Is the 33x33 the hardest Rubik's cube

[Future]

hello, I was bored and decided to search on google what the hardest Rubik's cube was and it told me the 33x33 but don't you think that technically if you use any reduction-based methods it would just be super long but not that difficult. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

 

[BenChristman1]

I agree. Any NxN is a very simple concept, but it just takes a long time. I would say that the hardest puzzle is something that Nathan Wilson has made. He’s made some crazy-looking puzzles that look like they would be absolute heck to solve.

 

[LBr]

in theory, a 32x32 would be harder than the 33x33, beacuse of there being no fixed centres and also there being a pll parity because its even numbered

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

If you don't know how to solve a twisty puzzle it may be the hardest. But for us cubers, defiantly not .I agree with @BenChristman1. Nathan Wilson made some crazy puzzles.

 

[WoowyBaby]

The 33x33 cube might not be difficult to solve in theory, but physically, it may be the hardest. Just turning a layer of that cube would likely be a pain, and you have to do thousands upon thousands of turns to solve it, and it would probably take dozens of hours. But other than that, yeah, it’s basically just a bigger 5x5. Perhaps some sort of giant super bandaged cube would be more difficult.

 

[qwr]

If you mean in just turns of difficulty of figuring out the solve, some bandaged puzzles can be ungodly amounts of difficult because algs only work in certain cases. Like I'm pretty sure the Moyu puppet cubes is way harder than any nxn puzzle.

 

[rubik2005]

If you mean in just turns of difficulty of figuring out the solve, some bandaged puzzles can be ungodly amounts of difficult because algs only work in certain cases. Like I'm pretty sure the Moyu puppet cubes is way harder than any nxn puzzle.

Yeah, I solved it once, and I'm still working on it after scrambling recently. I think @DNF_Cuber made a method that works pretty well. Bandaged cubes are indeed difficult.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

If you mean in just turns of difficulty of figuring out the solve, some bandaged puzzles can be ungodly amounts of difficult because algs only work in certain cases. Like I'm pretty sure the Moyu puppet cubes is way harder than any nxn puzzle.

I can attest to that. The hardest part is getting it back into CS after that you make a belt and then the bottom layer using slices move. You then do ELL.

 

[EngiNerdBrian]

Define difficult. It requires no techniques or methods that can’t be learned or utilized on lower order cubes. It would require more turns than cubes of smaller size though.

 

[abunickabhi]

Is more time consumed implying that the puzzle is difficult?

I do not think so. 33x33 is same as any NxN big cube, it just takes a lot of time to do the reduction stage.
The biggest cube people have solved virtually is 200x200x200 which a group of people lead by qqwef attempted to solve. It took several weeks.

It was time consuming but not at all difficult.

I would say 3x3x3x3 is much more difficult than 33x33, as we cannot apply intuition directly on 4D virtual puzzles. It takes me a lot of time to do some blockbuilding on a 3x3x3x3, and its difficult for sure, and time consuming as well, D' M2 U' M2 U M D2 M' D'.

 

[freshcuber.de]

I guess the hardest Rubik's Cube is the 3x3 Masterpiece Cube, because it is made with diamonds and there is no harder material in the universe. ;-)

 

[Christopher Mowla]

hello, I was bored and decided to search on google what the hardest Rubik's cube was and it told me the 33x33

There is a big chance that this was said because the 33x33x33 is the largest physical cube size that you can hold in your hands at the time (if it isn't still at this moment).

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

There is a big chance that this was said because the 33x33x33 is the largest physical cube size that you can hold in your hands at the time (if it isn't still at this moment).

Do you mean order cube? Because @Tony Fisher has made cubes far larger than this. (Although I think his record was broken not to long ago. : (

 

[Deleted member 36445]

33x33x33 ghost rubix cub

 

[LBr]

in theory, a 32x32 would be harder than the 33x33, beacuse of there being no fixed centres and also there being a pll parity because its even numbered

it's true tho, 4x4 and 6x6 have pll parities beacuse its an even swap, but 5x5 doesnt because it's an odd swap, so that would be the same with a 32x32

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

it's true tho, 4x4 and 6x6 have pll parities beacuse its an even swap, but 5x5 doesnt because it's an odd swap, so that would be the same with a 32x32

But 33x33 is immensely large one layer doesn't sound like much but I assure you a 33x33 would be... Wait... it wouldn't be harder. If you can do a 33x33 a 32x32 isn't going to be more challenging. If anything the 33x33 will be tougher because there's way more peices.

 

[Christopher Mowla]

Do you mean order cube? Because @Tony Fisher has made cubes far larger than this. (Although I think his record was broken not to long ago. : (

Yes, of course. You cannot "hold" tony fisher's large 3x3x3 "in your hands", now can you? I guess I should have said nxnxn since most people may not be familiar with the phrase "cube size" being a synonym for "cube order".

it's true tho, 4x4 and 6x6 have pll parities beacuse its an even swap, but 5x5 doesnt because it's an odd swap, so that would be the same with a 32x32

People say you don't have to solve PLL parity on the 5x5x5 and larger odd cube sizes, but what is this (specifically, what algorithm did I use to generate that "edge pairing" case)? Isn't that one of the algorithms in this list? Furthermore, people may want to argue that PLL parity can be when just two corners are swapped which "cannot happen on the 5x5x5", but look at what happens when I execute this direct adjacent 2 corner swap algorithm (an alg that I found partially by hand and partially with Cube Explorer) from this list on the 5x5x5? (Doesn't it have a similar effect to how when PLL Parity is executed on a solved 5x5x5?)

Even though you're not "recognizing" PLL Parity on an even cube (typically -- I know some people know how to track PLL parity) until you finish the first 3 layers (or n-1 layers, in general) of a cube size n > 3 . . . but you can recognize it immediately after supposedly completely the tredges on the 5x5x5 . . . don't we call this on the 4x4x4 and this on the 5x5x5 the same thing? (And don't we solve them both with the same alg?) They are both the same wing edge cycle. Just because it may look like two composite edges are swapped on the 4x4x4 with PLL parity (and just because it looks like one dedge is flipped on a 4x4x4), that's technically not the case if you want to actually generalize the nxnxn. (In fact, I first mention that the one edge flip case is actually a single swap of wings in my derivation of the red bull algorithm video.) PLL parity on any cube size n > 3 is two separate 2 swaps (i.e. "2 2-cyle") of individual (i.e. "wing") edges.

If it walks like a duck (cannot be denied as being the same wing edge permutation) and quacks like a duck (the same algorithm can be used to solve it on both even and odd cube sizes), it must be a duck.

 

[DNF_Cuber]

Yeah, I solved it once, and I'm still working on it after scrambling recently. I think @DNF_Cuber made a method that works pretty well. Bandaged cubes are indeed difficult.

not really a "method". Just solving the corners and then commutating the edges.

 

[qwr]

https://www.hknowstore.com/locale/en-US/product/Harley-JAMMED-512-CUBE-Black-Body-NS-CB4712

oh my Lord

 

[Waffles]

https://www.hknowstore.com/locale/en-US/product/Harley-JAMMED-512-CUBE-Black-Body-NS-CB4712

oh my Lord

help we are all doomed