# Inspired by Google...Am I the only one whose first thought was to take a Rubik's Cube apart? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 19, 2014, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713 "2014-05-19T04:06:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/21 "2014-05-19T08:29:10Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I could be failing to remember some requisite setup before following the purely memorized pattern but if so it was something trival - I was in the 6th grade. No concept of these algorithms whatsoever. And without understanding any of the math or geometry involved could produce a solved cube by simply following a pre-defined series of moves. You’re right that it would seem to dilute the significance of contests and such if one formula always solves any cube. Sixth grade wasn’t THAT long ago for me. I may be overlooking something to the scam but for the most part it was simple for someone with no understanding of the puzzle to solve it by sheer memorization. Well an algorithm in this case is just a memorized series of moves. You are correct that the puzzle can be solved by sheer memorization. It is simply - use this series of moves to get it to be like this. Then use this series of moves if X or do this if Y. I wouldn’t say that you can do it with “no understanding” of the puzzle - as knowing the moves is knowing the puzzle (I get what you mean though) - but you could use the link I gave you (and I have) to solve any cube. It would probably take someone with reasonable intelligence and reading comprehension 20-40 minutes to read through and solve a cube in front of them for first time. It requires knowing eight sets of moves. I think I was doing it in like 6 minutes or so after my first few times. So no one you see solving a cube on YouTube is “solving” the cube as in - how do I get this side to be green. They are using a set of pre defined (and usually universally known) moves to solve the cube. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/22 "2014-05-19T08:31:17Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > How could any fixed list of 20 moves possibly solve all/any of 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 different stating positions? It’s an absurd notion. It wasn’t necessarily 20 moves or less as shown in that infographic, which may well be saying that no matter what the starting point it can be solved in 20 moves or less but not necessarily the same 20 moves. I seem to remember it being more than 20 moves but not hundreds. I still remember my friends name… I may just try to find him on facebook and ask him to remind me exactly what it was he showed me almost 30 years ago. But the bottom line is that without any understanding of the cube and as far as I can remember, zero or very minimal awareness of how the colors were arranged at any given point, following the same sequences would eventually solve the cube. How does the guy in video do it blindfolded after a cursory examination of the starting position? ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/23 "2014-05-19T08:38:22Z")
> [@DataX](#): > > Well an algorithm in this case is just a memorized series of moves. You are correct that the puzzle can be solved by sheer memorization. It is simply - use this series of moves to get it to be like this. Then use this series of moves if X or do this if Y. I wouldn’t say that you can do it with “no understanding” of the puzzle - as knowing the moves is knowing the puzzle (I get what you mean though) - but you could use the link I gave you (and I have) to solve any cube. It would probably take someone with reasonable intelligence and reading comprehension 20-40 minutes to read through and solve a cube in front of them for first time. It requires knowing eight sets of moves. I think I was doing it in like 6 minutes or so after my first few times. > > So no one you see solving a cube on YouTube is “solving” the cube as in - how do I get this side to be green. They are using a set of pre defined (and usually universally known) moves to solve the cube. Ah well then this must have been the case, and basically what I described in my first post minus a relatively small detail. Maybe it required a little bit of attention to what the positions were - e.g. IF this pattern, THEN this movement… but fundamentally this still meant the cube could be solved by simply following a memorized set of moves. I was reminded of this by the OP - while our friends were taking their cubes apart or peeling the stickers off in frustration, we were able to confound and annoy them by solving the cube quickly and easily. At first he was the only one who could do this and he confided in me this ‘trick’ which worked for me too. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/24 "2014-05-19T08:47:26Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > It wasn’t necessarily 20 moves or less as shown in that infographic, which may well be saying that no matter what the starting point it can be solved in 20 moves or less but not necessarily the same 20 moves. > > I seem to remember it being more than 20 moves but not hundreds. I still remember my friends name… I may just try to find him on facebook and ask him to remind me exactly what it was he showed me almost 30 years ago. Any starting position can be solved in 20 moves or fewer - that has been mathematically proven (or so I understand), but that’s not the same set of 20 moves for every starting point. It can’t be. > [@](#): > > But the bottom line is that without any understanding of the cube and as far as I can remember, zero or very minimal awareness of how the colors were arranged at any given point, following the same sequences would eventually solve the cube. Cannot possibly be true. It doesn’t matter if it’s 20 fixed moves or 1000 fixed moves - that will only cycle you through at most 20 (or 1000) combinations of the cube, leaving 43,252,003,274,489,855,880 (or 43,252,003,274,489,855,000) combinations unaddressed. > [@](#): > > How does the guy in video do it blindfolded after a cursory examination of the starting position? He’s memorising the starting configuration (as in photographic memory) and solving it using groups of formulaic moves that are each partial solutions for patterns he’s observed on the cube - or something like that. There can’t be a small, fixed set of moves that solves every starting position. It’s impossible. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/25 "2014-05-19T08:50:46Z")
I took the stickers off. A guy at work got one, let me borrow it, he didn’t believe me when I told him what I’d done. Then with some guys at work we figured out how to disassemble them just to prove our theory of how it worked mechanically. Then we drove one guy crazy by moving stickers so the same color was on two faces of a corner. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/26 "2014-05-19T08:51:58Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > It wasn’t necessarily 20 moves or less as shown in that infographic, which may well be saying that no matter what the starting point it can be solved in 20 moves or less but not necessarily the same 20 moves. > > I seem to remember it being more than 20 moves but not hundreds. I still remember my friends name… I may just try to find him on facebook and ask him to remind me exactly what it was he showed me almost 30 years ago. > > But the bottom line is that without any understanding of the cube and as far as I can remember, zero or very minimal awareness of how the colors were arranged at any given point, following the same sequences would eventually solve the cube. > > How does the guy in video do it blindfolded after a cursory examination of the starting position? [http://www.personal.psu.edu/pfg115/rubiks/blind.htm](http://www.personal.psu.edu/pfg115/rubiks/blind.htm) Is how you do it blindfolded. Basically the same way you do it not blindfolded, but with algos and memorizations setup to make it easier to be idiot proof when you can’t see. You have to study the cube and figure out what set of moves to apply - then do it. There are tons of internet resources on how to solve the cube. None of it is rocket science - and there isn’t anything being done that anyone else can’t do (it’s just hard to do fast). It is a very well understood and document process. The more algos you memorize - the less moves you need to make. The people that are super competitive will remember sometimes over 100 different algos, but this is the very fringe. You can do it reasonably well in as few as 8 (maybe fewer - but not one). It is the law of diminishing returns - each extra algorithm or edge case you memorize is only going to shave a little bit off your time. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/27 "2014-05-19T09:00:51Z")
Also keep in mind that if you are memorizing moves - you aren’t really memorizing 35 moves or something - you are memorizing usually eight or more patterns. Once you know the patterns of moves (algo) - and do it enough - it is more like muscle memory. You aren’t thinking move this corner twice - you are thinking “ok do the cross” or “position the edges” or whatever. Here is a prettier guide: [http://www.youcandothecube.com/downloads/Solution\_Guide.pdf](http://www.youcandothecube.com/downloads/Solution_Guide.pdf) However I must have read something wrong on that one - as it wasn’t until I read the guide I posted earlier that I solved the cube. I think the prettier one had something I found confusing in one of the steps - although don’t remember 100% now. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/28 "2014-05-19T09:01:50Z")
Look at it another way - suppose you have a sequence of five fixed moves (it doesn’t matter what they are, if they are the same every time) named A, B, C, D, E… You can only solve five different starting positions with this sequence - that is, the cubes that are: solved minus EDCBA solved minus DCBA solved minus CBA solved minus BA solved minus A A fixed sequence of moves cannot solve more starting positions than the number of those fixed moves. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/29 "2014-05-19T09:02:34Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > There can’t be a small, fixed set of moves that solves every starting position. It’s impossible. Yes, with DataX’s explanation of how the cube is properly solved I now realize that all my friend showed me was how to properly solve the cube. It seemed like a ‘trick’ at the time because I could solve it by simply repeating memorized series of moves. The only thing I apparently failed to remember is that I needed to pay some attention to the arrangement of colors as I walked through those memorized steps to determine which series of memorized steps to apply. The point is that anyone who can memorize a set of rules can solve the cube without need to take the stickers off. That isn’t really the same thing as having to mentally wrestle with 43,252,003,274,489,855,880 (or 43,252,003,274,489,855,000) combinations of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/30 "2014-05-19T09:11:26Z")
Or to put it another way, left to my own devices and cognitive ability, I would have wrestled with those combinations forever or taken the cube apart. But with something a ten year old kid could teach me to memorize, I was able to consistently solve the cube with no new understanding of geometry, 3D space, or puzzle solving ability. To me, that was cheating and the real way to solve the puzzle was to twist and turn and predict and analyze until you manually got all the colors aligned. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/31 "2014-05-19T12:15:30Z")
> [@flatlined](#): > > self reported for terrible typos in the title. I fixed all of them. ---
**Author:** ![chiroptera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@chiroptera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chiroptera)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/32 "2014-05-19T12:20:31Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I fixed all of them. Except it’s [Rubik’s](http://rubiks.com/) cube. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/33 "2014-05-19T12:35:45Z")
Ah, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/34 "2014-05-19T13:29:49Z")
Disassembling the cube and re-assembling it is my standard method of returning the cube to its original state. At a job I worked at several years ago, there was a Rubik’s Cube that they kept out on a table, which several people played with, and one was always solving. When I left, I re-assembled the cube with one of the corner cubes rotated by 120 degrees from the “correct” configuration. No amount of simply manipulating the cube would ever restore it to the “each side one color” state – you’d have to disassemble the cube and re-assemble it with that twist taken out. Then I scrambled the cube so it simply looked like a played-with Rubik’s Cube. This made it impossible to solve. ---
**Author:** ![tonyfop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@tonyfop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tonyfop)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/35 "2014-05-19T15:00:32Z")
I just had to jump in here and say that I actually play-tested the cube back in 1980. My next door neighbor worked at Ideal games in Queens, NY, and my brother and I got to play test several of their offerings(The “Jaws” game was another that I remember). The first time I solved it in about 8 hrs. The next day I mixed it up and could not solve it all day, so I re-arranged the stickers. I may have been one of the first in America to solve it the right way, and to cheat. I also play tested the book, and when I was a teenager I could solve it in about 2 minutes. The way I remember it, you solved one side, getting all of the blocks in the correct location (You would have one side, and one complete row on each of the 4 adjacent sides. Then there was an algorithm to get each of the other 4 corners correct. Then there was a series of moves that you would do forever until the rest of the cube was right. I may be wrong however, since I haven’t touched a cube in 20 yrs. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/36 "2014-05-19T16:42:47Z")
I think I disassembled it because I was baffled as to how it could work, not (necessary) to cheat. It seemed impossible to me how it could turn on two right-angled axes and still stay together. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/37 "2014-05-19T16:46:14Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > When I left, I re-assembled the cube with one of the corner cubes rotated by 120 degrees from the “correct” configuration. No amount of simply manipulating the cube would ever restore it to the “each side one color” state – you’d have to disassemble the cube and re-assemble it with that twist taken out. Then I scrambled the cube so it simply looked like a played-with Rubik’s Cube. This made it impossible to solve. I always wondered about this. Are you sure it cannot be manipulated such that a corner can’t be rotated? ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/38 "2014-05-19T16:50:19Z")
Anyone else disappointed by the Rubik’s cube gif on the Google page? What’s with all the white squares, including two completely white sides? That’s no Rubik’s cube! On topic, I didn’t try to take it apart before solving it. I first heard about it in Scot Morris’s Games column in Omni Magazine. His “puzzle” the month he first wrote about it was asking readers to explain how it could mechanically work. The next month, he showed how it was actually put together. I was looking for it to show up in stores, and as soon as it was in the local ad, I bought it, and took it to school with me the next day. Not as early as **tonyfop** by a long shot, but first in my school at least. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/39 "2014-05-19T16:53:26Z")
I solved it…then gave the top row a quarter turn, pried up the top middle piece, took it apart, reassembled it wrong and handed to my buddy. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713/40 "2014-05-19T16:54:12Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I always wondered about this. Are you sure it cannot be manipulated such that a corner can’t be rotated? Yes, that’s one of the three parity factors. You also can’t have just a single edge flipped, or interchange only two cubelets in an otherwise solved cube. If you mark the centers so you can see their orientation, you also can’t give a single center square a 1/4 turn rotation in an otherwise solved cube. You can give a single center square a half-turn, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/inspired-by-google-am-i-the-only-one-whose-first-thought-was-to-take-a-rubiks-cube-apart/688713.md?page=3)