|
|
Welcome to the Speedsolving.com - All Puzzles. All The Time.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the Forums!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
|
Have a question or looking for a particular topic/discussion? Try a quick search below:
|
|
02-09-2010 08:44 AM
|
#31  
|
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 256
|
Originally Posted by StefanPochmann
|
|
You can certainly make it a little challenge, though - who can find the earliest documented competition?
|
Originally Posted by StefanPochmann
|
So I have:
Victor Toth
55 seconds
Jan 4, 1980
|
Funny. This is the same guy I talk about in a blog post I made a while ago about when I started cubing. I mention it near the end when I list some interesting facts that were printed in a solution booklet. Although I didn't mention him by name in that article, I know it's the same guy because he's mentioned by name in the booklet.
I don't think I have any documents that go further back.
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 08:52 AM
|
#32  
|
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,678
|
Originally Posted by jazzthief81
|
|
Funny. This is the same guy I talk about in a blog post
|
It gets funnier: I actually read that just a few days ago, and not the whole page but mostly just the "From noob to novice" section - where you mentioned him.
Eerie...
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 08:54 AM
|
#33  
|
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 4,133
|
Originally Posted by StefanPochmann
|
|
Quote:
|
|
The winner was a 16 year old schoolboy, Hideki Kitajima, with times of 62, 46, 49 seconds (average: 52 1/3 seconds). He won a new Datsun!
|
|
Wow, some nice prizes back then!
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 11:01 AM
|
#36  
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Mumbai, India
Posts: 789
|
Well I read somewhere that "The number of unsolved configurations on a Rubik's cube is a prime number."
__________________
I need to change my signature
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 11:08 AM
|
#37  
|
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,544
|
Originally Posted by rahulkadukar
|
|
Well I read somewhere that "The number of unsolved configurations on a Rubik's cube is a prime number."
|
43,252,003,274,489,856,000
Umm... no.
__________________
My team sucks.
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 11:10 AM
|
#38  
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,888
|
Originally Posted by dunpeal2064
|
|
What was considered the largest (counting layers, not physical size) cube that was believed to be possile to make until recent inventions?
|
This is a pretty common misinterpretation. As someone who was part of the twistypuzzles community before the V-cubes were created I know the real story - people knew it was possible to make arbitrarily large cubes (for instance by making the outer layers really wide, or by making the entire thing perfectly spherical) but they didn't because of aesthetic concerns. Few people wanted to waste money producing a very ugly and complex puzzle that might not even work well if at all. I think a few people did try making the 6x6x6, with different mechanisms, but I don't think any of them turned out stable. In those days people were only (mostly?) interested in cubes with equally sized layers, and that was the goal for anyone who wanted to make a bigger cube.
Anyway, it was shown that the 6x6x6 is the largest cube you can make with evenly sized layers - using the standard mechanisms. So nobody believed bigger cubes were impossible, just that they couldn't be constructed with the normal technique (a bunch of plastic pieces and a core held together internally by their shape, with any layer able to turn without affecting other layers) and with even cubical pieces. People thought bigger cubes should be possible using magnets (the c4y guy made a 9x9x9 out of dice and magnets) or other things like that, but few people were interested because of aesthetics. A modder named Etienne de Foras made an even-layered 7x7 using a new technique where turning one layer would push out pieces on neighboring layers, much like the Floppy Cube, but I don't think the idea was ever made into a fully functional stickered cube, even though pictures of the almost-complete cube exist.
To me, the big invention of Mr. Verdes (apart from the great mechanism) was not the idea that bigger cubes are possible, but that the pillowed shape is a good one. Everyone assumed a perfect cube would be better and didn't even try to look at other alternatives; when Verdes first showed off the V7, people finally began to realize that the pillowed shape was both pleasant to hold and more stable. For a while after the worldwide V-cube release, many builders transformed smaller puzzles (3x3x3, 5x5x5, megaminx) into pillowed versions.
Originally Posted by Cyrus C.
|
|
When & where was the first WCA competition?
|
This might be a tougher question than it sounds like. The WCA was definitely not around in 1982; that competition is accepted as official retroactively, because the results are all well-known and because it had been advertised as a world championship which gave a good inaugural world record (i.e. the Gunness world record) to compete against. I believe that faster times than 22.95 had been achieved in competition by 2003 - the fastest I have heard of was a 17.02 by Robert Pergl at the Czechoslovakian Championship 1982. Anyway, I don't think the WCA was even around at Worlds 2003 - I wasn't around then, but after asking around it seems like the WCA was actually created (as an organization) around mid-late 2004. So asking what the first real WCA competition (WCA-official, after the creation of the WCA) is is not at all a trivial question. Perhaps it could even be categorized as a trick question, as the answer is certainly not what most cubers would suspect.
EDIT:
Originally Posted by Musli4brekkies
|
Originally Posted by rahulkadukar
|
|
Well I read somewhere that "The number of unsolved configurations on a Rubik's cube is a prime number."
|
43,252,003,274,489,856,000
Umm... no.
|
Subtract one (for the solved position, right?). Now it's prime.
__________________
Computer cube PB averages of 12: [Clock: 5.72] [Pyraminx: 3.82] [Megaminx: 1:00.56]
[2x2: 3.00] [3x3: 9.41] [4x4: 32.54] [5x5: 54.91] [6x6: 1:46.67] [7x7: 2:35.76]
Last edited by qqwref : 02-09-2010 11:15 AM at 11:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 01:17 PM
|
#39  
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 129
|
Originally Posted by rahulkadukar
|
|
Well I read somewhere that "The number of unsolved configurations on a Rubik's cube is a prime number."
|
wow this is really really scary.
|
|
|
|
02-09-2010 01:25 PM
|
#40  
|
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 1,544
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Musli4brekkies
|
Originally Posted by rahulkadukar
|
|
Well I read somewhere that "The number of unsolved configurations on a Rubik's cube is a prime number."
|
43,252,003,274,489,856,000
Umm... no.
|
Subtract one (for the solved position, right?). Now it's prime.
|
Ah. 
__________________
My team sucks.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM.
|
|
|