• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Can you solve a 3x3 puzzle in N moves, knowing...

Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
1
Likes
0
Thread starter #1
Can you solve a 3x3 puzzle in N moves, knowing that N moves have been used to scramble the Cube? For instance if I scramble a Cube by doing 17 moves, can you solve it in 17 moves? Or if 17 is too high a number to manage, what number can be managed?
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
77
Likes
29
#3
You can always solve it in X moves where X <= N. Whether you can figure out those moves is a whole other thing.
Not entirely true. In QTM, a scramble with odd/even N will always take an odd/even number of moves to solve. This is because a single turn does an odd number of swaps on both corners and edges, so if the scramble has an odd permutation of corners it will always take an odd number of moves to solve. (At least I think so. Please correct me if I’m mistaken)

In HTM your statement is true because you can just do U2 U' instead of U to add 1 to the move count.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
466
Likes
287
Location
Lelystad, Flevoland, The Netherlands
#6
I still think my statement is true. The lowest number of moves needed to solve a cube is always lower or equal to the number of moves used to scramble. Whether it needs to be a multiple of 2 less than the number of moves to scramble is another discussion altogether.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
1,479
Likes
354
Location
location is not displayed due to character limit
WCA
2016EVAN06
#7
I still think my statement is true. The lowest number of moves needed to solve a cube is always lower or equal to the number of moves used to scramble. Whether it needs to be a multiple of 2 less than the number of moves to scramble is another discussion altogether.
Well obviously as long as the same way of counting the moves is used.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
396
Likes
200
Location
U.K
#8
I've tried this 'solving challenge' quite a number of times, in fact we even did it back in the 80's. I would scramble, then put the puzzle down for an hour, so I didn't have any worthwhile memory of what moves I did.
A limit of 12 turns is the best I can manage, but I'm sure more competent people could do better, especially with practice. 17 turns is a lot, though. It would also be very time-consuming.
I recall Jessica Fridrich mentions it on her website, at an early competition she attended, another competitor was solving 10-move scrambles easily.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,478
Likes
938
#9
17 turns is a lot, though. It would also be very time-consuming.
At that point, you're really doing an FMC attempt, trying to look for the optimal solution. 17 moves is enough to cover around a quarter of all possible scrambles.

(Granted, a large proportion of 17-move scramble sequences will have optimal solutions that are 15 or 16 moves long, but that still doesn't mean it's easy to find a 17-move solution.)
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
396
Likes
200
Location
U.K
#10
Solving success depends on the 'rules' you choose. If you choose to only make 'counting' turns, and work it out entirely in your head, it's unsurprisingly harder than allowing 'trial moves' , to see where a two or three-move sequence gets you.

Maybe it's an idea for a Forum competition.

It's obviously best if someone else executes the scramble for you, then you're totally unaware of the scramble, and the length of it.
If you're self-scrambling, one strategy is to scramble, say, 4 cubes with different scrambles. Mix them up, put them away for a few hours. When you come to the solve attempts, you'll have no idea which is which, and hopefully gain no advantage.
 
Top