User:Tony Snyder

As a puzzle obsessed individual I have always found myself drawn towards the more challenging puzzles, and then unable to let one go until I could do it perfectly. For example, I have long ago let go of the pyramid puzzle because I found that with very little effort I could do it in the fewest turns possible each time, no more challenge. However, I still do the Rubik's Cube because I have a long ways to go yet. I have two solves to date which I think may have been perfect, one was a 16 turn solve I did a few months ago, and the other a 19 turn solve I did 3 years ago. These achievements were nothing compared to my goal of a consistent direct-solve.

As I picked up my first cube in 1980, I have considerably more experience today than a lot of the newcomers (an estimated 1.7 million solves to date). That of course doesn't mean I'm better, as I have spent very little time coordinating my insights with those of others, to gain from the more collective approach people use today to get ahead on puzzle solving technique. I've always felt like help from others would just spoil the fun. I remember times when I was younger, if someone tried to show me some technique I'd get upset, because I wanted to figure it all out for myself.

Now, to get current with the times I have to put those tendencies aside and take a look at modern methods, integrating those with my own, and of course computer modeling. Over the years I've procrastinated on making this change for one reason or another, primarily due to a combination of work priorities and my belief that I could find the ultimate algorithm all by myself. Just the same, I may decide to get with the times after all, or at least I'm thinking about it.

I developed the basic structure to my existing method in 1982, only making a couple changes to this structure in following years. This approach has since this been called the Snyder Method. In conversation I refer to it as "my advanced method", since it is quite different from the simple method I typed up in high school. Since I prefer the enjoyment and the practice I get from coming up with algorithms on my own, I made numerous changes to these algorithms in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms. This last month I may have set a personal record in new algorithm improvements, I didn't count but I know I have at least half a dozen new last layer direct solves worked out. I currently have a sufficient library of algorithms to average about 40 turns with little study time, and as low as 36 turns with considerable study time. And all this without the aid of computers, and without studying other people's methods.

In my opinion the Snyder Method, though imbalanced in its current form of human-originated algorithms, and less-than ideal multi-look issues, is still quite effective at turning heads, and may be competitive in all but the highest levels of cubing. And I'm convinced that a few tweaks here and there to augment the method with full lists of shortest algorithms and to reduce the number of looks, could turn this method into a real contender.

I've found that the cube makes a great conversation piece, as it seems to promote conversations with strangers at the coffee shop. And it also reveals who's minds are driven by stereotypes and who's aren't, as there are so many reactions to the cube that are based on stereotypes. I learned a lot about how the mind functions from these experiences, and put those ideas at my website: www.areyoulogical.com.

Here are some obvious ones...

• I'm peeling stickers off and replacing them with new stickers - nearly everyone who comments on this asks, "isn't that cheating?"

• I solve it, mix it, solve it, mix it, while people are watching. Then someone gets the nerve to ask me, "can you solve that thing?"

• Oftentimes educated people will ask "now that you can solve it, why do you keep doing it over and over?" In response I try to explain that just solving it is nothing compared to an optimal solve. You'd think an educated person would understand the value in finding optimal algorithms. Sometimes when I don't feel like explaining I'll simply respond, "it's relaxing, much like playing tennis", which is also true.

• And many times I've heard, "that's getting old, the solution's in a book" - a typical response from people who only follow instructions in life, never asking "what if".

• Or, "that game is old school". Hmm, what about chess?

• I'll sit down in some social setting to a coffee or a drink, then some random hot girl will sit next to me all spiffed up from head to toe, I'll solve the cube, mix it, solve it, mix it, then sip my drink, then solve the cube, mix it, and she grabs her purse and says "that's freaky", then stomps off.

• And my grandmother says, "put that toy down and get a life!"

All stereotypes aside, my impression of a Rubik's Cube is that it is the very best puzzle, and always will be, based on the fact that it optimally balances the most puzzle solving facets.

• It holds together as one piece, not making a mess.

• It is easy to turn, qualifying it for speed challenges.

• The object is simple to understand.

• It appears to be much simpler than it really is.

• There are enough combinations to it that luck is only a small factor in solving it.

• It only takes a few turns to fully mix it.

• The tediousness-to-combinations ratio is very low.

• It is just hard enough that most experts will agree that a human cannot do a perfect solve (though I disagree, but that's beside the point).

• And it helps promote the development of algorithm optimization techniques that could be applied elsewhere.

The seventh one is the big one. There are many other puzzles that are just a bit harder to figure out, yet way more tedious.

For people interested in my stats, here they are...

• first solved a cube in 1980: I looked at it for 2 hours while making notes, then did something else for a few hours, then picked it up and solved it in about 2 hours

• I broke the 1 minute barrier after about 1-2 weeks

• t place in Semiahmoo's International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1981

• t place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982

• significantly improved my technique right after this, dropping my average to about 24 seconds

• within another 2 years I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds, granted, I mixed the cube 13 random turns each time, as this was the required number of turns to mix a cube in the Ideal Toy Corp's contests

• attempted a blind-fold solve in 1982'ish, though I was attempting this using my regular method, which required rememorizing after each turn, then after finishing the first two layers in what seemed like forever, I got tired of it and took the blind fold off, and discovered everything was right where I thought it was, so I could have kept going

• set my personal all time fastest and second fastest time records in 2004, a 7.0 and a 7.5 within the same week

• and today I'm gradually improving, with 17 second averages twice this year, and regularly hitting around the 10 second mark once or twice per day, while averages vary between 17 and 21 from day to day

• I solve the cube on average 155 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date