Largest cube ever solved - 150x150x150

[Ben Whitmore]

Some statistics:

Start time - 10:06am, February 16th 2020
End time - 2:07am, March 9th 2020
Total time - 21 days 16 hours 1 minute
Solving time - 1 day 18 hours 40 minutes 27.392 seconds
Fraction of time spent solving - 8.206%

Moves - 239283
Moves per second - 1.558
Cube rotations - 76458

Splits -

Stage           Time            Moves   TPS     Date completed (UTC)
edges           2:05:25.605     4551    0.605   February 16, 3:55:13pm
clearing 1      6:14:44.630     23911   1.063   February 19, 6:52:15pm
finishing 1     11:46:08.505    58396   1.378   February 22, 1:05:49pm
clearing 2      16:10:40.400    83773   1.438   February 27, 0:31:43am
finishing 2     21:14:48.488    111728  1.461   February 29, 7:56:24pm
clearing 3      23:52:34.413    129472  1.506   March 2, 1:47:41am
finishing 3     29:42:06.162    167335  1.565   March 4, 3:49:35am
center 4        37:16:24.730    207984  1.550   March 7, 8:57:08pm
center 5/6      42:39:31.864    239209  1.558   March 9, 2:04:53am
3x3             42:40:27.392    239283  1.558   March 9, 2:07:46am

Number of cube states - 7.262226553... * 10^86707
Number of pieces - 133208 (this is the first cube ever solved with more than 100k pieces)
God's number - at least 28506, probably not much higher than that

Seconds per piece - 1.1533
Pieces per second - 0.8671
Moves per piece - 1.7963
Pieces per move - 0.5567

Method - see this post

Program used - cubesim v0.3.1 (basically a ripoff of qqwref's isocubesim, developed by me in C++/Qt since January 21st 2020, not publicly released yet)

Updated record list:

Spoiler

2x2x2 - January 12, 2000, by David Barr, in 35.600
3x3x3 - January 12, 2000, by David Barr, in 1:23.600
4x4x4 - January 12, 2000, by David Barr, in 5:52.460
5x5x5 - January 12, 2000, by David Barr, in 9:20.180
6x6x6 - January 13, 2000, by David Barr, in 16:42.830
7x7x7 - January 21, 2000, by David Barr, in 23:33.450
11x11x11 - March 12, 2000, by David Barr, in 1:20:15.566
11x11x11 - June 12, 2000, by Chris Hardwick, in 56:32.298
11x11x11 - February 20, 2001, by fl, in 5:24:40.242
11x11x11 - April 11, 2001, by fl, in 6:57:35.728
11x11x11 - May 25, 2001, by fl, in 2:23:04.975
11x11x11 - May 31, 2001, by vfr, in 1:36:03.768
20x20x20 - June 12, 2001, by Chris Hardwick, in 4:24:54 (solving time) or 8:13:56 (total time)
20x20x20 - March 16, 2002, by Richard Carr, in 3:53:39.573
20x20x20 - June 25, 2002, by Richard Carr, in 3:05:27.722
20x20x20 - September 7, 2002, by Richard Carr, in 2:46:48.822
21x21x21 - October 28, 2002, by Grant Tregay, in 72:38:11.378
31x31x31 - January 1, 2003, by Richard Carr, in 7:43:15.493
35x35x35 - October 1, 2003, by Joe Allen, in 103:26:10.140
39x39x39 - October 8, 2003, by Joe Allen, in 113:48:13.052
40x40x40 - February 17, 2004, by Chris Moyer-Grice, in 23:35:xx (solving time)
55x55x55 - March 18, 2004, by Joe Allen, in 23:00:24 (solving time)
100x100x100 - December 20, 2008, by Ravi Fernando and Peter Greenwood, in 820:13:11.220
111x111x111 - May 19, 2013, by Michael Gottlieb, in 29:51:02.641 (solving time) or 246:48:xx (total time)
121x121x121 - September 30, 2013, by Adrian Acosta, in 89:02:26.601 (solving time) or ~2106 hours (total time)
128x128x128 - November 19, 2014, by Michael Gottlieb, in 26:25:18.515 (solving time) or 361:36:xx (total time)
150x150x150 - March 9, 2020, by Ben Whitmore, in 42:40:27.392 (solving time) or ~520 hours (total time)

 

[chocool6]

That's pretty cool! Do you solve it in the fastest way possible or do you use an algorithm?

 

[2018AMSB02]

Wow, nice job! Thats really cool.

That's pretty cool! Do you solve it in the fastest way possible or do you use an algorithm?

He solved it the regular way you would solve any big cube such as a 7x7, purely human.

 

[WoowyBaby]

WOW! That is amazing! Good job for all of that effort and awesome new record!

 

[Ben Whitmore]

I've rendered a replay video of the solve:

 

[Etotheipi]

Amazing! Would it have been easier to solve a odd layered cube? I'd think youd get lots of parity with 150x150.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

wow is that a 10x10?

 

[Deleted member 51471]

How ? It's so blurry it looks like there are 25 colours on the white face in the solved position.

 

[Ben Whitmore]

Amazing! Would it have been easier to solve a odd layered cube? I'd think youd get lots of parity with 150x150.

The method is worse on odd cubes because it relies on lots of commutators of the form [r U2 r', lots of U slice moves] to solve the centres, but that doesn't work for the middle layers on an odd cube so you have to do something a bit different. The only advantage of doing an odd cube is that you don't get PLL parity, but PLL parity on an even cube only takes a few seconds at most to solve (and I didn't get it on this solve anyway).

How ? It's so blurry it looks like there are 25 colours on the white face in the solved position.

By zooming in a lot.

 

[gruuby]

honestly that is insanely fast tps

 

[Ben Whitmore]

honestly that is insanely fast tps

1.5 tps is nothing special, tps should remain roughly constant as the cube size increases. I have over 2tps on smaller cubes (20, 30, 40).

 

[Micah Morrison]

@Ben Whitmore: 40x40 is a small cube
Most Cubers: I've never even solved anything bigger than 7x7!

 

[Deleted member 36445]

I have over 2tps on smaller cubes (20, 30, 40).

small cube solving is born

 

[Christopher Mowla]

@Ben Whitmore ,
This point of the solve, was very satisfying to see. You literally cleared the blue out of the front face from right to left linearly. To me, this shows precision, organization, and efficiency.

To top it off, putting this entire solve into an 8 minute video is also amazing in of itself. I don't ususally have the patience to watch big cube solve videos, but this video had my full attention!