Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: STM God's Number?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    WCA Profile
    2010zivs01
    YouTube
    shai1234569
    Posts
    139

    Default STM God's Number?

    Hey guys,
    As you know, God's number is 20 ... or isn't it?
    Currently, all the research was done in HTM http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/ind...lf_Turn_Metric
    I really don't like this system for many reasons (if M is two moves because it is R L', than L is two moves because it is R M'), And prefer STM
    http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/ind...ce_Turn_Metric
    So I thought, is God's Number smaller in STM? It probably is, but I could not find an article about it when I searched the web.
    For example, in HTM it is proven that superflip cannot be done in less than 20 moves, though in STM it takes only 16.
    Any thoughts/ideas?
    Shai

  2. #2
    Member Ranzha V. Emodrach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, United States
    WCA Profile
    2009HARN01
    YouTube
    RanzhaTheLoneCuber
    Posts
    1,743

    Default

    I wonder this too.

    But L is only one move. Honestly, I think HTM should be renamed to "Face Turn Metric" permanently.
    Overall, I think | Skewb
    Having sigs allow three lines | 3x3: ~13
    Isn't a huge deal. | Skewb: ~7

  3. #3
    Member qqwref's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA Profile
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube
    qqwref2
    Posts
    6,333

    Default

    I don't think it's known. IIRC it's harder to calculate an optimal slice turn movecount than an optimal face turn movecount. It's an interesting question though.
    Computer cube PB averages of 12: [Clock: 5.72] [Pyraminx: 3.44] [Megaminx: 49.52]
    [2x2: 2.66] [3x3: 8.71] [4x4: 29.06] [5x5: 52.69] [6x6: 1:34.78] [7x7: 2:20.34]

  4. #4
    Member Ked Ki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    13

    Default

    I believe that they found the HTM God's number by simple exhaustion; they just ran every cube state through an optimal solver. I suppose they chose HTM as opposed to STM simply because for STM they'd have to have more turns (the slice moves) programmed in, which would have slowed the search program down considerably.

  5. #5
    Member qqwref's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    a <script> tag near you
    WCA Profile
    2006GOTT01
    YouTube
    qqwref2
    Posts
    6,333

    Default

    I found an 18s* state (cube20.org's "hardest position):

    Solution: F E' F' D2 L2 B L E2 S2 L' U' S' D' L2 D2 S2 U F2 y x' (18s*)

    EDIT: OK, according to http://cubezzz.dyndns.org/drupal/?q=node/view/200 18s* positions are relatively common (millions) so it's looking like if there are 19s* positions they are very rare.
    Last edited by qqwref; 08-04-2012 at 02:53 PM.
    Computer cube PB averages of 12: [Clock: 5.72] [Pyraminx: 3.44] [Megaminx: 49.52]
    [2x2: 2.66] [3x3: 8.71] [4x4: 29.06] [5x5: 52.69] [6x6: 1:34.78] [7x7: 2:20.34]

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ked Ki View Post
    I believe that they found the HTM God's number by simple exhaustion; they just ran every cube state through an optimal solver. I suppose they chose HTM as opposed to STM simply because for STM they'd have to have more turns (the slice moves) programmed in, which would have slowed the search program down considerably.
    No, running every cube state through an optimal solver will not solve the problem, at least not within your lifetime. If you really want to know more details, have a look at

    http://cube20.org/
    and
    http://kociemba.org/performance.htm

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •