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!
Rubik's Cube
| 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/
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: | ||
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.
Related topics
 |