How many people have solved the Rubik's Cube independently?
qquito
By now and worldwide, many people can manage to solve the famous 3x3x3
Rubik's Cube. However, most of them learned to do so either from
friends, books, or the Internet. Personally, I feel it is very
difficult to figure it out by oneself. So I am wondering what
percentage of the people who can solve it now actually worked it out
independently, i.e., without external help of any sort. If you don't
have the statistics, can you make just a wild guess?
Thank you for reading!
--Roland
marks...@gmail.com
shortcomings of Bill Taylor.
christian
I certainly didn't (being an inductive rather than a deductive
thinker), but I remember two 'masters' in the games club 'Fanatic' at
the University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
One is Mark Waterman. You can google info about him. Here's a wiki
article in which he is mentioned:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_solve_the_Rubik%27s_Cube
And this one may be helpful to:
http://www.rubikscube.info/
Then there's Guus Razoux Schultz, who was living in Enschede too:
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&source=hp&q=%22Guus+Razoux+Schultz%22+rubik&btnG=Google+zoeken&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
He won the Dutch open 2009 ex aequo with Erik Akkersdijk, so he's
still 'active'.
Rich Grise
> Hello, Everyone:
Hello!
You're welcome!
>
The only way I've discovered to solve one of those infernal things is
to disassemble it (which isn't that hard to do) and reassemble in the
proper order.
Some people peel the little colored squares and stick them on other
blocks, but that can't be done very many times, as the stickum
deteriorates. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
marks...@gmail.com
On 30-Nov-2010, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> The only way I've discovered to solve one of those infernal things is
> to disassemble it (which isn't that hard to do) and reassemble in the
> proper order.
It took me two weeks to solve the cube, independently, drawing sketches in a
notebook for algorithms, decades ago when it was first a craze. I think if
I'd not overanalyzed it and instead just fucked around with it mindlessly, I
would have solved it a lot quicker.
> Some people peel the little colored squares and stick them on other
> blocks, but that can't be done very many times, as the stickum
> deteriorates. ;-)
Oh why would somebody do that?
Daniel S.
worked out a few algorithms, and now am missing one vital one. I can
solve it every time to the point where there are only 2 adjacent cubes
which need to be swapped. I have various different ways to do this
and rather enjoyed the discovery process. It's such a nice puzzle that
I feel it's a shame that people just memorize methods without diving
in themselves.
The work around I use is to mess it up and solve it to that point
until it coincidentally doesn't need the algorithm that I didn't
manage to work out. I got bored of it after some time, but I imagine
I'll pick one back up and maybe work out the last part if someone else
I know raises an interest in it.
I'm rather new to abstract appreciation and newer even to design, but
I imagine there are some parallels here.
Rich Grise
To impress the kids, of course! ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
marks...@gmail.com
> I worked out a few algorithms, and now am missing one vital one. I
> can solve it every time to the point where there are only 2 adjacent
> cubes which need to be swapped.
That's exactly what happened to me - almost. After a few days I had
everything I needed except one algorithm. It wasn't two cubes next to each
other, though it was like 25 years ago so I don't remember exactly. I think
it was completely opposite corners, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, most of the two weeks was spent figuring out the one needed
algorithm which I finally did.
> The work around I use is to mess it up and solve it to that point
> until it coincidentally doesn't need the algorithm that I didn't
> manage to work out. I got bored of it after some time, but I imagine
> I'll pick one back up and maybe work out the last part if someone else
> I know raises an interest in it.
I think you can get it, if you got everything else but that. In my case I
really had to throw myself into it.
> I'm rather new to abstract appreciation and newer even to design, but
> I imagine there are some parallels here.
I believe designing a game is very much like solving a puzzle. You have to
find a solution to the problem of creating an equitable rule set. One
that's simple, etc., etc., etc. - all the constraints you impose on yourself
in creating the problem.
marks...@gmail.com
On 1-Dec-2010, Bill Taylor <wfc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 10:26 pm, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
>
> > You obviously cannot distinguish between a puzzle and a problem.
>
> Likewise; but then, as Stark Mere is a very substantial one of both,
> perhaps you can be forgiven in this case at least...
I'm a puzzle, Bill, because every so often I put on my orange hunting hat
and bag some big game. Something you've never managed to do. Not even
once.
I'm a problem, Bill, because you're a poser and I'm calling you out.
Bill Taylor
> I'm a puzzle, Bill, because every so often I put on my orange hunting hat
> and bag some big game.
What an ego!
> I'm a problem, Bill, because you're a poser and I'm calling you out.
<yawn>
marks...@gmail.com
On 2-Dec-2010, Bill Taylor <wfc.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 6:42 am, markste...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm a puzzle, Bill, because every so often I put on my orange
> > hunting hat and bag some big game.
>
> What an ego!
Why is that egotistical, Bill? I'm an abstract game designer discussing my
accomplishments, quite naturally, here in rec.games.abstract.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, Bill, but I think even you
grudgingly conceded that Atoll is a great game, said concession being made
here in rec.games.abstract. A game related discussion between you and me,
of all things, in rec.games.abstract.
Sometimes I put on my orange hunting hat and I don't bag big game.
Satisfied? Holy shit you're touchy!!
BobJordanB
scientific american article about it before i saw my first cube. In
that it described a notation to describe moves and gave the concept of
algorithms.
I used this an paper to work out most of the required algorithms on
paper still without a cube in hand
The first cube I handled was in the back seat of a car and I got quite
car sick looking at it with awe
then finally found a source to buy them and managed to get it out in
30 mins
However on my next try I found my repertoire was missing a double edge
flip which I had not foreseen
It took some time after that to find that algorithm.
But then I had my own algorithm
I still have not looked at a book and managed to get my method down
below 2 minutes - but it is entirely my own.
I still reckon that it is the best puzzle ever invented.
And I take pride in the fact that my algorithm - perhaps not a great
one - will solve any puzzle - and it is MINE
BobJ
chinnis...@gmail.com
i solved thye 3x3 cube myself :)
(ith out any external help, i took it as a challenge for myself)
i stumbled upon this link when i started looking for other people who did
dakota...@stu.montgomery.kyschools.us
FromTheRafters
Charlie Roberts
Time: ~4 months of serious effort.
The time exponentially exploded through the layers,
which the system I used (not knowing the multi layer
approches).
The first layer was 'easy'. Well, it is less than that.
Anyone can get that in a matter of minutes.
The second layer got harder, but it did get solved in
a logical manner and I can still (after 30 years) get
it right and explain all the moves. It is really not
hard at all.
The third layer, with all the edge flipping and corner
rotating and twisting is the stuff of magic! I have no
recollection of how I got there. Lots of masking tape
to keep track of the cubies though quarter rotations,
notes with changing notation, etc. No easy digital
pictures for backtracking back in 1979. Experience,
rather than logic played a big role. All the group theory
courses did not offer much help. Discussions with
frieds who had never taken a reall course in mathematics,
and disdained it, ddi!
But, it got done through a LOT of trial and errrof and
LOT LOT LOT of "I don't know why it works, but it
does". Understanding came, in a way, later, but
to this day I cannot do the thrid layer without my
handy cheat sheet. The moves are way too arcane
and there is little logic. I would call my own path
"dumb luck".
Much later, I came across more efficient procedures.
I even understand most of them. But how I came to
the initial solution is lost in the mists of time. Too many
wanderings, too may inputs, too many discussions with
people I have lost touch with. But, it all helped to get there.
Pity I lost touch with all those diverse folk. Shows that
things can be done 'off track'. I was much younger then
.... and had more pressing things on my meagre mind.
It is still meagre .... but a tad bit wiser (even if I say so
myself).
cr
FromTheRafters
and played with it for about two days. I discovered a move to use when
things didn't come together quite right. Each time I solved it it was
by having it not come together quite right and applying that move and
trying again. Usually it would come together after two or three times
of trying, failing, and applying 'the move'. I got so familiar with
that size cube in my hands that I could solve it in less than ten
minutes mostly because of the ease-of-use I had developed for that size
cube once it was warmed up to the proper temperature (otherwise it was
very clunky).
A decade or so later I 'inherited' my father's three inch version
Rubik's cube and decided to see if I could remember how to do it - the
method was lost among many other forgotten things from my past. I
eventually solved it accidentally and then used a method I found online
to re-familiarize myself with it.
I learned how to rotate opposite corners, rotate the adjacent ones to
match, and the centers to get a pattern I thought was cool.
http://i61.tinypic.com/eq5t1e.jpg
While on break at work a guy waiting for an interview showed up in the
breakroom with a cube he was working on and he asked me if I could
solve it for him just to make sure one of his friends hadn't played a
joke on him by taking the cube apart. I solved it to the above state
within a minute to his amazement. It shows that it had not been
tampered with but without actually solving it for him.
I have since learned that 14 seconds is (or was) the record and some
guys can solve it by manipulating it with their feet - and in less time
than it takes me with my hands. I have no desire to compete at that
level.
Charlie Roberts
<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>A decade or so later I 'inherited' my father's three inch version
>Rubik's cube and decided to see if I could remember how to do it - the
>method was lost among many other forgotten things from my past. I
>eventually solved it accidentally and then used a method I found online
>to re-familiarize myself with it.
>
>I learned how to rotate opposite corners, rotate the adjacent ones to
>match, and the centers to get a pattern I thought was cool.
>
>http://i61.tinypic.com/eq5t1e.jpg
can make. A kind post-solution game in itself. I think that it was
David Singmaster's ideas that helped me is getting to a notation
without which I could not have tracked my moves, though we
did wonder of video taping ourselves so that we could back
track. Douglas Hofstader's 'Metamagical Themas' column in the
Scientific American brought a whole formalism without which
I could not have solved the cube.
>I have since learned that 14 seconds is (or was) the record and some
>guys can solve it by manipulating it with their feet - and in less time
>than it takes me with my hands. I have no desire to compete at that
>level.
in SUNY Binghamton, who has some amazing techniques. But, I
am not into the speed part. I find their work fascinating, but it is
not a thing I want to get into.
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cube.html
cr
FromTheRafters
[...]
>> http://i61.tinypic.com/eq5t1e.jpg
>
> I have seen this before. There are many lovely patterns that one
> can make.
http://cubeman.org/archive.html
gerson
Somebody somehow wrote
I
would take it apart and put it back together , (which is the same as putting
masking tape on but a lot easier). The second puzzle, by which I mean the
one with the three circles, rather ellipses, solving that one was really
good (too), what a good puzzle that was. Is. No giving away secrets.
Or was it the actually second puzzle anyway. After a shortish amount of
googling just now, I haven't been able to find it.
Charlie Roberts
wrote:
>
>I did it too, but when I could no longer twist it back to the original state
>I
>would take it apart and put it back together , (which is the same as putting
>masking tape on but a lot easier). The second puzzle, by which I mean the
bits of tape, with marks/numbers/letters ... whatever, to identify
them, one can get an idea of where they are going. How great it
would have been to have video! One could track and backtrack.
Though VCRs were around, graduate student salaries could not
land a video recorder.
cr
gerson
"Charlie Roberts" wrote in message
news:62c4ga5ihgsvrfv7g...@4ax.com...
with all the bits rearranged as it was in the beginning. You can put your
thumb in behind a middle edge piece and pull and then pull a corner bit
out. Etc.
FromTheRafters
But if it accidentally falls apart . . .
gerson
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message news:mduhtf$mq9$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
a jumbled state to the original state - now, on tv like most people
must have, I've seen people doing it really quickly, but not very often
using the what must be elementary moves I would have used. So how
many 'different' learnable move sequences are there, and, do the
fast solvers actually do it with learned moves (always) , or can
they just see it all, somehow else.
FromTheRafters
individual moves. I found an easier way to do the same in 14 moves
which was much easier to manipulate. That particular method was top to
bottom completing each layer as you go. That author also provided
another algorithm which left one corner of each layer 'free' until the
last layer was reached. IIRC the puzzle is never any more than 20 moves
away from completion.
I suppose a seasoned veteran cuber could just take a look and know a
fairly straight path to the solution, but I'm not one of those. Some,
I'm led to believe, can look at the cube for less than a second and
then solve it blindfolded.
Charlie Roberts
Many a time, our bookkeeping went awry and there was no other
way to recover (other than buying yet another new cube!) than
to take it apart and putting it back.
Yes, we did it a lot on our way to the solution!
vbal...@yahoo.com
> Hello, Everyone:
>
> By now and worldwide, many people can manage to solve the famous 3x3x3
> Rubik's Cube. However, most of them learned to do so either from
> friends, books, or the Internet. Personally, I feel it is very
> difficult to figure it out by oneself. So I am wondering what
> percentage of the people who can solve it now actually worked it out
> independently, i.e., without external help of any sort. If you don't
> have the statistics, can you make just a wild guess?
>
> Thank you for reading!
>
> --Roland
- Dan
