User:Tony Snyder

About Myself

I have a rough website setup now with videos and more of my opinions at: snydermind

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 are nothing compared to my goal to consistently direct-solve the cube.

As I picked up my first cube in 1981, 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 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 method 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. This approach has since 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. And I have made numerous changes to the algorithms I use with this method in subsequent years, and I am still adding and improving the algorithms. 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 using my human-originated algorithms.

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.

My personal cubing goals are as follows...

1) document and illustrate full lists of fewest move algorithms for LLE+1C
2) add LL direct solve algorithms wherever they save 5+ turns
3) find ways to reduce the F2L looks
4) finish development and documentation for my fingering techniques
5) document the full method, so others can learn it
6) then start working on the various theories I have to achieve a consistent human direct-solve

For years I have protested the mainstream turn counting standards and rules. I never understood why they follow a 'range of motion metric' rather than an 'efficiency metric'. Solving for fewest turns is a challenge in efficiency to start with, so the metric should also be based on efficiency. In my opinion the most sensible way to count turns is to count every parallel simultaneous movement of the cube as one turn. This would also make the rules far simpler. Another point is that there are many ways to fine-tune solves by adding more anti-slices. None of these will count the way it works now. For example, I far prefer solving the U-Twist (headlights) with R L U2 R' U' R U' R' L' U2 L U L' U, which works out to just 12 very easy to perform turns once you define the anti-slice into the metric using Snyder Notation: R+o' U2 R' U' R U' R'o+ U2 L U L' U. This requires only 12 parallel simultaneous movements, which is in my opinion more efficient than the 13 turn F U' R2 U R2 U F U' F2 D R2 D' R2. Another example is the H-PLL, which can take just 6 turns using the Snyder Metric.

Stereotypes

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.

• 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 an educator 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 educator 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!"

Reasons Why the 3x3x3 Will Always be the Best Puzzle

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 satisfies the most objectives for a puzzle:

• It holds together as a unit, not making a mess.

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

• The object is simple.

• 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.

• Slip-ups part way through a solve can be deadly, making it require a certain level of mastery to completely solve 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 can be applied elsewhere.

The 8th one is the big one. There are many puzzles that are as hard to figure out, yet way more tedious.

Stats

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

• first solved a cube in 1981: 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

• took 1st place in Semiahmoo's International Cube-a-Thon, British Columbia Canada in 1982 (the announcer says, "when I shoot this gun, everyone goes at once, and winner takes all", he fired his gun, then suddenly gigantic, and I mean gigantic speakers start blatting the Lone Ranger on both sides of the gym where hundreds of people are standing watching, the cube is jumbling around in my hands from the sound waves and I'm barely in control, everyone is chanting "Gordon, Gordon, Gordon..." - obviously some guy named Gordon had something to do with the reason they had this contest, then finally after what seemed like forever I set my cube down first, then my friend sets his down a few seconds later, and then a few seconds after that someone at the other end of the table slams his cube down real hard, and everyone cheers - then after a long pause the announcer said they decided to stick to their earlier decision on prizes, and then held up a banana, saying it was 3rd place, and called up Gordon, then a cube chain was held up when they called my friend's name, then a trophy for me - wow was I embarrassed, and poor Gordon - then as I was trying to sneak out of there someone pulled me into the lunch room and said they had a special lunch for everyone, and so I ate lunch and then they brought in hand made Rubik's Cube cakes for all the contestants, hmm - for some reason I was not invited to the 2nd annual contest, I was really looking forward to those cakes!)

• took 1st place in Ideal Toy Corp Cube-a-Thon, Chicago, Illinois in 1982, the newsletter says "1983", but it really started in 1982, and I think it was December when I competed (this was a funny one, the announcer was talking to the crowd while we were solving our cubes, acting all tough like he had the best cube solvers from the whole world present, when he really hardly knew anyone and definitely never saw me before, then he went dead silent the moment I put my cube down, the speaker and roughly one thousand people present were quiet enough that you could hear a pin drop while he waiting the rest of the minute for the clock to run out before telling everyone present that I solved it in 12 seconds - of course that was using my super-tuned up cube, which I wasn't allowed to use in the finals, which is part of the reason I got the bad time of 31 seconds, their cube was on the verge of falling apart the whole time)

• dropped my average to about 20 seconds within a month, due to the additional practice on my advanced technique (now called the Snyder Method)

• within the next year I achieved a one time average of 15 seconds from 10 consecutive solves, while regularly averaging 17-18 seconds - granted, I mixed the cube only 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 1983'ish, though I did not use any special method for this, so I had to rememorize 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

• for years I kept hearing about contests after they occurred, with times that I could have easily beaten had I been there

• 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 after a major setback 5 years ago when I had nerve damage in my wrist, 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

• over the last 29 years I have solved the cube on average 160 times per day, and have about 1.7 million solves to date

• my second favorite puzzle is the mirror cube

Contest Suggestions

• use the Snyder Metric for counting turns in the turn counting contest - simpler rules that reward greater creativity on the part of the puzzle solver

• increase the study time on the speed solve event by 5 seconds (total 20), this will tilt the balance more in favor of sophisticated solving techniques and less in favor of brute-force techniques

• add a "Composite Scoring" event, where the cube solver gets 40 seconds study time, then solves the cube using the timer, while a quick camera replay judge counts the turns, then adds the seconds to the turns for a composite score