Twenty years of speedcubing (2003) | Hacker News Reader

Twenty years of speedcubing (2003)

ws.binghamton.edu

86 pointsweinzierl22 comments

My favorite line of this story is "I use the Fridrich method, too, because I am Fridrich."

I learned to solve the cube, albeit slowly, but my experience is the same- people ask me to show them how to solve it but are mostly disappointed and get bored when I show them the algorithms.

Here is the whole paragraph for context:

„I remember one really funny story that happened to me on a train when I commuted to college from my home town. A guy was sitting next to me playing with the cube. I asked him about his system. He said: "I am using the Fridrich method." I asked with a surprise in my voice: "You actually memorized ALL algorithms?" His answer was: "No, that's too much. I know only some of them." I replied with: "Well, you need to memorize all of them otherwise you are not really utilizing its strength." He looked at me frawning and said with his mouth half open: "Yeah, so what's your system?" I answered with a big smile: "I use the Fridrich method, too, because I am Fridrich." He did not blink an eye, did not say anything and handed me his messed-up cube. I solved the cube in about 20 seconds to prove my words and we both laughed at the coincidence.“

To elaborate a bit: CFOP (aka Fridrich method but that name is dicouraged) stands for Cross, First 2 layers (aka F2L), Orientation of the last layer and Permutation of the last layer. The first two steps can be done intuitively without the need to memorize any algorithms (unless you want to learn a few for a handful of trickier F2L cases). Algorithms come for the last two steps which both involve the last layer. First step, OLL is to make so that the last face is the same color. I.e. if you started with the white cross, in OLL you need to orient each cubelet so that yellow side is on the top. If you want to do that in one step you need to learn 57 algorithms—one for each possible position. Then comes PLL, which is moving cubelets so that they are positioned in correct places. To do this in single step you will need 21 more algorithm.

So that's a total of the 78 algorithms for the last layer.

If you are not willing to learn that many you can go by using what's called four-look-last-layer (4LLL) for you use a couple of steps to solve OLL and a couple of steps to solve PLL. One step solves orientation/permutation of edges, another—corners. For OLL you can get by with just 10 algorithms: 3 for edges, 7 for corners, and for PLL you need 6 more—3 for edges, 4 for corners. So 16 instead of 78.

I've never got into cubing for speed, but I've long thought that http://beust.com/rubik/ is one of the best ways to start building a feeling for solves. Last layer is only 4 short algorithms (though you may need to hit them a couple of times).

1. cross 2. orientate 3. permutate 4. solve

Is there a chart somewhere that shows the trade-off between "number of patterns and algorithms to memorize" vs "number of steps to solve"?

Yep, I learned that way too. I didn't know that method went by a name.

> people ask me to show them how to solve it but are mostly disappointed and get bored when I show them the algorithms.

I like that reaction because it helps you sort out people with some level of grit for solving things (i.e. those who would actually attempt to learn it) from those who have none.

I agree with you that it does help you sort out the wheat from the chaff. Although after some reflection, I also think that the dissatisfaction is in part due with the realization that one can solve the cube with little spacial awareness, a large motivator for Ernő when he constructed his original "magic cube".

Alternate interpretation: people are slightly interested in the puzzle and make an internal decision that they would prefer to take the time to learn to solve other problems (in work or life) rather than to spend the effort on what is explicitly a puzzle when they learn what would be involved.

Hah, I think this was one of the first things I read when I got into speedcubing, back in '08. The history of the puzzle is fascinating, whether you wish to learn to solve or not. Plenty of vintage websites to explore, too. Cubers now refer to the method Fridrich used as CFOP, partly since it was independently derived by a couple others around the same time.

The World Cube Association is staffed by really brilliant, wonderful people - and the website/solveDB is open source. If you can solve, I would recommend checking the site for upcoming competitions. You'll likely make friends.

Fun-fact: the YouTuber Badmephisto made the best tutorials back in the day ('08-'10) - nowadays he is better known as Andrej Karpathy and works at Tesla. Users may know him for the online Stanford deep learning courses.

(I used to hold the UK single record, AMA)

Did not know about Badmephisto being at Tesla -- I remember having printed out his tutorials and guides to improve my time. Good days.

Have your experiences with other cubers been similar to those of Fridrich's? Mine definitely have -- it's curious how "cubing culture" has developed to be very similar everywhere.

For people wondering: the current world records are below 5 seconds. They have been achieved with a method called CFOP which is strongly inspired from Fridrich.

Another very different method of solving the cube is called Roux and its best practitioners can solve the cube within 8-9 seconds. It's unclear whether that method will be improved to reach the level of CFOP but it's very elegant and fun to watch (lot of middle slices).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np2G0yr5xI0

Breakdown of a quick solve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O2FmT_6pGc

History of records from 1982 to 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w_5MQq9Aq8

I'm trying to learn to speedcube after recently relearning the slow solve algorithms. CFOP/Fridrich is very different from the traditional layer-by-layer method, and holding the cube "upside down," minimizing cube turns and trying to look ahead involves a lot of unlearning. (I first learned to solve the cube, not for time, in undergrad in '82 from a friend who had wild names for the algorithms like the "gabingabang," the "double gabinggabang," and the "kerflipkaflop.")

Cracking the Cube [1] is a fun and comprehensive look at the history of speedcubing, including the author's own quest to hit a sub-20.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29430754-cracking-the-cu...

And Max Deutsch chronicles his 30-day quest to hit a sub-20 in his excellent Month-to-Master series (which I was sure I first encountered here, but can't seem to find). [1]

[1] https://medium.com/the-mission/my-month-long-quest-to-solve-...

Cool story. I got one when visiting France on holidays in my teens just when they came out in volume. I really don't remember anything else from that holiday.

I average ~25 seconds myself. Cool to see this here on HN!

Why is this tagged as 2003?

That's when it was written...

https://web.archive.org/web/20030408125532/http://www.ws.bin...

But then, why is it called "twenty years of speedcubing", if he started in 1981?

> Later in 1982, I changed my F2L system to the current system. [..] By 1983, I was consistently averaging 17 seconds. I knew three more cubers capable of achieving sub-20 averages consistently. We practiced together. As the cube rage cooled down, I stopped working on my system.

Maybe she considers 1983 as the year speedcubing was born? Maybe she just meant round about 20 years. Maybe she wrote it in 2001 and published it in 2003?

I put it there because, to the best of my knowledge, this is the date it was first published.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com