
Not sure if this is the right board to post this, but I was just wondering if anyone knew links to a good site explaining the quickest algorithms to solve a Rubik's Cube. It takes me 5 minutes, and the world record is about 9 seconds, so I know I'm missing something!
scallywag wrote:  I'm missing something! 
An appalling amount of practice? If you kept practicing for decades, you probably could beat the record with the method you're using.
Yeah. Just practice. Or like alter your brain so that you'd be able to do such a feat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsQIoPyfQzM
That should act as a good starting point. There are many algorithmic approaches to solving the cube  I remember 30 years ago (yes, it really is that long) being amazed when one of my fellow A level maths student started to write one such solution on the board. (He was, I should add, a genius who later came to a sad end )
PS
http://jeays.net/rubiks.htm
http://www.schubart.net/rc/
http://www.rubiks.com/
I developed my own method a few years ago that allows me to solve it in about a minute. The key to solving it in just seconds are the algorithms that you use. From what I've heard, the Fridrich method is the most common method used in speed cubing. You can look it up online. I do not know how to do it because I refuse to look up other people's methods; I like to figure things out for myself.
anyone ever seen those 100 sided rubiks cubes? i think they're only available in software form though
I can probably solve a cube in a little more than 5 minutes using the layers method (I'm not sure what the actual name of this method is). However, it is not an efficient method at all. I would assume that the people who set the world records also have very loose and oiled cubes as opposed to mine which catches half the time and refuses to turn a certain way.
Like everyone said, practice, it use to take me 5 minutes to finish it. But after 3 months non stop hardcore cubing i managed to reduce my time to 40 seconds. Just keep practicing and soon you'll recognise the algorithms.
jabce85 wrote:  anyone ever seen those 100 sided rubiks cubes? i think they're only available in software form though 
Yeah I've seen them.. There's a video here of a computer solving it. Don't know whether it's real or fake lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CruqZhN_5D8
I used the petrus method to solve my cube, i managed to get a time around 20~25 seconds, but I oiled my cube on a regular basis. I'm even able to do it with my feet
lol i can only do the first layer and if im lucky i can do the 2nd as well
ocalhoun wrote:  scallywag wrote:  I'm missing something! 
An appalling amount of practice? If you kept practicing for decades, you probably could beat the record with the method you're using. 
I doubt it. I developed my own method a few years back that allows me to solve it in about a minute or so... I then found someone who uses some "Fridrich" method (that he learned online... That's one thing I hate about the internet; you're basically raping the hard work of someone else instead of figuring it out yourself) and he can solve it in under 20 seconds... He said that most "speed cubers" use the Fridrich method... I do not think that, with my method, I could ever solve it that quick because I am moving the cube extremely quickly and taking no breaks to think (I've done it so many times, that I have my method down to where I can do it without thinking  based on pattern recognition). My method is just simply too inefficient. I work on the cube section by section whereas "his" (it wasn't really his method) method did multiple parts at once and cut out a lot of the steps I do... So in order to get down that quick, you really need to get a good method.
Lucky you! I was never able to solve it just by trying again, and again, and again. After a while this game is not interesting anymore.
I never ever solved one, i keep trying to but the only solution i can probably do is called remove stickers and place them on one side .. hehe. It does come in handy on long travels, plane trips and very extended boredom.
Not meaning to sound arrogant, but what kind of enjoyment does one gain when mechanically spinning around a cube and all? I mean, most people just study the algorithm rather than solve the thing by one's self. It's sort of counterproductive that way. I mean a robot can be programmed to do that. Maybe you should try something that requires a little more creativity and freethinking?
Or maybe I'm just bitter that I can't solve it by myself. Lol.
guissmo wrote:  I mean, most people just study the algorithm rather than solve the thing by one's self. It's sort of counterproductive that way. 
Exactly! I spent several months back in high school working on the Rubik's cube and was so excited when I finally figured out how to solve it. Many, many kids at my school were extremely impressed and so they went home and looked up solutions on how to do it. Then everybody at school was able to solve one. That made me pretty annoyed because you should learn to do it yourself. What's the point in doing it if you're just going to cheat? That's like looking up the solutions to a crossword puzzle. I hate the fact that you can now easily get solutions on youtube...
Quote:  Or maybe I'm just bitter that I can't solve it by myself. Lol. 
If you can't solve it yourself, keep trying. Just don't be like most people and try to do it side by side  that's impossible. The best advice I can give you is to simply do it layer by layer. And make sure that you're not just putting colors on the appropriate side  make sure that each individual cube is in a place that makes sense for all of the sides. Just approach it step by step and try to find patterns.
By the way, that advice I just gave you was essentially the same advice that someone gave me when I was trying to figure it out and several months later I succeeded...
The quickest way of solving the rubiks cube would be the zb method, it's an expanded version of fridrich, but it requires about 1000 algorithms to learn, and I'm sure noone wants to learn that
If you really want to get quick times, you should start by learning fridrich first two layer algorithm, then 2 look last layer (orient and permute). Last layer orienting can be made easier by making a cross on top first, this gives a lot less possible combinations while only adding about 2 seconds of time.
petrus method is good for fewest move contest though, but for speedcubing fridrich is better (atleast that's what i think ).
My current favorite method is Gilles Roux though, you make two 2x3 blocks on left and right layer, then do the remaining corners, and after that you do the last edges. It's a really fun method even though I'm not really quick at it
From one side to the other  or is there a more basic and faster way to solve it?
Use Badmephisto's YouTube tutorials and reference his website. I used his tutorials to bring my best time down to 28 seconds, but getting any faster takes a lot of practice. Others have mentioned the Fridrich method and I agree that it is the best way to start, once you've mastered that method you'll be pretty quick and be able to make more informed decisions about trying other methods. After learning the basic method, which I assume you already know some variation of, I recommend learning 2look OLL, F2L (which requires constant practice), PLL and then full OLL in that order.
I'm surprised noone has mentioned Badmephisto yet!
ocalhoun wrote:  An appalling amount of practice? If you kept practicing for decades, you probably could beat the record with the method you're using. 
I don't think so, the methods the most advanced solvers use require fewer stages and turns so they actually have less movement to do, and it's near impossible to move faster than them.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  What's the point in doing it if you're just going to cheat? That's like looking up the solutions to a crossword puzzle. I hate the fact that you can now easily get solutions on youtube. 
For some people, the satisfaction is in solving the puzzle as quickly as possible or simply being able to solve it, rather in figuring out the solution for themselves.
I recommend simply being content to solve it, but if that's your thing, then go for it. If you can get it in two or three minutes, you're fine. Under a minute, good. Under thirty seconds, and you're clearly trying hard and most likely competing with others in your spare time.
recently on the news scientists found that any rubik's cube combination can be solved in 20 steps.
I wish I had the power to find those 20 steps.
iman wrote:  recently on the news scientists found that any rubik's cube combination can be solved in 20 steps.
I wish I had the power to find those 20 steps. 
Interesting, they finally found 'God's number'! The article is here for anyone interested.
Oiling your cube is a major step forward. It will make it far easier to turn it and that will save you a lot of time.
HoytJolly wrote:  Oiling your cube is a major step forward. It will make it far easier to turn it and that will save you a lot of time. 
This is only useful for somebody who is already very good and really looking to shave off more time. It's a lot of effort to lube up a cube and is really unnecessary if you're getting anything over one minute (unless the cube is awfully sticky!). I use Vasaline to lubricate.
I have come to the realization that I will never be good at the rub cube
what do you mean by layers? sorry I didn't go through those websites, I want to figure it out by myself, and so far I've got a side and 2x3 on the sides around it  it means that i need to solve the full side opposite the first one. The thing is I see I'll mess up what I've done so far if I want to solve the missing side.
Mrs Lycos wrote:  what do you mean by layers? sorry I didn't go through those websites, I want to figure it out by myself, and so far I've got a side and 2x3 on the sides around it  it means that i need to solve the full side opposite the first one. The thing is I see I'll mess up what I've done so far if I want to solve the missing side. 
I congratulate you for not going through the website. It's better to figure it out on your own. However, if you ever do, you will realize that you most likely have to solve it by layers. That means that you want to get one side completely solved and then work your way down. After one side is solved, the top layer should be finished (if you solve the top correctly) so then you attack the middle pieces  correctly getting each one in position. Then you work on the third and bottom layer and when you finish that, you will be done!
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  What's the point in doing it if you're just going to cheat? That's like looking up the solutions to a crossword puzzle. I hate the fact that you can now easily get solutions on youtube. 
For some people, the satisfaction is in solving the puzzle as quickly as possible or simply being able to solve it, rather in figuring out the solution for themselves.[/quote]
Hmmm... Let's both work on a math problem. However, I will give you both the solution and the steps needed to get there. Didn't that just defeat the purpose? Or let's see how fast you can solve a crossword puzzle with the answer key given to you ahead of time.
It's one thing to receive advice but it's another to have an entire answer given to you. That's not the point of any puzzle. Furthermore, I feel sorry for you if you receive satisfaction, as you called it, for simply being able to solve it all it because you watched a youtube video that spoon fed you a solution.
I have looked at website to find out faster methods of solving the rubik's cube  simply because I was mildly interested in finding out how speedcubers do it. But ultimately, my slow  but simple  method was derived by myself and that's ultimately where any and all satisfaction comes from. I would have even more satisfaction if I derived a more efficient method but after merely solving the cube a few times I moved on to other puzzles...
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  Hmmm... Let's both work on a math problem. However, I will give you both the solution and the steps needed to get there. Didn't that just defeat the purpose? Or let's see how fast you can solve a crossword puzzle with the answer key given to you ahead of time. 
Your example is dissimilar to the issue at hand. Also, amusingly, you are given the solution of a Rubik's cube before you begin  the solved cube! So it's more like being given a maths problem with it's answer and being asked how to get there. Continuing this example, I'd say it's a little like having a page of equations to integrate. Let's say somebody teaches me how to integrate before I begin whereas you, on the other hand, aren't taught but have to work out how to integrate from first principles. It's still possible for both of us to enjoy solving the problems.
You seem to have failed to understand what I said. Read again: "for some people, the satisfaction is in solving the puzzle as quickly as possible or simply being able to solve it, rather in figuring out the solution for themselves". I am stating a fact. It is true that some people enjoy solving the Rubik's cube as fast as possible. You don't think this is the point, but that doesn't change the fact.
Just for your information, my friend showed me how to solve the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube and I enjoy solving it as quickly as I can. For the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 cubes, I have never learned any algorithms but just do it intuitively  this is fun, but it's a different pleasure that I get from speedsolving the 3x3x3.
Mrs Lycos wrote:  what do you mean by layers? 
If you look at a single face of the cube you will see three rows of three squares. A bottom layer, a middle layer, and a top layer. When we say "layer" we mean not just the three squares on one cubeface but the squares all the way around the 4 sides you see if you rotate the cube. We say a layer is complete when the pieces from it are in place, so when you've completed the bottom or top layers, a side will also be complete. I hope that makes sense.
ninjakannon wrote: 
Your example is dissimilar to the issue at hand. Also, amusingly, you are given the solution of a Rubik's cube before you begin  the solved cube! So it's more like being given a maths problem with it's answer and being asked how to get there. Continuing this example, I'd say it's a little like having a page of equations to integrate. Let's say somebody teaches me how to integrate before I begin whereas you, on the other hand, aren't taught but have to work out how to integrate from first principles. It's still possible for both of us to enjoy solving the problems. 
No. You're failing to understand how math really works. My situation isn't dissimilar; it's very similar. In math, you are often given a solution and you have to show how to get there! When you're applying math then what you said comes into play. Mathematicians will often see a pattern, and then make a conjecture. It is their job to then prove the conjecture. Most math classes will tell you something (a solution if you will) and then you have to prove it. It's the same thought process. If I said to prove that two similar matrices have the same eigenvalues with the same algebraic multiplicities (and I am using this as an example because a few hours ago I helped somebody with this) then you know exactly that two similar matrices have the same eigenvalues with the same algebraic multiplicities  it's given to you! You then have to figure out, logically, what steps you need to take to prove it. That's really what math is about at its heart...
Quote: 
You seem to have failed to understand what I said. Read again: "for some people, the satisfaction is in solving the puzzle as quickly as possible or simply being able to solve it, rather in figuring out the solution for themselves". I am stating a fact. It is true that some people enjoy solving the Rubik's cube as fast as possible. You don't think this is the point, but that doesn't change the fact. 
And as I said, "Furthermore, I feel sorry for you if you receive satisfaction, as you called it, for simply being able to solve it all it because you watched a youtube video that spoon fed you a solution." Did I even remotely deny that some people receive this satisfaction? No. I just said that I feel sorry for you if you receive satisfaction from someone giving you a solution to a problem.
Quote: 
Just for your information, my friend showed me how to solve the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube and I enjoy solving it as quickly as I can. For the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 cubes, I have never learned any algorithms but just do it intuitively  this is fun, but it's a different pleasure that I get from speedsolving the 3x3x3. 
That's nice. And if you want a little advice on a 4x4x4 (i haven't touched a 5x5x5), try grouping the colors together in the center and then (most of the time) you can solve it like a 3x3 after that... But sometimes you get this weird situation and supposedly there's some long algorithm to fix it but as I have no idea what it is, at the point I usually just mess up the cube and try it again hoping that the scenario doesn't come up next time. So it takes me a while to do a 4x4x4
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  No. You're failing to understand how math really works. My situation isn't dissimilar; it's very similar. In math, you are often given a solution and you have to show how to get there! When you're applying math then what you said comes into play. Mathematicians will often see a pattern, and then make a conjecture. It is their job to then prove the conjecture. Most math classes will tell you something (a solution if you will) and then you have to prove it. It's the same thought process. If I said to prove that two similar matrices have the same eigenvalues with the same algebraic multiplicities (and I am using this as an example because a few hours ago I helped somebody with this) then you know exactly that two similar matrices have the same eigenvalues with the same algebraic multiplicities  it's given to you! You then have to figure out, logically, what steps you need to take to prove it. That's really what math is about at its heart... 
I appear to have misunderstood your initial example, as I did not realise you meant that the solution was given, which is like the Rubik's cube. In my own example I said that we were given the solution, so it's essentially the same as yours.
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  And as I said, "Furthermore, I feel sorry for you if you receive satisfaction, as you called it, for simply being able to solve it all it because you watched a youtube video that spoon fed you a solution." Did I even remotely deny that some people receive this satisfaction? No. I just said that I feel sorry for you if you receive satisfaction from someone giving you a solution to a problem. 
No, of course you did not deny that some people receive satisfaction. Why, out of interest, do you feel sorry for me that the method was given to me? The pleasure I get out of it is different from the pleasure you get. You get satisfaction from finding a method to reach the solution. I get satisfaction from improving my time in coming to the solution via a given method. What is there to be sorry for?
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  That's nice. And if you want a little advice on a 4x4x4 (i haven't touched a 5x5x5), try grouping the colors together in the center and then (most of the time) you can solve it like a 3x3 after that... But sometimes you get this weird situation and supposedly there's some long algorithm to fix it but as I have no idea what it is, at the point I usually just mess up the cube and try it again hoping that the scenario doesn't come up next time. So it takes me a while to do a 4x4x4 
Yeah, I found grouping the edges together works on the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5. I think the weird solution you talk about is called 'parity'. I have absolutely no idea how to efficiently get out of that yet, it takes me ages to finally sort it out!
Afaceinthematrix wrote:  Mrs Lycos wrote:  what do you mean by layers? sorry I didn't go through those websites, I want to figure it out by myself, and so far I've got a side and 2x3 on the sides around it  it means that i need to solve the full side opposite the first one. The thing is I see I'll mess up what I've done so far if I want to solve the missing side. 
I congratulate you for not going through the website. It's better to figure it out on your own. However, if you ever do, you will realize that you most likely have to solve it by layers. That means that you want to get one side completely solved and then work your way down. After one side is solved, the top layer should be finished (if you solve the top correctly) so then you attack the middle pieces  correctly getting each one in position. Then you work on the third and bottom layer and when you finish that, you will be done!

Well then I've got till the point I have 2 layers completed, will keep working from there then! thanks for your help
I have also a Rubik's Cube and for me it takes forever to get everything in the right position. I can solve about an half of the Rubik's cube myself, but then I have to watch the manual.
I just don't have the patience to find it my self .. loads of website available on how to solve it structurally. So curiosity killed the cat and I now know that working with layers easily brings you the solution. After a top layer and 2 rings on each side , a cross on the bottom layer is the next step, then the corner points and finally rotate these corner points in the correct direction (without messing up the rest
once you've done .. throw that stupid cubic in the bin !
Why would you throw a perfectly good cube in the bin [/badjoke]
On a more serious note though, I just did my first blindfold solve!
Memorisation took 10 minutes and solving took 20, which is pretty good for a first solve I think .
