# Philosophy - Future of Cubing



## jackolanternsoup (Jan 13, 2008)

When do you think the cubing world will stop progressing? eventually I'm sure there will be a point where no one actually can get any faster unless they get lucky cases. Maybe sometime when we reach 8 or 9 second averages...  

But seriously.. What'll happen then? Will we be achieving the fastest times through seeing the reverse of a scramble in the 15second inspection time and end up getting 3-5 second algorithms to completely solve the cube (even less if you consider it as optimal 25 moves right?)? That would be so incredibly cool... haha. anyway, sounds crazy now I'm sure but I read somewhere that's what people said about Fridrich F2L... lol 

anyway, this is a thread where many people should reply and show off how profound they are.. haha. Science fiction now, reality in the future... lol

And the aim of this is to guess the future of cubing or maybe even what the limitations will be. Not to de-bunk the cool idea stated above.. XD


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jan 13, 2008)

I've questioned that a lot myself, and honestly I'm not sure. As far as seeing the reverse scramble, I'm sure it's possible to trace it back in your mind, however unlikely or difficult it is. Probably one of the largest difficulties in that would just be deciding where to start. Try looking at a properly scrambled cube and even trace back one or two moves (without knowing the scramble). You'll probably never get it right.

I think most realistically, we'll get down to the 8-9 sec average and reach the limit to cubing. Once advancement slows down (I don't think it will ever stop...there are always new methods and algorithms to create) the popularity of it will probably decline back into what it was a few years ago.


----------



## jackolanternsoup (Jan 13, 2008)

aww... that'd be horrible... But that is probably what'd happen... Well hopefully some very brainy person will come up with a method of reverse-scrambling.. Maybe not optimal 25 moves... maybe even double that.. hmmm.. *fantasise*


----------



## badmephisto (Jan 13, 2008)

i doubt a human could ever process a full solve in his mind - we simply lack the capacity. By application of some clever heuristics you can probably make it a tiny bit easier, but i doubt you can go full way. Not even a computer right now can solve an optimal rubik's cube in 15 seconds... 
In my opinion there is most certainly a better method than the Fridrich method, im just not sure if it's been developed yet. Fridrich has this problem that it's always breaking up what it constructs.
When thinking of the Rubik's cube, it's pretty obvious that there seem to be two distinct subgroups to it composed of edges and corners. In my opinion a fastest method will be a corner edge method, at least theoretically. The only problem is that E/S/M slices for edges are not exactly the fastest thing for human fingers to execute; so with these extra limitations of human body imposed on the problem, i don't know 
I'd place the limit on human average at around 8


----------



## Jai (Jan 13, 2008)

Well, I believe a new method will emerge once we hit a definite human speed limit with Fridrich, and start looking elsewhere. I, for one, already have another OLL system under development. It's not necessarily as fast as Fridrich OLL, but it's a 1 look OLL, and it's possible for beginners to learn all 57 OLL cases in 2-3 days. Like I said, it's not always as fast as normal Fridrich OLL, but it just goes to show that there are other ways to solve that could make Fridrich obsolete soon. 



badmephisto said:


> The only problem is that *E/S/M slices* for edges are not exactly the fastest thing for human fingers to execute



A little hint as to what it is. 
Harris, don't tell everyone what it is.


----------



## jackolanternsoup (Jan 13, 2008)

well... I'm sure if the world had to do nothing but E/S/M slice moves, some new cool hybrid specialist cube would be made making it easier to perform.. Maybe even to the point of M' U M U' triggers being the new "in" thing.. haha


----------



## abbracadiabra (Jan 13, 2008)

I think one of the problems with the arguments above is that we're basing the future of cubing on only one aspect: speed. While you can quantify and measure speed, it's not the only reason people solve puzzles, nor is it the only goal to be attained. 

Good puzzles tend to carry on in perpetuity. You can still pick up a 15 puzzle today, and kids still boggle their brains trying to solve it. I expect that the Rubik's cube will continue to puzzle people as long as people continue to puzzle.


----------



## badmephisto (Jan 13, 2008)

one more thing i was thinking is that it is very important in a solve is to be able to see your entire cube. This lead me to think that a very good idea is probably to construct a 2x2x2 block as in Petrus, and place it in BDL right from preinspection. That way you can't see it, but that's ok because you know its solved. That leaves you with complete freedom in R, U, F moves, which are the fastest, to finish up the entire cube. There certainly is still a lot that can be done to make Speedcubing faster 

edit: 
abbracadiabra: but this is a speedcubing forum  speed is half of what we are about


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jan 13, 2008)

hmmm....I like that idea badmephisto. I wonder if you could cut time using Petrus if you just angle the cube differently and put the 2x2x2 where you described it. Thoughts?


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 13, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> I wonder if you could cut time using Petrus if you just angle the cube differently and put the 2x2x2 where you described it.


I thought that's what Petrus cubers are doing already. DBL is the most logical place.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 13, 2008)

Anyone remember my PSC1?
It runs indefinitely, so I think it will pick up again. Since it allows indefinite inspection and preparation, this will set a lower limit on ultimate speed.

Anyhow, cubing is still young (I consider 2000 a convenient date for the start of modern cubing - makes for easy chronology).
Someday the WCA database will have 1000 competitions, and the 3x3x3 avg WR will be sub-10 (both pretty soon).
Eventually we'll be history (and have school essays written about the history of cubing). We'll probably start seeing obituaries on speedcubing.com 
It's interesting to consider what cubers in 100 years will think about current results, regulations, and the online community.

And think of all the new puzzles! 

EDIT:


jackolanternsoup said:


> When do you think the cubing world will stop progressing?


Never.


----------



## Dene (Jan 13, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> Anyone remember my PSC1?



Did anything more come of this other than a few posts?
Sounds like a good idea, but would take time, and people who now how to use complicated programmes that I couldn't understand  .

As for my opinion of the future of speedcubing, I'm a little more optimistic. I see no reason why we couldn't manage sub-7 averages with the right method. I mean, imagine Mr. Chan with full ZB? If he could execute all of those algorithms in less than 2 seconds, you could cut 2 seconds of his current averages straight up... All it would take is an even better method (double x-cross with ELS+edge permutation and CLS+corner permutation) to get times much quicker. Of course there would be a lot of algorithms, but I think it's been proven that we humans have massive capacities in memory, I mean, look at Jason Baum?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 14, 2008)

jackolanternsoup said:


> Will we be achieving the fastest times through seeing the reverse of a scramble in the 15second inspection time and end up getting 3-5 second algorithms to completely solve the cube (even less if you consider it as optimal 25 moves right?)? That would be so incredibly cool... haha. anyway, sounds crazy now I'm sure but I read somewhere that's what people said about Fridrich F2L... lol



Has anyone ever noticed the comment attached to the top entry in this list?
http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs_stats_fm.html

I must admit I find it pretty hard to believe; what do other people think? Does anyone out there know Tony Snyder? Apparently he's been around for quite a while - he has a record on the 3x3x3 single solve list of 12.5 seconds in 2002, which means he would have been outrageously world-record fast back then.


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 14, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Does anyone out there know Tony Snyder?


http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8429


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 14, 2008)

Alrighty then. Time dilation, huh?


----------



## Erik (Jan 14, 2008)

My $.02 on future cubing, not really spead-wise but more how the competitive cubing will be.
I forsee a much more professional-like cubing community in the future where people only have 1 even they are good at. Everyone has it's own strong and weak points and seeing that Matyas nowadays is almost the best at everything it seems highly unlikely that we are getting to any limit at all (speedwise). Personally, I see myself as someone with not too much talent but a lot of motivation and a good peak at what others do, getting much info about methods and styles and taking my conclusions for that. By only that I think I became as fast as I am now on puzzles like 5x5 and megaminx. On the 3x3 puzzle the skills are much more even already because everyone practises it and there it's not clear who is THE best at the moment. That's why I think that for puzzles like 5x5 and megaminx, 4x4, SQ-1, and especially Blindfolded the times in the future will be much faster than they are now.
Ok back to how the cubing will be competitively. There will (for I hope) many more cubers of the level of Yu Nakajima, Edouard Chambon etc. who take cubing almost as a professional sport. Maybe it will be broadcasted on telly with narrators slowmotions where the narrators will say things like: oh he missed an easy insertion there he must be mad at himself now for missing that wonderfull oportunity 
I hope cubing as itself will be known as a sport like somethig like darts is nowadays with lots of sponsoring, higher prizes and still a very friendly atmosphere! That atmosphere is probably one of the best things I like so far about cubing, everyone respects one another and is interested in what method they use etc. lets hope that doesn't get lost in the future! 
(wow this must be my longest post ever on this forum  )


----------



## MistArts (Jan 14, 2008)

People will start learning ZB's?


----------



## Harris Chan (Jan 15, 2008)

In the future, may be there'll be 3-5 people that have the same single solve time, and the first rank vs tenth rank might only vary by 0.10 second! And that's when it becomes quite...competitive, and ultimately, based on luck. Possibly, more people with Tony Snyder's "ability" (like Yish?) will pop out, and cubing will just not be fair anymore -_-"


----------



## blindfold cube (Jan 16, 2008)

This is my opinion. I think getting better times on a 3 by 3 will eventually get to the point where no one can get faster anymore. Guessing a random time, i will say we won't get much faster than 6 or 7 seconds. This is where i think bigger cubes will become more popular especially cubes bigger(OC) than a 5 by 5 because few people have such cubes. It will provide a new challenge for people to get world records on bigger cubes.


----------



## Jai (Jan 17, 2008)

I think that, after a while, speedcubing will be more of an art than a sport , with so many different ways to solve. It won't be about how fast you can solve it, it'll be about *how* you solve it, like FM.


----------



## alltooamorous (Jan 18, 2008)

Harris Chan said:


> In the future, may be there'll be 3-5 people that have the same single solve time, and the first rank vs tenth rank might only vary by 0.10 second! And that's when it becomes quite...competitive, and ultimately, based on luck. Possibly, more people with Tony Snyder's "ability" (like Yish?) will pop out, and cubing will just not be fair anymore -_-"



In that case, they will need to make timers with more than just milliseconds =P


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 18, 2008)

alltooamorous said:


> In that case, they will need to make timers with more than just milliseconds =P



Our current timers aren't even accurate to the millisecond, so why would we need more accuracy than a millisecond?

Chris


----------



## Lofty (Jan 18, 2008)

The future of OH cubing is what I care mostly about 
For that I anticipate the times still have a long way to drop! With practice with fridrich method alone i know my personal times could drop well below 20. I would not be suprised at all if someone like Tomy got a sub 15 average. Then add in something like ZB method with all the algs optimized for OH... Hopefully that will be me by the time I graduate from college.


----------



## badmephisto (Jan 19, 2008)

for the future of cubing, i can also see some different method for speedcubing. Fridrich is fast, but I don't think it's the best we can do. Some kind of an R U heavy method or a method or something? hmm


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jan 19, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> for the future of cubing, i can also see some different method for speedcubing. Fridrich is fast, but I don't think it's the best we can do. Some kind of an R U heavy method or a method or something? hmm




wouldn't that be Petrus?


----------



## badmephisto (Jan 19, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > for the future of cubing, i can also see some different method for speedcubing. Fridrich is fast, but I don't think it's the best we can do. Some kind of an R U heavy method or a method or something? hmm
> ...



Petrus in my opinion has a very promising beginning, I just don't like the rest. If i ever get time to try and look into a new method, it will most likely be some kind of a Petrus variation.
anyway what I meant was that I am hoping for some new emerging method to grab our attention and possibly even convert us all  I mean, Fridrich system is very old and it's been here since almost the very beginning, I can't see it being the optimal technique. 
I feel like a man in the 21st century still using open fire to warm my food... We have to find the microwave of speedcubing!


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jan 22, 2008)

I like that analogy a lot.


----------



## Harris Chan (Jan 22, 2008)

But that means speedcubing will have radiation (from microwaves  ), as in the speedcubing revolution will be full of fast people and new methods, but also the side effects of...something unknown...


----------



## darkzelkova (Jan 23, 2008)

Cubing steroids.


----------



## jackolanternsoup (Jan 24, 2008)

haha omg... this is getting so strange...

In the present, what's the optimum or best technique once mastered? Is it Extended cross to ZBF2L to ZBLL or something?''

I agree.. Petrus is great up to the 2x2x3 part but after that it's a bit weird... (for me at least)... 

anyway, what would cubing steroids exactly do? Strength isn't the main thing and drugs would make people slow down I should think... So it could be like an adrenaline rush but the energy is channelled into the fingers? lol that'd be amusing.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jan 24, 2008)

I think someone with photographic memory will dominate the 15 second inspection, making a double extended cross with just the 15 second inspection


----------



## joey (Jan 24, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> I think someone with photographic memory will dominate the 15 second inspection, making a double extended cross with just the 15 second inspection



Wow. That is one of the most awful things I've read.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 25, 2008)

If we're considering Petrus and UR, consider MGLS. ELS is most often 2 extra moves, 7-alg OCLL is replaced with a fantastically effective 2-gen CLS system, and PLL is still the same.

If we keep 15 seconds inspection, though, pre-orient or ZZ sounds very appealing (like, insane URL 3-gen for everything but the first 5 moves) and works very well with CLS.

Thing is, last slot is ugly (and very restricted in 2-gen), and a preoriented edge scheme like these almost gives CLS a half-step skip. (There is one little benefit to a lot of algs for a step...)

Anyhow, that's why I'm trying MGLS. Maybe it works. That would be cool. 
(Macky told me he's learning! Yay!  )


----------



## Lofty (Jan 25, 2008)

Petrus to ZB ftw?
PHZB as I have heard it called.


----------



## Harris Chan (Jan 27, 2008)

Macky's learning MGLS!!!! Well, it is co-named with him anyway, it would be a shame if he doesn't learn it lol.

Let's join Macky and all learn MGLS!!!


----------



## pcharles93 (Jan 28, 2008)

Everyone is turning to DIY's so Rubik will be run out of business. Erno will die a poor man. Depressing, right? And some complete nerd will build himself a bionic arm with a camera to scan the cube and compute optimal solves.
I'm done.


----------



## darkzelkova (Jan 28, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> Everyone is turning to DIY's so Rubik will be run out of business. Erno will die a poor man. Depressing, right? And some complete nerd will build himself a bionic arm with a camera to scan the cube and compute optimal solves.
> I'm done.



I think this is EXACTLY what will happen.


----------



## Dene (Jan 28, 2008)

I'm not so sure about this. Erno Rubik has a patent on the cube, so any legal imitation must get permission to be produced, including DIY's. As well as the permission, comes a hefty fee and some percentage of sales. Erno will die a very rich man if he chooses.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 28, 2008)

Dene said:


> Erno Rubik has a patent on the cube, so any legal imitation must get permission to be produced, including DIY's.


BS? And rubiks.com sells DIYs as well, so that was BS already.


----------



## Jai (Jan 28, 2008)

Harris Chan said:


> Let's join Macky and all learn MGLS!!!



Wow, that's one of the worst cases of fanboyism I've ever seen. Now, what if I told you he was contemplating suicide?  

anyway, I think new ideas will emerge, with concepts we haven't even thought of. A while ago, when we were all using VHS and Betamax, nobody even thought of HD. I think the same will happen for Fridrich, or even ZB.


----------



## Dene (Jan 28, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Erno Rubik has a patent on the cube, so any legal imitation must get permission to be produced, including DIY's.
> ...



What do you mean? Rubik has the legal rights to his cube, he invented it, that is how patents work.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 28, 2008)

I would assume that since it was invented and sold in the early eighties, and typical patents last no more than 20 years, Rubik would no longer have any rights to his cube. But that shouldn't matter, since he's already made a fortune, unless he's squandered it. And he's still able to sell his name to other merchandising (such as the Rubik's Revolution  ).


----------



## Stefan (Jan 29, 2008)

Dene said:


> What do you mean? Rubik has the legal rights to his cube, he invented it, that is how patents work.


http://www.okpatents.com/phosita/archives/2004/10/rubiks_cube_ter.html


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean? Rubik has the legal rights to his cube, he invented it, that is how patents work.
> ...



So it's the trademark that can be upheld now, not the patent? That makes much more sense. Of course, Seven Towns owns the trademark, not Rubik himself, so Rubik would be dependent on whatever percentage he can still collect due to whatever agreement he has with Seven Towns, I guess. I don't know what connection Rubik has to Seven Towns, if any, but I'd guess there's something there. Seven Towns claims Rubik holds the copyright, for what that's worth.

Seven Towns has an interesting, rather extreme statement about their rights here:
http://www.rubiks.com/lvl3/index_lvl3.cfm?lan=eng&lvl1=inform&lvl2=contct&lvl3=useofr
Notice that the patent isn't even mentioned here. The patent apparently no longer is of any importance.

I wonder if they would consider the image at the top of this page to be a copyright or trademark infringement?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 29, 2008)

Well I think the patent expires after a certain amount of time. I guess Seven Towns is trying to prevent others from selling "fake" cubes. I'm not sure how the producer of the cube4you DIYs gets away with making them.


----------



## Dene (Jan 29, 2008)

Ah so he was too slow on getting the international patent, although Seven Towns still has the copyright. But, there is still the newer cubes, still coming out, that Rubik has the rights to. So as long as he keeps on designing bigger cubes, he will keep the rights to the name "Rubik's cube" or whatever he names the next big cube.
It's a shame he didn't get a heavier patent, but I guess he didn't expect it to take off as it did.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 29, 2008)

Dene said:


> It's a shame he didn't get a heavier patent


Right... because he didn't get rich enough. And a shame for the cubers, too. I mean, who'd want a competitive market resulting in better cubes?


----------



## Dene (Jan 30, 2008)

No, that's not what I mean at all. Like it mentions, this is a part of his intellectual property. The man invented one of the most well known "items" in the modern world today, and he lost most of his rights to make any claim over it, and I think that's sad. If I myself were to invent some genius toy that were to make such a huge impact, I would like my name to be branded with it for as long as it lasts. I don't think Mr. Rubik himself is overly concerned about earning bucketloads of money over it, he doesn't seem the type of person, although I may be wrong. As for the competitive market, of course it could still be there, but to use the name/design, they should have to get the rights to use it as that seems the fair thing to do.


----------



## darkzelkova (Jan 30, 2008)

I think that having himself named after a toy, and the amount of money he has, is far more than enough. FAR more.


----------



## badmephisto (Jan 30, 2008)

i dont like how people refer to cube as a toy. Even Erno refers to the cube as a toy. For me it's not a toy; I don't know WHAT it is. It's something more.
Toy makes it seem too degrading. A stupid Barbie is a toy. I'd much more prefer a "puzzle"


----------



## Stefan (Jan 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> If I myself were to invent some genius toy that were to make such a huge impact, I would like my name to be branded with it for as long as it lasts.


And this is not the case? His cube *is* universally known under his name, even though often misspelled. I don't get the problem.

Is there a word for "being greedy on someone elses behalf"?


----------



## Dene (Jan 30, 2008)

Perhaps, but if he were to lose any rights over it, people would soon start naming it under something different, and it would eventually lose the name. I mean, how many people have heard of Turing, and the work he did on what we now know as the computer? Certainly, anyone studying anything to do with computers should know his name, but otherwise, there would only be a small minority. It hasn't even taken 100 years for his name to disappear into virtual non-existence.
What I'm trying to say is, I think the name is extremely important. I think I may have implied that Rubik should get some monetary gain off the cube, but that isn't what I meant. I just think, for certain, any cube or type of imitation cube should always have to be under his name.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 30, 2008)

I hope everyone realizes that Erno Rubiks was not the only one that invented "a cube" puzzle. Just around the time he did it, some others made a similar puzzle, but their constructions were different (magnets for one if I remember correctly). You can find the basic story on http://www.rubiks.com/lvl3/index_lvl3.cfm?lan=eng&lvl1=inform&lvl2=medrel&lvl3=histry and I think more information is also on the rubiks.com site, but a little hidden


----------



## abbracadiabra (Jan 31, 2008)

Interesting that this conversation about the future of cubing has morphed into a discussion of its past. Some of you might be interested in seeing these photos of Erno Rubik and his prototype.

http://www.speedcubing.com/ton/rubik's.htm

Also, here's an interesting article

http://www.ee.usm.maine.edu/~aaronl/rubik.txt


----------



## Stefan (Jan 31, 2008)

Dene said:


> if he were to lose any rights over it, people would soon start naming it under something different


What? You can't be serious. With the trademark/copyright Rubik himself *forbids* other people to use his name. If it weren't for the trademark/copyright, *more* producers could call their cubes "Rubik". You don't make sense.


----------



## Dene (Jan 31, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > if he were to lose any rights over it, people would soon start naming it under something different
> ...



I am thinking on a long term scale, not in the next couple of years. Ok so maybe Rubik himself doesn't want it to have his name, but, if it is as you mention, and people do want to use his name, then it's clear that people today feel the same way that I do in that it should keep his name.
But in 100 years, when the cube craze has been dead for a long time, and some child finds it in his long dead grandpa's old toy box, and asks his parents, "what's this?" are the parents going to respond, "that's a Rubik's cube!", or will it be something more like "Oh I think that's one of those brain cubes", or whatever.
I think, even if people can't literally call it a Rubik's cube, they should still go out of their way to make sure it doesn't start being called something different that will stick. Rubik will die eventually, and when that happens he will not have any more influence over what happens with his cube, and from then on I think it should be that the name is used on all cubes.
This is not saying that I think Rubik is being rude and selfish with the current rights, but for the sake of history, some things must be done against the inventors will...


----------



## Cubie Newbie (Mar 13, 2008)

If impassable times were reached, couldn't you simply shorten the inspection time? Or possibly make a separate event: no inspection?


----------



## jackolanternsoup (Mar 16, 2008)

I would love to have an autographed cube.... haha. stick in in a glass case an keep it for my grandchilren for them to sell for millions to a meuseum calling prehistoric what we now call 'retro'.. lol


----------

