blade740
Mack Daddy
irony.
Can we really solve big cubes?
- Thread starter Christopher Mowla
- Start date
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
When you said that if your work was not original you "could not even get 25q", I took it to mean that you thought that whatever we had done was so worthless that basing algorithms on it could not possibly yield good results (and that your method by comparison was much better). So to me this seemed very arrogant, and I personally don't like it when someone acts arrogantly without having proven him/herself.
The fact is that a lot of the puzzle theorists here have invented various methods and algorithms themselves, so your having found a more efficient algorithm for one case doesn't really make us feel that you are better than us. Those who are respected here are not respected because of charisma but because of how helpful they have been or what they have accomplished or invented. Many of us have even invented their own methods or have become experts at blindfold or fewest move solving. As far as efficient algorithms, for instance, one thing I did was invent a way to swap irregular blocks of centers around on big cubes that is efficient enough to create six hearts on the 7x7x7 in 11 block quarter turns. Of course, the write-up is available for free and I am happy to answer questions about it. I do understand how it feels to invent something new, but if you want to get people you don't know interested in it you have to put your best foot forward and show that you are both respectful and worth respecting.
The fact is that a lot of the puzzle theorists here have invented various methods and algorithms themselves, so your having found a more efficient algorithm for one case doesn't really make us feel that you are better than us. Those who are respected here are not respected because of charisma but because of how helpful they have been or what they have accomplished or invented. Many of us have even invented their own methods or have become experts at blindfold or fewest move solving. As far as efficient algorithms, for instance, one thing I did was invent a way to swap irregular blocks of centers around on big cubes that is efficient enough to create six hearts on the 7x7x7 in 11 block quarter turns. Of course, the write-up is available for free and I am happy to answer questions about it. I do understand how it feels to invent something new, but if you want to get people you don't know interested in it you have to put your best foot forward and show that you are both respectful and worth respecting.
rachmaninovian
Veteran
lols...but in cage a parity fix can be 10 moves, and it's 13 quarter moves o.o
B2 D2 B' r' B D2 B' r B' r'
B2 D2 B' r' B D2 B' r B' r'
riffz
Veteran
I enjoyed reading this thread. Time for bed.
AvGalen
Premium Member
Conclusion: Yes, we can really solve big cubes. That is what this thread was about and that is what has been proven and explained. I really don't see why someone would think this thread was meant to be about "solving 1 particular case in 24 moves (QTM) instead of 25".
Similar threads
- Locked
