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the iconic puzzle's introduction to the world was the second Rubik's world championship, held in Orlando, FL this weekend. Competing under official World Cube Association rules, competitors from around the world vied for recognition in this nerd olympiad. Some new world records set include the 4x4 solve, solving using only feet, and blindfolded solving. The winner, Jean Pons of France, finished with an average solution time of 15.10 seconds on a standard 3x3 cube. Here are the full results."

cancel ×

202 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's that for a standard ? (-1)

boaworm (180781) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996421)

on a standard 3x3 cube

I've not seen any such cube, the only ones i've seen has been 5x5 or something. I didn't even know there were different sizes. :-)

Re:What's that for a standard ? (2, Informative)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996428)

Surely you mean 5x5 squares ? 'Cause I only know of 3x3x3 or 4x4x4 Rubik cubes :P

Re:What's that for a standard ? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996569)

Well, the most common cubes seem to be 1x1x1, but they are not usually associated with the name "Rubik".

Re:What's that for a standard ? (1)

Jawju (614159) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996698)

5x5x5 cubes exist, I even owned one once (before it broke). Took me about 20-30 minutes to solve it - not very quick, but I was still happy to have memorised all the little formulas :-)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 83HIHM/002-1699118-6329633?v=glance [amazon.com]

Re:What's that for a standard ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996432)

Most cubes have three sides, e.g. 3x3x3. This 5x5 cube of yours sounds interesting.

Re:What's that for a standard ? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996528)

The corner cubies are at right angles to the other three dimensions.

Re:What's that for a standard ? (3, Interesting)

metricmusic (766303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996435)

The traditional Rubik's cube has three dice-shaped blocks on each side and was first licensed and sold in Japan in 1980.

Re:What's that for a standard ? (2, Informative)

Nuskrad (740518) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997056)

Actually, it was first sold in Hungary in 1977. Similar devices were also seperatly invented by Japanese and American manufacturers, but the toy popularised worldwide is the original hungarian invention, named after it's creator Enro Rubik

Re:What's that for a standard ? (2, Interesting)

porksoda (253218) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996460)

I didn't even know there were different sizes. :-)

some people take things TO THE EXTREME!!!@11!1eleven [speedcubing.com]

Wow. (5, Insightful)

Capt'n Hector (650760) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996422)

15 seconds is rather insane. Yes, I know there are tricks and that there is a technique that will produce a solution. But they require quite a number of steps, all of which take time. Not to mention the need to recognize, store and process the locations of 27 color/point pairs for the win. Just... wow.

Re:Wow. (5, Funny)

slack0ne (902749) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996430)

I found it easier to peel the stickers off. It took me weeks to actually solve one back in the day...

Re:Wow. (5, Funny)

metricmusic (766303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996453)

pfftt. I remove the cover and unscrew the thing. Haven't made it under 15 seconds yet putting it back together *looks at mess in the corner*

Re:Wow. (1)

Mugros (811343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996556)

That is also what i did. I'll call it the "Kirk solution".
And i think i have never solved the cube on my own. It was just too boring.

Re:Wow. (4, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996640)

I found it quite boring as well.
Anyway I gave up after completing five sides, couldn't be bothered to finish the damn thing.

MOD PARENT UP, FUNNY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996680)

Oh, I was playing the lottery the other day, and I only got 5 out of the 6 numbers right, so I threw the ticket away.

Re:Wow. (1)

Alistar (900738) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996946)

If you completed 5 sides (5 sides all the same colour) wouldn't that by default mean that you got the 6th side as well.
The only options are you were using some screwed up rubix cube with greater than 6 colours

OR

I failed to see the humour in your post.

Re:Wow. (0, Flamebait)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997009)

You didn't fail to see the humor if you had the mind to write option 2.

Re:Wow. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996558)

You don't actually have to unscrew anything to take it apart...

Re:Wow. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996624)

Hack The Rubix!

Re:Wow. (1)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996724)

"Hack The Rubix!"

... and install Linux on it.

Re:Wow. (4, Funny)

Funakoshi (925826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996749)

average solution time of 15.10 seconds on a standard 3x3 cube

If I could move my hands that fast I'd never leave the house...

Re:Wow. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996434)

I looked about resolution techniques a while ago. Besides the different algorithms, some of them even grease the cube so it turns faster!

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996472)

Absolutely. Back in the day my average cube time was about 60 seconds, with a personal best of about 40 seconds. I used the basic cube algorithms - nothing flash.

I greased the innards of my main cube so it would turn faster.

I went in a cube competition once. I lost quite badly because - although I was the fastest cuber in the competition, it was a promotion for some soft-drink company, and they were using cubes with their logo printed on each cubie. So the orientation of the centre cubie mattered. I had never solved a cube where I had to worry about rotating centre cubies, and so despite solving the thing first, I had to go back and try to rotate all the centres. In the end I either finished or gave up after about 3 minutes.

Re:Wow. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996471)

He's French; he probably solved the puzzle that fast because he still had to extinguish his car...

Re:Wow. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996589)

You mods don't understand sarcasm (which is a subset of humour), do you?

Re:Wow. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996956)

Um, that wasn't sarcasm. It was funny, but it wasn't sarcasm.

Re:Wow. (3, Informative)

fm2503 (876331) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996504)

Found some videos at http://www.solvethecube.co.uk/ [solvethecube.co.uk]
Follow the "videos" link at the top, towards the bottom
of this page is a 13.86 second solve.

Re:Wow. (2, Interesting)

ockegheim (808089) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996526)

Back in the day, when I memorised a particular method, it only fixed one or two of the cubes at once. Can these guys (and girls?) just look at the cube and work out what's necessary to solve it in one big conceptual tour de force? Or do they still have (albeit more sophisticated) intermediate steps?

Talk about nerd porn (2, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996603)

Check it out [speedcubing.com] . It's pretty unsettling watching someone solve the cube that fast.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996729)

I know someone who can solve it faster. And he can do some nifty stuff with juggling at the same time. (Of course, not in 12 seconds, but bleh.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotaro_%22Macky%22_M akisumi [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wow. (1)

courtarro (786894) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996846)

Yes, but can they do it blindfolded... dun dun dun!

Cube Theory = Group Theory (5, Interesting)

ankarbass (882629) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996449)

While just solving the cube quickly may be interesting. I think it's far more interesting that the cube movements can be thought of elements of a subgroup of a very large permutation group, S48 to be precise. If you have some math background and like abstract things you might want to take a look at Adventures in Group Theory : Rubik's Cube, Merlin's Machine, and Other Mathematical Toys [amazon.com] which, despite the title is a fairly serious little math book.

Re:Cube Theory = Group Theory (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996575)

Damn.
SO3 groups for quantum mechanics were nasty enough, i dont really want to touch a S48, even if its disguised as a toy :D

Friend of mine can do this (5, Interesting)

raoul666 (870362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996454)

Young guy, mid teens. I first saw him do it at a poker tournament I was running. We were using the cube as the dealer button, so whenever it go to him, he'd start working on it. By the time the next hand had started, even if we hadn't even seen the flop, it'd be solved and back on the table. He was probably doing it in 35-45 seconds, but still, it was amazing to watch.

Re:Friend of mine can do this (5, Informative)

gkhan1 (886823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996580)

It's really not that hard to solve a cube in around a minute. You can learn the basic, layer by layer method in about a day, and after a few more, you've got it down to under two minutes. Then you just keep doing it to get it too about a minute, and all your friends will be amazed!! (it's seriously fun to do it on a subway, everybody looks in amazement :D) Too get a time consistantly under a minute, you probably need to learn more advanced methods, like for instance the petrus system [lar5.com] or the friedrich system [binghamton.edu] . Variations on the latter is what all the pros use, but it is murder to learn, you have to memorize around 100 algorithms!!! Myself, I've gotten down to about 30 secs using the standard, layer-by-layer and some of friedrich's algorithms. It really is alot of fun.

Re:Friend of mine can do this (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997031)

The fact that there are multiple different "systems" to solve it just scares me. For me, the only "system" that consistantly works is to peel the stickers off and put them back on. But even then I occasionally can't solve it.

Erno Rubik (1)

onetruedabe (116148) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997050)

More fun was taking a two-pack -- with a full-size cube and a keychain mini-cube -- giving the mini-cube to a friend to mix up, then arranging the full-sized cube to match the scrambled one.

It was harder because you couldn't tell what needed to be done at a glance (Normally, if a side was all blue except for two, you knew what you needed to do. This way you actually had to keep comparing over and over, and thinking about "Okay... This corner has to be blue, yellow, and red. Now where *IS* the blue, yellow, and red corner?")

I used to carry around a Rubik's Cube in the car.

When I got to one red light, I'd mix it up. Then when I got to the next red light, I'd solve it. It usually took two red lights for me to finish, though -- probably about a minute total.

--
:- D

Second prize (4, Funny)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996462)

The second prize is an all day massage to get the RSI down a bit.

Amateurs. (1, Funny)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996464)

None of them are up to the challenge of the 1x1 cube!

Re:Amateurs. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996674)

That would be called a dice.

Re:Amateurs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996716)

Or The Peoples Cube:

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/ [thepeoplescube.com]

Re:Amateurs. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996741)

As usual, the product doesn't deliver what the advertisement tells: "Guaranteed equality of results!"

If you look closer, you'll see that there are images on the cube sides, which don't share the square's symmetry. Now if you turn the sides, those images will turn around as well, therefore different solutions may cause different positions of those images relative to each other (for example, one person may get the images on opposite sides to be turned in the same direction, while others may have an 90 degree angle between them).

Oh well (1)

The Madd Rapper (886657) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996466)

I'm disappointed that my favorite solver, Shotari Makisumi, only placed third. Them's the breaks. I've seen him solve, and as is true for anyone in his league, it's incredible.

Save this one for your next party (2, Funny)

gringer (252588) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996477)

For those folks who are interested in dressing up all nerdy, you could try making your own functional Rubik's Cube Costume [flickr.com] . It appears to only have one axis of rotation, but I'm sure someone could work a way to get the other axis rotation working as well.

Here's something on the origins of the thing, and (4, Interesting)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996485)

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa040497 .htm [about.com]

The history of it is interesting. It seems multiple folks developed similar items around the same time.

So 1980 (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996489)

I remember the craze. I got one cube, my brother too, my friends too, almost every pupil had one. I never could do more than two lines but some could in 1'30. There was different types, the official and some imitations of quite bad quality. There was also similar games (cylinders, ...). Fun to see the competition continues.

Re:So 1980 (2, Interesting)

CortoMaltese (828267) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996533)

I remember the craze. I got one cube, my brother too, my friends too, almost every pupil had one. I never could do more than two lines but some could in 1'30.

My observation was that most people eventually learned how to solve it - one way or the other. In general, the boys usually used a screwdriver, while the girls just moved the stickers.

In fact, I came across a dusted 20-year-old cube this summer, and finally learned to solve it the right way for the first time. It was actually quite satisfying not having to use a screwdriver. Just twisting the cube is faster, too.

Re:So 1980 (1, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996566)

> ...boys usually used a screwdriver, while the girls just moved the stickers...

What a profound observation about the nature of the universe.

Re:So 1980 (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996701)

In general, the boys usually used a screwdriver, while the girls just moved the stickers.

I did use the screwdriver
with the result the cube was not solveable anymore. ;)

Re:So 1980 (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996773)

My observation was that most people eventually learned how to solve it - one way or the other. In general, the boys usually used a screwdriver, while the girls just moved the stickers.

I have one where the colors are printed on it. Nothing for girls, I guess.

Re:So 1980 (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996613)

Let me guess, you also had a group of pet rocks you called your friends.

Re:So 1980 (1)

trollable (928694) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996696)

Nope. Nothing like that. BTW, I was 10-y-o.

Pfff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996491)

I have just completed this cube all by myself [speedcubing.com] and deem me Champion Of The Rubic Universe. Took me 7 years to do it, plus two thumb replacements, but I did it.

My newest project is this cube [speedcubing.com] , I project 10 years for this.

how... (1, Interesting)

drewxhawaii (922388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996496)

...exactly, does one solve a rubiks cube while blindfolded?

braille, perchance?

enlighten me

Re:how... (5, Informative)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996513)

You are given the scrambled cube to study for a time and then are blindfolded. You have to perform all the moves to solve the cube while blindfolded.

15 seconds (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996775)

If you're one of the guys solving it in 15 seconds (unblindfolded) I'd assume you've effectively memorized and mapped out all the necessary moves before they put the cube in your hand.

But I think you impress more chicks by saying you can do it blindfolded

Re:how... (1)

Walkiry (698192) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996516)

You look at it before for X seconds to try and memorize the position of everything, then blindfold and go!

Re:how... (1)

Peregr1n (904456) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996523)

Blindfolded solving involves studying the cube first, memorising the layout, then being blindfolded and solving the cube. Must require a damn good memory as long as a fair whack of logic!

Re:how... (1)

iLogiK (878892) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996534)

my guess is that at first you look at the cube and memorise it. then you put the blindfold on and start solving it. so you have to keep track of all the colors in your head

Re:how... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996797)

Synaesthesia! [wikipedia.org]

hmm, feels like orange...

I could do it behind my back (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996892)

Its all about memorizing a routine. I bought a book and learned what to do. You set one corner up correctly and then every move after that is performed in sequence until it is solved. Don't remember how long it took to solve it but I would say maybe about a minute. Once you solve it though, it got boring. I've still got the cube, but I don't have the book anymore. So without the book, its taking me 20+ years and I still haven't solved it.

Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (5, Interesting)

Geeky (90998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996535)

1. Take cube apart.

2. Put back together in random order so it can't be solved.

3. Give to cube geek.

4. Watch them sweat as their moves don't work.

5. .. er, profit?

Of course, these serious cubers would probably take one look at the cube and immediately tell you it had been tampered with.

Sad news. I'm old enough to remember these when they first came out. I feel very, very old. Anyone remember Rubik's snake?

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (2, Interesting)

Jon Peterson (1443) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996565)

The snake was more fun the the cubes. And then they came out with all these silly things in different polygons, cylinders, spheres. It got old pretty fast.

Pocketeers were a much better toy craze :-)

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (3, Informative)

gkhan1 (886823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996586)

Even non-serious solvers who just solve using the simple method (which ANY serious slashdotter could easily learn in an hour or two) would recognize it as unsolvable after only a couple of moves.

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (0, Offtopic)

wizrd_nml (661928) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997000)

serious slashdotter

What was that???

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996606)

Actually, It's really hard to screw up a cube by just randomly putting it back together. If an even number of inside pieces and corner pieces get flipped then its completely solvable.

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1)

Butterspoon (892614) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996619)

Fun fact: probability of being able to solve a cube scrambled by disassembly/reassembly: 1/12.

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996681)

If you put it together in random order, you'll still have a chance of 1/6 to get a solvable cube. A better way is to just take the normal (solvable) cube, take one piece (edge or corner) out, and put it back turned around. This will give you a guaranteed unsolvable cube.

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996712)

Oops, self correction: The chance is actually 1/12 (as stated correctly by Butterspoon). I forgot the corner exchange.

Nope... (1)

Butterspoon (892614) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996726)

It's 1/12. Half of the possible edge positions are unreachable from a solved cube, and 1/6 of the corner cubie configurations can't be reached.

Re:Nope... (1, Offtopic)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996803)

Well, I self-corrected just 5 minutes before you posted this, even referring to your earlier correct number. Seems I'm not the only one who doesn't read all other answers before replying :-)

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1)

nyphot (470962) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996684)

Actually, if you simply put together the cube randomly (without peeling off stickers) then actually most moves of most "cube geeks" will work. In the end you'll get to a state where the entire cube is solved except for one or two pieces which have the wrong parity.

Of course because it's parity based, if you make several random switches, it's decently likely that you'll put the cube back into a solvable position.

If you do take the stickers off, then most "cube geeks" can probably tell you that straightaway because that makes the cube make no sense at all.

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1)

Antifuse (651387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996719)

I had a friend with the snake. It was pretty neat. I had the "Missing Link [speedcubing.com] " and a "Square One [wikipedia.org] " which basically just got to a point that it could never be solved. I never found a good algorithm for solving the Square One.

Re:Fun with Rubik's Cube geeks... (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996904)

The snake is fun - I still have my original, and also about a dozen very recent knockoffs that I picked up while at a dollar store.

My favorite was the pyramid. I got to where I could solve that one in about 15-20 seconds. Not nearly as tricky as the cube to do, but it was good for winning beers back in college :)

the timing system... (5, Informative)

ragahast (879945) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996539)

...is pretty awesome. They have each of the competitors solve their cubes, then follow the same steps to mix it up. Then each of the competitors places their cube on a central pad and their hands on two pads to either side. Each person has a their own digital timer, which will be activated when they lift their hands from the pads. A ref blows a whistle, the competitors lift their cubes and solve and then stop their timers by dropping the solved cube on the central pad. The best time I've seen is 12.3 seconds. Frickin' ridiculous. (I was working during the Caltech winter 2005 competition)

slowpokes (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996593)

According to this [speedcubing.com] , a french guy handily beat that record... coming in at 11.75 seconds

Videos (2, Informative)

vagabond_gr (762469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996637)

Take a loot at the videos on the following page [cubewhiz.com] . 3x3x3 in 20.55, still amazing!

Cube can be solved in 29 moves or less (3, Interesting)

richieb (3277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996651)

The cube can be solved in 29 or less moves. Here is a reference [wolfram.com] .

I originally worked out the solution to the cube when the Scientific American article by Douglas Hosfstader appeared. I never got my speed much below one minute. I did manage to win a T-Shirt at a Cube contest though - a contents with several hundreds of participants...

True Story (4, Informative)

krygny (473134) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996657)

I was fortunate to be one of the first people in the world to play with a Rubik's Cube. In the late '70s, I worked with a woman who's husband worked for the Ideal Toy Co. in Jamaica, NY (that's Queens). She brought a secret prototype into work and all the engineers and technicians couldn't stop fighting over this thing; trying both to solve it and to figure out the mechanism. It was supposed to be hush-hush and she could have gotten her husband in trouble, but when she realized how obsessed we all were with it, she was afraid it would disappear.

It was only a few months later that they hit the market and I couldn't wait to get my hands on one. I eventually got to the point of being able to solve it consistently within a half hour or less. Then I lost interest in the challenge.

I also remember a Scientific American cover story (c. 1980), where I finally learned about the mechanism, disassembly and reassembly. Of course, they also discussed algorithms, but I wasn't interested in that. I never use cheats. Takes most of the fun out.

Re:True Story (2, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997068)

Cheats? Solving via algorithms isnt cheating, its using your brain.
Solving WITHOUT algorithms (even unconscious) is just the 100k monkeys approach...

age (1)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996671)

I wouldn't mind knowing the ages of all these people. Rubiks are old (to me) so are these fresh blood? Are they still popular? As far as I'm concerned they'd have to be middle aged in order to be that good.

Re:age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996782)

I've seen one of the semifinalists in action, he is about 25 i think.

5x5 (1)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996688)

If you don't want to read RTFA then here's something interesting I noticed. One of the competitions is for a 5x5 cube, or a Professors cube. I know it would personallt ake me about 5 years to do this [geocities.com] .

Re:5x5 (1)

The New Andy (873493) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996779)

I have worked out the 3x3, 4x4 and 5x5 on my own without getting any help, and in my experience, getting the 3x3 was the hardest. Once I had that algorithm sorted out, it made doing the bigger ones easy, and I believe that if you can solve all the way up to 7x7, then you can solve any size as long as you can remember some parity stuff. I have no idea what this parity stuff is, which is why my algorithm for the 4x4 and the 5x5 have the last step being: "If two things are out of place, then scramble it all and try again"... it is still good enough though, I can get 2 min for 3x3 and 30 min for the 4x4 and 5x5.

actually (2, Insightful)

AntiNeutrino (63802) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996689)

don't you mean ... a 3x3x3 and a 4x4x4 cube?

haha (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996690)

thats cool as shit.. i'm going to try to get a friend sign up for that contest.. i thought that program slashdot mentioned a year or so ago that regarded cracking the rubiks code.. gave you instructions to solving your puzzle based on what colors were currently showing.. what the hell was that program?

Yuo fail iT!x? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996709)

FrreBSD showed our abili7y to many of us are

got me beat... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996725)

Two decades after getting my first cube and I still haven't solved the damn thing. :(

Solved the Clock, Magics, and can make just about anything with the Snake, but not the cube in any of its sizes.

Yes, but can they beat (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996763)

The People's Cube? [thepeoplescube.com]

Rubik cube solver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996780)

For all those [wrongway.org] who don't want to spend too much time on them ...

Been There, Done That (4, Interesting)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996802)

I remember the Rubik's Cube from first time around. I knew a few different "complete solutions" -- depending on the initial state, one might be significantly faster than the others. I rarely needed longer than a minute. My friend and I built a fake "cube solving machine" from an old washing machine box, with a hatch tor loading the "scrambled" cube, a drawer for removing the "solved" cube -- and me inside with a bicycle lamp, and a cassette recorder for sound effects!

Obviously you cannot have just five faces "solved", but it is also not possible to have just four faces "solved". You can render a cube insoluble by reversing one of the two-sided pieces, or rotating one of the three-sided pieces. The easiest way to split a cube apart is to rotate one side by 45 degrees, and push the protruding corner piece until its latch pops out. Reassembly is done by inserting one of the two-sided pieces last. I have also seen evidence of very bad sticker-peeling, where one of the two-sided pieces carried the colours of opposite centres and one of the three-sided pieces carried the same colour on each face!

Rubik's Snake was boring: all you could really make with it was a dog and a football.

Rubik's Magic was a little better, because there were two different puzzles on the go: arranging the eight hinged squares to create a shape {4 x 2 rectangle, 3 x 3 square with corner missing, or various solids} and orientating the components of the shape to produce a picture {three separated rings on the rectangle, or three linked rings on the 3-3-2}.

I remember Rubik's Clock best of all. I was given one of the first ones in the country, which my parents got from a toy shop in Yorkshire. It took me nearly two days to crack it -- and then I could not believe just how daft I had been in not spotting it sooner. The secret is to ghea gur pbeare onpxjneqf, ratntr vgf ohggba naq ghea rirelguvat sbejneqf gbtrgure.

Re:Been There, Done That (1)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996853)

cant belive i didnt think of that, still havent solved it, got it about 20 years ago too. time for a trip to the attic...

Re:Been There, Done That (1)

kaszeta (322161) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996991)

I remember the Rubik's Cube from first time around. I knew a few different "complete solutions" -- depending on the initial state, one might be significantly faster than the others. I rarely needed longer than a minute.

I never managed to get much faster than two minutes, since I could only easily think a few moves ahead; most of the people I know that are much faster than me pretty much have the whole series of moves figured out in their head right away.

Still, I had to prove to my coworkers a few weeks ago that I could solve the Cube. 3 minutes, so I'm not that rusty.

Then again, in college my roommate and I had an entire shelf of weird puzzles and brain teasers, and we'd practice for speed, so I got pretty good at this sort of thing. My favorite was the Square-1 [unc.edu] , which looks a lot more intimdating than the Rubik's cube, but is actually a lot simpler, especially if you are good at getting the thing back into it's cube shape

Not as tough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13996883)

You can learn to solve the 3X3 in less then a minute in about a month of practicing. 15 second solves are mostly luck of pieces sorting in a way were you can skip a step.

Re:Not as tough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13997010)

The format was: 5 attempts, average of all but fastest and slowest attempt.

So you say that he got lucky for 4 cubes out of 5? And what about 10 people with averages of 17.42 or less, all lucky?

Lubricants (0, Redundant)

Tashmire (926583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13996902)

The tricks, which makes them have a big advantage, is greasing it up with some DW 40. You need to take all the cubes off, apply the DW, reassemble, and work its magic. This will bring anyone that does it in about a minute down to around a very decent 30 sec, with its new roatating abilities.

Pubic Rubik Cubic (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13997058)

I used to be able to solve the cube when I was at school. My fastest time was 33 seconds although that was a freak - normally it would be 60-90 seconds. Half the people in my class could solve it and we all used fixed moves (transforms I spose a mathematician would call them) to get there. The only thing that was hard was to complete the top face (with all the upper sides correct) - from there the transforms could be applied from memory. The moves were shown to us by other people and were closely guarded secrets like joing the magic circle or something. The fastest times came from the authentic "rubik's' cube (the knock-offs were mechanically slower by miles) and extra lubrication using graphite or bike oil. I was 13 years old probably the perfect age to be doing it. My family still talk about this ability of mine at Xmas and stuff although I had completely forgotten the moves by my twenties. I read the book that was published and it contained extra steps and longer transforms than the methods we had learnt, so you could never beat our fastest times with 'shop bought knowledge'. Oh happy days!!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>