1 (edited by flackers 2018-01-01 19:57:12)

Looking at the Rubik's cube records page, it seems there's no speed record for completing a tactile 3x3 Rubik's cube. There's a record for doing a standard cube blindfolded, but that's a record for sighted people and it includes the time it takes to memorize the cube's layout. It's surprising there's no tactile record. So I'm declaring myself the current world record holder with a time of 3 minutes 6.45 seconds. If you want to snatch my record you'll need a touch cube an iPhone stopwatch, and the honesty to properly jumble the cube, self-police your record attempt, and keep your eyes closed if you have any useful sight.
The rules are you can position the cube with the smooth/white centre piece at the top of the cube, and have a quick feel around to assess the cube and see what your first move will be. Then you tap start on the iPhone's stopwatch, complete the cube, then tap stop. 3:06:45 is your target.

Thumbs up

2

I do want to get one of these.

I'm a cat! What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine to :P XD

Thumbs up

3

They're good fun... especially when you're the speed world record holder like me.

Thumbs up

4

If you can improve even more, you may be able to compete against other people at competitions.

Thumbs up

5 (edited by flackers 2018-01-02 22:37:58)

Once those guys who hold all the other records got involved, the record would be about 10 seconds. How the hell they do normal cubes in 5 seconds is a mystery to me. I just find it strange there isn't already a record. Seems whoever wanted to get in touch with whoever organises these record attempts, could have the world record for a few hours or so. If there genuinely isn't yet a record set for the touch cube, someone could do it, and then for the rest of their lives they could say they once held a Rubik's cube world speed record.

Thumbs up

6

Hi.
How are sighted people solving a normal rubiks cube blindfolded? How is that possible when they can't feel the colors?

Best regards SLJ.
If you like the post, then please give it a thumps up.
Feel free to contact me privately if you have something in mind. If you do so, then please send me a mail instead of using the private message on the forum, since I don't check those very often.
Happy gaming... :D

Thumbs up

7 (edited by flackers 2018-01-03 09:17:09)

As far as I understand, the blindfolded record includes the time it takes to memorise the cube's layout. So they examine the cube, are blindfolded, then solve it from memory. Unbelievably, the record is 18 seconds.

Thumbs up

8

Shit, [wow]... big_smile

Best regards SLJ.
If you like the post, then please give it a thumps up.
Feel free to contact me privately if you have something in mind. If you do so, then please send me a mail instead of using the private message on the forum, since I don't check those very often.
Happy gaming... :D

Thumbs up

9

Hi.
Not having any experiences with the cube yet, I have the following question, which might sounds strange:
Do you still enjoy solving the cube after you have solved it a lot of times? Or does it just end up being boring after some time? I like the idea of the Rubiks cube, because this is a portable, none electronic game which you can use everywhere...

Best regards SLJ.
If you like the post, then please give it a thumps up.
Feel free to contact me privately if you have something in mind. If you do so, then please send me a mail instead of using the private message on the forum, since I don't check those very often.
Happy gaming... :D

Thumbs up

10

what is the rule to solving it. like, who scrambles it up first, how many changes are made etc. there must be something about that or you'd just get a solved one, twist one side then twist it back and you've done it in a second. so what's the criteria for it being properly jumbled up?

if duct tape doesn't fix it, you haven't used enough.

Thumbs up

11 (edited by flackers 2018-01-18 08:23:38)

@9 Yeah, just solving the cube gets less satisfying as time goes on. Introducing a time factor makes it a bit more interesting. But I'd still say it's worth every penny, and if you're the sort of person who gets satisfaction from things being orderly, and you like having something just to fiddle with for a few minutes now and again, it's great.
@10 Good question. This topic was just a bit of fun. Like I said in my opening post, you'd have to be honest with yourself and properly jumble the cube. Just moving it two turns, then putting it back would be a waste of time as we'd only be kidding ourselves that we'd solved the cube in such and such a time. There's definitely a point at which the cube is properly jumbled and isn't going to get any more so by randomly twisting some more. That said, my fastest solves have always involved a bit of help from the cube needing fewer turns to solve the middle and bottom layers, so maybe there's a way to check the cube is jumbled to a certain degree, which is I think what you're getting at. Think the official way to do it is to make five attempts, discard the fastest and slowest, then take the average of the three middle times, but whether they jumble a certain way first I have no idea. My own preference is to jumble it well, then check that the first completed move, e.g. the first piece of the top cross,  can't be accomplished with a single turn.

Thumbs up

12

if you want a random scramble everytime. i use this about a year, now. its easy and accessible. enjoy:

https://www.jaapsch.net/scramble_cube.htm

f.a.t.h.e.r

Thumbs up

13

Cool thanks.

Thumbs up

14

@Flackers: Thanks for your reply.

Best regards SLJ.
If you like the post, then please give it a thumps up.
Feel free to contact me privately if you have something in mind. If you do so, then please send me a mail instead of using the private message on the forum, since I don't check those very often.
Happy gaming... :D

Thumbs up

15

So I had a go at doing five in a row using the cube scrambler, then taking the average time of the middle three, and had an amazing run. First I totally messed up a couple of times and realised I didn't really know the final couple of moves well enough. This was causing hesitancy as well as mess ups, so I properly cemented those in my brain so I could blast through them in an unthinking muscle-memory type way. This helped a lot. Up til then I hadn't got below three minutes and thought I never would, but that little bit of boning up did wonders and I went under three minutes three times in the five attempts. My times from slowest to fastest were: 2:34, 2:42, 2:58, 3:26, and 3:30. Removing the outer two and averaging the middle three gives 3:02.
I'm now thinking can I go under two minutes. The algorithms are getting quicker and quicker, but it's feeling around for the next piece that is the biggest time hog. Sometimes a single piece can really play hide and seek with your fingertips. I'm getting better at systematically searching the cube though. These touch cubes really are good fun if you like creating order out of chaos as fast as you can, heheh.

Thumbs up

16

i have a classic touch cube, a mirror cube, and a rubiks domino. all are Great. as for methods. i guess you all solve it by the LBL method? did anyone tried to master the Fridrich method, which is used by pro speed solvers? i didnt find any usable table with algorithms.

f.a.t.h.e.r

Thumbs up

17

I'm using the layer by layer method myself. I read the sighted speed cubers use a different system, but hadn't looked it up. Maybe I can get the help of a sighted person to figure it out, then write out the algorithms in the same format as the cube scrambler. I take it that in that particular notation, the apostrophe represents an inverted/counter-clockwise turn? Having read a little bit about the Fridrich, it might not be so suitable for touch cubers if it involves finding multiple pieces to manipulate with one move. Finding the multiple pieces may slow things down to the point it's no quicker than the LBL method. I'll have to see.

Thumbs up

18

Looking up the Fridrich method, I came across this wiki article: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_So … _Cube/CFOP
Haven't read it yet, but have read the beginner method that it suggests you master first. Thought it'd be the same as the one described in the RNIB's instructions, but it's more efficient. I was able to follow it with a bit of head-scratching here and there. Remains to be seen whether or not the Fridrich method is doable too.

Thumbs up

19 (edited by UltraLeetJ 2018-02-01 19:07:28)

[wow]. reading all of this made me buy one. the one from the official store. I then went and downloaded the instructions that I found on the other r n I B thread and ... surprise. the cross part already confused me. Not sure if its say, an entire vertical row that goes down the middle of the upper facing part of the cube and then two of those in the middle spots of each side? that is how I would draw one anyway inside a square.. just one vertical and one horizontal line right in the middle of the vertical line from side to side. Is that what you have to get at to start solving?

Thumbs up

20

Yes, it's that kind of cross, like a plus sign rather than an x-shaped diagonal cross if you know what I mean.

Thumbs up

21

got it. I was really happy that I managed to make a cross and even got a solid color but just in one face, but then I realized I never understood what the layer really was... now I think I get it... its like an entire part of the perimeter of the cube, the top one includes the upper face but also contains the border that surrounds it from below, or the first row, so to speak. The middle layer is the middle row of the cube which does not really have a center like the u face, and the bottom layer includes the last row plus the d face. right?
I am just too slow at this.

Thumbs up

22 (edited by flackers 2018-02-05 04:06:08)

Yeah, that's it. The cross involves matching the side center pieces too, then you do the corners so that they also match to get the complete top layer. When I started, I actually found it harder to solve the smooth face on its own than I did once I started putting the sides in the right order too. I had a Rubik's cube as a kid in the 80s, and knew how to do the first two layers, though I never completed it, even though my dad and cousin could do it. So I already had an idea of what was involved before I started with the tactile cube, and little bits came back to me as I played around with it again after 30 years or so.

Thumbs up

23

sorry for keep on straying of the intended original topic, but I think this is also important, hopefully helpful to some... I think that the problem with most guides out there, including the R N I B one  or most things is that they do not tell you in text, precisely or in a bit more detail what you should have when finished solving per layer or so, then its really hard to grasp if you haven't had or done the cube before. So assuming I understood your explanation, a successfully solved  top layer  should have that lower border which surrounds the (commonly smooth) u face matched up to the center pieces which are the ones that never move, creating small downward vertical, incomplete lines that connect the completed U face with these center pieces. Did I miss something?

Thumbs up

24 (edited by flackers 2018-02-05 12:19:43)

Yeah, when the top layer is complete, you have the smooth face finished, with the top row of the side pieces all matching the immovable centre pieces. The side patterns at this point are sometimes referred to as T shapes. Though I'm never sure how useful phrases like T shapes and plus signs are to people who may never have had sight.
You're right about the guides. Even though I already knew what it was trying to tell me regarding the first two layers because I'd done it before, I still found it horribly confusing. Like you said, they should finish any explaination with a good description of how the cube should look at that point. Though to be fair, it's not a very easy thing to describe using words alone. It'd be so much easier if you could see photos, or even better, someone doing it.
And the tactile version is tougher to do anyway. I think it's a bit like trying to play chess blind, in that a sighted person can see the layout of the board, and has to visualise what may happen if a series of moves comes off, but a blind person has to do the same thing while holding an image of the board's configuraition in their head.

Thumbs up

25

well, putting it in words was not that hard for me, and I think both you and I if asked could probably draw or describe shape by shape what that should look like and the representation from both would be pretty much the same. Thanks for clarifying all of my doubts which would seem like stating the obvious. Will keep on trying to solve.

Thumbs up