# Olympic Cube (V-Cube)



## David (Feb 24, 2008)

I received an email from V-Cube ( I guess they decided to change the name from Olympic Cube), this is a portion of the email.

Discuss if our cubes can be official events with your friends and colleagues.
Since this one of our first priorities for this year we will be happy to start this disussion with the WCA, although the WCA didn't yet contacted us officially.

So delegates and everyone try to get the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 to be official so we can use them in competitions.

David


----------



## alexc (Feb 24, 2008)

6x6 and 7x7 would be very cool!  Not that I could do them that fast or maybe even at all.  I think having them for blindfolded would be even cooler! Speaking of possible future events, I think it would really cool to have blindfolded relays, like on the UWR pages. You have a choice of how many 2x2, 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5's you would like to do. Each cube could have a certain number of points if you complete it successfully, based on difficulty. i.e., 2x2-1 3x3-3 4x4-5 5x5-9. Or something like that. So, if you do 2 2x2's, 1 3x3, and 2 4x4's (and you get them all right) you would have 15 points.


----------



## TimMc (Feb 24, 2008)

There's no doubt that 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 would become official in WCA Competitions but as it is, people that have already received prototypes will have a clear advantage over others in upcoming competitions.

It might be worth holding off allowing these cubes in competitions for a few months after the official release date. Everyone has a different aptitude to learning so I wouldn't hold off using them in competitions for too long. But if you had a competition a week after they're released you'd expect pretty crappy results.

It's not really professional or sportsmanlike to give a newbie a 7x7x7 and expect them to be on par with an elite cuber that's had a prototype for more than 6 months.

I guess there were similar discussions about the Rubik's Cube before I was born. 

Tim.


----------



## David (Feb 24, 2008)

It would be sometime before the new bigcubes are integrated into comps but I do agree. There should be a good amount of time between the release and competition involving them. One thing is there needs to be a months notice for a competition so I doubt that would happen.

David


----------



## Erik (Feb 24, 2008)

I think it's more complicated than it looks. We already have not a lot of time at tournaments and think about how long it takes to solve them, especially for the 'less faster' guys. If they have to do an avg of 5 which takes 10 minutes each time on a 6x6 not to mention 7x7........


----------



## TimMc (Feb 24, 2008)

Erik said:


> If they have to do an avg of 5 which takes 10 minutes each time on a 6x6 not to mention 7x7........



There may have to be some special "Big Cubes Competitions" where only 5x5x5 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 are used. Although, this will probably attract fewer competitors to such competitions.

I'm guessing 3x3x3 would have to be one of the most popular events in a competition... ?

Tim.


----------



## Gunnar (Feb 24, 2008)

TimMc said:


> It might be worth holding off allowing these cubes in competitions for a few months after the official release date. Everyone has a different aptitude to learning so I wouldn't hold off using them in competitions for too long. But if you had a competition a week after they're released you'd expect pretty crappy results.
> 
> It's not really professional or sportsmanlike to give a newbie a 7x7x7 and expect them to be on par with an elite cuber that's had a prototype for more than 6 months.



Hi!

My personal opinion is that when the V-cubes are coming out, we should recognize the 6x6 and 7x7 as offical events as soon as possible. I mean, if there are competitions with those events it would rather encourage people to practice more compared to if we are holding off these cubes from the official competitions.

I have myself always hoped that the cubes would come out in time for the European Championship, which I assume will be held in the fall.


----------



## TimMc (Feb 24, 2008)

Gunnar said:


> I have myself always hoped that the cubes would come out in time for the European Championship, which I assume will be held in the fall.



AFAIK nobody has come up with standard notation or a method of scrambling the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 for WCA Rules and Regulations...

I think 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 would be "niche" like BLD events.

Tim.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 24, 2008)

TimMc said:


> AFAIK nobody has come up with standard notation or a method of scrambling the 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 for WCA Rules and Regulations...


Jaap's scrambler supports any size, WCA just needs to decide how many moves should be used and add it to the regulations.


----------



## TimMc (Feb 24, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> WCA just needs to decide how many moves should be used and add it to the regulations.



Do they just take the theoretical maximum bound of the fewest moves it takes to solve a cube and use that number as the number of moves to scramble it? I.e. 3x3x3 would be 26 (although WCA stipulates 25).

Tim.


----------



## alexc (Feb 24, 2008)

As for the "less fast" people, I think that maybe you do your first solve and it has to be under a set time. If you do not get under that time, you are eliminated. If you are under that time, you are qualified to get an average of 5, with that time as your first. So, for 6x6, under 7. 7x7 under 10. Or it that too high?


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 24, 2008)

TimMc said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > WCA just needs to decide how many moves should be used and add it to the regulations.
> ...


I don't know how they come up with the numbers, but they obviously aren't doing it that way. I haven't heard of a proof that 5x5x5 and Megaminx can be solved within 60 moves, or that 2x2x2 needs as many moves as 3x3x3. My guess is that they just pick number that isn't too high and intuitively seems to scramble the puzzle well enough.


----------



## MistArts (Feb 24, 2008)

Erik said:


> I think it's more complicated than it looks. We already have not a lot of time at tournaments and think about how long it takes to solve them, especially for the 'less faster' guys. If they have to do an avg of 5 which takes 10 minutes each time on a 6x6 not to mention 7x7........




Average of 2 then?


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 24, 2008)

MistArts said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's more complicated than it looks. We already have not a lot of time at tournaments and think about how long it takes to solve them, especially for the 'less faster' guys. If they have to do an avg of 5 which takes 10 minutes each time on a 6x6 not to mention 7x7........
> ...


I guess we won't be dropping highest and lowest


----------



## Hadley4000 (Feb 24, 2008)

alexc said:


> As for the "less fast" people, I think that maybe you do your first solve and it has to be under a set time. If you do not get under that time, you are eliminated. If you are under that time, you are qualified to get an average of 5, with that time as your first. So, for 6x6, under 7. 7x7 under 10. Or it that too high?




That's actually not a bad idea.

I did the 6x6x6 on Gabbasoft. Took me about 15 minutes. Having that at every competition, over 5 would not be great.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 24, 2008)

Hadley4000 said:


> alexc said:
> 
> 
> > As for the "less fast" people, I think that maybe you do your first solve and it has to be under a set time. If you do not get under that time, you are eliminated. If you are under that time, you are qualified to get an average of 5, with that time as your first. So, for 6x6, under 7. 7x7 under 10. Or it that too high?
> ...


That's actually been done in competitions.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 24, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > Erik said:
> ...



Nah, it 's make it a mean of 3 like Square-1 and Clock traditions hold.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 24, 2008)

I never understood why Clock was/is mean of 3. Clock only takes 30 seconds to scramble and 20 seconds to solve. Pyraminx is about the same, but that is an average of 5.

I would also like Square-1 and MegaMinx to be average of 5, but those are harder to scramble and take longer to solve so I can understand why they are mean-of-3


----------



## cubetimer (Feb 25, 2008)

I was just reading on the Yahoo Group, and they were mentioning one other potential problem: who wants to volunteer to scramble a 7x7x7? Doesn't sound like fun. I think we should get *Rubot* to do it!

I've already added support for the new V-Cubes on my *Rubik's Cube timer*. Just hoping I get to use it soon...

I'm also hoping that when the V-Cube is released, they make enough cubes to meet demand. That would really suck if we're all just thrown onto a waiting list (haven't we waited enough already?)


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 25, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> Jaap's scrambler supports any size...



Not correct, I tried 1x1x1 and it did not work


----------



## Radu (Feb 25, 2008)

Erik said:


> I think it's more complicated than it looks. We already have not a lot of time at tournaments and think about how long it takes to solve them, especially for the 'less faster' guys. If they have to do an avg of 5 which takes 10 minutes each time on a 6x6 not to mention 7x7........



i agree with Erik. although i have never been in a competition, i don't see why the 6 and 7 cubes should become official events. if you know how to solve a 4 and 5...you'll solve every cube...it also takes a lot of time

my proposal is this. we can make it a special event, and only the top 3 in the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5x competition will be allowed to solve the 6x6x6 repsectively the 7x7x7 cube once...as a special event, or something like this...for entertaining, for fun. i hope it's not confusing what i was trying to say

what will happen when the 11x11x11 cubes will come out ?


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 25, 2008)

pablobaluba said:


> if you know how to solve a 4 and 5...you'll solve every cube...


Not true. If you are used to reduction, centers might be hard on 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 at first.


----------



## blindfold cube (Feb 25, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> pablobaluba said:
> 
> 
> > if you know how to solve a 4 and 5...you'll solve every cube...
> ...



If you can solve a 6x6x6 then you can really solve any cube. Cubes bigger than a 6x6x6 cube aren't much harder but have more pieces.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 25, 2008)

pablobaluba said:


> my proposal is this. we can make it a special event, and only the top 3 in the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5x competition will be allowed to solve the 6x6x6 repsectively the 7x7x7 cube once...as a special event, or something like this...for entertaining, for fun. i hope it's not confusing what i was trying to say



I'm pretty sure the rules don't allow that.


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 25, 2008)

blindfold cube said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > pablobaluba said:
> ...


True. Solving a 7x7x7 isn't harder then solving a 6x6x6
Solving a 7x7x7 FAST will be hard because staying focussed will become more of an issue.

I guess we will see a lot more topics on commutators when those big-cubes arive.


----------



## Erik (Feb 26, 2008)

Why is that? You don't need commutators to solve bigger cubes...


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 26, 2008)

Erik said:


> Why is that? You don't need commutators to solve bigger cubes...


But it would make "difficult" centers so much more logical and fast.
Edge pairing will just become a mixture between 2-at-a-time on 4x4x4 and my method for 2-at-a-time on 5x5x5. That basically means (number_of_layers - 3) * 25 seconds for the really fast people.
3x3x3 remains 3x3x3
And parities will be done at bit more intuitive.


----------



## Erik (Feb 26, 2008)

centres, I'll show you those saturday, but it's very easy.
Parity, you already know it! If you do like you said, first pair up middle edges and then the outer edges you already know the alg! (yes only one).


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 26, 2008)

Don't forget 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD events 

I realize that such an event will probably never happen, but it would be cool if us big cube BLDers would be allowed to forgo our regular events at a competition in place of a "single record attempt" for something like a 6x6x6 BLD. It would be neat if it could be an official record, but a massive hinderance to the running of the competition (it would need a judge the whole time, etc.). So I could understand if it doesn't happen.

I still have my sights on an unofficial successful 7x7x7 BLD once I get my hands on one. 

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 26, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> Don't forget 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD events
> 
> I realize that such an event will probably never happen, but it would be cool if us big cube BLDers would be allowed to forgo our regular events at a competition in place of a "single record attempt" for something like a 6x6x6 BLD. It would be neat if it could be an official record, but a massive hinderance to the running of the competition (it would need a judge the whole time, etc.). So I could understand if it doesn't happen.


I'd probably love the same chance. But I agree the logistics are pretty outrageous. Still, your 6x6x6 unofficial BLD was faster than some official 5x5x5 BLD solves (much faster than Stefan's!). I've often wondered if maybe we could add an extra day for big cube BLDers where we all agree to sit and judge each other. Of course, there's the problem of the scrambles there, but if we could agree to use different scrambles instead of the same ones, at least it would be fair - the idea is that if you want to be allowed to do a big cube BLD, you must also be willing to watch someone else do one. I realize that would be a bigger burden on you than on me, though, since you'd have to suffer through my times, while I'd get to enjoy yours. (But I am catching up!) 



> I still have my sights on an unofficial successful 7x7x7 BLD once I get my hands on one.
> 
> Chris


Me too!


----------



## Dene (Feb 26, 2008)

Well, it's simple really, just set up a competition specifically for bigcubes BLD. You don't need one judge for the whole of a solve, take it in shifts or something. It would probably be exciting to watch the thing solving BLD anyway!


----------



## AvGalen (Feb 27, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget 6x6x6 and 7x7x7 BLD events
> ...


Just like I did multi-blind before single I will do 6x6x6 before "regular bigcubes"


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 27, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> It would be neat if it could be an official record, but a massive hinderance to the running of the competition (it would need a judge the whole time, etc.). So I could understand if it doesn't happen.



Especially with the new 'judge must keep something between competitor's face and cube' rule.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 27, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Just like I did multi-blind before single I will do 6x6x6 before "regular bigcubes"



That would be really cool - I hope you do!



ExoCorsair said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > It would be neat if it could be an official record, but a massive hinderance to the running of the competition (it would need a judge the whole time, etc.). So I could understand if it doesn't happen.
> ...



I hope we can come up with a "barrier stand" pretty quickly to solve that problem. Like I hope we can have one in time for Chattahoochie!


----------



## Hadley4000 (Feb 27, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Just like I did multi-blind before single I will do 6x6x6 before "regular bigcubes"
> ...




What about something similar to a sheet music stand? A big piece of paper could be on there, and it could be raised to the level of the solvers face.


----------



## Ton (Feb 27, 2008)

For sure the time factor will be an issue, also world wide distibution and availablity.

If the are available for sure I like to plan an unofficial 6x6 and 7x7 , outside a planned competion. 

For blindfold we must design a why to block the view, the WCA is busy to find a way. If this is sorted out we can think of an official 6x6 and 7x7 BLD event


----------



## Hadley4000 (Feb 27, 2008)

Didn't Chris Hardwick do the 6x6x6 blindfolded?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 27, 2008)

Hadley4000 said:


> Didn't Chris Hardwick do the 6x6x6 blindfolded?



Unofficially, yes. There's been no official attempt yet, though.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 27, 2008)

I think it's important to point out that anyone who wants to can practice big cubes on the hi-games applet. Sure, it's a bit hard to use, but if you are good at that you will be decent at real cubes. For example - when Clancy showed me his 7x7x7 at EPGY the first solve I did was 7:32. (Then I did a 6:15 later that weekend.) Sure, I'm good at computer cubes, but someone who's had a V-Cube for less than a week can still get decent times if they take proper advantage of what's available to them now. So I wouldn't really have a problem, on fairness grounds, if there was a 6x6 or 7x7 event in a competition soon after the release of V-cubes (allowing for shipping time)...


----------



## ExoCorsair (Feb 28, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I think it's important to point out that anyone who wants to can practice big cubes on the hi-games applet.



Good point, and there are other programs that work, like IsoCubeSim and Gabbasoft.


----------



## masterofthebass (Feb 28, 2008)

The only problem is, is that those don't simulate a real cube as well. I find mouse clicking way less "real". I'm hoping to get a 7:xx or 8:xx on the 7x7 when it comes out on my first solve. Apparently they are amazing cubes.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't really think it's that necessary to simulate a real cube, though. There are really three steps in speedsolving, that you do over and over: finding pieces, figuring out what turns to do, and then executing those turns. You can practice the first two pretty well by doing computer cubes. As for executing the turns you want to do, you're right, you can never learn that from computer puzzles. But if you can do turns quickly on a 5x5 you will be able to do them on a 6x6 or 7x7 too - it's the same principle, with just a few more slices. I think once you try the 7x7 you'll find it feels pretty similar to a 5x5, just with more slices in it and more roundedness. As long as you can find pieces and figure out what turns to do, I think you'll get some really good times on the V-cube.


----------



## SkateTracker (Feb 28, 2008)

For the people saying there's no need for the 6x6 and 7x7 in competitions because if you can solve a 4x4 and 5x5 you already know how to solve it... That makes no sense. Even if you solve it the same way, it's still a different puzzle, different challenges. Sorta like the Megaminx, I solve it exact same way as I do a 3x3, I solved it first try when I got it, so, why should it be in competitions?

Just my two cents on the issue.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Feb 28, 2008)

Are they going to have the BOY scheme? hmm. if not I might have a problem on my first 6x6x6 solve, lol


----------



## coopersacatfilms (Apr 19, 2008)

I think it would be totally awesome if they would do that!


----------



## pcharles93 (Apr 19, 2008)

Good for you, Cooper. Now, if you post some new USEFUL information, I'm sure you wouldn't be annoying so many people right now.


----------



## ROOT (May 7, 2008)

it should be mean of 3 or best of 3 like the megaminx


----------



## hdskull (May 8, 2008)

I'm still waiting to get my first 5x5.


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 8, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> Good for you, Cooper. Now, if you post some new USEFUL information, I'm sure you wouldn't be annoying so many people right now.


If you're looking for useful information, this following alg is USEFUL.
(And yes, I agree with you.)


----------



## jcuber (Jan 19, 2009)

BUMP

NOTE: For those of you who don't know, the 6x6 and 7x7 are going to be introduced as official events in Feb. this year. Looking for opinions on this decision.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 19, 2009)

jcuber said:


> BUMP
> 
> NOTE: For those of you who don't know, the 6x6 and 7x7 are going to be introduced as official events in Feb. this year. Looking for opinions on this decision.



I think it's a goodish idea...I still think it's unfair that Dan can get sub-3s on 6x6  No just kidding, sounds great!


----------



## Tomarse (Jan 19, 2009)

sounds good


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Jan 19, 2009)

it's a matter of time


----------



## MichaelErskine (Jan 19, 2009)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> it's a matter of time



Hehehe - in my case, a matter of how much time will be allowed for the solve


----------

