# Sighting: Cube on Idol



## brunson (Jan 21, 2009)

On last night's American Idol there was a guy solving a cube while waiting. I looked up his name on WCA but he's never competed. The video of him solving was chopped up, but the timer implied a 20ish second solve. I'm skeptical, though, because he was barely looking at the cube during the solve. 

Anyone else see it?

I'm still looking for footage on YouTube. If not, maybe I can pull it off my TiVo.


----------



## teller (Jan 21, 2009)

He looked weak...I don't think the timer was real; just edited in there for show.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah i was watching too. My mom was watching the show and I decided to just come out for a second and then he came on and i was like AHH OMG.
But he sucked though true although it was still entertaining to see 
thought he was maybe going to show the judges too but oh well


----------



## Kian (Jan 21, 2009)

i just had a friend mention it to me. she was not very impressed with the singing, dancing or cubing.


----------



## Sa967St (Jan 22, 2009)

haha, the ONE time I don't watch American Idol something like this happens XD


----------



## JLarsen (Jan 22, 2009)

lol i was talking to a cuber on aim, and we both got yelled to the tv by our parents when that happened.


----------



## enigmahack (Jan 22, 2009)

As Brunson mentioned already, the video WAS pretty chopped up. I had it on my DVR so I could rewind and review, and every cut was a skip of an entire section (F2L pairs mostly, and 3LLL, etc.)

Anyway, the speed he was moving and the method used, combined with the actual cuts... I'm willing to bet it was way closer to 45 seconds or so. 

Just my take on it though.


----------



## envy253 (Jan 22, 2009)

i saw that lol

i dunno what reason american idol has to make his solve look better, but the host guy might not have mixed it well (my friend mixed my cube once, it was a 4 or 5 move solution lol)


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 22, 2009)

"We watch a dude who is a Rubik's cube expert. He solves it about twenty seconds. His name is Dalton Powell. And he's an absolutely horrific singer. And really shy about it. This has to be a joke. This guy is too smart - Rubik's Cube - to not know he's this bad. This guy is a joker."
from:
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/american-idol/american-idol-8-san-francisco-25817.aspx

Can't wait to see footage of this idiot  (sorry for the put down, he probably didn't think they would do that to his solve...or...did he, dun dun dun dunnnn).

Also, notice the word expert...expert is sub-15. Advanced is sub-20. I feel sorry that they dissed his singing  the article writers are kinda mean


----------



## teller (Jan 22, 2009)

To the uninformed public, sub-60 is "expert."


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 22, 2009)

teller said:


> To the uninformed public, sub-60 is "expert."



Yeah that's probably true...well, to anyone who can't solve the cube, sub-60 is expert


----------



## qqwref (Jan 22, 2009)

Nah, to a normal person, an "expert" Rubik's Cube solver is someone who can solve it every time 

A 20 second solve is actually pretty impressive because of how fast the person's hands turn, although people usually don't realize how much lower times can go, or how easy it is to actually solve a cube with practice. I guess if you've never done/watched competitive track, watching someone run a mile in 7 minutes would be pretty amazing, even though times of under 4 minutes have been done (and a 7 minute mile wouldn't be considered good at all for an athlete). I guess all we can do is try to expand the popularity of cubing until we have big competitions on ESPN and everyone knows how to solve a cube


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Jan 22, 2009)

I was in the same room of the show but i missed cause i'm learning the olls at the same time.


----------



## h5n1 (Jan 22, 2009)

You could just torrent it and watch again.


----------



## shelley (Jan 22, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Also, notice the word expert...expert is sub-15. Advanced is sub-20. I feel sorry that they dissed his singing  the article writers are kinda mean



Yeah, they totally screwed up there. You'd expect the general public to keep up with speedcubing news.


----------



## teller (Jan 22, 2009)

Thinking about it, Poker didn't become popular until they invented the hole-cam. Before that, you couldn't really figure out what anyone was doing and it just didn't make for good TV.

Cubing has a similar problem--it's not the best spectator sport. At best, "fast" means you look like a monkey on crack twisting too quickly for the camera to see anything. Even a slow smooth-solve is incomprehensible to most unless they are familiar with cubing methods. It just doesn't make for good TV.

Cubing needs to be filmed better (over-the-shoulder at least), with some slow-motion maybe. But what it needs even more is a "Texas Hold Em" variation--something simple that people can understand (and yet still requires skill).


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 22, 2009)

teller said:


> Thinking about it, Poker didn't become popular until they invented the hole-cam. Before that, you couldn't really figure out what anyone was doing and it just didn't make for good TV.
> 
> Cubing has a similar problem--it's not the best spectator sport. At best, "fast" means you look like a monkey on crack twisting too quickly for the camera to see anything. Even a slow smooth-solve is incomprehensible to most unless they are familiar with cubing methods. It just doesn't make for good TV.
> 
> Cubing needs to be filmed better (over-the-shoulder at least), with some slow-motion maybe. But what it needs even more is a "Texas Hold Em" variation--something simple that people can understand (and yet still requires skill).




Yeah, FMC would be fun to watch.
"Oh Oh Oh!!! He finally makes another move!... He takes it back..."
1 hour later...
He rescrambles the cube for the 20th time...
Looks for insertions...
Move cancellation!
28 moves in 2 hours and 35 minutes!


----------



## panyan (Jan 22, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> expert is sub-15. Advanced is sub-20.



you learn something new everyday!


----------



## brunson (Jan 22, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Also, notice the word expert...expert is sub-15. Advanced is sub-20.


Citation please? I was unaware the community had come together in a decision on what constitutes Expert and Advanced. Or is that just your opinion?


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 22, 2009)

brunson said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > Also, notice the word expert...expert is sub-15. Advanced is sub-20.
> ...



It's just an opinion, but I think it is a pretty good one (in 2008/2009, in 2005 there just weren't many experts )

How about this for the "Texas-Hold-Em" version of cubing:

2 players (that's right, cubing just became a mano-a-mano competition), 1 2x2x2, 1 chess-like-clock

Player 1 (attacker) needs to make 1 face the same color. Player 2 (defender) needs to make sure there is never 1 face with the same color.
The 2x2x2 is randomly scrambled
Player 2 can do 1 move, Player 1 follows, etc
When does the attacker win? When the attacker gets 1 face the same color or player 2 spends over 2 minutes
When does the defender win? When the attacker spends over 2 minutes without getting 1 face the same color.

Just like in speedchess a variation could be that you have to do a move within 5 seconds or else the other player can do an extra move

You should really try this with someone, it is more fun than you think and a lot of tactics and techniques are needed if you want to become a good player. And just like in poker luck plays a little role sometimes


----------



## teller (Jan 22, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> How about this for the "Texas-Hold-Em" version of cubing:
> 
> 2 players (that's right, cubing just became a mano-a-mano competition), 1 2x2x2, 1 chess-like-clock
> 
> ...




That's fascinating...I'll have to try it.

The whole speed clock thing gives me another idea...part of the problem with cube exhibition is that people don't begin to know what you're doing. If two players each had an identically scrambled cube, imagine if they did CFOP in stages, stopping a speed-chess-like dual clock a total of four times. Lets also say that they take turns (perhaps a coin-flip at the beginning to see who goes first). One of them might take the lead early on with a very fast cross, but fall behind when their opponent executes a mind-blowing F2L.

The benefit I'm after here, is that the four stages become more easily digestible chunks of "exhibition" that the public could actually understand and get used to. Each stage gets a deeper treatment by the camera and commentators instead of just a mysterious solve.

Of course Petrus and other non-CFOP cubers would be screwed, but ya gotta start somewhere.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 22, 2009)

teller said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > How about this for the "Texas-Hold-Em" version of cubing:
> ...



Glad you liked my idea. Your idea is interesting, but lookahead becomes much easier so only twisting becomes important


----------



## brunson (Jan 22, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > EmersonHerrmann said:
> ...


I just took exception to the comment as a blanket statement. That means the world record holder for FMC is not an expert and the one of the second place record holders is not even "advanced".

Whatever, I'm not trying to start an argument, it's just that my opinion differs.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2009)

Well, I think I'd agree that an expert 3x3 speedsolver is sub-15. But you can be an expert in many other things which are a bit harder to define (what exactly would make someone an expert in cube theory, for instance?).

As far as commentator sports, I can't see it happening for 3x3 since it's simply too fast and even an experienced cuber can have trouble following the motions with a perfect camera angle. But for bigcubes, I think it might be possible to do commentary. You can really watch the pieces slowly fall into place - the centers one at a time, the edges, and finally the 3x3 step with or without parity - even if you can't actually tell what the cuber is doing. So maybe 5x5 will be the event where you can really have a meaningful (and yet commentary-friendly) competition between two cubers.


----------



## bichettereds (Jan 23, 2009)

I wouldnt compare speedcubing to Poker (Holdem). Its nowhere near as entertaining and I dont think it will ever get as big ($$$). You have to have alot of free time to do it (hense mostly kids doing it.. or people without kids, jobs, ect), unlike poker where you can make a living doing it.

Id say speedcubing's goal should be to get as big as competitive eating. 

It just doesnt have that appeal from those who dont know anything about it though. If anything theyre put off by it because they think you have to be a genius or something and they would never be able to learn how to do it.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 23, 2009)

Cubing is just boring to watch. I am a forum-freak and I hardly ever watch any of the video's. For most normal people, once you have seen 1 solve, you have seen them all.

There really should be a competition (man-against-man) element and a feeling of "I could do that myself". Maybe adjusting the 2x2x2-face competition I proposed earlier to 3x3x3-cross competition would be an idea?


----------



## JBCM627 (Jan 23, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Player 1 (attacker) needs to make 1 face the same color. Player 2 (defender) needs to make sure there is never 1 face with the same color.
> The 2x2x2 is randomly scrambled
> Player 2 can do 1 move, Player 1 follows, etc
> When does the attacker win? When the attacker gets 1 face the same color or player 2 spends over 2 minutes
> When does the defender win? When the attacker spends over 2 minutes without getting 1 face the same color.



This does sound like an interesting idea. The only potential problem I can see: it is generally a lot easier to scramble a cube than solve a cube - it usually takes way more moves to put a face together than it does to take one apart.


----------



## CAT13 (Jan 23, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Cubing is just boring to watch. I am a forum-freak and I hardly ever watch any of the video's.



I usually find it more fun to watch fast solves on Youtube than to solve a cube myself...


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 24, 2009)

JBCM627 said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Player 1 (attacker) needs to make 1 face the same color. Player 2 (defender) needs to make sure there is never 1 face with the same color.
> ...



That is why the attacker only has to make 1 face. The defender has to prevent all 6 faces from coming together. Same idea for the cross on 3x3x3


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 24, 2009)

brunson said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > Also, notice the word expert...expert is sub-15. Advanced is sub-20.
> ...



Shotaro Makisumi states this on his website 

@Cat: It is fun to watch cubing videos on the internet...I always found that I never realize how fast I'm turning until I tape it and watch it over again, it's so weird 

Edit: I can't find it on his site, I remember seeing it >.< Maybe I'm wrong  Either way it seems like a good grading system...maybe?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 25, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> There really should be a competition (man-against-man) element and a feeling of "I could do that myself". Maybe adjusting the 2x2x2-face competition I proposed earlier to 3x3x3-cross competition would be an idea?



That might be fun for a spectator-sport type side event, but I don't think speedcubing should ever move in this direction. To me speedcubing is about doing something (which is actually somewhat difficult) as fast as possible, so in that way it's similar to competitive sudoku, crosswords, typing contests, etc. rather than things that people would say "I can do that (but less well)" like competitive running, eating, chess, etc. Also, for the events you proposed, there is the problem that there is a strict limit on how good a player could be - the strategy is nowhere near advanced enough to allow for years of practice, and to make matters worse speedcubing experience is of basically no value here. For instance here is the optimal defender strategy which will always prevent the attacker from getting a side/cross:
- Are there any winning positions (for the attacker) within 2 moves? If so, do any move that will make all of those positions at least 2 moves away.
- Otherwise, do anything.
So now that we know the attacker cannot complete a face, the strategy shifts to trying to do an acceptable move as soon as possible. Since the attacker can simply do a random move and the defender must actually check whether their move is acceptable, the defender will always run out of time first.

I think speedcubing is simply too fast to become popular - unless you have a very large number of people (say > a million) understanding the solution to the cube well enough that they can follow what's going on. In this case we can do the head-to-head side event that has been proposed for an unofficial competition event:
- Players compete in a single elimination style tournament.
- For each head-to-head round, the players scramble each other's cube, and then race on a stackmat. The time is decided not by who finishes but by the smaller stackmat time, although the players are strongly encouraged to start at about the same time.
- The player who wins at least three out of the five solves wins the round and advances.
If the spectators understand the solution well enough to kind of see what's going on (and note that the spectators at a cube competition usually do), this is actually pretty exciting and fast. Although the 3x3x3 is a bit short to do any significant commentary on, it still might be interesting to watch two players of comparable speed compete. However - I really don't think anything like this should ever be the MAIN event of speedcubing. There is enough luck in the sport that any cube race (except with odd cubes of 5x5 or larger size) will always be a somewhat unfair way to gauge skill.


----------

