# 4x4x4 success! :)



## Pedro (Mar 1, 2008)

Yay! Got it!

#2 on this week contest, 17:09 was the time

video here: http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?t=3091


----------



## MiloD (Mar 1, 2008)

Congratulations! I just watched both vids. They are very, very awesome. How many tries did it take, and are you going to try again soon?
It is really amazing and inspiring to see people this deep in concentration.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 1, 2008)

it was about my 8th try, I think

I plan to do it again, yes

but I'll focus a bit more on getting 5 cubes now


----------



## alexc (Mar 2, 2008)

Good job!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 2, 2008)

Wow, Pedro! Great time for your first successful solve! Yet another person who will soon be beating me every week, I'm sure.

I just got one in 12:13.60, which is my second best time ever. So at least you have a little bit of work to do before you pass me.  By the way, my first successful 4x4x4 solve took almost an hour.


----------



## pete (Mar 2, 2008)

awesome effort !

i've seen video of you BLD solving 3 rubik cubes (3x3x3),
doing it fast and quite confidently what seemed a very
comfortable effort.

do you reckon BLD solving one 4x4x4 is harder ?
or if you have to compare it - how many 3x3x3s
is as hard task as a single 4x4x4 ?
(would like to hear also from other people who
can do 4x4x4 and multiple 3x3x3)

cheers


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 2, 2008)

pete said:


> do you reckon BLD solving one 4x4x4 is harder ?
> or if you have to compare it - how many 3x3x3s
> is as hard task as a single 4x4x4 ?



Ratio of the logs of the number of permutations is 2.33598. That's the amount of data you have to memorize compared to a 3x3x3: 2.33 times as much (by the way, I get 3.79159 for 5x5x5). This is a bit low due to having to keep all the data floating around in your head, but a good theoretical estimate.

3 sounds about right to me for 4x4x4...


----------



## pete (Mar 2, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Ratio of the logs of the number of permutations is 2.33598. That's the amount of data you have to memorize compared to a 3x3x3: 2.33 times as much (by the way, I get 3.79159 for 5x5x5). This is a bit low due to having to keep all the data floating around in your head, but a good theoretical estimate.
> 
> 3 sounds about right to me for 4x4x4...




thanks.

you ratio is based only on the amount of data to memorize per different
type of the cube ?
not taking into consideration the total number of different algorithms 
nor setup moves to apply during the solve ?


----------



## Pedro (Mar 3, 2008)

well, for the 4x4 I use 3 of my rooms
I use one room for each 3x3, so a 4x4 would be about the sama amount of information as 3 cubes

but I think (almost sure, actually ) 3 cubes is easier than 4x4, because solving the 3x3 is easier...


----------

