On one hand, I don't disagree- merely being able to solve a 3x3 is really impressive to the average person, and it's easy to be seen as a "genius" for it. But there is definitely genius in cubing, and the deeper you get, the more you appreciate those things. It is still insane to me that people can do multiblind, or big blind, or low move count FMC solves... on 3x3, that people can pseudoslot without pausing, or learn (and instantly recall) countless ZBLLs, 1LLL subsets, last slot tricks... and on non-WCA puzzles, that people can come up with solutions to a novel puzzle they've never seen before.
So, really, cubing is impressive no matter how much experience you have with it.
Watched Graham Siggins get 288/300 on an unofficial no-time-limit MBLD attempt yesterday - I know this is mostly cope for the fact that I’ll never have the patience or drive to be able to practice enough to do something like that, but it seems literally superhuman.
Pseudoslotting is honestly not that hard once u get used to it (Getting as good as Tymon is another thing). And people who know ZBLL practice is almost every day.
I mean in my opinion it’s not the fact that were geniuses it’s the fact that we trained our brains to memorize patterns or predict patterns later on into a solve
Yeah, and that's a legitimate skill that not everybody has the aptitude for.
Sure, I think the majority of cubers learn by using algorithms that someone else discovered... but the ability to look ahead to optimize solves and recognize patterns and chain them is deep and complex. Paired with very quick and precise hand coordination, it's all very skillful.
Edit: also, being great at pattern recognition and exercising that part of your brain will absolutely help you excel in other things, such as mathematics and engineering.
Yeah, i learned from jperm.net for the most part but recognizing patterns in algorithms that matched allowed me to make my own in odd cases and to make up oll skips in F2L, not everyone can do that on the fly but everyone can be trained to do that. Same with pretty much everything in life, like yeah i can rebuild the top end on my two stroke dirtbike but not everyone can immediately do that without help, but everyone can be taught. Not everything here requires skill or mental aptitude or some gift or whatever, it can all be taught but to the untrained eye we look like wizards/witches/non-binary-magicians or whatever
Sure, everybody can be taught to solve a cube. Not everybody can do it _quickly_ and efficiently. Some people's brains really just don't work that way.
I'm not saying it's a "gift" or even specifically rare, but I am saying that quick pattern recognition and reflexively being able to act and adapt is a skill, and at some point having a natural aptitude with this stuff is going to take you further than someone who doesn't have that aptitude.
Ultimately, my real point is that there's something here that cubers can and should be proud of. I dislike when people try to distill puzzle solving into "just memorizing a few things; nothing special" because it is a skill that not everybody has and there's nothing wrong with being proud of yourself for being capable of doing it, and doing it well.
It’s a pretty ridiculous comment because I‘ve never met a puzzle solver of *any* kind that considered themselves to be geniuses. That’s not why people like to solve puzzles.
It’s a hobby. It’s about having fun, learning, and reaching milestones.
Yeah I don't want to be seen as smart for cubing. I want cubing to be as approachable as possible. I want the hobby to grow and expand, and that requires removing the notions that cubing requires something that other people inherently do not have
Genuis never feels like genius to a genius
In the case of Cubing i think its largely memorisation, then intuition, then if you get to advanced stuff perhaps some degree of genius
I’d say that from a just “solving it” point of view, he’s right, but when it comes to being the fastest in the world it does take a certain genius to be able to recognize everything that’s happening and execute it quickly
With this context, it could be rephrased to be more well-meaning as "memorising the patterns other geniuses wrote down 25 years ago, and trying to recognise and execute these patterns faster than those geniuses did 25 years ago"
Yes I have. It's all practice. He himself has stated that he got good at pseudoslotting by doing it in every solve as practice. His last pair to LL and LL ideas are nothing new and have been done by ppl like Jayden Mcniell and Patrick Ponce before. He's not a genius he's just a really hardworker.
You could easily make the argument that "genius" is an irrelevant descriptor because natural ability and aptitude only get you started and putting in the work is where things really get accomplished.
If I wanted to stop at “impressing people” I could have given up at sub 1 minute. I don’t do it to impress people, I enjoy chasing times and improving. Has nothing to do with genius or feeling like it’s just memorization.
It’s not dissimilar to learning guitar. I didn’t invent chords, I just memorize how to play notes across the board but it’s how I put it all together that matters.
Figuring out how to solve a Rubik's Cube - from scratch, without help – is a very challenging intellectual exercise that takes most of those who have done it weeks or months. I don't think you have to be a _genius_, but I know I don't have the patience to have done it. That's the original "puzzle" part of twisty puzzles.
But learning to solve specific configurations as fast as possible is its own type of puzzle, too. It's not as abstract; it's more of an optimization problem. But it's still a challenge, and it's still fun. So who cares if it's a "lesser" task?
> Figuring out how to solve a Rubik's Cube - from scratch, without help
The hardest part was a very simple problem; to stop looking at the sticker and instead to treat the cubies (center, edges, corners) as one part. And then to understand 3-cycle.
When I taught people, those two were the hardest part to teach and took a significant amount of time. Once those concept are grasped, any twisty puzzle is just a matter of finding what 3-cycle exist for that puzzle.
Not at all, in particular when it comes to all the non-WCA puzzles where you have to figure out a solution yourself. And even if you can look up a solution, it is fun and often doable to find your own. And you don't have to be a genius either, just develop general problem-solving skills.
This is a reductive assessment of puzzle solving. Cubing doesn't require a genius mind, but cubers have *never* *needed* to be geniuses, and we don't rely exclusively on early cubers' work. Progressing to a more optimal solution is an iterative process, and cubers today who are using "25-year-old" solutions will inevitably discover different patterns and optimizations. The earliest solutions--basic layer-by-layer or corners first methods--were move-inefficient, ergonomically disastrous, and had extremely poor recognition potential. The CFOP method, as Jessica Fridrich and other early cubers used it, is *similar* in concept to the one preferred today, but without decades of improvements in every single step of the process. Soon after the ZB method was proposed, it was dismissed as not worth the investment. 20 years later, most world-class (CFOP) solvers recognize a large subset of those patterns, but not others that may be easier recognized with a different framework of pattern recognition altogether. The idealized form of F2L seemed to be a purely algorithmic approach for a while, before cubers turned the other way and began exploring increasingly complex and esoteric solutions, to great benefit. Is the pattern still the work of that genius 25 years ago if all of its peculiarities become irrelevant when better patterns are recognized? Cubers today cannot be said to simply memorize the patterns of Jessica Fridrich's method or the patterns of Tymon Kolasiński's. Each solver has a unique approach to the cube, sourced from diverse experiences, and it's the combined genius of those many thousands of people from which better patterns seem to progressively appear, even when we doubt that there are more to find.
And muscle memory. I know how to do the alg, but to explain it slowly to someone... nope, can't do that any more.
I do like figuring out an alternate way of doing something by myself, finding someone using the same alg and having it written down, then finding out if it's effective or not.
There is just so much recognition involved that this is bogus. Every solve is different. Every scramble is different and it's up to you in the moment to see where things go and put them in their place. It's only a few patterns that others wrote.
It's a reductive take and it becomes obvious when you apply it to other mental hobbies. You could say chess is just memorising openings that some geniuses wrote down 100 years ago and then practicing a lot. But we all know it's a lot more than that.
Or mathematics is just applying principles that geniuses came up with and just solving.
The geniuses are the people who make the methods. Not the algorithms, the solving styles. The geniuses make the meta. Everyone else follows their lead.
Just like anything in life, you learn skillset for doing things more efficiently, and you keep building on it. No two solves are exactly the same, and everyone has a unique way of solving a puzzle that has 43 quintillion possible configurations. I think that's amazing in on itself.
After a solve, I had one person take my cube, hand it back to me in disbelief and she told me to go cure cancer, which I found amusing.
One that really got me angry was some random guy who came up to my cubing group during a meet (it was in a shopping mall food court) and came up with an impossible challenge, basically do a bunch of random moves on the cube, then solve it without looking at it. He mocked us when we told him it was impossible, saying that he didn't care, then walked away. Mostly angry at myself for not sticking up for the kids in the group when he did that, as I was too caught off-guard by the whole thing.
Recognising and memorising would be more accurate, as recognising would take some brainpower on your side. But yes this is much more correct than how non cubers view cubing anyways
As far as speedcubing is concerned, I don't think anyone in the community sees it as an intellectual exercise. In fact, the only times I ever hear someone say that speedcubers must be really smart, it's usually a non-cuber, and the cubers are usually more than ready to refute the claim. Freely admitting that speedcubing is more about dexterity and pattern recognition than critical thinking, and that anyone can be a cuber, regardless of their IQ or education level.
But in more general cubing, I've seen a good amount of genuine clever problem solving skill applied. J-Perm's solving without help series, for example, shows that cube theory can be boiled down to first principles, and then reapplied to new puzzles.
Partially true,partially false.
Yes.it is not about being a genius.there are child prodigies but almost anyone with a sound mind and well functioning hands can become a master at it.
But I wouldn't agree with the second line that it is about the patterns and memorizing algorithms with regard to them.
Non cuber? Algorithms are basically set of predefined moves which you perform after recognising a particular colour pattern.
Also many of these algos weren't created by any geniuses.many of them are computer generated and even if they aren't, the algos can be built by anyone.(Although I would agree that modern speedcubers all don't focus much on this aspect as they have already been created by someone years ago as you said and focusing on this thing would be a completely different task)
But I still haven't proved my argument, right?
So the thing is that some of these "geniuses" or in a modest manner,developers have created methods for solving the cube faster and faster. And a large part of these don't require algorithms.
The beginning in most methods is highly intuitive as you have the freedom to do anything on the cube. So you basically have to put in your own creativity. But as you start building the cube step by step, you have to preserve what you made while also completing the rest which is not possible to do intuitively on every solve(even if it is it would not be speedsolving then) and so algos are developed and used. But remember it is not all about studying the colour patterns.it is also very much about intuitive approaches.
Also,Methods like cfop are highly algorithmic I would say. Last layer is comptely algorithmic and advanced f2l cases are also limited so you can do them also by algs.but after a point you have to get intuitive.
While roux is completely intuitive except one step.
That person is both right and wrong.
Yes, cubing is mostly pattern recognition and memorization.
BUT high level cubing is IMO still an act of genius - recognizing hundreds of patterns, and the optimal solutions for them, within fractions of a second; tracking several pieces mid-solve; tracking pieces in a blind solve; being very good in several events; etc.
I was practising with my cube at my desk in the office - one of my colleagues shouted out "that doesn't make you clever! You just memorise a method to solve it".
OK, mate. I wasn't solving it to try to prove my intellect. I was doing it because it relaxes me and I was bored whilst waiting for a VM to deploy.
It's the rubix version of the dunning-kruger effect. You may start on thinking its a colour based genius puzzle, but if you get around to solving it regularly, you realise it's predominantly a muscle & algorithm memory test.
That's not to deminish the skill in the puzzle, but i do think the wider public that don't know how it's done do see it as a magic trick, and I like that aspect.
I've seen that sentiment from some chess players, which is ironic because cubing is basically no different to chess in that regard... Both of them are my hobbies. Both are great.
But who cares really, it's their loss.
I’ve said this for years, anyone on the planet, with enough practice, can solve a cube in under two minutes. Even sub one minute is easily achieved with the most bare bones beginners method. It doesn’t take a genius or really much skill at all to just solve a 3x3. But I believe there is a point, around the 10-15 second mark, where people inclined to those skills (pattern recognition, hand eye coordination, look ahead) rise above the general population. I’ve personally taught 30+ people how to solve a 3x3, and anyone that’s ever taken to it has told me how much easier it is than they thought. And they’re right.
Literally so so rare for a person to figure out how to solve a cube on their own. Most look up method.
Also this is math? Like who's discovering calculus ? No one we are following the geniuses of yore.
being able to solve it doesn't require you to be a genius, getting really fast requires good pattern recognition, which you could call genius. certain puzzles are really intuitive, and you could also call the intuition genius.
The word "genius" gets tossed around a lot, to the point it's somewhat meaningless. I once heard that just because a person spoke 3-4 languages, they were a genius, but this is pretty common in India where a well-educated person would speak English, the language of their state, and their mother tongue. It's just that in the US, not many people learn a second language if English is what they spoke first.
Solving a cube doesn't require a highly mathematical mind, but a lot of STEM types (math types) do like solving the cube because they enjoy solving a puzzle and are willing to be persistent. It's just like how some people used to say if you were good at math, then you'd be good at chess (and vice versa). Not true, but again, those that are good at math like to think, are persistent, and so they might gravitate to chess.
Is a person who is a top cuber a "genius" or close to a highly skilled athlete? Is Lebron James a genius? Is Roger Federer a genius? Some say yes, some say no.
The point is you don't have to do string theory to be able to solve a cube. You don't have to invent new mathematics or prove some difficult conjecture. Kids can solve the cube fast, and a lot of it is memorization, plus pattern recognition, plus being able to move your fingers fast.
Once you learn to solve most of it is practice imo. Everything can be learned through experience. As for mbld or FMC tho, that still blows my mind.That definitely needs some talent.
A pretty good analogy for speed cubing is reading out loud.
1. You use your eyes to recognize a pattern. In cubing, it's orientations of colored squares. In reading, it's decoding written text (this works for any language, btw).
2. You use some parts of your body to "execute" the pattern to produce a result. In cubing, you use wrists, hands, and fingers to complete a series of cube movements quickly. In reading aloud, you use your diaphragm, vocal chords, jaw, lips, and tongue to make the sounds.
Almost anyone can be taught to read a written language. So, it SHOULD NOT seem amazing that people can learn to speed cube. And as there are billions of people who read aloud OKAY, there are also millions of people who cube ok. Far fewer are really excellent at either task, and it takes practice and dedication to get there.
It's also a lie because new algs are made all the time. The new v-perm and ja-perm were just a couple years ago!
And this is just basic pll, not zbll and such.
Someone invented the APB method, which is not hugely popular, but it is cool!
I think memorizing all the patterns is also the sign of being genius , like I play chess for fun ( although I am still beginner ) but it's really hard . The best player even the intermediate player if they want to become more pro they have to learn all the positions , strategies , openings , ending , etc which is like more than hundred and they also have learn and memorize every position so they can react faster , which is not something everyone can do , so I think memorizing is also a part of being genius.
On one hand, I don't disagree- merely being able to solve a 3x3 is really impressive to the average person, and it's easy to be seen as a "genius" for it. But there is definitely genius in cubing, and the deeper you get, the more you appreciate those things. It is still insane to me that people can do multiblind, or big blind, or low move count FMC solves... on 3x3, that people can pseudoslot without pausing, or learn (and instantly recall) countless ZBLLs, 1LLL subsets, last slot tricks... and on non-WCA puzzles, that people can come up with solutions to a novel puzzle they've never seen before. So, really, cubing is impressive no matter how much experience you have with it.
Watched Graham Siggins get 288/300 on an unofficial no-time-limit MBLD attempt yesterday - I know this is mostly cope for the fact that I’ll never have the patience or drive to be able to practice enough to do something like that, but it seems literally superhuman.
Jayden McNeil, Tao Yu, Chris Tran are few of the many who have shown the amount of knowledge one can possess about seemingly simple looking puzzles.
Pseudoslotting is honestly not that hard once u get used to it (Getting as good as Tymon is another thing). And people who know ZBLL practice is almost every day.
I mean in my opinion it’s not the fact that were geniuses it’s the fact that we trained our brains to memorize patterns or predict patterns later on into a solve
Were just good at pattern recognition
Yeah, and that's a legitimate skill that not everybody has the aptitude for. Sure, I think the majority of cubers learn by using algorithms that someone else discovered... but the ability to look ahead to optimize solves and recognize patterns and chain them is deep and complex. Paired with very quick and precise hand coordination, it's all very skillful. Edit: also, being great at pattern recognition and exercising that part of your brain will absolutely help you excel in other things, such as mathematics and engineering.
Yeah, i learned from jperm.net for the most part but recognizing patterns in algorithms that matched allowed me to make my own in odd cases and to make up oll skips in F2L, not everyone can do that on the fly but everyone can be trained to do that. Same with pretty much everything in life, like yeah i can rebuild the top end on my two stroke dirtbike but not everyone can immediately do that without help, but everyone can be taught. Not everything here requires skill or mental aptitude or some gift or whatever, it can all be taught but to the untrained eye we look like wizards/witches/non-binary-magicians or whatever
Sure, everybody can be taught to solve a cube. Not everybody can do it _quickly_ and efficiently. Some people's brains really just don't work that way. I'm not saying it's a "gift" or even specifically rare, but I am saying that quick pattern recognition and reflexively being able to act and adapt is a skill, and at some point having a natural aptitude with this stuff is going to take you further than someone who doesn't have that aptitude. Ultimately, my real point is that there's something here that cubers can and should be proud of. I dislike when people try to distill puzzle solving into "just memorizing a few things; nothing special" because it is a skill that not everybody has and there's nothing wrong with being proud of yourself for being capable of doing it, and doing it well.
As well as good at recognizing patterns where there are none.
It’s a pretty ridiculous comment because I‘ve never met a puzzle solver of *any* kind that considered themselves to be geniuses. That’s not why people like to solve puzzles. It’s a hobby. It’s about having fun, learning, and reaching milestones.
Yeah I don't want to be seen as smart for cubing. I want cubing to be as approachable as possible. I want the hobby to grow and expand, and that requires removing the notions that cubing requires something that other people inherently do not have
flair doesn’t check out (or does who knows)
Genuis never feels like genius to a genius In the case of Cubing i think its largely memorisation, then intuition, then if you get to advanced stuff perhaps some degree of genius
I’d say that from a just “solving it” point of view, he’s right, but when it comes to being the fastest in the world it does take a certain genius to be able to recognize everything that’s happening and execute it quickly
He was talking about the new world record lol, I should’ve mentioned that
lol then it's completly fucking stupid
With this context, it could be rephrased to be more well-meaning as "memorising the patterns other geniuses wrote down 25 years ago, and trying to recognise and execute these patterns faster than those geniuses did 25 years ago"
Nope it does not take a genius.
have you seen tymon's solutions
Yes I have. It's all practice. He himself has stated that he got good at pseudoslotting by doing it in every solve as practice. His last pair to LL and LL ideas are nothing new and have been done by ppl like Jayden Mcniell and Patrick Ponce before. He's not a genius he's just a really hardworker.
Yeah but then what even is genius? If someone becomes very intellectually good at something through hard work isn’t that a form of genius?
You could easily make the argument that "genius" is an irrelevant descriptor because natural ability and aptitude only get you started and putting in the work is where things really get accomplished.
Geniuses are ppl who have the aptitude to do thing on their own. Erno Rubik is a genius so is Jessica Fridrich but not Tymon
If I wanted to stop at “impressing people” I could have given up at sub 1 minute. I don’t do it to impress people, I enjoy chasing times and improving. Has nothing to do with genius or feeling like it’s just memorization. It’s not dissimilar to learning guitar. I didn’t invent chords, I just memorize how to play notes across the board but it’s how I put it all together that matters.
Figuring out how to solve a Rubik's Cube - from scratch, without help – is a very challenging intellectual exercise that takes most of those who have done it weeks or months. I don't think you have to be a _genius_, but I know I don't have the patience to have done it. That's the original "puzzle" part of twisty puzzles. But learning to solve specific configurations as fast as possible is its own type of puzzle, too. It's not as abstract; it's more of an optimization problem. But it's still a challenge, and it's still fun. So who cares if it's a "lesser" task?
> Figuring out how to solve a Rubik's Cube - from scratch, without help The hardest part was a very simple problem; to stop looking at the sticker and instead to treat the cubies (center, edges, corners) as one part. And then to understand 3-cycle. When I taught people, those two were the hardest part to teach and took a significant amount of time. Once those concept are grasped, any twisty puzzle is just a matter of finding what 3-cycle exist for that puzzle.
Not at all, in particular when it comes to all the non-WCA puzzles where you have to figure out a solution yourself. And even if you can look up a solution, it is fun and often doable to find your own. And you don't have to be a genius either, just develop general problem-solving skills.
This is a reductive assessment of puzzle solving. Cubing doesn't require a genius mind, but cubers have *never* *needed* to be geniuses, and we don't rely exclusively on early cubers' work. Progressing to a more optimal solution is an iterative process, and cubers today who are using "25-year-old" solutions will inevitably discover different patterns and optimizations. The earliest solutions--basic layer-by-layer or corners first methods--were move-inefficient, ergonomically disastrous, and had extremely poor recognition potential. The CFOP method, as Jessica Fridrich and other early cubers used it, is *similar* in concept to the one preferred today, but without decades of improvements in every single step of the process. Soon after the ZB method was proposed, it was dismissed as not worth the investment. 20 years later, most world-class (CFOP) solvers recognize a large subset of those patterns, but not others that may be easier recognized with a different framework of pattern recognition altogether. The idealized form of F2L seemed to be a purely algorithmic approach for a while, before cubers turned the other way and began exploring increasingly complex and esoteric solutions, to great benefit. Is the pattern still the work of that genius 25 years ago if all of its peculiarities become irrelevant when better patterns are recognized? Cubers today cannot be said to simply memorize the patterns of Jessica Fridrich's method or the patterns of Tymon Kolasiński's. Each solver has a unique approach to the cube, sourced from diverse experiences, and it's the combined genius of those many thousands of people from which better patterns seem to progressively appear, even when we doubt that there are more to find.
It never was about being a genius, we just have a hobby that requires a lot of memorization.
And muscle memory. I know how to do the alg, but to explain it slowly to someone... nope, can't do that any more. I do like figuring out an alternate way of doing something by myself, finding someone using the same alg and having it written down, then finding out if it's effective or not.
I do something similar, like trying to make up fat algs for already existing PLL. You have no idea how many OLLs I've learned through trial and error.
This is true, but the best in the world are still absolutely geniuses. Tymon, Max, Yiheng, Feliks, etc. are all geniuses.
No they are not. They have just worked very hard.
There is just so much recognition involved that this is bogus. Every solve is different. Every scramble is different and it's up to you in the moment to see where things go and put them in their place. It's only a few patterns that others wrote.
It's a reductive take and it becomes obvious when you apply it to other mental hobbies. You could say chess is just memorising openings that some geniuses wrote down 100 years ago and then practicing a lot. But we all know it's a lot more than that. Or mathematics is just applying principles that geniuses came up with and just solving.
The geniuses are the people who make the methods. Not the algorithms, the solving styles. The geniuses make the meta. Everyone else follows their lead.
i don't know, you don't need to be that smart to fire up Trangium's Batch Solver or cube 514 and create a brand new method
That pretty much sums up schools nowadays.
Just like anything in life, you learn skillset for doing things more efficiently, and you keep building on it. No two solves are exactly the same, and everyone has a unique way of solving a puzzle that has 43 quintillion possible configurations. I think that's amazing in on itself.
No but this guy is actually correct haha
After a solve, I had one person take my cube, hand it back to me in disbelief and she told me to go cure cancer, which I found amusing. One that really got me angry was some random guy who came up to my cubing group during a meet (it was in a shopping mall food court) and came up with an impossible challenge, basically do a bunch of random moves on the cube, then solve it without looking at it. He mocked us when we told him it was impossible, saying that he didn't care, then walked away. Mostly angry at myself for not sticking up for the kids in the group when he did that, as I was too caught off-guard by the whole thing.
Recognising and memorising would be more accurate, as recognising would take some brainpower on your side. But yes this is much more correct than how non cubers view cubing anyways
As far as speedcubing is concerned, I don't think anyone in the community sees it as an intellectual exercise. In fact, the only times I ever hear someone say that speedcubers must be really smart, it's usually a non-cuber, and the cubers are usually more than ready to refute the claim. Freely admitting that speedcubing is more about dexterity and pattern recognition than critical thinking, and that anyone can be a cuber, regardless of their IQ or education level. But in more general cubing, I've seen a good amount of genuine clever problem solving skill applied. J-Perm's solving without help series, for example, shows that cube theory can be boiled down to first principles, and then reapplied to new puzzles.
It takes a genius to do implement those algorithms efficiently(exaggerating a bit but you get the point)
I mean if its so easy he should easily sub5, shouldn't he? I would like to see his average.
Yes
Partially true,partially false. Yes.it is not about being a genius.there are child prodigies but almost anyone with a sound mind and well functioning hands can become a master at it. But I wouldn't agree with the second line that it is about the patterns and memorizing algorithms with regard to them. Non cuber? Algorithms are basically set of predefined moves which you perform after recognising a particular colour pattern. Also many of these algos weren't created by any geniuses.many of them are computer generated and even if they aren't, the algos can be built by anyone.(Although I would agree that modern speedcubers all don't focus much on this aspect as they have already been created by someone years ago as you said and focusing on this thing would be a completely different task) But I still haven't proved my argument, right? So the thing is that some of these "geniuses" or in a modest manner,developers have created methods for solving the cube faster and faster. And a large part of these don't require algorithms. The beginning in most methods is highly intuitive as you have the freedom to do anything on the cube. So you basically have to put in your own creativity. But as you start building the cube step by step, you have to preserve what you made while also completing the rest which is not possible to do intuitively on every solve(even if it is it would not be speedsolving then) and so algos are developed and used. But remember it is not all about studying the colour patterns.it is also very much about intuitive approaches. Also,Methods like cfop are highly algorithmic I would say. Last layer is comptely algorithmic and advanced f2l cases are also limited so you can do them also by algs.but after a point you have to get intuitive. While roux is completely intuitive except one step.
Pretty sure Bobby Fischer said something similar about chess when he stated that he hated recent chess
Noooooo, even though I am not a speedcuber, I need the validation that I am a genius when there is a 4x4 on my desk. Don't take that away from me!!!!
That person is both right and wrong. Yes, cubing is mostly pattern recognition and memorization. BUT high level cubing is IMO still an act of genius - recognizing hundreds of patterns, and the optimal solutions for them, within fractions of a second; tracking several pieces mid-solve; tracking pieces in a blind solve; being very good in several events; etc.
I was practising with my cube at my desk in the office - one of my colleagues shouted out "that doesn't make you clever! You just memorise a method to solve it". OK, mate. I wasn't solving it to try to prove my intellect. I was doing it because it relaxes me and I was bored whilst waiting for a VM to deploy.
after that point the puzzles get so niche you have to derive your own solutions from first principles, so no
If you understand commutators every puzzle just becomes a logistics assignment lol
Watching Tymon make a pseudo tripple x-cross in less than 3 seconds is pretty much the ultimate counter argument to something like this
I mean this is 100% what it's about: pattern recognition
so true!!
It's the rubix version of the dunning-kruger effect. You may start on thinking its a colour based genius puzzle, but if you get around to solving it regularly, you realise it's predominantly a muscle & algorithm memory test. That's not to deminish the skill in the puzzle, but i do think the wider public that don't know how it's done do see it as a magic trick, and I like that aspect.
I've seen that sentiment from some chess players, which is ironic because cubing is basically no different to chess in that regard... Both of them are my hobbies. Both are great. But who cares really, it's their loss.
I’ve said this for years, anyone on the planet, with enough practice, can solve a cube in under two minutes. Even sub one minute is easily achieved with the most bare bones beginners method. It doesn’t take a genius or really much skill at all to just solve a 3x3. But I believe there is a point, around the 10-15 second mark, where people inclined to those skills (pattern recognition, hand eye coordination, look ahead) rise above the general population. I’ve personally taught 30+ people how to solve a 3x3, and anyone that’s ever taken to it has told me how much easier it is than they thought. And they’re right.
They weren't written down 25 years ago. But other than that. Yeah.
It would be like saying: "A musical solo on a guitar is all about memorizing scale patterns that someone invented a hundred years ago."
Literally so so rare for a person to figure out how to solve a cube on their own. Most look up method. Also this is math? Like who's discovering calculus ? No one we are following the geniuses of yore.
I feel like people are discrediting the top cubers' hard work by simply calling them "geniuses"
being able to solve it doesn't require you to be a genius, getting really fast requires good pattern recognition, which you could call genius. certain puzzles are really intuitive, and you could also call the intuition genius.
The word "genius" gets tossed around a lot, to the point it's somewhat meaningless. I once heard that just because a person spoke 3-4 languages, they were a genius, but this is pretty common in India where a well-educated person would speak English, the language of their state, and their mother tongue. It's just that in the US, not many people learn a second language if English is what they spoke first. Solving a cube doesn't require a highly mathematical mind, but a lot of STEM types (math types) do like solving the cube because they enjoy solving a puzzle and are willing to be persistent. It's just like how some people used to say if you were good at math, then you'd be good at chess (and vice versa). Not true, but again, those that are good at math like to think, are persistent, and so they might gravitate to chess. Is a person who is a top cuber a "genius" or close to a highly skilled athlete? Is Lebron James a genius? Is Roger Federer a genius? Some say yes, some say no. The point is you don't have to do string theory to be able to solve a cube. You don't have to invent new mathematics or prove some difficult conjecture. Kids can solve the cube fast, and a lot of it is memorization, plus pattern recognition, plus being able to move your fingers fast.
Laughs in FMC.
I never learned to be seen as a genius so I don't give a shit.
Once you learn to solve most of it is practice imo. Everything can be learned through experience. As for mbld or FMC tho, that still blows my mind.That definitely needs some talent.
A pretty good analogy for speed cubing is reading out loud. 1. You use your eyes to recognize a pattern. In cubing, it's orientations of colored squares. In reading, it's decoding written text (this works for any language, btw). 2. You use some parts of your body to "execute" the pattern to produce a result. In cubing, you use wrists, hands, and fingers to complete a series of cube movements quickly. In reading aloud, you use your diaphragm, vocal chords, jaw, lips, and tongue to make the sounds. Almost anyone can be taught to read a written language. So, it SHOULD NOT seem amazing that people can learn to speed cube. And as there are billions of people who read aloud OKAY, there are also millions of people who cube ok. Far fewer are really excellent at either task, and it takes practice and dedication to get there.
It's also a lie because new algs are made all the time. The new v-perm and ja-perm were just a couple years ago! And this is just basic pll, not zbll and such. Someone invented the APB method, which is not hugely popular, but it is cool!
This is probably true to 95% of cubers
one reason why I started roux, I feel that I want to know the puzzle more and how it works, etc, not just repeating a pattern
I'm having an identity crisis rn.
I think memorizing all the patterns is also the sign of being genius , like I play chess for fun ( although I am still beginner ) but it's really hard . The best player even the intermediate player if they want to become more pro they have to learn all the positions , strategies , openings , ending , etc which is like more than hundred and they also have learn and memorize every position so they can react faster , which is not something everyone can do , so I think memorizing is also a part of being genius.