November 15, 2010

Feliks Zemdegs!

That's the world record: 6.77 seconds. (Via Bloggingheads.)


Scott M said...

Wouldn't it suck if you had a superpower, but it was completely useless in speedsolving a Rubiks?

Pretty amazing stuff, though. One wonders what connections his brain has that other lack.

MadisonMan said...

That is wicked cool.

Triangle Man said...

completely useless in combat.

That's the guy you want flying your drone.

AJ Lynch said...

Yikes - I have been trying for more than 6.77 YEARS! And I still can't finish it.

john said...

completely useless in combat

WTF? You need to keep up with the times:

THE Rubik's Cube is making a comeback this year as thousands of British children adapt it into a handy killing machine.

The 1980s toy had fallen out of favour with the nation's youngsters as its lightweight plastic structure was believed to make it virtually useless when seeking to kill or maim.

But the six-sided Hungarian puzzle has enjoyed a surge in popularity after youngsters discovered they could stuff it inside a football sock and swing it at someone's head. Julian Cook, a senior toy buyer with a leading department store, said: "Clackers got a big boost last year as they are a tremendously efficient way of temporarily disabling someone while you steal their phone.

Wayne Hayes, a 15 year-old psychopath from Swindon, said the Rubik’s Cube was mentally challenging and 'great fun once it was covered with bits of broken glass'

c3 said...

If I understand correctly (and I've never "solved" Rubik's cube) its an algorithm. So I assume with lots of practice applying algorithm rapidly the rate limiting steps are:
1)pattern recognition once the cube is manipulated
2)how quickly the cube can be adjusted by human hands
3) minimum number of "adjustments" to take a randomly jumbled cube to completion.

I bet someone has already figured out the shortest possible time.

E.M. Davis said...

And yet poor Feliks can't solve the mystery of the bra strap.

Original Mike said...

Gee, and I was happy back in the day when I got below one minute.

Triangle Man said...

I bet someone has already figured out the shortest possible time.

You are correct. It takes no more than 20 face changes (the rate limiting move) to complete for a perfect solver. This was just published in July of this year using 35 CPU-years of Google's computer time.

MadisonMan said...

That's the guy you want flying your drone.

Yeah, except that, like any 9th grader, he can only concentrate on something for about 10 seconds.

rhhardin said...

Rubik cube for dogs pic (click pic to enlarge)

Leland said...


As Triangle Man pointed out, you have the gist. I decided about a year ago to actually learn how to solve the cube. I can now do 3x3 (2 minutes) and 5x5 (30 minutes). I just learned basic manuevers that can be repeated. But once you know them, you can learn to skip steps.

Personally, once I learned to solve them, I got bored trying to perfect the time. What I did find interesting is the parity checking issues in the cubes. You may note that I haven't messed with a 4x4. The 4x4 has parity problems that can prevent basic routines from solving properly. In fact, you can tell if some one has been disassembling a 3x3 or 5x5 if you run into parity errors, because they otherwise wouldn't have them. To simplify that:
You can take apart a 3x3 and reassemble into a solved solution, but if you take it apart to scramble it; you might introduce a situation that is insolvable.

Scott M said...

You can take apart a 3x3 and reassemble into a solved solution, but if you take it apart to scramble it; you might introduce a situation that is insolvable.

That's extremely interesting as I'd never even considered that was an option. When cubes were all the rage, I used to pop off the corner with a spoon to cheat (give me a break, I was in sixth grade). I never considered putting it back together improperly would result in an unsolvable puzzle.

deborah said...

Hoist on her own hula hoop.

Kensington said...

I've always loved the Rubik's Cube, and when I was in high school I bought a book which taught me how to solve one.

I got so good at it I could do it in under one minute.

I can still do the top 3/4 of one, and still do it in under a minute, but I've long since forgotten the patterns for solving that bottom panel.

Leland said...

Yeah Scott, I found it interesting too, which is why I mentioned it. But checking back made me think of the 4x4. I guess since it can get parity errors, then it may not have the same problem. In other words, maybe you can take it apart and scramble it, but still always be able to solve it (once you learn how to resolve the parity errors).

I actually had someone give me a messed up 3x3, so I've done that experiment first hand.

Another thing for those interested. A 5x5 really isn't much harder than a 3x3 to solve, once you konw the steps. It is slower to solve only because it is a beast to handle. You can see in the video that the person never gets all the edges to be even before being considered complete. The 3x3 is a little forgiving in manipulating like that. A 5x5 is not.

Original Mike said...

Of course, to go fast you have to lube your cube. I used vaseline.

Methadras said...

If this plays his cubes right, when he gets older, the ladies will be attracted to his digital manipulations.

Lawgiver said...

That's the guy you want flying your drone.

Maybe in the Army or the Marines but not in the Air Force. See, to fly a drone in the Air Force you have to be an officer. And he doesn't look like officer material to me. Now as an enlisted slug he could man the drone's sensor console but not fly it. Can't have them enlisted Air Force folks fly things, that's for officers only.

EP1CStar said...

Leland said that a 5x5 is no harder than a 3x3. However, as someone who can solve 2x2-10x10, i can safely say that the method used for solving a 5x5 is completely different. You use your 3x3 knowledge at the end of the solve, but during the proccess it's a completely different method you use in the 4x4. Once you can solve a 5x5 though, you can theoretically solve a 100x100.